“Inhabitants are classified as citizens of the state or members of the state. Counted among the latter are all recent immigrants. The Reich Minister decides when citizenship may be granted. Only citizens have the right to active and passive election, and are eligible for appointment to state positions. In every other respect all state citizens and state members are equal before the law. Personal freedom is guaranteed. … It is an incentive for good behaviour, makes the securing of citizenship a matter of achievement, and eliminates from the election of political leaders external, possibly financial, factors. On the other hand a uniform human evaluation precludes the possibility of any feeling of inferiority, and also guarantees the legal equality of all.” – Alfred Rosenberg

The negativity and sometimes violence directed at immigrants (or those presumed to be immigrants based on appearance) by supporters of far-right groups commonly referred to as “neo-Nazis” has encouraged a misconception among the ill-informed that National Socialism is a stereotypical anti-immigrant ideology, to the extent that it has been fashionable for newspaper cartoonists to draw Hitler’s moustache onto photos of any contemporary anti-immigrant politician. As authentic National Socialists, it is our duty to correct this misconception. For a start, one would be hard-pressed to find a neo-Nazi who agrees with Alfred Rosenberg’s quote above - a quote which demonstrates admirable fairness towards immigrants by National Socialist Germany. In fact, typical Gentile views towards immigrants are much nearer those of the Jews of Israel, who are by now famous all over the world for their wanton sadism towards ethnic minorities towards which the state turns a blind eye (when not actively joining in).

External link: Netanyahu: Nation State Law Grants All Jews Automatic Immigration Rights to Israel

The Jewish attitude. For the Gentile attitude, simply replace the word ‘Jews’ in the subtitles with whatever Gentile tribe you wish.

The truth is that Hitler, who often recalled gratefully that he himself was an immigrant to Germany from Austria who subsequently became Germany’s leader, was never critical of folkish immigrants who sincerely wished to pledge their lives to a new country. Drawing from memories of his youth, he describes this mindset in wholly positive terms: “Liberated from all the paralysing prejudices of class and calling, environment and tradition, they enter any service that opens its doors 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. And so I was resolved to set both feet in what was for me a new world and push forward on my own road.” Hitler indeed went as far as to declare: “Experience shows that it is the more healthy and more vigorous that emigrate, and not the reverse. … He is ready to take the risk of an uncertain fate.” His criticism was exclusively levelled towards Jews (and, to a lesser extent, Gypsies) who had a history of migrating with a strategy of nomadism – that is, with no intention of permanently settling and integrating, but rather with a plan to keep a separate identity from everyone else in the country, profit dishonestly and then move on elsewhere before the consequences of their dishonesty catch up with them.

The Aryan attitude. If you are racist, others deserve to know you are racist. Otherwise, you can earn your citizenship.

Present-day anti-immigrant sentiment plays right into the Zionist agenda of divide and conquer by causing hostility between new arrivals and older inhabitants. Our work must be to thoroughly defuse this hostility so that we can unite against Jewish domination before time runs out. To this end, we in no way demand stifling of discussion about immigration policy, but hold that any call for immigration policy reform that is not preceded by a louder call for sincere fellowship with immigrants already present does not deserve to be taken seriously. Furthermore, any call for immigration reduction on one hand on the grounds that the country is “full up” accompanied on the other hand by a call for increase in local birth rate exposes itself as disingenuous. Every ecologically-based argument against immigration (some of which are indeed valid arguments) must, in order to be consistent, also oppose population increase via reproduction.

