Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Hitler and Socialism

  1. #1
    Senior Member Furius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, December 20th, 2010 @ 08:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    Australian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Aussie
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    n/a
    Posts
    158
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Hitler was a Socialist

    Some useful stuff here, especially when arguing with socialists, communists, and the like.

    http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html

    While the broad idea on this page is well known, this is one of the few spots that I've seen on the net where it has been put together as one.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    R-M269
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    East Anglia East Anglia
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement

    National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement
    Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

    For far too many years it has been widely accepted that National Socialists are extreme right-wingers, and only rarely have they hesitated to refer to themselves as such. It can be argued, however, that National Socialism does not fit into the pattern of "right" and "left" and instead ought to be considered as standing above this distinction. This argument most certainly is a step in the right direction, but at this time and within the context of the current struggle it might be a good idea to reconsider the whole question of political wings and make a few points clear concerning the meaning of the terms "right" and "left" and their applications to today's political scene.

    Historically, the words "right" and "left" in reference to political views originated in pre-revolutionary France, where those who wanted to preserve the system of government more or less as it was sat to the right in the National Assembly, and those who wanted more radical changes sat to the left. Hence, the terms "right" for the reactionaries and "left" for the revolutionaries--terms that have since become universally known and used. Neither the word "reactionary" nor the word "revolutionary," however, says anything universal about the particular views in question. They are both relative and receive their specific meanings only within a given historical context. For instance, the revolutionaries of former times, the European National Liberals of the 19th century, do not seem very revolutionary today--quite the contrary--just as today's reactionaries would have been considered very revolutionary 200 years ago. When the Communists took over Russia in 1917 they did so as revolutionaries out to overthrow an ineffective and corrupt regime; but from the 1920s to the collapse of the Soviet Union seven decades later they represented the reactionary establishment.

    In our time the traditional left wing has been predominantly Marxist, even to such a degree that the very term "left wing" has been thought to be synonymous with the word "Marxism." This, of course, has no basis in reality. Any revolutionary is a left-winger--it is just that the Marxists have had so little competition that they have been able to appropriate the term.

    On the other side of the political spectrum we have the right wing, consisting of reactionaries who want to preserve the present society and the so-called Christian civilization of the West with its materialism and capitalism. The right-wingers stand up for traditional patriotic values: They are good Christians and good citizens who defend the constitution and are loyal to their country and their monarch, if they have one. They are willing to go to war against any other nation to assert the greatness of their own--even if it means waging a nuclear war against another White country if they think its system of government threatens their own domestic order, no matter how corrupt and degenerate it may be. They are for an economy based on unrestricted free enterprise, regardless of the consequences, but they usually resent the Liberal trend in politics as well as immigration and racial integration because they fear any changes that could upset the order to which they are accustomed.

    Where National Socialists are to be found in this spectrum seems quite clear: WE ARE LEFT-WINGERS, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! We do not want to preserve the present system or any part thereof! We do not believe in the foundations of a system that has led our people into the misery of the present time! We do not want to support any institution which is responsible for drug abuse; two world wars between White nations as well as countless minor wars; nuclear rearmament; the pollution of the environment; unemployment; the total disillusionment of young people, who have lost all faith in the future; pornography; and all the other forms of complete degeneracy which are displayed today.

    We National Socialists want the most radical change of all: We want the complete overthrow of the entire Old Order!

    Whereas Marxism shares a basic equalitarian philosophy with the Old Order and defines itself as a materialistic movement aiming at the mere redistribution of material goods, National Socialism seeks to build an entirely New Order based on idealism and a profound respect for the laws of Nature in all aspects of life. This, definitely, is the most revolutionary idea of this century, and thus very much left wing! It certainly is not Marxist! Compared to National Socialism, Marxism is nothing but a pseudo-revolutionary idea upheld by Liberal Democracy. If all people are created equal, why should not all wealth be distributed equally among all people? Seen in this light, Marxism is simply part of the Old Order we want to destroy.

    If National Socialism is, in its essence, a left-wing movement, it is of course paradoxical that National Socialists should have devoted so much time and energy to catering toward traditional right-wing attitudes, whereas they have shunned all openings to the left. Is it any wonder that all attempts to create a National Socialist movement on this basis have been utterly unsuccessful?

