National Socialism and Nazism
“A great idea had been misused by small men. Himmler was the evil symbol of that.” – Alfred Rosenberg
National Socialism is the ideology which Hitler applied in Germany from becoming Chancellor in 1933 until WWII destroyed the NSDAP regime in 1945. Nazism, on the other hand, is a separate phenomenon which occurred after WWII ended: the result of Zionist Allied wartime propaganda to demonize National Socialist Germany combined with selective confessions elicited via deception and duress during the Nuremberg Trials, which subsequently became the ‘official’ version of Hitlerism for the Zionist Allies in WWII, the backdrop to the endless stream of ‘Holocaust’ fiction. This misrepresentation was then applied by some British and American racists who saw in Nazism a reactionary solution to petty fears of their day (for Britain the loss of empire and the influx of immigrants, for America the 1960s Civil Rights movement). Thus, Nazism – a malicious distortion of National Socialism originating in Zionist Allied countries, consisting of traditional Western bigotry decorated with anachronistic ‘Germanic’ symbols, and later ironically spread back(!) into Germany (e.g. NPD) – has largely replaced authentic National Socialism in the world’s eyes and become the ideology of modern neo-Nazis.
The easy way to distinguish neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists from the mainstream is that both wish that the Third Reich had been victorious in WWII, rather than the Allies. But the easy way to distinguish neo-Nazis from authentic National Socialists is that, whereas they (neo-Nazis) wish the Third Reich had won because they believe the Third Reich was more racist than the Allies, we (authentic National Socialists) wish the Third Reich had won because we believe the Third Reich, which was already practicing integration in the 1930s, and which despised Western treatment of colonized peoples, was less racist than the Allies, which were still practicing segregation during the same period, and which refused to admit Western wrongdoing towards the colonized. Whereas neo-Nazis want to vindicate Hitler by making racism socially acceptable, authentic National Socialists want to vindicate Hitler by showing that he fought against racism.
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” – Winston Churchill (Jew)
“I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” – Harry Truman (Jew)
Why are scenes like this never depicted in Hollywood movie renditions of “Nazi” Germany?
Indeed the attitude of the NSDAP, as seen in its celebration of the fact that the swastika was used by ancient cultures in almost every continent, and moreover in its various research expeditions to distant locations (including Japan, the Himalayas, South America, etc.) to search for signs of prehistoric Aryan settlements, was to use racial theory as a way to connect Germans with non-Jews of other nationalities all over the world by emphasizing hypothetical common roots cutting across ethnic lines, in stark contrast to the traditional Western approach (Jim Crow, Apartheid, White Australia Policy, etc.) of using racial theory to emphasize ethnic differences. In short, it was the West that stood for racism and National Socialist Germany which stood for non-racism – the total opposite of what is popularly presented.
In order to prevent the truth getting out, Zionist media had to claim instead that Hitler was trying to build UFO bases or find the Holy Grail (see Indiana Jones movies for details…..).
In relation to Jewry, neo-Nazis see no fundamental problem with Jewish tribalism but only encourage similar tribalism among their own groups, in contrast to authentic National Socialists who simply oppose Jewish (and all) tribalism. In relation to Christianity, neo-Nazis believe that the New Testament is the main problem, in contrast to authentic National Socialists who believe that the Old Testament (a.k.a. Tanakh) is the main problem. Similar inversions can be found across a wide range of issues. The only point on which neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists happen to agree is anti-democracy, and even then for opposite reasons: authentic National Socialists consider the majority of people too self-interested; neo-Nazis consider the majority of people not self-interested enough!
Hitler warned us: “The Jew … has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything which was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal. Schopenhauer called the Jew ‘the dregs of mankind,’ ‘a beast,’ ‘the great master of the lie.’ How does the Jew respond? He establishes a Schopenhauer Society.” And in the same way that Jews reacted to Schopenhauer who merely exposed the Jewish problem, they have since the end of WWII even more viciously reacted to National Socialism that offers us a realistic solution to it.
