Naturalism vs Idealism

“Catholicism, Protestantism, Jewry and Naturalism must be cleared from the field before beginning a new world outlook, so that they are no longer thought of, just as the night lamp is no longer thought of when the morning sun shines over the mountains.” – Alfred Rosenberg

In the Aryan mind, only what is morally and aesthetically ideal is worth striving for. However, we do not believe that ideals have the power to realize themselves, no matter how perfectly conceived, how artistically expressed, or even how widely disseminated. Rather, ideals must be realized in the same harsh way that everything else has ever been realized: by winning the long game of selective pressure. In short, we are idealists who starkly recognize the pervasive, decisive finality of natural selection throughout the material world.

Just because we are aware of Nature’s hegemony does not mean we resign to being its slaves, and does not mean we cease to empathize for its victims. As National Socialists, we stress the practical necessity of playing Nature’s game, but as Aryans, we will never emotionally enjoy playing this game with the relish described by Genghis Khan: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters”, nor, for that matter, with the anticipation described by Isaiah: “And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, strangers shall be your ploughmen and vinedressers; but you shall be called the priests of Yahweh, men shall speak of you as the ministers of our god; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their riches you shall glory.” They and their ilk are naturalists, who – unlike us – identify Darwinian domination as a virtue in itself.

Yet have no doubt that we will play, and play to win, for only through our total victory and our enemies’ total defeat may this hellish game at last have a chance to be brought to a permanent end. As Joseph Goebbels said: “May the game begin.”

Lightning and Sun

“Man is unhappy because he knows, because he feels — in general — that the world in which he lives and of which he is a part, is not what it should be, what it could be, what, in fact, it was at the dawn of Time, before decay set in and before violence became unavoidable.” – Savitri Devi

Savitri Devi furnished our discussion with three historical examples – Genghis Khan, Akhnaten, and Hitler – whose comparative study supplies one of the best illustrations of what we are resolving, namely the importance of separating natural values from natural methods. The emphasis of National Socialism is that the more idealistic (ie. unnatural) one’s values, the more necessary it is to pursue them using methods based on selection of heritable traits rather than through persuasion. This is what most fundamentally distinguishes our movement from religious or cultural movements that limit themselves to persuasion alone for promoting their teachings.

Genghis Khan (possessing only Lightning characteristics) pursued natural values using natural methods; the outcome was success, but a meaningless success. Akhnaten (possessing only Sun characteristics) pursued ideal values using unnatural methods; the outcome was an inspiring failure, but a failure nontheless. To authentic National Socialists, Hitler (possessing both Sun and Lightning characteristics) represents an attempt to pursue ideal values using natural methods, perhaps the first such attempt in history. While he also failed, his failure is different from Akhnaten’s failure. Akhnaten’s failure was inevitable - an expected result of relying on inferior people to carry a superior idea. Hitler’s failure, on the other hand, could have been avoided.

Why Hitler Lost

When this war is over, I will return as an even more fanatic National Socialist than I was before.” – Adolf Hitler

Without reducing our veneration for the leader who came closer to thoroughly defeating Jewish power than any other leader in the world, we who sincerely seek victory must face up to the fact that Hitler did not win, and study coolly where he went wrong.

Exoterically, historians generally agree that WWII was lost by National Socialist Germany at Dunkirk in 1940, not due to troop incompetence on the ground, but as a direct result of a bad call by Hitler himself. Where and when he could have effortlessly annihilated the Zionist British forces and then immediately invaded an unguarded Britain, he instead allowed the British to retreat intact, thus setting up Germany to be subsequently attacked from both sides at the same time. Thereafter, as bravely and at times spectacularly Germany fought the entire war, it was not enough. 

Esoterically, we must consider what element of Hitler’s worldview prompted such a distastrous call. Without going into detail, it came down to overconfidence - Hitler believed that his side would win the war even without seizing the vital opportunity at Dunkirk. This was a manifestation of his mistaken belief that Nature was on his side in the conflict, and therefore that he could afford to go easy on his enemies and still triumph in the end. In short, here is why Hitler lost:

“I believe in Providence and I believe Providence to be just.” – Adolf Hitler (Is Providence just?)

“What we are we have become not against, but with, the will of Providence. And so long as we are true and honourable and of good courage in fight, so long as we believe in our great work and do not capitulate, we shall continue to enjoy in the future the blessing of Providence.” – Adolf Hitler (National Socialist Germany enjoyed no blessings of Providence after 1940)

“I believe that Providence would never have allowed us to see the victory of the Movement if it had the intention after all to destroy us at the end.” – Adolf Hitler (Providence destroyed National Socialist Germany by 1945)

It was not that Hitler lacked idealism, but that even he had underestimated the totality of opposition between naturalism and idealism. Buoyed by the early miracles of National Socialist Germany, he allowed himself to believe that Nature had somehow come round to endorse his ideal. In truth, Nature was, and has been throughout all of history, on the side of non-Aryans (Jews in particular, and very often Gentiles also). Nature does not care about truth or honour or courage or anything else that Hitler cares about, but only about who is left standing at the end of the game. Aryan traits are not – contrary to what Hitler espoused – the work of Nature, but an evolutionary accident that Nature has since been trying to correct. Savitri Devi glimpsed this when, describing Atenism, she concluded: “The pity is that its very excellence proved fatal to its expansion, nay even to its survival as an organized religion.” Yet this was the vital brick in the National Socialist architecture that Hitler was missing when he issued the order for his troops to stand down at Dunkirk. And for want of this one brick, the construction of the promised Thousand-Year Reich collapsed under its own weight.

