What is National Socialism?

[Red Rum56]

What is National Socialism?
By Caesar

INTRODUCTION:
This essay will attempt to give a broad understanding of what National Socialism is. It is written for the uninformed but curious average citizen, but I suspect it will be of interest as well to many who already find themselves with racist/racialist beliefs.

National Socialism is more than just racism. National Socialism is biology put into practice on a National societal level, whereas racism is simply the rather common-sense application of evolutionary inequality to humans. Rather than a FAQ on National Socialism, this will hopefully answer in reasonable depth what National Socialism is, for I am asked "what is National Socialism" far more than I am questioned on the principles of National Socialism.

To allow one to reconcile the differences between National Socialism and the other political systems out there, one fact must be established beforehand, and that is that National Socialism is not simply a political system or a form of government, but a general philosophy, a Weltanschauung (German word of which the best translation probably is "world-view" or "world-philosophy). It offers an insight into many spheres; political, philosophical, biological, and economic being the four major ones, and therefore I will explain those here. But one must remember that National Socialism is a Weltanschauung at heart, whereas Democracy is simply a governmental system. One must also realize that man is neither born a solitary hermit on an isle, nor is he born a lemming, or a herd animal. He is born a little of both, because these traits are not mutually exclusive. He has individualistic traits, but he also has socialistic traits. Only National Socialism realizes this fact, where the capitalists would like us to believe that we are all individuals, and the communists are telling us we are all part of a greater collective. We must recognize that individuality must be limited at the point where it is a detriment to the social good, and that collectivism must be similarly limited where it begins to destroy the soul of the individual.

POLITICAL NATIONAL SOCIALISM:
National Socialism is best viewed as the family structure applied to a government. The family is connected by blood, by soil, and by love. Similarly, a National Socialist state is connected by blood (race), by soil (territory), and by love (comeradeship, patriotism).

Comparing the National Socialist folkish state with a family is a very basic way of looking at the way National Socialism is run politically. Like a family, the National Socialist state is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a value only if it preserves and safeguards the contents. The value of one is inferior to the value of the whole, and, if need be, the lesser must be sacrificed to protect the greater.

In a National Socialist state, one has rights and a proportionate amount of responsibilities. He has freedom and liberty to do what he will, as long as it is not at the detriment of anyone else or the racial nation itself.

Elections: There is no popular election in a National Socialist state, just as there is none in a family. Elections rarely produce a strong leader, rather, they produce politicians, and the very politicians who are most adept at lying and deceiving the populace are the ones who usually get elected. In a democratic system, the votes of two idiots count for more than that of one well-informed man. In a National Socialist system; will, character, and ability are the three main tenets of leadership, and leaders are appointed to office by their superiors rather than elected. By way of this appointment, the leaders of a National Socialist state have absolute power to make decisions over their particular field. Some say that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but society must front up to three facts before being so hasty to throw this type of catch phrase around.

• First - Power must be given to somebody, else there is no more than anarchy.
• Second - It is essential to have responsibility for power, lest it be misused. Where one man is making the decisions, he alone is responsible for the outcome of those decisions. Where votes are taken in a parliament or senate, responsibility is so divided amongst them that as a group, they wield it virtually without responsibility.
• Third - Given power's tendency to corrupt, would it not make more sense to therefore entrust it to he who shows the best character, and is consequently more able to resist its corrupting influence. If two men stand together, and one is to have power over the other, it is natural that it should be the better man, the man with the strongest will, the best character, and the superior ability, that rules over his companion.

This is the formula that has always stood throughout Man's history, and is fact the very basis of any structured and hierarchal society outside of human society. It is the strongest and most dominant lion who leads the pride, he is the one who is the most likely to make the best decisions most of the time. If he becomes unsuitable for his position at the top, whether it be because he becomes too foolish or too old, there is always a younger and smarter lion waiting in the wings to take his place. The same is true in the National Socialist folkish state.

Responsibilities: Under the democratic systems, responsibility is divided between numerous individuals, and ultimately lies in the general public who elect the electors. This leads to the undesirable situation of the electors, or representatives, having little to no responsibility for the way in which they use (or misuse) their power. The very worst that could happen is that they manage to fall out of favour with their electorate come the next elections, and lose their seat in office. We can see, through the various hucksters and showboat politicians we have had leading our nations, that this is little deterrant to wildly abusing political power. In the National Socialist system however, ultimate responsibility lies in one man, the leader (Führer), to make ultimate decisions. Should those decisions turn out to be made in error, then he must accept responsibility for those errors and hand over his power to a more capable person. Other leaders, subordinate to the Führer, have dual responsibilities, not only to their decisions, but to carrying out the decisions of their superiors. Should these duties be carried out to the satisfaction of his superiors, he is rewarded with more power, and should they not, then his power is either reduced or he is removed from power.

