National Socialism and Fascism

Hitler and Mussolini

“Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a demi-divinity; even better, a myth. … Mussolini is a man.” – Carl Jung

The Axis connection between National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy (with Italian propaganda laughably claiming that Mussolini was a major influence on Hitler’s thinking) led to popular misconception that National Socialism is an offshoot of fascism, or a particular brand of fascism, when in fact the only relation between National Socialism and fascism was that both were countermeasures to the capitalist-communist dichotomy, which accounts for their political alliance. It is worth noting that anti-Zionism was not originally part of fascist ideology, but was only added after the rise of National Socialist Germany mainly for the sake of cementing the alliance. It should also be noted that many in the NSDAP had become positively embittered towards the PNF towards the end of WWII, considering it to have contributed to their defeat at the hands of the Zionist Allies.

“The roots go down to an overrating of Fascism. Blind to all disillusioning experiences of the First World War, Hitler seemed convinced, at least until 1943, that the will of Mussolini had made over the Italian people, had lifted them to a new level.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Nonetheless, Zionist agents have further pushed this conflation after WWII (smearing National Socialists as “fascists”, which we do not accept at all) in order to regulate National Socialism to a generic fascist strawman more easily dismissible by libertarian and other small-government advocates. With a new hostile dichotomy forming between fascist-leaning and libertarian-leaning camps in the present-day, it is important to realize that National Socialism stands politically apart from, and ideologically far above, this debate.

Will To Power vs Will To Freedom

“Fascism itself was not National Socialism, contrarily to what so many haters of both seem to think. It was a political — and economical — system; not a more-than-political creed; and it inspired a Movement of practical and immediate — of time-bound — significance, not one of cosmic scope.” – Savitri Devi

By fascism, we refer to autocracy that overtly uses statism over economy, media and other national apparatus to unite and energize society. It is symbolized by the ancient Roman fasces that celebrates the principle of strength through unity, in the sense that a bundle of rods is much more difficult to break than single rods. Indeed, a strong argument could be made that the principal example of fascism should be not Mussolini’s Italy, but ancient Rome itself, as Rudolf Hess alludes: “In a difficult time the Romans gave full power to a young and capable leader — and the Romans knew something about governing! They knew that “men make history.”” Mussolini’s Italy is a good example of fascism in the modern world on account of its revival of this Roman symbol to rapidly bring together what was before Mussolini’s time a deeply divided society, though it should be noted that Mussolini was not opposed to democracy on a fundamental level, given his own words: “Fascism is an autocracy on the road to democracy.” North Korea’s Juche (meaning “Integralism”) system is a good example of a present-day fascist system in practice, though it does not call itself such. Nevertheless, fascists (especially those who call themselves such) by definition should be essentially Roman in outlook.

Thus, contrary to antifa/mainstream media labelling, racist far-right groups which create not unification but division in society along ethnic or religious lines are not authentically fascist at all, but its utter opposite. They are about splitting the rods into many sub-bundles and then whacking one sub-bundle against the other until almost all the rods are broken. We could refer to them as fashies (in keeping with their own adjective “fashy” for describing themselves), as contrary to authentic fascists as neo-Nazis are to authentic National Socialists. No far-rightist would say what Mussolini said: “Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.” It is Mussolini’s view which echoes the Roman outlook, whereas the far-right view comes not from Roman civilization but from Western civilization, hence it would be more accurate for far-rightists to call themselves falangists after the heraldry of racists/Islamophobes Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. (Falangism was the ideology of Spain under Francisco Franco (Jew). After his first meeting with Franco, who was openly pro-Jewish, Hitler told Mussolini that he would rather spend the same amount of time having his teeth pulled out by his dentist than meet Franco again.) Mussolini was not Islamophobic at all: not only were Muslims allowed to join the PNF, but he especially created the AML (Muslim Association of the Lictor) in order to encourage them to do so. As such, we support any and all efforts by authentic (ie. non-racist, non-Islamophobic) fascists to reclaim the fasces - a symbol of unification - from fashies in the same way that we authentic National Socialists are reclaiming the swastika - a symbol of nobility - from neo-Nazis. As for antifa, the one thing they should remember is that the true anti-fascist was Churchill, a pro-colonialist racist.

Romans were not racist, therefore fascists should not be racist either.

The PNF was certainly not racist. In fact, citizenship in return for military service was a Roman policy first implemented by Augustus, which Mussolini was merely copying.

This is fascism. Those who dislike the idea should call themselves falangists, not “fascists”.

