National Socialism and Communism

“Sacrifice is intrinsic to socialism. … The Jew, however, does not understand this at all. His socialism consists of sacrificing others for himself. … The struggle we are now waging today until victory or the bitter end, is in its deepest sense, a struggle between Christ and Marx.” – Joseph Goebbels

Marx (Jew): true founder of the Alt-Right?

The relationship between National Socialism and communism is poorly understood by many present-day leftists and rightists alike. By Marxism/communism, we refer strictly to theories that include advocacy against private property/business, against the worth of the individual, against religion, and for dispossession of the bourgeois class in favour of the proletariat class, for mandatory atheism, and for “unmasking” and “re-educating” perceived dissenters via gulag torture. We do not partake in the present-day far-right neurosis of smearing anything and everything outside of the far-right (e.g. universalist religions, non-racism, non-sexism, non-homophobia) as “Marxist” or “communist”, which is utter nonsense and reveals their ignorance of Cold War history. As a matter of fact, Cold War era communist countries tended to be much more socially conservative than capitalist countries, so that it was common for people living in communist countries to fantasize about capitalist countries as socially liberal paradises. It is innacurate to refer to freedom of migration as “communist”, as Cold War era communist countries did not even allow their own citizens to leave, let alone foreigners to settle in large numbers. It is also inaccurate to refer to the welfare state as “communist”, as communism assigns everyone capable of working to full-time work of the government’s choosing. It is certainly inaccurate to refer to LGBT mainstreaming as “communist”, as communists considered ”homosexuality” to be a symptom of bourgeois decadance, and threw “homosexuals” into gulags. And it is totally inaccurate to refer to positive opinions towards Islam as “communist”, considering that Islam has fought against communism throughout the latter’s entire history!

Indeed, considering the popular appreciation for the Iron Curtain among today’s far-right for shielding the people inside from the Counterculture ideas that spread around the rest of the world during the late 20th century, it could be argued that it is today’s far-rightists who are most communist-sympathetic. In fact, When today’s far-rightists talk about how much more masculine the “white working class” are compared to the “silver spoon fags”, they are making almost the exact same association between prole and masculine, and between bourgeois and non-masculine, that the real communists used to make in their propaganda. In this sense, they themselves psychologically resemble the real communists much more closely than those whom they wrongly label as “communists”. The only difference is that they add “white” in front of “working class” because they feel no solidarity with the “non-white” working class.)

External link: Marx Would Line Today’s Leftists Up Against the Wall and Shoot Them

And so would Lenin (Jew).

The theoretical Marxism that Hitler constantly spoke out against, and the practical communism whose spread in post-WWI Germany the NSDAP was initially created to counter, was an ideology which openly promoted division along class lines, in stark opposition to which Hitler and the NSDAP, though also socialist in method (“Only a planned economy can make intelligent use of all a people’s strength.” – Adolf Hitler), preached solidarity across class lines and elimination only of those who sow division (ie. the communists themselves). The NSDAP recruited frequently from within the communist parties in Germany at the time, and vice versa. The same was also true outside of Germany: Miguel Serrano, for example, was a communist convert to National Socialism. Thus National Socialism and communism are best understood as competing socialist antitheses to capitalism, as indicated in the NSDAP leaflet ridiculing communists entitled: “Is This Your Battle Against Capitalism, Marxist?” Certainly the capitalist would consider National Socialism more similar to communism than to capitalism, as Hitler recalled: “The Saxon bourgeoisie was incredibly narrow-minded. These people insisted that we were mere Communists. Anyone who proclaims the right to social equality for the masses is a Bolshevik!” One of Hitler’s many intellectual achievements was to expose both capitalism and communism as two poles of a false dichotomy that ultimately served Zionism.

Hitler never wasted any opportunity to openly mock the contrived alliance of the Allies; even well into WWII, he shared his comical mental imagery of the Allied leaders talking in private: “If Churchill goes to see Stalin, the latter will tear the hide off him! He’ll say to Churchill: “I’ve lost ten million men, thanks to your Mr. Cripps ! If he had kept his mouth shut, the Germans would never have attacked!”"

