“In respect of the future of
National-Socialism – that idealistic, noble, but mis-understood way of life –
it is important to understand that National-Socialist Germany was only a
beginning of the practical implementation of National-Socialism. That is, a
complete National-Socialist society was being worked toward, but was never fully
achieved because of the circumstances of the time – in particular the advent of
the First Zionist War (commonly called the Second World War) with the need for
Germany to fight a total war in order to try and survive. In many ways, Adolf
Hitler (as he himself admitted, for instance to Leon Degrelle) had to make
several compromises in order to not only achieve power, but also to keep power
in the face of external and internal problems. … Thus, while NS Germany (what
it was, not what Zionist hate propaganda has made it appear) should be
considered as an inspiring model for us and future generations, it should not
be looked upon as the perfect, ideal, National-Socialist society. … It is our
task – and that of future generations – to lay the foundations for this complete
National-Socialist society. To do this, we must expound pure, idealistic
National-Socialism, untainted by any compromise with the societies of our time.
That is, we must expressly state what National-Socialism is and involves,
however “impractical” or idealistic it might seem, and however unpopular. … We
do not need political propaganda – such as stirring speeches, rallies, marches,
strident appeals – which only ever appeals to the fickle emotions of people.
Instead, we need reasoned literature; factual stories of National-Socialist
heroism; and living examples of National-Socialism in action, both individual
and communal. That is, we need to show the idealism, the truths, of
National-Socialism by personal example – through our own deeds and projects.” –
David Myatt
Understanding National
Socialism first requires understanding the historical circumstances under
which it first arose early in the 20th century.
On
the practical plane, Germany had never recovered from WWI, and was at an
unprecedented low in morale, in terrible shape economically and
hopelessly divided socially. Gottfried Feder describes it: “In the nation, taken as an organic
whole, every aspect of our private life shows pain, bondage, suppression,
insecurity, and presents a clear picture of a struggle of all against all.
Government against people, Party against Party, … employer against employee,
merchant against producer and consumer, landlord against tenant, labourer
against farmer, officials against the public, worker against ‘bourgeoisie’,
Church against State, each blindly hitting out at his particular adversary
thinking only of his own selfish interests. … No one thinks of his neighbour’s
welfare, or of his higher duties to community.” Alfred Rosenberg
describes it: “It did not
display a picture of a clear will, nor one of position and opposition but — if
I may anticipate the developments of later years — a fight of all against all.
In the end the parliamentary system was represented by forty-nine different
parties, each one trying to present its own particular problem as the most
important.” Hitler himself describes it, and proposes the
beginnings of a solution: “What
will happen one day when hordes of emancipated slaves come forth from these
dens of misery to swoop down on their unsuspecting fellow men? For this other
world does not think about such a possibility. They have allowed these things
to go on without caring and even without suspecting – in their total lack of
instinctive understanding – that sooner or later destiny will take its
vengeance unless it will have been appeased in time. … Even in those days I already saw that there was a
two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bring about an
amelioration of these conditions. This method is: first, to create better
fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling
for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this feeling
for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune away all
excrescences which are incapable of being improved.“
On
the intellectual plane, the empiricist worldview had (from the
Renaissance onwards and ever more sharply with accelerating advances in
experimental science during the so-called Age of Enlightenment) increasingly
threatened spirituality with materialistic reductionism, promising to
ultimately trivialize such things as emotions, dreams, free will
and the spirit itself as mere side-effects of entirely
physiological mechanisms. As the pressure became too great, philosophical reaction arose in
opposition to empiricism by re-affirming intuition and sentiment
as valid - indeed superior – routes to knowledge, as Alfred Rosenberg
describes: “In various
guises, an abstraction began to uproot life. The reaction in the form of German
romanticism was therefore as welcome as rain after a long drought. … Where the
Greek generalised, … the Romantic man personified.” However,
this reaction itself immediately split into two movements, as reliance on
feeling led to different types of people feeling differently.
The
Romantic movement began as a movement proposing that empiricism,
though powerful in generating knowledge about what is, does so at the
devastating cost of cutting us off from knowledge about what
ought to be. The latter is considered accessible only via a
personal undertaking to refine the spirit, which in
turn can only be achieved by immersion in conditions (in
practice usually generated by works of art) that remove the usual social constraints
to emotional activity, thus allowing us to distance ourselves from
our lower emotions and, if possible, hand ourselves over totally to our
higher emotions. Particular emphasis is placed on pure love, poetic justice and
appreciation for beauty, all of which are believed to converge towards – and
function as conduits towards – the Romantic ideal.
The
Counter-Enlightenment movement, on the other hand, proposed quite differently
that empiricism was cutting us off from primal human urges and hence leading to
a dry, sterile humanity that experiences life less richly
than those still connected to the primal. The response they
recommend is to seek immersion in conditions that unleash
primality. They admit that primal feelings might not converge, and indeed
often clash with each other for dominance even inside the same mind, but
argue that this is not something that should be worth concern, because the
very expectation of convergence is a non-primal feeling in itself,
and therefore to be rejected. Primalism is considered the only valid guide;
rationalism is to be rejected along with empiricism.
In
short, the Counter-Enlightenment feared
that empiricism would devalue the lower emotions (which
they value as primal), whereas the Romantics feared that
empiricism’s trivializing method of devaluing the lower emotions would
inevitably devalue also the higher emotions (which we value as
salvational) at the same time, thereby interfering with the Romantic
eschatological vision of the higher emotions directly vanquishing the
lower emotions in a triumph of the will. Alfred Rosenberg summarizes the
problem with the Counter-Enlightenment from a Romantic perspective: “One is immediately reminded of the
sentimental return to nature and the glorification of the primitive which
appeared in the late eighteenth century. … But the nature of primitive man—as
far as we can reasonably conjecture—was not particularly heroic.”
But
many of the Counter-Enlightenment soon started calling themselves
“Romantics”, seeing only both movements’ shared disdain towards
the industrializing West, shared
preference for the medieval or even earlier past and for
non-Western* civilizations, shared preference for rural life over urban life,
and other superficial shared tastes that in fact were motivated
by entirely different feelings. The Romantics naively accepted them,
assuming that the Counter-Enlightenment would become initiated
into true Romanticism over time. Instead, the opposite happened: the
Counter-Enlightenment usurped the label of Romanticism and confused the
movement with Counter-Enlightenment ideas, as Alfred Rosenberg describes: “The great German Romantic movement
sensed darker and darker veils interposed before the gods of celestial light,
and it immersed itself deeper and deeper into the impulsive, formless, demonic,
sexual, ecstatic and chthonic, and into mother worship.”