Rights: Rights are not given to the individual by some spook in the sky. Because for one to give rights he must have some way of enforcing them, and an imaginary spirit in the sky can not and does not. Rights are given by men, and are usually accompanied by responsibilities to those men in return for the enforcement of his rights. Under National Socialism rights are directly proportionate to one's responsibility to the folkish state. There are people (subjects) who have very little responsibility, and consequently have very few rights. There are others (citizens) who have a normal responsibility and enjoy the same rights as most everyone else. And there are those (leaders) who bear the burden of tremendous responsibility and have not only personal rights, but guarantee the rights of others (in other words, they hold political power).

Structure: The structure of a National Socialist government is, as I said, like that of a family. It is ruled from the top down, in a pyramid fashion, rather than the other way around such as are the democracies. Every leader has council and advisors, but that council is there to advise that particular leader on a certain things, not to make decisions. The advice travels upward, the decisions travel downward. Committees may be held, but again, the purpose of these bodies is to advise those making the decisions, rather than to make the decisions themselves. Democracy at its heart, is mob rule.

Whoever is in favour with the mob is "right", and whoever is not is "wrong." Therefore the fact that a small minority may actually be right about something is drowned out by the large majority and the many voices of their misinformed argument. With the advent of mass media this is even more correct. Public opinion can be shaped and manipulated in such a way that the majority of people are not well informed, but are convinced they are (by the mass media, nonetheless). So at the end of the day all you have left is a society governed by the will of the masses, which is in turn manipulated by the media moguls (who tend to be Jewish). Under this democratic mob rule you also have a kind of mob mentality, and its effects are vastly compounded by the media.

The mob mentality by its very nature is an attempt to bring everyone into one line of thinking, with people trying to approximate the mean, and therefore become part of the majority. In a society where the majority is always right, who wants to be in the minority who is always wrong? There is at least a subconscious trend to bring oneself approximately in line with the rest of the population. And when the media is telling us that the majority of the population feels one particular way, we subconsciously try to approximate that feeling ourselves, whether that is the actual majority trend or not. This is how democracy lends itself to manipulation by the Jews of the mass media. National Socialism on the other hand, is not affected by these trends. There is virtually no way a foreign interest (such as the Jews are, and always have been, to Aryans) can secure public opinion via the mass media, primarily because the media is strictly regulated by the government, and secondly because the opinions of the majority public matter little in a National Socialist state.

This makes National Socialism a comparatively stable political system and one relatively unaffected by foreign subversion. National Socialism is governed from the top down, whereas Democracy (mob rule) rules from the bottom up.

ECONOMIC NATIONAL SOCIALISM:
Many Reactionaries make the error of closely comparing National Socialism to Communism in terms of economical policy, when in fact the two stand wide apart from each other. It is also interesting to note that the Communists claim National Socialism is not socialism at all, and is in fact the purest form of Capitalism. In reality, however, National Socialism is neither Capitalism nor Communism, but takes natural and healthy elements from each one to form a more "centrist" style of government. Neither laissez-faire Capitalism nor bolshevik Communism have ever worked in practise, and neither of them will work because they are both two sides of the same coin. What we need, rather than one unhealthy extreme or the other, is a healthy median, a balance, between the two. The National Socialist state allows capitalistic principles, but not at the expense of the collective folk.

Economic individualism: In a National Socialist society, unlike Communism, there is certainly private ownership of property and land, and there is private ownership of possessions and capital. But unlike Capitalism, though, financial interests are curtailed and restricted at the point where they begin to have a negative effect on the folkish state. One example of this might be the charging of usurious interest rates on loans, which binds the working class into the slavery of an endless debt/interest cycle. Interest rates for the public should never be raised past a fraction of a percent, and this should be set in place by the central nationalized bank (Reichsbank) and this rate controlled by the Minister of Finance through the President of the Reichsbank. The charging of interest on loans by any other organization or business or individual is strictly forbidden, for that is the acquisition of income for those not employed or making no effort which is also forbidden.

