“We too experienced that once. Only a few years ago millions, probably by far the majority of the nation, steadfastly believed that the only solution of the tensions existing within the nation was to be found in struggle between the men in whom those tensions were embodied. Millions of our people regarded the class struggle as something that was perfectly natural, many could not understand that a new teaching had arisen which regarded this very class struggle as foolish and ineffectual.” – Adolf Hitler
People rarely see how history repeats itself until it is too late, because it repeats itself using different costumes.
In the wake of mass industrialism in the late 19th century, so-called “class” (actually income level) became the Zionist ignition fuel for conflict in the early 20th century. In the wake of mass cosmopolitanism in the late 20th century, so-called “race” (actually ethnic cluster) is poised to become the Zionist ignition fuel for conflict in the early 21st century. “Race” has replaced “class” as the provocative topic that, without any need for original thinking or even a proper understanding of the subject, any fool can bring up and immediately get an audience of other fools, which is exactly how Zionist revolts get started in order to distract people away from any genuine ideological revolution. Nothing has really changed since 100 years ago. We still have the same competing narratives, merely under new names to suit the new fashion.
Firstly we have the laissez-faire camp. In the class conflict, they were known as the capitalists. They preached that we should just let everyone pursue wealth without interference and everything will work out by itself. In the race conflict, they are known as globalists. They preach that we should just erase all national borders and everything will work out by itself. Their rhetoric is the same: societies find their own stable equilibria, artificial regulations never work, etc.. They attract the same personalities: the affluents and the establishment academics.
“This ability to believe is rather weak in some circles, above all in those with money and education. They may trust more in pure cold reason than a glowing idealistic heart. Our so-called intellectuals do not like to hear this, but it is true anyway. They know so much that in the end they do not know what to do with their wisdom. They can see the past, but not much of the present, and nothing at all of the future.” – Joseph Goebbels
Secondly we have the warmonger camp. In the class conflict, they were known as communists. They preached that war should be declared by the “proletariat” on the “bourgeois”, and that by removal of the latter, a prosperous society for the former can be established. In the race conflict, they are known as identitarians. They preach that war should be declared by the “indigenous” on the “immigrants”, and that by removal of the latter, a prosperous society for the former can be established. Their rhetoric is the same: the hardworking “proletariat”/”indigenous” create wealth while the lazy “bourgeois”/”immigrants” drain wealth; “bourgeois”/”immigrant” crimes against the “proletariat”/”indigenous” are covered up by the state, etc.. They attract the same personalities: the barbarians and the intellectual opportunists.
“Let us make no mistake about it. The danger that our nation be torn asunder still exists today. … Though its name has been changed from century to century, Bolshevism has always been present in the world.” – Adolf Hitler
Do you understand the Yin-Yang Goy wheel?
Thirdly we have the unification camp. In the class conflict, we were known as National Socialists. We preached that so-called ”classes” should see beyond their differences to unite as a folk in every country, and we offered a shared vision for them to unite under. In the race conflict, we are still known as (authentic) National Socialists (not to be confused with neo-Nazis), and also as Aryanists. We preach that so-called “races” living in the same country should see beyond their differences to unite as a folk, and we offer a shared vision for them to unite under. Our rhetoric is the same: Jews are the ones behind and poised to profit from our division, exploiting the Gentile propensity for fear and prejudice against presumed outgroups to turn one group against another, and that only the Aryan spirit of service can lift us above this condition once and for all. We attract the same personalities: the idealists and the radicals.
“It is all one to us what their origin was, as long as they can work to the benefit of our nation. That is the deciding factor. For we did not abolish class distinctions in order to set up new ones, we did away with them in order to be able to set the nation as a whole in their place. … Today there are simply citizens of the German state, men and women whose value is judged simply by their achievements.” – Adolf Hitler
Authentic National Socialism supports unification, not division.
Joseph Goebbels succinctly describes the spirit of our activism in a single word: “Antireactionary“. Dietrich Eckart elaborates: “A strange situation; from two directions we must ward off attackers who also fight one another. The Reds scream at us as reactionaries, and to the reactionaries we are Bolsheviks.” Aryanists of today have the exact same experience: the antifas call us ”neo-Nazis” because we are willing to name the Jew, while the far-rightists call us “liberals” because we are accepting of non-Jews of different ethnic backgrounds. In fact, we are the ones who are able to see that the laissez-faire camp is bankrupt, but also that the warmonger camp is even worse. We are the ones who see every single time that the predictable angry reaction by the masses is always part of the Zionist plan to turn one part of society against another, which is precisely what we are trying to prevent.
“Jewish influence was one of the chief causes of the disintegration that took place in Germany. If at the decisive hour National Socialism had not stepped in and brought this process of disintegration to a standstill, a condition of strife would have resulted, in which everybody would be against everybody else, and then we would have had that state of affairs which goes by the name of Bolshevism.” – Rudolf Hess
Those with a half-baked understanding of Zionism – in particular those who have not grasped its technique of backlash politics - are often confused by this description, as they see present-day mainstream politicians also apparently in favour of unification. They fail to see that the mainstream politicians have never sincerely promoted unification at all, but have merely been deliberately building up resentment and hostility in the masses with calls for “tolerance” (ie. putting up with what you cannot possibly like) or “diversity” (ie. rejecting unity outright) and describing people as hyphenated citizens (ie. [insert ethnicity here]-[insert citizenship here]) according to whatever lines they plan them to eventually fight along.
If unity were sincere, why emphasize the colours?
The best way to understand why far-right propaganda is able to seduce many minds today is to understand why communist propaganda was able to seduce many minds a century ago. What happened last time round was, in Hitler’s summary: “‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!’ – until one night they sent out the order, ‘Down with the bourgeois! Kill them, the dogs!’” What is happening this time round, unfolding in slow-motion before our eyes today, is: ‘Diversity, Tolerance, Multicultualism!’ – until suddenly they move the zeitgeist, ‘Down with the immigrants! Kill them, the Third-Worlders!’ The warmonger camp will invariably accuse everyone except themselves of being “brainwashed”, but who is really brainwashed here? Ordinary people simply getting on with their daily lives a hundred years ago, or communists who believed that all bourgeois deserved to have their property seized (or worse)? Ordinary people simply getting on with their daily lives today, or far-rightists who believe that all people of the ‘wrong’ ethnicity deserve to be thrown out of their homes (or worse)?
“The class struggle of bygone times has not succeeded in overcoming the causes of the struggle; all it has achieved has been in each individual case a temporary armistice, with sometimes the one and sometimes the other as the seeming victor. Indeed, it even seemed contary to the interests of the participants, and especially to those of the leaders, to do away with these causes once and for all by means of a fundamental solution.” – Adolf Hitler
There is an additional reason why the Zionists chose race war as their agenda this time round. Because they had seen that race in the National Socialist conception was used as a force for unifying society (via racial idealism), it became their strategic priority to prevent it from being used in the same way again. The best way to achieve this was to play their cards first and set up race as a force for dividing society (via racial identity, or what we could even call ethno-Bolshevism to make our point absolutely clear – Dietrich Eckart considered Moses (Jew) to be the first Bolshevik), so that the last thing anyone today would imagine is its potential application for unification.
“The GOYIM have knowledge of nothing, not even of the immediate effect of action; they put before themselves, usually, the momentary reckoning of the satisfaction of their selfopinion in the accomplishment of their thought without even remarking that the very conception never belonged to their initiative but to our instigation of their thought…” – Protocols of Zion
The Zionist charade has certainly fooled the reactionary warmonger camp, but it has certainly not fooled us. Hitler was not deceived by the communist portrayal of the bourgeois as evil and the proletariat as good, because he spent years on the streets in person (during his time as an unemployed painter) where he encountered innumerable examples of both kindness and cruelty among the bourgeois, and both kindness and cruelty among the proletariat also, which made it obvious to him that what mattered was the quality of people, not their income level. In exactly the same way, we are not deceived by the identitarian portrayal of the immigrants as evil and the indigenous as good because we have experienced first-hand in our own daily lives both kindness and cruelty among immigrants, and both kindness and cruelty among the indigenous also, which makes it common sense to us that what matters is the quality of people, not their ethnic background.
In every way the threat posed by communism a century ago, presenting itself as the answer to capitalism, is the same as the threat posed by identitarianism today, presenting itself as the answer to globalism. We see a boiling cauldron, the laissez-faire camp constantly trying harder and harder to keep the lid on and pretend there is no problem, and the warmonger camp constantly throwing more and more fuel onto the fire underneath. We advocate removing the lid and dousing the fire. We know that unification only occurs when the terminology causing division is thoroughly discarded in popular consciousness. When Hitler advocated unification in the 1930s, he did not use the warmonger terminology of “blue collar”, “white collar” etc. to do it, instead he changed the paradigm by talking about about the self-sufficient (National Socialists) versus the swindlers (Jews) and the robbers (colonialists). In the same way, when we advocate unification today, we do not use the warmonger terminology of “black”, “white”, etc. do it, instead we change the paradigm by talking about Aryans versus Jews and Gentiles.
On this note, Aryanists should – as a matter of principle – never self-identify, even in casual circumstances, using conventional ethnic categories. When required to fill forms, we should pick ‘Other’ or ‘Mixed’ whenever possible. In conversation, we should make a point of stating that we reject the conventional categories, and that in a sensible world the conventional categories would have fallen out of use since the end of the colonial era. In practical situations requiring reference to skin tone, purely descriptive terms such as ”dark-skinned”, “pale-skinned”, etc. are preferable to ethnocentrism-loaded terms such as “black”, “white”, etc.. Indeed we should wherever practicable request that conventional categories not be used in our presence, on the grounds that we find such categories dishonourable. Mention of ancestral countries is permissible, but all who can trace more than one ancestral country should consider themselves mixed, and regardless of ancestry all should associate themselves foremost with the local place where they currently live or otherwise towards which most of their energy of service is directed, thus opening the way for a folkish rather than ethnocentric mentality. While Jews and Gentiles ask purposefully divisive questions such as ”Who is British?” or “Who is French?”, we are uniting communities on the level of neighbourhoods and towns and counties.
“The English people is composed of races that are very different from one another and have not been blended together as in many other countries. There lies the danger that amongst them a class war may be transformed into a racial war. The English could escape this risk by ceasing to judge their fellow citizens in accordance with their outward aspects and paying attention, instead, to their real qualities.” – Adolf Hitler
Similarly, we must never use terms such as “First World” or “Third World” in the present-day sense. These were strictly Cold War era terms (“First World” referring to countries aligned with the USA, “Second World” referring to countries aligned with the USSR, and “Third World” referring to countries aligned with neither – for example, had National Socialist Germany lasted, it would have been a “Third World” country), and therefore should have fallen out of use after the Cold War ended. Yet in recent years, ZC media has re-popularized the terms as covertly ethnic terms, thereby enabling many people unwilling to use direct ethnic slurs to nevertheless make implicitly ethnocentric insults. For a positive alternative, we should instead refer to people as New World (ie. Americas) or Old World (ie. everything else), as these are the regions which must each establish good relations among its populations in future.
For in one respect is identitarianism more dangerous than any other way of creating conflict. One can convert people to the same ideology to avert conflict even after people have become convinced that ideology is important. Identity, on the other hand, allows for no conversion, so conflict is guaranteed as soon as people have become convinced that identity is important. The only way to avert conflict in this case is to prevent people from buying into identitarianism to begin with, which requires offering an alternative outlook.
“The Party must see to it … that society is not compartmentalised, so that everyone can quickly assert his gifts. Otherwise discontent raises its head, and the Jew finds himself in just the right situation to exploit it.” – Adolf Hitler
Jan Brewer (Jew), professional divider
The correct response: a new, more closely-knit unity
Now that we understand the equivalence between the class conflict and the race conflict, we can learn from the former as regards the likely tactics of the enemy. Now that we have emerged ideologically, they will surely try to move the zeitgeist increasingly fast so as to give no time for our ideas to take root. We already see this occurring with the gradual emergence of Zionist Correctness (their replacement for political correctness) that encourages bashing of Muslims and so-called “Third World” people in a desperate attempt to divide a potential Aryanist unity before it begins to form. We also see increasing exaltation of secularism and identity interests to weaken the influence of idealism in general and transcendent religion in particular. Any force that could be employed in service of social unification is being systematically undermined, as all these could interfere with their agenda of division.
“The intensified struggle for superiority and shocks delivered to economic life will create, nay, have already created, disenchanted, cold and heartless communities. Such communities will foster a strong aversion towards the higher political and towards religion. Their only guide is gain.” – Protocols of Zion
As time goes on, more and more parallels are likely to emerge, all of which can help us plan our countermeasures, provided we keep our eye on the larger picture. We should remember that Karl Marx (Jew) himself had no problem with explicitly blaming capitalism on Jews. This hardly meant that Marx was on our side, nor that communism was the correct answer to capitalism – it merely meant that Marx was trying to inundate the genuine anti-capitalist movement with aggressive proletariats. Similarly, David Duke (Gentile) being willing to explicitly blame globalism on Jews does not mean that Duke is on our side, or that identitarianism is the correct answer to globalism – it merely means that Duke is trying to inundate the genuine anti-Zionist movement with Boromir Syndrome infectees.
Boromir hates Sauron but likes the Ring.
Just as Hitler sought allies among those who rejected both capitalism and communism, our allies today will be found among those who at the very least reject both identitarianism and globalism, especially those who espouse another choice that posits an alternative paradigm cutting across the old categories, whatever that paradigm may be. It could be regional secessionism (e.g. Scotland, Occitania, Azawad, Ryukyu), cultural romanticism (e.g. Babylon, Rome, Camelot, even America in its idealized form), religious folkway (e.g. Christendom, the Ummah, Pure Land, etc.), lifestyle community (e.g. vegans, environmentalists, anti-consumerists, etc.) or quality-based racial idealism (e.g. Aryanism); any of these can find common ground with one another if the goodwill is there on both sides, and we must encourage this goodwill at every opportunity. The point is that people need to rally around something, and it is our task to give them something to rally around that leads to unity among non-Jews. If something suitable already exists, we must use it. If nothing suitable exists, we must create it.
“It was thus necessary that a new basis should be found on which to build a government which should be above the sides at war with one another.” – Adolf Hitler
Last time, when doomsayers claimed that a “class war” was inevitable, Hitler pulled off nothing less than a miracle by unifying the expected warring sides under the swastika. This time, as doomsayers claim that a “race war” is inevitable, it is down to us as Aryanists to repeat the miracle of the swastika once again.
And now do you understand the importance of UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY?