Mein Kampf, Reborn: Groypers Poisoned by Hate

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6z1y4e-mein-kampf-reborn-groypers-poisoned-by-hate.html

Monologue

Last night, for some odd reason, we had over 1,000 live viewers on Rumble rather than our usual 23. I do believe it was the keywords “Nick Fuentes” & “Groypers” as this story was hot yesterday due to the fact that the shooter points to this strange alt right group of incels. Many Groypers emailed me and texted me many quotes from Mein Kampf. Well, I read the book and understand exactly what is going on with the Groypers and what Nick Fuentes is up to. I do believe the Groypers are being played and quite honestly, they don’t care. Why? They have nothing to lose.

Tonight we enter into dangerous ground, not to glorify a man whose name has become a curse, but to expose the weapon he built and the way it is still used against us. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf is often dismissed as nothing more than a racist tract, a bible for skinheads and white supremacists. But if we read it carefully, we find something more sinister. It is a book that begins with truth—truth about the destruction of Germany after the Great War, truth about the suffocating chains of debt and reparations, truth about how international finance can strangle nations and turn sovereign peoples into slaves. These things are real. They were felt by ordinary Germans in the streets of Weimar, and they are still felt by men and women today when they look at Wall Street, central banks, and the monopolies that tower over them.

But Hitler did not stop at truth. He did not frame his critique in the language of policy, or law, or class. He twisted it into the language of blood. He declared that the forces of finance were not just corrupt institutions but a corrupt people. He racialized the problem, naming Jews as the embodiment of everything he hated and feared. In that move, he poisoned the well forever. He took what could have been a movement against the new world order of banking and monopoly, and he laced it with hatred so venomous that the critique itself became radioactive. From that day forward, any man who dared to speak of international finance, of stock-exchange corruption, of debt slavery, could be smeared as “another Hitler.” The elites smiled, because the very weapon they feared had been spoiled at its root.

That is the tactic we will uncover tonight: the mixture of truth and poison. Hitler’s words show us how dangerous it is when truth is joined with hate, how powerful it becomes for a season, and how devastating its consequences are for generations. We will walk through the history of a broken nation, the cry of Gottfried Feder against “interest slavery,” the passages in Mein Kampf that sound eerily like our own cries against monopolies, and then the poisonous thread that twisted truth into racial war. We will follow how Hitler betrayed even his own rhetoric to secure the backing of elites, how neo-Nazis and hate groups later clung to his venom, and how modern intelligence networks recycle the same playbook of mixing truth with extremism to discredit dissent.

This is not just about Germany. It is about every age where Satan takes a kernel of truth and wraps it in darkness, so that men who hunger for freedom are led into chains. Our calling is to reclaim the truth, stripped of the poison, and to stand against global monopolies without falling into the old trap of scapegoating. Tonight, we separate wheat from tares. Tonight, we reclaim what was stolen.

Part 1: The Broken Nation – Versailles and Ruin

Germany in 1919 was not simply a defeated nation—it was a nation humiliated, starved, and shackled. The Treaty of Versailles demanded reparations that no economy could bear, a staggering sum meant not only to pay debts but to keep Germany permanently on her knees. The German people felt this in their bones: the price of bread soaring beyond reach, savings wiped out overnight as the mark collapsed, entire families reduced to begging. Veterans returned from the trenches to find no work, no honor, no future. They had fought under the banner of the Kaiser, believing themselves to be the most disciplined, the most organized, the most formidable army in the world, and yet they were told they had lost because of betrayal, not because of the battlefield. Out of this soil of despair, conspiracy theories flowered like weeds, and men sought explanations that would give shape to their suffering.

It is in this crucible that Adolf Hitler began to form his worldview. He was not alone. Across Germany, the “stab-in-the-back” myth spread like wildfire—that Germany had not truly been defeated in the field, but had been betrayed from within by politicians, profiteers, and shadowy interests who had signed away the nation’s honor. The hunger for someone to blame was desperate. And when a people are desperate, they are willing to accept simple answers, no matter how poisonous.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes walking the streets of Vienna before the war, already filled with resentment against what he saw as the decadence of modern life. He speaks of observing poverty, prostitution, corruption, and he ties these conditions not to systems but to persons, not to the complexity of modern economics but to a single “enemy within.” When he returned to Munich after the war, battered and bitter, he found the Weimar Republic presiding over chaos and humiliation. The nation seemed leaderless, its spirit broken, its pride trampled. He writes that the German people “had lost the instinct for self-preservation,” and he blamed this on the corrosive influence of parliament, the press, and, above all, international finance.

Here is where the first seed of his later poison is sown. For Hitler, the ruin of Germany was not merely the result of bad treaties, or corrupt politicians, or the punishment of war. It was evidence of a deeper conspiracy—an unseen hand strangling the nation through debt and humiliation. And this hand, he would later argue, had a racial face.

But before he named that scapegoat, he named the wound: debt, monopoly, and finance as instruments of control. This is why his words have such a double edge. On one side, he describes the reality of a people stripped of their future by bankers in London, Paris, and New York who demanded payments that would never end. On the other side, he frames this suffering not as the product of political greed and financial parasitism in general, but as the work of a people, a race, a bloodline. And in that moment, the truth of economic dispossession was chained forever to the venom of racial hatred.

This was the Germany that birthed Mein Kampf: a nation hungry for hope, desperate for dignity, and willing to believe the man who told them their suffering had a simple cause. The elites had written the treaty, the bankers had written the loans, but Hitler gave those faceless systems a name and a race. And with that, he began to build a movement on the foundation of truth corrupted.

Part 2: Gottfried Feder and the War on Interest

If Hitler’s bitterness was the soil, Gottfried Feder was the seed that germinated his economic worldview. Feder was not a general, nor a politician by birth—he was an engineer. And yet his pamphlets, lectures, and slogans would ignite a fire in the hearts of disillusioned Germans. His central cry was against what he called Zinsknechtschaft—“interest slavery.” In Feder’s view, the great sickness of modern civilization was the dominance of loan capital: money that made more money through interest, without producing anything tangible. He believed this system was the chain around Germany’s neck, binding her people to unseen masters in foreign capitals.

Feder’s Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest Slavery landed in Hitler’s hands in 1919, and Hitler himself admitted in Mein Kampf that it was like a revelation. He wrote that in Feder’s words he suddenly grasped the difference between what he called “productive capital”—the money and labor that built factories, made goods, and sustained life—and “rapacious capital,” the stock-exchange and banking interests that seemed to feed off nations without giving anything back. This distinction was intoxicating to men who had just seen their wages destroyed by hyperinflation, their pensions reduced to nothing, and their country auctioned to foreign creditors.

Hitler recalls in his book how he first heard Feder speak in Munich, describing international finance as a parasitic force that enslaves nations. He wrote that this lecture was the turning point when he realized he had found the ideological weapon he needed. Suddenly, all the confusion of politics, left and right, capitalism and socialism, seemed to fall away. Here was an explanation that cut deeper: the nation was not sick because of internal squabbles, but because of an alien form of finance that had burrowed into the bloodstream.

But Feder’s brilliance—if brilliance it can be called—was not simply in diagnosing a problem. It was in offering a false hope. He argued that if Germany could free herself from interest-bearing capital, if the state could separate “healthy” productive capital from “parasitic” financial capital, then the nation would be reborn. Factories would hum, workers would thrive, farmers would prosper. It was a vision of national redemption, one that resonated with the humiliated veterans and the starving poor alike.

And yet, Feder himself did not make the leap into racial hatred. He saw interest slavery as a system, not a bloodline. It was Hitler who added the poison, insisting that this “rapacious” capital had a face, and that face was Jewish. Here, again, the truth is contaminated. Because in Feder’s framework, there was at least the possibility of reform: a government could abolish usury, regulate banks, and encourage productive investment. In Hitler’s framework, reform was impossible, because the enemy was not an institution but a people.

The Nazi Party’s early program—its famous 25 Points—bore Feder’s fingerprints. It called for the abolition of “unearned incomes,” for the breaking of interest slavery, for nationalization of trusts, and for profit-sharing with workers. These promises made the party attractive to the disillusioned lower middle class, men who felt squeezed between Marxists on the left and oligarchs on the right. But the program was a trap, because Hitler never intended to carry it through. As we will see, once he had used Feder’s ideas to gather a following, he quickly discarded the radical anti-finance policies to court the very industrialists and bankers he had once condemned.

But in these early days, Feder’s vision gave Hitler his ideological weapon: a way to explain German suffering through a language of finance, debt, and monopoly. It gave him the appearance of being a revolutionary, a man who would strike at the root of the problem rather than the branches. And it gave him the rhetorical power to unify men across political lines, by declaring that left and right were illusions compared to the real battle: the nation against international finance.

This is why Part 2 matters. It shows us that Hitler did not create his economic worldview alone. He borrowed it from a man who believed he had uncovered the hidden chains of the world. But by adding the venom of race, Hitler ensured that the critique would never liberate—it would only enslave anew.

Part 3: Hitler’s Economic Truths in Mein Kampf

When we open Mein Kampf and read Hitler’s words about finance, it is easy to see why some modern readers pause and say, “Wait a minute—this sounds like what we are saying about the New World Order.” Over and over, he rails against stock-exchange speculation, international monopolies, and the invisible power of bankers who can bend entire nations to their will through debt. He insists that the economic system is designed to enslave the many for the benefit of the few. He denounces politicians who sell out their people to the dictates of finance. He even declares that the traditional left and right are illusions, masks for the deeper reality of money’s grip.

Hitler’s language here is fierce. He calls stock-exchange capital a “tumor” that grows at the expense of the national body. He claims that international finance is “rootless” and therefore disloyal to any one nation, ready to betray borders for profit. He writes that wars are not fought for honor or defense but at the bidding of financiers who use nations as pawns in their games. These lines strike like thunder, because they echo what many in our time feel about globalization, central banking, and the consolidation of corporate power. When a handful of institutions can manipulate currencies, crash economies, and dictate terms to sovereign governments, people begin to see exactly what Hitler described: a hidden hand pulling the strings.

He draws a sharp line between what he calls “productive capital” and “rapacious capital.” Productive capital builds things—factories, roads, machines, food. It is tangible and life-giving. Rapacious capital, he argues, is parasitic: it buys and sells paper, speculates on markets, and manipulates money for gain without ever producing anything real. In this distinction, Hitler is not unique. Thinkers across cultures and centuries have condemned usury, speculation, and parasitic finance. Even the Bible warns against interest that devours the poor, and Church fathers thundered against usury as a sin. In these moments, Hitler is borrowing truths far older than himself, truths that resonate because they are rooted in the lived experience of millions crushed by debt.

And yet, here lies the snare. Because as much as Hitler spoke of finance in abstract terms, he never let it remain abstract. Again and again, he insisted that “international finance” was not just a system but the outworking of Jewish blood. For him, the banker was not simply a parasite but a Jew; the stock-exchange was not simply corrupt but racially tainted. In this way, every passage that begins as a critique of systems ends as an accusation against a people. This is how truth becomes radioactive.

Still, if we pause at the surface level, we see why Hitler’s book can sound aligned with our own critiques of the new world order. He speaks of the way debt strangles nations. He warns against monopolies that destroy local economies. He mocks political labels that distract from the real powers pulling the strings. These observations are not false. They are sharp, biting, and in some cases prophetic. But the difference lies in what you do with the truth once you find it. Hitler used it as a weapon of hate, to mobilize a nation into war and genocide. If we reclaim the truth, stripped of venom, we can use it as a sword of justice instead.

This is the paradox of Mein Kampf. The book holds a mirror to real suffering, real injustice, and real economic oppression. But every time it draws near to exposing the system, it veers into hatred. This duality is why the book endures—not as wisdom, but as a warning. It shows us how easily truth can be captured, twisted, and weaponized for destruction.

Part 4: The Poisoned Thread – Racializing the Problem

Here is where the mask slips. Up to this point in Mein Kampf, Hitler can sound like a revolutionary against finance, a voice crying out against monopolies, debt slavery, and parasitic capital. But then he crosses the line from critique into curse. He declares that the problem is not merely an economic system or a class of profiteers. He insists the problem is blood. For Hitler, the faceless system of international finance has a face, and it is Jewish.

The venom drips from his pages. He calls Jews “parasites,” “liars,” “incarnations of Satan,” and “the eternal maggot in the body of nations.” He claims they corrupt art, politics, and morality itself. He warns that they deliberately infiltrate press, education, and finance in order to poison the soul of the German people. In Hitler’s mind, the abstract forces of debt and monopoly were not abstract at all—they were embodied in a people, in families, in neighbors. He goes so far as to argue that racial mixing itself is a sin against creation, a form of pollution that will bring divine judgment.

This is the poisoned thread that runs through the book. Every time a legitimate critique begins, it ends in racial accusation. Every time he rails against the stock exchange, he blames Jews. Every time he attacks the press, he blames Jews. Every time he condemns cultural decay, he blames Jews. He does not allow his followers to hate the system without hating a people. That is the devil’s genius in Hitler’s rhetoric: he took the invisible chains of finance and painted them onto the bodies of men, women, and children, demanding they be destroyed.

It is important to see how effective this was. The German people were desperate for answers. They could not march on a stock exchange in New York or a bank in London, but they could turn against their Jewish neighbors in Berlin, Munich, and Frankfurt. Hitler gave them a target they could reach. He turned structural critique into personal hatred. And once that hatred was lit, it became a fire that burned across the continent, consuming millions.

This is why Mein Kampf is remembered as a book of hate, not a book of economics. Its economic critique is inseparable from its racial venom. And this is why any modern critique of banking or monopolies can so easily be smeared as “Nazi.” Because Hitler made sure that finance and Jewry were welded together in the minds of his followers. The truth was poisoned at its root.

For us, the lesson is sobering. We can look at monopolies, debt slavery, and international finance and see the corruption plainly. But if we allow ourselves to believe that an entire people is the problem, we have already fallen into the trap. Systems can be reformed. Laws can be changed. Institutions can be rebuilt. But when critique turns into racial war, reform becomes impossible. It becomes a crusade of blood, and that road leads only to ruin.

The elites could not have asked for a better outcome. Because by fusing truth with hate, Hitler guaranteed that truth itself would be tainted forever.

Part 5: Pragmatism and Betrayal – Hitler’s Elite Alliances

By the time Hitler rose from prison and began steering the Nazi Party toward national power, the radical anti-finance thunder of Gottfried Feder had already begun to fade. The movement that had promised to smash “interest slavery” and liberate the worker from banking chains started to cozy up to the very industrialists and financiers it once denounced. This is where the truth of Mein Kampf revealed itself as not a program for liberation, but a rhetorical weapon to gain power.

In the early 1920s, Feder’s ideas were central. The Nazi Party’s 25 Points pledged to abolish unearned income, nationalize trusts, break the power of loan-capital, and place profit-sharing in the hands of workers. These radical promises made the party attractive to those who despised both Marxism and monopoly. Small shopkeepers, artisans, and workers saw in Hitler a leader who might strike against both Wall Street and the Bolsheviks. But behind the scenes, Hitler already recognized that such radical economic measures would never win the support of Germany’s elites—the industrial magnates, the military aristocracy, and the landowners whose money and influence he needed.

So he began to make compromises. Feder was sidelined, his “interest slavery” rhetoric pushed to the margins. Instead of abolishing banks, Hitler courted them. Instead of breaking trusts, he promised to restore order and protect private property. Krupp, Thyssen, and I.G. Farben—giants of German industry—came to see Hitler not as a revolutionary threat but as a useful ally. They were more afraid of communism than of fascism, and Hitler assured them that under his rule, labor would be disciplined, markets stabilized, and Germany armed for expansion. The bankers who once seemed enemies now saw opportunity, as Hitler promised to rebuild the nation with massive loans, rearmament, and infrastructure projects like the autobahn.

This was the betrayal at the heart of his movement. The fiery rhetoric of Mein Kampf against bankers and monopolies never translated into policy. The Nazi regime dismantled unions, crushed workers’ movements, and built a war economy in alliance with corporate giants. Hitler had used the language of anti-finance revolution to gather a mass following, but when power drew near, he chose the elites. The very system he denounced in words, he embraced in deeds.

Yet—and here is the cruel twist—he did not abandon the venom. While the anti-bank measures quietly disappeared, the racial poison remained. Jews continued to be scapegoated as the embodiment of finance, corruption, and cultural decay, even as non-Jewish bankers and industrialists grew rich under the Nazi system. The hate endured, while the truth was compromised. The people were betrayed, but their fury was kept alive by directing it at their Jewish neighbors rather than the elites now standing behind Hitler’s throne.

This pattern is not unique to Germany. We see it repeated whenever leaders harness the energy of the people against global systems of finance and monopoly, only to redirect that anger into safe channels that leave the elites untouched. The rhetoric burns with revolutionary fire, but the result is alliance with the very powers once condemned. And always, there is a scapegoat—some group to absorb the rage so that the true architects of oppression remain hidden.

Thus, Part 5 shows us the pragmatic Hitler, the man who betrayed his own rhetoric when it was no longer useful. The man who traded anti-bank revolution for the embrace of banks, and who kept only the poison of racial hatred as a tool to control the masses. This is why his so-called “war on finance” was never about liberation. It was about power.

Part 6: Why Truth + Hate Works

The mixture that Hitler perfected in Mein Kampf—a dose of truth laced with venom—was not an accident. It was a calculated formula, and it is one of the most dangerous tools of propaganda ever forged. To understand why, we must first recognize how people in despair think. When a nation is broken, when families are starving, when dignity has been stripped away, the human soul craves not only justice but simplicity. Complex systems like global finance, stock markets, and monetary policy are invisible, intangible, and difficult to grasp. But a scapegoat—a face, a name, a people—that is simple. It satisfies the hunger for clarity.

This is why truth alone, though powerful, is often not enough to mobilize masses. Truth about debt and monopoly can be dry, abstract, and intellectual. It takes discipline and patience to understand how interest rates work, how capital flows across borders, or how stock exchanges manipulate economies. Most people do not have the time, resources, or education to trace these hidden structures. But if a leader can give them a villain they can see, touch, and hate, then outrage becomes effortless. Hitler understood this better than most.

In Mein Kampf, every time he described the corruption of finance, he added a human enemy. International capital was not merely parasitic; it was Jewish. The press was not merely manipulative; it was Jewish. The decadence of art was not merely cultural decline; it was Jewish. By attaching real grievances to a visible scapegoat, he ensured that the outrage of the people would always find a home. The complex was reduced to the simple, and the people embraced it, because it gave them both explanation and action. They could not march on the stock exchange in New York, but they could march on the synagogue in their own town.

This formula works because it speaks to the primal instincts of fear and anger. The truth component ensures credibility. The venom component ensures energy. Together, they create a weapon that can move entire nations. But the cost is catastrophic, because the people are led not toward reform but toward destruction. Systems remain untouched while neighbors are destroyed. Elites remain secure while minorities are scapegoated. And the original truth—the reality of monopolies and debt slavery—is buried beneath the rubble of hatred.

This is why truth mixed with hate is more dangerous than lies. A lie can be exposed. But a truth poisoned with hate cannot easily be separated. It traps the seeker, because the moment he embraces the truth, he also swallows the venom. This is why Hitler’s words continue to haunt us. He took genuine grievances—grievances that echo in our own time—and bound them forever to antisemitism. As a result, to speak against finance today is to risk being accused of echoing Hitler. The elites could not have devised a better shield for themselves.

This is also why intelligence agencies and psychological operators continue to use this tactic. If you want to discredit a movement, you do not suppress its truth. You attach extremism to it. You lace it with hatred. Then, when the world sees it, the truth is condemned along with the poison. This is the legacy of Mein Kampf. It is not just a book of hate; it is a manual in how to weaponize truth against itself.

And here is where the spiritual lesson breaks through. This is the oldest tactic of the enemy of our souls. Satan rarely offers pure lies. He mixes truth with corruption. He offered Eve the promise of wisdom, but laced it with rebellion. He offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world, but laced it with idolatry. And he offered the German people the truth about finance, but laced it with hatred of their neighbor. This is how darkness hides in light. And this is why discernment—separating wheat from tares—is the task of every generation.

Part 7: How Mein Kampf Became a Neo-Nazi Bible

When the Second World War ended and the world uncovered the horror of the camps, the mass graves, and the machinery of extermination, Hitler’s words could never again be read as just political theory. Mein Kampf was exposed as the seedbed of genocide. For many decades, governments tried to suppress it, ban its printing, and keep it from circulation. But as often happens with forbidden texts, the attempt at censorship gave it a new allure for those seeking rebellion. Slowly, it became less a political manual and more a badge of identity for the disaffected and the hateful.

In the postwar years, neo-Nazi movements in Germany, Britain, and America began to circulate Mein Kampf underground. By the 1960s and 70s, it had become a rallying text for white supremacists in the United States, including the Ku Klux Klan, who used it to inject Hitler’s racial venom into their own ideology. Skinhead gangs in the 1980s carried copies of it as a kind of talisman, not because they cared about the nuances of banking critique or Feder’s distinction between productive and rapacious capital, but because it gave them a “scripture” that sanctified their hatred. In these circles, Hitler was not seen as a failed leader who betrayed his own rhetoric to serve elites, but as a martyr for the white race, a prophet of racial purity.

The irony is staggering. The parts of Mein Kampf that critique monopolies, stock-exchange capital, and international finance—the parts that touched on real truth—were largely forgotten. What survived and spread was the poison. Hate groups stripped away the original context and clung to the racial epithets, the antisemitic tirades, and the glorification of blood and soil. The economic grievances that gave Hitler his following were discarded, but the venom was preserved, distilled, and spread like a contagion into every corner of extremist subculture.

This is why Mein Kampf became, in the public imagination, not a book about economics at all but the “white skinhead bible.” When the media or governments refer to it today, they do not think of its attacks on interest-slavery or monopoly capital. They think only of its antisemitism, its racial mythology, and the way it inspired violence. In this way, the poison completely overshadowed the truth.

The elites benefitted doubly from this transformation. On the one hand, Hitler’s fusion of truth and hate gave them a perfect historical smear: anyone who raised questions about global banking could now be tarred with the accusation of Nazism. On the other hand, extremist groups that waved Hitler’s words like a flag made it even easier for elites to discredit populist dissent. Instead of reform, what the world saw was a spectacle of hate. And so the truth about finance was buried again, this time under the boots and shaved heads of men who thought Hitler’s book gave them purpose.

Here lies another spiritual lesson. When truth is contaminated, it does not simply vanish—it mutates. It becomes a counterfeit scripture for those already lost in hatred. What could have been an honest movement against financial corruption was twisted into a racial cult. And even now, when young men stumble across Mein Kampf online, it is rarely the critique of finance that grips them. It is the poison, the intoxicating lie that they are chosen and others are corruptors. Thus, Hitler’s words live on, not as liberation, but as chains for another generation.

Part 8: The Elites Benefit From the Poison

Here is the cruel twist. The very elites that Hitler claimed to fight ended up profiting from the poison he mixed into the truth. Because once he tied economic critique to racial hatred, the entire field of opposition was compromised. Anyone who dared to speak against central banks, debt slavery, or monopolies could be dismissed with a single word: “Nazi.” The truth became untouchable because it had been welded to hate.

This is one of the most effective shields the global order has ever had. Consider it: a politician who raises concerns about Wall Street speculation is accused of flirting with fascist ideas. An activist who condemns the international banking system is smeared as antisemitic. A movement that questions global monopolies is tarred with the brush of Hitler. And why? Because Hitler made sure that all these critiques were forever associated with his racial theology. The elites could not have scripted it better themselves.

And indeed, many of them did benefit directly from his betrayal. Once in power, Hitler abandoned Feder’s radical program. He preserved the banks, he partnered with industrial giants like Krupp and I.G. Farben, and he used the very instruments of finance he once condemned to fuel his war machine. The bankers he railed against became his collaborators, and in turn they became richer than ever. Even international financiers outside Germany profited from loans, from war production, and from the economic chaos that followed. Hitler’s words struck at finance, but his deeds strengthened it.

The result was perfect for the elite: the masses were whipped into a frenzy, but their rage was directed at scapegoats instead of systems. Jews were destroyed, while bankers—many of them not Jewish at all—remained in their palaces. Monopolies grew stronger, not weaker. And when the war ended, the world emerged into a financial order more centralized than before, one in which the very institutions Hitler claimed to hate gained even more dominance.

This pattern is not unique to Hitler’s Germany. It is the same pattern we see in modern controlled opposition. Truth is not suppressed—it is contaminated. Movements are not silenced—they are steered into extremes that discredit them. The moment a populist movement mixes its critique with hatred or violence, it becomes safe for the elites. They can point to it, condemn it, and in the process shield themselves from the truth it once carried. The poisoned truth is more useful to them than silence ever could be.

This is why Mein Kampf still functions as a weapon today. Not because people are reading its economic passages, but because its very existence gives elites a trump card. The moment you mention global finance, they conjure Hitler. The moment you speak of monopoly power, they accuse you of fascist rhetoric. Hitler handed them this tool by lacing truth with venom. And nearly a century later, they are still using it.

The lesson here is stark: the elites do not need to erase the truth if they can corrupt it. They do not need to silence opposition if they can make it self-destruct. Hitler’s book was their greatest gift, because it turned legitimate critique into a curse word. And that is why the global order, far from being shaken by Hitler’s war, emerged stronger in its aftermath.

Part 9: A Clean Opposition – Systems, Not Souls

If the great danger of Mein Kampf was that it tied truth to hatred, then the task before us is to reclaim the truth without the poison. That means building an opposition that strikes at systems, not souls. For the problem of debt slavery, monopoly, and central banking is not a problem of blood or race. It is a problem of Mammon—of men and women, of every race and nation, who bow to the god of money and use it to enslave others.

A clean opposition begins by naming the system for what it is. When banks are allowed to conjure money from nothing and bind nations in chains of debt, that is not the fault of a people—it is the fault of an institution. When monopolies grow so large they can destroy entire communities with the flick of a pen, that is not the fault of bloodlines—it is the fault of laws that protect greed. When speculation on the stock market robs workers of their pensions and homes, it is not because of a culture—it is because of corruption. Systems can be exposed, policies can be reformed, and laws can be changed. But none of this requires hatred.

This is where discernment becomes vital. Hitler’s poison worked because he gave people a visible scapegoat. But true reform refuses scapegoats. It insists on tracing corruption back to its structures, contracts, and laws. It insists on naming sin where it is—in greed, in usury, in secrecy—not in the accidents of race or birth. It fights Mammon, not mankind.

What does this look like in practice? It looks like demanding transparency in central banking, so that no unelected cabal controls the lifeblood of money. It looks like breaking monopolies through antitrust enforcement, so that no corporation is too big to fail. It looks like offering alternatives—public banks, community credit, cooperative ownership—that return power to the people. It looks like teaching our children that the love of money, not the identity of our neighbor, is the root of this evil.

Above all, it looks like refusing to let elites use Hitler’s poison as a shield. When they say, “To critique the banks is to be a Nazi,” we answer, “No. To critique the banks is to honor justice. To scapegoat a people is to betray it.” We separate truth from venom, wheat from tares, so that reform can proceed without the curse of hatred.

This is not merely a political task—it is a spiritual one. Because the enemy of our souls always seeks to corrupt truth with lies. He does it to keep us from using truth as a weapon of light. The way we defeat him is by refusing to let truth be captured. We proclaim it clean, we wield it with love, and we direct it at systems, not souls.

And in this way, we redeem what Hitler tried to destroy. We show that the critique of monopoly, debt, and finance does not belong to him. It belongs to the people, to those who love justice, and ultimately to God Himself, who declares woe upon those who grind the faces of the poor. The task is not to abandon the truth because it was poisoned, but to cleanse it and wield it rightly. That is the calling of a clean opposition.

Part 10: The Playbook Repeated – From Hitler to Tavistock

The tactic Hitler used—mixing truth with poison—is not buried in the past. It has been refined, repackaged, and deployed again and again in the modern age. What Mein Kampf did to the critique of finance in the 1920s is exactly what Tavistock and intelligence networks do to grassroots movements today. They know that raw truth can be dangerous if it grows unchecked. They also know that lies alone cannot move the masses. So they lace truth with extremism, hatred, or absurdity until the whole movement self-destructs.

Consider how controlled opposition works. A movement begins with genuine grievances: anger at monopolies, distrust of government secrecy, opposition to foreign wars. These grievances are real and resonate with the people. But then the movement is hijacked. Leaders appear—often manufactured or funded quietly—who inject racism, wild conspiracy, or calls for violence. The moment this happens, the movement is marked. The media points to it, condemns it, and the elites breathe easier. The truth at the heart of the movement is now toxic. Anyone who raises it will be accused of being part of the discredited group.

This is the same formula Hitler used. He began with real economic truths, then poisoned them with racial venom. The people rallied, the elites co-opted, and in the end the truth itself was rendered untouchable. Tavistock and its imitators use the same psychological sleight of hand. They let the people glimpse a fragment of truth, then twist it into a grotesque caricature so that the truth is buried with the lie.

Look at how this plays out in our time. The Q movement began by exposing the reality of corruption, trafficking, and elite networks of power—truths that no honest man can deny. But the movement was quickly flooded with theatrical prophecies, failed predictions, and outlandish claims. Now, to mention elite trafficking is to risk being dismissed as a “QAnon believer.” The truth was buried beneath the absurd. The Groypers, too, present themselves as anti-globalist, anti-monopoly, and against the lies of media—but their rhetoric is laced with misogyny, extremism, and the cult of personality. Once again, truth has been tainted so that it can be mocked.

This is the Hitler playbook, updated for the modern era. And Tavistock, with its long history of psychological operations, knows exactly what it is doing. They weaponize the mechanism of “truth + poison” because it works. It divides the people, it discredits opposition, and it leaves the elites stronger than before.

The lesson of Part 10 is simple but sobering. We must expect this playbook to be used in every generation. When a movement arises that speaks truth about the global order, watch for the poison. Watch for the injection of hate, the promotion of absurdity, the temptation to violence. These are the fingerprints of the enemy. And if we fall for it, we will find ourselves where Germany found itself in the 1930s: holding a poisoned truth that leads not to freedom, but to ruin.

But if we resist, if we separate the wheat from the tares, then the truth can live cleanly, brightly, and powerfully. It can expose the system without being chained to hate. It can shine light without giving darkness a foothold. That is the only way to break the playbook of Tavistock, and it is the only way to ensure that Hitler’s curse does not repeat itself in our time.

Conclusion

The story we have traced tonight is a warning written in blood: a man who began by naming real wounds—the chains of debt, the strangling power of monopolies, the humiliation of a defeated people—chose to cure those wounds with poison. Adolf Hitler took truths that could have been harnessed for justice and fused them with racial hatred until the truth itself became radioactive. That corruption did not end with 1945; it mutated and spread. In our own time, figures like Nick Fuentes and the loose “Groyper” movement openly praise Hitler and draw on Nazi language and symbols to crown their politics, and those networks repeatedly recycle passages, slogans, and imagery from Mein Kampf to legitimize antisemitic, nativist, and violent ideas.

This is not incidental. When modern actors quote Hitler or weaponize his phrases they are doing exactly what he did: they take fragments of truth about global power and drape them in a racial theology so that the critique cannot stand on its own. That tactic makes reformers’ work harder and gives the elites a ready-made smear: raise the problem of finance and you risk being associated with the very hatred that turned truth into a crime. The living heirs of that tactic—the Groypers, Fuentes, and similar movements—use Mein Kampf and Nazi rhetoric not to clarify problems but to obscure them with violence and scapegoating, ensuring attention falls on spectacle rather than structural remedy.

So what must we do as people of conscience and as a movement committed to fighting the new world order without falling into its traps? We must reclaim the critique and cleanse it. We must speak plainly about debt, about the monopolies that crush neighborhoods, about the law and contract structures that allow predatory finance to grow—but we must never name an entire people as the enemy. We must expose institutions and demand transparent remedies: stronger antitrust enforcement, public-banking alternatives, debt relief, and rules that make markets serve human life rather than devour it. At the same time, we must call out and reject those who borrow Hitler’s language to justify hatred; when people like Fuentes or the Groypers quote Mein Kampf, we must refuse the framing and refuse to let their venom define the movement for justice.

Finally, this is a pastoral charge. The enemy’s craft is old—he mixes light with darkness to blind the faithful. Our work must be different: rigorous, patient, and merciful. We must teach the difference between systems and souls, politics and people, reformation and revenge. We must not throw away truth because it was once defiled; we must purify it with law, with love, and with unflinching moral clarity. When we do, we rob the elites of the smear they have long relied on, and we offer the world a path to real justice that does not demand the blood of the innocent. 

Bibliography

Primary Sources

– Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf. Original Landsberg Prison Writings. English editions: Murphy translation (1925), Mannheim translation (1939), and modern reprints. Files consulted: Mein Kampf: The Original, Accurate, and Complete English(HijezGlobal Press, 2017) and Mein Kampf (unattributed English edition, n.d.).
– Gottfried Feder. Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery. Munich, 1919.
– National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The 25-Point Program, announced February 1920.

Secondary Sources

– Ian Kershaw. Hitler: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008.
– Richard J. Evans. The Coming of the Third Reich. New York: Penguin, 2003.
– Richard J. Evans. The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin, 2005.
– Richard J. Evans. The Third Reich at War. New York: Penguin, 2008.
– Peter Longerich. Hitler: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
– Claudia Koonz. The Nazi Conscience. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2003.
– Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Modern Movements

– Southern Poverty Law Center. Hatewatch Reports on Nick Fuentes and the Groypers. Montgomery, AL.
– Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Nick Fuentes and the “Groyper Army.” ADL Center on Extremism, 2020.
– Cas Mudde. The Far Right Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019.
– Cynthia Miller-Idriss. Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right. Princeton University Press, 2020.

Endnotes

1. Hitler, Mein Kampf, HijezGlobal Press edition, pp. 42–46, 134, 162, 184, 310. Antisemitic descriptions of Jews as “parasites,” “incarnation of Satan,” and warnings against racial mixing.
2. Hitler, Mein Kampf, Murphy translation, vol. I, chap. 8. Discussion of Gottfried Feder’s lecture on interest slavery as the decisive influence on Hitler’s economic thinking.
3. Gottfried Feder, Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery (1919). See especially sections 1–3 on the separation of productive and loan capital.
4. NSDAP, The 25-Point Program (1920), points 11–18. Abolition of unearned income, breaking of interest slavery, nationalization of trusts.
5. Kershaw, Hitler: A Biography, ch. 2–3. Analysis of Hitler’s Vienna years and the adoption of antisemitism into his worldview.
6. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich, ch. 4. The appeal of Nazi anti-capitalist rhetoric in the Weimar era.
7. Evans, The Third Reich in Power, pp. 50–60. The marginalization of Feder and Hitler’s accommodation with German industrial elites.
8. Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, ch. 5. How antisemitism was fused with notions of moral duty in Nazi ideology.
9. Longerich, Hitler: A Life, ch. 8. On Hitler’s betrayal of early anti-capitalist promises and alliances with German industry.
10. SPLC, Nick Fuentes and the Groypers (2020). Documentation of Fuentes quoting and referencing Hitler, Mein Kampf, and Nazi ideology in speeches and livestreams.
11. ADL, Nick Fuentes and the “Groyper Army” (2020). Analysis of the movement’s tactics, including use of Hitler quotations and antisemitic rhetoric.
12. Miller-Idriss, Hate in the Homeland, ch. 6–7. The use of Nazi texts as identity markers in youth radicalization.
13. Mudde, The Far Right Today, pp. 145–150. The adaptation of Nazi rhetoric in contemporary American far-right circles.
14. Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, ch. 12. Hitler’s manipulation of left-right categories to position Nazism as beyond ideology.