One lazy tactic used by anti-immigrant propagandists is to avoid discussing the ethics of immigration by saying that they “just want existing immigration laws to be enforced”. But in saying this they expose only their own disregard for the fundamental principle of law that the only people obliged to abide by any given law of any country are those who receive protection from the same law in return. For example, we are obliged to not steal because in return the state will protect our property. We are obliged to not run red lights because in return we get to use the safer roads that result from traffic lights. And so on. This principle breaks down when it comes to immigration, because those who abide by a so-called “law” that prohibits them from entering are not in any way protected by this same so-called “law”. On the contrary, they are simply left outside where the state need not care about them at all (and can even bomb them)! Thus so-called “laws” prohibiting immigration are not really laws at all, but tyranny. Indeed, people living in any country which is within target range of another country’s WMDs, but which itself is not equipped with WMDs sufficient to launch a matching counterstrike, are automatically justified in moving into the WMD-armed country as a self-defence measure, no differently than how if someone from across the room points a loaded gun at you (who are unarmed) and you run towards him to grab the gun, you are not attacking him but only defending yourself; if the gunman is injured as a result, it is entirely his fault for pointing the gun at you in the first place.

Even worse are the anti-immigrant propagandists who refer to immigration as “invasion” for the sake of crude alarmism, utterly disregarding the actual meaning of invasion. If State A invades State B, former taxpayers to State B will now be paying taxes to State A instead (ie. State B loses taxpayers; State A gains taxpayers). In contrast, if inhabitants of State A migrate to State B, these former taxpayers to State A who have migrated will now be paying taxes to State B instead (ie. State B gains taxpayers; State A loses taxpayers). Thus in fact immigration is the opposite of invasion.

But perhaps the most disingenuous tactic of anti-immigrant propagandists is to argue that destination countries are “stealing” talent from source countries, as if people are being kidnapped from the source countries by force! Actually, all that is going on is people making their own choices as regards where to take their talent.

In general, we stand by the elementary ethical principle that we should treat immigrants to our country in the way that we would wish to be treated if we ourselves were immigrants to another country.

As if this were not bad enough, Hungary also pays 10 million forints to couples who agree to have 3+ offspring, even as it refuses to accept refugees. And it buys its border security technology from Israel.

Immigration Does Not Cause Unemployment

“Germany is the only country that has no unemployment. And that hangs together with the fact that we are not slaves to the need to export.” – Adolf Hitler

A right-wing lie widely spread by Zionist agents and easily swallowed by Gentiles with no understanding of economics is that immigration causes unemployment because, supposedly, ”Immigrants take our jobs!”

In order to believe this lie, you would have to believe that immigrants live on nothing but air and sunlight, which of course they do not. Immigrants, just like everyone else, are consumers as well as producers. Immigrants to a country may take jobs, but will also give custom to local businesses for the products and services that they need for daily life. These businesses, in turn, will have to employ additional staff in order to effectively provide these additional products and services. In short, jobs are taken, but jobs are also created.

NSDAP poster in Poland, inviting immigrant workers to National Socialist Germany.

NSDAP poster in Ukraine, inviting immigrant workers to National Socialist Germany.

This is obvious when considered on a scaled-down model. If I live alone on a farm, I have to produce enough food to feed myself. If an immigrant arrives and starts doing the work that I used to do, do I become unemployed? No, because now we need to produce enough food for two people, which will require more work! However, two people working together offers potential for more efficient productivity. (The Hitler Youth were sent to land service on farms during school holidays to experience first-hand what has just been described.)

I was forced to live in the midst of poverty-stricken people. Therefore it was not a question of studying the problem objectively, but rather one of testing its effects on myself. ” – Adolf Hitler

The underacknowledgement of this reality in our current times is a symptom of social meanness. The unemployed person often notices that he does not have a job while immigrants do, and imagines that one of the immigrants’ jobs could have been his. On the other hand, the employed person rarely stops to consider that he may not even have his current job if not for the immigrant customers whom his job serves! (Or even if one’s direct customer base includes no immigrants, it may well be that one’s customers earn the money they spend here from serving immigrant customers at their jobs in turn.) Thus there is resentment towards immigrants among the unemployed, but no counterbalancing gratitude towards immigrants among the employed. This is an excellent example of how inner degeneracy facilitates the Zionist agenda.

