“Any violence which does not spring from a firm spiritual base will be wavering and uncertain.” – Adolf Hitler
The Aryan attitude towards violence is founded on the principle of Ahimsa common to classical martial arts in many civilizations around the world. It is a principle which strictly prohibits initiated violence, but equally strictly demands retaliatory violence against the violence initiated by others. In other words, Ahimsa is not passive non-violence in the sense of standing idly by while violence occurs, but active anti-violence in the sense of doing whatever is within one’s capability to stop the violence as quickly as possible, and as permanently as possible. This attitude is a necessary consequence of universal compassion. We consider those (e.g. Jains) who refrain from even retaliatory violence to be infinitely less compassionate than ourselves, indeed we consider them passive enablers of the continuation of violence. For example, the idea of killing is not in itself morally repugnant to us; what is morally repugnant is the idea of killing others for one’s own survival. It follows that the idea of killing those who kill others for their own survival is nothing if not morally admirable. As made clear by Joseph Goebbels: “We do not talk about peace, we fight for it!”
The Chinese/Japanese logogram (casually translated as “martial”) can be split into two logograms to reveal its esoteric meaning “ending violence” ie. Ahimsa.
Ahimsa is a True Left principle; it differs from and exists as an alternative to the much more primitive rightist notion (ultimately traceable to Jewish and/or Gentile blood memory) that aggression is fundamentally an admirable trait, and only bad when uncontrolled. Therefore rightists are not opposed to initiated violence in itself, but only to initiated violence against victims capable of effective retaliation, which could thus endanger the initiator. Many rightists mistakenly assume that the non-aggressive are incapable even of retaliatory violence, probably because they themselves psychologically engage their aggression on the occasions when they react violently to violence initiated by others, and therefore cannot imagine other states of mind that can also motivate retaliatory violence. This is because they lack Aryan blood memory, to which initiation of violence is so elementally alien a phenomenon that whenever we witness it we are morally apalled by it, and hence are driven to retaliation, an entirely different psychological process than theirs (which is better referred to as “counter-aggression” than true “retaliation” in our sense).
“It is wrong and dangerous to pretend our experiences are shared by others. … I almost always find in the faces of those consulted an expression of surprise and bewilderment. Strangely, they have not had this experience. That was not their tuning fork.” – Miguel Serrano
It has been proposed that the idea of a centralized state entrusted to use force was originally intended to be an application of Ahimsa on a national scale. However, while many contemporary states claim the broad principle of “retaliatory violence only”, none actually practice it. This is because their very definition of initiated violence is unsound. Our main ideological objective is to provide a sound definition of violence, a prerequisite for Ahimsa to be truly applied.
“The keynote of human history is not less and less violence; it is less and less honesty about violence.” – Savitri Devi
Present-day society, as a consequence of desire for longevity and squeamishness towards physical damage (a symptom of increasing materialism and cowardice), has become used to a casual association of violence with people getting injured or dying, to the extent that even combat sports are sometimes inaccurately described as “violent”, whereas some crimes are inaccurately described as “non-violent”. Actually, the essence of violence is not physical damage, but lack of consent (ie. violation in the truest sense of the term). Combat sports are not violent provided all its players participate consensually, no matter how much physical damage resulted. Crimes are violent as soon as there is lack of consent, no matter that no physical damage resulted.
In the same way, some political protestors call their protests “non-violent demonstration” merely because they do not physically attack others or cause fabric damage to infrastructure, but it is easy to see through this flagrant lie. Blockading public roads and hence or otherwise preventing traffic is violent in itself, as it obstructs commuters who had not consented to be obstructed, in many cases tantamount to attacking them economically if they must commute to work. Besiegement is in fact a tactic of aggressive war, so those who call an act of besiegement non-violent can hardly expected to be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about war.
“That which one often takes for non-violence, — that which actually goes under that name, — is, in reality, but a subtler form of violence: pressure upon other people’s feelings, more oppressive … than pressure upon their bodies. … It may look “nobler.” In fact, it is just the same — apart from the difference in the technique of pressure. It is, rather, less “noble” because, precisely on account of that subtler technique, it leads people to believe that it is not violence, and therefore contains an element of deceit.” – Savitri Devi
The ability to recognize non-physical forms of violence is the quality commonly known as honour. It is frequent for materialism-based cultures to accuse honour-based cultures of “savagery” because the former see the physical violence done by the latter while lacking the honour to perceive it as retaliation to a non-physical violence.
