“So great was the Revolution that its intellectual foundations are not even yet understood by our superficial contemporaries.” – Adolf Hitler
In the language of the left-right dichotomy, authentic National Socialists are leftists in the sense of being strongly anti-conservative on most issues. This does not mean we are liberal; we are, in fact, also strongly anti-liberal. Instead, we are properly categorized within what is known as the radical left, a term which has fallen into ill-definition since WWII. From our Aryan perspective, on the other hand, we consider rather conservatism and liberalism to belong together in one category, and radicalism in the other. Indeed we consider only the radical left to be the True Left.
“In an epoch which is inwardly diseased and decaying, anyone who would heal it must have the courage first to lay bare the real roots of the disease. And the National Socialist Movement must take that duty on its shoulders.” – Adolf Hitler
The word “radical” derives from the root “radi-” meaning “root”. Radicalism refers to going to the root of a problem as opposed to merely treating the symptoms. A political radical is one who is concerned with profound, holistic principles behind all issues, to the extent of emphatically rejecting superficial or partial solutions. This is on the grounds that superficial or partial solutions suppress the symptoms instead of dealing with the problem, thereby creating sustainable evils.
Radicalism: an Aryan inheritance
Mainstream journalism has semantically degraded to the extent of using the word “radical” as an antonym to “moderate”. Insofar as the position of moderation on any issue is entirely subject to the placement of the extremes and therefore has no meaning of its own, radicals are definitely not committed to moderation, but this does not mean our positions on particular issues cannot sometimes coincide with moderate positions. Radicals have no interest in whether we are moderate or extreme compared to others; our concern is to get rid of problems from their fundamentals.
“One must act radically. When one pulls out a tooth, one does it with a single tug, and the pain quickly goes away.” – Adolf Hitler
Every school of thought will claim to be concerned with fundamentals in order to impress its audience, but such claims are easily tested. Where two or more antitheses claim radicalism, the better claim is the one able to demonstrate that the others share the same root as the thesis. As Hitler put it: “A critical situation cannot be remedied by collaborating with the causes of it but by a radical extermination of these causes.” For example, though Aryan and Gentile both claim “radical” opposition to Jewish thinking, the Aryan demonstrates that the Gentile is opposing tribalism with more tribalism and hence that Jewish and Gentile thinking share a fundamentally selfish root, thereby discrediting the Gentile claim to radicalism.
“Whenever some unavoidable difficulty pops up, the kind of thing that always happens, they are immediately inclined to doubt everything and to throw the baby out with the bath water. To them difficulties are not there to be mastered, but rather to be surrendered to. One cannot make history with such quivering people. They are only chaff in God’s breath.” – Joseph Goebbels
This is not to say that “radical” automatically means “good”. There are true radicals who nonetheless espouse a thoroughly evil ideology, since it is entirely possible to go to the root of an issue with ignoble intentions. For example, Zionism can be accurately described as a radical approach to slavery, since it goes to the root of what slavery really means by blueprinting a construct of enslavement from which, once fully in place, there can be no escape. Radicalism has no moral direction on its own.
Therefore all Aryans are radicals, but not all radicals are Aryans. It is the other aspects of Arya – rationalism, universalism, idealism and militarism – pursued with a radical mentality that define us. If Zionism is radical slavery, Aryanism is radical freedom.
Two Sides of Pessimism
“If only the ugly sub-men were capable of lofty thoughts — or simply of thought — that would be something! But they are not.” – Savitri Devi
Conservatism is the defence of every systemic cruelty and injustice by claiming that all possible alternatives might lead to something even worse. In all endeavours, application of conservatism consists of choosing the path of lowest risk and highest return. Conservatives would not risk fighting a stronger enemy unless they perceive a greater risk to themselves by not fighting, on the other hand they have no problem at all oppressing for gain those too weak to fight back. Strategically, conservatism is long-term effective under capitalist, feudal or anarchic social settings.
Liberalism is the defence of whichever systemic cruelties and injustices it wants to defend by casting doubt on the validity of any complaints. In all endeavours, application of liberalism consists of choosing the path of greatest scepticism towards absolutes. Liberals decline fighting a stronger enemy by constantly switching sides such that the enemy is only ever weaker than themselves, and they then oppress their victims by refusing to recognize oppressiveness in their actions. Strategically, liberalism is long-term effective under communist, technocratic or colonial social settings.
For example, conservatives defend animal testing by citing the risk of missing out on potentially huge advancements in scientific knowledge, medical technology and general ‘civilization’ by stopping such tests, whereas liberals defend animal testing by asserting that it is merely our subjective opinion that the animals are suffering, which is no more valid than their opinion that the animals are not suffering.
Does he care whether conservatives or liberals put him here?
The same pattern applies to conservative and liberal attitudes towards every issue in existence. Everything a conservative says in response to criticism reduces to: “Our way worked just fine before you came along.” Everything a liberal says in response to criticism reduces to: “What gives you the right to tell us what to do?” Neither is capable of serious self-criticism based on genuine ethics. In practice, conservatives look at any failure of liberal policies to solve a problem as evidence that there was no problem requiring solution in the first place (never bothering to acknowledge genuine discontent among the traditionally marginalized), whereas liberals blame the failures of their own policies on conservatives not playing along (but never reconsidering the liberal presumption that conservatives would be willing to play along).
The reason for this is that both conservatism and liberalism are rooted in pessimism towards the human condition. Conservatism is pragmatic pessimism, while liberalism is epistemological pessimism. Conservatives disbelieve that the quality of people can be significantly improved, and therefore would rather stick with traditional norms that have a track record of keeping society stable and secure (albeit oppressive). Liberals disbelieve that improvement even has an objective definition, and therefore are most comfortable in a society that makes no absolute claims and condemns nothing (not even oppression).
“The Führer in Nuremberg said: “Woe to him who does not believe!” He who does not believe has no soul. He is empty. He has no ideals. He has nothing to live for.” – Robert Ley
If a society that rejects all oppression is to be established, it will be neither through conservatism nor through liberalism, but only through a positive, heroic attitude that believes improvement can be both objectively defined and effectively pursued.
Noble Paradigm Changers
“To establish its cause upon nothing and yet not to burn all bridges behind it: that is the nobility of character of the National Socialist era.” – Alfred Rosenberg
Both liberals and radicals despise conservatives, but via entirely different reasoning. Liberals despise conservatives for passing judgement. Radicals despise conservatives because the conservative judgement is wrong.
On the other side of the same coin, both conservatives and radicals despise liberals, but again via entirely different reasoning. Conservatives despise liberals for not accepting tradition. Radicals despise liberals for not bothering to come up with something better.
Radicalism combines belief in moral absolutism with rejection of traditional standards of morality. Within the radical sphere is then a variety of competing alternative standards. Therefore, whereas conservatives are automatically allies of other conservatives (all upholding the traditional standard), and liberals are automatically allies of other liberals (all upholding no standard at all), radicals are not automatically allies of other radicals. As such, a particular radical ideology – which has as its rivals not only conservatism and liberalism but also other radical ideologies – must not further limit itself by excluding people based on non-ideological denominations, but must find allies wherever possible and forge them into a new unity. This is what Aryanism aims to do.
“We feel convinced that the consequences of this really revolutionizing vision of truth will bring about a radical transformation in German life. For the first time in our history, the German people have found the way to a higher unity than they ever had before; and that is due to the compelling attraction of this inner feeling. Innumerable prejudices have been broken down, many barriers have been overthrown as unreasonable, evil traditions have been wiped out and antiquated symbols shown to be meaningless.” – Adolf Hitler
We objectively define improvement according to nobility, and call for pursuit of such improvement by National Socialist state control over reproduction and thus population and demographics. Now the liberals hate us for wanting to control reproduction, and the conservatives hate us for using nobility rather than conventional ethnocentrism as our standard. On this account alone we can declare that Aryanism is officially a radical ideology.
Both conservatives and liberals believe in the authority of numbers. Each will defend its way by claiming it is what most people actually want. Even when active numbers are not forthcoming, each will claim to represent the so-called ”silent majority”. Only radicals are unaffected enough to admit that our radical ideology is obviously not shared by the majority, nor does this cause us to doubt our allegiance, because we understand that numerical popularity means nothing in relation to absolute truth, and indeed that the exposition of absolute truth has always relied upon a few exceptional individuals. In Hitler’s words: “Human cultures are not founded by the multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and personal efficiency.” We could even argue that perhaps radicals are the only genuine absolutists. Liberals openly admit their anti-absolutism, but we could suspect that conservative “absolutism” is actually mere aggrandizement of tradition (which itself is a vicarious popularity). Thus here too we find that conservatives and liberals have more in common with each other than either can ever have with us.
We do not claim, as do our ZC/BS rivals, that we are “merely saying out loud what most people are thinking”. Quite the contrary: we sincerely believe that if we rare and exceptional few do not say what we say, our ideas – ideas incapable of arising in ignoble minds – might be permanently lost in an increasingly uncaring world.
Esoteric Left and Right
“In brief, a Way which does not of necessity involve us in considering matters as we have hitherto almost invariably done: by whether or not we, as individuals, are rewarded or punished (in this life, or in some believed-in afterlife).” – David Myatt
While the classification of political ideas into “left” and “right” superficially began as a seating arrangement during the 1789 French Revolution, a left-right dichotomy also exists within monarchism, with the left associated with absolute monarchism (or, more precisely, despotism) in which the individual personality of the monarch is supreme, and the right associated with traditional monarchism in which the monarch is viewed merely as an executive of tradition and hence expected to be conservative rather than individualistic. In the ancient world, the primary dichotomy was between tradition (represented by the priesthood) and individuality (represented by the monarch). Back in those days, being a leftist meant following the monarch when the monarch decides to disregard the priesthood, whereas being a rightist meant deposing such a monarch and installing another who would hopefully be more conservative.
“What’s tragic in Napoleon’s case is that when he adopted the imperial title, formed a court and instituted a ceremonial, he didn’t realise that, by making common cause with degenerates, he was merely putting himself on their level.” – Adolf Hitler
The origins of the terms can ultimately be traced to the terms “left-hand-path” and “right-hand-path” which has been frequently used by scholars of occultism for much longerThe right-hand-path describes religiosity based on fear of a higher power, and obedience to its laws for the purpose of avoiding the negative consequences that may come with disobedience. The Judeo-Christian equation of ”moral” with ”God-fearing” exemplifies right-hand-path thinking. (“Yahweh said to me, ‘Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children so.’” – Moses) The left-hand-path describes religiosity based on unravelling the higher power, and corresponding practices for the sake of spiritual elevation. Jesus transcending the world exemplifies left-hand-path thinking. (“To be a genius means to use the soul, to strive for the divine, to escape from the mean; and even if this cannot be totally achieved, there will be no space for the opposite of good.” – Dietrich Eckart) It is for this reason that, in relation to absolute monarchism, Jesus is called the King of Kings for his opposition to the Jewish pharisee priesthood of his time. Siddhartha was similarly called the Cosmic King for his opposition to the Vedic brahmin priesthood.)
“The priests themselves could never be quite sure of keeping the people in obedience for ever. The people could choose to listen to the prophet, if they liked. And they did, sometimes.” – Savitri Devi
This further transposes intuitively to socio-cultural notions of left and right, where the right is broadly associated with orthodoxy and the left with heterodoxy relative to tradition (hence the adjective “sinister”, which simply means “left side”, that traditionalists use to describe threats against tradition). But on this level, liberalism does not belong on the left at all! For liberalism is not about unravelling the higher power, but merely about pretending it does not exist. Liberalism is merely controlled opposition to conservatism, with the function of giving people a temporary break from tradition so that they can return to it later, followed by another break and another return, and so on. Liberalism is merely a relaxation drug, the distraction that helps to make conservatism tolerable, thereby minimizing interest in genuine, profound paradigm change.
To those who casually consider themselves on the right merely out of disgust towards liberalism, and to those who casually consider themselves on the left merely out of disgust towards conservatism, we invite you to clean up your definitions of left and right and choose your path anew.