    The first precondition for creating anything in this world is that one has a clear idea of what one wants to achieve and how one can possibly achieve it. A sculptor who wants to create a work of art starts out with a mental concept, and then sets out to realize it in his chosen material. He does not just dabble around casually with his chisel on a piece of marble and wonder what the final result will be.

    Thus, it is crucial to realize that National Socialism is not merely a form of extreme rightism. Anybody within our ranks who still has such notions should devote himself to studying the idea of National Socialism to find its true meaning and significance. Or, if he doesn't have the energy or ability to do so, he should find another outlet for his activities. This Movement does not have room for frustrated haters or religious dreamers, but only for devoted National Socialist revolutionaries!

    Let us face reality: The right wing is mostly a pitiful conglomerate of people with very unclear ideas. They realize that something is wrong, but they refuse to leave the Old Order. Instead, they cling to it with all their might and wish to revert to the situation as it was 75 or 100 years ago, thinking that this will solve all their problems. They simply fail to see that the mess we are in today is a logical result of the system we had 100 years ago, that the foundations of that system were not good and stable enough to safeguard us from the present developments.

    It is a historical fact that nothing good has ever come out of the right wing. If it had not been for such revolutionaries as 16th-century philosopher Giordano Bruno and astronomers Galileo, Nicholas Copernicus and Johannes Kepler, we would still believe that the earth is flat and the center of the universe. When capitalism developed, the establishment made no attempt to solve the social problems resulting from the industrial revolution but went on to exploit the new working class mercilessly, thus giving rise to revolutionary thoughts as expressed in Marxist ideology. All the necessary and just social improvements we have seen during the past 100 years have been introduced only after hard pressure from the left wing, with right-wing conservatives in constant retreat, pitifully trying to preserve as much as possible for themselves.

    This does not mean, of course, that any effort to overthrow an established system is, per se, good. If man succeeds in creating a new natural order which does not fossilize but remains a living organism and develops within the boundaries of natural law, adopting new scientific and philosophical insights into the nature of life without clinging to outdated conceptions, it would, indeed, be a most serious offense to try to uproot that order and revert to egoistic materialism or any other unnatural philosophy. What is good and bad can be judged solely on the basis of natural law; the closer to it the better.

    It is almost universally accepted that there is a gulf between National Socialism and Marxism. By the same token, however, National Socialists are certainly not right-wingers. The only common ground National Socialism seems to have with the right wing is the racial issue. But here, too, there is an extreme difference in the outlook. The right-wingers believe being White holds an absolute value in itself, which elevates the Aryan race over all other living organisms and gives it a right to do with the world what it wants to do. As National Socialists, however, we are not merely concerned about the life and immediate well-being of our own race. We see the White race as part of the whole natural order of the universe, and our wish to preserve it is linked with our wish to preserve the entire natural environment--including other human races--out of a deep respect for the inscrutable wisdom of nature.

    No doubt, our race has great possibilities in its intellectual capacity, but its abilities have absolutely no value as such if they are not put to the right use in accordance with the laws of Nature. For much too long we have joined in the chorus claiming "White Power" and ignored the sad fact that our race has had the absolute power for at least 2,000 years. And it is exactly this power that has led to the kind of society we have today.

    Thus, we do not share the right-wing belief in continuous technological and economical expansion, which already has led to the pollution of air and water and has made huge areas of the world unfit to live in for all species--a development which means that the ozone layer in the atmosphere is systematically destroyed so that coming generations are going to be exposed to life-threatening radiation; that tropical forests, which supply us with oxygen and medicinal plants, are cut down to make room for industrial growth; and that the deserts are irrigated so that the ground-water level sinks in fertile areas, which become deserts in turn. All of this is the result of Aryan genius. This genius has not been put to work to build a better world for our children and grandchildren, but only to satisfy the human greed of the moment and to secure a pleasant life now without regard for the future. This fatal trend, which by the standards of natural law has most certainly turned industrialized White countries into a far more degenerate state than any primitive society of the so-called Third World, is violently supported by the right wing, which seems to think that everything would be just fine if only the Blacks, Jews and Boat People were expelled. We know that, in itself, this would change very little.