Those who have no luck finding a job complain about this.

Those who are lucky enough to have a job do not appreciate this.

In technical terminology, unemployment occurs when national aggregate labour (by which jobs are filled) exceeds national aggregate demand (by which jobs are created). Immigration increases national aggregate labour, but also increases national aggregate demand by a corresponding proportion. Thus, in a competently managed economy, immigrants will never fill more jobs than they create, and therefore never increase net unemployment. Depending on the distribution of demand, immigrants can even create more jobs than they fill, thereby decreasing net unemployment (this is especially likely when immigrants include dependents (e.g. children, elderly) who create jobs without filling jobs).

Where immigrants do fill more jobs than they create, it is the fault not of immigration, but of state incompetence in managing the economy. The real phenomenon behind current unemployment in relation to immigrant workers is a specific one: immigrant workers working in countries whose currency is worth more, and saving up part of their earnings to spend in countries whose currency is worth less. The effect is a greater increase in national aggregate labour than increase in national aggregate demand in the high-value-currency country, hence unemployment. (In the low-value-currency country, the effect is inflation.)

This problem is not solved by anti-immigration policy, because immigrant workers are far from the only people who earn money in high-value-currency countries and spend it in low-value-currency countries; citizens of high-value-currency countries do exactly the same thing via offshore investment, tourism, long-distance shopping, etc.. Hitler pointed out: “The egoist doesn’t care about the public interest. He fills his pockets, and sneaks off abroad with his foreign currency. One cannot establish a money’s solidity on the good sense of the citizens.” And in the final analysis it makes no difference who is earning and spending in this way; all that matters is that money is flowing from where it can buy less to where it can buy more, in other words that something somewhere is being bought up for less labour than was required to produce it (!), which is the root of Jewish profit what creates the problems in the first place. But by diverting attention to immigrants, the real issue is concealed.

But don’t expect ZC or BS propaganda to tell you this.

A politician finally saying what we have been saying for years. (Too bad he didn’t see that the correct solution requires abandoning the Euro currency.)

The National Socialist solution is simple: require all money earned in one country to be spent in the same country. This is trivially achieved by establishment of a labour-backed fiat currency legally defined to have zero value outside of its country of origin (which is what a National Socialist state would do anyway for other reasons, such as to ensure a wholly barter-based foreign trade). This would instantly preclude immigrants from driving down wages in high-value-currency countries with the anticipation of spending their earnings more lucratively elsewhere.

Anyone should be free to seek and take up honest employment in any country where his skills can find positive use; it is fundamentally unethical to prohibit him from doing so, since nobody chooses in which country he is born. In Hitler’s words: “National Socialism has introduced into daily life the idea that one should choose an occupation because one is predisposed to it by one’s aptitudes, and not because one is predestined for it by birth. Thus National Socialism exercises a calming effect. It reconciles men instead of setting them against one another.” But whatever is earned must be reinvested in full measure back into the national economy from which such earnings came; failure to do so is similarly unethical. Such a policy would automatically discourage immigration of dishonourable workers whose sole intention is to take advantage of currency inequalities to become wealthy for less labour, while at the same time it would encourage immigration of honourable workers genuinely wishing to contribute, thereby improve the quality (likely including genetic quality) of the folk. This and this alone is authentic National Socialism. By contrast, any policy of deliberately making life miserable for immigrants is just bullying, and will never be endorsed by authentic National Socialists.

Golden Dawn has advocated raiding hospitals and kindergartens and throwing children of immigrants out of windows onto the street. This is neo-Nazism, not National Socialism.

External link: I Can’t Relax in Greece

External link: Clandestina

The correct term for flat anti-immigrant politics is nativism, not nationalism (regardless of what the ZCs and BSs say*). Real nationalism aims at an immigration policy that helps the country become independent. As a simple example of how nativism and nationalism differ, in a situation where the country is short in a skill needed for a task, the nativist would prefer the task to be outsourced to another country, whereas the nationalist would prefer immigration by those possessing the required skill.

