German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was an anti-“other race” racialism. It was a pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in every way. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was in his power not to have them. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the German families be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble idea. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves.
Understanding National Socialism – It’s foundation, what it really stood for, opposed, and why
National Socialism was a “Weltanschauung” or ‘world view’ which sought to combine and preserve the racial-ethnic-cultural-spiritual-linguistic solidarity amongst the German people as a unified nation “the Volk” which is intimately bound to it’s own soil. Hence ‘National’. But ‘Socialist’, as we shall see, was never to be confused with Marxist doctrine, but rather, referred to the true, original, ancient German socialism. Furthermore, National Socialism was Christian in nature and to its core, based upon principles of ‘Positive Christianity’ with a focus on the family and upon community morals, values, ethics, and standards, through true essentially ‘brotherly love in action and deeds’, not just philosophy, and also not in the spirit of liberal ‘egalitarianism’ and ‘internationalism’ or Communist universalism. It was about recreating a Germany for Germans, which put them and their needs above all else, with Germans in control, and with each committed to this, for their own interests, and their collective benefit. Hence, the words of the German anthem “Deutschland Ueber Alles”, was never about ‘expansionism’ into foreign territory, or an aggressive foreign policy, much less any desire to “take over the world”, but patriotic devotion to the land and the people “Das Volk”, with a desire, if possible, to re-unite the German tribes in a new German Empire. But NOT, however, at the high price of war which Hitler knew too well.
National Socialism was a ‘revolution’ which manifested itself in the wake of World War I and in response to the oppressive dictates of the Treaty of Versailles which had been imposed by the allies, resulting in loss of territory and population, and not long afterwards, an influx of oppressed and terrorized German refugees from the former German territories. It was also a response to the subsequent advent of the liberal-democratic, Marxist-Socialist inspired Weimar Republic, and all of the political, economic, social and cultural ills which befell Germany thereafter. International interference also led to deep internal political divisions, social chaos and disorder, cultural decay, the impoverishment of the masses to the benefit of the minority, as well as, a general state of powerlessness domestically, in terms of being able to affect change and stability. But also a state of powerlessness internationally, with loss of sovereignty and total inability to assert and protect its sovereignty in a hostile European environment. The world wide anti-Germanism which had started in the late 19th century and was exacerbated by war time atrocity propaganda also still abounded in the world.
This revolution began as a political party and truly grass roots movement, initially with a very small membership of 7 men, but it grew rapidly over 13 years in a very hostile, violence-filled political environment, influenced by foreign interests, and dominated by Bolshevists, threatening to turn Germany into a Soviet style state. The internal chaos and class struggles left the German people in a desperate state, and it only benefited the international interests, who profited from their misery and powerlessness, while eliminating competition, and furthermore, making Germany ripe for Bolshevik takeover. Average Germans, however, for the most part, were very aware of the realities of the genocide that had taken place in the Soviet Union, and the resulting tyrannical police state, and they wanted no part if it. Trade unions and other organizations had long been instituted and were under the influence and control of the Bolsheviks and were not serving the interests of the workers or the nation as a whole.
Following over a decade of political struggle with a steady growth and a rise in its popularity, combined with distrust and dissatisfaction with the alternatives, which had failed to change anything, National Socialism was finally mandated and realized from 1933 to 1945, as a sovereign national party system within the context of a new (Third) German Empire. Following the democratic national elections in November 1932, the NSDAP finally achieved a majority, and thus in 1933, the Party Leader (Fuehrer) Adolf Hitler was lawfully and duly appointed Chancellor with a mandate from the people, based upon a well publicized comprehensive plan to rectify the political, economic and social problems, promising “Bread and Work”, seeking a just a ‘just’ revision of the Versailles Treaty, while maintaining peaceful relations with her Germany’s neighbours.
Adolf Hitler instituted National Socialism as the “political doctrine of the national community” that is the “Volksgemeinschaft”, and NOT for the sake of personal power, goals or ambitions, but rather to represent and do the will of the people. This meant true “democracy” and can essentially be understood as “government of the people, by the people and for the people” in the American vernacular. The needs of average Germans were put first, ensuring their survival as a nation: a unique and sovereign people with a right to self-determination; able to sustain and preserve itself, and to thrive, free of foreign domination, unjust international dictates, and free threats to its existence, both foreign and domestic. Hitler was the Party Leader and the National Leader, hence: Der Fuehrer. But he did not set himself above the people, as a dictator, as the court historians and those with hidden agendas claim. He truly represented the people and their interests, and most importantly, he did not make promises which he could not deliver, and was not a hypocritical ‘politician’.
Adolf Hitler had a concrete plan of action which was well publicized and he carried through with it. He was effective, and the fruits of his labours, and those of the NSDAP in organizing the masses to help themselves were soon born, resulting in an ever increasing popularity, in proportion to their increased prosperity and quality of life. Thus, he was loved by the masses, as is evidenced in video footage of so many public gatherings, but of course, not by those with other agendas and selfish interests. There was no need for other parties with alternate views, doctrines, philosophies, principles, etc. They were happy and well served. The German people were once again in control of their own destiny, both individually and as nation. What could be more democratic than that? And why would those who call themselves “democrats” have any objection?
Most of the small nationalist groups agreed to merge with the NSDAP after the victory of the NSDAP in 1933. The visible expression of absorption of the different groups in the great popular movement was the presentation of the flags of the various national associations and volunteer corps in November 1933.