(*
Both the Romantics and the Counter-Enlightenment sided politically
with non-Western civilizations whenever possible, as empiricism was
viewed as a uniquely Western attitude. Hitler himself noted
this: “It is perfectly
true that we are a people of romantics, quite different from the Americans, for
example … The only romance which stirs the heart of the North American is that
of the Redskin; but it is curious to note that the writer who has produced the
most vivid Redskin romances is a German.”)
Before
long, the true Romantics had been pushed to the fringes of the
Counter-Enlightenment-dominated so-called “Romanticism”. Frustrated, they
needed a new and even more radical movement to rally around. At the
time, it was fashionable among Counter-Enlightenment advocates to blame
primarily Christianity for creating Western civilization, and hence to
call for abandoning Christianity in favour of pre-Christian paganism.
In contrast, the true Romantics were fiercely loyal to Christianity due
to considering Jesus the greatest
Romantic of all. A convincing new movement had to offer an
anti-Western narrative that on one hand reassured true Romantic
intuition regarding Jesus, and on the other hand accounted for the largely
valid Counter-Enlightenment accusation against (Judeo-)Christianity. Dietrich
Eckart was ready: “Schopenhauer
… said that if one wants to understand the Old Testament one must read it in
the Greek version. There it has an entirely different tone, an entirely
different color, with no presentiment of Christianity!” With
this new interpretation that not Christianity but Judaism was to
blame for creating Western civilization, National Socialism was born.
Nationalism,
Socialism and National Socialism
“One
does not become a National Socialist. One only discovers, sooner or later, that
one has always been one.” — Savitri Devi
Nationalism is
based on the view of a country as a living being in
itself, as opposed to a mere contractual entity produced by
interactions between humans. A country consumes food, expends
energy and produces waste. A country has a memory of its own past,
imagines its own future, and can collect and analyze information to
generate knowledge. A country communicates and forms friendships or hostilities
with other countries. A country goes through the cycle of birth and death. A
country can produce offspring countries. By any characteristic commonly used to
define life or consciousness, a country really is alive and conscious. This
view does not deny that inhabitants of the country each have a
consciousness of their own, but perceives at the same time a
national consciousness as a larger-scale unit**. A nationalist
therefore attempts to relate to a country holistically, as if to a person.
“The
present day doctrine is: Society is the sum of the individuals — the State at
its best a convenient aggregation of individuals or associations. We may
compare this doctrine of the construction of society to a heap of stones. The
only real thing about it is the individual piece of stone. Its shape is a
matter of chance; whether a stone is on top or underneath is indifferent. The
result is neither more nor less than a heap. … But the National Socialist
doctrine of society and philosophy of the State is the house. Speaking
mechanically, a house also consists of so many individual bricks. … But anyone
can see that a house is a higher entity, something new and peculiar … more than
a mere sum total of bricks heaped together.” – Gottfried Feder
(**
By this logic, the reverse also applies, so that smaller-scale units can also
be considered to have consciousness of their own. As Miguel Serrano
asserts: “For Aryans, atoms
have never been numeric abstract empty formulas. They are gnomes.”)
Broadly
speaking, any ideology committed to the development of the country as
a whole unit can be described as a nationalist ideology. Nationalism never
confines itself to the interests of any subgroup within the country,
but always considers the impact of an action on every subgroup within the
country, based on a view of every subgroup as akin to an internal
organ in the body, and an understanding that depriving one organ in
order to boost another is no way to a healthy body. Instead,
nationalism expects every subgroup to be prepared to help out every
other during times of crisis, just as in a youthful body the
strong organs will automatically work harder than usual to assist weakened
organs back to strength (whereas in an elderly body the weak organs receive
no help from the strong organs, and hence eventually fail), in Hitler’s words: “If somebody or other objects that the
continual giving involves too heavy a burden, then we must reply that that is
the idea of a truly national solidarity. True national solidarity cannot find
its sense in mere taking.” Nationalism identifies as enemies
of the state any and all subgroups within the country with an
agenda to exclusively advance its own interests rather than serve the
country as a whole, based on a view of such subgroups as cancerous
organs that drain the rest of nutrients and at the same
time spread the cancer to them. The most well-known example of this
is Jewry (see below), but it applies more generally to any group
established around racial identity, class consciousness, education level,
gender, sexual preferences, religious exclusivity or any other psychological
notion that ultimately produces tribalist behaviour. Members of such groups
cannot be accepted as citizens of a nationalist state.
Another
principle of nationalism is that a country cannot expect and should
not wait to be helped from outside (whether by other countries or by
entities such as banks or the UN), but must find ways to help itself. This is
not to say that a country is obliged to always refuse
outside help when offered it, but only that none of its plans should be
contingent on outside help to succeed, so that it never finds itself in a
position of having to accept help that comes with strings attached.
Nor does it mean that a country should not give help to other
countries at cost to itself. Nationalism does not imply isolationism,
non-interventionism or otherwise indifference to the plight of other
countries, and above all does not imply acting solely with the interests
of one’s own country in mind. On the contrary, a
genuinely nationalist country would encourage other countries not to be
perpetually dependent on outside help either, and therefore offer them all
short-term help it can give so as to enable their eventual long-term independence,
in Hitler’s words: “The aim
of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief, which is
ridiculous and useless, but it must rather be a means to find a way of
eliminating the fundamental deficiencies in our economic and cultural life.”
(In such
attitudes, nationalism is in complete disagreement with identitarianism
(including Zionism), which declares:
“It makes decision for its own people and does not consider its impact on
others.” Identitarianism is tribal;
nationalism is anti-tribal. The fact that much of the
present-day far-right uses the two terms interchangeably is ample evidence
of their illiteracy, and of Zionist success in confusing the vocabulary of
political discourse.)
Nationalism
is not an ideological principle in itself, but rather an executive principle
which can serve a wide range of ideologies. A capitalist can be a
nationalist provided he believes in attracting money to the country
rather than following the money wherever around the world it goes (as
an international capitalist would do). In the same way, a nationalist
communist will aim at equalizing wealth distribution inside his country, rather
than worry about equalizing wealth distribution between different
countries. A nationalist fascist will aim at giving his country a state capable
of both internal and external power projection, rather than the latter
alone. A nationalist libertarian will aim at making his entire country run
on minimal government, rather than tolerate more government in some
parts of the country than others. And so on.
“Hitler
… not only recognised the necessity of national unity above everything else,
but was also willing to press to the hilt the demand for social justice.” –
Alfred Rosenberg
Socialism is
the belief that state intervention is essential to realistically
combatting social injustice, and that it is the moral duty of the state to
so intervene. It is based on the view that the stateless system (e.g. free
markets) is rigged against true merit in favour of non-merit-based competitive advantages,
a problem which can therefore only be remedied by adding rules to the system,
where the rules have been derived with the promotion of merit in mind, and
function as to nullify the non-merit-based competitive advantages. Jews Gentiles Any and all who choose not to
follow these rules are thus enemies of merit and hence must be placed into concentration camps declared outlaws
who also no longer receive protection from the rules as citizens receive.