Team Zion

The team manager

The Problem of Oppression

“Our socialism goes far deeper … Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.” – Adolf Hitler

While stressing our differences from communists, we do accept the term “reds” as a label for ourselves, since this was a major colour (aptly in a deeper shade) of the flag of National Socialist Germany also.

The polemical starting point of National Socialism and communism is the same: the slavemaster is evil. The fatal mistake of the communist is to assume that because the slavemaster is evil, the slave must therefore be good. The communist ignores all measurements of genuine morality, and instead assigns superiority according to the mere condition of being oppressed. The National Socialist, in contrast, is aware that most slaves would gleefully become new slavemasters in an instant if given a chance to do so, and therefore are no better than the current slavemaster (not that this justifies their enslavement).

“So far, never and nowhere has there been a truly social state. Everywhere and always the upper crust has leaned much more strongly to the principle, ‘what is yours, is mine,’ than to, ‘what is mine, is yours.’ These wise ones have only themselves to blame for the fact the lower stratum, full of rage, now is committing the same error. The Jew is able to take advantage of both these groups. One of them provides for his affairs, the other carries them out. Therefore, we oppose them both.” – Adolf Hitler

Thus the National Socialist is addressing a more sophisticated problem than the communist. The communist is merely trying to overthrow the current slavemaster. The National Socialist is alert that not only must the current slavemaster indeed be overthrown, but also his replacement must not deteriorate into another slavemaster over time, which demands his ideology address the differing quality (including heritable quality) of people’s characters, as opposed to merely – as is the sole focus of the communist – their differing lots in life. While both communism and National Socialism supported anti-colonial movements, communism simplistically and in all cases called for proletariat revolution as the sufficient answer, whereas National Socialism’s case-by-case considerations included rediscovering pre-colonial aristocracies, promoting new cultural directions specific to a particular land, or even in some cases the possibility of transformation from a colonial empire to a folkish empire without territorial withdrawal.

“If a folk and a state take this course to develop that nucleus of the nation which is most valuable from the racial standpoint … the folk as a whole will subsequently enjoy that most precious of gifts which consists in a racial quality fashioned on truly noble lines.” – Adolf Hitler

The poison is inside the mushroom, not added during cooking.

The communist state is opposed to such things as private property and firearm ownership because it cannot even trust its people to be devout communists. The National Socialist state has no problem with private property or firearm ownership (indeed it demands compulsory firearm ownership) because it trusts its folk to be devout National Socialists. Hitler ridiculed communists thus: “Even for the Bolsheviks, the notion of collective ownership has its limits. Trousers … are regarded as private property.” And while both aim at encouraging contribution to state projects, communist propaganda does so by diminishing the importance of the individual compared to the collective, whereas National Socialist propaganda does so by exalting the importance of the individual. Again we see the unspoken communist distrust of its own followers: it assumes that individualism will always lead to selfishness, so its recourse is to drown its audience in collectivism. Again we see the unspoken National Socialist faith in its folk: it believes that by telling its audience that each one of them can be a hero, each one of them will live up to this inspiration.

This is because the communist state indoctrinates its population (in extreme cases via violent Pavlovian conditioning methods for behavioural modification) to accept communism irrespective of their inner quality, whereas the National Socialist state selects Aryan individuals to populate its folk. Even a genuinely benevolent communist state must ultimately monitor and control every aspect of people’s private lives in order to function; a National Socialist state, by retaliating against the demographic violence of reproduction, can afford to be largely non-intrusive in private matters.

The difference comes down to the thought process. Communism approaches the problem of oppression from a concept of “rights”, by positing that everyone has a “right” not to be oppressed. National Socialism approaches the problem of oppression from a concept of duties, by positing that everyone has a duty not to oppress others. Thus communism focuses on upholding the “rights” of the undutiful, whereas National Socialism focuses on the cultivation of the dutiful, in Hitler’s words: “There is no socialism except that which arises within its own folk.”

The Problem of Inequality

“Bolshevism preaches international class conflict … National Socialism aims at bridging over and equalizing unfavourable contrasts in social life, and in uniting the whole population in collaborative work.” – Adolf Hitler

The difference between the communist and National Socialist conceptions of inequality is rooted in historical narrative. The communist views history as a sequence of administrative improvements: serfdom an improvement over chatteldom; capitalism an improvement over serfdom. The replacement of capitalism by communism, according to the communist, is hence merely the last stage of a sequential progression from inequality to equality. In stark contrast, the National Socialist narrates history as a tale of spiritual degeneration: serfdom worse than chatteldom (because the serfs are less aware of their own enslavement, in absence of being overtly treated as property); capitalism worse than serfdom (because proletarians are even less aware of their own enslavement, having been given apparent choice in seeking employment). The National Socialist inevitably concludes that communism must be worse than capitalism because its success - portrayed as a proletarian victory over the bourgeois - would make its subjects totally unaware of their enslavement! National Socialism itself, on the other hand, is about struggling against this flow - which is not a flow towards increasing equality, but a flow towards increasing servility (ie. incapability of recognizing slavery). The condition of maximal and fully sustainable servility that would be brought about by communism, the so-called “Worker’s Utopia”, is just another name for Zion.

“Surely modern man does not ‘uphold’ slavery; he denounces it vehemently. But he practises it nevertheless – and on a wider scale than ever … The modern slave … is not openly bought and sold. He is just taken … by a huge impersonal system without either a body to kick or a soul to damn or a head to answer for its mischief.” – Savitri Devi

National Socialism is able to reach such a conclusion because its understanding of slavery is spiritual rather than material. Whereas communism identifies a slave as anyone who consumes less than he produces (so that, embedded within its own slogan: “From each according to ability, to each according to need,” is actually an admission that communism itself involves slavery by its own definition!), National Socialism identifies a slave intuitively as someone who lacks the will to freedom, or who lacks nobility. This also accounts for why communism insists on irreligion in its discourse whereas National Socialism welcomes universalist religion for supplementary inspiration, as these typically exhort voluntarily consuming less than we produce in order that we may help the downtrodden, yet do not (unlike communism) exhort producing as much as possible to one’s ability but instead recommend producing only what is essential.

“If positive Christianity means love of one’s neighbour, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians.” – Adolf Hitler

A communist state must continually tempt its people with the promise of great future prosperity in order to convince them to tolerate present hardship, as Hitler explains: “They have been promised happiness on earth (a feature which distinguishes Marxism from the Christian religion) — but in the future. The Jew, Mardochee Marx, like the good Jew that he was, was awaiting the coming of the Messiah. He has placed the Messiah conception in a setting of historic materialism by asserting that terrestrial happiness is a factor in an almost endless process of evolution. “Happiness is within your reach,” he says, “that I promise you. But you must let evolution take its course and not try to hurry matters.” Mankind always falls for a specious trick of that sort.” In contrast, a National Socialist state can persuade its people to be satisfied with less, indeed to learn to take spiritual pride in Aryan frugality and simple living.

For the very reason that communism grounds its entire narrative in materialism, a communist platform inevitably sets the “have-nots” against the “haves”. In contrast, National Socialism can convince people that common spiritual purpose unites them more strongly than differing material assets divides them, yet without losing sight of helping those in need of help. Through appeal to internal compassion (as Hitler describes the Winter Help Organization: “… inseparable unity, not only when all goes well, but when things go badly as well, unity not only with those who are blessed by fortune but also with those whose steps are dogged by ill luck …”), National Socialism redistributes wealth by voluntary charity infinitely more satisfactorily to both givers and receivers than communism could ever achieve by force. Indeed, with massive reduction in the range of luxury consumer products/services available for sale as well as the total termination of speculative investment under National Socialist government, giving any extra money to charity would become an increasingly spontaneous decision. One NSDAP propaganda poster boasted about the astonishing success of the project: “The train would have to be 6,000 kilometers long, stretching from Berlin to Addis Ababa, if it had to carry the 209 million hundredweights of materials contributed to the Winter Help drive during the years 1933-1935. That is socialism in action.”