(Note: the German word for National Socialism is “Nationalsozialismus” and it was abbreviated as NS and not “Nazi”)
The basic ideas of National Socialism were pride in the common cultural history and heritage, a healthy shaping of individual personalities while engendering and nurturing a spirit of national altruism, as opposed to atomised liberal and libertarian ideas of “individualism” (which have their genesis in Freemasonry, and which the National Socialist government always opposed, and later banned).
Compare and Contrast:
National Socialism stood in stark contrast to Marxist-Socialism or Bolshevism which is based upon ‘class warfare’ and the destruction of individualism and social classes, making all equally poor, and subject to a supreme state authority, resulting in the lowest common denominator, without natural inherent rights, and only privileges at best, with the promise of benefits that are usually not forthcoming, or which are unsustainable, and not conducive to creating incentive. Instead, the motivating factor is fear of the ‘state power’ and the ‘authority of the party’ and it’s leadership, combined with harsh punishment for those who do not “go along to get along”, often arbitrary, with little or no protection from the whims and mechanisms of the totalitarian police state. The net product is “acquiescence” and not enthusiasm. Marxist-Socialism also provides no natural incentive for the protection of resources and the environment, lending itself instead to expansionism, and this, is no respecter of neighbouring states, nor other cultures. Furthermore, it is atheistic, without respect for the Creator, the individual, nor beliefs and values of any religious community.
National Socialism was about work and personal initiative, and taking responsibility, not only for oneself, merely for one’s own benefit, but also for the national community, as well as the environment (ie. the natural habitat and the society), and thereby, ensuring the survival, that is, the health and prosperity of the nation and the society as a whole entity, and not merely the ‘survival of the fittest’ and continuous prosperity of the already prosperous, solely to their own advantage. It required that people of all classes work together for their common and mutual benefit and interests. The role of the government was merely to facilitate this self-sustaining environment for all members of the nation in which all could live well and prosper, with demand and supply aimed primarily focused on the domestic market, on national, regional and local needs, while producing and consuming what was necessary at home. This meant that the nation had lesser dependence upon the outside world for trade and commerce, far was more independent within the world, less subject to global markets, corporate and global interests, and without need or incentive to expand, nor to coerce and threaten other nations.
The Freemasonic liberal ideals, by contrast, engender a “nation of individuals” with each going his own way, with little or no concern for the needs of that national community as a whole; the organic unit from which the individual was first derived and was nurtured, with only a theoretical notion of a trickle down effect to others. And underlying this, the assumption that those who do well, do so rightfully, and will occasionally give a little something back, thereby, legitimizing the power structure of the plutocrats or oligarchs, and the degree of power and influence which they, the few, maintain over the many. That is generally thought of as “Free Enterprise” but it is really unbridled Judeo-free-market-capitalism, and thrives in a system of stock market speculation, back-room deals and manipulation, and especially so where the monetary system (creation and control of currency) is in private hands, combined with debt and interest or “usury”, creating a monopoly, such as with the U.S. Federal Reserve. The National Socialists in Germany opposed this by putting strict controls on the central bank and the stock markets, by creating and controlling their own debt and interest free currency based upon the labour the worth of the labour and resulting output of the people, not on Gold, Silver or other commodities, the value of which is subject to speculation. They also put limits on wages and prices, as well as, reduced imports and exports, and prevented large-scale “big box” retail outlets which could flood the market with cheap imported goods.
Was National Socialism Right-Wing? Or Left-Wing?
The National Socialist ‘world view’ was neither “right” nor “left” in terms of how most people view the political spectrum, but rather, a “Third Way” and saw itself as a broad-based, popular social nationalist movement, aimed at involving all classes of the national body for the greater good of the people as a whole, from which all would benefit.
National Socialism expressed its commitment to the German people, contrary to rival systems such as Judeo-Bolshevik-Marxism and Judeo-Freemasonic-Capitalism or “Liberalism”. It also opposed attempts by self-described International Jewish interests to infiltrate, take-over and dominate the national ‘body politic’ as had previously been the case, and was the case in other developed nations, creating an existential threat to sovereign nations and peoples. Thus, National Socialism placed a significant focus on the so-called “Jewish Question” in relation to life in Germany especially. That was not at all a distinctly German problem. It was spoken of in many countries, including England and America, and other European countries with solutions sought. Indeed, “Zionist Jews” also acknowledged the problem and even sought cooperation with Germany its goals, for the long-term mutual benefit of both peoples.
It must be noted that Judaism and Freemasonry are intimately linked, and that the Bolshevik-Communist Revolution was financed by the International Bankers of Wall Street, who happen to call themselves “Jews”, and was fomented by their minions. Thus one should rightly be called Judeo-Bolshevik-Communism, and the other Judeo-Freemasonic-Capitalism. They are two sides of the same coin and both have same net effect of destruction of sovereign nations, both engender expansionism and globalsim, and both result in exploitation and slavery. Whereas, National Socialism was a true, self-financed, grass roots movement that opposed the aforementioned and thus, they would had no interest in financing a party which promoted a system of governance that could put an end to their monopoly and their global agenda. Indeed, they would do everything in their power to try and stop it, including defamation, economic war and outright military warfare….and they did.
National Socialism was NOT synonymous with Fascism. There were some similarities but it is really beyond my scope here to go into that in detail. If, however, one is of the belief that Fascism equates to “corporatism”, as Mussolini is often quoted as having said in describing his system of governance, then that was most certainly NOT the case with National Socialism for all of the reasons already described. Rather, it was the basic idea that the people are the nation, and the nation is the people, and that their National Socialist leader and party (their government) were a manifestation and reflection of themselves, which expressed and carried out their will, and NOT that of any particular class of people nor any special interest groups.