    Our aim is a complete spiritual rebirth. It is our immediate goal to define and build the foundations for this rebirth, which is the only thing that can give the racial struggle any meaning. This struggle should not be understood as a struggle against other races, but as a relentless fight against the decadence of our own race. The isolated appeal to race as the basis of a new society is meaningless unless we can overcome this decadence and find our way back to natural values. If our race can survive only within the context of the present system, we do not want it to survive, because then it would represent nothing but the grossest form of anti-natural degeneracy. The claim for "White Power" can gain meaning only if, by that, we mean the wish to reactivate the power of Nature as it rests latently in the genius of the White man, whose duty it is to put this power to use in order to uphold the very principle of life.

    Of course, this does not mean that we are in favor of any kind of multiracialism. Race is one of the cornerstones of the natural order and thus must be defended like all other natural principles. It certainly does not mean that the white color of one's skin is necessarily a hallmark of human quality. The White race has allowed the world to slide to the brink of disaster, and unless it can be brought to realize that the quality of life can be improved by replacing the materialistic consumer society--which is the supreme goal of both Marxism and Liberalism--with natural and spiritual values, it is doomed and will destroy the whole planet in the process of its absolute decline.

    Naturally, we National Socialists do not think that we should go back to Stone Age caves, but we do think we should never take more out of Nature than we put back into her. The quality of life should mean more to us than the quality of material goods.

    In today's disillusioned society, growing numbers of people realize this and, what is more, they protest against the ruling order. They do not become National Socialists, however, for one simple reason: They are not aware that National Socialism--and only National Socialism--can solve today's crucial problems. Instead, they allow their protest movements to be taken over by the Marxists, who are better at selling their product than we are, despite the fact that no Marxist government has ever made the slightest attempt to tackle these issues. That's because the very concept of Marxism is materialistic and at no point concerned with natural values. The Marxists merely use popular dissatisfaction with the establishment to promote Marxism. The dissatisfied individuals themselves are not at all Marxists to begin with.

    While National Socialists run around trying to win over small fringe groups of traditional right-wingers with all their political and religious hang-ups, their notorious megalomania and their lack of commitment to a cause, the Marxists get a foothold among concerned citizens who renounce unlimited materialism out of an idealistic concern for the future of our planet. For the most part, these people do not realize that preservation of the natural order calls for more far-reaching measures than the control of pollution and the abolition of nuclear energy and the atomic bomb. They do not see that it also demands racial separation and a general spiritual revival that can lead Man back to the sources of life. They can learn this, however--or, rather, they cannot help but see it--if they are provided with the necessary information and insight and not left exposed to the exclusive influence of asinine Marxist teachings. These people are idealistic and for Nature, and thus they really belong to us. They generally are far more valuable as fighters than a good many disillusioned youngsters who call themselves National Socialists in an attempt to boost their egos and hide their personal problems and insecurity behind a self-styled uniform and ludicrous ranks and titles.

    But the environmentalists are not attracted by stormtroopers, hate propaganda or so-called skinheads, all of which confirm their negative impressions of National Socialism. Nor does it help to talk to them about the significance of race, because they have not yet come so far in their development that they can see the relevance of the racial issue. They must be approached where they are and on issues that concern them here and now. To do this, it is necessary to produce good material on environmental problems as seen from the National Socialist point of view and to go into the groups where these people gather in protest against nuclear weapons, pollution and warfare. We cannot expect the environmentalists to come to us, because they have no way of knowing what National Socialism is all about. And if we fail to get in contact with them, they will be lost to the Marxists, in whose hands they are never going to realize the full consequence of their own attitudes.

    These new protesters are hostile to us simply because of decades of enemy propaganda, which has not only alienated sound and intelligent people from any kind of movement which overtly expresses National Socialist ideas, but which has also succeeded in attracting a large number of individuals to our movement who suit this propaganda image of National Socialism only too well and who come to us simply because they want to live up to this image. Too many people attracted to National Socialism want to be the murderous, bloodthirsty beasts they have come to know from countless Hollywood productions and yellow-press accounts of the "terrible Nazis."

    For far too long we have welcomed such psychopaths into our ranks and for far too long we have failed to dissociate ourselves from other organizations which do the same. Just because some people might call themselves National Socialists and wave the Swastika does not make them our comrades! Many organizations still do not realize this, and as long as they fail to do so they are doomed; unfortunately, so are we if we do not take every opportunity which offers itself to denounce them in public. It often has been said that we should not "wash our dirty linen" in front of the enemies and that all "internal strife" should be kept within our own walls. But this is not our linen and it most certainly is not "internal strife." Instead, it is a necessary cleaning operation, and it must be carried out in public.



    Our worst enemies are not the Jews or the Communists, but the very people who while calling themselves National Socialists debase the fundamental concepts of the National Socialist philosophy through their behavior, thus confirming the distorted impression of our Idea conveyed to the public. Indeed, we can feel no loyalty and no friendship toward such people. On the contrary, we have to rid ourselves of any connection with them whatsoever and go out of our way to show people that they do not belong to us.

    Above all, we should take great pains to do exactly those things that are not expected of us. We are expected to embrace just about any right-winger who waves a Swastika, and we most certainly are not expected to be found anywhere near the left wing simply because people have been told over and over again that we are right-wingers. Consequently, we should deliberately show them that they have been misinformed. The surprise effect probably will be to make at least some people listen to what we have to say. Furthermore, it is going to make people think twice about what they are told concerning National Socialism when they realize they have heard nothing but lies on this subject.

    It should be noted that we are not a historical association. Many National Socialists seem to think that we are going to revive National Socialist Germany and transplant it to other parts of the world. This is the way our enemy would like to make us look, but this is not the case! National Socialist Germany represents an attempt to organize a National Socialist community at a given time and in a given historical context. It can inspire us and we can learn from it, but we cannot revive it--nor should we ever try to do so. It was an experiment designed to deal with a set of problems that were of major concern to the German people at the time but which are not necessarily felt to be as important by people today.

    When Adolf Hitler set out in the early 1920s on his historical mission to reorganize Germany, the entire German nation was at its knees economically, militarily and politically. After the defeat in World War I, Germany lost all of its colonies along with an enormous part of its European territory that had been settled by several million Germans who suddenly found themselves cut off from their mother country, living miserable lives as minorities in foreign countries that wished to wipe them out. What was left of Germany was totally demilitarized. The weight of outrageous claims for reparations put forward by the conquerors caused the most hideous inflation in world history and crushed any possibility of economic recovery. In this situation a small minority of Jewish immigrants from the East slowly gained control of the shattered economy, as well as the entire cultural and political life of Germany. Most Germans had to scrap for their very survival. Materially, any country of the West is far better off today than Germany was in the 1920s.

    Morally, however, we are faced with a much graver threat than Hitler was faced with. His Germany was still a fairly homogeneous country where most people shared a set of common values and norms and a common belief in the cultural tradition of the nation. They wanted to regain their former power. They wanted to be strong and respected by other nations. Hitler did not have to tell them to love their people and their race. He could take it for granted that they did. Their values and norms were not necessarily all in accordance with National Socialist philosophy, but they were a sound basis on which a National Socialist state could be built without too many difficulties. Thus, Hitler could concentrate his political propaganda on more mundane things.

    He was living in thoroughly revolutionary times in which the need for work and food was of paramount importance, and he knew a program which could secure these things would give him the support of the voters and enable him to gain power so that he could try to realize his political vision, which, of course, went much further than the immediate need for material things.

    But as we all know, National Socialism was not the only revolutionary force in Germany at that time. The Communists had exactly the same advantages as Hitler: a starving population willing to try almost anything to survive. They also had the advantage over Hitler that they could point to the successful revolution in Russia. Hitler had nothing of the kind to which he could relate his struggle. It is noteworthy that he did not link his movement to any of the powerful right-wing ideologies of the past, such as the monarchy or the churches. His approach was thoroughly left-wing and equally opposed to the Establishment and the Communist Party. When, at last, he was victorious over the Communists, it was not by beating them into silence but by draining away their support by taking up the same issues as the Communists and pointing out a better solution--all of which convinced the German workers that he could be a better and more competent leader than the head of the German Communist Party. He talked to people about what concerned them in the language of his time and adopted a military style, which was popular in a country full of ex-servicemen who had reason to feel betrayed by the government and which also was useful in a situation where you had to fight the numerous Communist murder gangs.

    To try to imitate Hitler's style today would be political suicide. Such imitation has been the end of every group that has tried so far. Nor can you take over Hitler's propaganda material. To translate it, reprint it or imitate it in today's context is ridiculous. Hitler was catering to the German masses of the 1920s and 1930s. Apart from everything else, we must realize and accept that there is no way to win the masses in the present situation. Today we are looking for a small number of idealists. To find them we have to turn our attention to problems--pollution, the nuclear threat, the curse of multinational Capitalism, etc.--that concern exactly the type of people for whom we are looking. Most of these problems were unknown to Hitler's contemporaries, but that is no reason not to tackle them! Our world has become much more complicated than it was 50 years ago, and any political movement that fails to take this into account reduces itself to an anachronistic fossil.

    We must admit that generally we have tended to speak and write too much about National Socialist Germany. In spite of all the good we may be able to show that Hitler did for Germany, the people we are attempting to lure into our ranks today are not very interested in what happened more than a half century ago. They are concerned about their own time--and the future.

    When we cling so desperately to the past, one of the reasons is, of course, that National Socialist Germany is the only example of applied National Socialism the world has ever seen and that those 12 short years represent the only glory and success our Movement has ever had. This is understandable. We need it in these difficult times of humiliation and persecution. We need it to show to ourselves that National Socialism once was victorious, in spite of all adversity.

    It is extremely dangerous, however, when this respect and admiration for the past, instead of being a productive inspiration, becomes a nostalgic fixation on a bygone era, a blind love for the paraphernalia of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, the uniforms, the symbols, the haircuts and even the linguistic style of the 1930s. Not the outward appearance but the inherent idea is important, and we have to get on from there. Like Hitler, we must avoid being trapped by history. In other words, we must show how National Socialism can solve the unemployment problem today--not merely how Hitler solved it in 1933.

    The idea behind National Socialism transcends Hitler and National Socialism itself. Hitler applied it to an earlier time and place; we have to apply it to our own. It is timeless because it represents the very principle according to which Nature lives and creates. It has existed since the beginning of time and is going to exist forever, as long as the universe exists, no matter whether the Aryan race--or mankind, for that matter--exists or not. Man has abandoned this principle. It is our task to show him that he cannot do so unpunished, and that all his present problems are caused by the insane belief that man is elevated above Nature.

    We should also learn a great deal from the way the other leftist groups are organized. It is commonplace to claim that Marxist organizations consist of human waste. This may be true of the followers of some groups, but the hard-core of the serious Marxist organizations is organized along lines that are certain to secure quality and devotion. Members are very often tithed, and they are required to spend a certain number of nights every week with ideological training and practical activities. Altogether, the demands put on a Marxist far exceed anything we have ever dared to expect of our members. This says something about quality, and it also explains why the Marxists are doing so much better than we are, despite the fact that what they preach is utter nonsense.

    Among National Socialists, taking stands or adopting methods normally considered to be Marxist seems to be met with a good deal of fear of somehow being "contaminated" by Marxism; it would give us a bad name among both friends and enemies, they claim. Now, we certainly have a bad name already. To be honest, the situation could hardly worsen. But as we are not too concerned about winning over traditional conservatives, what does it matter? If they cannot tell the differences between Communism and National Socialism, it is their problem, not ours; in that case, they show a lack of intelligence that makes them useless for us in any event. We cannot allow our enemies to determine what is a National Socialist viewpoint and what is not, and we surely cannot leave all the good causes to the Marxists just to please people who have proven to be totally useless to us anyway. We already have done that for far too long. That is another reason why Marxists have been so successful and have been able to take over vast segments of our culture and intellectual life, while National Socialists have allowed themselves to feel obligated to say "yes" to Capitalism, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Community, the bomb, unlimited "free enterprise," etc. It is time to change this! Let us not continue to do what people have been led to expect of us. Let us do what National Socialism teaches us to do, not what people think it ought to teach us.

