designates my notes. / designates important.
My three main takeaways (though there are plenty of other worthy points):
History is key to understanding the world.
The pen is mightier than the sword, but the spoken word is mightier than the pen; it can move men to action like no other.
The weak perish, the strong survive, violence is foundational (whether you like it or not).
“One learns history in order to be able to apply its lessons to the present time and whoever fails to do this cannot pretend to be a political leader.” -Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf
History teaches you, not the other way. It should be taught not as a collection of dates, but as an outline used to discover the forces that shaped the events we call history. One need only remember what is essential, discard what is not. What is essential is of course subjective, but the overall idea that history is something that teaches is echoed even in Hitler’s opponent, Churchill, with “the father back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” This is as applicable today as it was in the early 20th century, or any other time for that matter. This theme, of what was valid then is still valid now, is a recurring theme in this book.
Early education is seen as key, from both Hitler’s view and his opponents, the Marxists. If you can win over the children while they are young, you win over the future in which they are the adults. This battle for the children is fought, at least in large part, through language. The way words are twisted, lose meaning, gain meaning, and generally decline in their ability to communicate through time the farther you move from their origin is the cornerstone to changing a society. This change in the meaning of language has its seeds in the children because, whatever definitions they grow up with will be maintained as ’truth’, at least until the next generation modifies the definitions once again.
We, again, see this theme, the control, manipulation, and outright destruction of language still to this day. Slang words like “bad” for a generation were meant to mean “good”. “Bad” was then replaced by “cool” which itself was replaced with “fresh”. There are countless examples of language changing, quite rapidly, in modern times. I don’t mean to sound like a stick-in-the-mud, any one of these changes in languages is not damning, but many words are changed and changed again generation after generation, the distortions accumulating. The result: decreased communication capacity, both in the present and through time via books written with the ‘old’ meanings.
Those who claim language, specifically definition, is not static should remember that the change in language brings about a change in children and later culture by reducing each generations ability to pass on knowledge. How difficult is it to read Shakespeare today? The more rapidly our language is allowed to shift, the less ability to communicate between generations. As we see in Mein Kampf, or the world of today, there are forces at work that benefit from this age old tactic: divide and conquer. In this case the division is temporal in nature.
If there is one main point, struck over and over again, in Mein Kampf it is that of economics, with particular criticism levied at international capital, joint stock, and the concept of money in general. The schism between rich and poor was already apparent in the early 20th century (and likely for most of history), the juxtaposition between luxury and poverty living in such close quarters was bound to give rise to “deplorable” consequences. I wonder how it compared to the inequity of today? Record homeless roaming the streets of NYC below multi-million dollar penthouses. RV-lined, poop-filled San Francisco streets blocks away from the techno-mecca, Silicon Valley and its ridiculous concentration of billionaires.
Hitler criticizes the love of material wealth and the worship of money in general quite openly, something that does not seem out of place today as with, in somewhat recent times, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movements. Both which also focused on the corporate influence of money, what Hitler calls international capital. I shall let him speak for himself with a small sampling of what is to be found in these oft condemned pages.
“Our era is entirely preoccupied with petty materialistic considerations, or rather it is entirely preoccupied with the question of money.”
“And we reply, “With you indeed it [equitable change] cannot be done, for your world is incapable of such an idea. You know only one anxiety and that is for your own personal existence. You have but one God, and that is your money.”
“In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definite control of the State, money became more and more of a god whom all had to serve and before whom all had to bow.”
“the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against an alien enemy, but against international capital.”
Contrary to a common mode of protest during the time, strikes, Hitler urges that refusing to work is not a path to obtain freedom. It may get you a short term victory, but a victory over your neighbor is not a victory for the nation.
“Nations do not obtain their freedom by refusing to work, but by making sacrifices.”
He further enumerates some such sacrifices: budgeting, down to the tiniest housekeeping budget, living within your means, responsibility, and most important discipline.
“The material interests of mankind can prosper only in the shade of the heroic virtues; the moment they become the primary considerations of life they wreck the basis of their own existence.”
This rings true to this day. How many people and nations alike are in economic turmoil because they have buried themselves in debt. International capital controlled debt. If you can’t keep to a household budget how will the nation keep to a national budget? Looking at it from the other angle, why would a household maintain a budget, make sacrifices, and live within their means when the nation they live in does not?
Employers and employees are urged to see eye-to-eye, that they are not set against one another, ala Marxism’s class struggle, but that both groups work with one another towards a common, national, goal. The welfare of each lies in the hands of the other, national prosperity is their common goal. All men, worker and employee alike are at once “representatives and administrators of the whole national community.”
International capital, joint stock, and the depersonalized ownership they bring is at the core of national economic disintegration, says Hitler and Feder, pointing out that:
“…international stock-exchange capital was not only the chief instigating factor in bringing about the war, but that, now the war is over, it serves to turn the peace into a hell.”
How many nations have been “helped” by the IMF and World Bank only to succumb to dubious terms and exasperating interest rates? Forced foreclosure on their very on national resources followed. Bechtel, BP, and like ilk swoop in like vultures. The debtor nation now bound in economic shackles from which it shall never escape.
The key, described by Feder, is that the true power lies in the fact that capital is always dependent on the payment of interest, but, of course, how can interest be paid when the totality of what is “owed” is greater than the currency in existence? The answer of course is to print more money, fiat, and so cause inflation and a slow, steady, and silent transfer of wealth from those who labor in exchange for currency to those who will said currency into existence with their voodoo economics.
The transference of personal control to joint-stock ownership has led to labor being a mere object of speculation, human resources. This trend continued to increase until it reached such a vast scale that the whole of national life was subsumed by the financial exchange circles. It should be remembered we are talking about the early 20th century, not the early 21st, where things are much worse.
The occasional outcries against this international capital were handily redirected by the savvy financier employed propagandists and their slogans, and turned against the national economic structure.
“The idea is to demolish this [national] structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the International Stock Exchange.”
Today we have rampant globalization. People in the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements cry out, and what is the result? More globalization, more money thrown into politics, more divisiveness within the nation and between nations. Bitcoin and other e-currency, somehow lauded by so-called crypto-anarchists and libertarians alike are nothing more than global currency. The IMF, BIS, and World Bank, among others, already have enormous control global control, what is stopping them from co-opting bitcoin (if it isn’t their brainchild to begin with)? It isn’t only finance, OPEC controls the energy, the U.N. and E.U. control, with varying degrees of success, their respective regions. The Eastern nations have the same organizations, the same structures, the same plans with different names: the AIB (Asian Infrastructure Bank), or China’s One Belt, One Road initiative. All of these are examples not of encroaching globalization, but of globalization that is here and now, already well established, so much so that many can’t even imagine a world without it, a world where there isn’t a McDonald’s and Starbucks present in the most remote places one might travel.
Whereas Hitler proclaimed that “The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the programme on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence”, today we find that every nation is in a similar grasp. Supply chains span continents, just-in-time inventory leaves everyone at the mercy of single points of failure, a select few man the fiat spigot.
Hitler’s solution, in a nutshell was as follows:
“The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business, without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence.”
Today this might sound like heresy, you would definitely be attacked for holding the view that a nation should consider itself first. You’d be called a supremacist, a racist, a xenophobe; you name it, you’ll be called it. What you won’t be called is prudent, for understanding that the outsourcing of business and industry leaves the nation which outsourced its ability dependent. Beyond the dependence, it also breeds discontent among a population that can no longer find respectable work contributing to the nations’ well-being. This leads, sooner or later, to a death spiral where business leave, employee income decreases, nation expenditures decline, and the whole process repeats, feeding on itself in a race to the bottom.
Hitler was completely correct in focusing so heavily on the economy and the ill effects internationalization brings. Bill Clinton, scoundrel that he may be, ran his presidential campaign on a simple slogan, “It’s the Economy Stupid”, and won, because it is the economy. Ross Perot had much more illustrative things to say about the economy, too bad he never had the chance to right the ship.
To accomplish cultural changes certain ideals need to be adopted, others dismissed. What I call attack vectors are covered extensively by Hitler. The first, and foremost in my mind, is the bringing about of the destruction of the family, the most fundamental social component that which larger societies are built from. In modern times people are left unable to put down roots because they must always be on the lookout for a better paying job, even if it is on the other side of the country, maybe even world. Hitler points out a similar, although less extreme example from his day:
“In our great modem cities the proletariat does not show much attachment to the place where it lives. This feeling results from the fact that their dwelling-place is nothing but an accidental abode, and is also partly due to the frequent change of residence which is forced upon them by social conditions.”
It reminds me of the saying, “a house is not a home.”
More directly, when it comes to establishing families, we see a reduction in birthrates and an almost outright hostility to children. A meme on the Internet asks, “would you rather have a baby or a BMW”, conflating the idea of children and economic burden. This is nothing new, Hitler is very clear that a similar vileness was present in his day:
“Instead of strong, healthy children, the product of natural feelings, we shall see miserable specimens of humanity resulting from economic calculation, for economic considerations are becoming more and more the foundation and the sole preliminary condition of marriage while love looks for an outlet elsewhere.”
Majorities and minorities alike today are noted for their influence, whereas the individual is for all intents and purposes excluded from all spheres of life. Committees, votes, democratic means, and the like have usurped the individual that once led; you can not steer a ship by committee and you can not run an insane asylum by majority votes. Yet this is how our business and political worlds function, at least on the surface. Hitler aptly points out that: “the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice.” While the second part might be a little harsh, that doesn’t mean it is wrong. Look no farther than modern universities the world over to see how social justice warriors have made higher education into a veritable joke. They have only been successful because of their numbers, and their Marxist tactics, which we will get to shortly. There might be, in fact I am sure there are, many individuals who recognize the damage being done with all of the racism, equality, affirmative action, etc, being promoted in colleges these days, but the individual is powerless against the majority, or well organized vocal minority.
Following the social justice warrior example, we see that progress, tolerance, and diversity are to be the chief slogans of the ignorant masses. In reality those social justice warriors don’t practice what they preach. They condemn speech they don’t agree with as hateful, and censor it. What tolerance? The only progress is their progress, and different ideas are at once dismissed as oppressive. And diversity is confused with homogeneity. All races, cultures, and even sexes are now amalgamated, melted down into uniformity. As Hitler says, and is 100% applicable today, “He [the Marxist Jew] lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of others,”
The main tool used to disseminate this lauding was the newspapers, which “…above all, which carries on a fanatical campaign of calumny, strives to tear down everything that might be considered mainstay of national independence, cultural standing and economic self-sufficiency.” To continue beating a dead horse, we see these exact tactics to this day. The press, and media in general which we will see shortly, promotes a Frankfurt school derived critical theory in which everything is criticized unless it suits the Marxist view.