On the other hand, to say that National Socialism is a brand of fascism is equivalent to saying that veganism is a style of cooking; the statement is not technically incorrect, but is intellectually seditious by placing the focus on effect rather than cause. The simplest way to understand the key difference between fascism and National Socialism is to inspect the essence of their rhetoric:

Fascism: If we work together, we will have the power to achieve any goal we want. (“It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make a people great it is necessary to send them to battle even if you have to kick them in the pants. That is what I shall do.” – Benito Mussolini)

National Socialism: This is our goal. The only way to achieve it is to work together. ( “They are inspired by the feeling that they have a mission to fulfill, and we might just as well egg them on a little.” – Adolf Hitler)

Fascism does not specify the goal first. Instead, it promises the individual a return for his investment of participation – in the form of national power to achieve arbitrary goals. Mussolini’s most famous slogan: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” measures the value of everything else by its positive or negative effect on the state, but offers no fixed goal in relation to which the value of the state itself can be measured. In other words, power itself is the spiritual motivation for fascism, and it follows that the accomplishments of a fascist nation will always be mere frivolities to demonstrate its power to itself or to others. National Socialism, on the other hand, insists that power is strictly the means to achieve the goal – ending exploitation - which is specified at the beginning and thereafter made the focal point onto which everything else converges. For example, the fascist considers politics in general and war in particular to be among the best methods for character-building, and thus feels glad to be involved in them for their experiential value alone, whereas the National Socialist considers these to be unfortunate burdens, and thus approaches them purely out of a sense of duty and purely for the sake of defeating the enemy, in Hitler’s words: “A war-leader is what I am against my own will. If I apply my mind to military problems, that’s because for the moment I know that nobody would succeed better at this than I can.” National Socialism motivates individual participation not by glory, but by duty. National Socialism values not mastery, but nobility. Our effect might be strength through unity, but our cause is UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.

The swastika is the heart; the weapons are merely tools.

Fascism can be perfectly successful even when nobody (including its leaders) actually knows or cares about the purpose for which a nation exists, so long as its leaders keep the nation strong. This is not the case with National Socialism, where loyalty to purpose is paramount. In practice, therefore, fascists are merely statist glory-hounds, whereas National Socialists are genuine ideological warriors. While some fascists mistakenly call themselves National Socialists, usually because they from their fascist perspective are impressed by the order and efficiency of National Socialist Germany (as described by Hitler: “The fact that in the new Reich there will be only one army, one SS, one administration, will produce an extraordinary effect of power.”), the reverse does not happen. To call an authentic National Socialist a fascist is an insult, as it suggests we are motivated by strength as a goal rather than merely as a tool.

“Men “in Time” either have no ideology at all and do not pretend to have any, or they pretend to serve a faith “above Time” or “against Time” and exploit the latter for their own ends (like all the false Christians who fought for themselves in God’s name, and all the false National Socialists for whom the struggle under the Swastika Flag was only a means to work themselves into power).” – Savitri Devi

Part of the confusion arises because both onlookers see both fascists and National Socialists criticize “materialism” without realizing that the word is being used differently by each camp. By “materialism”, the fascist (much like the Orthodox Jew) merely means consumer products, which in excess distract individuals from the power motive. By “materialism”, the National Socialist refers not merely to consumer products, but to the power motive itself which the fascist (much like the Jew) worships! In our eyes, the fascist who relinquishes consumer products for the sake of national power is not an iota less materialistic than the consumerist, but merely more collectivist.

Despite its ideological inferiority, nevertheless on account of the advantages of its autocratic governmental form, a fascist nation has a possibility of rapidly developing into something more meaningful, for example when religion is able to supply the external purpose and the nation takes religion seriously enough to pursue it (such as Leon Degrelle’s concept of Christus Rex that led to the experiment of Rexism, intended as an ideology of ”Christian Socialism” for Belgium), or when its leader is converted to National Socialism over time. Bearing this in mind, we should generally prefer a fascist state over a democratic state in any country even when we do not agree with the political views of the current fascist leadership, since it at least simplifies the problem to one of winning over the leader – rather than the masses – to our ideology.

“It is only with the Roman Empire where one can say that culture was a factor under the government.” – Adolf Hitler

As National Socialists, we should be open-minded towards alliances with authentic fascists for the sake of common practical goals (e.g. anti-Zionism (“Think of it, the Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples!” – Adolf Hitler)), provided that the fascist leadership is of reasonable and respectable personality. On the other hand, National Socialists must be wary against degrading into fascists themselves, as the corrupting lures of power and grandeur are not to be underestimated. This is one challenge that National Socialist Germany did not last long enough to have to face. As anti-Zionists, it is our expectation that Zionist agents will do everything they can to infiltrate pro-autocracy movements for the sake of promoting wherever possible fascism over National Socialism, and falangism over fascism, and to confuse the distinctions between each under a broad banner of what they will call “fascism” but in fact will be falangism, so as to control such movements and serve the Zionist agenda through them.

Overman vs Foe Destroyer

“Lust for pleasure and so-called ‘glory’… is the mark of the barbarian.” – David Myatt

Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche

The supposed ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler is based on nothing more than a misleading photo-op of Hitler at the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, which he visited not on his own initiative but at the insistence of Elisabeth Foerster (a financial donor to the NSDAP). There is no evidence that Hitler considered National Socialism to be in any way inspired by Nietzsche; on the contrary, during private conversations with such as Hans Schemm he denounced Thule Society members (often the same ones interested in occult studies) who attempted to suggest a Nietzschean origin to National Socialism. In Hitler’s own words: “I’ve expressly and repeatedly forbidden this sort of thing! All that rubbish about the “Thing” places, the solstice festivals, the Midgard snake, and all the rest of the rubbish they dredge up from German prehistory! Then they read Nietzsche with fifteen-year-old boys and, using incomprehensible quotations, paint a picture of the superman, exhorting the boys: ‘That is you—or that is what you are to become.’” In fact, Hitler’s main philosophical influence was undoubtedly Schopenhauer, whose books he studied both by himself as a soldier during WWI, and later again under self-professed Schopenhauer disciple Dietrich Eckart. Alfred Rosenberg recalls those days of their private study group: “Occasionally, when I went to see him in the morning, he would meet me on the stairs and read me his latest effort right then and there. … Or else, Eckart might just have come across another beautiful passage in his beloved Schopenhauer, which he would insist upon reading to me on the spot.” Hitler’s other great influence was Wagner (himself a Schopenhauer disciple, by no coincidence), to the extent that he said: “Whoever wants to understand National Socialism must first know Wagner.” Nietzsche, in contrast, held a negative opinion of both Wagner and Schopenhauer (“The unworthy attempt has been made to see Wagner and Schopenhauer as types of mental illness: one would gain an incomparably more essential insight by making more precise scientifically the type of decadence both represent.” – Friedrich Nietzsche) Nietzshe also held a positive opinion of the Old Testament. Therefore it is impossible for National Socialism to be Nietzschean. It is fascism, if any political ideology, that is Nietzschean.

Internally, fascism is highly compatible with the concept of the Overman, and it is common for fascists to share attraction towards this idea in addition to their political views. In contrast (and despite what Zionist academia claims), National Socialism, which consistently associates itself with Aryan mythos, is more compatible with the ancient concept of the Foe Destroyer (Arhat). The difference between the two is that the Overman is advancement to a prospective condition (lit. by building ‘over’ the condition of ‘man’), making it a spiritual form of transhumanism, whereas the Foe Destroyer is reversion to an original condition (lit. by ‘destroying’ the ‘foes’ that corrupted this condition). Hence the former is based on a non-Aryan spirituality of endless increase, whereas the latter is based on an Aryan spirituality of Original Nobility.

“Fame is something which must be won; honour, only something which must not be lost.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

The fascist sees the main human dichotomy as masters and slaves, of which they wish to be masters. The National Socialist, in contrast, considers the master and the slave to be two aspects of the same thing: the barbarian. The National Socialist sees a different human dichotomy: barbarians and knights, of which we wish to be knights – defenders of all oppressed, bane of all oppressors. The barbarian is a spiritual slave, no matter how powerful he manages to become, because he lacks nobility. Only the knight is truly free.

“Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. I immediately tried to absorb the entire work, but something about it struck me as alien. That was, as I realized later, the overly pathetic, even theatrical element which, to me, appeared willful rather than perfect.” – Alfred Rosenberg

The Judgement of Paris

“The organization is only a necessary evil. At best it is only a means of reaching certain ends. The worst happens when it becomes an end in itself.” – Adolf Hitler

Judegement of Paris

Right, True Left and False Left in archetype

In mythology, the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite contested for Paris’ verdict of supreme beauty, with Aphrodite receiving his decision. The point here is not that Paris made the wrong choice; we as political revolutionaries already know that Aphrodite  - who represents gratification of a purely private nature - was the wrong choice. The point of a three-way contest is to warn us that there are two wrong choices.

“It is right here, in plain sight, even in one’s own name. Jung said that “freud” in German means pleasure. And Freud centered his theory precisely in sexual pleasure. “Adler” is bird of prey in German and his psychological doctrine took as its basis the instinct of power. “Jung” is youth, and the great doctor placed rebirth at the center of his teachings, standing on the prow of the ship of eternal youth. In his house a plaque reads: “We were young, we symbolize eternal youth.” He knew this.” – Miguel Serrano

We suspect that those who confuse fascism with National Socialism are precisely those who do not understand the difference between the gifts of Hera (who would make Paris ruler of the most powerful kingdom in the world) and Athena (who would make Paris invincible in battle). Common interpretation would have us deduce that assurance of military dominance is obsolesced by assurance of political dominance, but this assumes that a nation’s soldiers exist to fight for the survival of the nation. Only by understanding that a nation has no reason to survive at all unless it fights for a transcendent purpose does Athena’s gift actually make sense.

Obviously, Hera’s gift and Athena’s gift would appeal to different kinds of people. We would expect the split to correlate very well with the split between fascists and National Socialists. Incidentally, that Ares and Hephaestus (Hera’s sons) overlap with Athena in skills while completely lacking her noble character is directly equivalent to the superficial similarities between fascism and National Socialism discussed above, and hopefully further highlights the great danger in confusing the two.

Hera with Fasces

A second chance to choose may be approaching in the near future. If we get it wrong again, I really do not know how long we would have to wait until we get a third chance.


Related Information