“Today, after an enormously aimless use of old forms, we are presently witnessing an equally directionless anarchy exhaust itself furiously. We have still not reached the ebb.” – Alfred Rosenberg
It is a misfortune (and an intentional consequence of Zionist propaganda) that many anarchists today like to cite National Socialists as the ultimate examples of people who do not value freedom. Many anarchists who take trouble to converse with us are surprised by our respect for citizens’ private lives, though they also find that we define privacy differently than they do. The truth is that the authentic National Socialist values freedom infinitely more rigorously than even the most extreme anarchist. We emphasize this because, while a committed anarchist (or libertarian) will never make a good National Socialist, there are many intuitive freedom-lovers in search of ideology who could potentially make good National Socialists but who currently tend to turn instead to anarchism out of misconception that anarchism is the primary freedom-loving ideology, and it is of these whom we should try to salvage as many as possible from ignorance.
Do you seriously think Jews are scared of this?
Many anarchists (including the Occupy Wall Street movement), who emphasize their commitment either to complete non-violence or at least to opposition towards military organization, at the same time claim to be enemies of Jewish power. To such anarchists we ask: exactly how do you expect to defeat the longest-lasting mafia in world history without absolute leaders, chain of command and the willingness to use retaliatory force of arms? As Alfred Rosenberg lamented when he dealt with similar problems in his own time: “They are still disunited because the type of the future must first be worked out and the supreme value of honour has not yet been unconditionally accepted. The great idea emanates from a few, but in order to form others into leaders, these few must tolerate in leading posts only personalities to whom the ideas of honour and duty have become the supreme values.” All true anti-Zionists should thus immediately give up being anarchists. Those who refuse to do so are not enemies of Jewish power, but merely hobbyists whose hobby is complaining about Jewish power.
The Problem of Power
“What would happen to a factory given over to anarchy, in which the employees came to their work only when the fancy took them?” – Adolf Hitler
The anarchist believes in villains who will surely do great evil if given state power, but disbelieves in heroes who will do great good if given state power. This comes down to the anarchist conception of good as something that does not require state power to accomplish, and consequent identification of evil with state power itself. They see a world in which everything was going fine until the state – a superfluous institution - showed up and caused all the problems. They do not see any good the state can do that could not be done (or at least be much more difficult to do) without the state.
This is not really true, as we shall see below. Anarchists are only against statal authority.
The National Socialist believes in villains, but also believes in heroes. In our conception, which is fully the opposite of the anarchist’s, it is evil which does not require state power to accomplish (in the words of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (Jew): “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”), but which definitely requires state power – and moreover state control over reproduction - to realistically oppose. We see a world demographically dominated by non-Aryan genetics in which a tiny minority of people with just enough Aryan genetics to care about ethical problems have struggled for thousands of years to improve the situation, but have never achieved anything near success except when we happened to hold state power (and even then only briefly and inconsequentially due to neglecting to control reproduction).
“In my own little homeland, when the lads of the village met in the local tavern, their social instincts rapidly degenerated, under the influence of alcohol, into brawling, and not infrequently finished up in a real fight with knives. It was only the arrival of the local policeman which recalled them to the realisation that they were all fellow-members of a human community.” – Adolf Hitler
This is not to say that the National Socialist is unwary of the dangers of state power in the wrong hands. But our wariness is on the spiritual level. We believe that state power is essential for us to complete our mission; our worry relates to the enjoyment of power that leads the insufficiently noble to forget about the mission after obtaining power. Therefore our focus is on giving power only to those least likely to enjoy possessing it.
Sailor Moon can surely be trusted with power!
Who Loves Freedom More?
“The idea of honour is inseparable from the idea of freedom.” – Alfred Rosenberg
The anarchist narrative is that we are born free, and that it is the state which makes us prisoners. This is a total inversion of the truth. The truth is that there is not a person in the world past or present who ever had any say over his own birth, who ever gave prior consent to being born at all (let alone had any choice over where, when and to whom he was born). Therefore to be born is in itself to be a prisoner. Anyone who does not recognize the primordial imprisonment of birth is not only unqualified to talk about freedom, but indeed insults the word “freedom” by doing so.
The National Socialist narrative is that we are born imprisoned, and that if we seek salvation not just for ourselves as individuals but for society as a whole, then a state dedicated to joining our will and organizing our talents in united opposition to our imprisonment – in UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY - is the only practical solution. (On this account, we certainly despise states without such a goal at least as much as anarchists despise states as a whole.) We accept the term “born free” in only one sense: we were born with Original Nobility which made us aware of our captivity, so that we are at least initially not slaves willing to abjectly accept and perpetuate it. It is in fact the anarchists who, despite once having this awareness also, have subsequently accepted their captivity with such servility that they have forgotten about it.
“Never forget, never forgive.” – Savitri Devi
Building a fortress inside a prison
Our criticism of anarchism therefore differs from the traditional statist criticism of anarchism. Traditional statists consider anarchism too idealistic, to the extent of impracticality. They believe anarchy would be nice enough if it worked, but that it cannot work, and therefore accuse anarchists of “asking for the impossible”. In contrast, we consider anarchism not idealistic enough even if it could work, because we are aware of all the problems that would forever remain unsolved in a world under anarchism, and it is these problems that we are determined to solve.
“In England and Wales alone, in one year, there are over 600,000 recorded incidents of domestic violence.” – David Myatt
A prime tenet of anarchism is voluntary association in social relationships. On this topic, we give due credit to the anarchist for at least figuring out the obvious truth that democracy demands involuntary association, since the minority must live with the government voted into power by the majority but not by themselves. But this does not excuse the anarchist’s willingness to completely overlook the most fundamental involuntary association of all: the family. This is no random blind spot, but conclusive evidence that anarchism is an entirely abstract intellectual construct devoid of any serious degree of empathic emotional engagement.
It does not bother the anarchist that children all around the world are generally stuck with the family they happen to be born into but which they never chose. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily complains about state-owned media, that children are forced without alternative to listen daily to their parents (whom they never chose) during the totality of the most formative years of their lives. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily complains about state-passed laws, that children are required to live by the rules (which they never agreed with) of the house (which they never chose) and be punished for disobedience. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily complains about police brutality on the street, how much violence - legal or illegal - has been visited upon children behind the closed doors of the family residence. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily cites the Ministry of Love from Nineteen-Eighty-Four, how many generations of children throughout history and prehistory have been tortured – subtly or unsubtly - until their Original Nobility has been crushed and have come out the other side believing that their parents love them, and joining the traditional culture to do the same to their own children in turn.
The victim matures and becomes the oppressor.
The National Socialist, in contrast, is disgusted by this to his core.
“Children who grow up in the company of subversive-minded parents themselves become rogues, for their mothers are invariably of the same pernicious ilk as their rogue fathers.” – Adolf Hitler
“The merciless “conditioning” of children, all the more horrible that it is more impersonal, more indirect, more outwardly “gentle”; the clever diffusion of soul-killing lies (and half-lies); violence under the cover of non-violence.” – Savitri Devi
The National Socialist has recognized the sad fact that involuntary association will exist so long as births continue to occur at all, a reason why material existence itself is unsatisfactory to us. In the meantime, the threefold duty of the state is to minimize the number of incidences of involuntary association by reducing birth rate, to provide sanctuary to victims of family violence, and to punish its perpetrators. In Hitler’s words: “When I meet children, I think of them as if they were my own. They all belong to me.” No such sentiment is felt by the anarchist, indeed it is a common anarchist talking point to preposterously assert the opposite: that it is ”prying” or ”intrusion” to care about any children except one’s own offspring or at most the offspring of close relatives.
“Man … has the same urge as the dog, the rabbit and the hare, to couple up with one other being as a separate entity. The social State as such can be maintained only by a rule of iron; take away the laws, and the fabric falls immediately to pieces.” – Adolf Hitler
The only kind of statism we support
The error of traditional statism was to conceive of the nation as an extension of the family, and hence state authority as an extension of patriarchical/matriarchical authority. This has led to the assumption that all statism is based on this axiom. Hitler recalls the embarassment of an especially ill-informed acquaintance who presumed this was true even of National Socialism: “Before giving [Wagner] a chance to speak before a big gathering, I had the prudence to try him out before twenty or so faithful followers gathered at the Sternecker beer-hall. What faces they pulled when they heard the worthy soul, with trembling hands and waggling head, recommending the reconstruction of a State in which “the clan was based on the family, the stock upon the clan, and the common mother upon the stock”.”
Based on this falsehood, the anarchist has then argued along the lines of: “Why these extra layers of social structure? Why not just leave it at the family?” and then strut around as though he has ideologically defeated statism when in fact he has at best defeated only traditional statism.
Positive statism, on the other hand, justifies the state as a necessary counterweight to family power. In this capacity, the existence of the state is not only justified but indeed an ethical duty of vigilance, whereas anarchism amounts to negligence. This perspective can be found in Plato who advocated eliminating the family altogether in favour of communal childcare (with nobody aware which child was born to which parents), in the medieval Janissary system, and was the theory behind the Hitler Youth, in Hitler’s own words: “The development of the human being makes it necessary to take the child from the control of that small cell of social life which is the family and entrust his further training to the community itself.” It is based on the awareness that each family is itself a ready-made tribe, which will tend to compete against other families in society for dominance, instead of simply serving society with goodwill. in Hitler’s words: “Nepotism has never been a happy formula; and this is how a work cemented by the blood of a people can be systematically destroyed.” Consider trivially that something like the Rothschild dynasty, or indeed Jewry itself, would be absolutely impossible in a Platonic society, and it will be easy to understand why Jews promote anarchism. (Some Gentiles promote anarchism for the same reason.) National Socialism merely goes two steps deeper in the struggle against family power by firstly retaliating against the demographic violence of reproduction itself, and secondly seeking to Aryanize the gene pool along the way.
It should be noted that many anarchists are, like ourselves, open-minded towards various methods of improving genetic quality, including genetic engineering. However, their conception of such applications involves giving parents (or, more precisely, the fraction of parents who can afford to pay private genetic engineers for the service) control over the genetics of their children, rather than giving the state control over the genetics of the nation. From the National Socialist perspective, this is insanity. One need only look at the escalational measures taken by parents in preparing their children to compete for limited school places to surmise that private-purchase genetic engineering would only add more fuel to the fire, with the focus being primarily on traits that facilitate the child to outcompete other children. Increasingly children would be tailored to their parents’ specifications, designed to be what their parents want them to be and to do what their parents want them to do in life, instead of having a chance to let their Original Nobility shine.
“It’s ridiculous that a child should ever feel obliged to take up his father’s profession. Only his aptitudes and gifts should be taken into consideration. Why shouldn’t a child have propensities that his parents didn’t have?” – Adolf Hitler
“The State … will have to be the supreme protector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of. Its attention and care must be directed towards the child rather than the adult.” – Adolf Hitler
We will fight against this every step of the way.
By now it has been completely exposed that the anarchist does not love freedom at all. What the anarchist actually loves (consciously or subconsciously) is unrestricted family power, and he opposes the state merely because the positive state places limitations on family power. This is also true of the more moderate libertarian. They wholly fail to live up to their claim of being “against all authority”; they are instead merely against any authority that could threaten their own authority within their family units! As such, they would be more honest by ceasing to call themselves “anarchists” or “libertarians” and instead calling themselves patriarchists/matriarchists, for in a stateless society that is where power will surely be concentrated.
And herein is the enormous danger. Tyrannical states build resentment among their oppressed classes by keeping them powerless throughout their entire lives, so that the only way for this resentment to be released is through uprising against the state. This is not the case with the family. The family is unique among all tyrannies in that it gives each generation its own turn to be in power after it has done its time as the powerless. Thus it offers an alternative – and most fundamentally ignoble - means for its oppressed to release their resentment: by becoming the oppressors of the next generation. In this way, it perpetually avoids internal revolt irrespective of the cruelty of its culture.
“The Lord of this world is a Demiurge who breathes, creates and recreates, … at the end of which he devours everything, eating his own dream, his illusory Universe, to begin again. So divine spirits, warriors from another Universe, have now infiltrated here, able to change everything … fighting for immortality and the redemption of this world, to snatch it from the jaws of the Demiurge … Jehovah moved all his reserves and made use of a completely unexpected weapon: the treason of the divine ones … the passage of an army of divine warriors to the ranks of the Demiurge, tempted by his Will to Power and the promise of an illusory participation in the Great Game of shadows, seduced by the shadowy grandeur of this Drama of Eternal Return, an illusory eternity within time, of deaths and apparent regressions, of the Eternal Return of the Same. He tempted them with the power and glory of the Demiurge and the secret desire to come to replace him.” – Miguel Serrano
The most diabolical Goy Wheel of all
In avowed noble opposition to prevent this ultimate sustainable evil from dominating the future as it has dominated the past, National Socialism is nothing if not the most conclusively sincere freedom-loving ideology in existence.
“I shall start the necessary re-education with the young. I’ll tell them: ‘Don’t follow the example of your elders.’” – Adolf Hitler
The Ouroboros ends with us!