One of the main tenets of today is the upholding of an international order and the condemnation of nationalism. Hitler correctly identifies a nation will only flourish when nationalism is allowed to flourish:
“One cannot imagine the revival of a nation unless that revival be preceded by a process of nationalization”
and:
“a nation without honor will sooner or later lose its freedom and independence.”
For the first time in the book, some 72 pages in, roughly 10%, Hitler makes his first real mention of Jews:
“I now realized that the Jews were the leaders of Social Democracy. In the face of that revelation the scales fell from my eyes. My long inner struggle was at an end.”
You can see, and it is clearly stated that he had no disdain for Jews, talking more than tolerantly of a Jew he had gone to school with. There was no hatred, if his own words are to believed. On the other hand, you can see that he was intensely angered by Social Democracy and Marxism, which he concluded, after years of reading, where being controlled by Jews.
Seeing these organizations as tools that supplanting the once proud people of Germany, reducing them to a slavish bunch led to and fro by the press and their promotion of international values, he begins:
“Democracy, as practiced in Western Europe to-day, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world-pest can grow and spread.”
To bring about democracy, a cosmopolitan attitude was cultivated. Organizations, like the aforementioned Marxists and Social Democrats and more clandestine ones as well, were used to usher in a new kind of value system.
“With characteristic tenacity he championed the cause of religious tolerance for this purpose, and in the Freemason organization, which had fallen completely into his hands, he found a magnificent weapon which helped him to achieve his ends.”
He further speaks of secret organizations very negatively. This gives one pause; how are we to reconcile the stated dislike for secret organizations with the Hollywood history of the supposed Nazi Secret Police?
“Secret organizations are established only for purposes that are illegal, and the purpose of such an organization is limited by its very nature.”
“The prohibition of freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression of the international press and the definite abolition of Marxism, together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the State—all this will enable the Italian Government, in the course of years, to advance more and more the interests of the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.”
Another way the Marxist/Jew attacked the state was by economic undermining.
“Economically, he brings about the destruction of the State by a systematic method of sabotaging social enterprises until these become so costly that they are taken out of the hands of the State and submitted to the control of Jewish finance.”
Many people today have even speculated that the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) was implemented specifically to fail, this will lead to a single payer, socialized medical practice. I won’t argue either way, but it is concerning to consider in the midst of the last quote.
By steps is the usurping done. Moving too quickly, calling for too much change will upset the people and align them against the Marxists. In this way a slow boil, over decades, over generations, will bring about the revised culture.
“A shrewd conqueror will always enforce his demands on the conquered only by stages, as far as that is possible.”
All of these slow changes are kept hidden by both the daily grind and endless entertainments. The former occupying so much of our time, that the latter feels our only reprieve.
“A man who fights only for his own existence has not much interest left for the service of the community.” In modern terms, you work all day, exhausted you collapse for a few hours of television, your only respite.
How does the proverbial poison, that erodes our communities, divides our families, and has us adopt the idea that everything has a price, get delivered?
As mentioned in the last section, these cultural shifts are usually transmitted, slowly but surely, through various media sources. In Hitler’s time, the newspapers were the most prolific source of propaganda:
“By means of the press he began gradually to control public life in its entirety. He began to drive it along the road which he had chosen for the purpose of reaching his own ends, for he was now in a position to create and direct that force which, under the press_control_public of ‘public opinion’ is better known today than it was some decades ago.”
This power, of shaping the public mind, is recognized by those in that milieu. The newspapers are compared to education that continues into adulthood. This should remind you of the section titled History and Education. If school is to shape the child’s mind, and newspapers are to shape the adult’s mind, does it not follow that if one wanted to change a culture they would do it through these two avenues?
“In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the press as a ‘Great Power’ within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily over-estimate it, for the press continues the work of education even in adult life.”
The customs of a society are mirrored in their press, in the media. It would seem that life imitates art is more apt than art imitating life. If you read about it or see it on television, the acts, the manners, the culture, is normalized.
“Was not this press instrumental in bringing about a state of moral degradation among our people? Were not morals and public decency made to look ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our people also became ‘modern’?”
The way this is done is not through logic, by extolling the actual virtues of this or that, it is done through the deceitful twisting of language. Again we come back to children’s education, where they are taught the ’new’ meanings of words.
“For him [the Jew] language is not an instrument for the expression of his inner thoughts, but rather a means of cloaking them.”
Though the media in the 20th century had not yet penetrated as deeply as it does today, Hitler could identify that it was wholly, completely, poisonous.
“…poison is spread among the people through the medium of the theatre, the cinema, gutter journalism and obscene books, …”
“, the plays produced on the stage were of such a nature that people would have benefited by not visiting them at all.”
The same can be said about the hyper-sexualized, hyper-violent, hyper-‘diverse’ media today.
Who today controls Hollywood? Jews. They are proud of their control, even if I will be cast as an anti-Semite for stating a plain fact. This was as plain a fact then as it is now, according to Hitler.
“The fact that nine-tenths of all the ‘smutty’ literature, artistic ‘tripe’ and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of a people [Jews] who formed scarcely one percent of the nation could not be gainsaid. It was there and had to be admitted.”
Propaganda is a most important weapon, on both sides of the isle. Hitler discusses not only the negative effects that the media had on Germany society, but how a similar tack could be taken to win back the hearts and minds of Germans. Gas chambers, mass executions and all that nonsense would have run contrary to what Hitler had wished to accomplish; what surer way to set the masses against you than genocide.
In modern times we see a similar smear campaign going on against Assad in Syria, in regards to gassing his own people. How ridiculous can the propaganda get? Assad has maintained his position for several years, repelled the invaders, gained the support of the majority, and then, all at once he begins gassing people? Even if they are his opposition, how would this benefit him? By giving the USA-led Western/United nations a reason to invade? It is the same tripe, smear Hitler play-book, and it is worn threadbare.
Hitler accounts specifically for the fickle masses, showing how the tactics of a hundred years ago could still be as effective today as they are:
“The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their power of understanding is slight. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials, and these must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”
“… slogans should be persistently repeated.”
Gas chambers! Chemical attacks! And don’t forget the classic: babies taken from incubators!
Another key component of Hitler’s philosophy in regards to propaganda, that seems to differ from modern propaganda, is that it should try to win over the recipient to its side:
“Propaganda is not meant to serve as an entertainment for those people who already have a nationalist outlook; its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who have hitherto been hostile to the nation, but who are, nevertheless, of our own blood and race.”
In modern times the propaganda does seem to be entertainment, not meant to win anyone over, but instead to shore up an already held belief.
The modern belief, that Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, to ethnically cleanse German, etcetera are not mentioned a single time. The only mention of any kind of cleansing is the cleansing of the media:
“This process of cleansing our Kultur will have to be applied in practically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema, the press and advertisement posters, all must have the stains of pollution removed and be used in the service of a national and cultural ideal.”
What we see in the movies has essentially no connection to what actually happened. Those films and the idea most people hold about WW2/Nazis/Hitler is nothing more than propaganda itself! As Hitler and any propagandist knows, you keep your message simple and repeat it over and over again. Is this not exactly what is going on with the WW2 movies being released every year? Even 80 years after the fact. Hitler was the bad guy, the worst guy, a monster, skin lampshades, human soap, holocaust, bad, bad, bad. Over and over and over.
The book includes an enormous amount of theoretical and practical advice on organizing a movement or party as well as real world examples of what obstacles the Nazi party had to overcome and how they overcame it.
Initially a program must me laid down, often by a single man, often of great genius. This program must concern only absolute truth, only the final goal, disregarding what is expedient or practical at the time. Later, the practicalities can be dealt with.
“The man who lays down the programme of a movement must consider only the goal. It is for the political leader to point out the way in which that goal may be reached. The thought of the former will, therefore, be determined by those truths that are everlasting, whereas the activity of the latter must always be guided by taking practical account of the circumstances in which those truths have to be carried into effect.”
“When a man, whose task it is to lay down the principles of a programme or policy, begins to busy himself with the question as to whether it is expedient and practical, instead of confining himself to a statement of the absolute truth, his work will cease to be a guiding star to those who are looking, for light and guidance, and will become merely a recipe for everyday life.”
It must be understood that the goal, whatever it may be, will likely not require a total demolition of the current system. Instead that which is rotten should be removed, that which is solid should be retained.
“The meaning and purpose of revolutions cannot be to tear down the whole building, but to take away what has not been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to fill in the gap thus caused, after which the main construction of the building will be carried on.”
“Prejudices and egotistic interests join together in forming a common front against the new idea and in trying by every means to prevent its triumph, because it is disagreeable to them or threatens their existence. That is why the protagonist of the new idea is, unfortunately, in spite of his desire for constructive work, compelled to wage a destructive battle first, in order to abolish the existing state of affairs.”
Committees and parliaments are useless bureaucracies. A single leader, not necessarily, not even likely to be the man who writes the doctrine, should hold power, for leading and establishing principles are two different tasks. The leader should bear total responsibility for his final decisions. Sub leaders can be established in their particular area of expertise. Those below these leaders are subordinate to them and within their wheelhouse they reign, but, at the end of the day, they answer to the top brass.
When it comes time to recruit members to your organization, it must not be forgotten, can not be overstated, how powerful the spoken word is. A logical and well presented pamphlet or book is one thing, but to hear the passion in the voice of a fellow man stirs something in the heart that the written word will never accomplish.
“The force which has always set in motion the great historical avalanches of religious and political movements is the magic power of the spoken word.”
This does not mean the spoken word should be the only avenue for recruitment, there are not enough gifted speakers and not enough time to speak directly or through groups to everyone. For the rest there is the all important propaganda, which should serve to lay the groundwork for new recruits. If the propaganda itself is insufficient to sway their mind, it may be enough to get them to listen to a speech, which should be more convincing if spoken from the heart.