Usury forbidden: That last statement might come as a shock to some of you, namely; that the gaining of income without work should be forbidden. Allow me to explain. When an individual is gaining wealth through means whereby he is not contributing an equal amount of effort in exchange, it means that somewhere along the way someone is making more effort than he should in order to feed and clothe and house this individual who is contributing nothing himself. That should be considered nothing short of slavery by any civilized society, and that's exactly what usury is. Money or wealth by its very nature does not replicate itself. If Paul keeps a dollar bill for a hundred years, at the end of that time he still has a dollar bill, it is worth no more than it was a century earlier. If he lends that dollar bill to Josef and Josef agrees to pay Paul a dollar-fifty at the end of that hundred years, then effectively, all Paul's done is manage to exploit Josef at a time of need, for his own profit. Say that your brother was starving, would you force him to work like a slave for you before you gave him a meal? Certainly no civilized man would do such a thing to his own brother. One must certainly wonder why the so-called civilized men of the world today would think nothing of doing the same to his fellow racial countryman in the form of usury. This is not an Aryan trait, rather a Jewish one. Jews are predominantly behind the usurious practices in our society with absolutely criminal 25% interest rates and the like. Slavery and exploitation are not what racial comrades do to one another, and that is why in the folkish state this usurious slavery is forbidden.

Labour Unions nationalized: To promote better understanding between workers and employers, all labour unions are nationalized into one monolithic body, which in Germany was known as the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF). This organization is headed by one individual known as the Arbeitsführer (Work Leader) who is, in turn, responsible to the Führer. Any conflicts or disputes that do arise between employers and workers are resolved through mediation between representatives of the DAF and the employer, by an organization set up for that purpose. This organization shall take the form of a commission consisting in an equal proportion, of representatives of various industry and representatives from the "DAF" who are representative of the workers of various said industries, and chaired by a representative of the Economics Ministry. This organization shall have power to appoint a mediator or make recommendations and suggestions to the representative of the Economics Ministry who alone has the power to force a solution. It is worthy to note that there was not one strike in any of the twelve years this system was active under Adolf Hitler.

Value of Currency: The value of currency in a National Socialist shall be directly resultant of the productive capacity of the racial folkish state. It shall not be backed with the capital of the people (as the American Dollar is), nor of the capital of the state (i.e. gold standard, silver standard) but rather be guaranteed by the productivity of the folkish state. Fractional reserve banking is a fraud perpetrated on the nations of this world by the Jew. The system a National Socialist state takes for its currency is that every unit of money is worth a specific amount of WORK rather than gold, silver, land, or property. Therefore it is the duty of the Economics Minister to recognize the total value of the productivity of the National Socialist state and the duty of the President of the "Reichsbank" to set the value of currency at an appropriate level to match this value.

PHILOSOPHICAL NATIONAL SOCIALISM:
Most every other philosophy, political notion, or religious belief stems from the absurd notion that human beings are somehow above Nature, that for some strange reason, biological laws just don't apply to humans. National Socialism is the only one which accepts the concrete fact that humans are indeed part of Nature also. It is National Socialism that is the ideology of Nature, it is the living of one's life around Natural principles. One can choose to live in a material fashion, pursuing wealth, short-term gratification, fornication, or other "feel good" goals. Or one can choose to live in a way which reflects accordance with Nature, in pursuit of an idealistic goal which may not be achieved for centuries, patiently waiting for love over simple fornication, and replacing the Jewish notion that money is king with the Aryan one that excellence is king. There is more to life than material wealth. National Socialists hold the premise that it is better for a society to be motivated toward a higher goal than simply "feeling good" in the present, and that in fact pursuing this short-term goal leaves one feeling rather sorry for oneself in the long term. The basis for this "feel good" mentality is rather childish. A child does not plan for the future, he wants his gratification NOW and that is all that matters to him. The Negro's general mentality runs along the same lines. We have had our mature, logical ideas of forethought and preparedness Niggerized by the Jew into this infantile "me want feel good now" line of thinking.

Quality and quantity: National Socialism can simply be put in the sense that it is the ideology of quality over quantity. National Socialists would rather have a better society than a large one, they would rather have fewer, better people than a great number of mediocre people. This is the tenet of Aryan biology, where White people had a smaller number children and invested much more time and effort in their development than, the Negro who had a whole tribe of offspring by his various broodmares, and spent virtually no time on their development. This will be covered in more detail later on, when I write of the biological principles behind National Socialism.

The individual and the collective: National Socialism recognizes the fact that men are not born either completely individualistic, nor are we born completely socialistic. We are born into the world having both an individual will and spirit, and, from birth, being part of a family which is the most base of all society. We are also born into the race which is merely an extension of the family, it is a larger family of distant relatives with whom we share a common genetic bond. On the other hand we each have an individual self-consciousness and a free will to make decisions, though we do carry certain biological traits. We are born both as an individual, and as part of a greater collective. It is only sensible to recognize both of these realms rather than ignore one (as collectivist communism does) or the other (as individualist capitalism does).

Equality and inequality: I cover biological differences later on, but I am more concerned with the philosophical argument here. One recurring argument of the egalitarians is that "we are all human" or "we all have a self-consciousness" therefore that supposedly makes us all the same. What they fail to see in this argument is that there is no evidence at all which can lead us to suppose that an earthworm or a house-cat does not have the same degree of self-consciousness as any human on the planet. That certainly does not make them equal to you or I, however.

Morals: Morals are nothing but the opinion of usually the masses, codified into a set of doctrines that are at their root, completely arbitrary. There is no universal morality. Opinions are neither right nor wrong, only facts are right or wrong as only facts can be demonstrated so. One man's morality might be different from mine, and both may differ from that of Bob next door. A hundred years ago homosexuality was immoral, but today the majority of the populace believe it's perfectly moral (this however, does not mean it's not unnatural and unhealthy). General morals can change over time, they are very fluid and plastic and can be influenced by factors. This is why I laugh when people tell me that the wholesale extermination of the Jews known as the 'Holocaust' is "wrong" because it's "immoral". Since morals are opinions, what they are in fact saying is "its wrong because I think its wrong", which is absolutely ridiculous. In all honesty I think the Jews got exactly what they deserved in the 'Holocaust'. There is no right or wrong to that, only opinions. My view on this might be considered immoral to some, but to me it's perfectly moral. That is the ultimate justification to the argument that morals are opinions and nothing else. For if they were anything else, how could one have a contrary set of morals to another?

Whose Superiority?: In the natural world, the strong dominate the weak. The higher evolved forms dominate and subjugate the lower evolved forms. In nature, might is the only right and extinction is the punishment for weakness. This is true for humans when one looks at the way the higher races dominating the lower for the last few millennia. There is nothing "wrong" with dominating those of an inferior kind, those who are not strong enough to preserve their independence are either absorbed or crushed. What one will usually hear in response to this argument is that since the Aryan race is in such a docile state at the moment, and that the majority of our kind are at the beck and call of the Jew, that there is also nothing "wrong" with this, as we couldn't have been subjugated if we were the superior breed. This is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. If the Aryan dies out it will be because he is NOT STRONG ENOUGH to dominate the Jewish parasite that caused his death. Ergo, the wheels nature completes one more cycle, and the White man falls from the top of the tree as an extinct species. But things at the moment all rely on that "if". I do not believe that we will be rendered extinct and I do not believe that the Jew is the superior kind to affect this kind of biological revolution. I (along with the rest of the White Nationalist community) believe that we are the superior kind, and that we can overcome the Jewish grip on our society. If we do, then we prove our superiority, if we do not, then we are a race whose fate is already a foregone conclusion. That is why it is up to us to fight, and fight hard, and resist the Jewish scuttling of our Aryan boat, because only through the success or failure of this resistance do we prove our superiority. If our biological boat sinks, it will be because we failed to kill the parasite that was eating away at our hull. And the punishment for that failure will be in accordance with natural law - extinction.

BIOLOGICAL NATIONAL SOCIALISM :
National Socialism has its roots in nature, it is merely natural principles (rule of one, natural selection, race as family, etc) applied to the political and the general philosophical realms. In that sense it is Natural Socialism, it is neither extreme individualism nor extreme collectivism, for neither of these are natural and both of them assume men to be higher than nature. It is biology taken to its logical political and social conclusions.

Simple biological principles: Why is it that with the evidence in front of the eyes of every biologist in the world, only a minute percentage of them have the sense to advocate putting these solid evolutionary biological principles into social application. That they have not done so shows me that their cowardice overrides their intelligence. The races are not equal. They did not evolve equally because the environments in which they evolved were not equal. It should be common sense to therefore conclude that the races can not be considered equal in any way, shape, or form. They are distinct biological branches of the human species. The White man in the harsh climate of Alpine Europe needed much more brains to survive there, than did the lowly Negro roaming the African continent with a spear in his hand and a bone through his nose, and a large plate in his lip. The African climate is temperate, and game abounds. For those who can master simple hunter/gatherer skills survival there is a breeze. Not so in Alpine Europe, where the harshness of the climate demands a different type of survival. It demands shelter from the cold, it demands ingenuity in hunting or trapping the comparatively little food there is there It demands foresight in saving food for the winter, it demands warm clothes, and altogether it demands a degree of inventiveness in order to live in that climate. Should it not be therefore obvious that the White Aryan man would evolve in a way which suits this type of thinking-on-one's-feet lifestyle, and the Negro should evolve in a way which best allows him to survive in the African heat?

