“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

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, class became the ignition fuel for conflict in the early 20th century. In the wake of mass cosmopolitanism in the late 20th century, race is poised to become the 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. The best that genuine ideologists can do is join the discussion as the third-position and hope for the best.

It is necessary that Aryanists above all understand that 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 by their own means without interference and everything will work out by itself. In the race conflict, they are known as globalists. They preach that we should just let everyone settle wherever they want without 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.

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 ethnonationalists. 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.

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 National Socialists, and also as Aryanists. We preach that so-called ‘races’ (actually ethnicities) should see beyond their differences to unite as a folk in every country, 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.

People with a poor understanding of Zionism – in particular its technique of backlash politics – may be confused by this description, as they see mainstream politicians also apparently in favour of unification. They fail to see that the mainstream politicians have never really promoted unification at all, but have merely been building up resentment and hostility 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.

“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

Serious proponents of unity see through the Zionist charade because 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 never self-identify, even in casual settings, using conventional ethnic categories. When required to fill forms, we should pick ‘Other’ or ‘Mixed’ whenever practicable. 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. Indeed we should wherever practicable request that conventional categories not be used in our presence, on the grounds that we find such categories dishonourable. It is permissible to mention ancestral countries, 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 area (be it a neighbourhood, a town, a county, etc.) where they currently live or otherwise towards which most of their current 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 as Londoners, as West Midlanders, or as Marseillans, as Savoyans, and so on.

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. For example, just as last time the capitalists and the communists allied to defeat the National Socialists, so we can expect this time the globalists and the ethnonationalists to ally with the aim of defeating the Aryanists. We already see this occurring with the emergence of Zionist 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. For another example, just as last time the capitalists and communists both promoted the idea of progress in order to destroy the idea of Original Nobility, so we can expect this time the globalists and ethnonationalists to do exactly the same. This too we already see occurring with the increasing exaltation of secularism and identity interests to weaken the influence of idealism in general and religion in particular.

“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 ethnonationalism 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 ethnonationalism and globalism, especially those who espouse a third 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.

“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.