This article is far from my final treatment of National Socialism, I have much more to write and there is much currently being written or thought about. With this article I do want to address a variety of points to a limited degree. First, by answering what National Socialism is and what it isn’t, and will finish by briefly addressing a common criticism or two.
It’s frustrating when there is much that could be said, but if I include it all this article will be much longer than it currently is, and I also run the risk of repeating myself in other articles.
This article has been expanded with sources added, updated and corrected from the original as it was on my about section. I might go back and expand, or update this article at some point in the future. Nothing substantial will be changed, only ideas outlined more carefully and thoroughly, as will smaller details like changing my wording as I can sometimes write in such a way as to be convoluted or detached.
What is National Socialism?
National Socialism is at its core the original worldview, the one we’re born into and the one in which man is juxtaposed in line with Nature. National Socialism is inherently based on this precept as Adolf Hitler conceived of it.
He correctly describes, for anyone willing to listen, the lot of man within the natural order of the universe. Contrary to what he saw as the Jewish idea, most commonly espoused today and in his time that “Man can control even nature!”, Hitler most vehemently repudiated this nonsense by pointing out that man has “failed to overcome nature in any sphere whatsoever” and “at best he has merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of the enormous veil she has spread over her eternal mysteries and secrets”. He expounds on this by saying that man “never creates anything. All he can do is to discover something. He doesn’t master nature, but has only come to be the master of those living beings who lack the knowledge he has arrived at , by penetrating into some of nature’s laws and mysteries.”. Humanity therefore, is an instrument of nature, all we can create and conceive of is derived from the resources nature has given us. We can only exist because of nature and her preconditions which we rely on to function in the world at all. Nature therefore constitutes our existence by facilitating it in the first place, and our continued existence by living harmoniously in step with her. Because this is the case, to believe man can overcome nature, would then mean that it’d be “impossible to even imagine the existence of the world”. All other political ideologies, whether it be Marxists, Libertarians or what have you, rely on a materialist conception of the world embedded in temporal politics which cannot extend beyond the obsession of “ideas”. Man made “ideas” which to them are not bound by nature, which they do not even consider in the first place. This allows them in their power trip of drunken stupor to believe that many destructive ideas can be applied without question to humanity; ideas which only lead to the degradation of that humanity. Ideas such as Multiculturalism, acceptance of sexual deviancy (Homosexuality, Gender Dysmorphia), tolerance of opposing ideas which requires the subservience of true ideas, and the alleged open mindedness of the Democratic system. Of this, Hitler says:
an idea can never overcome the preconditions for the existence and development of mankind; the idea itself has come only from man. Without humanity, there would be no human idea in this world. The idea as such is therefore always dependant on the existence of man, and thus is dependant on those laws that created the conditions of his existence.Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Volume 1: A Reckoning (New English Translation by Thomas Dalton, Clemens & Blair, 2018), Pp. 292
We thus cannot become sexual degenerates by having homoseuxal relations. It cannot be normalized within our civilization because our conditions of existence require heterosexuality, as it is demanded by the obvious nature of our genitals; we must procreate to produce children, through intimacy we bond with our spouses and then we bond with our children as we raise them. Some say that sexuality isn’t a choice, and they’re right, you have no choice but to be heterosexual and care for your people, or remain a celibate sexual deviant that must invest in his existing family, or take up work beneficial to the community, whereby all their time can be taken up doing what they’re born to do under the National Socialist hierarchy of meritocracy. Of course without being able to have a family of his own; this shouldn’t be a problem, as these people most often than not don’t seemingly want a family anyway. However they cannot allow themselves to provide no use to their communities. The people must be put before everything, our people must live.
By the same token, we cannot be racially diverse, because man has developed racial distinctions which align with geography, where cultures that represent the unique aptitudes and history of those racial groups have developed – a consciousness around race is also developed, giving man a sense of meaning and purpose in his life. His people are his home, and his mental health is positively affected when he is racially conscious. Culture is something all people care about, but Europeans today deny ourselves our own nations and cultures in fear of rebuking the Multicultural ideas which have been forced upon our nations. This fact itself eats away as termites would, at the foundations on which multiculturalism stands; because the very idea of celebrating culture means the exclusion of others is required to distinguish any distinction between cultures, therefore culture and race are both one in the same, as race serves that distinguishing purpose as a physical marker of the geographic origin of culture. Another of the many incongruencies of multiculturalism, is the question as to how European nations which exhibit our own cultural heritage in abundance can possibly at the exclusion, ironically, of itself within our nations make way for the cultures of others, where race and culture are used interchangeably to describes the incoming hordes of foreigners, yet for us, our “western values” are supposedly universal when it is only us who apparently abide by them. Our race, we’re told “means nothing” in the multicultural deluge where racial diversity is supposedly the greatest gift we could be given, this is true for all temporal political dogmas, whether on the right or left.
This matter of affairs, this selective application of morality, exists only to open the way for these foreigners into European countries. No other explanation is possible, nor can be rationalized. The targeting of our countries to be “open” enough to accept the unwashed masses of whatever humanity appear on our doorsteps occurs for the sole purpose of removing us and who we are. To defend against just this kind of thing occurring to any race of man, but specifically to the European; Hitler has equipped us with obvious yet desperate words we obviously need to hear; that for National Socialists we must only have one doctrine, ‘People and Fatherland’, and everything about existence, all ideas and all knowledge must serve the purpose of maintaining our own existence so that we do not face historical oblivion and lose our nations, our heritage in the process. Anyone who wishes to avoid this fate must recognize the primary position that race plays in constituting not only the nation, but existence and humanity itself.