    In this connection the sad truth is that many National Socialists in their traditional thinking have fallen victims of the worst kind of right-wing anti-Communist propaganda. Despite the horrific, dehumanizing actions launched by Marxist governments in Beijing, Havana and Moscow during the 20th century, there is absolutely no way you can blame the Communists for the sorry state of the world today--for drug abuse, crime, pornography, nuclear weapons, racial integration, environmental pollution and so on. It is our own present system of government that is to blame, not the Communists or the Jews! We have to realize that these evils have been created by our own corrupt and morally depraved politicians and stockbrokers and that we, the Aryan people of the world, have allowed it to get this bad. It is not a foreign government but this present system which is a threat to the existence of the planet, and without this system no Communist governments ever would have been able to come into existence. Communism would have been wiped out during World War II if the West had not given the Soviet Union the necessary arms and technology. Just a handful of years ago, all Eastern European Communist states would have disintegrated immediately if they had not received constant support from Western governments and bankers who earned fortunes on trade with these countries and on lending them money. Interestingly, the same multinational corporations which generate huge profits on trade with today's Communist government in mainland China make another fortune on the production of arms our politicians try to persuade us are necessary to defend ourselves against the Communists--as if you can defend anything by destroying all life in a nuclear war. This is, of course, utterly ridiculous, but it is nonetheless the political and financial system so vigorously supported by the right wing.

    No doubt about it: Living under Communism most certainly would be a very unpleasant experience, but it would not be the end of the world--Liberal Democracy most likely would! There is far more racial purity in Eastern European countries, which were under Communist rule from the middle 1940s until the early 1990s, than anywhere in the West simply because their inefficient economic systems did not attract large-scale Third World immigration. And the racial consciousness of the Russians, who were the dominant nation in the former Soviet Union, definitely promised a better prospect for the survival of the Aryan race than the visions of Liberal and Conservative American politicians.

    At this point someone might venture to ask whether we should not abolish all talk about National Socialism and the Swastika and disguise ourselves as "real" left-wingers with a new idea that could easily be sold to people under a different name. This, of course, is not possible. To try such an approach is to underestimate our enemies. They really do not mind the name or the symbol. What they mind is the idea, and you could not disguise that beyond recognition. Our enemy will always oppose anything that is good for our people, and they would--rightfully--claim that we are just "Nazis." Then we would have to devote a lot of effort to "proving" that we are not. This would be ridiculous. Many organizations have tried it; none has ever succeeded.

    There is only the difficult way: to prove that National Socialism is not what people think it is and that it is the only way to secure the survival of life on this planet. We know that we are in a weak position, but, quite frankly, we should rather be glad that we do not have to worry about taking over power here and now. We simply would not be able to handle it. This is one of the many unpleasant facts that National Socialists--and people who call themselves National Socialists--seem to overlook. It would be of little use to us to win over the masses tomorrow when we do not have the necessary number of National Socialist experts to make a National Socialist state work. We need economists, jurists, administrators, biologists, etc., who are also National Socialists. Power must never be an aim in itself. We want to create a New Order because we want a better world, but a better world cannot be created just out of the blue sky. It takes a lot of dedicated people with thoroughgoing education to carry out such a task. Right now it is more important to win over a number of these people than to fight a losing battle in the streets to impress a number of bigots and losers.

    Again, National Socialist Germany furnishes us with a very instructive example. One of the reasons why the experiment to create a National Socialist order right from the beginning could not be completed and a new state could not survive the pressure from the outside world was that Adolf Hitler had to rely on a large number of experts who had nothing but disdain for National Socialism. He simply did not have the time to train and educate enough National Socialists because he had to concentrate on winning the people before the Communists could take over. We should be grateful that we have no such worry. We could never win a revolutionary victory under the present circumstances anyway, so let us concentrate on establishing a sound foundation for a future mass movement.

    Let us be realists. This could be a losing battle. We have no guarantee that we are ever going to win. To be quite honest, we have nothing but a vague hope to support the belief that we can win. Nature herself may wipe mankind from the surface of the earth because it has neglected the laws of the universe; this may be what is in store for us.

    We National Socialists, however, have decided not to accept such a development without a fight--even against all odds! Yet we also have no desire to be martyrs for a lost cause--and that is exactly what we are going to be if we stick to the old ways. As a Movement we have been notably unsuccessful so far. It is time to wake up and recognize the true significance of our ideas.

    A first step is to become revolutionary professionals. We must leave all half-cocked right-wing attitudes behind us and realize that we are left-wingers. Furthermore, we should stop blaming others for our misery. We have been our own worst enemies in all respects, and we need no scapegoats! Any change we desire has to start as a change in the basic attitude of our own people. This is a heavy task--but the thought of what is going to happen if we do not win makes it worthwhile to give it a try!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    Monday, January 11th, 2010 @ 08:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    australian
    Gender
    Posts
    59
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement

    You know, the way this article defines left wing seems to be in some ways in lieu with what I used to consider left wing. I did consider myself left-wing in the past (but I was far, far too young to be taken seriously and I don't take those veiws I had seriously now) and a commie because I did not fully understand what communism was but was attracted to the rebellious and revolutionary side of it, but what my veiws represented more what they would call 'fascism'. I did go through a stage of liberal political-correctdness though.

  4. #4
    Senior Member The Dagda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2007 @ 08:03 PM
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Posts
    78
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement

    These days left and right wing are meaningless terms, it's PC to be Third Position.
    National-Socialists possess the spirit to resist the present tyranny. - David Myatt

  5. #5
    Senior Member Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, December 25th, 2006 @ 12:52 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Scotland Scotland
    Location
    Northern Briton
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Politics
    Preservation and revival
    Religion
    Animist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Hitler and Socialism

    HITLER AND SOCIALISM



    J.J. Ray

    University of New South Wales, Australia


    Although Hitler himself claimed to be a socialist, this claim seems normally to be totally ignored. Evidence in support of the view that he was in fact a vociferous socialist is reviewed. The essence of his popularity with Germans appears to have been his combination of two very seductive policy themes: socialism and nationalism. He thus stole the emotional clothes of both the Left and the Right. The implications for present-day German and Russian politics are briefly explored.



    The Demand for Explanation

    Now that more than 50 years have passed since the military defeat of Hitler's Germany, one might have thought that Hitler's name would be all but forgotten. This is far from the case, however. Even in the popular press, references to him are incessant and the trickle of TV documentaries on the Germany of his era would seem to be unceasing. Hitler even featured on the cover of a 1995 Time magazine.

    This finds its counterpart in the academic literature too. Scholarly works on Hitler's deeds continue to emerge (e.g. Feuchtwanger, 1995) and in a recent survey of the history of Western civilization, Lipson (1993) named Hitlerism and the nuclear bomb as the two great evils of the 20th century. Stalin's tyranny lasted longer, Pol Pot killed a higher proportion of his country's population and Hitler was not the first Fascist but the name of Hitler nonetheless hangs over the entire 20th century as something inescapably and inexplicably malign. It seems doubtful that even living in the 21st century will erase from the minds of thinking people the still largely unfulfilled need to understand how and why Hitler became so influential and wrought so much evil.

    The fact that so many young Germans (particular from the old Communist East) today still salute his name and perpetuate much of his politics is also an amazement and a deep concern to many and what can only be called the resurgence of Nazism among many young Germans at the close of the 20th century would seem to generate a continuing and pressing need to understand the Hitler phenomenon.

    So what was it that made Hitler so influential? What was it that made him (as pre-war histories such as Roberts, 1938, attest) the most popular man in the Germany of his day? Why does he still have many admirers now in the Germany on which he inflicted such disasters? What was (is?) his appeal? And why, of all things, are the young products of an East German Communist upbringing still so susceptible to his message?

    There have been many proposed explanations of Hitler's influence and deeds but nearly all of the social scientific explanations very rapidly come up with the word "insanity" or one of its synonyms (e.g. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). Attributing mental illness or mental disturbance to Hitler seems to be the only way we can deal with his malign legacy.

