“Research must remain free and unfettered by any State restriction. The facts, which it establishes represent Truth, and Truth is never evil. It is the duty of the State to support and further the efforts of research in every way, even when its activities hold no promise of immediate, or even early, advantage from the material or economic point of view. It may well be that its results will be of value, or indeed will represent tremendous progress, only to the generation of the future.” ~Adolf Hitler, Table Talk
That quote, by its very existence, pretty much makes the point of this essay. The man deemed to have been the worst human of all time, was more open and friendly towards the issue of research, historical or otherwise, than his vanquishers have permitted be allowed concerning him. This distortion is not merely retrospective. The powers that be, High Finance in London and New York, sensed from the start that Adolf Hitler was not just another autocrat with whom they could stage a war or two and then rake in the results of carefully controlled financial bets. Thus, the distortion started right when Hitler first started to make the news and kicked into full steam when he was elected into office.
George Orwell’s take on Mein Kampf
A case study of this distortion can be seen in the form of George Orwell’s review of the English translation of Mein Kampf.  Orwell was passionately against tyranny, yet as with so many others, he was too shocked by Hitler’s radicalism to understand it and demonstrated some epistemic arrogance, both of which are common when taking the popular view of Hitler. For instance, Orwell mentions almost right away, “the obvious intention of the translator’s preface and notes is to tone down the book’s ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible.” However, at the start of the next column he states that the writing of the book in question is “clumsy.” A very exemplary contradiction, which demonstrates how Hitler has been treated: he is whatever the mainstream historian needs him to be in a given moment – monster, fool, or evil genius – even within the span of one short essay. Additionally, Mein Kampf is hardly ferocious, it’s a long train of thought dictation that was typed out and this was before Hitler had achieved his now famous levels of speech mastery. Thus, it is closer to clumsy than ferocious, though really it’s just one man’s worldview at one point in time, and written out as to appeal to a wide voting demographic. Things get repeated and over-explained more than once, yet it’s still more bearable in its 640 pages than 18 months of mudslinging of a typical presidential election campaign.
Orwell than states that “both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.” They did agree to that, however that doesn’t make it true and only shows the aforementioned epistemic arrogance – they thought that they knew, they assumed after making some comfortable generalizations. This is then reinforced by Orwell’s claim that internal evidence from the text of Mein Kampf gives proof that Hitler has “rigidity of his mind, the way in which his worldview doesn’t develop” thereby making Hitler seemingly a conservative, especially when he later states, “he [Hitler] was financed by the heavy industrialists, who saw him as the main who would smash the Socialists and Communists.” What’s wrong with that assertion? The fact that Hitler was a radical Socialist, thus he challenged the rules of mainstream Socialism brought about by Marx (who advocated class warfare and a dictatorship of the proletariat) as much as he stood up to his own state’s establishment. In the end, Hitler enacted a wide-ranging revolution that united German citizens of various classes, thus creating a folk. Rich industrialists were still Germans, thus Hitler valued their potential loyalty and when he got it, he made sure they could continue their trades, albeit in a new context. Marx and Trotsky would have just killed them, yet they remain the “people’s heroes” of the mainstream Left.
Lastly, Hitler eventually wanted Mein Kampf pulled from wide circulation as he felt it was archaic and better placed in a library at that point. To this effect, even before attaining power, he compiled many of his speeches into Zweites Buch, which updates many things from Mein Kampf and there is further evolution of thought in Hitler’s Table Talk, however that wasn’t available in 1940. Zweites Buch wasn’t either, though the speeches it is based on were available to be heard and they received press coverage, yet it looks like Orwell missed them. Ironically, this means he is treating Hitler’s first book with the same dogged and dogmatic approach as is typical of neo-Nazis. Epistemic arrogance – being sure that you know more than you actually do – par exellence.
It only gets worse when Orwell proclaims that what Hitler “envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of “living room” (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder.” Operation Barbarossa, the Axis attack on the USSR, never had a final goal of anywhere near Afghanistan, and even the vaguely and ominously presented Generalplanost was also never claimed to have such a goal. 
Finally, Orwell claims, “Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.” Given the amount of sensational information available, many would be quick to take this at face value. Many web pages with Orwell’s article contain the quote and some frame it as an apt paraphrase. Hitler would have certainly meant the first, struggle, given that Germany was in dire straits when he took office, yet Orwell couldn’t resist the typical morbid spin that’s pinned onto any picture of Hitler. About two months after this Mein Kampf review, it would be Winston Churchill who would much more accurately live up to Orwell’s proclamation when he said “I have nothing to offer, but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” on May 13, 1940.