We need no other justification for our views, other than what will preserve our people. This is National Socialism.
As National Socialists:
“We recognize that separating humanity from Nature, from the whole of life, leads to mankind’s own destruction and the death of nations. Only through a reintegration of humanity into the whole of Nature can our folk be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Mankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole… This striving with connectedness, with the totality of life, with Nature itself, a Nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National-Socialist thought.German Botanist, Ernst Lehmann (Biological Will: Means and Goals of Biological Work in the New Reich, 1934) Pp. 10-11
To try and accurately express the essence of National Socialism into a phrase is certainly possible. I would say, that seeing as biology and nature are one, National Socialism can be best described as it has been in the past; as biology applied to politics.
In the world today we have strayed so far from what Savitri Devi called the “divine wisdom”. . .
In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our time, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch; it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forests and of the ocean depths and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and it is to Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom … but to have made it the basis of a practical regeneration policy of worldwide scope …Savitri Devi, The Lightning and the Sun (Wewelsburg Archives Edition.), Pp. 168
We’ve become dominated by an inferior humanity who we know as the “Cultural Marxists”  who politically hold up the banner of “the left”. These people as a whole are what Edward Dutton calls the “spiteful mutants”; small sections of humanity concentrated in first world European countries, and made up generally of our fellow Europeans that due to increased mortality rates, advanced medicine and decades of supposed “peace”, have revolted against the natural order to establish their own weird anti-social selfish cultural paradise, predicated on the unattainable pursuit of equality, the rejection of biological reality, the destruction of the family and deconstruction of peoples, nations, and cultures. All this for the sake of a future where all differences are stripped away and humanity is worshipped as essentially it’s own “God” without responsibility to anyone or anything but itself and the false ideal of equality where man is reduced to the most common denominator. The outcome, they think will be man overcoming nature. But this cannot and will not happen, the result will be a spiral of decline, humanity will become pure matter, nothingness.
In this spiteful pursuit to persecute the divine they promote every sort of destructive hedonism, starting with extreme individualism which inevitably leads towards societal indifference and thus the promotion of a wide variety of vices; Homosexuality, Race-Mixing (Cultural Bastardization), Transgenderism, Feminism (“Liberation” of women and men (supposedly) from their duties to each other of mutual cohabitation and family) etc.
National Socialism recognises this and seeks to remedy this sick humanity by embracing the natural proclivities that support the healthy sustination of our race/ethnic groups by means of Darwinian selection that if cannot be achieved naturally must be dealt with proactively. This means implementing a political system which has no tolerance whatsoever for such conditions which can lead to the degeneration of our cultures and peoples. Because of the changed environment and even scientific advancements which have eliminated mortality rates and boosted life expectancy in the West which would’ve, to put it bluntly been the impetus that killed off these spiteful mutants, or at least fermented a society in which it was practically impossible for them to exist, let alone gain ground as a cohesive group.
For me and all true National Socialists, there is only one doctrine: People and Fatherland.
We have to fight to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and people, the sustenance of our children, the purity of our blood, and the freedom and independence of the Fatherland. Only then may our people fulfill the mission assigned to them by the creator of the universe.
All ideas and ideals, all teaching and all knowledge, must serve these ends. Everything must be examined from this viewpoint and turned to practical uses, or else discarded. Thus a theory can never become a mere dead doctrine, since everything must serve life.Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Volume 1: A Reckoning (New English Translation by Thomas Dalton, Clemens & Blair, 2018), Pp. 229
What we’re seeing today is the same moral poison Hitler saw Germany suffering from prior to and after the First World War when such generally anti-human bacteria was being promoted in the Weimar Republic by Jews and their disciples of world revolution. They would use their power to promote the destruction of Darwinian selection and thus the natural human proclivities I spoke of earlier. Many of us are familiar with the degenerate state of cities like Berlin at this time, known as the “City of Sin” or even the new “Babylon”.
Hitler experienced the diversity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire living in Vienna, he saw the sexual depravity of Berlin, he saw the destruction of the German people suffering from the debt of Versailles and the depression. All of which lead to suffering from diversity in their own German cities as foreigners flocked to the country with their wealth, further twisting the blade into the side of the great Germanic nation.
So to counter this, Adolf Hitler conceived and implemented the development of German National Socialism which is a worldview truly holistic and steeped in TRUTH insofar as it unites the natural human desire for purpose, belonging, race, peace and even war, harmonising the recognition of all these things into a worldview consistent with human nature and the infinite struggle of living organisms to survive. Essentially putting man in his place recognizing people are born in different roles as individuals and as a species. That there’s a certain hierarchy all organisms inhabit. It may not be orderly on every level but all parts of nature work in similar or even the same direction playing bigger/smaller parts in our lives than we can even notice. What our enemies want is directly opposite to this “natural order” and must be rejected out of necessity. It’s really that simple. Adolf Hitler and his National Socialism just so happened to be the person and movement in the right time and right place to synthesise this holistic worldview in a way which actually gets the harmony between man and nature correct.
What National Socialism IS NOT!
