For Americans, even uttering the words “national socialism” stigmatize any further dialogue on this form of government that appeared to work so well in pre-WWII Germany.
I believe the reason is because we’ve been taught in America to associate any form of socialism as another tentacle of communism, which is not far from the truth, however, I am learning that there is a huge gulf between socialism and authentic, or, pure national socialism.
Before I go further, lets talk about America’s alleged form of government, which was supposed to be based on a democracy within a Constitutional Republic. A Republic is defined as:
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
When democracy is combined within this form of government it basically descends into “mob rule” since democracy is ‘rule by the majority’. That produces a lot of “haves and have nots”, further dividing the population through class division.
The first example of government based on democracy appeared in Athens, Greece around the 5th century B.C. But, they formed a unique and intriguing experiment in “Direct Democracy” a political system in which the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. The decline of democracy in Greece began it’s slow fall first due to oligarchic revolution towards the end of the Peloponnesian War, then its many ancient critics, and finally the Macedonian Empire.
As today, Greece’s ancient authors and critics were almost invariably from an elite background for whom giving poor and uneducated people power over their betters seemed a reversal of the proper, rational order of society. For them the demos in democracy meant not the whole people, but the people as opposed to the elite. Instead of seeing it as a fair system under which ‘everyone’ has equal rights, they saw it as the numerically preponderant poor tyrannize over the rich. They viewed society like a modern stock company: democracy is like a company where all shareholders have an equal say regardless of the scale of their holding; one share or ten thousand, it makes no difference. They regarded this as manifestly unjust. In Aristotle this is categorized as the difference between ‘arithmetic’ and ‘geometric’ (i.e. proportional) equality.
Today America is loosely defined as a Federal Republic which means a group of independent states, which are united by a common, federal government. In this system of government, there is a division of powers between the “federal” government and the governments of each state. For instance, the federation could manage issues such as national security and defense, a common currency or laws granted by a constitution, but each state would handle its own laws, educational system or infrastructure maintenance. A modern Representative Republic is a system of government where the people select certain candidates to represent them as government officials. Most republics are composed by three branches of government: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Some examples of Federal Republics are the United States of America, the United Mexican States (Mexico), the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Russian Federation or the Swiss Confederation.
However, America’s system of government has been a a spurious imitation of it’s original intended form from nearly the beginning. I dare say that ordinary Americans never really had the opportunity to choose a candidate to represent their interests in the federal government. They only thought they did. It is now common knowledge that both the Democrat and Republican parties select the candidates that “they” want in office over and above the people, much like in a parliament. Elections are nothing more than illusions of free will and the opportunity to cast a vote. Americans are not represented in the government and elected officials continuously demonstrate that they have no interest in the concerns of their alleged constituents.
Post 9/11, I would define America’s present form of government as an oligarchy with an autocratic head sitting in the Oval office who appears to have been given unlimited power by use of Executive Order that overrules the other three branches. Does any American realize that Barak Obama can write an executive order to put anyone to death without due process of the law?
Not to mention, that America’s government is occupied by a foreign country (Israel) and its AIPAC lobby that has completely and absolutely usurped the power of both houses (Congress and Senate) and rules our elected officials with an iron fist. No one in Washington D.C. operates outside the bounds of Israeli or AIPAC control.
9/11 was the catalyst that provided the means for the U.S. federal government to outwardly demonstrate its abuse of power with no regard for the safety or welfare of the people. It’s been a gradual descent into a totalitarian, mass surveillance police state based on the lies and subterfuge about the events of 9/11, which was ruthlessly orchestrated by the United States and Israel to rob the American people of the few civil liberties they still had, and to demonize the Muslim nations so that Israel could gain further hegemony over the Middle East, and of course – access to oil, mineral wealth and other natural resources that the Zionist Jewish Israelis covet.
Since 9/11, the nation has bared the brunt of two deranged psychopathic Presidents that have utterly destroyed America’s reputation, kept the country in perpetual wars or itching to get us into another one, overcriminalized everything from smoking to showing public emotion; numerous bank bail-outs, unending taxation, outsourced jobs, epic inflation of food prices and everything in between, and needless soaring fuel prices just because the elite rich have to pacify their intense hyper-greed.
America must change, undergo a conversion, or put the pieces of the original form of government back in place so that it once again works for the people instead of the politicians, the elite and the Jewish banker barons.
Yet, Americans are fearful to speak about National Socialism. The first thing you should know is that we were lied to so fiercely by this corrupt government about what was happening in Germany during World War II, which is the reason the stigma still remains in a huge portion of the populace. We were never told the truth about the war, Adolf Hitler, or the authentic National Socialist party that brought the German people back from the brink of bankruptcy and starvation.
For your consideration, I present two articles on the subject of pure, authentic National Socialism which is not what you once perceived or taught in high school or college.
I am not advocating that America become a national socialist state – let me make that very clear. But, consider this – if America was a true Democratic Republic “we the people” would have the authority to march on Washington and abolish this corrupt institutional government, yet we have not the power or the right to do so.
Be not fearful, and open your mind to another truth that Americans were viciously denied.
National Socialism, Not “Racism”
By David Wulstan Myatt
Correctly defined and understood, National Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist, are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way that we treasure the diversity of Nature. National Socialists believe that our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas: through the creation of a socially-engineered cypto-Marxist society. Furthermore, National Socialism is a pure expression of our own unique Aryan ethics, based as these ethics are upon the idealism of duty to the folk, duty to Nature, and upon the nobility of personal honor.
National Socialism is a way of living which affirms that the purpose of our lives is to contribute to evolution in a positive way. We contribute to evolution when we fulfill our duty to our folk, since our folk (our race and culture) is our connection to Nature: how Nature is manifest in us as human beings.
National Socialism expresses the natural truth that the living being which is Nature works to produce diversity and difference: that the evolution of Nature is a bringing-into-being of more diversity and more difference. For our own, human species, this diversity of Nature is evident in the different races which exist, and in the different cultures which these races develop over time.
National Socialism values this diversity and difference, and states that we should not only strive to maintain and aid this diversity, but also encourage the peoples and cultures which express this diversity and difference to continue to develop and evolve independently, for by so developing and evolving race and culture we are aiding the evolution of Nature and thus fulfilling our potential as human beings.
The Ethics of National Socialism
According to National Socialist ethics, the definition of good is whatever is honorable, whatever aids Nature and the living beings of Nature (such as our own race), and whatever aids the evolution of the cosmos itself. Our duty is to do what is honourable and what aids Nature, the living beings of Nature, and the cosmos, even if doing this duty makes us, as individuals, unhappy, or even if it means our own death. Furthermore, the happiness of the majority, of other people, comes second to this duty.
The perspective of National Socialist ethics is that of Nature – and indeed, of the cosmos itself, of which Nature is but a part. The perspective of all other ethics is the perspective of the individual, of their happiness, their winning of some reward in this life or the next.
In addition, National Socialist ethics – being based upon the ideal of personal honour – means and implies that we National Socialists must strive to treat all people with courtesy and respect, regardless of their race and culture. This alone disproves the lie of National Socialism being “racist”, just as the true history of National Socialist Germany (as opposed to the lies about NS Germany) proves how honourable and respectful genuine National Socialists were toward others races and cultures.
National Socialist Germany:
The government and officials of National Socialist Germany strove hard to uphold and live by the ethics of National Socialism, as did every genuine National Socialist, even after the defeat of NS Germany in what has become known as the First Zionist War.
Thus, in National Socialist Germany, groups such as Muslims and Buddhists were accorded full respect, and allowed to practise their religion freely. In the pre-war years, National Socialist Germany helped organize a pan-Islamic world congress in Berlin. Berlin itself was home to thriving Muslim and Buddhist communities, of many races, and the Ahmadiyya Mosque in Berlin held regular prayers even during the war years, attended by Arabs, Indians, Turks, Afghans and people of many other races. Indeed, the Berlin Mosque was one of the few buildings to survive the lethal, indiscriminate, Allied bombing and bombardment, and although damaged, it was clearly recognizable as a Mosque amid the surrounding
National Socialist Germany was home to exiles from many races, including respected individuals such as Subhas Chandra Bose, leader of the Indian National Army, and Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Both received significant financial support from the German government and both enthusiastically collaborated with Hitler.
There was also, of course, the alliance with Japan, and while the Allies – and particularly the Americans – were revelling in, and spreading, derogatory anti-Japanese propaganda (many American GI’s thought “the Japs” were not human) the Germans were extolling their virtues and regarded them as “comrades-in-arms”. While the Germans honoured Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto with one of their highest decorations for gallantry, a Knights Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords, American GI’s ruthlessly exterminated Japanese soldiers, it being common practice for them to “take no prisoners” and execute any Japanese soldier who surrendered. Incidentally, two Japanese warriors were honored by Germany by being awarded the Knights Cross with Oak Leaves.
There were also, of course, the links between National Socialist Germany, the SS, and various Muslim and Arab organizations, even before the First Zionist War. For instance, the Egyptian Greenshirt organization revered both Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, while Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (which lives on to this day in organizations like Hamas), made several complimentary remarks about Hitler. There was also a pro-National Socialist coup attempt in Iraq, led by Rashid Ali. Thus, while the British in Egypt and Palestine were treating the Arabs as conquered subjects, the Germans were treating them as equals, as comrades, and respecting their culture, and even to this day in places like Egypt many Arabs fondly recall their meetings with these “Nazis”. In fact, Egypt was to become something of a haven for National Socialists after the War, with hundreds of former SS and German officers helping the postwar anti-British government of Gamal Abdal Nasser, who was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and a close relative of the Egyptian publisher who published an Arabic version of Mein Kampf.
Most revealing of all, perhaps, are the friendly links between National Socialist Germany, the SS, and various Jewish organizations. SS Officer Adolf Eichmann was known to have travelled to Palestine in the years before the war where he met Jewish settlers, Jewish leaders, and German agents. His relations with these Jews were always very cordial and friendly.
Of particular interest is the attempt, in 1941, by the Jewish group Irgun Zevai Leumi (known to the British in Palestine as the Stern gang) to collaborate with Hitler and Germany: “On condition that the German government recognizes the national aspirations of the ‘Movement for the Freedom of Israel’ (Lehi), the National Military Organization (NMO) proposes to participate in the war on the side of Germany…” [Document number E234151-8 at Yad Vachem in Jerusalem].
The German National Socialist government, however, refused to recognize such Jewish “national aspirations” since it conflicted with the policy of their ally, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, who was opposed to the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. Thus, the attempted Jewish collaboration failed.
To quote Waffen-SS General Leon Degrelle:
“German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble ideal. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving itself, as a people, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves.
That was demonstrated when the Waffen SS enlarged its ranks to include 60,000 Islamic SS. The Waffen SS respected their way of life, their customs, and their religious beliefs. Each Islamic SS battalion had an imam, and each company had a mullah. It was our common wish that their qualities found their highest expression. This was our racialism. I was present when each of my Islamic comrades received a personal gift from Hitler during the new year. It was a pendant with a small Koran. Hitler was honoring them with this small symbolic gift. He was honoring them with what was the most important aspect of their lives and their history. National Socialist racialism was loyal to the German race and totally respected all other races.” Leon Degrelle – Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS (Lecture given in 1982). Reprinted in The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 441-468.
I myself have sought to understand the purpose of our lives, as human beings, and so I studied, firsthand in a practical way, most of the major religions of the world – Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam – as well as philosophy, from Aristotle to Heidegger – literature, from Homer to Mishima – and science, from its earliest beginnings.
I have spent long hours, day after day, often week after week and sometimes month after month, speaking with Muslim scholars, Buddhist and Taoist Masters, Christian priests and theologians, Hindu ascetics, and a multitude of ordinary people of different faiths, cultures, and races. My very life, my very experiences among the different cultures, the different faiths, of the world, reveals the truth of National Socialism: its desire for harmony, honour, and order. My own life, my experiences, my National Socialist writings, expose the propaganda lies of those opposed to National Socialism: those social engineers who have sought, and who do seek, through the usury of worldwide consumer-capitalism, to exploit this planet and its peoples and to destroy diversity and distinction and everything that is noble and evolutionary.
A true, a genuine, National Socialist does not go around “hating” people of other races, as National Socialists are not disrespectful of the customs, the religion, the way of life, of people of other races.
As I have said and written numerous times, we National Socialists respect other cultures, and people of other races, because we uphold a timeless code of honor. Honour means being civilized; it means having manners: being polite; conducting oneself with restraint and self-discipline. Honor means treating people with courtesy and respect, irrespective of their origins.
We National Socialists express the view that a person should be proud of their own culture and heritage, respectful of their ancestors and their ancestral way of life, and accept that other peoples have a right to be proud of their own culture and heritage as well. The ideal is a working toward mutual understanding and respect.
Our duty, as Aryans, is to uphold and strive to live by our own Aryan values of personal honour and loyalty to our folk.
Let the misconceptions be corrected.
“Sacrifice is intrinsic to socialism. … The Jew, however, does not understand this at all. His socialism consists of sacrificing others for himself. … The struggle we are now waging today until victory or the bitter end, is in its deepest sense, a struggle between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love. Marx: the principle of hate.” – Joseph Goebbels
The relationship between National Socialism and communism is poorly understood by many present-day communists and anti-communists alike. Because Hitler constantly spoke out against Marxism*, and indeed because the NSDAP was initially created to counter the spread of Marxism in Germany after WWI which threatened to divide society, a common misunderstanding arose that National Socialism was an antithesis to communism. Often ignored is that the NSDAP recruited many of their early members from within the communist parties in Germany at the time, specifically because Hitler believed that individuals attracted to communism, while misguided, possess the radical personality that makes them amenable to National Socialism. The same was also true outside of Germany: Miguel Serrano, for example, was a communist convert to National Socialism.
(* By Marxism, we refer strictly to theories that include advocacy against private property/business and against religion. By communism, we refer strictly to policies of dispossession of the bourgeois class, of mandatory atheism, and of “unmasking” and “re-educating” perceived dissenters via gulag torture. We do not partake in the present-day far-right neurosis of smearing anything and everything outside of the far-right (e.g. libertarianism, universalist religion, non-racism, non-sexism, non-homophobia) as “Marxist” or “communist”.)
The truth is that National Socialism and communism did not start out antithetical to each other, but were rather competing antitheses to capitalism, as indicated in the NSDAP leaflet entitled: “Is This Your Battle Against Capitalism, Marxist?” Both sought support from the same pool, hence the rivalry. The reason later Marxist authors (almost all Jewish) hated Hitler so much was because Hitler exposed both capitalism and communism as two poles of a false dichotomy that ultimately served Zionism.
The Problem of Oppression
“Our socialism goes far deeper … Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.” – Adolf Hitler
The polemical starting point of National Socialism and communism is the same: the slavemaster is evil. The fatal mistake of the communist is to assume that because the slavemaster is evil, the slave must therefore be good. The communist ignores all measurements of genuine morality, and instead assigns superiority according to the mere condition of being oppressed. The National Socialist, in contrast, is aware that most slaves would gleefully become new slavemasters in an instant if given a chance to do so, and therefore are no better than the current slavemaster (not that this justifies their enslavement).
“So far, never and nowhere has there been a truly social state. Everywhere and always the upper crust has leaned much more strongly to the principle, ‘what is yours, is mine,’ than to, ‘what is mine, is yours.’ These wise ones have only themselves to blame for the fact the lower stratum, full of rage, now is committing the same error. The Jew is able to take advantage of both these groups. One of them provides for his affairs, the other carries them out. Therefore, we oppose them both.” – Adolf Hitler
Thus the National Socialist is addressing a more sophisticated problem than the communist. The communist is merely trying to overthrow the current slavemaster. The National Socialist is alert that not only must the current slavemaster be overthrown, but his replacement must not deteriorate into another slavemaster over time, which demands his ideology address the differing quality (including heritable quality) of people’s characters, as opposed to merely – as is the sole focus of the communist – their differing lots in life.
“If a folk and a state take this course to develop that nucleus of the nation which is most valuable from the racial standpoint … the folk as a whole will subsequently enjoy that most precious of gifts which consists in a racial quality fashioned on truly noble lines.” – Adolf Hitler
The communist state is opposed to such things as private property and firearm ownership because it cannot even trust its people to be devout communists. The National Socialist state has no problem with private property or firearm ownership (indeed demands compulsory firearm ownership) because it trusts its folk to be devout National Socialists. Hitler ridiculed communists thus: “Even for the Bolsheviks, the notion of collective ownership has its limits. Trousers … are regarded as private property.” And while both aim at encouraging contribution to state projects, communist propaganda does so by diminishing the importance of the individual compared to the collective, whereas National Socialist propaganda does so by exalting the importance of the individual. Again we see the unspoken communist distrust of its own followers: it assumes that individualism will always lead to selfishness, so its recourse is to drown its audience in collectivism. Again we see the unspoken National Socialist faith in its folk: it believes that by telling its audience that each one of them can be a hero, each one of them will live up to this inspiration.
This is because the communist state indoctrinates its population (in extreme cases via violent Pavlovian conditioning methods for behavioural modification) to accept communism irrespective of their inner quality, whereas the National Socialist state selects Aryan individuals to populate its folk. Even a genuinely benevolent communist state must ultimately monitor and control every aspect of people’s private lives in order to function; a National Socialist state, by retaliating against the demographic violence of reproduction, can afford to be largely non-intrusive in private matters.
The difference comes down to the thought process. Communism approaches the problem of oppression from a concept of “rights”, by positing that everyone has a “right” not to be oppressed. National Socialism approaches the problem of oppression from a concept of duties, by positing that everyone has a duty not to oppress others. Thus communism focuses on upholding the “rights” of the undutiful, whereas National Socialism focuses on the cultivation of the dutiful.
The Problem of Inequality
“Bolshevism preaches international class conflict … National Socialism aims at bridging over and equalizing unfavourable contrasts in social life, and in uniting the whole population in collaborative work.” – Adolf Hitler
The difference between the communist and National Socialist conceptions of inequality is rooted in historical narrative. The communist views history as a sequence of administrative improvements: serfdom an improvement over chatteldom; capitalism an improvement over serfdom. The replacement of capitalism by communism, according to the communist, is hence merely the last stage of a sequential progression from inequality to equality. In stark contrast, the National Socialist narrates history as a tale of spiritual degeneration: serfdom worse than chatteldom (because the serfs are less aware of their own enslavement, in absence of being overtly treated as property); capitalism worse than serfdom (because proletarians are even less aware of their own enslavement, having been given apparent choice in seeking employment). The National Socialist inevitably concludes that communism must be worse than capitalism because its success – portrayed as a proletarian victory over the bourgeois – would make its subjects totally unaware of their enslavement! National Socialism itself, on the other hand, is about struggling against this flow – which is not a flow towards increasing equality, but a flow towards increasing servility (ie. incapability of recognizing slavery). The condition of maximal and fully sustainable servility that would be brought about by communism, the so-called “Worker’s Utopia”, is just another name for Zion.
“Surely modern man does not ‘uphold’ slavery; he denounces it vehemently. But he practises it nevertheless – and on a wider scale than ever … The modern slave … is not openly bought and sold. He is just taken … by a huge impersonal system without either a body to kick or a soul to damn or a head to answer for its mischief.” – Savitri Devi
National Socialism is able to reach such a conclusion because its understanding of slavery is spiritual rather than material. Whereas communism identifies a slave as anyone who consumes less than he produces (so that, embedded within its own slogan: “From each according to ability, to each according to need” is actually an admission that communism itself involves slavery by its own definition!), National Socialism identifies a slave intuitively as someone who lacks the will to freedom, or who lacks nobility. This also accounts for why communism insists on irreligion in its discourse whereas National Socialism welcomes universalist religion for supplementary inspiration, as these typically exhort voluntarily consuming less than we produce in order that we may help the downtrodden, yet do not (unlike communism) exhort producing as much as possible to one’s ability but instead recommend producing only what is essential.
“If positive Christianity means love of one’s neighbour, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians.” – Adolf Hitler
A communist state must continually tempt its people with the promise of great future prosperity in order to convince them to tolerate present hardship, as Hitler explains: “They have been promised happiness on earth (a feature which distinguishes Marxism from the Christian religion) — but in the future. The Jew, Mardochee Marx, like the good Jew that he was, was awaiting the coming of the Messiah. He has placed the Messiah conception in a setting of historic materialism by asserting that terrestrial happiness is a factor in an almost endless process of evolution. “Happiness is within your reach,” he says, “that I promise you. But you must let evolution take its course and not try to hurry matters.” Mankind always falls for a specious trick of that sort.” In contrast, a National Socialist state can persuade its people to be satisfied with less, indeed to learn to take spiritual pride in Aryan frugality and simple living.
In the same way, a communist platform must set the “have-nots” against the “haves”. In contrast, a National Socialist state can convince people that common purpose unites them more strongly than differing assets divides them. Through appeal to internal compassion (as Hitler describes the Winter Help Organization: “… inseparable unity, not only when all goes well, but when things go badly as well, unity not only with those who are blessed by fortune but also with those whose steps are dogged by ill luck …”), National Socialism redistributes wealth by voluntary charity infinitely more satisfactorily to both givers and receivers than communism could ever achieve by force. Indeed, with massive reduction in the range of luxury consumer products/services available for sale as well as the total termination of speculative investment under National Socialist government, giving one’s extra money to charity would become an increasingly spontaneous decision, in Hitler’s words: “There is no socialism except that which arises within its own folk.”
Service Without Servility
“The greatest nationalism and the truest socialism are the same: the spirit of simple service to the community.” – Rudolf Hess
Grassroots do-gooders who wish only to help those in need and give to their local community are those most likely to be drawn strongly to either communism or to authentic National Socialism upon first encountering them, and indeed are those who would make the most exemplary footsoldiers of either ideology. They are the people who would surely agree with Hitler when he said: “If we then understand national solidarity aright, we cannot but see that it is based on the idea of sacrifice. In other 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.” Our opposition to communism, therefore, is not opposition to the broadly admirable character of the people who would at least prefer communism to capitalism at first glance. Our message is that such people have failed to think through the subject, or else they would have realized that communism will ultimately fall far short of satisfying their wish to serve a good cause. This is because all idealism is spiritual in origin, personal in exegesis and transcendent in destination. Communism, by limiting itself strictly to the material, impersonal and existential throughout its entire ideological presentation, indicates that it could not possibly have been the product of a mind in touch with genuine ideals of any kind, but is rather the creation of a calculating herder who set out to deliberately dupe well-meaning idealists and drag them down to a profane condition. In this, our idealistic criticism of communism is entirely distinct from the capitalist cynical criticism of communism. Capitalists merely distrust communism; we despise it.
“Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.” – Adolf Hitler
In Hitler’s words: “National Socialism places no value upon a purely theoretical rule of the working class, but lays all the more value on the practical improvement of their conditions of life.” The National Socialist state guarantees that nobody would have to worry about the necessities of daily life, that nobody would be hungry or homeless, that everyone who needs a living wage would be given a way to earn one by the state. Beyond this, its emphasis remains on raising the quality of the people themselves and encouraging unity between them, on UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY. A society of less selfish, more empathic people would in the first place be less inclined to spend its time worrying about class differences, or indeed to pursue more wealth than is required to live a simple life, so that any disparities in wealth would be minor anyway. This in turn would be a society which its constituent individuals would spontaneously feel proud to serve.
Finally, unlike communism, National Socialism is not a utopian ideology in the sense of seeking to create and perpetually sustain a material paradise. This is not because we are less idealistic than the communists, but because we are more idealistic than the communists, so much so that material existence to us cannot be anything other than imprisonment, since it is an existence we never chose in the first place. We despise the communist capable of being satisfied with material paradise in the same way that we despise a rape victim capable of being satisfied with a sufficiently large sum of compensation money. In contrast, we seek only to establish a temporary fortress, from which we intend singularly to complete our mission of transcending material existence altogether.