“The
aim of a National-Socialist government is to encourage the noble change and
further evolution of human beings in such a way that they progress upward
towards a more noble way of living and the establishment of a noble and just
order. This involves creating favourable conditions for the emergence and
blossoming of the innate nobility of individuals.” – David Myatt
There
are many distinct notions of supposed social injustice, which follow from many
distinct notions of merit. Democratic socialism, for example, perceives only
injustice perpetrated against the majority in any situation, and its statist
remedy is simply to give the majority whatever it wants, even if it
involves oppressing the minority. It considers the majority incapable of social
injustice against the minority, because majority opinion defines merit,
and the minority should just shut up and go along with it. Marxist
socialism perceives only injustice perpetrated against the proletariat, and its
statist remedy is to take from non-proles to give to proles. It considers
proles incapable of social injustice against non-proles, because merit
is exclusively equated with being a prole. It is worth noting that
Marxist socialism and democratic socialism coincide whenever the proletariat is
also the majority.
(Identitarianism (including
Zionism) is never to be classified as socialism even when it employs
statist means to further its agenda, since it does not argue based on
social justice in the first place, but solely based on group interests. For
example, the Jewish tendency to accuse anti-Zionists of
being ”anti-Semites”, rather than of being “unfair” (as a
misinformed but sincere socialist might accuse anti-Zionists), in
itself shows that Jews care nothing for fairness, and everything
for furthering Jewish group interests whether fair or unfair. The same
applies to Gentiles who have copied this trick and accuse their
critics of being “anti-[insert Gentile group here]“.)
National
Socialism perceives injustice perpetrated
against all. At the most fundamental level, just by being born, every
one of us is automatically and for the entire duration of our
lives a perpetual and constant victim of injustice, because none of
us chose to be born. The courage to acknowledge this plainly
obvious and utterly irrefutable fact (“The
whole of life is one perpetual hazard, and birth is the greatest hazard of them
all.” – Adolf Hitler) distinguishes National Socialism from every
other form of socialism. Whereas all the others sooner or later tends
towards utopianism, National Socialism repudiates utopianism (a False Left
idea) from the outset by this acknowledgement and hence elevates itself
to a genuinely eschatological ideology on a par with the ancient (True
Left) pan-Gnostic religions.
“Even
we are not so simple as to believe that there will ever be an age in which
there will be no drawbacks. But that does not release us from the obligation to
fight for the removal of the defects which we have recognized, to overcome the
shortcomings and to strive towards the ideal.” – Adolf Hitler
Every
other form of injustice is thus understood in context as a sub-injustice
occurring between fellow
victims of this principal injustice, which places it in a
thoroughly different light than viewing it as an injustice occurring between
people who have no oppressor in common. As fellow prisoners in one
prison, we all
start out on the same side; our only valid enemies among one another are those
who choose to “sell out” and side with our imprisoner by losing
empathy for other prisoners, and who thus degrade themselves from prisoners
to slaves (for which they may well be rewarded by the imprisoner with
mastery over other slaves). Such a perspective – often smeared as
“pessimistic” by its detractors - is in fact unprecedently positive, as it
not only makes fresh rapport possible among people each previously
accustomed to viewing every other as a rival against oneself, but also
logically demands that the political problem of sub-injustices be tackled
by an approach that simultaneously addresses the principal injustice, in
other words by the approach of state control over reproduction – in classic
socialist terms, adding rules derived with the promotion of merit in mind,
in this case concerning genetics.
In
this most radical sense, National Socialism does not merely
mean ”nationalism plus socialism”, but more gramatically accurately
means “socialism as pertains to nation”, which ultimately means “socialism as pertains to being
born” (see later section). Where National Socialism achieves
parity with the pan-Gnostic religions by its recognition of the exact same
principal injustice as they all independently recognized, it excels beyond
them all by being the only ideology to propose a
realistic strategy for universal salvation. Where the Gnostic offers
vision, the National Socialist offers action. Where the Gnostic escapes,
the National Socialist counterattacks. Where the Gnostic terminates his own
bloodline, the National Socialist is prepared to terminate all bloodlines which
refuse to terminate themselves.
“The
Aryan hosts have penetrated from beyond the borders of this Universe, warriors
and warrioresses. To “crucify themselves” on the four realms of the demiurgic
creation they have overturned the entire demonic plan.” – Miguel Serrano
Führerprinzip
“It
rejects in general and in its own structure all those principles according to
which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according to
which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. The
movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in the
greatest problems, one person must have absolute authority and bear all
responsibility. In our movement the practical consequences of this principle
are the following: The president of a large group is appointed by the head of
the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader
of his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to
theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that
work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of
the group. The same principle applies to the higher organizations – the Bezirk
(district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (region). In each case the
president is appointed from above and is invested with full authority and
executive power. … One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this
principle imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole
State.” – Adolf Hitler
National
Socialism values the individual personality above all. This may at first
glance appear contradictory to the National Socialist position that
demography is destiny, but upon closer inspection is in fact part of the
same position. It is the individual who introduces the potential for positive change
(negative change requires no individual inspiration), and then it is
demographics which determine the extent to which this potential can be
actualized. As Hitler asks rhetorically: “Does
anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain
of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?”
National Socialists view all of history as a moral struggle of rare
individual heroic idealists in opposition to traditionally
popular norms. Aryan racial theory
merely adds the proposition that these idealists are who they are by blood.
“From
amidst a world in which slavery was considered as a necessary evil by
respectable people, sprang a few individuals who condemned it … To those to
whom the age-old exploitation of animals seems normal just because it is
practically universal and as old as man, we shall say that there are today
people who strongly disapprove of it — never mind if they be but a handful
scattered among millions of human beings still at a more barbaric stage of
evolution. There are today a few men and women, far in advance of our times,
who keenly feel the revolting injustice of all exploitation … the horror of all
gratuitous infliction of suffering. … Those few are now “dreamers,” “eccentric
folk,” “cranks” — like all pioneers. But who can tell whether their opinion
will never become that of average man, and their principles the law of the
world?” – Savitri Devi
It
is therefore accurate to call National Socialism an individualist
ideology, but this radical
individualism is almost the total opposite of the
so-called “individualism” of liberal/libertarian/anarchist conception. Any
true conception of individualism does not and could never imply individual
expression by everyone, for the simple reason that whenever everyone in the
same society simultaneously attempts individual expression, the result is
mutual cramping and hence no individual expression for anyone. True individual
expression is only ever achieved when only one person per society -
the leader by definition - is expressing his individuality, and the
duty of all sincere individualists in the same society is to support this
leader such that the
leader’s individuality is able to be expressed to the fullest.