National Socialism, as should’ve been very clear above, isn’t a simple ideology that’s stuck within the epoch of the mid 20th century, limited to Germany. It’s a worldview, whole and purposeful that has taken root in all European countries around the world in some form or another. Even in many non-european countries such as China and Japan. For example, former President of the Republic of Chiang Kai-shek once asked a group of Chinese blue-shirts “Can Fascism save China?” he told them “Yes! Fascism is what China now most needs.” Another Chinese Fascist remarked many years later that “Fascism is now thought to be backward. But then it seemed to be a very progressive means of resurrecting the country.” Fascism was the preservation of the nation “Fascism is the only tool of self-salvation of nations on the brink of destruction” it was remarked in the Blue Shirt publication She hui hsin-wen.
Of Japan Savitri Devi wrote:
Shintoism, based on the deification of the heroes, the ancestors, the Sun, and of the very soil of Japan, is one. As a Japanese said to me in 1940: “Your National Socialism is, in our eyes, a Western Shintoism; it is our own philosophy of the world, thought by Aryans and preached to Aryans.”Savitri Devi, Kali Yuga (Wewelsburg Archives, 2017), Pp. 67
I also think there’s an argument to be made, that despite the contemporary view of Fascism and National Socialism being the same, it is in fact different.
The National Socialist worldview isn’t as superficial as Fascism is in certain areas. While we can admire the anti-Communism, Anti-Liberalism and Nationalism of Fascism, it unfortunately lacks from the outset, the most important foundations to be regarded as true or workable in any sense. Fascism, unfortunately, is preoccupied with state and economic structures, ignoring the essential part the people play in the life of the nation and the constitution of that nation in the first place. Mussolini in his Fascist Manifesto of 1932 stated that: “It is not the people who make the state but the state that makes the people”. But this is unintelligible, it makes no sense whatsoever because it doesn’t give a permanent place to the people of the nation. One would have to wonder what Nationalism could consist of if you’re admiring the nebulous idea of the state and not, as you should, the state as it is the representation of a geographic racial group of people whose heritage is what forms the state, and the culture of the nation thereby giving it permanent fixture and substance.
Another question, where would the state be without people? Without human beings? The answer is that it wouldn’t exist. Hitler has spoken, if you recall, of just this contradiction in the realm of “ideas” when he said: “The idea as such is therefore always dependant on the existence of man, and thus is dependant on those laws that created the conditions of his existence.“. The state therefore cannot exist without the people whom will constitute it and govern it. If we abided only by the values of the “state” we would find ourselves in the predicament we’re in today, where Nationalism is seen as a temporal political ideology that only acts to safeguard the state at all costs, regardless of whether or not the state actually represents anything Nationalists should care about; race, culture, traditions, the family etc. or just the values currently in vogue. Nationalism, is about the organic union of a people that protect it’s life in a systematic sense. Joseph Goebbels rightly expounded upon the duty of Nationalists when he stated that being a Nationalist has nothing to do with a form of government or symbols, because Nationalism is the affirmation of things, not forms, the state is undoubtedly the form, and this form can be changed at the whim of whoever comes to power. The people, or what he called the content is a constant that cannot be altered. Unless of course, it is racially replaced as is happening nowadays. Only then can the content of the state change to such a stark degree that the culture of a nation is irreparably changed, and the nature of the states form will forever represent the new content of a more racially conscious people. Goebbels rightfully says, that if the form and content agree then the Nationalist will affirm both. But if they’re in conflict, as we are today with the forms of our states, we Nationalists have a duty to then fight for the content and against the form. If one puts the symbol, or the form above the content, as Fascism and other temporal ideologies do, then the battle is fought on the wrong field and the strength of the people is lost in formalism, the aim of Nationalism becomes distorted, the nation becomes lost.
In Mein Kampf Hitler said that “The State is but a means to an end” (“Der staat ist ein Mittel zum Zweck”), and despite whatever compromises he needed to make for the sake of the state in practise, always remained consistent with his commitment to this truth:
In March 1929 Hitler said: “For us the idea of the Volk is higher than the idea of the state.” On May 10th in 1933: “It is not an accident that religions are more stable than forms of states.”
On April 6th 1938, at the Salzburg: “In the beginning was the Volk, and only then came the Reich.”
At the Platterhof in May 1944: “The state is only an enforced framework” (eine Zwangsform).
On September the 5th 1934, in Nuremberg: “Foreigners may say that the state created us. No! We are The State! We follow the orders of no earthly power but those of God who created the German people! On us depends the state!”.
This is the difference between Mussolini and Hitler. Or between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism.
Our current age should highlight the racial necessity more than ever, because of this, no European should be trying to seek a way out of identifying with his race in the most explicit of terms by taking up some obscure Fascistic transcendental Evolian philosophical perspective that seeks to hamper the importance of race because it’s too “materialistic”. Tough luck, we live in the material world, and our enemies want to exterminate our material existence. They are the most materialistic people to ever exist, and the general masses are not close behind them. The time and luxury of gallivanting about these types of impractical ideas because one wants to seem “enlightened” or simply distance himself from the racialism of the Third Reich needs to get a better grasp on the situation, not only historically, but in the present. Your ideas, our ideas, live within our people. They do not exist beyond us if our race no longer exists. If you remember nothing else, remember that.
This point can be argued further I’m sure, but for any sane European who’s experienced what the modern world you cannot afford to put an idea of the state above your own people. You therefore must be a National Socialist.
Common Criticism 1.1.
I want to call attention to one criticism of using National Socialism to promote the pro-european message in the 21st century. That criticism being that National Socialism is political suicide and essentially terrible optics to gain support and grow an authentic pro-european base. That it will isolate people and turn us into pariahs to be supressed without sympathy.
