294. We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced with problems which can be solved only by a superior race of human beings, a race destined to become master of all the other peoples and which will have at its disposal the means and resources of the whole world.
This is indeed a location where Adolf Hitler has indeed pondered deep to find a solution for the emerging tragic issues connected to human and animal existence.
There is indeed a route to ponder upon this issue. Adolf Hitler missed the route literally by the whiskers. His totally parochial political agenda must have weighed heavily on his mind.
The problems associated with human social and familial relationships are connected to craving for power or rather the fear of being dominated, the craving for ‘respect’ or the terror of being ‘disrespected’, the physical force that came be carried around in the form of a still not fully understood item called money or the lack of this power, the need to have employees to create a pyramid in which one is on the top slot or the craving to be an employee for various reasons etc.
And then there are issues connected to emotional attachments etc. And much more of the similar or dissimilar vein.
If one were able to visualise the codes inside the various languages, as one would be able to envisages software codes, or as a sort of 3 dimensional arena were human being are mere dots connected to each other as per various links that goes on pushing or pulling or stretching or twisting each other, one might be able to visualise the realities of a feudal language social pattern.
One of the major differences this pattern would have from planar languages like English-designed social pattern would be thus:
1. The codes values that go on changing and thus enabling the push-pull-stretching-twisting would be more or less static. In the case of feudal language patterns, if the social system is rigid, the values would be rigid, but then a master-slave code attachment would be there in all links. This would create valve-like block on certain functions. That is some articulation can move only in one direction, and not in the other direction.
2. If the social pattern is visualised as a 3 – D arena, then the English designed social pattern would be various dot seen to be arranged in a more or less planar layout, or very near to it.
What I have mentioned is slightly of a complicated understanding mentioned here in a very simple manner.
Now, what or who is the superior race that can bring in composure and peace in the human social systems? It goes without saying that this superior race would be that which innately speaks a planar language.
This is theme has certain profundity that cannot be dealt with here.
295. A doctrine which forms a definite outlook on life cannot struggle and triumph by allowing the right of free interpretation of its general teaching, but only by defining that teaching in certain articles of faith that have to be accepted and incorporating it in a political organisation.
Unrestrained interpretation of statutes can do damage to certain systems. For instance, if the ordinary soldiers are allowed to interpret the various rules and statutes in the military rules and the right to dignity and freedom asserted in the Constitution of India, there would be deep problems of discipline.
The minimum understanding that should be there is that whatever interpretations and liberties are taken up in the matter of interpretations, the Indian Hindi speaking army cannot become the pristine-ENGLISH speaking army of England. For both of them are arranged by vastly different language codes.
There are acceptable ranges of freedoms allowed in each language. The freedoms allowed in English cannot be made functional in any other language without checking its codes. For instance, most of the manner of speaking in pristine-English would become outrageous impertinences in most Indian feudal languages. In fact, a posture of dignity inside an Indian government office or police station in an ordinary Indian can be quite dangerous for him.
296. Those whose duty it is to explain what is meant when we speak of the State, hold chairs in State universities, often in the department of constitutional law, and consider it their highest duty to find explanations and justifications for the more or less fortunate existence of that particular form of State which provides them with their daily bread.
I can only wonder the exquisite foresight of Adolf Hitler. He has literally described the Indian academicians. Even though his ire was on the German academicians.
297. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntary association of men who have agreed to set up and obey a ruling authority.
Actually this is a very insipid and very obviously stupid view of the state. For instance, most of the nations that were formed after the breaking up of the English Empire were formed by the active intervention and help from the British government. There was no ‘agreeing’ by the people to set up a common authority. The common authority was more or less imposed upon them.
If one were to accept the contentions of the idea that ‘people agreed to the social and political set up’, then it would seem that the caste system and slavery in the Indian subcontinent were more or less self imposed. It is very clear that the role of language codes in forming associations, imposing authority, grading people etc. is not known to the pronouncers of this theory.
298. The State no longer exists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for the purpose of adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in its functionaries, even down to the smallest official.
Surely this is the current state of India. Even the smallest official, the office peon demands ‘respect’ from the people and holds the power to degrade them by pejorative words.
299. The State must see that public peace and order are preserved and, in their turn, order and peace must make the existence of the State possible. All life must move between these two poles.
This takes us the situation of a pristine-English England of yore. If there was no efficient policing, would the people riot? As to the location in the Indian subcontinent, even though the people didn’t riot in the former days, if the king was weak, the outsiders would barge in and molest the local people. In fact, in Travancore State Manual, a declaration of independence by the people of a locality is mentioned. This was due to the fact that the king couldn’t protect them and their family members.
