1930s Nationalism vs 2010s Nationalism

“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.” – Joseph Goebbels

At the core of the confusion is popular failure to recognize that what was called “nationalism” in the pre-WWII period refers to a completely different idea than what is commonly called “nationalism” in the present day. “1930s Nationalism” - what we now more accurately call folk independence - was about achieving total economic and political self-reliance (autarky and autonomy) for a country as opposed to bondage by international banking and finance. This was the origin of Hitler’s German folkish state: a rejection of the Treaty of Versailles – and, by extension, all the assumptions of prevalent Western thought underlying it. “2010s Nationalism”, on the other hand, is mostly about sowing division within a country between so-called “indigenous-descended” and so-called “immigrant-descended”, and agitating as much hostility as possible towards the latter by the former.

Needless to say, the objectives of “1930s Nationalism” and “2010s Nationalism” are fundamentally incompatible. In order to achieve independence for a country, as the “1930s Nationalists” intend, it is necessary to first encourage unity within the country; in Hitler’s own words: “The national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our folk.” This is, of course, the exact opposite of what the “2010s Nationalists” are doing by encouraging segregation and distrust along ethnic lines. Hence it has often been joked that, had neo-Nazis actually lived in National Socialist Germany, they would have been among the first groups put into concentration camps by Hitler.

The confusion is worsened by the fact that many neo-Nazis like to call themselves “National Socialists”.

While neo-Nazism itself has remained a fringe phenomenon, it has indirectly benefited opportunistic racists (including the aforementioned “2010s Nationalists”) who have perniciously set up non-racists as one extreme and neo-Nazis as the other extreme, and then presented their so-called “common sense racism” as a false middle ground towards which to lure the poorly informed, thus generating interethnic conflicts exactly in accord with the Zionist agenda.

Kampfers vs Mein Kampfers

“National-Socialist Germany – what it had evolved to be by the beginning of The First Zionist War – was a modern mostly unconscious expression of the numinous, honourable, warrior ethos, and stood in complete and stark contrast to the materialism, the hubris, of the Magian and their allies and servants in the West, represented by the arrogant, profane, White Hordes of Homo Hubris.” – David Myatt

Awareness of authentic National Socialism as a system wholly distinct from Nazism was initially restricted to a few apolitical historians, whose main advantage over the neo-Nazis was that they studied the actual policies of National Socialist Germany post-1933, as opposed to assuming that Hitler actually believed everything written in Mein Kampf (which was designed by himself and Rudolf Hess to be a work of propaganda, not a political manual). These historians, however, either lacked the philosophical perception to see the abstract unifying principles underlying the policies, or did not wish to compromise their academic impartiality by taking on philosophical beliefs. Thus while they knew what National Socialism was not, they did not know what it was.

The other camp claiming to represent National Socialism were the few eccentric ideologists commonly known as “esoteric Hitlerists”, who unlike the historians were unafraid to make philosophical speculations, but who could not even agree with each other what was “canonical” National Socialism beyond shared acknowledgement that it was nothing like Nazism. (In fairness, within Hitler’s cabinet had been similarly dramatic ideological divergence and corresponding personal feuds, which led to a humourous claim of the time that there were as many versions of National Socialism as there were NSDAP members – of which the Zionists of course chose the absolute worst (e.g. the traitor Heinrich Himmler, whom everyone else in the cabinet hated) to ‘officially’ represent the party.)

And while some communication occurred between the esoteric Hitlerists and a few honest leaders of neo-Nazi groups, it quickly became apparent (to the dismay of both parties) that bloc-conversion of neo-Nazis to authentic National Socialists was not feasible, for the very reason that the vast majority of those attracted by Nazism had exactly the wrong type of personality for National Socialism.

“Dear Savitri, … You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans … they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb.” – George Lincoln Rockwell

Correspondingly, those with personalities most suitable for National Socialism were exactly those most likely to be put off by Nazism and hence unlikely to study the subject deeply enough to discover the misrepresentation. This simple Zionist trick of associating a noble ideology with a selectively repellent label has made gaining support for authentic National Socialism extraordinarily difficult. (This trick is hardly new. The same has been done with Gnostic Christianity - the true teachings of Jesus – being given the label ‘Luciferianism’, with similar effects.)

For example, authentic National Socialists view Muslims as allies by default, both remembering the former support of Hitler from the international Islamic community and seeing the continuing sacrifices of Muslims in their struggle against Zionism. Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, typically hate Muslims out of plain xenophobia. When David Myatt personally converted to Islam, hoping to reforge this much-needed alliance, Muslims understood and accepted his gesture while neo-Nazis called him a traitor.

The next significant mark in the revival of authentic National Socialism is recent, beginning with 21st century anti-Zionists looking for positive political options and culminating in the short-lived OWNP (One World Nazi Party). Its explicitly multiethnic presentation was unprecedentedly effective in breaking the monoethnic stereotype, but did not result in mass conversion to National Socialism. The majority of anti-Zionists pride themselves in their scepticism, a quality which enabled them to unravel Jewish conspiracies in the first place, but which by the same token made it hard for them to take the idealistic leap of faith necessary for an ideology as radical as National Socialism. Instead, many of them prefer to suspect Hitler himself of being a Zionist agent or even a Jew – some go as far as to promote rumours that he was an illegitimate Rothschild).

Aryanism vs Foppery

“I distrust officers who have exaggeratedly theoretical minds. I’d like to know what becomes of their theories at the moment of action.” – Adolf Hitler

It is clear that little further progress will be made so long as the discussion continues to tolerate academics interested only in endless historical nitpicking, barbarians prepared to debase National Socialism to the lowest possible level in order to suit themselves, and cynics who join the conversation without actually believing that the ideology is viable. So how should we proceed? Rudolf Hess provides a solution that we recommend: “Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your mind. You will find him through the strength of your hearts!”

Aryanism categorically rejects reconstructing National Socialism from history alone, for we propose it is but a name for the one political system that will inevitably be expressed by truly noble and selfless thinking. We seek not those who convert to Hitlerism from without, but those who have sought their own path from within only to finally recognize that Hitler walked a parallel path in his own time. Furthermore, we emphasize how what we saw in National Socialist Germany was hardly the completed system, but only the tiniest first steps towards it. David Myatt saw this when he said:  “The duty – the wyrd – of Vindex and of the clans of Vindex is not to strive to try and restore some romantic idealized past – or even be in thrall to some perceived wyrdful, often numinous-filled, past way of living, such as that which Adolf Hitler brought to Germany – but rather to establish an entirely new and conscious and thus more potent expression of the numinous itself.” We who live today face situations of a scale and of a gravity that Hitler never had to deal with, from global resource shortages to a nuclear-armed Israel. If we are in this to change the world for the better, then the only worthwhile discussion for us is not what National Socialism was or is, but what it should be and what it needs to be.

Further Information

• Adolf Hitler
• Political Nucleus

Related Information

• Arya
• What is Nobility?