“Propaganda should go well ahead of organisation and gather together the human material for the latter to work up. I have never been in favour of hasty and pedantic methods of organisation, because, in most cases, the result is merely a piece of dead mechanism and rarely a living organisation.”
“Propaganda is not meant to serve as an entertainment for those people who already have a nationalist outlook; its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who have hitherto been hostile to the nation, but who are, nevertheless, of our own blood and race.”
This all leads to the conclusion that:
“…the organiser must be first and foremost a psychologist.”
This ties perfectly into how modern society is being manipulated via psychologists from the likes of Stanford pulling strings behind the scenes in the social media and video game circles; two prominent manipulation avenues too extensive to be examined here.
Here is a Medium story detailing some of the effects of what they themselves call ‘psychological war.’
In the beginning the struggle will seem great. It is great. The temptation for your organization to “soften up” or “tone it down” to garner recruits should be resisted. By maintaining your position, by not wavering, you will attract only the strong willed, those that are willing and able to see past the monumental task ahead.
“They must not try to avoid being hated by those who are the enemies of our people and our Weltanschauung, but must welcome such hatred.”
“In the apparent hopelessness of our great struggle lie the magnitude of our task and the possibilities of success. A battle-cry, which from the very start will scare off all the petty spirits, or at least discourage them, will become a rallying signal for all those that are of the real fighting mettle.”
“A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such members have rightly understood, and accepted without reserve, the ideal towards which the movement is striving. This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completed within ten or twenty years; it will take several generations, as the history of such movements has shown.”
The members of your organization should be the best of the best, you do not want wishy-washy or spineless members. The members will be the face of your organization, next to propaganda. They must put their best foot forward, not only speak the party message, but live it.
“The thing that matters here is not the vision of the man of genius who created the great ideal, but rather what his apostles tell the broad masses, how they do this and with what degree of success.”
Grow your ranks slowly, never rush in like fools. Slow and steady wins the race. Eventually, with much effort and a little luck, your movement will begin to sustain itself.
“The masses are first set in motion, in a definite direction, by men of superior talents; but then these masses, once in motion, are like a flywheel inasmuch as they sustain the momentum and steady balance of the offensive.”
There should be one organization, one unified front, any similar movements should be subsumed:
“…it is not expedient to place two or more adversaries before the masses—since that leads to a complete splitting up of their fighting strength…”
This singular organization must be structured with one and only one leader. There can be, of course, delegated powers, but these are only an extension of the sole power. The responsibility will be in one man’s hands, succeed or fail, he bears the consequences.
“There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ is once more restored to its original meaning.”
This unified front is critical in countering the plethora of opponents that might divide, and conquer, the movement. If there are multiple organizations effectively working towards the same goals, each will be diluted and the would-be recruit will be confused as to which to join, possibly throwing up his arms in surrender to the confusion, joining neither.
“Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who are lazy-minded and indifferent rather than evil, and those whose self-interest leads them to uphold the present state of affairs.”
The case-in-point is seen in the Marxist tactics of disruption, their modern day counterpart being known as ‘shouting down’ those you disagree with. To counter this, and other divisive/disruptive tactics a militant structure should be employed. A unified front is much more difficult to silence, whereas smaller individual groups might lack the will, and the confidence numbers give, to keep talking in the face of adversity.
Once you have a single group, it should be structured militantly:
“The international ideology achieved success because it was championed by a militantly organised party.”
“Secondly, we had at our disposal a well-trained and organised body of men for maintaining order at our meetings.”
The shouting down tactics should not be tolerated. Rabble rousers should be ejected immediately. Dissenting opinions are welcome, but not at group meetings nor presentations. If a debate is desired, a debate should be scheduled and moderated.
“We curtly gave everyone to understand that we were masters of the meeting and that we could, therefore, do as we pleased and that everyone who dared to interrupt would be unceremoniously thrown out.”
This might seem like the same non-tolerating of differing opinions, but it is not. A public forum should permitted all opinions, this, on the other hand, is a private meeting. The Marxists, or anyone else, should have their private goings-on allowed to proceed as they wish, “masters of the meeting” as it were. When outsiders try to disrupt your meeting, and will not abide by the rules or leave, they should be removed.
“An attempt to disturb the proceedings was immediately frustrated by my comrades. The would-be disturbers were thrown down the stairs, with bruised heads.”
This brings me to a point that, however unpleasant, does seem to be a truth of this world. The leadership, of whatever type, will emerge from a common world view, but this world view can only stand on a foundation of violence.
Without violence or force a group can not defend itself and no matter how cultured it may be, it will fall in the face of violence. Hitler knew this as well as Machiavelli.
“How often did the eyes of my young men light up with enthusiasm when I explained to them the vital functions connected with their task. I assured them time and again that all earthly wisdom is useless unless it be supported and protected by force; that the gentle goddess of Peace can only walk in company with the god of War; and that every great measure performed in the wisdom_bows_to_force of Peace must be protected and furthered by means of force.”
“The fundamental question will always be, what are we to do if passive resistance reaches a point where it really gets on the nerves of our opponents and they proceed to suppress it with force and bloodshed?”
The state, which, in the case of Nazi Germany, we are told was totalitarian, all encompassing, seems to be at odds with what is presented herein.
“…the State is nothing but a vessel and its contents (that is to say, the nation, the people) the essential factor, it is clear that every other interest must be subordinated to the supreme interests of the nation.”
“Naturally, it is easier, as I have said, to consider the authority of the State as nothing but the formal mechanism of an organisation, rather than as the sovereign incarnation of a people’s instinct for self-preservation on this earth.”
The individuals, the people, are “the essential factor”. While it is clear that individuals are to be part of the whole of society, not the rugged individualists of today, the state is simply “a vessel” acting for the whole of the people. Again, this stands in stark contrast to what we see in the movies and read in history books these days.
Further, there is to be no superior class. There are laborers and there are administrators, and everyone in between, but each are an important part of the whole. Without all operating harmoniously, there will be more work to be done.
“We may disapprove of every attempt to achieve uniformity, but not as regards the Army.”
“One can be proud of one’s people only if there is no class left of which one need be ashamed.”
First of all it can not be stressed enough that there can be no improving the existing generation, the best option is to pave the road for the next generation. This hearkens back to what has been repeated, and bears repeating still, education and history are paramount to building a better, whatever form better might take, future.
This fight will be long and hard, the members of an organization or movement bent on changing the status quo will need to make great sacrifices.
“It must be made clear to all that a serious fight against this scourge calls for vast sacrifices and an enormous amount of work.”
Maybe ‘great’ sacrifices is a bit too much.
“It is the lack of will-power, and not the lack of arms, which renders us incapable of offering any serious resistance today.”
Today the ‘sacrifice’ that must be made is the abandonment of mindless entertainment, ten dollar cups of coffee, and endless other distracting pursuits of pleasure for strict budgets, frugality, and lifelong education and engagement.
The most important battles are not fought with guns, though some may be fought in such a manner, the most fruitful battlefields exist only in the hearts and minds of men.
“Ideals and ideologies, as well as movements grounded on a definite spiritual foundation, whether true or false, can never be broken by the use of force after a certain stage, except on one condition, ideals_winly, that this use of force is wielded in the service of a new ideal or Weltanschauung which burns with a new flame.”
“Every Weltanschauung, whether religious or political (and it is sometimes difficult to say where the one ends and the other begins) fights not so much for the negative destruction of the opposing ideology, as for the positive realisation of its own ideology.”
“I can fight only for something that I love. I can love only what I respect, and in order to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge of it.”
Once a love of your nation, your community, your people has gripped you, you are finally in a position to fight. At first with words and deeds, but in the end a willingness to defend, not promote, your ideology with violence will be required.
Today we see Europe and the United States of America being diluted through immigration. The whole fabric of European culture is being eroded. This same tactic was employed a century ago:
“In order to strengthen his [Jewish] political position, he directed his efforts towards removing the barrier of racial and civic discrimination which had hitherto hindered his advance at every turn.”
The solution is quite simple:
“By refusing to allow immigrants to enter the country if they are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the right to become naturalised as citizens,…”
While the modern bleeding heart will cry racism, it is merely preservation. Why would you admit unhealthy people? To burden the healthy ones? Why would you admit those unwilling to assimilate? All this does is instigate internal contention. Divide and conquer at its most basic level. Do all those people promoting asylum for foreign aliens want them in their own community? In their own house? There are serious drug and homeless epidemics in the United States today, yet these people are left out in the cold while immigrants are given every opportunity. Why the excessive care for the foreign and none for the domestic?
Then as well as today, many small distraction are at hand. We hear of small-fry criminals, street thugs, corner drug dealers, and are led to believe that these people are the cause of decay in our society. We roll out a war on drugs, that proves not only impotent, but in the final analysis leads to more drugs on the streets. These small criminals are simply a symptom of larger criminality present in the higher echelons of society. A mugger goes to jail for stealing someone’s wallet while Bernie Madoff and John Corzine, who have defrauded countless more people in their white collar crimes, breath freely. No name military personnel rot in cells because of innocuous selfies they snapped in secure facilities, while the Hilary Clinton makes jokes about classified information held on her personal server: “wiped, like with a cloth?”
“It would be absurd to do away with small traitors in a State whose government absolves traitors on a large scale from all punishment.”
“Here, too, there is a mission for National Socialism to fulfil. It must teach our people not to fix their attention on the little things, but rather on major issues, not to exhaust their energies on questions of secondary importance…”
Those that champion every little victory, that shout the praises of their country from the mountaintops, that cheer as fighter jets fly over their football stadiums in militarized half-time shows, are the most diluted of nationalists. This masquerading nationalism has been another distraction, one that Hitler is clear on:
“Hurrahing proves nothing and does not confer the right to call oneself national if behind that shout there is no sincere preoccupation for the conservation of the nation’s well-being.”
Lastly we have America, world cop (which ties directly to the immigrant problems, creating hellish conditions anyone would attempt to flee). Apparently this was being attempted last century just the same, albeit in German:
“Above all, we must not form a police guard for the famous ‘small oppressed nations,’ but we must be the soldiers of the German nation.”
After reading this book, I find the official narrative absurd. The entire book mentions Jews only 501 times (in 777 pages). While they, the Jews, are not presented in the most appealing light, and Hitler is open in his hostility toward them, it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity or superiority of the Aryan people. At its core this book strikes at the economic system used to tear down individual nations and usher in a cultural Marxism.