While Mussolini believed that Fascism could and should be exported, to counter the threat of international communism, the idea that National Socialism as a wholesale organic system could be “exported” to other nations is false. It was NOT intended for export! National Socialism was designed for the Germans of that time period under the conditions they were living in and the threats they faced. There have been, revolutionary nationalist movements which are in line with the general intent and philosophies of the NSDAP. In at least one speech, Hitler also said that it was neither feasible nor desirable to try to make Germans out of the Poles or the French. When war was declared against Germany, he said on several occasions that it was never his intention to wage war, and he lamented that the war was keeping him from his work for the German people (paraphrasing).
In terms of economics, the program of the National Socialists was laid out in a booklet by Gottfried Feder, the title of which translates roughly to”The Manifest for the Breaking of Interest Slavery“, in which he promoted, amongst other things, worker profit sharing in large companies, the expansion of social welfare legislation, an end to land and property (real estate) speculation, and putting department stores under the control of local governments, to best serve the needs of the people.
Unlike Bolshevism, National Socialism did NOT propose to eliminate private enterprise and private ownership of property! But rather, it aimed to protect the general public against the excesses of plutocrats, unrestrained by any sense of patriotic group solidarity.
From the perspective of the National Socialists, “nationalism” meant an appreciation for and a duty to, preserve the nation or Volksgemeinschaft, in all respects, visa vis the “folkish” interests of other nations, as well as, from international interests. It was not blind, arrogant or conceited chauvinism, nor a concept of natural or inherent “superiority” over others, and not intended to destroy or exploit others. It was about the German people being “masters in their own house” with: the right of self-determination; the means and ability to effectively control their nations destiny without interference; while raising up a new social state of the highest culture, with integrity! National Socialism, therefore, fought AGAINST “internationalism” which destroys nations through rootless and ever changing cosmopolitanism. Internationalism was embodied by liberalism, plutocracy, Bolshevism and International Jewry.
Adolf Hitler himself described National Socialism as “the political doctrine of the national community”. Nationalism, as he understood it, was the devotion of the individual to his ethnic community”das Volk” and socialism was a responsibility of the individual to the national community. Nationalism and Socialism, thus, at their core, were synonymous and interdependent: Self-sacrifice for the wider ethnic Volk. And that was also synonymous with the Christian ideal of loving your neighbour as yourself, and it was firmly rooted in the soil, bound together in labour, through blood, sweat and toil, for oneself and others, creating self-sufficiency and ensuring sovereignty for the nation, including for future generations, through conservation and protection of the natural habitat.
“I understand by Socialism: the highest service to my people, giving up personal gain for the sake of the whole. The benefits of the whole is essential. The concept of nationalism is in the end nothing but love and devotion to my people.” — Adolf Hitler.
“The Jewish manipulated Marxist concept of class struggle stands in the way of national unity” — Adolf Hitler.
“The phrases nationalism and socialism identify contemporary political currents of the age and did not require that new values be created. The lack of sense of community gave way to mutual burning hatred. Today the contrast between bourgeois and proletariat needs to be overcome, because the rise of any nation can only take place under common ideas. We need to close the gap and collect the forces again on a new platform.” — Adolf Hitler.
Dr. Joseph Goebbels on Socialism
“Yes, we call ourselves the Worker’s Party! That’s the first step away from the middle-class State! We call ourselves the Worker’s Party because we want to make work free, because for us, productive work is the driving force of history, because work means more to us than possessions, education, niveau, and a middle-class background do! Marxism, with its destructive theories of peoples and races, is the exact opposite of Socialism. Marxism is the graveyard not only for national peoples but also particularly for the one class that fights whole-heartedly for its realization: the working class.” — Dr. Joseph Goebbels, 1930
Monday April 15, 2013 Spingola Speaks Radio Show – Rodney Martin discussed “National Socialism vs. the Socialism of Leftist Marxism”
This program addressed the clear difference between National Socialism and the Socialism of Leftist-Marxism. Adolf Hitler and other NSDAP officials addressed this in great detail, however distortions remain today and often National Socialism is confused with Leftist Socialism. Free Download: spingola_speaksnsvsmarxism.mp3
Rodney referred to the following excerpts from the speech by Adolf Hitler, in the Reichstag, from May 17th, 1933
“First: preventing the impending Communist subversion and constructing a Volksstaat uniting the various interests of the classes and ranks, and maintaining the concept of personal property as the foundation of our culture.
Second: solving the most pressing social problems by leading the army of millions of our pitiful unemployed back to production.
Third: restoring a stable and authoritative leadership of the State, supported by the confidence and will of the nation which will finally again make of this great Volk a legitimate partner to the rest of the world.
Speaking now, conscious of being a German National Socialist, I would like to proclaim on behalf of the National Government and the entire national uprising that, above all, we in this young Germany are filled with the deepest understanding of the same feelings and convictions and the justified demands of the other nations to live. The generation of this young Germany, which until now has come in its lifetime to know only the want, misery and distress of its own Volk, has suffered too dearly from this madness to be capable of contemplating subjecting others to more of the same.
In that we are devoted to our own identity as a Volk in boundless love and faith, we also respect the national rights of other peoples on the basis of a common conviction and desire from the very bottom of our hearts to live with them in peace and friendship.