There is truth in this, my disagreement is the idea that this particularly applies to National Socialism. I think that’s utterly ridiculous. We pro-europeans of all stripes, NS or not, are being persecuted and oppressed regardless of our own political labels. The powers that be and the public do not care either way. The media portrays all people who’re slightly in favour of Europeans to be ‘Nazis’, and that’s all the public need to know to pass judgement on us.
Another factor is how National Socialism is used as a weapon. Our enemies from all sides have taken it upon themselves to dictate what National Socialism is and what defines it, depending on where they stand politically NS becomes a number of things all contradictory, we observe the left and right constantly fighting over which strawman is the ‘true’ National Socialism which only creates further obfuscation of our worldview. Then you have this funny situation where if you are a National Socialist, non-nazis will then attempt to dictate what true National Socialism is to you depending on their right-left ideology. This is unacceptable, only we Nazis can define who we are, we will be misrepresented of course, but at the end of the day it comes down to us to make a stand for who we truly are. No more of this nonsense created by academics or media pundits.
If we’re going to be called “Nazis” anyway, then we might as well own it, and we might as well show them that we’re far more than their false portrayals of us, and thus deprive them of their most sacred and pungent weapons of political repression.
Common Criticism 1.2.
There’s an inherent double standard which exists between radical “ideologies” which took form in the 20th century. I’m talking, of course, about Communism, National Socialism and Fascism.
In our current age, only one of the three of these ideologies is allowed to openly operate and exist throughout the Western World, that would be Communism (or whatever variation of Marxism the proponents of this worldview hide under). This is of course despite 100-130 million people who by the mid 1990s had been slaughtered in name of the promised Marxist Socialist workers paradise (to say nothing of those who suffered by living through it and as a result of such killings/imprisonment. Also those currently suffering under the regimes in North Korea and China). While, Fascism and National Socialism if we accept orthodox estimates had the blood of a comparatively miniscule 20-25 million on its hands; are the only ideologies completely untouchable, taboo, fringe and hated to an extent unprecedented.
But why is this? I’ve often wondered.
The obvious answer is because Marxism won the Second World War. The subversive Marxist elements made their way into the Western world via the proxies of Neo-Conservatism, progressivism or Freudianism which in the case of the latter became standard in academia during the 1960s and thus suffered little critique. Anyone in the “know” is well aware of what we term “Cultural Marxism” and knows that our daily lives today are flooded with constant Soviet style Lysenkoism in the realm of Human Biology (Science in general), and Political Correctness to the point where the average person can no longer see the subtle and overt manipulations/politicisation of his daily life. This is what’s allowed the double standards to exist. But more so than that, which should be obvious the constant bashing of European Racial Identitarianism, from the least politically radical form of White Nationalism, to its most radical in that of National Socialism.
The reason Marxism is allowed to exist and function today in the 21st century as a valid political ideology in all its little varieties (varieties insisted upon by it’s adherents, as they hypocritically conflate National Socialism and Fascism to whatever end they wish without critique) is because of the perspective in which it is judged.
Marxism today, despite it’s ghastly and sordid history with “Human Rights” is let off the proverbial hook because it’s first and foremost treated as a philosophy, based on it’s literature and not on the actions of its historical adherents.
So Lenin and Trotsky (even the likes of Martin Luther King Jr.  who is linked to Marxism) can be celebrated despite their horrendous violence that no National Socialist or Fascist would’ve gotten away with, even if they never killed anyone but were simply associated, even loosely with either Hitler or Mussolini; being conflated would be enough to damn them. Those former men I mentioned are excused because their ideology is “philosophical” occupying itself with economics primarily critiques of Capitalism, or in the post-war period adapted to writing history and sociological research, or whatever. None of these people, Marx, Lenin or otherwise suffer any kind of moral retribution the way Fascist figures like Oswald Mosley do for example because of their connections to Hitler or Mussolini, even though Lenin, Trotsky and Marx are inextricably linked to the likes of Stalin. Of course, this totally ignores their own actions which are hardly commendable; especially if you’re going to be consistent about condemning Revolution and violence.
The cruel criminal actions of these men behind the Bolshevist Desk Revolution are pushed so far into the background because if you were to highlight it’s prominence, and god forbid it’s Jewish affliction you just might find yourself infringing on the pity party of “God’s Chosen” cry babies. Trotsky’s Red Terror, and Lenin’s infamous urging of violence upon the Kulaks and Priests goes ignored for the save of preserving Communism as a kind of noble fixture in the 20th century because of it’s overplayed part in “destroying Fascism”:
“Essential to organise a reinforced guard of selected and reliable people, to carry out a campaign of ruthless mass terror against the kulaks, priests and whiteguards; suspects to be shut up in a detention camp outside the city.“Telegram to Yevgenia Bosch, August 9, 1918
In another document Lenin stated:
It is necessary – secretly and urgently to prepare the terror”.Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin (The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West, pp. 34)
This goes with rarely a mention in light of the “Holocaust”, which we’re supposed to feel immensely angry for and wave our fists at for the alleged 6 million Jewish victims of the National Socialists, never to allow such “evil” to rear its head again, because Jewish lives are worth more than that of millions of gentiles slaughtered by Jewish Soviet Bolshevism. After all, the latter was motivated by “noble” equality rather than “unforgivable” “racism”.
I must point out that this isn’t a hyperbolic view of my own invention, in fact, it has been outright confirmed in the past.
Stéphane Courtois who authored the introduction to the controversial book “The Black Book of Communism” made the very orthodox yet completely logical point that there’s no difference between the starvation of a Kulak child suffering during Soviet famine, and the starvation of a Jewish child in a Polish ghetto during German occupation in World War Two. In response to this apparently appalling comparison made by Courtois, Frenchman Philippe Petit wrote that “all deaths do not have the same value” . With this it’s cemented that we’re to judge the lives of Jews and subsequently their loss in death as being worth MORE than those of gentiles; and this is why the case of the Jews is special, why their horror stories cannot be contradicted, compared or investigated let alone refuted because they’re special for some reason. Petit made no distinction between the two examples nor did he face backlash for such a vile statement of his views, no doubt numerous, that if made in the reverse would’ve unleashed the harshest dragon fire the “principled” “academic” community could possibly muster as they ironically did when the Black Book was published and they perceived the value of Jews to have been “relativised”.
One can only conclude that bodies and death counts play not part in how the morality of historical events are weighed and subsequently portrayed to future generations. There’s no benchmark, no objective standard, for which crimes are more ghastly. Instead, we’re forced to view these crimes historically from who the victims are, who was killed and why under what banner. The moralising that we see coming from all sides against National Socialists is false, the outrage has no legitimacy, nor does the impact of the alleged crime because of this precedent which has been set, where crimes of more or equal impact are selectively omitted from the machine of outrage that forms public opinion. Outrage at historical atrocities becomes something wholly political and has little, if not nothing to do with actual indignance at following ideologies that have in the past been responsible for atrocities. After all, how can you claim to dislike people who follow “ideologies” in which millions have died, yet support, or even just grant passive legitimacy to others which are certainly no better?
The answer is political, not moral. If you were to explain the political tenants, as I have of National Socialism, one is likely in our modern place and time in history, to find it viscerally and ideologically revolting; making the emphasis of “crimes” committed by National Socialists all the more morally potent to the average person. This combined with their association of National Socialist symbols like the Swastika banner, or even the physical appearance of Adolf Hitler as something evil, finding these things hard to look at – the effect is heightened even more. At this point, you could tell the unwitting person almost anything negative about National Socialism or Hitler, and they will believe you, whereas if you even suggest anything which could be construed as positive in favour of the aforementioned, every person, irrespective of their historical knowledge or political position will know to instinctively get angry, or search for ways to reject this possibility.
On the other hand. If you explain the political tenets of Marxism, some may find the economic ideas to be strange or hard to swallow – such as the idea of dismantling private property, yet this won’t arouse any strong feelings of hate or opposition from anybody. When people generally learn about Marxism, it’s from Marxists themselves, or people sympathetic to it. There is always an element of ideological passivity. The result on a random person is then less informed about Marxism through moralistic appeals to death tolls and repression, designed to crush the possibility that a Marxist will be created as a result of study. Marxism can be created, and ignored without moral hesitancy today partially because the learning of Marxism as a political ideology is somewhat separated from learning about Marxism as a historical phenomenon. They’re kept separate to allow the Marxist political nuance in which they can if confronted, either deny aspects of Marxist history, or appeal to their individualistic ideological position as something unrelated to the past. Marxism will be defined on its own merits, not on the caricatures of its enemies, let alone on its historical deeds. Marxism will be described as the ideology for the “socially disadvantaged” where such people can seek “equality” through Marxist economic models and the later cultural Marxist models which are based on the exclusion of biological importance, which is Lysenkoism that also existed in the Soviet Union. When explained in such terms the average person is far from hostile, as these tenants as described actually align with the standard political and moral strictures of our current age anyway, this is what we call Cultural Marxism, it is thus not some “conspiracy” as the Left insist. Marxism becomes much easier to swallow for the average person, as they’re willing to accept the “good” Marxism has to offer them. People are also not traumatized by the image of Stalin, or the Hammer and Sickle flag as they are the image of Hitler and the Swastika. The average person might not even know who Lenin is, or even what he looks like. Yet you can bet people know who Goebbels or Goering are.
In-fact, historical events are politically manufactured to be used to enforce a paradigm of Soviet heroism against “Nazi barbarism”, in which the Soviets are hailed as, at best the “necessary evil” needed to stop Nazism, as opposed to an evil in and of themselves. This is done to soften the public opinion in regards to historic examples of Marxism, granting Marxism further moral and political legitimacy, even though there is nothing which demands this paradigm be insisted upon, or even be true. It relies on the presumed true nature of the paradigm itself as a prerequisite, and thus becomes a paradox of self-reinforcement in which the Marxists are justified in their historical deeds because they opposed the Nazis who we are expected to hate more the the Soviets due to crimes which, even if true, do not compare to the crimes of Soviet Communism. The paradigm stands because it is insisted upon by the political notion that the Nazis must arbitrary be hated more. Not because there’s anything about Nazis, or anything they did, which was deserving of more hatred. But of course this isn’t true is it? As we’ve learned, Jewish lives lost are more important, and evil, than the loss of gentile lives.
The result of all this, is that if you accept that “equality” is good, as nearly everyone today agrees, then Marxism can be forgiven and actually is forgiven, that in their struggle to “liberate” the workers for over 70 years from 1917-1991, they managed to kill 100-130 million people. It was then socially acceptable to try Marxism again and again because of the lack of historical responsibility heaped upon it, and the acceptance of it as a philosophical ideology. The point being that it isn’t atrocity that dictates political acceptability, it is morality, and that these historical events are selectively chosen to determine what is morally acceptable or not. Equality could therefore, after the fall of the Soviet Union, be made into one of the largest political taboos due to the sordid history equality has with Marxist movements. But this simply didn’t happen, because it was of no political interest to anyone that this be so. History then plays a role in determining morality, not because of the effect of historical events, but because of how those events are used to determine a pre-existing bias towards what is deemed morally acceptable.
Unlike the lukewarm treatment the Marxoids receive, us National Socialists are judged oppositely by both the right wing and left wing as an invalid ideology to be judged and expected to act based on the figures of the past and whatever actions or beliefs the most diverse of them just so happened to hold. Even other European identitarians treat us this way. So you’ll be hard pressed not to find some smartass who thinks being a National Socialist means you must adhere to some bizarre racial ideology that some Germans in the early to mid 20th century held; for example that you must “hate Slavs” or wish to invade Poland for Lebensraum to be a National Socialist, etc. etc. This kind of treatment regardless of historical accuracy, most often fallacious, is only applied to our worldview and it’s political application to the physical world. No other is held to such rigid and superficial conditions that go so far as to lock us into one single historical epoch and claim validity only exists there. Your average White Nationalist (Ryan Faulk and Sean Last for example) hates when the left criticize their “belief” in Race by stipulating that they must consider the Irish or Italians not to be white, because some white people back in the 19th century may or may not have had some weird racial belief and or prejudice towards those ethnic groups. They mock and sneer at these ridiculous made up stipulations created by the Lysenkoist Marxists who try (and fail) at invalidating biological race; rightly so too. But that doesn’t stop these White Nationalists from creating their own false and irrelevant stipulations they apply to National Socialists, as if we’re stuck in the 1920s-30s and can only read books by Lothrop Stoddard, Hans Gunther, Madison Grant and Arthur de Gobineau.
Another way i’ve noticed National Socialism’s legitimacy as an actual Worldview, Philosophy and Ideology is undermined is because of it’s particularly strong focus on Adolf Hitler. This has lead to a very narrow approach in which National Socialism is viewed primarily through him and the actions he did or did not take, because any action from someone inside Nazi Germany is immediately attributed to Hitler as an easy way to dismiss or accept a preconceived bias about what National Socialism is actually about. For example, there was a thread I partook in on the CODOH forum in which a Black man came looking for information on how Africans in Nazi Germany were treated. Inevitably the discussion itself became about Hitler, completely disregarding any kind of polycracy the Third Reich actually displayed in which Hitler had no hand at all in specific policy or actions but was nevertheless attributed to him as the face of National Socialism. The conclusion we came to about about “Afro-Germans” in the thread was summed by by a quote from Tina M. Campt’s book “Other Germans” in which she stated:
“National Socialist (NS) policy toward Afro-Germans who were not part of this group was not characterized by a top-down execution of legislative power, and for the most part, the regime’s actions were neither systematic nor coherent.2 Rather, the actions taken toward these individuals were ambivalent, with often-contradictory measures implemented at the local level and usually carried out on the initiative of individual bureaucrats or community members.“Tina M. Campt, Other Germans (University of Michigan Press, 2005), Pp. 64
Hitler wasn’t involved, and this isn’t the first time such intimate claims are pushed onto Hitler which are subsequently forced into public perception as something of “criteria” for National Socialism. So it would be utterly ridiculous to suggest, as hopefully nobody would, that Australian National Socialists want to sterilize blacks who live in the Rhineland.
That somehow doing this specific action, or other actions because German National Socialists in the past did so, means today we must want to do so, or necessarily must do so, is a disingenuous conflagulation of historical events to present day reality where no logical connection can conceivably exist.
Ryan and Sean have done the same thing in regards to their claims about “the Nazis” (overbearing generalisation) and IQ. Making claims of questionable validity, which on their own even if true, aren’t important, but nevertheless attribute them to Hitler himself when there is no evidence at all that Hitler actually held any of the beliefs they ascribe to him in regards to IQ testing. Alas, this doesn’t matter to them because their use of Hitler for their own purpose is complete, they then feel it’s justified to make claims about National Socialism and it’s pertinence to the current day by limiting it within this epochical condition which for some reason must be adhered to stringently if it is to be valid; therefore, when they say “The Nazis” believed something, they extrapolate that to mean Hitler believed it, and because Hitler believed it and this thing they’ve proclaimed is wrong that means to be a National Socialist YOU must believe it too and because you won’t, it therefore means being a National Socialist is silly! It all works out tied up in a nice bow perfectly for them to scapegoat an entire worldview. There is no reason at all why any one of us MUST be beholden to some views attributed to Hitler or “The Nazis” in order for National Socialism to be valid. In fact, it exists just fine without such ridiculous expectations.
But how is this done? How does this constant conflation with Hitler any belief held by a National Socialist of the old guard, become the supposed gospel that every person who identifies as a National Socialist must hold to? The answer lies in the fact that Adolf Hitler, unlike the Communists was a genius and managed to not only conceive single handedly his worldview, but form it’s physical base by attracting loyal followers and applying the Fuhrer Principle fused with National Socialism to keep the warring sections of the NSDAP together in, for example, his time in prison. Hitler managed to do this still personally leading the movement to victory himself. This has created the all powerful vision of Hitler as a man so personally influential that National Socialism itself and the man Adolf Hitler become practically inseparable leading to this convenient idea fostered by historians and our opponents; that National Socialism isn’t an an actual worldview, but is tied end to end with Adolf Hitler’s life as to make expression of it beyond him and that epoch basically impossible. Therefore National Socialism becomes notoriously hard to define, especially by our varied enemies who all have vested interests in defining it whatever way fits their agenda. This is done by taking ideas, events or actions from the German NS period and extrapolating them into what makes “National Socialism”. Doing this keeps National Socialism essentially within a certain national complexion and historical time period that those not perceptive enough, or simply unwilling due to hostility can keep intentionally vague and weaponised against a convenient enemy. Even going so far as to simply say as some do, that following National Socialism is following a “foreign” ideology. Greg Johnson in chapter 15 of his otherwise brilliant “White Nationalist Manifesto” comes to mind in regards to this nonsense claim.
The hard truth for the establishment, and other detractors to swallow is that Adolf Hitler was a truly gifted and unique man who was able to do what no other man in history had been able to. He rose from the gutter of old Europe, he conceptualized a movement, led and governed this movement, he against all odds, managed to keep it together at a time in history when the social fabric of Germany, and the world was torn apart by a great war, revolutions and poverty. He managed, through all of that to not only create this movement made up of disparate groups of people from all over Germany, from all social classes, from all walks of life, but to bring that movement to power in a matter of 12 years; 7 when you consider that Hitler’s political career had been widely lauded as over once he was sent to Landsberg prison. The uniformed National Socialists on the streets of Germany were many times outnumbered, especially in Berlin yet Goebbels managed to conquer it for National Socialism with only the few hundred men they had. Germany’s National Socialist movement in practise during these ‘Years of Struggle’ was the truest embodiment of its principles and worldview, not only due to the ideological motivation of Hitler’s followers, but because of it’s diverse social makeup. It was something the world had never seen from a political movement before. The Communists on the other hand were largely made-up of bourgeois intellectual loafers, and compared to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, the National Socialists when they came to power in January 1933 actually had more workers in their ranks than the Communists did. The Communist revolution also defied the predictions of Marx and could only take hold in backward undeveloped countries. Stolfi adds another layer of perspective:
The conventional wisdom acknowledges this extraordinary situation by agreeing that the Nazi movement was both conceptualized and led by Hitler unlike, for example, Marxian socialism in Russia, where Marx had conceptualized it, Lenin had successfully led it, and Stalin had inherited it.R.H.S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (Prometheus Books, 2011), Pp. 249
The double standard between viewing National Socialism as an unadaptable ideology tied to specific men unable to transcend history and it’s connected actions; and Marxism on the other hand as a philosophy not inherently tied to its historical epoch or personalities even when identified by its popular strands of thought, “Trotskyite”, “Leninist”, “Maoist” and “Stalinist” which represent very real historical figures yet for some reason doesn’t have any bearing on those who identify with the labels which instead leads to the intentional exemption from criticism in relation to the actions committed by those historical men, giving us the impression that while those labels are tied to historical figures there’s something detached and ethereal about strands of Marxism. Marxists hate nothing more than being judged on a historical basis, they’d prefer Marxism and whatever denomination they subscribe to be viewed as a concept which cannot be invalidated by the men they follow, or their actions, because first and foremost it’s their “ideas” and “values” which are pursued, not taking an action for action approach to the present by emulating the past. This emulation of past events would actually make more sense in the case of Marxism, because it is an all totalising desk ideology. It’s an ideology with an objective that is global and unremitting in it’s demand for universal application, conformity to its doctrines is expected of all those which fall under the red banner. It doesn’t compromise by taking the shape of the people who are governed by it. The various schools of thought for Marxism might differ in various ways, but they’re no less total in their demands, not least for the revolution. We should thus be much more comfortable in dismissing Marxists, for we know what the ideological tenets in their doctrine that will be applied. They’re not vague. They’ve made good efforts to document every aspect of their doctrine in volumes upon volumes written by the founders and executors of Marxist history.
Historical determinism isn’t applied to Marxism even though it makes more sense to do so, instead it’s National Socialism which is constantly expected to prophetically carry out vague and unstipulated “ideological” recreations of historical events like the Holocaust. It’s a bizarre exception that it’s some sort of tenant to being a National Socialist, this has no predetermined basis in reality. Nobody would expect the Marxists to starve peasants, or poor people, along with ethnic groups they don’t find agreeable in the way Stalin did. Nobody would suggest that doing such things is an actual tenant of their ideology.
We’re expected to suspend our disbelief by pretending that there’s actually not anything at all sinister going on when your average Marxoid spouts off the same economical and sociological diatribes which lead to the dehumanization of millions as mere economic units, fit to only serve the interests of those who held a gun to their heads. The dehumanization only occured because of Marxisms refusal to see human beings as anything more than a representative of his class, the deaths of millions therefore came about because man wasn’t allowed to have value based on his religious teachings, race or personal aptitude for certain work.
Marxism is allowed to have free reign because it simply wasn’t conceived, organised, and led by one man who had the will of all those Communists combined to make his worldview come to fruition via one strand of thought instead of many. Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism proceeds him, while he is the basis of our thought, and an inspiration he isn’t the only National Socialist out there to which we lay our loyalty. National Socialism itself extends beyond one man and time period.
The double standard is simply not applicable, and should, if anything, only work as valid the OTHER way around, in which Marxism is judged as the universal ideology of conformity that it is, and be deemed as invalid no matter how many times it’s tried because of it’s unnatural demands which inherently involves horrors as the result of forcing people to conform TO IT rather than conform to the people. After all, Marxism doesn’t actually believe in the diversity of people in any form, we’re all blank slates to be conditioned, thus their total ignorance of the Human condition requires countless violations of nature and man’s place within it as to make life soulless and miserable.