1930s Nationalism vs 2010s ‘Nationalism’
“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.” – Joseph Goebbels
At the core of the confusion is popular failure to recognize that nationalism in the pre-WWII period refers to a completely different idea than what is commonly and erroneously called “nationalism” in the present day. “1930s Nationalism” – alternatively called folkish independentism – was about achieving total economic and political self-reliance (autarky and autonomy) for a country as opposed to bondage by international banking and finance or thrall by foreign powers. This was the origin of Hitler’s German folkish state: a rejection of the Treaty of Versailles (whose contents he bitterly described as: “Instead of general reconciliation, punishment of the defeated. Instead of international disarmament, the disarmament of the vanquished. Instead of general security, security of the victors.”) and, by extension, all the assumptions of Western civilization underlying it.
On the other hand, “2010s Nationalism” – more accurately called identitarianism – is mostly about sowing division within a country between so-called “indigenous-descended” and so-called “immigrant-descended”, and agitating hostility towards the latter by the former. If any one politician of the previous generation is to be held to account for promoting this attitude, it should be Enoch Powell (Gentile), not Hitler.
Needless to say, the objectives of “1930s Nationalism” and “2010s Nationalism” are fundamentally incompatible. In order to achieve independence for a country, as the “1930s Nationalists” intend, it is necessary to first achieve unity within the country; in Hitler’s own words: “The national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our folk.” Even the pre-NSDAP groups were avowed believers in national unification; the old DAP of Anton Drexler, for example, was founded on the idea of rapport among all members of society in Germany, burying all old quarrels and making a fresh start together, as Alfred Rosenberg recalls: “Drexler was not any too well acquainted with economic problems, but he was a man with a simple, direct heart. As a toolmaker foreman in one of the machine shops of the German railroads, he had personally experienced a great many of the sorrows and cares of the German workingman, and understood that any solution to the problem depended upon the unity of the entire people.” Yet national unification is, of course, the exact opposite of what the “2010s Nationalists” are doing by their spreading of distrust, stereotyping and self-segregation along ethnic lines. Hence it has often been joked that, had neo-Nazis actually lived in National Socialist Germany, they would have been – together with Jews and Gypsies – among the first groups thrown into concentration camps by Hitler.
The confusion is then worsened by many neo-Nazis calling themselves “National Socialists” thinking that it sounds cooler. Bottom line: if you are a racist, you are for national division rather than national unification, and therefore you are not a National Socialist.
This commenter gets it.
While neo-Nazism itself has remained a fringe phenomenon in the politics of most countries (the only exception so far being the openly racist Golden Dawn in Greece), it has indirectly benefited opportunistic racists (including the aforementioned “2010s Nationalists”) who have perniciously set up anti-racists as one extreme and neo-Nazis as the other extreme, and then presented their so-called “common sense racism” as a false middle ground, thus generating interethnic conflicts exactly in accord with the Zionist agenda. While many anti-racists believe that the best way to combat racism today is to denounce Hitler ever more vehemently, we disagree. We believe that the rise of neo-Nazism and racism in general should be courageously met with the return of a reborn authentic National Socialism, whereupon the impostor will easily be destroyed by the real thing. Therefore do not be distracted by neo-Nazi attempts to pass for authentic National Socialists with meaningless platitudes about how they “don’t hate” people of other ethnicities; as long as they are even abstractly separating people living in the same country into ethnic categories and proposing discriminatory policies based on such categories, they are neo-Nazis and no better than Israeli Jews who do exactly the same thing.