Thus the concept of Germanization is alien to us. The mentality of the past century, on the basis of which it was believed possible to make Germans of Poles and Frenchmen, is foreign to us, just as we passionately reject any respective attempt in the opposite direction. We view the European nations as a given fact. The French, the Poles, etc. are our neighbors, and we know that no historically conceivable event can change this reality.”
Hitler Interview in 1923
“Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”
“Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
“Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
“We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
“We want a greater Germany uniting all German tribes. But our salvation can start in the smallest corner. Even if we had only 10 acres of land and were determined to defend them with our lives, the 10 acres would become the focus of regeneration. Our workers have two souls: one is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must uproot the canker of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses.
Excerpted from an edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck which reportedly took place in 1923 and republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932
The era of National Socialism
Hitler did not come to power on the back of a major election victory but he would not have become Reich Chancellor in January 1933 had he not been the leader of the strongest party. At the last Weimar Republic Reichstag elections on November 6, 1932 the National Socialists had lost two million votes compared with the July 31, 1932 elections, while the Communists gained 600,000 thereby reaching the magic number of 100 Reichstag seats. The success of the Communist Party (KPD) whipped up fears of civil war, and it was this fear that was to become Hitler’s most powerful ally, particularly among the powerful Conservative elite. It was their recommendation to Hindenburg that Hitler had to thank for the fact that on January 30, 1933 the Reich President appointed him to the position of Reich Chancellor at the head of a predominantly conservative cabinet.
Terror against anyone who dissented was not a sufficient means to hold on to power during the 12 years of the Third Reich. Hitler was able to beat unemployment within a matter of years primarily through a rearmaments program, thereby winning the support of large sections of the working classes. As a result of the ruthless exploitation of workers and natural resources in the occupied territories he had been able to spare the German masses the hardships they had had to endure after the First World War (The First World War), ensuring that he could count on their support even during the Second World War. The major successes in foreign policy during the pre-War years, headed by the re-occupation of the de-militarized Rhineland in March 1936 and the Austrian “Anschluss” in March 1938 meant that Hitler’s popularity was to reach record levels in all classes of society. The legend of the Reich and its historic mission, which Hitler was a master in propagating, influenced in particular educated Germans. The charismatic “Fuehrer” needed their assistance if he was to make Germany a long- term power in the European order, and they needed him, too, because otherwise it seemed there was nobody in a position to make the dream of a great German Reich become reality.
Even though he did not focus on it, in the electoral campaigns in the early 1930s Hitler had made no secret of his anti-Semitism. His slogans would not have won him many votes among the working classes, something he was extremely keen to do. Among educated, property-owning classes, small businessmen and farmers anti-Jewish prejudice was widespread, whereas strident anti-Semitism was frowned upon.
Because they remained within the letter of the law, the Nuremberg Race Laws of September 1935, which deprived Jews of their civil rights, met with no opposition. The violent disturbances during the Reichskristallnacht on November 9, 1938 were unpopular, the “Aryanization” of Jewish property, an enormous re-distribution of assets, the repercussions of which are still being felt today, on the other hand, not. More was actually known about the Holocaust (The Holocaust), the systematic extermination of European Jews during the Second World War, than suited the regime. But knowledge of something also involves a wish to know, something of which, as far as the fate of the Jews was concerned, there was a distinct lack in Germany during the Third Reich.
In German history the downfall of Hitler’s Greater German Reich in May 1945 signifies a far deeper caesura than that of the German Reich in November 1918. The Reich as such continued to exist after the First World War. Following the unconditional surrender at the end of the Second World War governmental power and the decision-making powers as to the future of Germany were assumed by the four occupying powers, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France. Unlike 1918, in 1945 the German political and military leaders were stripped of their powers and, inasmuch as they were still alive, sent for trial before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. The landowners east of the River Elbe, who had contributed more than any other powerful elite to the destruction of the Weimar Republic and the transfer of power to Hitler lost everything: on the one hand, as a result of the cession of territories to the east of the Oder and Neisse Rivers to Poland, or, in the case of Northeastern Prussia, Soviet administration, and, on the other, due to the “land reform” in the zone under Soviet occupation.
As opposed to the aftermath of 1918, after 1945 the legends of back-stabbing or a lack of guilt for the war fell on as good as deaf ears. It was just too clear-cut that Nazi Germany had unleashed the Second World War (The Second World War) and had only been suppressed from without, through the superior might of the Allies. In both the First and Second World Wars German propaganda had portrayed the democratic Western powers as imperialist plutocrats, but their own law and order as an expression of a high level of social justice. After 1945 renewed attacks on the Western democracies would have been crazy: The price paid for the contempt shown for the West’s political ideas was too high for a return to the slogans of the past to promise any success.
National Socialism and Nazism
“A great idea had been misused by small men. Himmler was the evil symbol of that.” – Alfred Rosenberg
National Socialism is the ideology which Hitler applied in Germany from becoming Chancellor in 1933 until WWII destroyed the NSDAP regime in 1945. Nazism, on the other hand, is a separate phenomenon which occurred after WWII ended: the result of Zionist Allied wartime propaganda to demonize National Socialist Germany combined with selective confessions elicited via deception and duress during the Nuremberg Trials, which subsequently became the ‘official’ version of Hitlerism for the Zionist Allies in WWII, the backdrop to the endless stream of ‘Holocaust’ fiction. This misrepresentation was then applied by some British and American racists who saw in Nazism a reactionary solution to petty fears of their day (for Britain the loss of empire and the influx of immigrants, for America the 1960s Civil Rights movement). Thus, Nazism – a malicious distortion of National Socialism originating in Zionist Allied countries, consisting of traditional Western bigotry decorated with anachronistic ‘Germanic’ symbols, and later ironically spread back(!) into Germany (e.g. NPD) – has largely replaced authentic National Socialism in the world’s eyes and become the ideology of modern neo-Nazis.