National Socialism on the other hand, takes form based on the current circumstances of the people and nation in which it arises. We have no one size fits all philosophy, our only tenants are the ruthless application of the iron laws of nature via Darwinian selection that is only susceptible to nature itself. Our worldview fits the people, not the other way around.
Communism claims to be a total answer to the human possibility. As do many other ideologies. Libertarianism skirts the line of this claim on the one hand by declaring it’s the only morally righteous ideology, yet in practise it isn’t really an ideology at all, it takes the form of ideological indifference as a duty that all people should hold in regards to others, so as to not interfere with their “individualism”. National Socialism also claims to be the total answer to the human possibility, the key difference being that National Socialism accentuates the human possibility from the nature of humanity itself. Biological considerations are understood and required; in contrast to Communism or Liberalism which do not consider human beings from a natural or biological perspective, National Socialism represents a total answer to human possibility.
Notes and References
 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Volume 1: A Reckoning (New English Translation by Thomas Dalton, Clemens & Blair, 2018), Pp. 291
 Ibid. Pp. 292
 Ibid. Pp. 291
 See: Nigel, What Matters? No. 1, Ashura Speaks, June 15, 2020
 Ibid. Pp. 229 “For me and all true National Socialists, there is only one doctrine: People and Fatherland.
We have to fight to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and people, the sustenance of our children, the purity of our blood, and the freedom and independence of the Fatherland. Only then may our people fulfill the mission assigned to them by the creator of the universe.
All ideas and ideals, all teaching and all knowledge, must serve these ends. Everything must be examined from this viewpoint and turned to practical uses, or else discarded. Thus a theory can never become a mere dead doctrine, since everything must serve life.”
 Youtuber Royal Endeavour made a fine video on Cultural Marxism, despite his sour political opinion of National Socialism, his stance on which he partly inspired me to write an article about which is in the works as a large piece. See his video archived on my Bitchute channel here: My response to Three Arrows video on Cultural Marxism
 Interview with Edward Dutton conducted by the Youtuber ‘On The Offensive’, video titled: The Rise of Spiteful Mutants, October 10, 2019
 Helmuth Nyborg, Race as Social Construct, April 29, 2019.
 Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany 1919-1932 (Ostara Publications, 2016). Archive. Originally Published by ‘The General League of Anti-Communist Associations’, Eckart-Verlag 1933. Contemporary sources confirm, albeit hesitantly and with a positive slant, the Jewish role in Weimar Germany, see: Donald L. Niewyk, The Economic and Cultural Rôle of the Jews in the Weimar Republic (The Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, Volume 16, Issue 1, January 1971), Pp. 163-168, 170-171, 173 and Paul Windolf, The German-Jewish Economic Elite 1900 – 1933 (Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 56, 2011).
 See the Documentary: Legendary Sin Cities – Berlin: Metropolis of Vice, February 8, 2005. Also see, Mel Gordon, Voluptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin (Feral House, 2008).
 John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Doubleday, 1976), Pp. 410
 John Lukacs, The Hitler of History (Vintage Books, 1998), Pp. 118 – Evola also expressed much the same view, in doing so confirming this false Fascist conception of the state: “In Fascism Viewed from the Right Evola argued that some of the key tenets of Fascism were good and consistent with the traditional principles of the True Right. Among these principles is a conception of the state, which places it over the people and the nation, which are created by the state.”, Julius Evola, Fascism and Tradition: Collection of Traditionalist Critiques of Fascist Movements and Regimes (Wewelsburg Archives), Pp. 133
 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Volume 1: A Reckoning (New English Translation by Thomas Dalton, Clemens & Blair, 2018), Pp. 292
 Joseph Goebbels, Those Damn Nazis! (Redpill Action Publications, 2020), Pp. 2 (forthcoming). Originally published: Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932).
 John Lukacs, The Hitler of History (Vintage Books, 1998), Pp. 117
 Ibid. Pp. 117-118
 See Interview with Freud biographer Frederick Crews, Against Freud conducted by John Horgan, in which Crews states that “The people that I admired most at that time were the so called New York intellectuals […] these people were all Freudians. In the previous decade they’d all been Trotskyists, but now they had subsided into a more quietistic ideology.”2:53-3:14. For the shredding of Freud, see his book:Frederick Crews, Freud: The Making of an Illusion (Profile Books Ltd., 2017).
 Ryan Faulk (‘The Alternative Hypothesis’), The Dead End of the MLK Myth, January 16, 2018.
 See: Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive (The Annals of Communism Series, Yale University Press, 1999).
 Robert Harris, The West prefers its dictators red, The Sunday Times, London, 11 October, 1998.
 Alain De Benoist, Nazism And Communism: Evil Twins? (Originally published in Eléments, No. 92 (July 1998), pp. 15-24. Translated by Francesca Ficai.), Pp. 179
 CODOH forum thread, Blacks in National Socialist Germany, September 2, 2019.
 On the death tolls of Marxism, see: Stephane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Harvard University Press, 1999). and Benoist, op cit. Also this thread in which an alternate number of 130 million is proposed: Revisionism of the Black Book of Communism
 “The biographers have continued to paint the SA man as a dark and brutal street fighter while neglecting to provide the quite amazing context such as that found in early Berlin, where the Nazis found themselves outnumbered in 1928, thirty-eight to one in terms of supporters.” R.H.S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (Prometheus Books, 2011), Pp. 261
 Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, C-Span January 5, 1997. Time Code: 35:37-37:12