“In this National Socialist society nothing will be left undone to find their proper place for competence and talent. We really want every man to have his chance. … It’s important to appreciate, without prejudice, everyone’s aptitudes and faults—so that everyone can occupy the place that suits him, for the greatest good of the community.” – Adolf Hitler

(* Then again, ZC and BS views often go beyond even nativism, as they advocate discrimination against ethnic minority natives as well as immigrants! When faced with WNs railing against the “millions of non-whites” living in Europe, the fastest way to shut them up is to ask them how many “whites” live outside Europe.)

External link: This 1-Minute Debate Perfectly Captures the Shameful Racism of Anti-Immigration Arguments

Viktor Orban is neither nativist nor even anti-immigrant, but straight-up racist.

Positive Borders

“National-Socialism accepts that individuals should fulfil the role which is suited to their character, talents and abilities, and it aims to create the type of society where individuals can make the best use of their talents and abilities. That is, National-Socialism values personal character.” – David Myatt

For the record, the sign faces towards the people entering National Socialist Germany.

Another right-wing strawman consists of accusing anyone sympathetic towards immigrants of wanting a “borderless world”. Our response to this is that a border is not supposed to be a barrier. Belief in borders does not equate to opposition to immigration, much less to hostility towards immigrants. Authentic National Socialism reconciles a strong belief in borders with a positive attitude towards immigration through our concept of folk.

Borders are a good idea, as they allow different leadership, laws, economy, etc. in different countries, with clear demarcation as to which institutions apply where. Barriers are a bad idea, as many people will be born in a country whose institutions they disagree with. Nobody should have to contribute their labour to a country whose institutions they disagree with – to do so is slavery. Barriers keep in people who want to leave, and keep out people who want to enter, in both ways leading to a sub-optimal folk. For a simple analogy, borders are like having a smoking section and a non-smoking section, and then barriers are like preventing non-smokers in the smoking section from moving to the non-smoking section, and vice versa.

“No one can be … prevented from residing in the place of his choice, or compelled to reside in a given locality. … Foreign nationals may acquire citizenship of the Reich within the framework of the law.” – David Myatt

There is another very important reason why refugees should not be limited to fleeing to countries adjacent to the disaster-struck country. If refugees were only allowed to flee to adjacent countries, this would quickly result in disproportionate overburdening of the adjacent countries. Thus there would exist incentive for disasters to be deliberately engineered by economically/militarily powerful countries in a country distant from themselves so as to throw not only the disaster-hit country but also the whole surrounding region into chaos, from which the economic/military powers can then geopolitically benefit. On the other hand, by allowing refugees to choose where to go, they will automatically distribute themselves. This ensures that adjacent countries to the disaster will not be disproportionately overburdened, and hence greatly reduces the above geopolitical incentive for economic/military powers to engineer disasters in distant regions.

Empathy, not “human rights”

External link: JRS

External link: Refugees Welcome

External link: Workeer

External link: Be Kind to Refugees

The point of having many countries is to provide people with varied choices of homeland, so that each person can live somewhere towards which they can contribute with optimal enthusiasm, in the knowledge that they are contributing to a homeland that they freely chose. A borderless world would deny people such choice. Barriers would also deny such choice. Choice requires both the existence of options and access to such options. Globalists want to remove the options; identitarians want to remove access; both obstruct the formation of folkish states, and both are in fact accomplices to exploitation. It is especially important for the borders of an autocratic state to not be barriers, as the best defence of a dictator against accusations of tyranny is to point out that people dissatisfied with his dictatorship are free to leave, and at the same time one of the highest accolades a dictator can receive is when people from other lands freely immigrate to his land for the sake of serving him.

“I assert that a great number of the foreign workers in our country did their work quite voluntarily once they had come to Germany.” – Albert Speer

External link: Migrants Help Clean Up After Venice Tornado

External link: Syrian Refugee ‘Pays Back’ German Kindness with Food for the Homeless

External link: Rochdale Floods: Syrian Refugees Who Travelled through Calais Join Fightback

External link: African Asylum Seekers Join Avalanche Relief Effort

External link: Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Austria Help to Feed the Poor

In blood memory terms, hostility to immigrants can be considered an offshoot of the “hunting ground” or “pasturage” mentality where immigrants are seen as competition for prey or flock grazing space respectively. This is not applicable to a farm environment, where what matters more is the willingness of immigrants to share the workload. In particular, it is a basic duty of a state to give hospitality to refugees fleeing danger, on the condition that they are willing to earn their keep by doing any labour assigned to them by the state until such time as they find private sector employment. National Socialism is not against refugees, but against idlers (refugee or not, and indeed native no less than foreign) who depend on taxpayers for their living expenses. During WWII, National Socialist Germany took in hundreds of thousands of homeless or otherwise impoverished non-German children to receive free state care in the Kindererziehungslager system, where they received fast-track vocational (e.g. skilled trade) as well as general (e.g. German language) education so that they could contribute to national productivity and hence acquire German citizenship as soon as possible. Also, when National Socialist Germany fell at the end of WWII, many NSDAP members were accepted as refugees in non-Western countries around the world, for which we continue to be grateful towards every one of the states which took them in, and hence make it a principle that we would do the same for others. Compared to the tediously negative discussions about asylum seekers promoted by nativists/racists, a positive National Socialist discussion about asylum seekers would involve how the state can best channel this newly available labour into public works projects.

“We must imbue them with a feeling of pride in being invited to go to a country where they will not find their bed nicely made for them, but will be compelled, on the contrary, to create from the beginning—and we must make them understand that we expect them to build up something truly magnificent. One attraction which will certainly appeal to the young is that by emigrating in this fashion they will find opportunities for promotion infinitely more rapid than those of their less enterprising comrades who remain quietly at home, content to follow the beaten track.” – Adolf Hitler

External link: Italian Mayor Saves His Village by Welcoming Refugees

External link: For German City, Flood of Refugees Brings Hope

External link: Undocumented Immigrants Pay Billions of Dollars in Federal Taxes Every Year

What National Socialism opposes is dual citizenship, which flouts the concept of borders by permitting divided loyalty. A National Socialist state would prohibit all its citizens from simultaneously being a citizen of any other state. What we are looking for in immigrants is willingness to commit oneself to our folk.



“Everyone must realize that what he gives makes no contribution toward the setting up of the community of the nation, unless it does mean a sacrifice for him. For, in the last resort, it is only thus that we can build up that higher solidarity which we must seek to attain if we are to overcome the other.” – Adolf Hitler

The Aryanist model of cultural integration is not assimilation (ie. the numerical minority submitting to the numerical majority) nor is it appeasement (ie. the numerical majority submitting to the numerical minority), nor is it multiculturalism (ie. simultaneous catering to all differences). Instead, it is a positive approach that asks for everyone to change their habits so as to meet at a higher cultural level, in other words UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.

A good example of this model is the Sikh institution of langar (charity meals for the local community). Historically, Sikhs lived in regions also inhabited by significant populations of Hindus, for whom consumption of beef is forbidden, and Muslims, for whom consumption of pork is forbidden. In order that the entire community could regularly eat together and socialize as one, the langar did not require Hindus to eat beef, nor Muslims to eat pork, nor did it serve different meals to each group, but simply served a single menu of completely vegetarian food across the board. This is especially notable since only a minority of Sikhs themselves were usually vegetarians. In other words, by coming together, everyone ended up improving more than if they had remained apart. And by everyone excelling together to a higher level where the differences between them vanish, unity was achieved with utmost elegance, to the extent that some Hindu and Muslim organizations subsequently adopted the practice of langar themselves.

External link: Langar

External link: Why Homeless Britons Are Turning to the Sikh Community for Food

“It is a wonderful thing to go among the people and to help them. … The opportunities for such work are countless – in people’s homes, in factories, on board ship, in the spheres of recreation, advice on various questions, social and cultural betterment – and, what is more, these opportunities are taken.” – Adolf Hitler

(Contrast this with the Zionist-prodded debate over animal slaughter methods that has pro-halal and anti-halal useful idiot groups each accusing the other of endorsing a more cruel slaughter method, while nobody wonders why such a debate never occurred in all the time that kosher slaughter has been around. To say nothing of the Gentile street gangs which deliberately gather outside mosques and consume large quantities of pork and alcohol just to annoy people inside. Contrast also with the Golden Dawn version of food handouts that excludes ethnic minorities from receiving food.)

Thus, when discussing how to culturally integrate a population involving immigrants from different cultures, it should not be a discussion of what the immigrants must get used to, nor of what non-immigrants must accomodate, nor of how to permit everything at the same time. It should rather be a discussion of how we can all take this chance to give up our own ignoble cultural habits and rejoin as a more noble society - an endeavour which indeed many might have lacked the motivation to attempt in more traditional societies.

The swastika’s unifying power lay in the fact that, not being a historical German symbol, it represented a fresh start for the whole society, as opposed to requiring any one part to unilaterally bend to any other part.

In order to pave the way towards such a discussion, there are preliminary steps that we can take to remove some of the most obvious barriers to sincere communication. In this we bear in mind Hitler’s advice: “Never is it more necessary to direct the mind of a folk towards the vital and inexhaustible powers of its inner being than when political and social and economic troubles tend to weaken faith in the nobler qualities which the nation incarnates, and thereby hinder the fulfillment of its mission.”

What immigrants can do:

1) Voluntarily renounce citizenship/residency of your former country, even if this is not legally required to obtain citizenship/residency in your new country. Discard all national flags and other national symbols of your former country.

2) Become fluent in the official language of your new country as quickly as possible. Speak only this language in public, and whenever possible at home also. This language, not the language of the country from which you emigrated, should be the first language of your offspring.

3) If subjected to violence or intimidation, do not relocate. Such tactics are aimed at pressuring you to move from your home; by moving, you indicate to the far-right that their tactics are effective and thus encourage them to use the same tactics on others. Stay put, be trained and equipped to defend yourself (purchase firearms and ammunition if legal) and seek support from fair-minded people in your community.

What non-immigrants can do:

4) Do not assume that anyone is an immigrant based on appearance. Criticize others who make such unfounded assumptions. Do not patronize anyone with special treatment, either favourable or unfavourable, on the basis that they are immigrants.

5) Openly counter all attempts by ZCs and BSs to incite hostility against immigrants. Expose their technique of manipulation through fear. Emphasize that whatever one’s opinion may be about handling of immigration issues by one government or another, it does not entitle one to harass immigrants themselves. Instill the mentality that hostility against immigrants who are part of a local community is hostility against the local community as a whole.

What both immigrants and non-immigrants can do:

6) Make an effort to socialize across denominational lines. Identify foremost with your locality, be it a neighbourhood, a town, etc.. Use the pronoun “we”/”us”/”our” to refer to this locality. Be a regular customer of local small businesses. Donate to and volunteer at local charities. Be prepared to physically defend fellow members of your local community against violence by far-right gangs, ideally by forming neighbourhood patrols (which can also do peaceful community work).

7) Remind others that these times of economic hardship are ultimately a test of character, in which the cowardly will increasingly preach division while the heroic will insist on goodwill in spite of all. Those who fail this test will be those who allow the hardship to defeat them, that they choose the coward’s road. Those who triumph will be those who pull together and compensate with spiritual rapport what we lack in material security.

External link: Why People Are Wearing Safety Pins on Their Clothes

Don’t let the Joker win!