If people actually bothered to calm down and think, they would realize that National Socialism, which condemns democracy, could not possibly be compatible with belief in “white” superiority, considering that democracy was a uniquely “white” creation.
The easy way to distinguish neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists from the mainstream is that both wish that the Third Reich had been victorious in WWII, rather than the Allies. But the easy way to distinguish neo-Nazis from authentic National Socialists is that, whereas they (neo-Nazis) wish the Third Reich had won because they believe the Third Reich was more racist than the Allies, we (authentic National Socialists) wish the Third Reich had won because we believe the Third Reich, which was already practicing integration in the 1930s, and which despised Western treatment of colonized peoples, was less racist than the Allies, which were still practicing segregation during the same period, and which refused to admit Western wrongdoing towards the colonized. Whereas neo-Nazis want to vindicate Hitler by making racism socially acceptable, authentic National Socialists want to vindicate Hitler by showing that he actually fought against the racism of his era.
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” – Winston Churchill (Jew)
“I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” – Harry Truman (Jew)
Why are scenes like this never depicted in Hollywood movie renditions of “Nazi” Germany?
And why don’t Hollywood movies mention how the propaganda of National Socialist Germany stereotyped the US as the Klu Klux Klan?
Indeed the attitude of the NSDAP, as seen in its celebration of the fact that the swastika was used by ancient cultures in almost every continent, and moreover in its various research expeditions to distant locations (including Japan, the Himalayas, South America, etc.) to search for signs of prehistoric Aryan settlements, was to use racial theory as a way to connect Germans with non-Jews of other nationalities all over the world by emphasizing hypothetical common roots cutting across ethnic lines, in stark contrast to the traditional Western approach (Jim Crow, Apartheid, White Australia Policy, etc.) of using racial theory to emphasize ethnic differences. In short, it was the West that stood for racism and National Socialist Germany which stood for non-racism – the total opposite of what is popularly presented.
In order to prevent the truth getting out, Zionist media had to claim instead that Hitler was trying to build UFO bases or find the Holy Grail (see Indiana Jones movies for details…..).
Whereas it was a standard practice of mainstream Western media of the time to disparagingly portray ”black” people as subhuman apes, Hitler made a point of not only rejecting this view but moreover turning the negative stereotypes back on their creators. For example, two of the most common colonial-era negative stereotypes about “black” people were that they are unhygeinic and superstitious. To the first, Hitler retorted: “In the state of nature, negroes are very clean. To a missionary, the smell of dirt is agreeable. From this point of view, they themselves are the dirtiest swine of all. They have a horror of water.” To the second, Hitler retorted: “A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.” As such, neo-Nazis (who unanimously look down on “black” people as a group) are in fact much more closely aligned with the traditional Western worldview than with Hitler’s worldview. Authentic National Socialists oppose ethnic stereotyping and will always defend victims of ethnic stereotyping.
In relation to Jewry, neo-Nazis see no fundamental problem with Jewish tribalism but only encourage similar tribalism among their own groups, in contrast to authentic National Socialists who simply oppose Jewish (and all) tribalism. In relation to Christianity, neo-Nazis believe that the New Testament is the main problem, in contrast to authentic National Socialists who believe that the Old Testament (a.k.a. Tanakh) is the main problem. Similar inversions can be found across a wide range of issues. The only point on which neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists happen to agree is anti-democracy, and even then for opposite reasons: authentic National Socialists consider the majority of people too self-interested; neo-Nazis consider the majority of people not self-interested enough!
Hitler warned us: “The Jew … has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything which was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal. Schopenhauer called the Jew ‘the dregs of mankind,’ ‘a beast,’ ‘the great master of the lie.’ How does the Jew respond? He establishes a Schopenhauer Society.” And in the same way that Jews reacted to Schopenhauer who merely exposed the Jewish problem, they have since the end of WWII even more viciously reacted to National Socialism that offers us a realistic solution to it.
1930s Nationalism vs 2010s ‘Nationalism’
“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.” – Joseph Goebbels
At the core of the confusion is popular failure to recognize that nationalism in the pre-WWII period refers to a completely different idea than what is commonly and erroneously* called “nationalism” in the present day. 1930s Nationalism was about achieving total economic and political independence (autarky and autonomy) for a country as opposed to bondage by international banking and finance or thrall by foreign powers. This was the origin of Hitler’s German folkish state: a rejection of the Treaty of Versailles (whose contents he bitterly described as: “Instead of general reconciliation, punishment of the defeated. Instead of international disarmament, the disarmament of the vanquished. Instead of general security, security of the victors.”) and, by extension, all the assumptions of Western civilization underlying it. On the other hand, 2010s ‘Nationalism’ – more accurately identitarianism – is mostly about sowing division within a country between so-called “indigenous-descended” and so-called “immigrant-descended”, and agitating hostility towards the latter by the former. If any one politician of the previous generation is to be held to account for promoting this attitude, it should be Enoch Powell (Gentile), not Hitler.
(* This does not include genuine present-day nationalist parties such as Sinn Fein in Ireland or the SNP in Scotland. As a matter of trivia, Arthur Donaldson of the SNP sided with National Socialist Germany in WWII.)
Needless to say, the objectives of 1930s Nationalism and 2010s ‘Nationalism’ are fundamentally incompatible. In order to achieve independence for a country, as the 1930s Nationalists intend, it is necessary to first achieve unity within the country; in Hitler’s own words: “The national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our folk.” This is political common sense: a country divided within is a country susceptible to influence by foreign states backing one or other side (or even all sides) of the civil strife. Even the pre-NSDAP groups were avowed believers in the importance of national unification; the old DAP of Anton Drexler, for example, was founded on the idea of rapport among all members of society in Germany, burying all old quarrels and making a fresh start together, as Alfred Rosenberg recalls: “Drexler was not any too well acquainted with economic problems, but he was a man with a simple, direct heart. As a toolmaker foreman in one of the machine shops of the German railroads, he had personally experienced a great many of the sorrows and cares of the German workingman, and understood that any solution to the problem depended upon the unity of the entire people.” Yet national unification is, of course, the exact opposite of what the 2010s ‘Nationalists’ are doing by their spreading of distrust, stereotyping and self-segregation along ethnic lines. Hence it has often been joked that, had neo-Nazis actually lived in National Socialist Germany, they would have been – together with Jews and Gypsies – among the first groups thrown into concentration camps by Hitler.
The confusion is then worsened by many neo-Nazis calling themselves “National Socialists” thinking that it sounds cooler. Bottom line: if you are a racist, you are for national division rather than national unification, and therefore you are not a National Socialist.
This commenter gets it.
This poster gets it.
While neo-Nazism itself has remained a fringe phenomenon in the politics of most countries (the only exception so far being the openly racist Golden Dawn in Greece), it has indirectly benefited opportunistic racists (including the aforementioned 2010s ‘Nationalists’) who have perniciously set up anti-racists as one extreme and neo-Nazis as the other extreme, and then presented their so-called “common sense racism” as a false middle ground, thus generating interethnic conflicts exactly in accord with the Zionist agenda. While many anti-racists believe that the best way to combat racism today is to denounce Hitler ever more vehemently, we disagree. We believe that the rise of neo-Nazism and racism in general should be courageously met with the return of a reborn authentic National Socialism, whereupon the impostor will easily be destroyed by the real thing. Therefore be not distracted by neo-Nazi attempts to pass for authentic National Socialists with meaningless platitudes about how they “don’t hate” people of other ethnicities; as long as they are even abstractly separating people living in the same country into ethnic categories and proposing discriminatory policies based on such categories, they are neo-Nazis and no better than the Jews in Israel who do exactly the same thing.
Kampfers vs Mein Kampfers
“National-Socialist Germany – what it had evolved to be by the beginning of The First Zionist War – was a modern mostly unconscious expression of the numinous, honourable, warrior ethos, and stood in complete and stark contrast to the materialism, the hubris, of … the West, represented by the arrogant, profane, White Hordes of Homo Hubris.” – David Myatt
Why did the Zionist Allies, who on one hand suppressed so much information about National Socialist Germany (to this day many official documents of the regime remain locked away, and others have been burned), on the other hand actively promote Mein Kampf as the one-stop source for learning about “Nazism”? Can you figure out what is going on?
Awareness of authentic National Socialism as a system wholly distinct from Nazism was initially restricted to a few apolitical historians, whose main advantage over the neo-Nazis was that they studied the real policies of National Socialist Germany post-1933 and the factional power plays within the NSDAP, as opposed to assuming that Hitler personally read and authorized every statement made or action taken by every single subdivision in National Socialist Germany (when in reality Hitler was far too busy with the major issues to monitor minor affairs), or worse, that National Socialism is defined by whatever is written in Mein Kampf. It was the Allied Powers which had actively reinforced among Weimar Germans the idea that they were fellow “white” people (via propaganda such as 1910s-1920s Hollywood movies with their notoriously demeaning portrayals of ethnic minorities), as this obscured the reality that the Weimar Republic itself was in all but name a Western colonial possession no different than “non-white” colonies such as India, Algeria, Kenya, etc.. (This is the same trick as the House vs Field trick applied to slaves in Antebellum-era US.) The masses who had already bought into this viewpoint were, unfortunately, the masses whom Hitler had to say whatever it might take to get them to vote NSDAP, and it is this which accounts for the few bigoted statements that can be found in Mein Kampf, as well as why Hitler in later years wanted it removed from circulation.
“The society which was created after the NSDAP achieved power was in many ways a compromise. Hitler himself admitted (to Leon Degrelle among others) that it would be the next generation – the Hitler Youth generation – which would create a genuine National-Socialist society. Organizations such as the SS and the Hitler Youth were steps toward the creation of such a National-Socialist society, and it was these organizations which implemented the ideal of personal honour, and respect for others, of whatever race and culture. As Hitler and his true followers, such as Rudolf Hess, matured in understanding, so too did National-Socialism. National-Socialism was not born, fully-developed and fully-understood, in the early years of the NSDAP – it developed slowly, over several decades. Thus, as Hitler admitted, Mein Kampf was never intended to be some kind of bible of National-Socialism: it was the product of its time.” – David Myatt
Yet among these historians who understood all of the above (ie. that Eurocentrism was certainly not something that Hitler started, but was rather the status-quo in the Weimar Republic and which Hitler thus had to reluctantly flow with prior to achieving power), most either lacked the philosophical perception to see the abstract unifying principles underlying the policies and party decisions, or did not wish to compromise their academic impartiality by taking on philosophical beliefs. Thus while they knew what National Socialism was not, only the fewest of them allowed themselves to see what it truly was.
External link: Gnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenberg’s Thought
The other camp claiming to represent National Socialism were the few eccentric ideologists commonly known as “esoteric Hitlerists”, who unlike the historians were unafraid to make philosophical speculations from the outset, albeit often cloaked in mystic language. But they could not even agree with each other what was ‘canonical’ National Socialism, beyond shared acknowledgement that it was nothing like Nazism. In fairness, within Hitler’s cabinet had been similarly dramatic ideological divergence and corresponding personal feuds and factional rivalries, which became so bad in the later years that Hitler eventually had to stop issuing written orders to his subordinates so that they could not possess any physical documentation of his views to use as ammunition against each other. This breakdown in communication was further exacerbated by the traitor Martin Bormann, as Alfred Rosenberg recalled: “It had become completely impossible to see the Fuehrer. Every attempt to do so was thwarted by Bormann, under the pretext that Hitler was too busy with war problems.” This led to a humourous claim of the time that there were as many versions of National Socialism as NSDAP members – of which the Zionists of course chose the worst (e.g. the traitor Heinrich Himmler, whom everyone else in the cabinet hated) to ‘officially’ represent the party.
While some communication occurred between the esoteric Hitlerists and a few honest leaders of neo-Nazi groups shortly after WWII, it quickly became apparent (to the dismay of both parties) that bloc-conversion of neo-Nazis to authentic National Socialists was not feasible, for the very reason that the vast majority of those attracted by Nazism had exactly the wrong type of personality for National Socialism.
“Dear Savitri, … You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans … they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb.” – George Lincoln Rockwell
“I am forced to walk a careful line between what I should like to say and what the enemy would like to hear me say. Unless I deliberately sound at least halfway like a raving illiterate with three loose screws, such an interview would never be printed. This is another thing that most people fail to understand about my “Nazi” technique.” – George Lincoln Rockwell
National Socialist who pretended to be a neo-Nazi in order to more easily get numerical support against Jewish power. Result: Zionist agents saw through the ruse and assassinated him so that he would be replaced by his followers, who are actual neo-Nazis. (The same thing happened to Malcolm X who had around the same time also revealed his rejection of racism.)
Correspondingly, those with personalities most suitable for National Socialism were exactly those most likely to be put off by Nazism and hence unlikely to study the subject deeply enough to discover the misrepresentation. This simple Zionist trick of associating a noble ideology with a selectively repellent label has made gaining support for authentic National Socialism extraordinarily difficult. This trick is hardly new. The same has been done with Gnostic Christianity – the true teachings of Jesus – being given the label ‘Luciferianism’ which is then deliberately mixed up with Satanism, with similar effects. Indeed, perhaps the simplest way of putting it is to say that neo-Nazism is to authentic National Socialism as Judeo-Christianity is to Gnostic Christianity.
For example, authentic National Socialists view Muslims as allies by default, both remembering the former support of Hitler from the worldwide Islamic community and seeing the continuing sacrifices of Muslims in their struggle against Zionism. Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, typically hate Muslims out of plain xenophobia, and are instead typically fans of historical slaughterers of Muslims such as Charles Martel (whom Hitler wishes had lost his battle), Ferdinand and Isabella (“Isabella the Catholic – the greatest harlot in history” – Adolf Hitler), or Vlad Tepes a.k.a. Dracula (no comment necessary…..). When David Myatt personally converted to Islam, hoping to lead by example and reforge this much-needed alliance for the 21st century, neo-Nazis responded by calling him a traitor and slandering him in many ways.
“The sad fact is that there is little truth, little truthful knowledge, in the West, about either Islam or National-Socialism. … Adherents of authentic Islam, the Islam of Jihad and Khilafah, are the natural allies of honourable, genuine, National-Socialists, and the fact that most who call themselves ‘National Socialists’ neither understood nor feel this just shows how successful the Zionists have been in manipulating the peoples of the West and how successful their anti-NS propaganda has been, for this propaganda has obscured, for most peoples, the honourable, non-racist, reality of National-Socialism itself.” – David Myatt
Every single country that National Socialist Germany attacked was a “white” country, including most of the major Western colonial powers that together maintained “white” hegemony around most of the world at the turn of the 20th century and which would have lasted to this day if not for Hitler. Yet neo-Nazis somehow manage to convince themselves that National Socialism is about advancing ”white” interests…..
On the other hand, many neo-Nazis have an extremely high opinion of Russia and other former Eastern Bloc countries due to their relatively greater preservation of tradition (especially traditional gender roles). Some, who call themselves National Bolsheviks, are even fans of Stalin! This in stark contrast to the NSDAP’s relatively low opinion of these countries and indeed its emphasis on defending Germany from their influence, to say nothing of Stalin being one of Hitler’s greatest enemies in WWII, about whom Hitler said: “Stalin pretends to have been the herald of the Bolshevik revolution. In actual fact, he identifies himself with the Russia of the Tsars, and he has merely resurrected the tradition of Pan-Slavism. For him Bolshevism is only a means, a disguise designed to trick the Germanic and Latin peoples.” Neo-Nazis especially dislike being reminded that, during WWII, National Socialist Germany sided with the (mostly Muslim) Chechens (whom Stalin persecuted) against the Russians, just as Hitler himself as a schoolboy sided with Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, in his own words: “When we learnt of the fall of Port Arthur, the little Czechs in my class at school wept—while the rest of us exulted! It was then that my feeling for Japan was born.” While present-day authentic National Socialists harbour no ill will towards present-day former Eastern Bloc countries, we certainly do not consider their tendency towards traditionalism something worth admiring or emulating.
“The ethnic mixture that we called Russia before 1917 and the Soviet Union thereafter has been a riddle to our part of the world. That had nothing to do with tsarism then or Bolshevism today. It simply has to do with the fact that the various peoples joined together in this monster of a nation are not a folk in our sense of the word. … The average person has less worth than a bicycle. A rapid birthrate quickly replaces any losses. They have a type of primitive toughness that one cannot call bravery. It is entirely different. Bravery is a kind of spiritual courage. The toughness with which the Bolshevists defended their bunkers in Sevastapol was more a bestial drive, and nothing could be more mistaken than to assume that it was the result of Bolshevist views or education. The Russians were always like that.” – Joseph Goebbels
“With the Russian, there is an instinctive force that invariably leads him back to the state of nature. … For the Russian, the return to the state of nature is a return to primitive forms of life. The family exists, the female looks after her children, like the female of the hare.” – Adolf Hitler
“In Hungary, National Socialism could not be exported. In the mass, the Hungarian is as lazy as the Russian. He’s by nature a man of the steppe.” – Adolf Hitler
Stalinist propaganda retorted by portraying Hitler as an “Ogre-Vegetarian”.
Adding further confusion are the Strasserists, who supposedly accept the authentic National Socialist portrayal of Hitler rather than the neo-Nazi portrayal, but then argue that Hitler himself is a traitor to what National Socialism was meant to be according to its true founders Gregor and Otto Strasser, whose ideology Hitler supposedly usurped. Thus they make a double U-turn to arrive back at what is essentially neo-Nazism (minus Hitler). (Strasserism itself is far from a clearly defined movement, considering that Gregor supported the Kapp Putsch whereas Otto opposed it, so nobody is really sure which Strasser brother represents canonical Strasserism…..)
As if things weren’t complicated enough already…..
The next significant mark in the revival of authentic National Socialism is recent, beginning with 21st century anti-Zionists looking for positive political options and culminating in the short-lived OWNP (One World Nazi Party). Its explicitly multiethnic presentation was unprecedentedly effective in breaking the monoethnic stereotype, and once and for all drew a definitive line between authentic National Socialists and neo-Nazis, but did not result in mass conversion to authentic National Socialism. The majority of anti-Zionists of that time came from the post-9/11 truthseeker circles and thus prided themselves in their scepticism, a quality which enabled them to unravel Jewish conspiracies in the first place, but which by the same token made it hard for them to take the idealistic leap of faith necessary for an ideology as radical as National Socialism. Instead, many of them preferred to suspect Hitler himself of being a Zionist agent or even a Jew – some go as far as to promote rumours that he was an illegitimate Rothschild.
“If one enters a military operation with the mental reservation : “Caution! this may fail,” then you may be quite certain that it will fail. To force a decision one must enter a battle with a conviction of victory and the determination to achieve it, regardless of the hazards.” – Adolf Hitler
OWNP banners (2009)
It is from this background that the true struggle – the Kampf of the 21st century – continues today in the hands of a few dedicated souls. We are slowly growing in number, but so are the neo-Nazis, and it would seem that they are growing faster than we are. We do not have much time left. We need to become a real political force within a matter of years, or else the spirit of authentic National Socialism will be drowned beneath an ugly deluge of the far-right, perhaps never to recover again.
Aryanism vs Foppery
“I distrust officers who have exaggeratedly theoretical minds. I’d like to know what becomes of their theories at the moment of action.” – Adolf Hitler
To us it is clear that little further progress will be made so long as the discussion continues to tolerate academics interested only in endless historical nitpicking, barbarians prepared to debase National Socialism to the lowest possible level in order to suit themselves, and cynics who join the conversation without actually believing that the ideology is viable. So how should we proceed? Rudolf Hess provides a solution that we recommend: “Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your mind. You will find him through the strength of your hearts!”
Aryanism categorically rejects reconstructing National Socialism from history alone, for we propose it is but a name for the one political system that will inevitably be expressed by truly noble thinking. In this we resonate with the last warning of Jutta Ruediger before her death: “National Socialism is not repeatable. One can take over only the values which we espoused: comradeship, readiness to support one another, bravery, self-discipline, and not least honour and loyalty. Apart from these, each young person must find their way alone.” We seek not those who convert to Hitlerism from without, but those who have sought their own path from within only to finally see that Hitler walked a parallel path in his own time. Furthermore, we emphasize how what we saw in National Socialist Germany was hardly the completed system, but only the tiniest first steps towards it. David Myatt saw this when he said: “The duty – the wyrd – of Vindex and of the clans of Vindex is not to strive to try and restore some romantic idealized past – or even be in thrall to some perceived wyrdful, often numinous-filled, past way of living, such as that which Adolf Hitler brought to Germany – but rather to establish an entirely new and conscious and thus more potent expression of the numinous itself.”
We who live today on the one hand have more detailed information on genetics and other subjects than the NSDAP ever had, and on the other hand face situations of a scale and of a gravity that Hitler never had to deal with, from global resource shortages to a nuclear-armed Israel. If we are in this to change the world for the better, then the only worthwhile discussion for us is not what National Socialism was or is, but what it should beand what it needs to be. With three words – UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY – the Aryanist movement has already begun this discussion, and we welcome all who agree with our motto to contribute to our work.