It bears repeating, God only know how many times the official narrative has been repeated: although Hitler was upset with Jews, this book doesn’t give the feeling he hated them simply for being Jews, as is so often stated. His hatred stems from the excessive control that Jews had (and have) regarding international finance and what we today would call media.
I can not see how anyone could contort this work into one of hatred. It is much more focused on his love of his nation and countrymen and almost all of it is couched in self-defense.
I have essentially the same feelings expressed in this book towards international finance and media, which are still controlled primarily by Jews, but this doesn’t mean Hitler or I want to exterminate the Jews, we both seem to want the same thing: national control of banking and media. To promote national values in an ever more cosmopolitan world.
Given how accurate this book is, I can now understand why Hitler has been held up as the ultimate evil. The same people have been manipulating nations for at least a hundred years with the exact same tactics - control of finance and media. Even the Marxists of today that populate our universities employ the same tactic of shouting down anyone that opposes them and, if that fails, they become violent. See: anti-fa.
There are countless parallels between what is presented in these pages and what can be see going on around us today. Mein Kampf is quite focused on corrupt and self serving politicians. Today, in the USA and many other nations, politicians have the lowest approval ratings since records have been kept.
You see groups and movements springing up to carry the torch or Marxism. Some, like Anti-fa are quite blatant about their support for communism. Others, what we might call useful idiots, indoctrinated though a corrupt education system and a debased media, carry water for the Marxists by promoting LGBT, diversity (which is really homogeneity), and the politically correct safe spaces required by these thin-skinned snowflake social justice warriors. All of them, well meaning or not, are simply tools, battering rams, in the hands of the Marxist.
While Hitler’s own words might not be the be-all end-all to counter this modern nonsense, one has to wonder why the stigma against reading this book. I have heard Mein Kampf called ’the most influential book no one reads’.
Doesn’t it make sense to learn from the past, a recurring theme in both the book and my analysis? Why don’t high schools require reading this? Critically. Maybe I am way off base and others might draw wholly different conclusions. So be it. Let everyone read it and make up their own mind. The same can be said about the Communist Manifesto. Let the works speak for themselves.
Shouldn’t we want to learn from history? See it from both sides? And even if Hitler was the horrible guy he is made out to be, isn’t the logical question “why?” And isn’t the only way that can be known is by studying his own words?
Finally, this work is infinitely approachable by a layman, but a solid foundation of history, WW1 particularly, finance, and propaganda are useful to fully understand what is covered. This background is not completely required and serves simply to elucidate the ideas present. If Brave New World and 1984 are required reading, so to should this be similarly required in ever high school (alongside the Communist Manifesto, which would spoil all the lies surrounding both works in the matter of a single generation…).
(How many times Jew/Jewish/etc was mentioned over almost 800 pages)
“a nation without honour will sooner or later lose its freedom and independence."
“He lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of others,"
“Terrorism cannot be overcome by the weapons of the mind, but only by counter-terror."
“One can be proud of one’s people only if there is no class left of which one need be ashamed."
“We may disapprove of every attempt to achieve uniformity, but not as regards the Army."
“Nations do not obtain their freedom by refusing to work, but by making sacrifices."
The tactical objective of the fight was the winning over of the child, and it was to the child that the first rallying cry was addressed, “German boy, do not forget that you are a German,” and “Remember, little girl, that one day you must be a German mother.”
Those who know something of the juvenile spirit can understand how youth will always lend a ready ear to such a rallying cry. In many ways the young people led the struggle, fighting in their own manner and with their own weapons. They refused to sing non-German songs.
The greater the efforts made to win them away from their German allegiance, the more they exalted the glory of their German heroes. They stinted themselves in buying sweetmeats, so that they might spare their pennies to help the war fund of their elders.
They were incredibly alert to the significance of what the non-German teachers said and they contradicted in unison. They wore the forbidden emblems of their own nation and were happy when penalized, or even physically punished. In their own way, they faithfully mirrored their elders, and often their attitude was finer and more sincere.
It was during this period that my eyes were opened to two perils, the names of which I scarcely knew hitherto and had no notion whatsoever of their terrible significance for the existence of the German people. These two perils were Marxism and Judaism.
Apart from my architectural studies and rare visits to the opera, for which I had to deny myself food, I had no pleasure in life except my books.
I read a great deal then, and I pondered deeply over what I read. All my free time after work was devoted exclusively to study.
Thus I adopted the same attitude as, all those emigrants who shake the dust of Europe from their feet, with the cast-iron determination to lay the foundations of a new existence in the New World and acquire for themselves a new home.
Liberated from all the paralysing prejudices of class and calling, environment and tradition, they enter any service that is open to them, accepting any work that comes their way, filled more and more with the idea that honest work never disgraced anybody, no matter what kind it may be.
Thus, even a man who is normally of industrious habits grows careless in his whole attitude towards life and gradually becomes an instrument in the hands of unscrupulous people who exploit him for the sake of their own ignoble aims.
After a county boy comes to the city to make his way, he gains and loses employment a few times, is worn down to a lower class and eventually succumbs to poverty.
The sudden change from work to idleness and vice versa and the constant fluctuation thus caused between earning and expenditure finally destroyed the sense of thrift in many people and also the habit of regulating expenditure in an intelligent way.
…the moment work is found anew he forgets to regulate the expenditure of his earnings but spends them to the full without thinking of the morrow. This leads to confusion even in the little weekly housekeeping budget, because the expenditure is not carefully planned.
Without sufficient wages the family grows hungry. The wife takes on small debts, the husband gets worn down by “nagging”, done only for the love of the children, until he succumbs to drunkenness. In this way children are exposed to misery and families destroyed.
During my struggle for existence in Vienna I perceived, very clearly that the aim of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief, which is ridiculous and useless, but it must rather be a means to find a way of eliminating the fundamental deficiencies in our economic and cultural life, deficiencies which necessarily bring about the degradation of the individual or at least lead him towards such degradation.
The difficulty of employing any means, even the most drastic, to overcome the hostility towards the State prevailing among certain criminal classes is largely due to an attitude of uncertainty regarding the inner motives and causes of this contemporary phenomenon.
The reasons for this uncertainty are to be found in a sense of guilt for having permitted this tragedy of degradation.
When an age is no longer burdened with its own consciousness of blame in this regard, then and only then, will it have that inner tranquillity and outer strength necessary to cut off drastically and ruthlessly all parasite growth and root out the weeds.
I do not know what appalled me most at that time; the economic misery of those who were, then my companions, their crude customs and morals, or the low level of their culture.
What position can a person fill in the world which he is about to enter, if to him nothing is sacred, if he has never come into contact with anything noble but, on the contrary, has been intimately acquainted with the lowest kind of human existence?
Sex, drugs, and rock ’n roll. Violence on TV and video games, etc.
…poison is spread among the people through the medium of the theatre, the cinema, gutter journalism and obscene books, …
…for only when family upbringing and school education have inculcated upon the mind of the individual a knowledge of the cultural and economic and, above all, of the political greatness of his own country—then, and then only, will it be possible for him to feel proud of being a citizen of that country
Reading is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its chief purpose is to help towards filling in the framework which is made up of the talents and capabilities that each individual possesses.
…each little piece of knowledge thus gained must be treated as if it were a little stone to be inserted into a mosaic, so that it finds its proper place among all the other pieces and particles that help to form a general world-picture in the brain of the reader.
Having once understood the working of the colossal system for poisoning the popular mind, only a fool could blame the victims of it.
They [the masses] have very little idea of how to use that freedom, and thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They feel very little shame at being terrorised intellectually and they are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused…
If Social Democracy is opposed by a more truthful teaching, then, even though the struggle be of the most bitter kind, this truthful teaching will finally prevail, provided it be enforced with equal ruthlessness.
I recognised the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a veritable barrage of lies and calumnies against the man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until the nerves of the bourgeoisie gave way and they sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace.
The modern university, black lives matter, LGBT, feminism, etc. This is exactly what is happening today.
But the hope always proved to be a foolish one for they were never left in peace. The same tactics were repeated again and again, until fear of these ruthless fanatics exercised, by sheer force of suggestion, a paralysing effect on their victims.
We are left walking on eggshells lest we offend anyone.
On the other hand, it praises every weakling among its adversaries,…
They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks will-power, than of a vigorous character of mediocre intelligence,…
Is it, or is it not, in the interests of the nation to remove the causes of social unrest? If it is, then the fight must be carried on with the only weapons that promise success.
The individual workman is never in a position to stand up against the might of the big employer…
Boycott?
I now often turned to the Volksblatt [a newspaper], which was much smaller in size, but which treated such subjects more decently I was not in accord with its sharply anti-Semitic tone, but again and again I found that its arguments gave me food for serious thought.
My ideas about anti-Semitism changed also in the course of time, but that was the change which I found most difficult. It cost me a great internal conflict with myself, and it was only after months of struggle between reason and sentiment that the former gained the victory.
A great movement, called Zionism, the aim of which was to assert the national character of Judaism, was strongly represented in Vienna.
To all outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it, but a closer investigation of the situation showed that since that part of Jewry which was styled ‘liberal’ did not disown the Zionists as if they were not member of their race, but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical, and even, dangerous way, there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.
The fact that nine-tenths of all the ‘smutty’ literature, artistic ‘tripe’ and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of a people who formed scarcely one percent of the nation could not be gainsaid. It was there and had to be admitted.
I saw the liberal policy of that press in another light.
I now realised that the Jews were the leaders of Social Democracy. In the face of that revelation the scales fell from my eyes. My long inner struggle was at an end.
I found it difficult to understand how men, who always had reasonable ideas when I spoke to them as individuals, suddenly lost this reasonableness the moment they came under the influence of the mass.
Gradually I became an expert in the doctrine of the Marxists and used this knowledge as an instrument to drive home my own firm convictions. I was successful in nearly every case.
The great masses can be rescued, but a lot of time and a great deal of patience must be devoted to such work. A Jew, on the other hand, can never be rescued from his fixed notions.
When a State is composed of a homogeneous population, the natural inertia of the latter and the powers of resistance derived from that inertia will preserve it from internal collapse during astonishingly long periods of misgovernment and maladministration.
