In my early book, I had very pointedly mentioned that the German language could be having a particular kind of feudal language quality in it. The point is that I have discussed many languages in the same vein. However, the fact was that I had never heard many of these languages spoken even once. My summarisations were based only on the known history and sociological quality of these nations.

Speaking about Germany, these are my words therein:



German language would definitely be having feudal elements. For, the general history of divided and fragmented statehood points to that. And the general talk of discipline can mean not real self-discipline as understood in English, but a sort of regimentation enforced by language.

Here one thing to be understood is that in feudal language set-ups, regimentation can be enforced by language only if the structure is strong, and each level of superior-junior relation is well defined, and also a level of homogeneity is there in the population. In places where the populace are from different racial, or social groups, each having its own different perception of the levels of each professional, financial, age or even social group, feudal languages, instead of lending stability, would lead the society to the absolute opposite of it; that is, it would lead to anarchy, instability, division and fragmentation.

In such social programs, a social non-entity is a powerless personage. Yet, once he comes into power, and he manages to use the feudal programs in the language with profound understanding, and with clever sensibility and sensitivity, the language program can give him astonishing power over his fellow country, and they would be subdued by the general attitude of servitude that would naturally build up.

Hitler’s rise to the level of a despot could have been aided by the language. For in a situation of feudalistic language, the people can accept as leader only one who can assume a halo of superiority and un-approachability. The word ~Fuehrer’ by which Hitler was referred to could have more implied sense than just ‘leader’ in the German language understanding.

In the context of Hitler, Jews also need to be discussed. But they can be discussed in a separate heading later. END OF QUOTE

I wrote similar brief passages on various populations around the globe. It is quite curious that I did write these things so many years back.

When I wrote that book, I had not heard the German language spoken even once. And the fact remains that even now, I have never heard the German language spoken even once. However, over the years, since 2000 when I had opportunity to discuss these things online, I have had the satisfaction of knowing that my summarisations of a comparison between the German language and Dutch was seen to be okayed others.

QUOTE from my book:


I do not know anything about the Dutch language; I do think that this is one language that may have certain characteristics of the English language; namely, the lack of feudal grading of citizenry, who otherwise do not have any feudal pedigree. I deduce it on the basis of the fact that these are the people who have held up to the British might, just on the basis of their human quality factors. And in an African country, where they had the opportunity to handle political power, they did improve the lot of the local population; even this dialogue of mine may not be acceptable to many. At the same time, I am not very sure how much of the credit can be shared by the British, who also did have political power there, and did aim to improve the lot of the natives, facing sharp antipathy from the Afrikaners.


Note: The above contention has now been retracted by me.

At that point in time, my own information even on English connections was quite meagre. For instance, I had no idea that there were three other languages inside Britain other than English, all of which could be quite feudal and the exact opposite of English, in their word codes. In that book, I stressed too much on the word Britain, when actually I should have used the word England. It was a mistake that I am quite unhappy with.

About the Dutch language also, I have absolutely no information. I have not heard it spoken. Only once in my lifetime have I talked to a Dutchman, and that was in English.

When I made a cursory reading of the Mein Kampf, in almost all the inputs, contentions, social descriptions, German behaviours etc. mentioned and discussed upon, with both distaste as well as in appreciation, I could visualise a feudal language nation. However, the language codes would or could be different from the language code arrangement in any language of the Indian peninsula. I do not know about that, and cannot make any categorical statements in this regard.

However, if the word Germany and German can be replaced with India and Indians in Mein Kampf, there are many passages and pages that can literally be a description of the nation of India. It is quite curious. It fact it is quite curious that both countries have claims on the usage ‘Aryan’, even though through different routes.

But then, the wider perspective is that most of the things mentioned in this book can fit into the social pattern of many feudal language nations of Asia, Africa, South America and Continental Europe.

However, it wouldn’t fit into a reading of pristine-ENGLAND at all. In fact, if the word German is replaced with Englishman and the Germany replaced with ENGLAND, Mein Kampf would be a most idiotic book with absolutely no sense.

IMAGE: Adolf Hitler with supporters – 1930. Could this image give hint of hidden codes of feudal / hierarchical content in the German language? Can’t say for sure, even though there seems to be a trace at least of it.

MEIN KAMPF by Adolf Hitler - A demystification!


Commentary - German, the language