National Socialism is the Uncompromising Solution

There was a good article published on the Occidental Observer[1], written by Guillaume Durocher, who has written many articles that I enjoy. In this particular article he is reviewing a book, which is not of any particular importance to this article I am writing, nor is it relevant to my criticism of Durocher. My purpose in writing this article is to express my views about two of the things Durocher has written in his, not because I’m particularly hostile to Durocher, but because I am hostile to things he has written regarding National Socialism.

I think that it serves as a good example of what it is to see someone attempt to distance themselves from the National Socialist label using a warped kind of logic, and dis-figuration of the truth.

Durocher, early in the article is prefacing his review of the book that he’s going to be writing about to give a short breakdown of the political tactic used by enemies of white identity, known as Reductio ad Hitlerum:[2]

“if people adopt the opinions of prominent anti-Nazis like Charles de Gaulle or Winston Churchill (who were both racialist proud of their White identity and moderately Judeo-critical), they will, however absurdly, be sure to be called “Nazis.”

My first reaction to this, was astonishment at how anyone could fool themselves into believing that anybody truly identified with men like De Gaulle or Winston Churchill because of their “opinions” on white nationalism let alone any views that can be considered vaguely anti-semitic.

The reality is that nobody adopts the opinions of these men because they were inspired by their views on white identity or antisemitism. The prominence of these men in nationalist culture is due to the fact that they were anti-Hitler. This is what these men are most known for, and admired for on both sides of the political spectrum.

“White identity”, whether these men believed it or not, is a secondary excuse for pro-white advocates to avoid being thrown into the Hitler camp. The veil of “anti-Hitlerism” is thrown up so as to deflect their views onto these men who fought against Hitler, in the hopes of gaining some legitimacy from the leftist enemies of European existence. This is why they do it, not because these men were outspoken white nationalists, but because they were outspoken anti-Nazis.

Civic Nationalists, Libertarians, Conservatives and all the other groups hostile to white identity try to claim men like De Gaulle and Churchill as their own. You can find the official Winston Churchill Society in the UK attempt to deny that Churchill was a “racist”. Of course, Churchill, or anyone for that matter, could be considered a “racist” today. It’s besides the point; both sides are vying for the anti-Nazi leverage of men like Churchill so they can maintain the legitimacy of their views and not be called Nazis. That’s the whole point, and it’s clear for anyone to see.

Durocher would do better to avoid lying to himself and to his readers as to why anyone gives a damn about Churchill or De Gaulle. Because it isn’t the views of these men that will save Europeans today. It is the views of Adolf Hitler, who understood the importance of race and ensured that he put it first above all. It was Hitler, not Churchill, who innovated the ethos of racial consciousness into a complete worldview. It is the example of Adolf Hitler that will guide us all, not the narrow conservative and moderately pro-white views of traitors like De Gaulle and Churchill who, in their victory, did nothing to ensure the survival of the white race.

At another point Durocher says:

“the fact is that there are innumerable differences between historical German National Socialism and contemporary European nationalisms and White advocacy.”

Another lie. One could easily draw conclusions about the differences of historical white advocacy and nationalism to the contemporary views of white advocacy and nationalism today. In the past, the world was being discovered, a sense of racial mission to explore, conquer and rule was at least partially a motivating factor for historical nationalism and racial advocacy. But nobody today would dismiss and attempt to deny the moral legitimacy of white identity on the basis that modern white advocacy must adhere to it’s historical roots in such a stringent way as to emulate the past. Such nonsense isn’t even worthy of being taken seriously.

Yet, when it comes to National Socialism, this absurdity is carried out through the most disingenuous line of reasoning, disguised as “logic”. You can find differences in anything and everything depending on historical context, and the motives of historical actors. Even today, no adherence to white advocacy is the same as any other. There are differences, to expect there wouldn’t be is wilful ignorance.

Is any National Socialist supposed to be shocked that there are differences between the historical application of German National Socialism and the way National Socialism would find itself manifested today? Of course not. It’s an absurdity to think that time is to preserve circumstances in which ideas can be expressed, and beyond that time, the ideas become inexplicably no longer applicable.

National Socialism by its nature is subject to a whole host of circumstances, not just one or two in a single time and place. In its essence, National Socialism aims to construct an organic society in which every aspect of life is to be integrated with its basic purpose.[3] This means the racial consciousness of a people is expressed explicitly through political action.

The nation exists as a representation of a people; and the nation itself arises out of the essence of that people from deep inside their collective racial consciousness as a real world expression that seeks to exclude anything and everything that isn’t of that same racial essence.

Adolf Hitler, German Führer (leader)
and Karl Dönitz, Supreme Commander
of the German Navy and Hitler’s successor.

The nation then must cultivate what Karl Dönitz called an “uncompromising ideology”[4] that will express itself politically through the people to act as the proverbial manifestation of the sword and shield that will preserve the racial essence of the people; and will protect them from corrosive elements from inside and outside the body of the nation. This is National Socialism’s purpose, to politically serve to promulgate the racial essence of a people that are the incubators of the nation, ensuring that they’ll continue for all time to fight for their racial essence so that it may never be usurped.

Nation and Race are one in the same. It’s all connected, which means once the government of a nation no longer serves the race of people whom are the inheritors of that nation, then the necessary political action must be taken in whatever the circumstances may be, to restore to the nation the racial essence of its people. Politics therefore cannot be a separate path to follow for the sake of intellectual fixations, nor is it a single component of life that one can choose to ignore. It encompasses all members of the nation. It is then true, that nobody can be allowed to “stand aside”[5], as that would mean indifference to ones own existence.

To avoid this indifference, the type of government we have seen historically has been one of an authoritarian nature; but this is only a means to an end where the people will be governed in an organic state[6] in which the people have been integrated into their basic purpose and so live as the pure essence of their people that National Socialism has made possible. This was the intended purpose of National Socialism from the time of Hitler:[7]

the National Socialist Party will dissolve automatically; for National Socialism will then be the entire life of the whole German Nation.

Programme of the NSDAP

National Socialism is the organic society that integrates everything in its basic purpose, that means National Socialism is also the consciousness of race, blood, and soil which makes up the very crux of what it means to be German, Australian, British, French, Italian, American, or any other nationality. The essence of the former is the definition of human nature and through political action so is National Socialism.[8] You could not then be a “German” Communist, because Communism is not the expression of the German essence, it is an ideology that can be applied anywhere to anyone. While being German is unique to the German people. National Socialism is thus the crux (as previously stated) of what it meant to be German, and express that pure German spirit politically. It acts so that it may be self perpetuating.

So talking about differences in “historical German National Socialism” compared to some political identification as a “white advocate” as Durocher does, is to miss the point completely. Particularly about National Socialism as it isn’t dependant on anything nor is it hinged on its political differences of a century ago. National Socialism will express itself eternally as the organic essence of a people, and the political action that makes sure that essence survives will be different everywhere and at any time as circumstances will always differ.

Even in Germany today, German National Socialism will seek the triumph of the German essence in a vastly different political way than it did during the time of Hitler. The arena in Germany has changed as it has in every other country around the world. To talk about “innumerable differences” between anything today and in the past, not least politics, is nothing more than an absurd logical invention that has no real currency in the realm of ideas that will or will not survive. It has no predictive power over them, saying such a thing can only be an attempt to trick people into following a lie.

Francis Parker Yockey spoke of such men like Churchill and De Gaulle, whose existence was only focused on by the telescope of historical significance due to their opposition of the Heroic Adolf Hitler:

In the heroic era, no military test applies, not the test of “success” nor of anything else. It was Cromwell who inspired generations of men after him, not the later Stuarts who had his body torn to pieces by wild horses. It was Napoleon who inspired a century of leadership after him, not Ludwig XVIII or Metternich or Talleyrand. The heroic world stands immeasurably above the division of useful/useless. Cromwell won in 1688, long after his death and following disgrace. And in 1840 Napoleon had won, he whose name could be pronounced in Europe only with risk in 1820. The idea of Napoleon triumphed in the spiritual-political sphere, his personality in the heroic sphere. Who would accuse him now over the facts of the lost battles of Leipzig and Waterloo?

Such will it be with the Hero of World War II. He represented the new, aesthetic type which will form and inspire all coming leaders in the West. The lamenting after the Second World War about his “mistakes” was simply contemptible. Every journalist and big-mouth knows better than the great — they just would not have made this or that mistake. No, for they would not have been able to do anything at all.

Heroism is unique and cannot be wasted. As long as men survive, they will always be influenced by the Hero and his legend. He lives on in spirit and continues to take place in the world of facts and deeds.

Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Liberty Bell Publication, 1981), Pp. 34

You can identify with Churchill and De Gaulle, but they’re never going to be the antidote to our problems. They failed to conjure up the political methods that would uncompromisingly ensure the survival of the racial essence of the British and French people. They also lack universal appeal.

But go ahead, if you’re British or French, to live by the “politics” of these men who, more so than Hitler, are confined forever to the politics of their times – namely opposition to Germany and Hitler – as that is what they are famous for in the first place. In order to get anything politically significant out of them, it requires boiling down some of their thoughts on white identity that aren’t widely known whatsoever, and discarding whatever their political ambitions were that were largely modest and not applicable to us today.

Hitler is a different story entirely. He is famous for forging a worldview, and for acting out that worldview for the sake of the German people in a way that defined historical circumstances that allowed Churchill and De Gaulle to rise out of their mediocrity.

The heroism that Yockey spoke of is severely lacking in such figures as Churchill and De Gaulle because their deeds were based on the purely destructive aim of eliminating Hitler, someone they saw as a threat and rival in European politics over the balance of power.[9] Hitler on the other hand was a revolutionary who knew that the old order needed to be destroyed, not just geographically for the survival of Germany, but also politically and spiritually. So Hitler with this in mind perused a course of destruction, accompanied by great projects of production too, that would be an antidote to the decaying old order.

Unfortunately the old order won the Second World War thanks to Churchill and De Gaulle. To identify with them, is to identify with our enemies.

If the Germans today were to identify and follow Hitler, the survival of the German people would be much more likely to succeed and as a result Germany would be much more durable as a nation than the Englishman or Frenchman who attempted to identify and follow Churchill and De Gaulle. For the latter never supplied their people with anything more than perhaps a few trifle words in support of their ethnic group. Unlike Hitler who supplied the German people, and any other people who are brave enough to extol the truth of National Socialism, with a blueprint for fanatical self assertion.

[1] Guillaume Durocher, Biocentric Political Thought in the Third Reich: A Review of Johann Chapoutot’s The Law of Blood, December 15, 2018 Archive.

[2] Kerry R. Bolton, “Reductio ad Hitlerum” as a Social Evil, Journal of Inconvenient History, 2013, Vol. 5 No. 2 Archive.

[3] George Mosse, Nazi Culture (W.H. Allen, 1966), Pp. xx. Mosse’s book is quite interesting. It has some vile commentary, but for the most part it’s a compilation of translated extracts from books and articles written by German National Socialists.

[4] “What would have become of our country today, if the Fuehrer had not united us under National Socialism? Divided along party lines, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable to it, because we lacked the defense of our present uncompromising ideology, we would have long since succumbed under the burden of this war and delivered ourselves to the enemy who would have mercilessly destroyed us” – Karl Dönitz, quoted in: Whitney R. Harris, Tyranny on Trial: The Trial of the Major German War Criminals at the End of World War II at Nuremberg, Germany, 1945–1946 (Southern Methodist University Press, 1999), Pp. 289

[5] Mosse, op cit.

[6] “Fascism is not totalitarian, but it can be – not because that is its nature, but because totalitarianism can be used as a tool. Fascism can also be, in this same sense, anarchistic, because it can likewise use anarchy as a tool. Trying to classify fascism as totalitarian is, once again, abstract classification. The “system” that fascism offers society is no system, which denotes the artificial, fabricated nature of that organization, but rather the Organic State, one that is fully compliant to truth and thus is as nature itself: organic, where everything works in harmony.” – Alexander Slavros & Charles Chapel, A Squire’s Trial (An IronMarch Publication, 2018, Version 2), Pp. 37 For further reading on the modern take on the National Socialist organic state, see: Alexander Slavros, Next Leap (An IronMarch Publication, 2018 Version 2), Pp. 10ff. also see Slavros, Zero Tolerance (An IronMarch Publication, 2017).

[7] E.T.S. Dugdale trans., The Programme of the NSDAP and its General Conceptions (Frz. Eher Nachf., Munich, 1932) Pp. 33

[8] Mosse, op cit.

[9]. “The purpose of the policy was to give Great Britain a permanent position of control over the destinies of her neighbors.” – David Hoggan, The Forced War (Institute for Historical Review, 1989), Pp. 181-182


  1. I agree with the article. I am going to be honest though and say that the passages from Durocher that you criticize are low-hanging fruit.

    Nonetheless I really enjoyed the point you made in the second half of the article, that the supposed stature of figures like Churchill for example is entirely dependent on Hitler. I feel like that is a quite valuable point.

    I would go further and say, as you surely would agree, that not only those figures, but the whole of modern liberalism is dependent on Hitler and the National Socialist state.

    • Durocher’s comments might be seen as low hanging fruit, but it’s not the comments he made themselves – slender as they are – that was the point. The article is about the further arguments comments like those allude to and inspire. In the context Durocher used them they’re pretty insignificant. Hence why I stated at the beginning that the article I wrote, isn’t about the larger book review that Durocher wrote.

      The comments he made stands for ideas that exist in the nationalist ethos. So that’s really what I was attacking.

      I wholeheartedly agree with you on Liberalism. In fact I feel that Hitler has been used as the foundation myth of the modern west.

  2. I have nothing to add other than to congratulate you on another truly fantastic article. You are such a credit to the cause, as is this website. Thank you.

    • It’s a pleasure to read that coming from you! As I admire your work as well. More articles are forthcoming, even though I can be rather slow.

      A tree bears fruit if given time to grow after all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.