Radical individualism is thus wholly devoid of (and indeed contrary to)
self-centredness; the radical individualist purely wishes to
see individuality maximally expressed - not necessarily one’s own individuality.
This is none other than the attitude of die-hard fans of pop culture icons
(musicians, actors, athletes, fictional characters, etc.), who feel that their
greatest or even only meaning in life is to support the individual
expression of the icon to whom they have devoted themselves,
whether financially or via production of fanworks, presence at fan
events and offering fan feedback, and who set aside much of
their own individuality in order to do so. A political radical individualist is
always an absolute
monarchist, who (unless he happens to be the leader himself)
would consider it his calling in life to seek and find a worthy leader to
serve, making himself an extension of his leader’s personality much
as pop culture fans make themselves (by the processes described above)
extensions of their icon’s personality. As Rudolf Hess succinctly stated: “Hitler is Germany.”
The
word “folk” etymologically derives from the word “follow”, and hence has the
same meaning as the present-day word “following” (noun) as commonly used
in pop culture to describe a fanbase of a particular icon. The state
in this worldview is simply the totality of the mechanisms that most
efficiently allow the leader’s following a.k.a. folk to assist in the
expression of the leader’s personality. And, just as the true die-hard fan
lives up to his name by psychological readiness to die for his icon
without question and at a moment’s notice, the true political individualist
is similarly ready to die for his leader. It is no coincidence that National
Socialism is aligned with youth (“The
Hitler Youth has taken his name. It is the only organization in the Reich that
does bear his name.” - Joseph Goebbels), as fan passion is
most closely associated with youthful enthusiasm and declines with age among
most people.
“The
insane belief in equality that found its crassest expression in political
parties is no more. The principle of personality has replaced the notion of
popular idiocy.” – Joseph Goebbels
A true leader is not supposed to represent
popular opinion.
A true leader demands the loyalty of his country’s
youth to himself, not to their families.
Original Nobility is what a true leader is supposed to
represent.
To
further elaborate on the spirit of radical individualism, one who
sincerely wishes to see individuality maximally expressed can feel
no urge to follow anyone who does not indeed possess an
outstanding individual personality. Thus a leader in the individualist
worldview is never a traditionalist, and a follower in the individualist
worldview is also never a traditionalist, for traditionalism only
appeals to those who lack reverence for individuality. A radical individualist wishes to see
individuality expressed always and only ever in opposition to
tradition, the latter being invariably determined by the
norm rather than by the exception. Furthermore, a radical individualist defines
personality always and only ever as opposition to identity (“Personality (will plus reason) is a
power representing the spiritual in man opposed to the material. … Persona
(instinct plus understanding) is the body of man and his interests.” – Alfred
Rosenberg), the latter being invariably determined by pre-existing
roles into which we are placed without our own consent rather than by
our own sincerity of spirit in absence of pressure to meet expectations. Thus a
good measure of individual personality is the extent to which it scorns
confinement by tradition (identity being one aspect of tradition), so that
a shallow personality is anti-traditional only in superficial ways, whereas a
deep personality is anti-traditional in the very fundamentals of its
thought. (“True
personality at first hostilely faces the object to be altered, then the latter
is forced to answer to a formal will. When this occurs, personality style is
the result.” – Alfred Rosenberg) As such, so-called “traditionalist
leaders” are not leaders at all in our eyes, but mere paternalistic
mediocrities, or - more bluntly - slave prefects.
Radical individualism
– “individualism for the leader alone” – thus simultaneously
opposes both the phony “individualism for everybody” of the modern
False Left, and the “individualism for nobody” traditionalism and paternalistic
authoritarianism of all right-wing ideologies, and as such is an attitude
exclusive to the True Left. Classical Platonist ideas about a
“philosopher-king” come close in form to our conception of leadership, but
Romantic-influenced National Socialism hits the deeper mark by visualizing the
leader as less a philosopher and more an artist, hence further emphasizing the
importance of individual personality. Hitler was precisely such a leader, and
National Socialism was a movement by and for people with artistic sympathies
– the comparison between a National Socialist leader and a pop culture icon
becomes even more analogous with this in mind. Such
a leader must not be concerned about his own popularity among
his followers, or else he would have ceased to be leading his
followers and degenerated into doing whatever they want him to do,
and thus ceased to be a leader (or even an individual) in any
meaningful sense. Instead, as an artist, the leader’s only duty is to stay true
to his artistic vision.
“In
its organization the State must be established on the principle of personality,
starting from the smallest cell and ascending up to the supreme government of
the country. There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by
responsible persons. And the word ‘council’ is once more restored to its
original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have
councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual person
alone.” – Adolf Hitler
“If
the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental
importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the
external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it
would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For
that reason it would not have the right to call itself a Weltanschhauung. If
the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and
putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted
with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.” –
Adolf Hitler
It
is inaccurate to describe such a leader as a tyrant, as he does
not force anyone to serve himself – the very notion is as
nonsensical as the notion of pop culture icons forcing anyone to
be their fan. In a practical world of many countries and many leaders, all
followers should be allowed to choose to offer their
services to whichever leader they prefer, and to physically relocate to
the corresponding country as necessary in order to serve their leader of choice
alongside the rest of their folk. It is mutually beneficial
among leaders to facilitate such a process of free relocation by aspiring
followers, as it will match every leader with the followers most loyal to
himself. One who believes that he himself can be a better leader
than any currently existing is also open to try becoming one via his
own means. Only after an oath of loyalty is freely taken by a
follower does he become honour-bound to serve the leader until
death or until the leader releases him from his oath. It is democracy which is
tyrannical by forcing large numbers of citizens to tolerate elected
governments towards which they feel no loyalty, based on the excuses: 1)
they lost the vote; 2) they can vote again in a few years’ time.
Volksgemeinschaft
“Our
economic principle is: the duty of the national economy is to provide the
necessities of life and not to secure the highest possible profits for
capital.” – Gottfried Feder
“Our
principle as regards social subjects is as follows: the general welfare is the
highest law of all. This principle of ours is in direct opposition to
present-day practice according to which every class tries to gain advantages
for its own particular group.” – Gottfried Feder
No
less important to National Socialism is how the leader should treat the
folk, and how members of the folk should treat one another. In this, the
analogy of the pop culture icon and the fanbase continues to be useful.