Kampfers vs Mein Kampfers
“National-Socialist Germany – what it had evolved to be by the beginning of The First Zionist War – was a modern mostly unconscious expression of the numinous, honourable, warrior ethos, and stood in complete and stark contrast to the materialism, the hubris, of … the West, represented by the arrogant, profane, White Hordes of Homo Hubris.” – David Myatt
Why did the Zionist Allies, who on one hand suppressed so much information about National Socialist Germany (to this day many official documents of the regime remain locked away, and others have been burned), on the other hand actively promote Mein Kampf as the one-stop source for learning about “Nazism”? Can you figure out what is going on?
Awareness of authentic National Socialism as a system wholly distinct from Nazism was initially restricted to a few apolitical historians, whose main advantage over the neo-Nazis was that they studied the real policies of National Socialist Germany post-1933 and the factional power plays within the NSDAP, as opposed to assuming that Hitler personally read and authorized every statement made or action taken by every single subdivision in National Socialist Germany (when in reality Hitler was far too busy with the major issues to monitor minor affairs), or worse, that National Socialism is defined by whatever is written in Mein Kampf. It was the Allied Powers which had actively reinforced among Weimar Germans the idea that they were fellow “white” people (via propaganda such as 1910s-1920s Hollywood movies with their infamously negative portrayals of ethnic minorities), as this obscured the reality that the Weimar Republic itself was in all but name a Western colonial possession no different than “non-white” colonies such as India, Algeria, Kenya, etc.. (This is the same trick as the House vs Field trick applied to slaves in Antebellum-era US.) The masses who had already bought into this viewpoint were, unfortunately, the masses whom Hitler had to say whatever it might take to get them to vote NSDAP, and it is this which accounts for the few bigoted statements that can be found in Mein Kampf, as well as why Hitler in later years wanted it removed from circulation.
“The society which was created after the NSDAP achieved power was in many ways a compromise. Hitler himself admitted (to Leon Degrelle among others) that it would be the next generation – the Hitler Youth generation – which would create a genuine National-Socialist society. Organizations such as the SS and the Hitler Youth were steps toward the creation of such a National-Socialist society, and it was these organizations which implemented the ideal of personal honour, and respect for others, of whatever race and culture. As Hitler and his true followers, such as Rudolf Hess, matured in understanding, so too did National-Socialism. National-Socialism was not born, fully-developed and fully-understood, in the early years of the NSDAP – it developed slowly, over several decades. Thus, as Hitler admitted, Mein Kampf was never intended to be some kind of bible of National-Socialism: it was the product of its time.” – David Myatt
Yet among these historians who understood all of the above (ie. that Eurocentrism was certainly not something that Hitler started, but was rather the status-quo in the Weimar Republic and which Hitler thus had to reluctantly flow with prior to achieving power), most either lacked the philosophical perception to see the abstract unifying principles underlying the policies and party decisions, or did not wish to compromise their academic impartiality by taking on philosophical beliefs. Thus while they knew what National Socialism was not, only the fewest of them allowed themselves to see what it truly was.
External link: Gnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenberg’s Thought
The other camp claiming to represent National Socialism were the few eccentric ideologists commonly known as “esoteric Hitlerists”, who unlike the historians were unafraid to make philosophical speculations from the outset, albeit often cloaked in mystic language. But they could not even agree with each other what was ‘canonical’ National Socialism, beyond shared acknowledgement that it was nothing like Nazism. In fairness, within Hitler’s cabinet had been similarly dramatic ideological divergence and corresponding personal feuds and factional rivalries, which became so bad in the later years that Hitler eventually had to stop issuing written orders to his subordinates so that they could not possess any physical documentation of his views to use as ammunition against each other. This breakdown in communication was further exacerbated by the traitor Martin Bormann, as Alfred Rosenberg recalled: “It had become completely impossible to see the Fuehrer. Every attempt to do so was thwarted by Bormann, under the pretext that Hitler was too busy with war problems.” This led to a humourous claim of the time that there were as many versions of National Socialism as NSDAP members – of which the Zionists of course chose the worst (e.g. the traitor Heinrich Himmler, whom everyone else in the cabinet hated) to ‘officially’ represent the party.
While some communication occurred between the esoteric Hitlerists and a few honest leaders of neo-Nazi groups shortly after WWII, it quickly became apparent (to the dismay of both parties) that bloc-conversion of neo-Nazis to authentic National Socialists was not feasible, for the very reason that the vast majority of those attracted by Nazism had exactly the wrong type of personality for National Socialism.
“Dear Savitri, … You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans … they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb.” – George Lincoln Rockwell
“I am forced to walk a careful line between what I should like to say and what the enemy would like to hear me say. Unless I deliberately sound at least halfway like a raving illiterate with three loose screws, such an interview would never be printed. This is another thing that most people fail to understand about my “Nazi” technique.” – George Lincoln Rockwell
National Socialist who pretended to be a neo-Nazi in order to more easily get numerical support against Jewish power. Result: Zionist agents saw through the ruse and assassinated him so that he would be replaced by his followers, who are actual neo-Nazis. (The same thing happened to Malcolm X.)
Correspondingly, those with personalities most suitable for National Socialism were exactly those most likely to be put off by Nazism and hence unlikely to study the subject deeply enough to discover the misrepresentation. This simple Zionist trick of associating a noble ideology with a selectively repellent label has made gaining support for authentic National Socialism extraordinarily difficult. This trick is hardly new. The same has been done with Gnostic Christianity – the true teachings of Jesus – being given the label ‘Luciferianism’ which is then deliberately mixed up with Satanism, with similar effects. Indeed, perhaps the simplest way of putting it is to say that neo-Nazism is to authentic National Socialism as Judeo-Christianity is to Gnostic Christianity.
For example, authentic National Socialists view Muslims as allies by default, both remembering the former support of Hitler from the worldwide Islamic community and seeing the continuing sacrifices of Muslims in their struggle against Zionism. Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, typically hate Muslims out of plain xenophobia. When David Myatt personally converted to Islam, hoping to lead by example and reforge this much-needed alliance, neo-Nazis responded by calling him a traitor and slandering him in many ways.
“The sad fact is that there is little truth, little truthful knowledge, in the West, about either Islam or National-Socialism. … Adherents of authentic Islam, the Islam of Jihad and Khilafah, are the natural allies of honourable, genuine, National-Socialists, and the fact that most who call themselves ‘National Socialists’ neither understood nor feel this just shows how successful the Zionists have been in manipulating the peoples of the West and how successful their anti-NS propaganda has been, for this propaganda has obscured, for most peoples, the honourable, non-racist, reality of National-Socialism itself.” – David Myatt
On the other hand, many neo-Nazis have an extremely high opinion of Russia and other former Eastern Bloc countries due to their greater preservation of tradition. Some, who call themselves National Bolsheviks, are even fans of Stalin! This in stark contrast to the NSDAP’s relatively low opinion of these countries (considering them to be mostly ”men of the steppe”) and indeed its emphasis on defending Germany from their influence, to say nothing of Stalin being one of Hitler’s greatest enemies in WWII. While present-day authentic National Socialists harbour no ill will towards present-day former Eastern Bloc countries, we certainly do not consider their tendency towards traditionalism something worth admiring or emulating.
“The ethnic mixture that we called Russia before 1917 and the Soviet Union thereafter has been a riddle to our part of the world. That had nothing to do with tsarism then or Bolshevism today. It simply has to do with the fact that the various peoples joined together in this monster of a nation are not a folk in our sense of the word. … The average person has less worth than a bicycle. A rapid birthrate quickly replaces any losses. They have a type of primitive toughness that one cannot call bravery. It is entirely different. Bravery is a kind of spiritual courage. The toughness with which the Bolshevists defended their bunkers in Sevastapol was more a bestial drive, and nothing could be more mistaken than to assume that it was the result of Bolshevist views or education. The Russians were always like that.” – Joseph Goebbels
Adding further confusion are the Strasserists, who supposedly accept the authentic National Socialist portrayal of Hitler rather than the neo-Nazi portrayal, but then argue that Hitler himself is a traitor to what National Socialism was meant to be before he took it over from Gregor and Otto Strasser, thus making a double U-turn to arrive back at what is essentially neo-Nazism (minus Hitler). (Strasserism itself is far from a clearly defined movement, considering that Gregor supported the Kapp Putsch whereas Otto opposed it.)
The next significant mark in the revival of authentic National Socialism is recent, beginning with 21st century anti-Zionists looking for positive political options and culminating in the short-lived OWNP (One World Nazi Party). Its explicitly multiethnic presentation was unprecedentedly effective in breaking the monoethnic stereotype, and once and for all drew a definitive line between authentic National Socialists and neo-Nazis, but did not result in mass conversion to authentic National Socialism. The majority of anti-Zionists of that time came from the post-9/11 truthseeker circles and thus prided themselves in their scepticism, a quality which enabled them to unravel Jewish conspiracies in the first place, but which by the same token made it hard for them to take the idealistic leap of faith necessary for an ideology as radical as National Socialism. Instead, many of them preferred to suspect Hitler himself of being a Zionist agent or even a Jew – some go as far as to promote rumours that he was an illegitimate Rothschild.
“If one enters a military operation with the mental reservation : “Caution! this may fail,” then you may be quite certain that it will fail. To force a decision one must enter a battle with a conviction of victory and the determination to achieve it, regardless of the hazards.” – Adolf Hitler
OWNP banners (2009)
It is from this background that the true struggle – the Kampf of the 21st century – continues today in the hands of a few dedicated souls. We are slowly growing in number, but so are the neo-Nazis, and it would seem that they are growing faster than we are. We do not have much time left. We need to become a real political force within a matter of years, or else the spirit of authentic National Socialism will be drowned beneath an ugly deluge of the far-right, perhaps never to recover again.
Aryanism vs Foppery
“I distrust officers who have exaggeratedly theoretical minds. I’d like to know what becomes of their theories at the moment of action.” – Adolf Hitler
To us it is clear that little further progress will be made so long as the discussion continues to tolerate academics interested only in endless historical nitpicking, barbarians prepared to debase National Socialism to the lowest possible level in order to suit themselves, and cynics who join the conversation without actually believing that the ideology is viable. So how should we proceed? Rudolf Hess provides a solution that we recommend: “Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your mind. You will find him through the strength of your hearts!”
Aryanism categorically rejects reconstructing National Socialism from history alone, for we propose it is but a name for the one political system that will inevitably be expressed by truly noble thinking. In this we resonate with the last warning of Jutta Ruediger before her death: “National Socialism is not repeatable. One can take over only the values which we espoused: comradeship, readiness to support one another, bravery, self-discipline, and not least honour and loyalty. Apart from these, each young person must find their way alone.” We seek not those who convert to Hitlerism from without, but those who have sought their own path from within only to finally see that Hitler walked a parallel path in his own time. Furthermore, we emphasize how what we saw in National Socialist Germany was hardly the completed system, but only the tiniest first steps towards it. David Myatt saw this when he said: “The duty – the wyrd – of Vindex and of the clans of Vindex is not to strive to try and restore some romantic idealized past – or even be in thrall to some perceived wyrdful, often numinous-filled, past way of living, such as that which Adolf Hitler brought to Germany – but rather to establish an entirely new and conscious and thus more potent expression of the numinous itself.”
We who live today on the one hand have more detailed information on genetics and other subjects than the NSDAP ever had, and on the other hand face situations of a scale and of a gravity that Hitler never had to deal with, from global resource shortages to a nuclear-armed Israel. If we are in this to change the world for the better, then the only worthwhile discussion for us is not what National Socialism was or is, but what it should be and what it needs to be. With three words – UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY – the Aryanist movement has already begun this discussion, and we welcome all who agree with our motto to contribute to our work.