Service Without Servility

“The greatest nationalism and the truest socialism are the same: the spirit of simple service to the community.” – Rudolf Hess

Grassroots do-gooders who wish only to help those in need and give to their local community are those most likely to be drawn strongly to either communism or to authentic National Socialism upon first encountering them, and indeed are those who would make the most exemplary footsoldiers of either ideology. Our opposition to communism, therefore, is not opposition to the broadly admirable character of the people who would at least prefer communism to capitalism at first glance. Our message is that such people have failed to think through the subject, or else they would have realized that communism will ultimately fall far short of satisfying their wish to serve a good cause. This is because all idealism is spiritual in origin, personal in exegesis and transcendent in destination. Communism, by limiting itself strictly to the material, impersonal and existential throughout its entire ideological presentation, could not possibly have been the product of a mind in touch with genuine ideals of any kind, but is rather the creation of a calculating herder who set out to deliberately dupe well-meaning people and drag them down to a profane condition, in Hitler’s words: “The Jew artfully enkindled that innate yearning for social justice which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once that yearning became alive it was transformed into hatred against those in more fortunate circumstances of life.” In this, our idealistic criticism of communism is entirely distinct from the capitalist cynical criticism of communism. Capitalists merely distrust the ability of communism to deliver on its material objectives; we despise communism for being devoid of spiritual objectives.

“Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.” – Adolf Hitler

In Hitler’s words: “National Socialism places no value upon a purely theoretical rule of the working class, but lays all the more value on the practical improvement of their conditions of life.” This is perhaps best seen in the differing attitudes of communism and National Socialism towards art. The communist considers art appreciation to be a form of bourgeois decadence indulged in by people with too much free time, hence throws talented artists into gulags and tries to stamp out wider societal interest in art. The National Socialist considers art appreciation one of the best ways to increase emotional sensitivity and bring people together as a folk animated by shared dreams, hence recruits talented artists for our intellectual inner circle and tries to make art accessible to poorer sectors of society which might previously have lacked access to it.

The immediate objectives which the communist worries about, the National Socialist worries about no less. The National Socialist state guarantees that nobody would have to worry about the necessities of daily life, that nobody would be hungry or homeless, that everyone who needs a living wage would be given a way to earn one by the state. But the higher objectives which the communist does not worry about, the National Socialist worries about also. Beyond giving people economic safety, our emphasis remains on raising the quality of the people themselves, on UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY. A society of less selfish, more empathic people would in the first place be less inclined to spend its time worrying about class differences, or indeed to pursue more wealth than is required to live a simple life, so that any disparities in wealth would be minor anyway. This in turn would be a society which its constituent individuals would spontaneously feel proud to serve.

Finally, unlike communism, National Socialism is emphatically not a utopian ideology in the sense of seeking to create and perpetually sustain a material paradise. Not only have we no interest in investing our effort to build such an entity, we would refuse it even if it were offered to us on a plate already built. This is not because we are less idealistic than the communists, but because we are more idealistic than the communists, so much so that all material existence in our eyes – including utopian material existence – cannot be anything other than imprisonment, since it remains an existence we never chose in the first place. As Hitler stated: “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian.” We despise the communist capable of being satisfied with material paradise in the same way that we despise a rape victim capable of being satisfied with a sufficiently large sum of compensation money. All utopianism is hedonism, and all hedonism is slavish. In contrast, we seek only to establish a temporary fortress, from which we intend singularly to complete our mission of transcending material existence altogether.


Further Information

Related Information