A
pop culture icon obviously wants his fans to be in the best
personal condition possible to appreciate his work. A fan who is
hungry or homeless, or who has difficulty paying bills or
who remains stuck in debt despite working long hours, or who must deal
with chronic illness, or who is intermittently subjected
to the stress of litigation, or who is otherwise saddled with formal
banalities that consume most if not all of his daily faculties
of attention, is unlikely to have the time and concentration or even be in
the mood to devote himself to his icon no matter how much he would
theoretically wish to. The same is true of a follower in relation to his
leader under National Socialism, except that the leader – as a politician – is
in a position to actively improve the living conditions of his followers
via state initiatives. Therefore an initial objective of the
National Socialist leader is to make sure his followers
have enough physical and mental health as well as financial and civic
reassurance in day-to-day living, all while sparing them from
unnecessary bureaucracy, that followers can get back to doing that which
they most love to do: providing fan support.
“To
fill forms — one of the international occupations of modern civilised
humanity.” – Savitri Devi
“It
nauseated me to think that one day I might be fettered to an office stool, that
I could not dispose of my own time but would be forced to spend the whole of my
life filling out forms.” – Adolf Hitler
“Forms
and questionnaires should be reduced as much as possible. People have no time to
write out their entire biography on some ridiculous form to get something that
is important to them. One should be reasonable and require of them only that
which is essential.” – Joseph Goebbels
“National-Socialist
law … does not accept the absolute necessity of “professional lawyers” or
“solicitors”, regarding such a necessity as dishonourable … All the proceedings
should be understandable by ordinary people.” – David Myatt
Only a person can help another person.
Bureaucracy has never helped anyone.
Of course, a person has to be willing to help.
But by
the same reasoning that National Socialism aims to relieve worry among the
folk concerning the basic necessities of life, it discourages the pursuit
of affluence beyond modest comfort. Just as uncertainty and insecurity in
daily life diminishes fan enthusiasm, so too does the lure
of unlimited profit distract from it. This is why it is rare for
high-powered speculators, entrepreneurs and the like to also be
die-hard fans of pop culture icons: their intensive observation of
financial trends and networking with lucrative opportunism in
mind uses up most of their energy, and they receive
immediate rewards for attention or penalties for inattention, so
their entire mindset is trained away from contemplation of
personality. The National Socialist principle of strictly prohibiting
income other than what is earned via productive labour, at the
same time as it is about protecting the savings of honest
workers against inflation, is also part of establishing a folkish habitat, which
is fundamentally incompatible with the presence of capitalist
temptations, but which instead works best with simple living.
“A
re-organization of our people into a national unit that includes all those
whose labour is productive simply pushed aside the old organizations of
employers and employees.” – Adolf Hitler
What we had back in the Golden Age.
Simple life is the best!
Further
to this line of thought, fans of pop-culture icons are also in poor
condition to provide fan support when they feel they are
in competition against one another even within the domain of fandom, for
this turns their focus away from the icon itself and towards
rivalries inside the fanbase. A fanbase thrives when every fan helps
every other fan support the icon to the best of each fan’s capacity, but it
withers when some warped fans try to restrict the support of other
fans in order to prevent them from offering more support than
themselves. And again, all the same is true of a folk under National
Socialism. Therefore it is incumbent upon the National Socialist leader to
instill in each sincere follower a feeling of being valuable to
the folk in a way that does not require knocking down the value
of other similarly sincere followers. Other forms of socialism rely
on the (false) premise of egalitarianism to argue in support of this, but
National Socialism, which rejects egalitarianism, relies instead on the principle of citizenship. It
matters not that two people are unequal; the simple fact that both
are citizens means that both are people whom the leader is glad to
have among the folk, both people whom the leader would rather be present than
absent, and this is all that any citizen needs to know in order to have an
attitude of fellowship towards any other.
Egalitarianism, which argues
for fellowship based on equality, actually implies
that non-equality is sufficient reason for rejecting fellowship. Thus it
sets up a backlash against itself (which is what Zionists designed it for).
Fellowship based on citizenship avoids this.
“Life
divides us perforce into many groups and occupations. It is the task of the
political and mental education of the nation to overcome this division. This
task has in the first line been alloted to the Labour Service. Its duty is to
unite all Germans in work, and thus to form a community out of them. To
this end let us place the same tool in the hand of all, the tool that a nation
honours most, the spade.” – Adolf Hitler
Citizenship
is not the same as nationality. The term “nation” etymologically derives from
root “natus” meaning ”birth”;
people are fellow nationals by being born in the same country and therefore
possessing shared experiences of growing up in that country. (Racists
who claim that common nationality requires common ethnicity again
display their illiteracy.) The term “citizen”, on the other
hand, etymologically derives from the root “civitas” meaning “commonwealth”; people
are fellow citizens by having added
value to the same country and therefore possessing a shared
stake in that country. For the pop culture comparison, a fan of an icon
is supposed to be more than merely a viewer/subscriber of the icon –
a fan is expected to have actively participated in fanwork and
thus supplemented the icon’s impact rather than merely enjoyed the icon’s
impact. It is hoped by the National Socialist state that nationality serves as
sufficient motivation for citizenship that every national becomes a citizen,
but non-nationals can certainly also become citizens, whereas nationals who
have not contributed to the country (as well as warped nationals who
themselves may contribute to the country but who try to obstruct others who
wish to contribute to the country from doing so) will certainly not become
citizens.
“Citizenship
must not be a gift at birth, but must be acquired by labour. Only the
fulfilment of duty and service for the honour of the folk can award this right.
Consequently, we must make a ceremony out of the award of citizenship to take
the place of confirmation. Only when sacrifices have been made for something,
is one also ready to fight for it. This last measure will also automatically
push those racial elements into the foreground which are organically most of
all capable of serving the supreme value of our folk.” – Alfred Rosenberg
Therefore
it is the duty of the National Socialist state to rigorously define
contribution, set the minimum quantity of contribution required from each
person for citizenship to be awarded to that person, and establish
a system of measuring contribution. Again, this is no more
complicated and conceptually no different than running a fanclub. The
more purposeful the definition of contribution, the more wisely
set the minimum quantity of contribution required for citizenship, and the
fairer the system of measuring contribution, the better the state is an example
of competent National Socialist administration.
Lebensraum
“The
call for one’s own space, for one’s own bread, becomes the prerequisite for the
achievement of spiritual values.” – Alfred Rosenberg
But
in order for a leader to adequately express his individuality, even
perfectly loyal support from a folk is on its own generally not
enough. Just as a pop culture icon is not truly an expression of the
artist behind it unless that artist himself owns all the relevant means of
production associated with the franchise (ideally
staffed entirely by fans) and therefore is not dependent on
intermediary agencies in order to reach the fanbase, so the
National Socialist state demands absolute possession by the leader of living
space for the folk on which a reliable economic autarky and political
autonomy can be established. The initial mission of a folk once formed around a
particular leader is to establish such living space. In this respect, National
Socialism exhibits its fundamentally Aryan roots, for prehistoric nomadic
hunting and herding populations had lordship over men – and, in the case
of herding, ownership of tradeable assets in the form of their flocks
- but not rulership of fixed geographic territory as such (and hence
not true statesmanship as Aryans understand the concept), the latter being
exclusive to the settled lifestyle associated with subsistence farming.
For this reason, nomad patriarchs/matriarchs were always dull
traditionalists, since no matter how superficially wealthy and powerful they
were, their perpetually itinerant lifestyle ensured that they lacked
the deep economic confidence required to imagine radical departure from the
traditional social attitudes that have worked successfully for them through the
generations. To nomads, social success and economic success were not
distinct concepts, but one and the same. The deep confidence required to be
anti-traditional, which arises only when economic
life is separate from social life, is a possession
exclusively of thoroughbred Aryans who live under assurance that they
need only vigilantly hold and diligently tend their farmland and waterways in
order to be provided in return with sustenance as guaranteed as
sunlight itself. To Aryans, all other issues are questions of
ethics and/or aesthetics, to be answered with noble personality.
“In
creating, on the basis of National-Socialist philosophy and ideology, the
political infrastructures and institutions that are the foundation of society,
only the honourable and noble will assume the responsibility of governing and
administering the new National-Socialist community.” – David Myatt
Mere
governmental jurisdiction over land is insufficient to render it
living space. The totality of the land and all material wealth associated
with it must be defined as fundamentally belonging to the leader in such a way
that the leader can theoretically commandeer any of it at any time. Private
property is permitted for all citizens under National Socialism (unlike under
communism), but it is to be understood that all private property within
the living space has merely been variously entrusted
to various citizens by the leader to hold in administration on
the leader’s behalf, based on the practical consideration that the leader
cannot attend to all of it simultaneously via state administration.
Hitler’s favourite example for explaining this concept is that the state
will let a citizen own farmland within the country, but only so long as
this citizen continues to produce sufficient food from this
farmland to feed the local community dependent on it; otherwise, the
leader had better promptly seize it and give it to someone
else more productive before people begin to starve! Property (which
derives from “proprietas”
meaning “special”) is hence distinguished from belonging (which derives from “be-” + “lang” meaning “to go
with”); the former is a duty of citizenship, the latter a duty of leadership.
This prevents degeneration into feudalism, where landowners can conspire
as an oligarchy to interfere in politics via economic leverage.
It
follows that the only valid conception of money is one where the value of
money is guaranteed by the National Socialist state and limited to
circulation within the territory under the jurisdiction of this same
state. Not only must the state be the sole issuer of money, but even
the material used for physical tender should itself be as valueless as
possible. For example, gold or silver minted coins are an extremely
bad choice for tender, as they could be melted down into mintless bullion
and sold for the value of the material even after the state which originally
minted the coins has fallen, implying separation between currency and state.
Paper notes are a better choice, as paper money instantly
becomes worthless (except as toilet paper) as soon as the state falls, thus
tying the fate of a state’s currency to the fate of the state itself, and hence
eliminating the possibility of taking one’s money and running from one’s
country when things start going bad. An even better choice would be a
stopwatch-like device that measures labour performed and directly converts this
into money (which cannot even be used as toilet paper). Hitler himself was
known for graphic visualizations of money in terms of labour time: “Since our advent to power we have
replaced about five million people in the process of national production. This
means that for every working day we have given to the German people an average
of between thirty and forty million hours of work more than they previously
had. This has been their salvation. It does not matter for what kind of
production this working power has been employed in individual cases. Taken all
in all, in one year we have given to the nation the fruits of about nine
milliard hours of labour.” Obviously the danger of currency
counterfeiting still exists and must be contended with by police departments as
a criminal issue, but at least the danger of a foreign power flooding
the market with valuable materials is eliminated.
“From
the moment that I abandoned the gold standard, and while I still had large
numbers of unemployed at my disposal, I had no financial problems. I had to
support seven million whole-time and four million part-time unemployed. This
necessitated a budget of five milliards. We should have saved many milliards of
overseas expenditure if the Wehrmacht had from the beginning been content to
accept our own synthetic and supplementary raw materials instead of insisting
on importing from abroad.” – Adolf Hitler
Autarky is the foundation of living space.
The only test for whether autarky has been established
is 100% reliance on national produce.
A National
Socialist state must recognize no international laws applicable to its regime.
No law exists in absence of law enforcement, therefore recognition of
international law on national territory is tantamount to
acknowledgement of an external law enforcer whose jurisdiction
extends into national territory. A country
which acknowledges such is already not a sovereign country,
but an implicit colony of a foreign power. This is the point
behind Hitler’s words: “I
am not in the least willing to allow foreign statesmen to create a second
Palestine right here in the heart of Germany.” Having said
that, a National Socialist state must strive to uphold foreign relations based
on honour and empathy. It must never consider a citizen of another country
as a lower ethical priority than a citizen of its own country, but
must mercilessly punish citizens of its own country who in any
way mistreat citizens of other countries whether at home or
abroad - not because it fears international condemnation for failing to do
so, but because it genuinely wishes to provide justice for victims and to
eliminate tribalism from within its own national body. The exception to this
principle is if the foreign citizens are citizens of Israel
any state which promotes tribalism among its own people, whereupon all
violence towards them can be viewed as retaliatory and hence automatically
ethical.
Further
to the idea of retaliatory violence against tribalist states, it is entirely
ethical – indeed it is a heroic duty – for a National Socialist state to capture
the territory of Israel tribalist
states for incorporation within its own domain, not as a colony, but as a
direct territorial annexation under the exact same laws as
the original territory applicable to all inhabitants, and with
state initiatives (e.g. Lebensborn homes)
to facilitate multiethnic integration according to bloodline quality based
on Aryan standards. Children of annexed territories in particular are,
unless suspected beyond
reasonable doubt of carrying latent tribalist blood (see next
section), to be given the opportunity to start fresh
without identitarian baggage traditionally imposed on them by their
parents (a policy which Zionist historians have spun as “Nazis stealing
children”, as if children ever belonged to those who gave birth to
them without their own consent). It is only unethical for a National
Socialist state to capture the territory of other non-tribalist states.
National Socialist Germany (red), Third Reich
(orange) (and Italian Empire (green))
“The
larger the territory which a people has at its disposal the stronger are the
national defences of that people. Military decisions are more quickly, more easily, more
completely and more effectively gained
against a people occupying a national territory which is restricted in area,
than against States which have extensive territories. Moreover, the magnitude
of a national territory is in itself a certain assurance that an outside Power
will not hastily risk the adventure of an invasion; for in that case the
struggle would have to be long and exhausting before victory could be hoped
for. The risk being so great, there would have to be extraordinary reasons
for such an aggressive adventure. Hence it is that the territorial magnitude of
a State furnishes a basis whereon national liberty and independence can be
maintained with relative ease; while, on the contrary, a State whose territory
is small offers a natural temptation to the invader.” – Adolf Hitler
In
this way, we envision a Pax Arya in which all tribalist (ie. “In
Time”) states are eliminated, the universalist but non-heroic (ie. “Above
Time”) states keep their rule over their original small
territories, but it will be the universalist and heroic (ie.
“Against Time”) states that rule larger territories and hence possess the
strongest defences against invasion, deservedly on account of their
demonstrated willingness to fight for their ideals.
Amalekism
“Defending
against the Jewish danger is only part of our plan. When it becomes the only
issue when National Socialism is discussed, that is Jewry’s fault, not ours.” –
Joseph Goebbels
Many
non-Jewish states throughout world history, including many with
no other common ground with the National Socialist
state, have attempted to deal with the Jewish problem.
Therefore, while it is impossible by definition to be National Socialist
without being actively anti-Zionist so long as there remains even one Jew
alive anywhere in the world, state countermeasures against Jewish power do
not on their own imply that the state is “National
Socialist” (as overzealous surveyors have a tendency to call any state
that is openly adversarial towards organized Jewry). Opposition to
Jews can be based on numerous lines of reasoning, only a few of which
are compatible with National Socialism. In general, any opposition to Jews
intended as a way to advance the interests of one’s own
(Gentile) group is incompatible with National Socialism. Only
opposition to Jews viewed as pure duty - to the extent
of readiness towards collective self-sacrifice if required to ensure the
destruction of the enemy - can be compatible with National Socialism.
“One
can hardly imagine a bolder, more outspoken world view than [Spinoza's]; but
his ethics would horrify a pig. ‘In all things seek that which is advantageous’
is the quintessence of his moral philosophy – the genuine Jewish viewpoint.” –
Dietrich Eckart
“No
one any longer will dare to suggest that we are speaking here only in our own
interest. The German people has made sacrifices over the past five years
because of its recognition of a danger to the world that entitle it to speak on
this matter.” – Joseph Goebbels
As
such, all serious National Socialists should possess at least
moderate familiarity with Judaism, Jewish culture and Jewish history.
Pedantic knowledge of details of Jewish law is not essential, but
conceptual understanding of the broad principles underlying it is
expected, so that one can see clearly its ongoing real-life applications
in Jewish behaviour.
“The
Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite,
swindler, profiteer; it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call
him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how
he suddenly shrinks back: ‘I’ve been found out!’” – Joseph Goebbels
“The
Jew … gradually came to form a State within a State. He came to look upon the
commercial domain and all money transactions as a privilege belonging
exclusively to himself and he exploited it ruthlessly. At this stage finance
and trade had become his complete monopoly. … The cup of his iniquity
became full to the brim when he included landed property among his commercial
wares and degraded the soil to the level of a market commodity. Since he himself
never cultivated the soil but considered it as an object to be exploited, on
which the peasant may still remain but only on condition that he submits to the
most heartless exactions of his new master, public antipathy against the Jew
steadily increased and finally turned into open animosity. … Although public
wrath flared up against this eternal profiteer and drove him out, after a few
years he reappeared in those same places and carried on as before. No
persecution could force him to give up his trade of exploiting other people and
no amount of harrying succeeded in driving him out permanently. He always
returned after a short time and it was always the old story with him.” – Adolf
Hitler
Unlike many
other enemies of Jewry who oppose Jews but do not necessarily oppose the
teachings of Judaism, National Socialists are utterly appalled by Judaism
first, and oppose Jews only because we consider them to be Judaism
made flesh. We reject and condemn in the strongest terms the false notion,
popular among Jew-aware Judeo-Christians and sundry right-wingers, that Judaism
refers only to so-called “rabbinical Judaism” while the Tanakh is somehow
not part of Judaism(!). Instead, we maintain that one cannot
credibly call oneself anti-Zionist unless one opposes the Tanakh (from
which the term “Zion” itself originates).
“All
Jews have good reason to celebrate Luther and to ignore his anti-Semitism.
Without intending to do so, he paved the way for them, and how! The more they
extol his authority, the less the world notices his error.” – Adolf Hitler
“The
Jew Goldmann stated their reason plainly enough. ‘Luther has again brought the
Old Testament to honor.’ … Even Luther was taken in by the ‘chosen people’. He
looked upon the Old Testament as divine revelation. He approached the book with
infatuation, convinced that it could contain nothing but sheer preciousness.” –
Dietrich Eckart
“He
saw the Jews as we have only begun to see them today. But, unfortunately, too
late, and even then not there, where he had done the most damage – in
Christianity. Oh, had he only seen them there; had he only seen them in his
youth! Then … instead of glorifying the Old Testament, he would have branded it
as the arsenal of the Antichrist.”
– Adolf Hitler
This is
not to say that National Socialists consider Jewishness merely
to be a matter of religion, for we believe that Jews manifest
Judaism racially as well as religiously as a consequence of
thousands of years of continuous selective pressure in favour of heritable
traits compatible with Judaism, since Jews being extreme racists
have always resisted integration into the societies in which they
lived. Therefore a Jew who professes renunciation of Judaism has
not necessarily ceased to be a Jew. (It could well be that such a Jew
is transitioning towards crypto-Jewishness.) Hitler expressed his exasperation
towards those among his contemporaries who believed Jewishness was
merely religious: “If
the worst came to the worst a few drops of baptismal water would settle the
matter, hereupon the Jew could still carry on his business safely. … It looked
more and more as if the whole movement was a new attempt to proselytize the
Jews.” If any individual of known Jewish blood heritage wishes
us to believe he is not a Jew, he must not only renounce Judaism but also
voluntarily refrain from reproducing, thereby showing serious commitment
towards phasing out racial as well as religious Jewishness from existence.
