​The divine side of Adolf Hitler


PREAMBLE: Thousands of books have been written about Hitler. Very few beings in the world have the mental faculties to accommodate objective reality, where one would analyze a character while remaining completely beyond the ordinary human frailties that are the source of bias and needless subjectivity. Transcendence of morality means to attain the third eye of insight where you focus on a persona without the slightest staining from the delusion of good and evil – the glossy philosophy that has kept the church in business for countless centuries.


It is to be found the section of the book by Kubizek about the time he and Hitler saw Rienzi (a performance by Wagner) together that Pierce had referred to. Kubizek  tells of standing with the eighteen-year-old Hitler after the opera late at night beneath brilliant stars:

Adolf stood in front of me; and now he gripped both of my hands and held them tight. He had never made such a gesture before. I felt from the grasp of his hands how deeply moved he was. His eyes were feverish with excitement. The words did not come smoothly from his mouth as they usually did, but rather erupted, hoarse and raucous. From his voice I could tell even more how much this experience had shaken him….I cannot repeat every word that my friend uttered. I was struck by something strange, which I had never noticed before, even when he had talked to me in moments of the greatest excitement. It was as if another being spoke out of his body, and moved him as much as it did me. It wasn’t at all a case of a speaker being carried away by his own words. 

On the contrary; I felt as though he himself listened with astonishment and emotion to what burst forth from him with elementary force. I will not attempt to interpret this phenomenon, but it was a state of complete ecstasy and rapture, in which he transferred the character of Rienzi, without even mentioning him as a model or example, with visionary power to the plane of his own ambitions. But it was more than a cheap adaptation. Indeed, the impact of the opera was rather a sheer external impulse which compelled him to speak. Like flood waters breaking their dykes, his words burst forth from him. He conjured up in grandiose, inspiring pictures his own future and that of his people.


When assessing the states of mind and motivations of individuals, Hitler employed the basic distinction between idealism and egoism. Idealism is being oriented toward serving one’s people, one’s race. Egoism looks at things from the perspective of narrowly conceived self-interest and without a sense of connection to one’s community of kindred people and commitment to their welfare. Idealism is clearly favored over egoism in Hitler’s mind. Someone who is an idealist is more laudable than one who is an egotist or, another term, individualist. 

Hitler once wrote:

This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. From it alone can arise all the great works of mankind, which bring the founder little reward, but the richest blessings to posterity. Yes, from i t alone can we understand how so many are able to bear up faithfully under a scanty life which imposes on them nothing but poverty and frugality, but gives the community the foundations of its existence. Every worker, every peasant, every inventor, official, etc., who works without ever being able to achieve any happiness or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this lofty idea….

Hitler argued that the reins of the state must be in the hands of the finest individuals, those who are the wisest and the most efficacious. The political process must be designed so as to identify the very best people given the aim of the racial survival and progress, and then to bring them to “office and dignity.”  Hitler was adamant that mass democracy is not the best way for this to occur – democracy isn’t complete if run by unenlightened men who work so hard to bring suffering to their people. The finest should be in charge, not the masses, he declared. Rather than the rule of the democratic majority, Hitler affirmed the rule of personality, that is, the great man who takes control through what amounts to a process of natural selection – this would be an abstraction from his genius that naturally, if all factors are held constant in a society (world), the most enlightened men should run things as opposed to men who toil in spiritual deprivation and sleep whose symptoms are infinite.

In world history the man who really rises above the norm of the broad average usually announces himself personally. A philosophy of life which endeavors to reject the democratic mass idea and give this earth to the best people–that is, the highest (Awakened) humanity–must logically obey the aristocratic-spiritual principle within this people and make sure that the leadership and the highest influence in this people fall into the best minds. Thus, it builds, not upon the idea of the majority, but upon the idea of personality and wakefulness.

29 thoughts on “​The divine side of Adolf Hitler

  1. Really interesting piece. I used to read a lot about Hitler, a far more complicated man than how he’s usually portrayed by in society (i.e. purely evil monster). I think if it wasnt for his obsession and actions regarding racial purity, his hatred and mass murder of Jews, Hitler’s reputation would likely be a bit more like Napoleon’s or other conquerors.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Hitler was both evil and egoistic. He was truly a disgusting person who made many military mistakes. Attacking England resulted in American intervention. Attacking Russia ended in a resounding defeat.

    He eventually committed suicide…a coward’s way of ending life.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Rather than the rule of the democratic majority, Hitler affirmed the rule of personality”

    This brings, to my mind, renewed contemplation of the various forms of trusteeship or stewardship. Some trustees of the common weal are tutelary – guardian stewards to whom the people turn because of the protection they can provide. Others are seen as technocratic – leading and ruling through their excellence or achievement in learning. One of the least common today, but widely seen in the human past and common in societies such as Confucian China, Korea, and Japan, is the form of aristocratic or philosophical trusteeship, which fits the model here being ascribed to Hitler – though it is worth noting that regardless of his rhetoric, at least some scholars see Hitler as having, in practice, further entrenched technocratic public service in Germany and undermined the aristocratic values of his people in the long run.

    Very relevant here, if you can get hold of it, is “The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty – and Blame” By Christopher Hood & Martin Lodge

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Yes he is the best example of a fallible human. Thats why his person is so interesting to any discerning man. Then in some cases as that of Hitler its a truly brave man that can take his life rather than fall into the hands of his enemy. Socrates did that!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. From everything I’ve read of him, I cannot help but to see the pure motives, however warped his actions became. As you said, it is a case of human fallibility. Of course, I don’t believe everything we are taught, and there is much being suppressed, so we do not have the full story. Both sides have blood on their hands. The story of his personal life is intriguing, and there is no denying that he was a man of passion. Do not take me to judge him as good or evil. Despite his infamy, he was just a man, one who saw the ruin of his county and his people and was filled with a fiery passion to fight for what he believed in. Sometimes passion can turn to madness. Or sometimes propaganda spreads lies. I don’t know what’s true, but I’m not afraid to seek the truth and have my perceptions, my delusions shattered. When you can observe, learn and hear ideas, without becoming emotionally involved, or manipulated, only then can a person be objective.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I’m glad you understood what I was trying to say. This is a particularly difficult subject to discuss openly and honestly in a group, and it shouldn’t be. Or rather, that’s all the more reason why we should be discussing it — to get through the emotional reactions and find that center from which we can seek knowledge, understanding and wisdom; not only about this topic but any which are used to trigger knee jerk reactions in people.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. An infatuated ego can not be called divine but poisonous and the scenario under idealism here leads to slavery and destruction. It’s mere human ignorance to even need to discuss about it which is sad.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. How do you get to decide that something is sad or not? What are the parameters? Is it also equally sad that some clueless dudes acting under the influence of evil Roman politics crucified an innocent man called Jesus?


  9. Words not written do not change the truth. Truth is neither one nor in multiplicity. Understanding is more painful than giving birth to many because it involves undergoing a subtle death first. And that’s your greatest abhorrence. Transcend that.


  10. My reaction to your mention of Hitler was personal. I was born in 1939 the year World War II began. My older cousin, who lived in the same home as mine, died fighting with the U.S. Army in Europe against the Nazis. Our landlord was Jewish from Paris. He fought in the French Resistance, but his parents were killed in a concentration camp. A couple who lived on our block were Holocaust survivors; the wife worked with Rose at Neiman Marcus.

    Rose, my wife, was born in Manchuria in 1940. She, her parents and grandparents were directly effected by World War II in the Pacific. See http://www.tripatini.com/profiles/blogs/early-life-of-rose-krumpos

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I can’t really say much about Hitler but I recognize his calling as a Prophet.

    The question remains; did he heed the call?

    He’s obsessions with purifying a race might be a desire for inward purification directed outwards and as you know, you can’t effect change from without.

    Some psychiatrists also stated that, the drugs he was given for his experiences with mental illness was also of great influence in what eventually became Hitler as we know him to be (inhumane).

    It’s complicated and I love simple things.

    So, when it comes to Hitler, I just glean life lessons from his life and move on.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. P.S

    Socrates didn’t take his life as you mentioned in your response above; the people of Athens sentenced him to death. All he did was honor the verdict rendered to him by the jurist of his time.

    He had a chance to escape(offered by his pupil) but he declined because, to him, it would not only show disrespect for justice but a total deviation from his character(imagine Socrates escaping and you can Imagine Jesus escaping his Crucifixion).

    But, Hitler was under no such obligation; He took his own life rather than bear the reality of been captured.

    It had nothing to do with obedience or Justice and hence not appropriate for such comparisons.(i.e with Socrates).

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Yes. Gleaning life lessons was the inner purpose of this article. Hitler couldn’t be a prophet, he had bad karma. He deviated too much from divinity. He was far removed from deliverance; he misused his power and privileges to be a world ruler. He is like a candle light that lasts for only a short time then goes off.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s