Their own personal or party interests – rather than the happiness of their people -determine their thoughts and actions
[A perfect definition of the modern Western politician – on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Looks like it is time to radically replace our political elite bringing to power those who will genuinely care for the happiness of their citizens]
Politics is history in the making. [kinda self-evident]
History itself represents the progression of a people’s struggle for survival.
[This view is way too primitive. In reality history is a progression of people’s struggle to satisfy all their genuine needs – from physical to self-transcendence. Plus their perceived wants and desires, of course. In other words, for happiness]
But when man… renounces his own self-preservation instinct for the benefit of the species, he is still doing it the highest service.
[I would side with General Patton who once said: “You can’t win the war by dying for your country – you can win the war only by killing for your country” or something to that effect]
[The strength of the nation] lies in the quality of the individuals who form it and in the type and extent of the uniformity of these qualities
[In other words, in the dominant culture of the nation. It is not race, but culture; not nature, but nurture; not “hardware”, but “software”]
The same laws that determine the life of the individual, and to which it is subject, are therefore valid for the people.
[Not exactly, but there are a lot of similarities between individual and social psychology]
Politics is in truth the implementation of a people’s struggle for survival.
[Actually, for genuine happiness]
History is also the most suitable teacher for our own political actions.
[Not always. Sometimes to make a quantum leap to genuine history, you have to do something that has never been done before. Or invent something that never existed. In general, looking back is seldom the best course of action]
The effectiveness of politics will determine the life or death of a people.
[True. It has been proven many times over that politicians can build a civilization – and destroy it]
A peace policy that fails leads to the destruction of a people – that is, to the obliteration of its flesh and blood substance – just the same as a war policy that fails.
[Depends on the degree of failure, of course; in most cases it injures the nation but does not destroy it]
The most horrible war is the one that appears the most peaceful to humanity today: the peaceful economic war.
[He most likely refers to the hunger caused by the Blockade of Germany during World War I. It was murderous, of course, but not nearly as murderous as the Great War – let lone World War II]
War, when it makes a continual appearance, brings an inherent danger that is all the more prevalent the more unequal the racial components from which the community is composed.
[National, not racial – although the Nazis are known to use the term “race” when in reality they mean “nation”. Adolf Hitler essentially says that a war can trigger the disintegration of a multinational empire. Which is true and correct – just look what happened to Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and recently to the Soviet Union (the latter was destroyed by the Cold War)]
The nature of war, through a thousand individual processes, leads to a racial selection within a people; this means a disproportionate destruction of the best elements.
[Not racial, but cultural. True, at first the best individuals tend to perish; but subsequently the process of natural selection of sorts creates a replacement that is often better]
Select the most capable men out of a multitude of people and bring them together in special formations for certain especially difficult assignments.
[That’s precisely the philosophy behind the formation of Waffen-SS. And to a certain extent behind the formation of the SS in general]
Thus, a people’s dead include a dis proportionate share of the best men, while, conversely, the absolute worst men are to a large extent preserved. The hero dies, the criminal survives.
[Not always. In many cases, the most skilled, knowledgeable and intelligent survive while the mediocrities die in the thousands]
Wars that are fought for objectives that by their very nature cannot ensure the replacement of the lost blood are an offense against the people and a sin against the future of the people.
[Makes complete sense. It is interesting that Hitler’s criticism applies perfectly… to the Soviet system and personally to “Red Tamerlane” Joseph Stalin]
The culture of the European peoples is based on a foundation created by the influence of Nordic blood over the course of thousands of years.
[Blood has nothing to do with it. The European and the whole Western civilizations are based on Greek culture, Roman law and Judeo-Christian religion]
As soon as the last remains of this Nordic blood are eliminated, the face of European culture will change.
[Externally yes; internally no if care is taken to accept into the European civilization only so-called “transcultural” individuals]
A policy that is fundamentally peaceful… in the end will create a people of such weakness that one day it will collapse. Then, rather than fighting for their daily bread, these people will prefer to reduce their numbers, either through peaceful emigration or reduced fertility.
[Sounds exactly like what’s happening in Europe these days]
The greatness and future of a people is determined by its collective abilities for high achievement in all areas
[Very true. Hence one of Hitler’s fundamental cultural objectives was to transform Germany into a nation of Übermenschen – superhuman beings]
A fundamentally peaceful policy… causes the nation to bleed to death through… reduced fertility
[That’s exactly what is happening in Europe these days. And until it wakes up to a reality that it faces a genuinely existential threat (it does), it will continue to die out]
Gradually then, they will be replenished from the broad mass of weakened, lesser-value individuals,
[i.e. poor, uneducated, unskilled individuals from failed Muslim states, Venezuela, etc.]
And after centuries [much faster, actually] this will lead to a lowering of the overall absolute worth of the people.
[Much worse – to a total destruction and elimination of the Western Civilization as we know it]
A policy that is fundamentally peaceful will be just as damaging and disastrous as a policy that only knows war as the single weapon
[Judging by what’s happening in Europe these days – far more dangerous. Simply catastrophic]
The bread that a people needs in order to live is determined by the Lebensraum that is available to it.
[… and by how efficiently they use the Lebensraum in their possession. A radical increase in the efficiency of utilization of their land/labor/capital is far more preferable to acquiring additional “living space” because it does not require starting a colonial war]
International trade, international industry, tourism, and so on and so forth, are all transient solutions for the nourishment of a people.
[Actually no – if their partners become sufficiently dependent on goods that the nation in question produces]
The most secure basis for the existence of a people has always been its own territory and land.
[Theoretically yes, but autarky works only for very primitive civilizations. Which the modern Western one definitely is not]
The so-called domestic increase in production is in most cases only sufficient to satisfy the growing demands of the people, but certainly not the growing number.
[Both if you find a way to radically increase the efficiency of utilization of your natural, material, financial and other resources. And there’s always a way]