    But is this plausible? Do madmen achieve popular acclaim among their own people? Do madmen inspire their countrymen to epics of self sacrifice? Do madmen leave a mark on history unlike any other? Until Hitler came along, the answers to all these questions would surely have been "no".

    So is there an alternative explanation? Is there something other than mental illness that can explain Hitler's success? If there is we surely owe it to ourselves and to our children to find out. If by dismissing Hitlerism as madness we miss what really went on in Hitler's rise to power we surely run dreadful risks of allowing some sort of Nazi revival. The often extreme expressions of nationalism to be heard from Russia today surely warn us that a Fascist upsurge in a major European State is no mere bogeyman. What we fail to understand we may be unable to prevent. All possible explanations for the Nazi phenomenon do surely therefore demand our attention. It is the purpose of the present paper, therefore, to explain the rise and power of Hitler's Nazism in a way that does not take the seductive route of invoking insanity...

    continue
    A! Fredome is a noble thing
    Fredome mays man to haiff liking.
    Fredome all solace to man giffis,
    He levys at es that frely levys.
    A noble hart may haiff nane es
    Na ellys nocht that may him ples
    Gyff fredome failyhe, for fre liking
    Is yharnyt our all other thing.
    Na he that ay has levyt fre
    May nocht knaw weill the propyrte
    The angyr na the wrechyt dome
    That is couplyt to foule thyrldome,
    Bot gyff he had assayit it.
    Than all perquer he suld it wyt,
    And suld think fredome mar to prys
    Than all the gold in warld that is.
    Thus contrar thingis evermar
    Discoveryngis off the tother ar,


    Scots is our mither tung; an gin we dinna hain it,
    thare naebody gaun tae hain it for us.


    Scots is our mother tongue; and if we do not preserve it,
    nobody will preserve it for us.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, December 25th, 2006 @ 12:52 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Scotland Scotland
    Location
    Northern Briton
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Politics
    Preservation and revival
    Religion
    Animist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Hitler and Socialism

    This is a newer and much longer version of the article above

    HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST



    John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)


    "True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"




    Have a look at the headline quote above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know Hitler's speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

    This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.



    That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know of Hitler's glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a "thousand-year Reich"?

    But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author. So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be.

    But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself. The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

    "Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".



    Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage" -- which is exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels collected here.

    continue
    A! Fredome is a noble thing
    Fredome mays man to haiff liking.
    Fredome all solace to man giffis,
    He levys at es that frely levys.
    A noble hart may haiff nane es
    Na ellys nocht that may him ples
    Gyff fredome failyhe, for fre liking
    Is yharnyt our all other thing.
    Na he that ay has levyt fre
    May nocht knaw weill the propyrte
    The angyr na the wrechyt dome
    That is couplyt to foule thyrldome,
    Bot gyff he had assayit it.
    Than all perquer he suld it wyt,
    And suld think fredome mar to prys
    Than all the gold in warld that is.
    Thus contrar thingis evermar
    Discoveryngis off the tother ar,


    Scots is our mither tung; an gin we dinna hain it,
    thare naebody gaun tae hain it for us.


    Scots is our mother tongue; and if we do not preserve it,
    nobody will preserve it for us.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Hitler and Socialism

    socialism and nationalism. He thus stole the emotional clothes of both the Left and the Right.
    Good assessment.

  8. #8
    Member Prince Eugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2007 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Posts
    810
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Hitler and Socialism

    As i allways believe:
    SOZIALISMUS IST BRAUN!
    ME NE FREGO

Similar Threads

  1. Would There have Been National Socialism Without Hitler?
    By ogenoct in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 1 Week Ago, 03:39 PM
  2. What do you Think of Hitler and National Socialism?
    By Evolved in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 691
    Last Post: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018, 05:46 PM
  3. Chauvinism, National-Socialism or Racial-Socialism?
    By Lusitano in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 06:02 PM
  4. On National Socialism & World Relations [Adolf Hitler, 30th of January 1937]
    By Prussian in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 01:12 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Friday, January 16th, 2004, 05:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •