About Redpill Action

The symbol of ‘Redpill Action’ is a layered Tiwaz Rune of Germanic origin. It resembles a tall and strong tree which represents nature and life. The symbol also stands for Triumph.

I am a National Socialist and wanted a symbol that truly represented that. For me the idea of a tree fits perfectly. When one cuts down a tree he also cuts down the connection human beings have to nature and our responsibility to uphold the eternal laws that guide us all whether we know it or not. Our political enemies from all sides, both left and right have tried to dominate nature, they reject it, hate it and take her for granted, they are the people who cut down trees, or more symbolically, are set on destroying the tree of European civilisation by cutting it down and burning the roots. We’ve seen this in the way they relativise our people and distort our achievements; they disseminate this false history and origins of our people to feed the European populace a view of itself that’s negative and then attribute anything positive to other races. They dissociate us from our history in schools and they remove Western Civilization courses from universities, even minor actions like removing certain authors or ‘diversifying’ the curriculum while they also provide Racial Identitarian courses to non-europeans by way of ‘African, Asian, or Indigenous studies’.

We as National Socialists do not do this and we understand that as human beings we’re apart of nature and must live by her laws and preserve life. Another difference between us and our enemies is that they, particularly the left are purely motivated by destruction. Never satisfied as they deconstruct and throw away whatever impedes their quest of self flagellation and aggrandizement of foreign peoples above their own (if they’re European). The right wing are those cowards who take whatever the left throw at them and attempt to conserve it while pretending all the destruction caused by the left has indeed been the true tradition all along. These people can never be trees, for trees stand prideful and triumphant above the Earth as one with nature. As such a National Socialist must be like a tree. Life is what we cherish, and our life is fostered in the wellbeing of our people.

One might ask why I don’t use the Swastika. There’s no reason why I don’t, In truth, I love the Swastika and the traditional National Socialist Aesthetic, however I was just inspired to create a different symbol that can be waved alongside the glorious Hakenkreuz.

Dissatisfied with the current age and sceptical of the political options given to me I found that I must discover what’s important. I do not believe in the ideals I’ve been told my entire life (Cliche I know), that all peoples are equal, that the highest goal one can achieve is personal freedom and satisfaction. As a man born of the 21st century I’ve grown up experiencing the effects of the 20th, and what I’ve seen I loathe in my very soul.

Estranged young people like myself, who had no direction or purpose in life, people who lived day by day, fad by fad with little consciousness that they were even alive. Or rather, they weren’t conscious that there is more to life than simply living.

I found in myself a deep longing, for what, I didn’t know. For some reason after being brought up in an extremely ‘tolerant’ environment I totally rejected it in a matter of a year in my early to mid-teens when I realised that my true longing was that of identity. From the age of 14 I was liberal conservative, at least, that’s the line I chose to take even though I felt and couldn’t come to terms with it yet, that I was indeed much more ‘far right’ than that. Halfway through the age of 15 I fully rejected Liberalism and became a ‘White Nationalist’ rather quickly abandoning Civic Nationalism as I realised after the constant baragment of Islamic terrorism that ‘Moslems’ as a proxy for a larger problem weren’t going to cut it, nor was simply rejecting the cultures of Islam in European countries. My realisation was that Islam as a force of civilisation is much stronger than is our weak liberal western one, and if we want to survive we must ourselves become again a strong force of culture and identity. This led me further to be attracted to the allure of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.

More than seemingly being inspired by a reaction to events, I was pushed by an appreciation of my country, the realisation that to protect what I loved I in turn must love my country and the people of European stock that make us unique as we are the people that founded and built this country and provided the cultural foundations in which I’ve been able to be born and live.

My identity is that of a European, racially conscious and tasked with the duty bound by the blood of past generations; those who lived, are now living and those yet to be born. Which means that national restoration and a unified national consciousness must be awakened in order to restore the pride and honor of the European people not only in my country, but in all European countries and peoples throughout the world. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into oblivion, replaced by foreigners and shamed into obscurity. It isn’t out of ‘hate’ as many would accuse, but out of the genuine passion I and many others hold for our heritage.

My very basic goal is just to write articles and provide insight into what I’m passionate about. I want to host articles written by others in the future too. But I have to say, it’s a struggle getting my friends to write anything.

Beyond that I wanted to create a blog/website that’s unabashedly National Socialist to stand in Triumph against the world in which we’re persecuted and delegitimized. This is the same world which gives power and party platforms to Marxian Socialists and their Communist brothers, harbourers of an ideology that has been allowed to survive regardless of their abundant history of genocides and mass murder based on their cult of equality which far exceeds the alleged crimes of National Socialists and Fascists combined.

There is also no total worldview which exists today besides National Socialism that can hope to combat Marxism and the general civilisational malaise we feel around the European world. To combat this threat we must also embrace the necessarily radicalism to meet and over-power it.

Adolf Hitler, Conceptualizer of National Socialism

This will not be my final treatment on National Socialism, but I do want to address it here in a limited form nonetheless. First, by answering what National Socialism is and what it isn’t, and will finish by briefly addressing a common criticism or two.

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.

Inherently, National Socialism is based on this precept as Adolf Hitler conceived of it:

“. . . This planet once moved through space for millions of years without human beings, and it can do so again some day if men forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of a few crazy ideologues, but to the knowledge and ruthless application of Nature’s iron-clad laws.”

– Adolf Hitler [Mein Kampf, I:11].

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 (1934 in Biological Will: Means and Goals of Biological Work in the New Reich, pp. 10-11)”

To boil it down into a very short sentence, National Socialism is Nature and 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, pp. 219-220, standard edition; p. 128, Pierce edition)

We’ve become dominated by inferior humanity who we know as the “Cultural Marxists” and politically as 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 nature have revolted against the natural order to establish their weird anti-social and selfish paradise predicated on unattainable equality, rejection of biological reality, the destruction of the family and deconstruction of peoples, nations, and cultures all for the sake of a Lysenkoist paradise where all differences are stripped away and humanity is worshipped as essentially his own “God” without responsibility to anyone or anything but himself and the false ideal of equality. The outcome is the domination of man over nature.

In this spiteful pursuit to persecute the divine they promote every sort of destructive hedonistic desire, starting with extreme Individualism and progressing onward towards societal indifference and thus the promotion of 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 (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.) 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.

For me and all true National Socialists there is but one doctrine: Folk and Fatherland.

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and Folk, the sustenance of our children, and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland, so that our Folk may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.

Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view, and used or rejected according to its utility. Then no theory will stiffen into a dead doctrine, since it is life alone that all things must serve.

– Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, Volume 1, chapter 8)

What we’re seeing today are the same effects Hitler saw Germany suffering from prior to and after the First World War when such generally anti-human but most specifically anti-German bacteria was being promoted in the Weimar Republic by Jews in particular as they were using 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 simply 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 specifically 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:

had secretly organized an elite group known as the Blue Shirts. “Fascism is now thought to be backward,” one of its members remarked many years later. “But then it seemed to be a very progressive means of resurrecting the country.” Its primary goal apparently was preservation of the nation. “Fascism is the only tool of self-salvation of nations on the brink of destruction,” stated a contemporary editorial in the Blue Shirt publication, She-hui hsin-wen. “It saved Italy and Germany.… Therefore there is no other road than imitating the Fascist spirit of violent struggle as in Italy and Germany.” Chiang Kai-shek was equally enthusiastic. “Can Fascism save China?” he asked a group of Blue Shirts and provided the answer: “Yes! Fascism is what China now most needs.” Despite public disclaimers to Westerners, he too loathed democracy. (“In the last several decades we have in vain become drunk with democracy and the advocacy of free thought”) and subscribed to Hitler’s Führer principle. “The most important part of Fascism,” he told a group of party cadres eight months after Hitler took power, “is absolute trust in a sagely able leader.” Unless the nation completely trusted this one man, it could not be reconstructed. “Therefore, the leader will naturally be a great person and possess a revolutionary spirit, so that he serves as a model for all party members. Furthermore, each member must sacrifice everything, acting directly for the leader and the group, and indirectly for society, the nation, and the revolution. From the day we joined this revolutionary group, we completely entrusted our rights, life, liberty, and happiness to the group, and pledged them to the leader.… Thus for the first time we can truly be called Fascist.”

John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, Index: Chiang Kai-shek

And in Japan as Savitri Devi relates:

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.

Hitler in Mein Kampf had said that “The State is but a means to an end” [“Der staat ist ein Mittel zum Zweck”], and in his book “The Hitler of History” John Lukacs notes that Hitler “with all the compromises he had to make for the sake of the state – he remained consistent about this priority till the end” (pp. 177), 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.” and 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!”. Here, as Lukacs notes again (Ibid, pp. 118), was the difference between Mussolini and Hitler. Or between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. In fact, Mussolini had stated just the opposite when he said in the Fascist Manifesto of 1932: “It is not the people who make the state but the state that makes the people” .

This point can be argued, but this is reason enough for me to avoid using the “Fascist” label, despite its brevity.

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 it’s 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:

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

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”.

To sum it up, it’s not about the bodies and death counts, it’s about who was killed and why under what banner. Because “equality” is good, it can be forgiven that the Marxists in their struggle to “liberate” the workers over 70 years managed to kill 100-130 million people, so we can move on and just try again because Marxism is a philosophy!

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.

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.

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.

Hitler was a truly unique man:

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, pp. 213 (pdf)

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. As if it’s a concept which cannot be invalidated by these men 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. . .Which would actually make more sense coming from a desk ideology like Marxism which has guidelines and schools of thought for revolution that must be met. Yet instead it’s National Socialism which is constantly expected (even told) to carry out never stipulated “ideological” recreations of historical events like the Holocaust as if inevitable and some sort of tenant to being a National Socialist. It’s bizarre, because nobody would expect the Marxists to starve the peasants and poor as if it’s 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 deaths of millions.

To sum it up, 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.