Yet, when the English East India Company rule was formed, the company had to take steps to suppress the gangster group known as the Thuggee. For this, a systematic police system was formed in the East India Company’s reign areas. Henry Sleeman crushed this menace. However, these bits of information have all vanished from Indian school history textbooks.
Coming back to the quoted words, if the people quality is bad, the ruler quality will go worse. However, if the rulers do have an innate quality, they can improve the people, as did the English rulers in the small areas in the Indian subcontinent which were in their hands. Quality rulers are required. Not insane democracy.
300. if possible, that only one language should be used, though solely for technical reasons of administration.
There is mention about language, but then in a very insignificant manner. Adolf Hitler was just mentioning another view point.
Actually the selection of national language is a very important thing. It is not something that has to be done to assuage fiery jingoistic emotions, but from the logic of what does the national policy or Constitution insists. If the Constitution insists on an egalitarian social set up, then a language like English is imperative.
301. on the part of a people who are ethnically homogeneous and speak the same language.
There is a erroneous feeling that the people of the same language would adhere together and create a homogenous nation. It is not true. May be in the case of English, it might be true to some extent. For, English has no codes of splitting human beings into varying heights.
However, in feudal language social systems, things are different. People have hierarchies. When connecting to other populations who speak the same language, unless the issue of connecting corresponding levels in an equivalent manner is done, there will be problems. And beyond that, certain layers will not like to be placed under the same layer under a different group of people. It is a complicated scenario, and cannot be dealt offhand here.
Again, Adolf Hitler was mentioning another group’s viewpoint.
302. a fundamental error by doing so – that such a common language would enable them to carry out a process of nationalisation in a definite direction.
Yes, there are many limitations in thinking that a common feudal language can unite people. It is more likely that it will divide a people, if they are not from a homogenous group, with very precisely set social hierarchies.
In fact, the various locations inside the Indian subcontinent could be united only by the English language. And not by any other language else.
For instance, if the national government of India insists on the Indian army officers using Hindi among themselves, the whole armed services would erupt. The national government would not be seen ever again.
303. What they mostly meant by Germanisation was a process of forcing other people to speak the German language. But it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a Negro or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future, and even to cast his vote for a German political party.
It is a great pity this insight came only to Adolf Hitler. It should have dawned in the thick-skulls of English policymakers in England. How can a feudal language speaker metamorphosis into an Englishman by just learning English?
In fact, the very fact, that his brain has feudal language software inside makes him totally a negation as an Englishman. He might be more clever than an average Englishman, more capable, more energetic, more conceding, more affable, and more efficient and so many other things. But not an Englishman. And all his capabilities will be dangerous for the native population of England and their posterity.
304. not signify Germanisation but the annihilation of the German element.
Again the word ‘German’ should have been replaced by ‘English’. Allowing outsider to masquerade themselves as Englishmen and Britons would simply lead to the vanishing of antique England. No man who loves pristine-England can concede to that.
305. In the course of history it has happened only too often that a conquering race succeeded by external force in compelling the people whom they subjected to speak the tongue of the conqueror and that after a thousand years their language was spoken by another people and that thus the conqueror finally turned out to be the conquered.
This would be the experience of all English nations, I fear. If someone with some sense doesn’t appear on the scene to stop the drift.
306. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanisation only if that process could change the blood of the people who would be subjected to it, which is obviously impossible.
It has nothing to do with blood and genes. It is a far more complicated arena. For instance, it would be quite naïve to imagine a Zulu-speaking German bloodline as being Germans.
307. even though the resultant mongrel race should excel a thousand fold in speaking the language of the race that once had been superior.
I am sure that a feudal language speaker would be better in English at writing and various other things due to the fact, that he or she can use words, emotions and social setting from his or her own native land, to superimpose on English. However, he or she is still not the antique English native. He or she is only a cunning imposter, when he or she claims to be English. For, he or she has feet in two language worlds and is a seeming native in two languages. This is not the defining features of a native-English.
308. A people of foreign race would have had to use the German language to express modes of thought that were foreign to the German, thus compromising by its own inferiority the dignity and nobility of our nation.
It is tragic that Adolf Hitler was born in Germany. He should have been born in England. He would have protected English as none other could have.
When persons who are connected to feudal languages speak English, in most cases they import all the diffidence and arrogance innate to his native tongue, into English.