“Nothing is spared me. No allegiances are kept. No honour is lived up to. There are no disappointments I have not had, no betrayals I have not experienced and now this above all else. Nothing remains. Every wrong has already been done…” – Adolf Hitler (during the last days of WWII)

If there is one thing we as Aryanists must do, indeed if there is one thing above all others that we as the present-day bearers of the swastika flag owe Hitler, it must be to ensure that our new construction will not collapse in the same way.

How Not to Win

“Himmler would have won, had he but possessed something of Adolf Hitler’s genius. … But then, National Socialism, like the ancient Aryan order in India — or like early Islam — would have fallen to pieces from within after a few generations.” – Savitri Devi

Naturalists only care that it is their own camp which wins the game, regardless of what cause it ended up embracing along the way to victory. Idealists, in contrast, do not care whether it is our camp or another camp of idealists who win the game, so long as the winner (whoever it may be) supports the cause that we support. Both play the same game of selective pressure, but we play on different levels. For us it is about keeping the torch lit – whomever we may have to pass it to; for them it is about being the torchbearer – never mind what happens to the flame.

The Olympic Torch was an antique feature re-introduced at Amsterdam 1928, but the Olympic Torch Relay was a unique idea of National Socialist Germany appearing for the first time at Berlin 1936. 

The difference between naturalism and idealism in the struggle of non-Jews against Jewish domination is best illustrated by a thought experiment: if the self-proclaimed opponent of Jewish domination had been born Jewish while retaining his current personality, which side of the conflict would he now be on? The naturalist, who wants victory for his own group, and therefore who would still want victory for his own group if he were Jewish, would be a Zionist. In contrast, the idealist born Jewish would become a self-hating Jew committed to the defeat of his own group. Thus only the idealist can be an anti-Zionist.

External link: Polish Neo-Nazi Couple Discover They Are Jewish – And Turned Their Lives Around

External link: Former Anti-Semitic Hungarian Leader Now Keeps Shabbat

“Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew : Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realised that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples.” – Adolf Hitler

By this final analysis, both Jews and Gentiles are clowns. Had Abraham Foxman (Jew) been born Anglo, he would have been running the National Alliance. Had William Pierce (Gentile) been born Jewish, he would have been running the Anti-Defamation League. Jews and Gentiles are so slavish that, by a mere identity shift, they would start beating up themselves - no different than the same voter who votes for more welfare when he is unemployed and less welfare when he is paying taxes. Non-Aryans are therefore not qualified to even talk about politics, much less to be entrusted with power.

100% interchangeable

Only Aryans stay Aryan no matter what guise we take, and it is this heritable trait of idealism – the ability to see from multiple perspectives at once – more than any other that has associated our bloodlines with enlightened rulership since ancient times.  

“From time to time people say, “Yes, but couldn’t you find another way? The other day I was in a cafe and three times collectors came to me, and three times I had to dip into my pocket and give them something. Can’t it be done some other way?” The answer is that of course I understand how trying it is for you to be approached three times; but isn’t it much more trying for the girl or man who is collecting to have to approach perhaps a thousand people like you in the course of one day?” – Adolf Hitler

For every political position we hold, we should imagine ourselves in many different identities, and consider whether we maintain that position in each case. If the position weakens as a consequence of any identity shift, we should discard it. This ensures that our dissatisfaction with the status quo is not with its consequences to us but with the causes behind it, and hence that we aim not at a petty revolt to improve our quality of life, but at a profound revolution of ideological insight that changes how quality of life itself is evaluated.

How to Win

“That which seems impossible can be made possible by the power of the spirit.” – Joseph Goebbels

A revolt and a revolution differ in how each motivates its activists to action. The naturalist attempts to sell his revolt in the form of a consumer product. All his marketing techniques reduce to two tracks:

1) Appeal to fear: telling people how terrible their future will be if they do not revolt.

2) Appeal to hubris: telling people how magnificent their future will be if they revolt and succeed.

In other words, he lets people keep their naturally conditioned values, but merely introduces provocative images to either repulse or attract them according to this existing value scheme.

The idealist, in contrast, introduces new values (or, as we might put it, values from the prehistoric Golden Age that have been mostly forgotten since history began) so that people can look at familiar reality and see atrocities previously invisible to them. The idealist promotes his revolution not as a consumer product, but as a moral responsibility. The motivating sentiment behind a revolution is neither fear nor hubris, but an inner dignity or chivalry (in our case, nobility) that compels us to fight evil – not necessarily because it affects ourselves, but as a matter of principle.

