Book Review: Lukacs' "The Hitler of History"

[Apollonian]

Book Review: Lukacs' "The Hitler of History"
(Apollonian, 7 Oct 21)​

John Lukacs' book, "The Hitler of History," Alfred A. Knopf Inc., NY, 1997; 279 pp text, xv, Bibliography, Index; is miserable history, but good enough writing otherwise--enough that it is notable and worthy of review and evaluation. For Lukacs, his work published in 1997, credits the utterly fraudulent "holohoax," long since exposed and crushed out of existence (see Codoh.com), has no idea of the horrific and deliberate mass-murder, by starvation, etc., of German P.O.Ws and civilians during and after the war (even up to 1950), and utterly fails to place things historical within any sort of serious context. For one thing, Lukacs fails to grasp Spengler and the CYCLIC theory of history. So as simple basic history, Lukacs fails, but still he struggles to place Hitler himself within a biographic context, and here though he still fails, yet he does a better job, at least for many details, and these, and Lukacs' attempts at analysis are more worthy of notice.

For Lukacs' method is a general biographic analysis of Hitler entailing then the works of other authors for background and what they say, and of course, Lukacs' unfortunately credits the holohoax stupidity of these authors, many of them, though perhaps not all, but including such windbag as Ian Kershaw, for example, so the work is fatally flawed and undercut. Lukacs' virtue however, is regarding the other aspects of Hitler and his personality, and though he fails overall, his failures are yet instructive, hence worthwhile to observe.

For Lukacs understands very well that dear old unc' Adolf (Hitler) is such a great hero and otherwise interesting figure for so many, then and nowadays too, who had the temerity to opposing those satanic monsters, the Jews, that any halfway genuine biography and history of Hitler the man is sure to make lots of money and sales, so Lukacs wisely wants to analyze this interest and the treatment given to the subject of Hitler and then some of the historical circumstances besides.

Specifically then Lukacs analyzes the authors of previous works on Hitler and their primary topics of exposition; it includes such as David Irving, another clever writer who senses the great opportunity for sympathizing w. Hitler and the Germans and taking notice of the Jew and communist circumstances, for which notice everyone else fail and fears so cravenly to doing.

Thus Lukacs' text starts and ends (chapters 1 and 9) w. the subject of "Historiographic problems." And of course, for one thing, Lukacs takes note of the tremendous popular interest in Hitler--which is actually fatal for the Jews who know they are bound to be analyzed and thus un-covered for many. Thus we see so much of the effort Jews and their cohorts and satanist sympathizers take for distraction and diversion of the stupid goyim upon whom the Satanists feed so parasitically, breeding and cultivating these great masses of morons--at the same time as keeping them fighting one another, so urgently keeping attention fm Jews and satanists themselves, Jews, the leaders of Satanists, Satanism, and their corrupt operations (like the present "covid" hoax)--which attention Hitler was able to focus and direct, at least for a time and to a significant extent, though it wasn't quite enough for his fullest success--a great historical lesson in itself, which Lukacs and so many others utterly fail to see and grasp, as Lukacs is a moralist who pretends to emphasize moralism and the clash of non-existent "good vs. evil"--such a great (and false) issue for so many of the over-populated goons, suckers, and morons. Yet Hitler was able to so much capture the imagination of so many--he just wasn't able to fully exploit what he so brilliantly had begun--which terrifies the Jews even in the present day.

For note in this most serious cultural and philosophic task of fullest analysis, Hitler was not completely or fully equipped, Hitler mostly a politician, thus too superficial, pragmatic, and eclectic, Hitler himself mired within the false moralism of altruism and self-sacrifice of the individual, Hitler a genuine socialist, though he wanted also to emphasize additionally the principle of personal and individual expression, thus "national" socialism which opposed the inter-national socialism of Bolsheviks and Marxists--which then is why Roosevelt (FDR), the USA, and Churchill of the UK chose naturally to ally w. Stalin and the soviets, the Satanists and Jews behind them all, funding their political campaigns and the mass-media cultivation of the masses of suckers and goons--it still operates and works successfully to this very day, Jews and Satanists exultantly lording it over everyone at the top--which Lukacs along w. the other fools so stupidly fail and refuse to see.

The irony is that Satanism is actually quite easy to spot and analyze, simply extreme subjectivism (whence reality is held to be creation of mind/consciousness, making the subject to be God, the creator--Satanism) by which the objective, determinist, and Christian influence is removed and ejected. Jews dominate the other Satanists and goyim as Jews are most collectivistically and thereby effectively organized--even though the goyim (at least so far) so much out-number Jews, a mere detail of irony which the goyim fools too easily overlook.

Thus we observe the satanic (again, as always, led by Jews, foremost Satanists) financial operations and influence must necessarily extend to politics, journalism, and "education," not to mention entertainment and judicial affairs of the nation(s). Hence note that Satanism must eventually affect and dominate the very religious foundation of the culture--as can easily be verified in our own day and age in the satanization of the "Christian" establishment, "Judeo-Christians" (JCs) and "Christian-Zionists" thus persuaded to supporting the terror-state of Israel no less.

Lukacs' second chapter covers Hitler's "crystallization" of his personality, including anti-Semitism, formed in Vienna and Austria, but then ready to be most fully expressed when he moved to Munich, then especially for motivation when Germany lost the war and Hitler resolved to "go into politics."

Next, in the third chapter, one of Lukacs' best, "Reactionary and/or Revolutionary," Lukacs analyzes Hitler's program and psychology along w. the German historical situation at the time, concluding that Hitler was brilliant enough to appeal to the reactionaries, or at least very many of them, but that Hitler was truly and genuinely a revolutionary himself, the perfect counter-revolutionary (at least for Germany) against the Bolsheviks, so successful, which the Satanists and Jews resent so much, spending so much time reviling the German people for so willingly following unc' Adolf, the Satanists and Jews, so resentful, left to merely besmirching Hitler personally, etc.

In chapter four, "State; People; Race; Nation," Lukacs surely does his best work for analysis and exposition. Thus Lukacs distinguishes Hitler's concepts of race and nationalism, for example, and demonstrates the great and tremendous effects Hitler was able to accomplish in his mastery, rhetoric, and integration of all these concepts for the Germans, including conservatives, the working class, and everyone--the only ones left out were, of course, Jews and their close sympathizers.

Thus Hitler succeeded so overwhelmingly for psychology and politics in Germany, though he was less successful elsewhere in the West, unfortunately, Hitler only failing for most thoroughgoing philosophy, no one else adequately taking up the task and work to be done, even to the present day--which is why Hitler remains so much of mystery, interest, and study for people throughout the world.

Next, in chapter 5 Lukacs strives to continue his analysis in "Statesman and Strategist," but doesn't succeed nearly as well as he did for chapters 3 and 4 as he has most difficulty w. the necessay larger historical context, the dominance of Satanism and Jews. In chapter 6, "The Jews: Tragedy and Mystery," Lukacs fails completely for analysis. For Lukacs is another of the fools who wants to pretend Jews are just normal people like anyone else, etc. No, u fool, Jews are satanic Satanists by virtue of their very religion and precepts (extreme subjectivism, including "midrash" and "Oral Law Trad.") which Lukacs just idiotically overlooks and ignores. See for reference, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, Talmudical.blogspot.com, Come-and-hear.com, and TruthTellers.org.

In chapter 7, Lukacs, as historian, wants to take-up the place of Hitler within German history and how it reflects to him (Lukacs) in present-day circumstances, how present-day Germans think and talk about Hitler, etc. Lukacs goes on in his chapter 8 to discuss and analyze how and what the German and a few other historians say about Hitler, but typically, for such a poor historian and moralist as Lukacs is, accepting the "holohoax" stupidity, he's just a sad failure. At least we get some information about other historians for what they say, but it's still pretty insipid commentary overall fm Lukacs who so dutifully toes the propaganda line the Jews and Satanists have laid down.

Finally in the last, 9th chapter, Lukacs re-takes up the "historical problem" in summary and conclusion for Hitler, noting the horrific catastrophe for Germany in WWII, totally overlooking and ignoring the veritable satanic nature of Jews and cohorts and the cruel revenge the monsters took--which satanic cruelty continued and continues to this day as we see Western governments forcing poison vaccinations upon the poor, stupid, over-populated goons, weaklings, and morons, making such large profits for "Big Pharma," run by the Jews, these corp.s immune fm lawsuits.

Thus the value of Lukacs work is that stupid, ignorant, and incompetent as he is for history, yet he seriously strives in his way to be honest and succeeds in spots and places for observations, like in his chapters 3 and 4, and his errors are thus yet instructive. Unc' Adolf dealt a crushing blow to the Jews and implicitly to Satanists and the larger satanic movement (like "globalism," the United Nations, and "world gov.," etc.), and it's why people are still so impressed and struck by his successes such as they were and still are. For the Jews have been found out (again), and not for the first time. Hitler told major truths about the Jews which is why Jews and Satanists repeat themselves so idiotically so often about how and why unc' Adolf was such a terrible guy. The people KNOW these filthy Jews and Satanists just "protesteth too much."

 

[Apollonian]

Hitler as 'Enlightenment Intellectual':
The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism

• Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in National Socialism, by Lawrence Birken. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995. Hardcover. 120 pages. Reference notes. Bibliography. Index.

Link: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p34_Weber.html

Reviewed by Mark Weber

A specter is haunting the world -- the specter of Hitlerism. That, in short, is the stern warning of this provocative book, written by an Assistant Professor of History at Ball State University (Indiana), and published by Praeger, a leading US academic publisher.

In spite of decades of vehement vilification, says author Lawrence Birken, Hitler's views have enduring and dangerous appeal -- not because they are bizarre and alien, but precisely because they are rational and well grounded in Western thought. In particular, Birken stresses, Hitlerism is firmly rooted in the rationalist and scientific outlook of the 18th-century European Enlightenment. This is not meant as a compliment, however; the author is hostile to the West and its traditions. Rejecting the American and Western historical legacy, Prof. Birken openly calls for a new, racially homogenized America.

For more than half a century, Hitler and his views have been ceaselessly demonized in motion pictures, on television and in the print media. And yet, according to Birken, the appeal of Hitlerism remains so potent that it threatens the ideal of a racially "redefined" America of "higher unity." As traditional standards and long-established cultural, racial and religious values come under ever greater attack, and as this country's racial and cultural crisis becomes ever more acute, Birken fears that those who are unwilling to accept the "redefined" society that is developing in America and Europe will turn in ever greater numbers to Hitler's alternative vision of society. Hitlerism, Birken says, will loom ever larger as a dangerously seductive "siren song."

The author has no doubt made a sincere effort to provide an informed and objective look at Hitler and his views. But even if we overlook the numerous misspellings of proper names and titles, and the often polemical prose style, this is a badly flawed work. Birken's understanding of what Hitler really thought and believed is both limited and skewed.

This is due in large part to the author's exclusive reliance on English translations of Hitler's writings and speeches (apparently he cannot read German), and a naive trust in unreliable secondary studies. These include Robert Waite's The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (1977), a sensationalistic psychodramatization, and Hermann Rauschning's Revolution of Nihilism (1939), a thoroughly discredited diatribe. (See "Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update," Winter 1985 Journal, pp. 499-500.)

Birken also quotes repeatedly from The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, supposedly a transcript of "table talk" remarks made by Hitler in February and April 1945. These "documents" are fake, says British historian David Irving, who reports that the late Swiss banker François Genoud admitted to him that he was the author.

'A Genuine Intellectual'​

Reflecting the ideological perspective that prevails in the Western world today, scholars of Hitler and Third Reich Germany have tended to dismiss the German leader's intellectual outlook as simplistic and crude -- or even crazy. Many play down or simply deny Hitler's place in Western culture "as a means of sanitizing that culture," says Birken. "But if we are to read Hitler neither to condemn nor to praise but merely to understand, then we come away with a very different conclusion about his place in European history."

Scholars and others have made a major mistake in failing to take Hitler seriously as a thinker, argues Birken, who believes that the German political leader "must be regarded as a genuine intellectual" on a par with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Birken's assessment is not as startling as many might believe. As he notes, as early as 1953, British historian Hugh R. Trevor-Roper "evoked the image of Hitler as a kind of synthesis of Spengler and Napoleon, noting that of all world conquerors the German leader had been the most 'philosophical'..." More recently, German historian Rainer Zitelmann established in a study of impressive scholarship that Hitler's outlook was rational, self-consistent and "modern." (R. Zitelmann, Hitler: Selbtsverständnis eines Revolutionärs [second
edition, 1989].)

Moreover, Hitler's outlook was very much a part of the Western intellectual tradition. In his "combination of an almost religious faith with a revolutionary secularism," writes Birken, "Hitler represented the continuation of an essentially Enlightenment style of thought... Nazism, and especially Hitler's exposition of it, represented an attenuated and popularized form of the Enlightenment style of thought."

Hitler had a gift for presenting his message in an attractive, accessible form. Writes Birken:

The most attractive feature of Hitler's ideology was thus its optimism. It was not merely his mood but his message that carried an infectious excitement. He was a secular messiah proclaiming a Germanic version of the "good news." The possibility of class reconciliation, the plans for a national revival, the identification of a universal enemy whose elimination would usher in the millennium, all stirred his audiences to the very depths. Hitler spoke the language of the [Enlightenment] philosophes, a language that had almost passed out of existence in the rarefied strata of the grand intelligentsia.

However, placing Hitler and Hitlerism in the intellectual tradition of the West, Birken continues, "should do less to raise our opinion" of Hitlerism, than to "lower our opinion" of "the intellectual history of the West."

Economic Views​

Hitler's economic worldview, writes Birken, was likewise rational, self-consistent, progressive, and entirely in keeping with Western tradition. "Hitler's economic ideas were also permeated by Enlightenment notions of progress," and were "closer to Ricardo and Marx than to Machiavelli or Keynes." Birken adds:

...A careful reading of his speeches and writings suggests that he was neither a mercantilist nor a Keynesian, neither a medievalist nor a marginalist. Rather... his economic ideas fit all too well into the classical-physiocratic style of thought.

Hitler believed that social and national considerations, not economic ones, should be paramount in society. The economic and political system must serve the nation, not the other way around. Thus, Birken points out, while "political economy played an important role in his thinking," Hitler

did not restore the primacy of the state after all but, quite the contrary, subordinated the state itself to a dynamic of aggressive technological and cultural expansion. In doing this, Hitler also asserted himself against the last remnants of aristocratic civility at the same time that he opposed the emerging relativism of consumer culture.

As Birken explains, Hitler believed that "all growth could be traced to individual effort -- but only at the service of the common good. He thus tempered what might be taken as a 'libertarian' definition of inventiveness with a somber collectivism." Believing that socially useful creativity was "the product of individual geniuses of high personality value," Hitler supported equal social opportunity for all, and opposed legal and social barriers to individual economic achievement and success. Governmental and social policies, he believed, should encourage merit-based social mobility.

Hitler was critical of both capitalism and Marxism -- the first because it was "insufficiently democratic," and the latter because it was "too democratic" or "leveling." While supporting economic growth across national boundaries, "Hitler also took what he considered to be a conservative stand against the coming hyper-commercialism of an emerging global economy."

Views on Race and Religion​

Although he is endlessly castigated as "the most notorious racist of the twentieth century," Hitler's racial views were actually quite in harmony with mainstream 19th- and early 20th-century European thinking. "It should be obvious," writes Birken, "that Hitler possessed a 'classical' theory of race which dovetailed nicely with his classical notions of political economy."

Far from being aberrant or bizarre, his views on race were consistent with those of most prominent Westerners in the decades before the Second World War. And while Birken does not specifically mention it, Hitler's racial views were comparable to those of Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill.

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler never supported notions of breeding a homogenous blond "hyper-Aryan" race. Accepting the reality that the German population consisted of several distinct sub-racial groups, he stressed the German people's national and social unity. A certain degree of racial variety was desirable, he thought, and too much racial blending or homogeneity could be harmful because it would homogenize and thus eliminate superior as well as inferior genetic traits.

Hitler believed that "both conservative prudery and radical eroticism" harmed society, and he opposed birth control because it tended to lower the genetic quality of the society that practices it.

While he was critical of Christianity, Hitler was no atheist. "The religion of Hitlerism was thus essentially a kind of deism," concludes Birken. Like Thomas Jefferson and other prominent early American leaders, Hitler equated God with "the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe." Thus, "for Hitler, national socialism was natural socialism."

Attitude Toward Jews​

It is "of course, a great mistake to see anti-Semitism as a rejection of Enlightenment values," writes Birken. "On the contrary, the Enlightenment simply secularized rather than destroyed traditional Judeophobia." (No Western thinker was more outspokenly anti-Jewish than Voltaire, the great French philosophe, who regarded the Jews as "enemies of mankind.") The Enlightenment concept of social "fraternity," Birken writes, demands social solidarity, which implies that Jews, as an alien and self-absorbed people, cannot fit in.

Hitler's hostile attitude toward Jews, Birken writes, was neither irrational nor aberrant. He saw "Jews as the personification of a great lie": that is, while they pretended to be merely a religious community, in fact they constituted a self-selected national-ethnic group with international ambitions. Because he regarded the Jews as the enemies of all peoples, Hitler held that combatting Jewish power and influence should be the common duty of all nations -- a view that Birken calls an expression of "Germanic universalism."

The United States​

Hitler's attitude toward the United States was mixed. He saw much to admire in 18th- and 19th-century America, and as Birken notes, he praised this country's pre-1940s pro-White racial policies, its restrictions on non-White immigration, and its pioneering adoption of eugenics measures.

But Hitler also saw ominous trends during the 1920s and 1930s. Echoing the views of American industrialist Henry Ford, he was dismayed by the spectacular growth of Jewish power and cultural influence, and regarded Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" administration as a virtual revolution in American life, through which Jews largely usurped the country's traditional ruling class.

A Persistent Allure​

The defeat of Germany in 1945, Birken rightly notes, "clearly marked a watershed" in world history, and especially for the West:

In a real sense, Hitler's defeat implicitly became the defeat of the European nation-state and the Enlightenment values that underpinned it. Germany's heirs, the United States and the Soviet Union, were both fundamentally transnational, multiracial empires whose territories were seemingly unlimited.

As a result, for half a century we have been living in what Birken calls a "consumer capitalist" world in which "the hierarchical order of sex and race which had originally sustained bourgeois nationalism has been disintegrating" and in which "the increasing relativization of values is encouraged by the ever greater globalization of the economy and consequent emergence of a multinational business elite."

This new world order is less durable than it might appear, says Birken. The recent collapse of the multi-ethnic, multi-racial Soviet Union, he warns, portends similar problems for the American empire. Even a mere contraction of the economy could threaten "to dissolve the United States into several races." In Birken's view, racial nationalism threatens "the continued existence of the United States." He warns:

What Hitler said in the thirties is thus what our racial nationalists are saying today: namely, that a genuinely inclusive multiracial nation violates the natural order of things. The United States must either be a white-dominated state or a collection of breakaway republics made up of this or that group.

In short: if Hitler was right, America is an increasingly unnatural and artificial construct that does not deserve to survive, and will not survive.

Birken fears that Hitlerism will become ever more attractive to those who reject today's supra-national "consumer capitalism," and who resist the rapidly emerging "genuinely inclusive multiracial" order. This alternative vision has appeal beyond America and Europe, Birken believes. As he notes, Hitler's fight against the British empire -- a war he actually never sought nor wanted -- "won him [Hitler] the admiration of colonial peoples from Ireland to India ..."

A New 'Cosmic' Nation​

Birken concludes his book with a fervent call for "the gradual formation of an American race as a higher synthesis. Then the Americans will truly constitute a universal or 'cosmic' people." In Birken's view, the "race myth" and Hitlerism "will continue to tempt us" unless Americans "can be given a genuine metaphysical foundation." This "metaphysical foundation" must be to "uncreate race" through massive racial mixing. Therefore, Birken writes, "we should not be afraid of that dirty little word, 'miscegenation'." (Consistent with this vision, President Bill Clinton, in his much-discussed June 14, 1997, speech in San Diego on race relations, openly proclaimed the goal of making America "the world's first truly multiracial democracy.")

Given the reluctance of many Americans, particularly conservative Whites, to warmly embrace this new "universal" nation, Birken says "we must have an education system that is able to instill this redefinition of American culture."

"Before we try uniting the world," Birken concludes, "let us try uniting ourselves. Until we do so, the siren song of Hitlerism will call to us."

Stark Alternatives​

To anyone who views the past with an open mind, history demonstrates the utterly fantastic nature of the goal laid out by Prof. Birken (and President Clinton) -- a vision no less utopian than Marxian Communism. In any case, to meld the American population into a "universal" racial-cultural entity would require government repression on a scale unimaginable today.

Few Americans today are able or willing to fully grasp the enormous implications of the radical program that intellectuals such as Birken (and political leaders such as Clinton) are spelling out for our future. But once they do (and as Prof. Birken fears) many will likely turn to Hitlerism as an alternative to the official prevailing ideology. The decades-long campaign of vilification of Hitler and Third Reich Germany may actually contribute to this by convincing millions of Americans that Hitlerism is the antithesis of the Establishment's ideology, and thus the only real alternative.

In spite of its defects, Hitler as Philosophe effectively dispels some widely-held misconceptions about Hitler and Hitlerism, acknowledges the critical importance of the race issue, and boldly spells out stark alternatives for the future of America and Europe. For this the author deserves credit.

---

From The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.- Oct. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 5), pages 34-37.

 

[Apollonian]

Ho ho ho hoho, any moron w. 1/8th of a brain-cell would understand Trump made his original statement KNOWING he'd get millions of dollars worth of free advertisement against illegal immigration, ho hho hoho, and the fat-pig, Christie, the RINO, taking globalist moolah to try to dis-credit Trump, predictably took the bait, hohohoho​

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

‘I Am Not A Student Of Hitler’: Trump Defends ‘Poisoning Blood’ Comments, Says Illegal Immigration Is ‘Destroying Our Country’​

by Zero Hedge
December 24th 2023, 9:54 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/i-am...llegal-immigration-is-destroying-our-country/

"They said I read Mein Kampf. These are people that are disinformation, horrible people that we're dealing with," Trump says.

Former President Donald Trump on Friday defended his past comments on immigration amid a flurry of leftists crying ‘Hitler’ for saying illegal immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” during a recent campaign rally.

While appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Trump was asked whether he was aware that Hitler used a similar phrase to suggest that “Jewish blood cannot be part of German blood.”

“No, I never knew that Hitler said it either,” he said, adding “I never read Mein Kampf,” referring to Adolf Hitler’s book written during his imprisonment during the 1920s and translated as “My Struggle” in English.

“They said I read Mein Kampf. These are people that are disinformation, horrible people that we’re dealing with,” Trump said.

Hewitt then asked if Trump meant anything racist by the ‘blood’ comments, to which Trump said “Dear no.”
https://www.infowarsstore.com/the-g...=banner&utm_content=greatawakeningautographed
“I know nothing about Hitler. I’m not a student of Hitler. I never read his works. They say that he said something about blood. He didn’t say it the way I said it either,” Trump continued. “It’s a very different kind of a statement. What I’m saying when I talk about people coming into our country is they are destroying our country.”

“This country’s—we have prisoners coming in. We have mental patients coming in by the thousands. Really, by the millions, because you take a look, I believe that number will be 15 million people. Maybe more than that” by the time President Joe Biden leaves office,” Trump continued, adding that he will “peacefully surrender” power at the end of his second term, if reelected.

Last week at a Durham, New Hampshire campaign rally, Trump said that illegal immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country” and “pouring into” the USA from “all over the world.”

As the Epoch Times notes further; last week’s “poisoning the blood” remark from the former president sparked reactions from both Republicans and Democrats.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he did not care much about language choice but focused on the right solution for border security. “You know, we’re talking about language? I could care less what language people use as long as we get it right,” Mr. Graham told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

But Vice President Kamala Harris condemned the 45th president during her interview with MSNBC, saying, “It is language that is meant to divide us. It is language that I think people have rightly found similar to the language of Hitler.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said that “it’s unhelpful rhetoric,” while anti-Trump former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called it “disgusting.”

Immigration is one of the key issues in the 2024 White House race, and it is one area where Republican candidates are doing better than their Democrat counterparts. According to a Monmouth University poll released on Dec. 18, a record high of 69 percent of Americans disapprove of President Biden’s handling of immigration, while only 26 percent approve.

 

[Apollonian]

Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Agree Illegal Immigrants Are 'Poisoning The Blood of Our Country'​ Chris Menahan InformationLiberation Jan. 15, 2024

Link: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64239/

• Popular
• 
  Israel Ordered 'Hannibal Directive' in All But Name on October 7, Top Israeli Paper Reports
• 
  Elon Musk Condemns U.S. State Dept for Not Lifting a Finger to Secure Gonzalo Lira's Release
• 
  FAA Seeking to Hire People With 'Severe Intellectual' and 'Psychiatric' Disabilities for 'Diversity'
• 
  Gonzalo Lira, American Imprisoned in Ukraine for Criticizing Zelensky Regime, Has Died
• 
  Jewish Actors Sign Letter to Film Academy Claiming Jews Are 'Underrepresented' in Hollywood

ShareFacebookTwitterRedditTelegramVKEmail

Some 47% of American voters overall and 81% of GOP primary voters agree with Donald Trump's statement that illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country," according to a new CBS News poll. "[E]ight in 10 Republican primary voters say they agree with [Trump's statement] — and that includes majorities of both MAGA voters (97%) and non-MAGA voters (65%) in the GOP electorate," CBS News reports. "A Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom survey found 42% said the statement made them more likely to caucus for Trump, while 28% said the rant made them less likely to back the 77-year-old," the NY Post reported last month on Dec 21. The Overton window has shifted dramatically over the past few years. CBS News has more: On revenge or payback: Most MAGA voters want him to prosecute his opponents if he's elected, while few non-MAGA primary voters do. That said, six in 10 Republican voters who don't want Trump to do this are still backing him. On relations with allies: Half of MAGA voters would have him take the U.S. out of NATO, with most other GOP primary voters opposed. But Trump enjoys wide leads among both groups, regardless of their support for NATO. The final NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll before the Iowa caucus has Trump at 48%, Nikki Haley at 20% and Ron DeSantis at 16%, according to NBC News.

 

[Apollonian]

Historian explains the logical moves of dear unc' Adolf to securing Germany, Europe, and West against Jew-bolsheviks