Violence
“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. This attitude is a necessary consequence of universal compassion. We consider those (e.g. Jains) who refrain from even retaliatory violence to be less compassionate than ourselves. 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.
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 as regards violence is to provide a sound definition of violence.
Redefining Violence
“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 killed, 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.
Not violence
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, legitimized 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.
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.
Violence
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.
This is why the state is morally obliged to control reproduction: it is protecting existing people, and more importantly protecting 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 effective 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 fundamentally violent. But, unlike the dishonourable anarchists, we recognize the necessity for retaliation against demographic violence, which we believe is most practically achievable by the state. (The anarchists and libertarians claim to support “free association”, yet ignore the obvious 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.
Related Information