“Parzival emerged from a cave, the maternal forest, alone in the world, without experience of any kind, asking childish questions, a pure madman. Taking false steps. As if guided, he reaches the vicinity of the Court of King Arthur.” – Miguel Serrano

Endless war is the natural state of affairs. Recognizing this does not mean accepting this.

This difference enables a revolution to solicit support even among those who do not personally suffer under the status quo (or indeed who positively benefit from the status quo), whereas support for a revolt is limited to those who can be made to believe that they will personally gain from it. For example, the ongoing movement to boycott Israel for its treatment of Palestinians finds widespread support from non-Palestinians. Similarly, the earlier movement to boycott apartheid South Africa found widespread support among non-victims of apartheid. Movements to abolish slavery throughout history were almost all initiated not by slaves but by conscientious non-slaves, including owners of slaves. These are revolutions. By contrast, all movements unable to gain the support of disinterested groups are merely revolts.

The tasks of idealism are firstly to inspire revolution, and secondly to keep this revolution from degenerating into a revolt. In other words, to light the flame on the torch, and then to pass it to someone else, but only to someone equally willing to pass it to others by the same principle. Anything else and the relay breaks, and the flame extinguishes. But if this relay of idealism is rigidly and selflessly adhered to, then no matter how impossibly remote the destination appears, there is no reason why we cannot reach it with the flame still burning.

It deserves emphasis that we entirely agree with Hitler when he said: “Man’s effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.” Nowhere does this statement imply, however (and contrary to what intellectually lazy neo-Nazis presume), that it is therefore morally wrong to attempt to build based on ideal values. It merely advises awareness that anything based on ideal values built within Nature’s domain is at most only temporary and anomalous, and that Nature will reassert control sooner or later, as it always has. As authentic National Socialists, we possess this awareness, and we are ready for our ruin. In exchange, we intend to leave nothing for Nature to re-assert control over in the wake of our passage. That will be the form of our victory – not utopianism, but salvation. In Hitler’s words: “Poison can be overcome only by a counter-poison, and only the supine bourgeois mind could think that the Kingdom of Heaven can be attained by a compromise.”

Why Naturalists Hate Idealists

“Naturally, our wretched army of contemporary philistines will not understand these things. They will ridicule them or shrug their round shoulders and groan out their everlasting excuses: ‘Of course it is a fine thing, but the pity is that it cannot be carried out.’ And we reply: ‘With you indeed it cannot be done, for your world is incapable of such an idea.’” – Adolf Hitler

When idealists criticize the plans of naturalists, it is never on the grounds of unfeasability. We do not say (nor do we honestly believe) that their plans cannot succeed; rather we warn that should their plans succeed, the world will be a worse place for it. When naturalists criticize the plans of idealists, in contrast, they typically repeat over and over again that our failure is certain, that there has never in history been a precedent for our success, that we are going against the flow (why do they think Savitri Devi coined us “Men Against Time”?), and generally try to bury us in negativity at every turn.

For all we know, they may be correct. At the very least there is a considerable possibility that we will fail. Indeed we ourselves often have to remind those among us occasionally inclined towards complacency: we must believe we can win, but we must not assume we cannot lose. Nobody ever said idealism was going to be easy.

But consider this. If the naturalists are so certain (as they claim) that all our attempts at idealism will fail, then why put so much effort into discouraging and obstructing us? Why the concern with stamping out our idealistic emotions? Would not their stance be firmer by allowing us to try out our plans without interfering, so that if we do fail, we cannot blame our failure on their interference? Viewed this way, we should consider the possibility that they inside their minds rate our chances of success much higher than they are willing to admit in their statements.

“It is characteristic of historic miracles that they seem almost impossible until they happen, and when they happen, it sometimes looks as if it had been easy. It is therefore no great thing to recognize a historic miracle that has happened. One must believe in ones yet to come.”  – Joseph Goebbels

The truth is, the cynic is forever psychologically threatened by the dreamer. Those who say that something is impossible live in constant worry that their cynical assertion will one day be disproven. Naturalists hate idealists for this reason. They hate the idea that we might succeed, as our success would expose their spinelessness once and for all, whereas so long as we have not yet succeeded, they can still take refuge in describing themselves as “realists” and us as “fantasists”.

What the naturalists do not understand is that we are incapable of being deterred by their pessimism – not necessarily because we disbelieve it, but because it makes no difference to us. Hitler spoke for all of us when he said: “We National Socialists do not know the meaning of the word ‘impossible’, and we have no intention of adding it to our vocabulary.” We pursue the ideal not because we estimate it likely that we will succeed; we pursue the ideal because there is nothing else worth pursuing. In the Aryan mind, idealism is not fantasy, but duty. Even if we had zero chance of success, we would still do what we do rather than pursue naturalist objectives, because pursuing an ideal and failing is still less harmful than pursuing a naturalist objective and succeeding. If the alternative is to be Genghis Khan or the Jewish Messiah prophesized by Isaiah, we would rather be nothing at all.

It must be this attitude and no other that we aim to restore among all people capable of expressing it. Perhaps it is precisely this attitude, this sense of detached duty which naturalists do not and cannot understand (what David Myatt called the “Silence of the Warrior”), that will – when the time comes - give us the victory we have seen in our dreams.