For example, democracy is a form of violence easily recognized as such by all honourable minds. It is, essentially, tyranny upon the minority by the majority. Therefore, in face of attempts to establish democracy in a country, it is the duty of an existing autocratic state to oppose this by use of retaliatory violence as necessary. And, while living under an existing democratic state, it is the duty of conscientious citizens to secede from it and then to use retaliatory violence as necessary to defend their seceded territory. This was the Lebensraum principle of National Socialist Germany, as well as the ethics behind many post-WWII countries (e.g. North Korea, Syria, former Libya under Gaddafi) and small communities (e.g. so-called “no-go zones”) that have heroically resisted democracy.
Usury is another good example of non-physical violence only recognized as such by honourable minds. Superficially, usury appears to involve consent by the borrower to pay interest to the lender. However, since the interest payable must come from the rest of the economy, which did not unanimously consent to such a transaction, it is violence initiated by the borrower and the lender in concert upon the rest of the economy. It is therefore similarly the duty of the state, or even of conscientious citizens (e.g. Jesus) to use retaliatory violence as necessary against all who participate in usury, be it as lender or as borrower. It is also justified – indeed a moral duty - for any state in which usury is illegal to militarily invade any non-autarkic state in which usury is legal, for the purpose of ending usury in the latter (which is otherwise constantly initiating violence against the former). This is the true reasoning behind the Islamic Dar al-Salaam vs Dar al-Harb distinction.
Similarly, all honourable minds understand that terms such as “Israeli civilian” or “peaceful Jew” are oxymorons designed to deceive. Israeli non-combatants who nonetheless contribute in other ways to the continued existence of Israel are just as violent as IDF combat troops and demolition troops, and non-criminal Jews who nonetheless contribute to the perpetuation of Jewish identity are just as violent as the Zionist bankers, assassins, false-flag operatives, organ harvesters, vaccinators, food poisoners, and the rest. (The same applies to Gentile counterparts.)
“The Jew, Fritz Kahn, … has called Moses ‘an almost unique phenomenon in the history of civilized peoples: a national hero without weapons.’ … I wonder what he thinks Moses used to massacre the Egyptian firstborn, if not weapons. Gumdrops, perhaps?” – Dietrich Eckart
Birth Is Violence
“Whoever is not physically and mentally healthy and worthy must not perpetuate his suffering in the body of his child.” – Adolf Hitler
Every birth is a forcible injection of a new consumer into a finite ecosystem without unanimous consent of existing inhabitants, thus violent towards existing inhabitants, similar to invasion. More importantly, every birth is a forcible creation of a new life that had not itself consented to the birth, thus violent towards the child being born, similar to enslavement. Reproduction should be thought of by all honourable minds as demographic violence. Reproduction is, in fact, the most fundamentally violence-ennabling action that there is, as the continuation of every other form of violence is kept possible only via reproduction.
As such, everyone who reproduces is an initiator of violence, except for those (known as National Socialists by political affiliation, or Aryans by spiritual intuition) who reproduce with the sole motive of deploying an agent that can subsequently help to prevent more reproduction, in which case they are retaliating. Even so, their children as individuals are still innocent victims of their violence. Indeed, all who reproduce are ultimately accountable not only for the violence of their children’s births themselves, but also for the totality of the additional violence that their children might experience during their lifetimes.
This is why the state is morally obliged to control reproduction: it has a duty to protect existing people, and more importantly to protect unborn children, from violence. If a state should defend its people against invasion, and if a state should punish those among its people who take slaves, then a state should control reproduction. Punitive measures taken by a state to prevent reproduction among its people is retaliatory violence. Similarly, war declared by a state on another state that has not taken adequate measures to decrease the population of its people is retaliatory violence.
“We want peace, total peace and nothing but peace, and even if we have to fight the bloodiest battle, we are going to get it.” – Adolf Hitler
We agree with the anarchist condemnation of the state as inherently violent. But, unlike the dishonourable anarchists, we recognize the necessity for retaliation against demographic violence, which we consider most practically achievable by the state. (The anarchists and libertarians claim to support “free association”, yet ignore the obvious, constant violence towards all children born in the world who have no choice but to associate with their parents.) Our condemnation of states is strictly limited to those states which make no attempt to retaliate against demographic violence, and hence which fail to justify their existence. The National Socialist state, which does retaliate against demographic violence, is alone exempt from such condemnation.
To the extent that its concern extends to the unborn, National Socialism is the only sincerely anti-violent political ideology in existence. To the extent that the world refuses to recognize National Socialism as such, violence will continue. To the extent that we do not fight as best we can for the establishment of authentic National Socialist states around the world as soon as possible, we too are guilty of the violence ongoing worldwide.