The situation is utterly different in a country where the population is not homogeneous, where there is no bond of common blood, but only the rule of force. Should the ruling hand show signs of weakness in such a State, the result will not be to cause a kind of hibernation of the State, but rather to awaken the individualistic instincts of the various racial groups. These instincts do not make themselves felt as long as these groups are dominated by, a strong central will-to-govern.
Here it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. When Hansen, the Danish architect, had completed the last gable of the marble palace in which the new body of representatives of the people was to be housed, he had to turn to the ancient classical world for subjects for his decorations.
This theatrical shrine of ‘Western Democracy’ was adorned with the statues and portraits of Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if meant to serve as an ironic symbol, the horses of the quadrigae that surmount the two Houses are pulling away from one another towards the four corners of the globe. There could be no better symbol for the kind of activity then going on within the walls of that same building.
Parliament passes some act or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it.
Nobody can be called to account, for surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it resigns after having brought about a catastrophe.
Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can a fluctuating majority ever be held responsible for anything? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?
The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred. If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right, but also the duty, of every individual citizen.
The question of whether and when such a situation arises cannot be answered by theoretical dissertations, but only by sheer force and success.
Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence is not the preservation of a State or government but rather the preservation of the race.
If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated, the question of legality is only of secondary importance. The established power may, in such a case, employ only those means which are recognised as ‘legal,’ yet the instinct of self-preservation on the part of the oppressed will always justify, to the highest degree, the employment of all available weapons.
He [Pan-German leader Schönerer] was not able to formulate them [his ideas] so that they could be easily grasped by the masses, whose powers of comprehension are limited and will always remain so.
Having the right idea or plan is not enough, you must be able to deliver it in an understandable manner.
New champions are attracted to a cause by the appeal of great sacrifices made for its sake, until that indomitable spirit is finally crowned with success.
The largest forum of immediate listeners is not the parliamentary auditorium; it is the large public meeting, for here alone will there be thousands of men who have come simply to hear what a speaker has to say, whereas at the parliamentary sitting; only a few hundred are present, and for the most part these are there only to earn their daily allowance for attendance and not to be enlightened by the wisdom of one or other of the ‘representatives of the people.’
Attack from without, not from within. The legislature is not your audience, the masses are.
The worst aspect of the case was that the Pan-German movement could hope for success only if the leaders realised from the very first moment that here it must be less a question of a new party than of a new Weltanschauung.
If the struggle on behalf of a Weltanschauung is not conducted by men of heroic spirit who are ready to sacrifice everything, within a short while it will become impossible to find real fighting followers who are ready to lay down their lives for the cause.
A man who fights only for his own existence has not much interest left for the service of the community.
In order to secure the conditions that are necessary for success, everybody concerned must be made to understand that the new movement looks to the future for its honour and glory, but that it has no contemporary reward to offer its members.
When they had taken their seats in parliament their adherents outside hoped and waited for miracles to happen. Naturally, no such miracles happened or could happen.
O’bama’s Hope and Change, Trump’s Make America Great Again.
One learns history in order to be able to apply its lessons to the present time and whoever fails to do this cannot pretend to be a political leader.
The art of leadership, as displayed by really great leaders of the people throughout the ages, consists in concentrating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will divide that attention.
My earnings were very slender, but after all, I did not live for the sake of painting. I painted in order to get the bare necessities of existence while I continued my studies.
Strong juxtaposition against what is always said: ‘Hitler was angry about being a failed artist.’
No sacrifice should have been considered too great if it was a necessary means of gaining Britain’s friendship.
Colonial and naval ambitions should have been abandoned and attempts should not have been made to compete against British industries. Only a clear and definite policy could lead to such an achievement.
Such a policy would have demanded a renunciation of world trade, colonial intentions and naval power. All the means of power at the disposal of the State should have been concentrated in the military forces on land. This policy would have involved a period of temporary self-denial, for the sake of a great and powerful future.
This nonsense became even more foolish when Britain was pointed out as a typical example to prove how the thing could be done. Our intellectual attitude towards history and our professorial ideas in that domain have done irreparable harm and offer a striking proof of how people ‘learn’ history without understanding anything of it.
As a matter of fact. Britain ought to have been looked upon as a convincing argument against the theory of pacific conquest of the world by commercial means. No nation prepared the way for its commercial conquests more brutally than Britain did by means of the sword and no other nation has defended such conquests more ruthlessly.
But in Germany, through the medium of the schools, the press and the comic papers, there was gradually formed an idea of the Englishman and, to a greater degree, of his Empire, which was bound eventually to lead to the worst kind of self-deception.
The delusion was so profound that the Englishman was looked upon as a shrewd business man, but at the same time, as a physical coward.
It was then that I formed my first ideas on the efficiency of various forms of propaganda.
The material interests of mankind can prosper only in the shade of the heroic virtues; the moment they become the primary considerations of life they wreck the basis of their own existence.
If we consider the question of what those forces actually are which are necessary for the creation and preservation of a State, we can sum them up in the phrase, ‘the capacity and readiness of the individual to sacrifice himself for the common welfare.’
That these qualities have nothing at all to do with economics can be proved by referring to the simple fact that man does not sacrifice himself for material interests. In other words, he will die for an ideal, but not for a business.
As long as the German people continued to believe that they were fighting for ideals in the War of 1914, they stood firm. As soon as they were told that they were fighting only for their daily bread they began to give up the struggle.
When the news came to Munich that the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been murdered, I had been at home all day and did not learn the particulars of how it happened. At first, I feared that the shots had been fired by some German-Austrian students who had been aroused to a state of furious indignation by the persistent pro-Slav activities of the heir to the Habsburg throne and therefore wished to liberate the German population from this internal enemy.
It was quite easy to imagine what the result of such a mistake would have been. It would have brought on, a new wave of persecution, the motives of which would have been ‘justified’ before the whole world…
Jew-ridden universities
This mighty revolutionary trend was simply ignored by those ‘intellectuals’ who did not deign to give it their attention. That is why State enterprise nearly always lags behind private enterprise.
Of these gentry one can truly say that their maxim is: What we don.t know won’t bother us.
When sheer force is used to combat the spread of a doctrine, then that force must be employed systematically and persistently. This means that the chances of success in the suppression of a doctrine lie only in the persistent and uniform application of the methods chosen.
The moment hesitation is shown, and periods of tolerance alternate with the application of force, the doctrine against which these measures are directed will not only recover strength, but every successive persecution will bring to its support new adherents who have been shocked by the oppressive methods employed.
Therefore, when force is employed, success is dependent on the consistent manner in which it is used.
This persistence, however, is nothing less than the product of definite spiritual convictions. Every form of force that is not supported by a, spiritual backing will always tie indecisive and uncertain.
Every Weltanschauung, whether religious or political (and it is sometimes difficult to say where the one ends and the other begins) fights not so much for the negative destruction of the opposing ideology, as for the positive realisation of its own ideology.
Summing up, we arrive at the conclusion that every attempt to combat a Weltanschauung by means of force will turn out futile in the end, if the struggle fails to take the form of an offensive for the establishment of an entirely new spiritual order of things.
Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. Propaganda is not meant for the intellectual classes, or what we call the intellectual classes today, which demand scientific enlightenment.
it [propaganda] must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their reasoning powers.
It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the enemy, as the Austrian and German comic papers made a point of doing in their propaganda. The very principle here is a mistaken one, for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our soldiers gained quite a different impression.
How many people today call politicians and bankers ‘clueless’ and ‘stupid’. This is the farthest thing from the truth.
The enemy started his propaganda among our soldiers. From 1916 onwards it steadily became more intensive, and at the beginning of 1918 it had swollen into a storm-flood. One could now judge the effects of this proselytizing movement step by step.
Gradually, our soldiers began to think just in the way the enemy wished them to think.
By means of newly-floated war-companies an instrument had been discovered whereby all national trade was throttled, so that no business could be carried on freely.
Special emphasis was laid on the necessity for unhampered centralisation. Hence, as early as 1916–17, practically all production was under the control of Jewish finance.
The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the programme on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.
All apprehension concerning the fearful economic consequences that would follow the abolition of the thraldom that results from interest-capital are ill-timed, for, in the first place, the economic principles hitherto followed have proved fatal to the interests of the German people.
…military defeats are the result of internal decay, cowardice, want of character, and are a retribution for such things.
it was not the enemy who brought this disgrace upon us, but rather our own countrymen.
From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.
Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race?
Black plague was conquered quickly whereas tuberculosis lingered.
The same applies to diseases in nations. As long as these diseases are not of a catastrophic character, the population will slowly accustom itself to them and later succumb.
In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definite control of the State, money became more and more of a god whom all had to serve and before whom all had to bow.
Heavenly deities became more and more old-fashioned and were laid away in the corners to make room for the worship of Mammon.
His Majesty, the Kaiser, made a mistake when he raised representatives of the new financial world to the ranks of the nobility.
In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the press as a ‘Great Power’ within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily over-estimate it, for the press continues the work of education even in adult life.
Generally speaking, readers of the press can be classified in three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; second, those who no longer believe anything; third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.
Numerically, the first group is by far the largest, being composed of the broad masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion of the nation.
The influence which the press has on all these people who constitute the broad masses of a nation, is therefore enormous.
The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see in print.
They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which they hold to be nothing but a conglomery of lies and mis-statements. These people are difficult to handle, for they will always be sceptical of the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive work.
I think today this is a reasonable default position in the light of the repeal of Smith-Mundt and Operation Mockingbird.
The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read.
The best case today would be reading to see what is being spewed only to understand that these are divisive issues, wedge issues, etc and are to be avoided at all costs. In modern times you can see things like school shooting and terrorists as being pushed in ever paper, but these are both inconsequential issues. You will never hear about the real corruption, though maybe some scandal that really serves another purpose. You will never hear about the pedophilia rings of the upper circles. You will never hear about the CIA drug running. Everything in the press is a distraction, very little truth would ever be allowed to make it to print. The alternative media is only very slightly better.
Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature.
A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realise that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife.
He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a universe in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where the latter must obey or be destroyed.
Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway.
Sounds like natural law.
Instead of strong, healthy children, the product of natural feelings, we shall see miserable specimens of humanity resulting from economic calculation, for economic considerations are becoming more and more the foundation and the sole preliminary condition of marriage while love looks for an outlet elsewhere.
Here we are face to face with the results of procreation which is, on the one hand, determined by social pressure and, on the other, by financial considerations.