But
by far the most poisonous idea popular among far-right organized
Gentile movements – mostly those that want their own Gentile ethnostates –
is that only
diaspora Jews are the problem, while Israel is not a problem at all (or is
even something positive!). In contrast, National Socialists are avowedly
anti-Israel, as Hitler explains: “They
have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish state in Palestine so
as to live in it. What they really are aiming at is to establish a central
organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign
state, this cannot be controlled by other states. Therefore it can serve as a
refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a school for
the training of other swindlers.” This does not mean that
we ignore or tolerate diaspora Jews, but it is strategically obvious that
dealing with diaspora Jews will be immeasurably easier after taking out
their base first so as to cut off their retreat. The far-right
alternative plan, which consists of keeping Israel and pressuring
all current diaspora Jews to move there, is not only inexcusably cruel to
the Palestinians and other inhabitants of the region, but also fantastically
impractical. In addition to unrealistically presuming that every
disapora Jew can even be successfully identified by non-Jews (ignoring the
sheer number of crypto-Jews in the world, not least those infiltrated into
leadership positions within the far-right itself), it underestimates the
ongoing advances in Israeli golemcraft
technology (ignoring that Jews surpass non-Jews in average IQ by at
least one standard deviation, not to mention that Israel (via
crypto-Jewish spies) has access to new technological developments in most
countries around the world while the rest of the world has no access
to new technological developments in Israel) that could eventually leave
Israel so far ahead of the rest of the world in military
technology that Jews could one day conquer the planet just by
pressing a button. Each day we procrastinate in taking out Israel,
we reduce our chances of success when we eventually try.
With
all this said, the final distinguishing feature of National Socialists towards
Jews is our immovable Aryan principle of fair treatment of indviduals
based on their own behaviour alone, which includes individuals of Jewish
ancestry no less than any other. Many of the concentration camps into
which Jews were placed by National Socialist Germany were (contrary to Zionist
Allied propaganda) remarkable for the level of comfort they offered their
residents, including swimming pools, sports grounds, libraries,
theatres and other amenities comparable to those typically found in
holiday camps. The actual function of the so-called “gas chambers” was to
maintain laundry hygeine among the contained population. As carriers of
Jewish blood, they had to be quarantined in the same way as any other group
carrying a genetic disease must be quarantined in order to prevent the
disease from perpetuating and spreading; as people, it was never National
Socialist policy to sanction mistreating them for the sake of mistreating them,
nor will it be under our future administration. All Jews who refuse to
surrender their Jewishness will have their citizenship removed and be
imprisoned for conspiracy to treason based on their membership in a secret society (which
is what Jewry is, technically speaking). On the other hand, all
individuals of Jewish ancestry who renounce Judaism, and who
voluntarily refrain from reproducing, and who have no record of
ignoble behaviour otherwise, will be guaranteed by the National Socialist
state the privilege to live out the remainder of their lives in
safety and dignity as quarantined citizens (ie. medical inpatients,
not criminal prisoners), and to moreover receive posthumous recognition as
Aryans. In particular, young children of Jewish parents will receive every
possible kindness that it is within the ability of National Socialist state to
offer them, for they are the first and most innocent victims of Jewish
identity. And Jewish parents will surely receive from us less punishment
than they deserve for their incalculable evil (inflicted both upon the world
by reproducing, and upon their own children by giving birth to them and
rearing them as Jews), because even endless torture in
hell would not be retribution enough for them. They will, however, be
sentenced by the National Socialist state to the maximum punishment
physically devisable on a low budget.
(All
these principles established for dealing with Jews also
hypothetically apply to dealing with heritably tribalistic
Gentile groups (and their religions) as may unfortunately arise in
future.)
Vril
“It
was the noblest of ideas to which a German could give all his strength. It made
the German nation a gift of unity, it gave the German Reich a new content. It
was a social philosophy and an ideal of blood-conditioned cultural cleanliness.
National Socialism was misused, and in the end demoralized, by men to whom its
creator had most fatefully given his confidence. The collapse of the Reich is
historically linked with this. But the idea itself was action and life, and
that cannot and will not be forgotten. As other great ideas knew heights and
depths, so National Socialism too will be reborn someday in a new generation
steeled by sorrow.” – Alfred Rosenberg
Although
National Socialist Germany was destroyed in WWII, the spiritual energy
which animated it during its brief run in history has
remained resplendent in the post-WWII world. Focus on charismatic pop
culture icons became part of collective psychology in a way it had never been
prior to WWII. Every field of mass entertainment media – literature, music,
drama, and more - anomalously and dazzlingly flourished, with one
masterpiece rolling out after another so seemingly effortlessly that
their beauty was indeed often taken for granted by their contemporary
consumers. Vigorous Jewish attempts to steer artistic direction towards
hedonistic nihilism did not succeed for long; by the closing decades of
the 20th century, heroic characters and romantic themes had retaken
centre-stage in the world of pop culture. (“Wagner
wanted this: an art as religion. … He did not say in a state of collapse: I no
longer understand the world. Rather, he wished to create another world. … Even
if the people of our times felt themselves estranged from the forms of the
Bayreuth idea or unsympathetic to it, this idea has been the real source of life
in the midst of a barbaric time.” – Alfred Rosenberg)
Jews peddled egalitarianism to non-Jews in real-life, but pop
culture icons became increasingly larger-than-life examples of
sparkling individual personality (typically in defiance of identity,
by the way). Jews peddled sexual promiscuity to non-Jews in real-life, but pop
culture increasingly celebrated pure, chaste, devoted and often
unfulfilled love (frequently in defiance of tradition, by the way). Jews
peddled moral relativism to non-Jews in real-life, but pop culture
increasingly extolled the absolute moral beauty of justified vengeance and
overdue retribution (especially against tribalists, by the way). Unable to
stop these trends, just as they had been unable to stop Christianity 2000
years ago, Jews then duplicitously switched to claiming credit for
them(!) – and neo-Nazis believe this(!!) - based on the beyond-ludicrous
assertion that these trends were inspired by sympathy for the supposed Jewish
victims of the alleged “Holocaust”. No, they were not. These trends were
inspired by sympathy for the worldwide victims of 500 horrific years of
post-Renaissance Western civilization, and - though most who felt this way
were unaware of this - for the world’s greatest champion against it:
Hitler himself. Sensing the sheer nearness of his Arhat
personality from the earth-shattering impact it had made only a few
decades earlier, people with Aryan blood memory yearned for it as an
avatar for their idealism, but believed the Zionist lies about “the
Nazis” and therefore never knew that his was the personality whom
they sought, thus turned to pop culture icons as imaginary substitutes.
This
is the only narrative that accounts for the rise of National Socialism and the
development of post-WWII pop culture trends not as distinct
phenomena, but as two forms of the same phenomenon: UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.
The 19th century Romantic movement in art gathered the energy for
National Socialism in politics during the early 20th century (a point which
Hitler explicitly acknowledged by crediting the influence of Wagner on his
movement). With its political outlet attenuated by defeat in war, this
energy was then recycled back into art by the late 20th
century, coming full-circle. But the narrative need not end here. It
is now the 21st century. Countries around the world today desperately
need this energy to inspire politics again in order to unify societies
that have become more divided than ever before. And if it receives it, it
will be from us. Not just because we hold the correct historical narrative, but
because we are so sure that we do that we are willing to
pick it up from where Hitler left it off and prove it to the world.
Are you with us?
No comments:
Post a Comment