The rest of the two-column article is much in the same vein. Some would excuse it as “just wartime propaganda” and a morale booster the side producing it, which could be seen as fair, however only if the other monstrous exaggerations about Hitler and the Axis are also seen (finally) as just that.
Court History – An Old Trend
Orwell’s short article represents a broader trend in British and Western historiography, one where sensational trends are normalized and then accepted at face value. One of the most famous examples of court history is William Shakespeare’s Richard III, which was written to appease the then ruling dynasty that had won a bitter civil war before ascending to power. This was the culmination of a trend that began shortly after the king’s death and the famous Bard “was merely completing, with typical embellishment, a job already started by artists and historians – immortalising Richard III as a crookback Machiavel and implicitly championing his vanquisher, Henry VII, as founder of a heroic new dynasty: the Tudors.” However, historians who wanted a comfortable place under the new dynasts wasted no time and “portrayed Richard as an anti-Christ: born with fully grown teeth and hair, as well as ‘uneven shoulders, the right higher [than] the left.’” For the sake of sensationalism, King Richard III’s abnormal shoulder was subsequently switched to the left “presumably to play up Richard’s sinister side (sinister being Latin for left).” This appearance “would thereafter become the norm in pictures of him, Richard has uneven shoulders, villainously thin lips and malevolently narrow eyes.”
Despite this sensationalism on page and stage, King Richard III’s more objective descriptions, in documents among others, show him to be “a brave and astute military leader, who also introduced the nation’s first form of legal aid”  and that “King Richard III was more of a handsome ‘surf dude’ than a ‘hideous misfit.’” Many stage productions have starred actors with large noses, performing with an intentionally poor posture, and relishing his orders to have people murdered or sent to the infamous Tower of London.
Yet, “there was nothing sinister in this – the Tower had yet to acquire its gruesome reputation and it was traditionally used by English monarchs prior to their coronations. The Woodvilles had never been popular and Richard’s actions seem to have been met with approval by other members of the late king’s household notably the Duke of Buckingham, who’d helped him at Stony Stratford, and Edward IV’s old friend William Hastings. Despite the claims of later Tudor writers, there’s no evidence that Richard’s actions up to this point were part of a plot to seize the throne and the preparations for Edward’s coronation went ahead as normal. But that would soon change.”  And history has shown how it changed. A place with a clear function, that changed notably overtime, has been re-imagined into a death trap of a megalomaniac to please the political needs of the establishment.
Interestingly, author Jane Austen expressed her support for revisionism about Richard III and wrote, “The character of the prince has been in general very severely treated by historians, but as he was York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a very respectable man.” She refused to accept the idea that Richard III killed his nephews. 
Court History – Still Relevant
“We apply to the behavior of our own governments a generosity of interpretation which we do not extend to others. People regard Hitler as wicked; and then find proofs of his wickedness in evidence, which they would not use against others. Why do they apply this double standard? Only because they assume Hitler’s wickedness in the first place.” ~A.J.P Taylor, Origins of the Second World War
Much like Richard III in his time (though mostly after), Adolf Hitler has been imagined, re-imagined, and revised every which way to make him into the model evil that the post-WW2 establishment desires. George Orwell’s review of Mein Kampf is at the beginning of that still relevant trend. Orwell resorts to rather simplistic accusations of calling Hitler mad and vicious, while missing the greater picture of how the NSDAP transformed life in a chaotic and broken Germany. This last part cannot all be his fault, as the British press and government tightly controlled information about Germany. They point at Goebbels’s propaganda yet miss their own. The above A.J.P. Taylor quote really applies to all members of the NSDAP, not just Hitler. Additionally, Goebbels spent most of his time on domestic enemies and only published crude portrayals of Churchill (and others) as reactions to incidents. For instance after a Jewish drifter with little to know apparent connections or social standing, gunned down a German diplomat and than magically found himself with a defense lawyer, Goebbels suspected a greater plot, thus published a piece in the NSDAP newspaper calling several British politicians, including Churchill, “Jewish murderers.” 
Yet, as early as 1933, right after the NSDAP was elected into office, former German Chancellor Brüning (who was not and never became an NSDAP member) wrote that, “foreign correspondents reported that the River Spree was covered with the corpses of murdered Jews.” Yet this was an obvious (and absurd) exaggeration as Brüning also noted that, “At that time, he pointed out, hardly any Jews had suffered except for the leaders of the Communist Party.”  Despite not being an ally of Hitler (more of a pragmatic collaborator), Brüning was outraged at these press lies that were making Germany’s situation difficult from abroad, despite the fact that the domestic situation was beginning to calm down at that time.
This press attack continued until 1945 and the propaganda lasts to this day. It’s even come full circle back to King Richard III due to the 1995 film version of Shakespeare’s play.
The House of York is represented as with comic book fascist aesthetic, while the House of Lancaster is shown with more traditional Anglo aesthetic. Thus, many English seem to be steadily retconning their own history so much that that now they’ve apparently “defeated the Nazis” well before “the Nazis” even existed.
A much smaller example of this is the “traditional” meal called “the ploughman’s lunch,” which is a pub meal usually consisting of bread, pickles, cheese, onion, and served with a beer. The truth is that it is nothing more than a marketing gimmick that was meant to increase the sales of cheese, yet by now the notion that it’s an old part of English culture is taken as self-evident by many. There is a British film from 1983 called The Ploughman’s Lunch that actually criticizes this, since it uses the title to convey a theme of “the way countries and people re-write their own history to suit the needs of the present.”  The historiography surrounding King Richard III and Adolf Hitler most definitely fall into this category.
Hitler, even more so than Richard III, has been promoted as the standard for “evil psycho” so much so that we get movie quotes like this in the 1993 film The Last Action Hero:
Benedict (the film’s satirical villain):
“Since you are about to die anyway, I may as well tell you the entire plot. Think of villains, Jack. You want Dracula? Dra-cool-la? Hang on.”
[takes out the magic ticket that can summon movie characters]
“I’ll fetch him. Dracula, huh? I can get King Kong! We’ll have a nightmare with Freddy Krueger, have a surprise party for Adolf Hitler, Hannibal Lecter can do the catering, and then we’ll have a christening for Rosemary’s Baby! All I have to do is snap my fingers and they’ll be here. They’re lining up to get here and do you know why, Jack? Should I tell you why? Hmm? Because here, in this world, the bad guys can win!”
Note that Hitler is the only historical personality mentioned and all others are fictional. Interestingly, this is entirely what Hitler’s image has been reduced to and its current mainstream worth is just as much: an over-the-top fictional villain. Not enough people bother to understand him and take him in context.
Jewish filmmaker Claude Lanzmann even stated that trying to understand Hitler would be an obscenity and further stated in an interview with Le Monde on June 12, 1997 that “not understanding has been my iron law.”  Lanzmann’s over 8-hour film, simply titled Shoah, made no use of archival materials, just face-to-face interviews (sometimes with a hidden camera), and digging into people’s memories and emotions thus, crafting something more along the lines of a dark fairy tale, oddly one that perfectly fits into the Jewish religion, thereby making it an “aggadah” (a Jewish-told story that is recognized as Jewish canon) and not a research piece. Lanzmann proudly admitted that Shoah contains “not one second of archival material.”  And so, just as Judeo-Christian traditionalism before it, this “documentary’s” information is taken as sacred truth, all else is heresy. What followed was everything from Schindler’s List to the Wolfenstein series, all taken at face value.
The retrospective distortion and narrative discipline surrounding traditional Western WW2 mythos has been frighteningly impressive. People are seemingly unaware of just how many times the story has actually been reverse engineered due to new revelations, yet still presented as self-evident truth.
This is a form of gas-lighting and it’s clearly a part of Zionist doctrine and narrative discipline. They recreate the past and then act as if nothing’s ever changed. Orwell also addressed this, albeit after the war, in the anti-Soviet book 1984 with the following passage: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” The Potemkin villages, architectural follies, and highly stylized presentations at camp museums such as Auschwitz and Majdanek are all part of this phenomenon.
Mainstream and politically correct historiography focus only through this artificial prism and thus only ever see atrocity, repression, resistance, dissent, and never the genuine social situation and considerably raised living standards brought about by the NSDAP, the diplomatic efforts by Hitler to secure allies, and the struggle against Materialism and Consumerism, Communism and Capitalism.
George Orwell would be terrified of the mythos he participated in creating if he knew just was he involved in at the time of his Mein Kampf review.
The Rotten Root of the Western Mind
Numbers 33-52 – Israel’s viciousness explained
“Drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places.”
Deuteronomy 7-5 – Israel’s viciousness further explained
“This is what you are to do them: Break down their altar, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.”
Deuteronomy 7-6 – the “chosen people” idea
“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”
Deuteronomy 9-14 – Only Islam has violent fanatics?
“Let me alone, so that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven.”
Deuteronomy 20-16 – Zionist plan for the Middle East
“For in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes.”
A religion that bases itself around such ideas cannot be regarded as peaceful. While Christianity and Islam also embrace, to a degree, the same book, for those religions it is only a part – a historically contested one, at that – of their canon. People like the Cathars have interpreted Christianity solely around the charismatic personality of Jesus, as did Thomas Jefferson with The Jefferson Bible . Yet, these efforts were regarded as heresy and killed off (in spirit of the above quotes) or forgotten. For all the fuss about Islam, less than one percent of Muslims are supporters of fanatical interpretations of their faith, as with Christians. With over a billion believing members (of all stripes) that 1% is numerically enough people to give the sensationalism-seeking media a lot of fuel.
The problem is that, per capita a great number of Jews are openly supportive, defensive about, or willfully ignorant (thereby tacitly complicit) in the violence that their religion breeds and spreads. Ku Klux Klan Christians members and ISIS Islamist fighters (perfectly capturing the spirit of the Old Book) are violent, though mostly honest about their actions and intentions.
Fanatical Jews are not. They hold professorships, positions in finance and government, the media, and the whole swath of influential fields. Thus, with a religion that views and openly professes its members to be an exclusive inner-circle to the deity that created everything, it is no surprise they interpret everything and continually act through that prism. One dead Palestinian (or any-non Jew) is almost always brushed off as “at the wrong place at the wrong time” or “a possible terrorist” while a dead Jew is always a “victim of ever present anti-Semitism and hate.”
Judaism is the ultimate example of “us vs. them.” The entire religion is built around this premise. And so, the Jewish religion always needs an Amalek to compare goyim to. The Amalekites were a tribe massacred by the Ancient Hebrews (according to their canon) and this is seen as a good thing, since YHWH commanded the Hebrews to do it.
“Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!”
That story, Jewish religious canon, has been taken at the word of rabbis and priests and imams for centuries. One could argue that it is one of the corner stones of what is commonly dubbed “Western Civilization.” The modern American notion of rooting for the underdog can even be seen as a distant echo of this and other originally Jewish stories, such as David and Goliath. Yet modern research and rationalism (often dubbed “hate speech”) has largely disproven this, or rather proven it to be simply a story. There is not only no historical veracity for the Book of Exodus, there is even substantial reason to believe that labor in Ancient Egypt  was far different from the toils of slavery typically presented. 
Think about it: the Tanakh, along with all the clerics who support it and claim it to be a foundational element of the modern word are totally lying. This is far beyond things such as fan-based cosplay (really a form of religion) that seemingly takes story characters too seriously. No one has launched a war in the name of Samus Aran or Aragorn, however in the name of the Covenant with YHWH millions have perished throughout history and continue to do so today. Those claiming to be the moral base of Western Civilization are rotten and so is their biggest creation.
The echoes of fallacy ring abundantly in Jewish tribal mythology.
Daniel 3:19-23 – the original “Holocaust” tale?
“Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.”
If that bears any resemblance to any “Holocaust” stories you may have heard before, it’s no coincidence. The echoes of fallacy ring abundant in Judaism. One over-the-top and martyr-obsessed story follows another and each time shock value covers up the stupid. These days, many Jews are conceding that those morbid old stories are just stories and legends, yet the core of Judaism remains the same and it still needs an Amalek, a Pharoah, a Nebuchadnezzar, a Hitler – a singular image to satisfy its masochistic need for the endless suffering of their ancestors that has given Jews their purpose since the inception of their cult. These tales are the “aggadahs” (Jewish stories that are recognized as Jewish canon) and provide a great deal of slithery maneuverability for the ever evolving and self-serving Jewish tribal mythology.
“They presume to be God’s only people, to condemn all the world, and they expect that their arrogance and boasting will please God, that he should repay them with a Messiah of their own choosing and prescription.” ~Martin Luther, On the Jews & Their Lies
Hitler is the latest incarnation of Amalek; therefore any and every bit of information about him, which conflicts with the YHWH cult’s purpose is to be effaced from record and replaced with the lurid and false. Oddly, the Jews accuse Amalek (in all of his incarnations) of trying to do just that and thus the villains in their tales often act like this:
Xerxes (in a very fictionalized rendition):
There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!
Zionist Correctness and censorship seem to be on the way of perfectly resembling their own version of the ultimate villain! Yet, in the 300, the Persian Empire is said to consist “of a thousand nations” (with one absolute monarch) and it is attacking a small, ethnic enclave – this rings “Israeli fantasy” more than anything and the sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire even had an Israeli director. It’s no coincidence that Iran, Israel’s biggest geopolitical rival, was depicted with Israeli and Western approval as so vicious. Just imagine is Iran released a fictionalized account of the past, however one that favor’s Iran’s image at the expense of Israel: the Zionist outcry would be deafening, “it’s not free speech, it’s hate speech,” etc.
Rays of Hope – Old & New
Despite all of Western Civilization’s retrospective distortion & narrative discipline about Hitler, Islam, and everything “non-Western,” one can find within that mass many positive things that could very well lead to the reformation of or total revolution within Western Civilization. For example, little do most people know, the image of Ancient Israel (as depicted in Jewish canon) was reviled in the early United States:
“Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would distinguish any nation of people by the name of His chosen people, we must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were; a people who, corrupted by and copying after such monsters and impostors as Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Samuel and David, had distinguished themselves above all others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wickedness. If we will not stubbornly shut our eyes and steel our hearts, it is impossible not to see, in spite of all that long-established superstition imposes upon the mind, that the flattering appellation of His chosen people is no other than a lie which the priests and leaders of the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of their own characters, and which Christian priests, sometimes as corrupt and often as cruel, have professed to believe.” ~Thomas Paine, US Founder, in The Age of Reason
This distrust and outright disgust with the Jewish religion and its related concepts should have become the norm for the new and transforming American culture. The culture and ideas to originally develop in the Americas were also ones in philosophical opposition to the Demiurge YHWH of the Jews. As noted above, Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the Bible by putting together just the story of Jesus and his parables.  Another good example of this can be seen in Chief Seattle’s words to the Federal Government, which requested permission to buy some of the Chief’s people’s lands. 
“Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine!”
“The white man’s God cannot love our people or He would protect them.”
“The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning sun. However, your proposition seems fair and I think that my people will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them. Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense darkness.”
“Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see.”
Joseph Campbell, in his book, The Power of Myth , presents an idealized version of Chief Seattle’s words – ones that more perfectly fit his over all message – yet their underlying theme is strikingly similar. The Chief points out the that the “white man’s” god is exclusive and not universal, while Campbell points out the hypocrisy intrinsic to the Tanakh or Old Testament.
“The Ten Commandments say, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Then the next chapter says, ‘Go into Canaan and kill everybody in it.’ This is a bounded field. The myths of participation and love only pertain to the in-group, and the out-group is totally other. This is the sense of the word ‘gentile’ – the person is not of the same order.” ~Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth
Both of their descriptions (one tacit, the other direct) of YHWH, also imply a need for cooperation across conventional (e.g. tribal) boundaries, which is essentially folkism, a common future. This is in stark contrast to how Judeo-Christian-inspired colonialism treated the new peoples that it happened upon, seeing them as objects of exploitation instead the call for unity and cooperation, which is what Chief Seattle condemns and warns about. The Chief even announces that he still holds trust in, and thus potential cooperation with, European-Americans despite his people having suffered; again stark contrast to the Judaic nature of “war-cry in the struggle with other nations” as Schopenhauer put it. Similarly, Campbell, despite being raised in a traditional Catholic home, realizes the nature of that religion. He spends much of The Power of Myth discussing how universal heroic myths are and, in fact, should be seen, so as to unite across conventional lines.
“We need myths that will identify the individual not with his local group but with the planet.” – page 30
“Is the hero of a given state or people what we need today, when the whole planet should be our field of concern?” – page 155
“Today there is no out-group anymore on the planet. And the problem of modern religions is to have such compassion work for the whole of humanity.” – page 215
Campbell also goes so far as to say that the Founders of the USA “did not believe in the Fall” along with the fact that the motto “In God We Trust” doesn’t refer to “the god of the Bible”  (YHWH), rather a universal transcendence to which all people can connect, thus outright saying that the founding principles of the Unites States of America were Gnostic, not Judeo-Christian.
Not surprisingly, Campbell has been accused of “anti-Semitism” despite only criticizing the Jewish religion (and even that, rather indirectly), yet the Tribe always seek to nip in the bud anything that could threaten their hegemony of accepted ideas, aka Western Civilization. Thus, it is even less of a surprise that a work exalting a universal heroic myth for the new century, a myth across conventional lines of ethnicity (thus no room for a “chosen people”), was instantly targeted by those who would lose out from it. In fact, what has commonly been called “European anti-Semitism” with the likes of Luther, Goethe, Fichte, Schopenhauer, and others can be seen in Paine’s and Campbell’s words in their refusal to exalt the Tanakh/Old Testament and in fact call it outright vicious. Even more interesting is that ideas directly compatible with those thinkers and philosophers were present in the Americas and they were the norm before Western Traditionalists stamped them out.
Despite the insistent narrative discipline of America being Judeo-Christian – only the dominant and currently most corrupt faction is – there are other viewpoints that, in varying degrees, wean towards idealistic folkism, or ones that can be seen as stepping stones towards that ideal. These must be rallied to rebuild a new American Folk, one more along the lines of what Chief Seattle tacitly suggested and Campbell outright said.
We can start this by a less dogmatic and much more intuitive approach to the current foundations of morality and history. The big thing here is redefining who and what is good and who and what is bad. Given who owns the press, it is not difficult to figure out why we’re bashed over the head with “evil Hitler messages” on a regular and frequent basis.
Nevertheless, even in this mainstream morass there are some glowing embers worth noting. One of these is RHS Stolfi’s 2011 biography titled, Hitler: Beyond Evil & Tyranny, which is the first major work on Adolf Hitler to not hold pre-existing antipathy towards its monumental subject. AJP Taylor, as quote above, was the first to present this idea, however Stolfi has based his entire examination with this in mind, noting that, “the conventional wisdom fails us on both fronts. With stubborn uniformity, it presents Hitler as a one-sidedly shabby, wicked figure who coveted power, and it presents the historical situation as one in which a legally bedecked European status quo of 1919 had come under attack by a German leader with the qualities of an international criminal.” And also more succinctly with, “The point of such a critique is that the biographers feel compelled to take liberties with Hitler that are unheard of in virtually any other similarly important historical figure.” 
Basically, the entire Western, and largely also World, understanding of Hitler has been wrong and very obviously influenced by Judaism’s selective ethics and morality that are the rotten root of Western Civilization. “The hunt for Hitler has been for the wrong man in the wrong historical background” and with the wrong expectations. Hitler was against Western Civilization, or at the very least, at what it had become, therefore applying Western standards in judging and analyzing him can’t work. Hitler was outside of the corrupt Western power structures that his contemporaries – Roosevelt, Churchill, Lenin, DeGaulle, and others – were all an intrinsic part of. “It would be tempting to argue that Hitler had become dictator and, like all dictators in all times and places, had become subject to the influence of cabals and court favorites in making high political policy. Perhaps uniquely in history, Hitler escaped this universal condition. He was under the influence of no other man and cannot be said to have been constrained either by democratic constitution or Communist-style central committee.” 
This very obvious example of supreme individualism in Hitler is then used to denigrate him. “In a word, the biographers handle Hitler as if he should have been a well-educated lawyer, social scientist, or aristocrat bred for imperial leadership rather than the informally educated but intense, willful, imaginative artist and messianic personality that he was.” 
And as far as Americanism is concerned: “The writers in these established democracies and others like the United States denigrate Hitler for his lack of formal education, his rude family environment, and his exaggerated dreams of success. Ironically, these characteristics read like the semi-mythical “American dream” wherein the young man with limited formal education, rude background, and dreams of success triumphs.” And then we can examine Hitler’s implementation of a new – totally new – regime based on the ideas of idealistic nationalism and the folk community, which is also denounced as vicious and unfair, yet, as Stolfi rightfully points out (the rather obvious): “The Russian Revolution as directed by Lenin, notwithstanding, or perhaps as proven by, its final consolidation under Josef Stalin, stands as clumsy, brutal, and misdirected (i.e., at the wrong time and place, but nevertheless bloodily pushed through). Hitler intended a similarly fulsome revolution and has been interpreted as a one-dimensional crude and brutal propagandist, but his seizure of power stands as a monumental address to practical reality and historical continuity. And in contrast to the Communist revolution in Russia and the Communist attempts at revolution in Germany from 1918 through 1923, Hitler’s were virtually bloodless.” This is then compounded by the fact that in 1933 when Hitler finally entered the ranks of the German government, charisma and all, he would “proceed later in the year to seize power with the bloodless yet revolutionary synchronization of much of German affairs with the party.” 
Diving right into such a nuanced and much more realistic picture of Hitler, that commends his military service in WW1; his tastes and knowledge of art, opera, and architecture; his unusual, yet remarkable work discipline; as well as his general respectful attitude toward everyone may be a bit much for people who have been force fed the usual. Thus, as a soft starter to revisionism, the curious reader can watch the excellent episode on CorbettReport titled, History Is Written By The Winners.  This concerns the First World War, yet it goes well with the second section of this essay concerning the fact that court history is an old trend.
For those looking to dive into the deep end, I would recommend the excellent book, Lectures on the Holocaust – Controversial Issues Cross Examined by Germar Rudolf, which details the flaws in the way the Holocaust phenomenon is taught with its selective and highly subjective views akin to what is done with studies on Hitler.
“The fact is that Langbein, as a communist and a long-time Chairman of the Auschwitz Committee, played a central role in terms of Auschwitz propaganda not just during the war, but afterwards as well. It is also interesting that the Auschwitz Committee was first headquartered in Polish – i.e., Stalinist-ruled – Krakow: it was therefore clearly a Stalinist organization.” 
To be clear (and fair to them), the aforementioned researchers, the late R.H.S. Stolfi, James Corbett, and Germar Rudolf (despite the latter’s incarceration for his work) are not supporters of National Socialism. Nevertheless, all of their work challenges the rotten root of Western Civilization in much the way Hitler’s did and this only speaks to National Socialism’s universal nature, as opposed to tribal and/or cult exclusivity.
The issue with revisionism, and it’s always been the case throughout history, is that it negatively affects those in power and the masses do not perceive the good that they can get out of it. Thus, the problems it tries to address are largely unnoticed or misunderstood. And when it comes to addressing problems, be they historical, environmental, or traffic statistics, if there isn’t some catastrophic example it remains difficult to grab people’s attention. The problem with revisionism concerning the greatest personality of the 20th Century is that the problems stemming from his defeat are much of the fabric of the current world system – Communism and post-Communist regimes (cosmetic changes only) in much of the world, Zionism in the Eastern Mediterranean that serves as model for tribalists everywhere, the continued shadow hegemony of world finance – and thus never seen as having one root. The necks of the hydra are visible, while the body they share remains unseen. The greatest power of this hydra is silencing discussions on the fact that it is, in fact, a hydra and not a mishmash of random or maybe related serpents.
 From The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume 2 (1968)
 Inconvenient History, Three Aspects of the German Deportation of European Jews into the Occupied Eastern Territories, 1941-1944 – July 7, 2013
 The Telegraph, Richard III: Visions of a Villain? – Jan 20, 2013
 Daily Mail, King Richard III was not a grotesque hunchback but actually a handsome gentleman with a ‘surf dude’ vibe, expert says – Nov 21, 2018
 History Revealed, Richard III: Ruthless tyrant or maligned monarch? – May 2017
 History Revelead, 5 Facts about… Richard III – Feb 4, 2014
 David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, pg 293 (1994)
 BFI Screen Online: Ploughman’s Lunch The (1983)
 The Journal of Historical Review, “The Dictatorship of Imbecility” – Nov.-Dec. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 6), pages 8-10.
 Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible (1820)
 Exodus Debunked: Slave trade was not common in Ancient Egypt – (June 2, 2017)
 Reuters, Egypt tombs suggest pyramids not built by slaves – (January 11, 2010)
 Chief Seattle’s Treaty Oration (1854), translated & published in Seattle paper in 1887
 Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (1988)
 R.H.S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil & Tyranny (2011)
 CorbettReport, Episode 350 – History Is Written By The Winners (December 14, 2018)
 Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust – Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, pg 314 (2010, 2017)
 Radio Islam, Interview with General Otto-Ernst Remer with Al-Shaab in July of 1993