These are the doleful and tragic products of the steadily increasing scourge that is poisoning our sexual life. Their sufferings are the visible results of parental vice.
The broad masses are never able to see clearly the whole stretch of the road lying in front of them, without becoming tired and thus losing faith in their ability to complete the task.
To a certain extent they will keep the objective in mind, but they are only able to survey the whole road in small stages, as in the case of the traveller who knows where his journey is going to end, but who masters the endless stretch far better by attacking it in stages. Only in this way can he keep up his determination and reach the final objective.
This process of cleansing our Kultur will have to be applied in practically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema, the press and advertisement posters, all must have the stains of pollution removed and be used in the service of a national and cultural ideal.
The life of the people must be freed from the asphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism and also from every unmanly and prudish form of insincerity.
The right to personal freedom comes second in importance to the duty of preserving the race.
Far-reaching and important decisions will have to be made. It would be doing things by halves if incurables were given the opportunity of infecting one healthy person after another.
This would be practising that kind of humanitarianism which allows hundreds to perish in order to prevent the suffering of one individual.
“If we can save just one life it is worth it” while tens of thousands cry out for help, eventually committing suicide or dieing of overdose. Pure virtue signalling. Most only want to help when they can “show off” how much they care. Volunteer with the Peace Corp overseas while the domestic population suffers.
In our great modem cities the proletariat does not show much attachment to the place where it lives. This feeling results from the fact that their dwelling-place is nothing but an accidental abode, and is also partly due to the frequent change of residence which is forced upon them by social conditions.
They [cities] are agglomerations of tenement houses and congested dwelling-houses, and nothing else.
He never invents anything; all he can do is to discover something.
Then, if you are serious, [about bring about pacifism] whether you like it or not, you must make up your mind to wage wars in order to pave the way for pacifism. This was in fact the plan of Woodrow Wilson, the American world-redeemer (at least so our visionaries believed) and that was all that was required.
Posterity will not remember those who pursued only their own individual interests, but it will praise those heroes who renounced their own happiness.
The Jew offers the most striking contrast to the Aryan. There is probably no other people in the world which has so developed the instinct of self- preservation as the so-called ‘chosen’ race.
The best proof of this statement is to be found in the simple fact that this race still exists. Where is another people to be found that in the course of the last two thousand years has undergone so few changes in mental, outlook and character as the ‘Jewish people?
And yet what other people has played such a constant part in the great revolutions? Even after having passed through the most gigantic catastrophes that have overwhelmed mankind, the Jews remain the same as ever.
What an infinitely tenacious will to live, to preserve one’s kind, is demonstrated by that fact!
All thinking originates only to a very small degree in personal experience. The largest part is based on the accumulated experiences of the past.
The boy of to-day, for example, grows up among such an overwhelming mass of technical achievement, which has accumulated during the last century, that he takes for granted many things which, a hundred years ago, were still mysteries even to the greatest minds of those times.
Jews act in concord only when a common danger threatens them or a common prey attracts them.
If this is the case, it would make sense why the Jew instills such value on being “against the world” and how they are always the victims. By playing up their victimhood they [the Jewish oligarchy] can retain their cooperation and therefor their identity.
As a matter of fact, the Talmud is not a book that lays down principles according to which the individual should prepare for the life to come. It only furnishes rules for a practical and convenient life in this world.
The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collection of instructions for maintaining the Jewish blood pure and for regulating intercourse between Jew and Jew and between Jews and the rest of the world, that is to say non-Jews.
The Jewish religious teaching is not concerned with moral problems. It is concerned rather with economic problems, and very petty ones at that.
The Founder of Christianity made no secret of His estimation of the Jewish people; when He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God, because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests.
At that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews, whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics, and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes.
For him [the Jew] language is not an instrument for the expression of his inner thoughts, but rather a means of cloaking them.
How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ which are so violently repudiated by the Jews.
With groans and moans, the Frankfurter Zeitung repeats again and again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence in favour of their authenticity.
(i) Thus the Court Jew slowly developed into the democratic Jew…
If we remember the crimes the Jew had committed against the masses of the people in the course of so many centuries, how repeatedly and ruthlessly he had exploited them and how he had sucked the very marrow of their substance, and when we further remember how they gradually came to hate him and finally considered him as public scourge then we can well understand how difficult the Jew must have found this final transformation; indeed, it must have taxed all his powers to be able to present himself as ‘the friend of humanity’ to the poor victims whom he had bled white.
Thus, after a little while he began to twist things round, so as to make it appear that it was he who had always been wronged, and not vice versa. There were actually some particularly foolish people who could not help pitying this poor unfortunate creature of a Jew.
To mask his tactics and fool his victims, he talked of the equality of all men, no matter what their race or colour, and the simpletons began to believe him.
During this phase of his progress the chief goal of the Jew was the victory of democracy, or rather the supreme hegemony of the parliamentary system, which embodied his concept of democracy.
We see this today clearly. There are very few who understand the USA is a republic and democracy is championed as the highest ideal.
It was only by virtue of the assurance given to State officials, that they would be cared for in their old age, that such a high degree of unselfish devotion to duty was developed, which in pre-war times was one of the distinguishing characteristics of German officials.
Could paying state officials MORE be a way to curb corruption? If you are making “enough” per year you might be satisfied with that and not succumb to bribery. At first glance it seems the answer would be ‘No’ given that so much renumeration can be offered above and beyond what is “reasonable”. This doesn’t even begin to address things like blackmail.
In the open country there could be no social problem, because the master and the farm-hand were doing the same kind of work and doing it together. They ate their food in common, and sometimes even out of the same dish.
How far this Judaising process has been allowed to take effect among our people is illustrated by the fact that manual labour not only receives practically no recognition, but is even considered degrading.
Outcries are systematically raised against international capital, but in reality it is against the national economic structure that these slogans are directed. The idea is to demolish this structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the International Stock Exchange.
The method of procedure of the Jew was as follows: He kowtowed to the worker, hypocritically pretended to feel pity for him and his lot, and even to be indignant at the misery and poverty which he had to endure.
How many politicians today talk about jobs. How many talk about the poor and middle class while doing nothing to expose the true cause of inequity, international finance and its predominate role in campaign finance. Even occupy Wall Street didn’t cut at the roots.
The Jew artfully enkindled that innate yearning for social justice which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once that yearning became alive, it was transformed into hatred against those in more fortunate circumstances of life.
See: modern colleges and ‘snowflakes’.
The next stage was to give a precise ideological aspect to the struggle for the elimination of social wrongs, and thus the Marxist doctrine was invented. By presenting this doctrine as part and parcel of a just vindication of social rights, the Jew propagated it all the more effectively…
In the end, it ceases to struggle for economic interests, but places its chief weapon, refusal to continue work (which takes the form of a general strike) at the disposal of the political movement.
An overabundance of labor today precludes strikes from effectiveness. Boycotts are the only tool available.
It is not considered part of the purpose of this press to inspire its readers with ideals which might help them to lift their minds above the sordid conditions of their daily lives, but, on the contrary, it panders to their lowest instincts.
Replace press with media and those lowest interests become obsession with celebrity and sports.
(3) The making of the broad masses national-minded can never be achieved by half-measures —that is to say, by feebly insisting on what is called the objective side of the question— but only by a ruthless and fanatically one- sided insistence on the aim which must be achieved.
The broad masses of a nation are not made up of professors and diplomats. Since these masses have but little acquaintance with abstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of the feelings, which determine their positive or their negative attitude as the case may be.
Among a hundred men who call themselves orators, there are scarcely ten who are capable of speaking with effect to an audience of street-sweepers, mechanics, navvies, etc., to-day and of expounding the same subject with equal effect to-morrow to an audience of university professors and students.
Among a thousand public speakers there may be only one who can address a mixed audience of mechanics and professors in the same hall in such a way that his statements can be fully comprehended by each group while, at the same time, he effectively influences both to such an extent that they are carried away by a common enthusiasm.
An educated man who is present and who finds fault with an address because he considers it to be on an intellectual plane that is too low, though he himself has witnessed its effect on the lower intellectual groups whose adherence has to be won, only shows himself completely incapable of rightly judging the situation and thereby proves that he can be of no use in the new movement.
Only those intellectuals can be of use to a movement who understand its mission and its aims so well that they have learned to judge the methods of propaganda exclusively by the success obtained and never by the impression which those methods, make on them personally.
Propaganda is not meant to serve as an entertainment for those people who already have a nationalist outlook; its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who have hitherto been hostile to the nation, but who are, nevertheless, of our own blood and race.
I see this problem on many websites and podcasts. They state things that are appealing to those already converted but are likely off-putting to a vacillating mind. To talk openly about the inferiority of the Negro or Jew might go over well with those of those beliefs, but it will not win you new adherents. This is especially absurd since most of these sites and podcasts talk about “waking up” the masses.
(8) The ends which any political reform movement sets out to attain can never be reached by trying to educate the public or influence those in power, but only by getting political power into its hands.
(9) The nature and internal organisation of the new movement make it anti-parliamentarian. That is to say, it rejects in general, and in its own structure, the principle according to which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according to which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others.
The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest, as well as in the greatest, problems, one person must have absolute authority and bear all responsibility.
In the movement the practical consequences of this principle are as follows: The president of a local group is appointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his group.
All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote, but only committees that work.
This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higher organisations—the Bezirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (the region).
In each case the president is appointed from above and is invested with full authority and executive power. Only the leader of the whole party is elected, at the general meeting of the members, but he is the sole leader of the movement.
The members of the movement are entitled to call him to account by means of a new election, or to remove him from office, if he has violated the principles of the movement or has not served its interests adequately.
The man who becomes leader is invested with supreme and unlimited authority, but he also has to bear the final and heaviest responsibility.
Human progress and human culture are not founded by the multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and personal efficiency.
How a movement takes shape.
A creative idea takes shape in the mind of somebody who thereupon feels himself called upon to transmit this idea to the world. He propounds his faith to others and thereby gradually gains a certain number of followers.
This direct and personal way of promulgating one’s ideas among one’s contemporaries is the most natural and the best, but as the movement develops and secures a large number of followers it gradually becomes impossible for the original founder of the doctrine on which the movement is based, to carry on his propaganda personally among his many followers and at the same time to guide the course of the movement.
According as the community of followers increases, direct communication between the head and the individual followers becomes impossible.
This intercourse must then take place through an intermediary apparatus introduced into the framework of the movement. Thus ideal conditions of intercommunication cease, and organisation has to be introduced as a necessary evil.
Small subsidiary groups come into existence, as in the political movement, for example, where the local groups represent the germ-cells out of which the organisation develops later.
But such subdivisions must not be introduced into the movement until the authority of the spiritual founder, and of the school he has created, are accepted without reservation.
Otherwise the movement would run the risk of becoming split up by divergent doctrines. In this connection too much emphasis cannot be laid on the importance of having one geographic centre as the chief seat of the movement.
(a) That at the beginning all activity should be concentrated in one town: namely, Munich. That a group of absolutely reliable followers should be trained and a school founded which would subsequently help to propagate the ideal of the Movement.
(a) That the movement should have the necessary funds to attract and train intelligent people who would be capable of becoming leaders.
If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does not find himself vilified there, then he has wasted the previous day, for, if he had achieved something, he would be persecuted, slandered, derided, and abused.
(14) The Movement must use every possible means to cultivate respect for the individual personality. It must never forget that all human values are based on personal values, and that every idea and achievement is the fruit of the creative power of one man.
Terrorism cannot be overcome by the weapons of the mind, but only by counter-terror.
Consider the economic terrorism of today, it must be met with the terror of a boycott.
An attempt to disturb the proceedings was immediately frustrated by my comrades. The would-be disturbers were thrown down the stairs, with bruised heads.
This is how to deal with snowflakes.
Anyhow, nobody ever seems able to make out what exactly these ideas are. It is typical of such persons that they rant about ancient Teutonic heroes of the dim and distant ages, stone axes, battle-spears and shields, whereas in reality they themselves are the woefullest poltroons imaginable.
For they are the very same people who brandish Teutonic tin swords that have been fashioned carefully according to ancient models and wear padded bear-skins, with the horns of oxen mounted over their bearded faces, proclaim that all contemporary conflicts must be decided by the weapons of the mind alone, and skedaddle at the very sight of a communist cudgel. Posterity will have little occasion to write a new epic on these heroic gladiators.
I have seen too much of that kind of person not to feel a profound contempt for their miserable play-acting.
This is like the anti-fa and other LARPer (live action role play).
We had declared one of our principles thus, “We shall meet violence with violence in our own defence.”
Naturally, that principle disturbed the equanimity of the knights of the pen. They reproached us bitterly not only for what they called our crude worship of the cudgel, but also because, according to them, we had no intellectual forces on our side.
These charlatans did not think for a moment that a Demosthenes could be reduced to silence at a mass meeting by fifty idiots who had come there to shout him down and use their fists against his supporters.
Exactly the snowflake tactics you see today, shouting down anyone they disagree with.
When I finally came to explain the twenty-five points and laid them, point by point, before the masses gathered there and asked them to pass their own judgment on each point,
Nearly four hours had passed, when the hall began to clear.
The international ideology achieved success because it was championed by a militantly organised party.
The reason for the failure hitherto sustained by the opposite ideology is that it lacked a united front to fight for its cause.
Therefore, I considered it my special duty to extract from the extensive but unformulated material of a general Weltanschauung the essential ideas and give them a more or less dogmatic form.
On these principles it establishes a political doctrine which takes into account the practical realities of the day, the character of the times, the available human material and all its deficiencies.
Not even the best of States and state institutions can cultivate in a people faculties which they lack and which they never possessed, but a bad State may gradually destroy the faculties which once existed.
This is similar to my thought that you can not legislate morality.
World history is made by minorities, if these numerical minorities possess in themselves the will, energy and initiative of the majority.
This sounds dangerously similar to Margarette Mead.
Our contemporary generation of weaklings will naturally decry such a policy and whine and complain about it as an encroachment on the most sacred of human rights.
A policy of anti-bastardization. These are the snowflakes, the “liberals”, and activists generally.
…contraceptives, are permitted and sold in every drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be born to the healthiest of our people.
The fact that the churches join in condoning this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasise the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities.
They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they gape with amazement when they realise how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also.
In order to fulfil this duty in a practical manner the State will have to avail itself of modem medical discoveries. It must proclaim as unfit for procreation all those who are afflicted with some identifiable hereditary disease or are the carriers of it, and practical measures must be adopted to have such people rendered sterile.
This is going quite too far. You can’t legislate, although I suppose with force one can, this morality. What must occur is a shift in the morality, the principles upon which a people stand. If we continue to value all lives as equal and to save the frailest autist among us, we will get more frailty. If, on the other hand, we accept, as a culture, that weakness must be “bred out”, then people will, of their own volition choose not to procreate when they are carriers of such weakness. Or at least they will have great difficulty in locating a mate.
On the other hand, provision must be made for the normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in child-bearing through the financial and economic conditions obtaining under a regime which makes the having of children a curse to parents.
Again this does not strike at the cause, although is more appealing than sterilization. The problem is not that the parents don’t have enough financial security, it is the conditions that allow such insecurity to be prevalent.
Through education the State must teach individuals that illness is not a disgrace, but an unfortunate accident which is to be pitied, yet that it is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction worse by passing on disease and defects to innocent creatures, out of mere egotism.
The State must also teach the people that it is an expression of a really noble nature and that it is a humanitarian act worthy of admiration if a person who innocently suffers from hereditary disease refrains from having a child of his own, but gives his love and affection to some unknown child who, through its health, promises to become a healthy member of a healthy community.
In accomplishing such an educational task the State integrates its practical function by this activity in the moral sphere.
The Weltanschauung which bases the State on the racial idea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which men will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs, horses and cats, but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human race itself,
That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in a world where hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy of their own free will, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept.
The educational system ought to foster a spirit of readiness to accept responsibilities gladly. Formal instruction in the sciences must be considered last in importance.
Accordingly, the State which is grounded on the racial idea must start with the principle that a person whose formal education in the sciences is relatively small, but who is physically sound and robust, of a steadfast and honest character, ready and able to make decisions and endowed with strength of will, is a more useful member of the national community than a weakling who is scholarly and refined.
A nation composed of learned men who are physically degenerate, or weak-willed and timid pacifists, is not capable of ensuring even its own existence on this earth.
It must organise its educational work in such a way that the bodies of the young will lie systematically trained from infancy onwards, so as to be tempered and hardened for the demands to be made on them in later years. Above all, the State must see to it that a generation of book-worms is not developed.
It ought to be possible to give nurses and mothers a thorough course of instruction and to institute a system of training the child from early infancy onwards which may serve as an excellent basis for its future development.
Grammar, logic, and rhetoric or the trivium method.
The best defence will not be in the arms it possesses, but in its citizens.
There is no such thing as a national sentiment which is directed towards personal interests, and there is no such thing as a nationalism that embraces only certain classes.
It is true that a man can be trained to a certain amount of mechanical dexterity, just as a poodle can be taught incredible tricks by a clever master, but such training does not bring the animal to use his intelligence in order to carry out those tricks.
The same holds good in regard to man. It is possible to teach men, irrespective of talent, to go through certain scientific exercises, but in such cases the results are quite as automatic and mechanical as in the case of the animal.
It would even be possible to force a person of mediocre intelligence, by means of an intensive course of intellectual drilling, to acquire more than the average amount of knowledge; but that knowledge would remain sterile.
A stock of knowledge packed into the brain will not suffice for the making of discoveries. What counts here is only that knowledge which is illuminated by natural talent, but with us at the present time no value is placed on such gifts. Only good school reports count.
Outcomes based education?
open the doors of the colleges and universities to talent of every sort, no matter in what social circles it may appear.
Consider this in juxtaposition from the modern cry of ‘free education for all’. Higher education used to be and should return to the exclusivity of the talented.
Of course, such a reform seems impossible in the world as it is to-day. The objection will at once be raised, that it is too much to expect from the favourite son of a highly-placed civil servant, for instance, that he shall work with his hands simply because somebody else, whose parents belong to the working-class, seems more capable of filling a job in the civil service.
That argument may be valid as long as manual work is looked upon as it is looked upon to-day. Hence the völkisch State will have to take up an attitude towards the appreciation of manual labour which will be fundamentally different from that which now exists.
…there should not be such a wide difference in the scale of remuneration. We will not entertain the argument that under such condition: poorer work would be done. It would be the saddest symptom of decadence if finer intellectual work could be obtained only through the stimulus of higher payment.
If that point of view had ruled the world up to now, humanity would never have come into its great scientific and cultural heritage, for the greatest inventions, the greatest discoveries, the most profoundly revolutionary scientific work, and the most magnificent monuments of human culture, were not given to the world from greed of gain.
It may be that money has become the one power that governs life today, yet a time will come when men will again bow to higher gods.
Much that we have to-day owes its existence to the desire for money and property, but there is very little among all this which would leave the world poorer by its absence.
By refusing to allow immigrants to enter the country if they are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the right to become naturalised as citizens,…
The völkisch State will classify its population in three groups, namely, citizens, subjects of the State, and aliens.
It would be absurd to appraise a man’s worth by the race to which he belongs, and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its logical conclusion.
In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the, worth of the individual within his own race.
The most valuable factor of an invention, whether it be in the world of material realities or in the world of abstract ideas, is the personality of the inventor himself.
The first and supreme duty of an organised folk-community is to place the inventor in a position where he can be of the greatest benefit to all.
Today we see “incubators” and “startups” that exist for the sole purpose of syphoning inventions off of the masses and into the hands of the oligarchy. There is no thought of “greatest benefit to all”.
In itself it must personify the effort to place men of brains above the multitude and to make the latter obey the former.
Therefore, not only does the organisation possess no right to prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must use its organising powers to enable and promote their progress as far as it possibly can.
Interesting. This, at first glance, seems like the seed of technocracy. Maybe his idea of having a unified culture will ensure that these men of brains rule, but don’t dominate.
It must set out from the principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses, but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity.
Only those should rule who have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership.
Such men of brains are selected mainly, as I have already said, through the hard struggle for existence itself.
There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ is once more restored to its original meaning.
Every man in a position of responsibility will have counsellors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual alone.
Consequently, the State must divide its representative bodies into a political chamber and a corporative chamber that represents the respective trades and professions.
To assure effective co-operation between those two bodies, a selected body, or senate will be placed ever them. No vote will be taken in the chambers or in the senate. They are to be organisations for work and not voting machines.
The individual members will have consultative votes, but no right of decision will be attached thereto. The right of decision belongs exclusively to the president, who must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion.
This principle of combining absolute authority with absolute responsibility will gradually cause a selected group of leaders to emerge—a thing which is impossible in our present epoch of irresponsible parliamentarianism.
…the first task will not be to build up the idea of the völkisch State, but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which now exists.
As so often happens in the course of history, the main difficulty is not to establish a new order of things, but to clear the ground for its establishment.
Even at that time I adopted the attitude that if public opinion went astray on important and fundamental questions, it was necessary to oppose it, regardless of popularity, hatred or the bitterness of the fight.
The National Socialist German Labour Party ought not to be the servant, but rather the master, of public opinion. It must not serve the masses, but dominate them.
a piece of writing which has a particular tendency is for the most part read only by those who are in sympathy with it. Only a leaflet or a placard, on account of its brevity can hope to arouse a momentary interest in those whose opinions differ from it.
The picture, in all its forms, including the film has better prospects. Here less intelligence is required on the part of the audience, it need only gaze, or at most read short captions or titles, and so it comes about that many people are more ready to accept a pictorial presentation than to read a long written description.
This state of affairs [continued attempts to disrupt meetings] compelled us to take the work of safeguarding our meetings into our own hands. No reliance could be placed on the protection of the authorities, on the contrary, experience showed that it was the disturbing element which gained by such intervention. The only real outcome of police intervention was that the meeting would be dissolved, which was precisely what our opponents wanted.
On the contrary, our meetings were forbidden by the police. In fact, the strong arm of the law had the unspeakable impudence to advise us in writing to this effect on innumerable occasions.
To avoid such eventualities it was necessary to see to it that every attempt to disturb a meeting was nipped in the bud.
The strength of the old state rested on three pillars: the monarchical form of government, the civil service, and the Army.
Popular support is the first element which is necessary for the creation of authority, but an authority resting on that foundation alone is still quite frail, uncertain and vacillating.
Accordingly, we must look upon power, that is to say the capacity to use force, as the second foundation on which all authority is based. This foundation is more stable and secure, but not always stronger, than the first.
If popular support and power are united and can endure for a certain time, then an authority may evolve which is based on a still stronger foundation, namely, the authority of tradition.
Finally, if popular support, power, and tradition are united together, then the authority based on them may be looked upon as invincible.
Every national body is made up of three main classes. At one extreme we have the best of the people, taking the word ‘best’ as indicating those who are highly endowed with the civic virtues and are noted for their courage and their readiness to sacrifice their private interests.
At the other extreme are the worst dregs of humanity, in whom vice and egotistic interests prevail. Between these two extremes stands the third class, which is made up of the broad middle stratum, which does not incorporate either radiant heroism or vulgar vice.
For this reason it was decided that the Storm Detachment of the National Socialist German Labour Party ought not to be in the nature of a military organisation.
It had to be an instrument of protection and education for the National Socialist Movement and its duties lay in quite a different sphere to those of the military defence association. Moreover, the Storm Detachment was not to be in the nature of a secret organisation.
It would be absurd to do away with small traitors in a State whose government absolves traitors on a large scale from all punishment.
For my own part, I believe that small thieves should not be hanged while big thieves are allowed go free.
On the grounds of these considerations I steadfastly forbade all participation in secret societies, and I took care that the Storm Detachment should not assume such a character.
In so far as the members have to undergo a thorough physical training, attention must not be focussed mainly on military drill, but rather on the practice of sports.
Rifle training is still required, but less important.
If the German nation were presented with a body of six million young men who had been perfectly trained in athletic sports, who were imbued with an ardent love of their country and were ready to take the initiative in a fight, then the nationalist State could make an army out of that body within less than two years, if necessary, provided the cadres already existed.
What is a federation of states? By a federation of states we mean a union of sovereign states which, of their own free will, and by virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign rights as will render the existence of the union possible and will guarantee it.
The theoretical formula is not put wholly into practice by any federation of states that exists to-day, least of all by the American Union, where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the majority of the states.
It was only natural and logical that the federal states should lose all sovereign control over their finances, the moment the Reich, in consequence of a lost war, was subjected to financial obligations which could never have been met by means of individual agreements concluded with the individual states.
The subsequent steps which led the Reich to take over the postal services and railways were the inevitable result of the enslavement of our people which had begun with the peace treaties.
The Reich was forced to obtain sole possession of more and more resources, in order to be in a position to meet the obligations resulting from increased extortion.
The wedge is being driven ever deeper and every new debt which the Reich contracts, through the criminal way in which the interests of Germany are represented vis-à-vis foreign countries, necessitates the exertion of fresh and stronger pressure at home. This again entails the progressive abolition of all the sovereign rights of the individual states in order to prevent the germs of opposition from becoming active or even from coming into being.
The present Republic is a colony of slaves at the beck and call of the foreigner. At best it has subjects, but not citizens.
Hence it does not possess a national emblem, but only a trade mark, introduced and protected by official decrees and legislative measures.
…the State is nothing but a vessel and its contents (that is to say, the nation, the people) the essential factor, it is clear that every other interest must be subordinated to the supreme interests of the nation.
The absurdity which some federal states commit by maintaining ‘representatives’ abroad and among themselves must, and will, cease.
The absurdity of these ‘representatives’ is all the greater because they do harm and do not yield the slightest advantage.
…the organiser must be first and foremost a psychologist.
How right he is. The would-be rulers of the world today use the same psychological foundation to spread poison via the mass media, internet, and other forms of communication. It can be seen that agencies, such as the CIA, have a vast number of social scientists among their ranks.
…a movement should, from the sheer instinct of self-preservation, close its list of membership the moment it becomes successful, while any further increase in its organisation should be undertaken only after the most careful precautions have been taken and after a painstaking sifting of those who apply for membership.
Early success may lead many weak-willed people to join and in the longer run dampen the fires of the initial success.
For the more radical and stirring my propaganda was, the more did it frighten away weak and wavering characters, thus preventing them from entering the first nucleus of our organisation.
Perhaps they remained followers, but they did not advertise the fact, on the contrary, they maintained a discreet silence on the subject.
“Radical” propaganda brought into membership only those of strong will while still worked to build a silent mass of adherents.
In the years 1919–20 the Movement was controlled by a committee elected at meetings of the members, held in accordance with the constitution.
The committee was composed of a treasurer and an assistant-treasurer, a secretary and an assistant-secretary and, at the head of it, a chairman and a vice-chairman. In addition to these there were a members’ representative, the director of propaganda, and various assessorial members. Comically enough, the committee embodied the very principle against which the Movement itself wanted to fight with all its energy, namely, the principle of parliamentarianism.
The National Socialist trade-union is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various professions and callings.
The trade-union is not naturally an instrument of class warfare; but the Marxists transformed it into an instrument for use in their own class struggle.
They created the economic weapon which the international Jew uses for the purpose of destroying the economic foundations of free and independent national States, of ruining their national trade and industry and thereby enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world finance, which transcends all state boundaries.
One cannot imagine the revival of a nation unless that revival be preceded by a process of nationalisation.
Conditions and persons that may be tolerated and even pass unnoticed in times of peace will not only become the object of aversion when national enthusiasm is aroused, but will even provoke positive opposition, which frequently turns out disastrous for them.
Aliens, illegal and otherwise may be exposed to ire if a national sentiment arises.
In such cases, the special interests of the lost territories must be uncompromisingly regarded as a matter of secondary importance in the face of the one main task, which is to win back the freedom of the mother-country.
Instead of lost territories, today we (USA) have endless campaigns playing world cop.
The contamination caused by the influx of Negroid blood on the Rhine, in the very heart of Europe, is in accord with the sadistic and perverse lust for vengeance on the part of the hereditary enemy of our people.
This suits the purpose of the cool, calculating Jew, who would use this means of beginning a process of bastardisation in the very centre of the European continent and, by infecting the white race with the blood of an inferior stock, destroy the foundations of its independent existence.
This is a “vulgar” way of stating exactly what is happening today in Europe with the influx of “migrants”.
Never consider the Reich secure unless, for centuries to come, it is in a position to give every descendant of our race a piece of ground that he can call his own.
Never forget that the most sacred of all rights in this world is man’s right to the soil which he wishes to cultivate for himself and that the holiest of all sacrifices is that of the blood shed for it.
In his Drei Bekenntnisse, Clausewitz expressed this idea admirably and gave it a definite form when he said, ‘The stigma of shame incurred by cowardly submission can never be effaced. The drop of poison which thus enters the blood of a nation will be transmitted to posterity. It will undermine and paralyse the strength of later generations.’
but he added that, on the contrary, ‘even the loss of liberty after a sanguinary and honourable struggle ensures the resurgence of a nation and is the vital nucleus from which a new tree will one day put forth sound roots.’
If, at the beginning of the War, or even during the War, twelve or, fifteen thousand of these Jewish corruptors of the people had been forced to submit to poison-gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from every social class and from every trade and calling had to face it in the field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been made in vain.
The first mention of potentially killing Jews, and it is done in a hypothetical manner compared to the actual poisoning and death of soldiers. It is also posed as the Jews being the enemy and has nothing to do with wanting to wipe out an inferior race. It seems reasonable to think that if you could kill the leadership of your enemy, you would want to do that - Jew or otherwise.
No matter what form of resistance was decided upon, the first prerequisite for taking action was the elimination of the Marxist poison from the body of the nation…
The fundamental question will always be, what are we to do if passive resistance reaches a point where it really gets on the nerves of our opponents and they proceed to suppress it with force and bloodshed?
Therefore, so-called passive resistance would be logical only if supported by the determination to continue this resistance, if necessary, either in an open fight or by means of guerilla warfare.
Millions, of people now became fully convinced that Germany could be saved only if the whole prevailing system were destroyed root and branch.
After German capitulated with France’s occupation of the Ruhr.
On the other, a nation was, economically speaking, delivered over to slow starvation. Since the State itself had trampled upon all precepts of faith and loyalty, made a mockery of the rights of its citizens, rendered the sacrifice of millions of its most loyal sons fruitless and robbed other millions of their last penny, it could no longer expect anything but hatred from its subjects.
This hatred against those who had ruined the people and the country was bound to find an outlet in one form or another.