Socio-reproductive trends: Certainly they should evolve differently, in fact, if we are to accept evolution and modern biology at all they MUST evolve differently. One of the ways in which this difference is quite striking is in the socio-reproductive strategies of the races, and how they differ. As is the case with the lower races, the most obvious of those being of course the Negro, they have a socio-reproductive strategy that tends towards producing as many offspring as possible paying little or no regard to the way in which said offspring are raised, or their intellectual aspects cultured. The Aryan, along with the higher races, prefers to focus more on raising and development of the offspring, while having proportionally less offspring. It comes down again to quality over quantity. It is undoubtable that these trends played a role in forming the biological traits of the current races as we know them. Focusing more on breeding caused that aspect to be more pronounced in the Negro, whose children are born on average a week earlier than that of the Aryan, and mature faster. Whereas focusing more on development caused the intellectual and creative traits to be enhanced in the Aryan kind. These traits were enhanced by their respective breeding strategies. Of course, we cannot attribute all the racial differences to socio-reproductive behaviour alone, as that itself is a racial trait, and the root of these always has and always will be Natural Selection. But we can observe that these same socio-reproductive trends which are an evolved behaviour can influence back on the evolutionary development of a race, causing the effects of Natural Selection to be magnified and have a greater effect.

Branching of Species: In all areas of Nature does one see the branching of species; first into different breeds, then sub-species, then wholly independent species. This is how species come into being, how they evolve, and how they adapt to different environments. This branching is necessary both for the advancement of the species into a higher form, and for the protection of the species through biological diversity and resistance to threat. Branching of the species occurs where a mutation causes a biological separation of one group from the greater species. This mutation and others like it eventually adapts a particular sub-species to a particular environment to which the greater species would not be otherwise suited, or at least not as suited as well as this new sub-species. This is also how the differences between the races came about. White people evolved for the European environment which forced them to become more intellectual and creative, the Oriental evolved for the Eastern environment in which he stayed at fairly the same level, and the Negro on the dark continent did virtually nothing but eat and breed, and he consequently became rather adept at both these tasks.

Separation of the Races: What we must remember is that a mixing of the Negro, or of any other race with our Aryan kind is UNNATURAL. It is unnatural because it runs contrary to the basic evolutionary principle of branching the species. In nature the White man and the Negro would be separated by vast amounts of land, far too much land for any serious mongrelization of either race to occur. But by modern transportation technology these distances are crossed daily without second thought, and the races meet and fraternize with one another. It is a geographical mixing of races which otherwise would not have occurred, which leads to a biological mixing of races which again, would otherwise not have occurred. And it is this mixing of races that runs contrary to the development and branching of species into races and into sub-species and at last into independent species themselves. Should the Aryan and the Negro, or any other race for that matter, stay apart and evolve independently long enough, there will come a stage where interbreeding is no longer possible. But should we all mix into one planet of coffee-colored brillo-haired Mulattoes, Samboes and Mestizoes there will be no biological diversity, no branching of the species, and evolution will be set back some 200,000 years to a point where races again begin to form and the branching starts over again. Would it not be therefore more progressive to our kind (and the species in general) to preserve this biological independence and continue evolution as it is rather setting it back and retarding its eventual continuation?

CONCLUSION:
As we can see, the National Socialist Weltanschauung is considerably more than a political system like Republicanism or Democracy, or even an ideological economic system like Communism or Capitalism. It is something more, something else. It is not a religion or something that is expected to be taken on bounds of faith; the principles I have outlined here are solidly rooted in fact and logic. There are no spooks in the sky here, or wishful thinking promises of universal equality. The very concept of National Socialism is a racial state, merely an extension of the family, the folk community. National Socialism is at its root, NATURAL socialism. It is the foundation for natural society, and it is nothing more than these natural - biological - premises put together into a cohesive and structured way of looking at the world. There are no references here, there are no abstracts one must rely on or comprehend before they can understand the principles of National Socialism. One need only rely on logic and reason and biology to fully understand what National Socialism is and every justification of every principle that lies at its heart. National Socialism is nothing more than applied biology.

Mother Nature is a NAZI.

[Common Sense]

Seen it...read it...definite propaganda. Snake ...your kind of like D.X., but from the other side. You cut and paste other people's propaaganda speeches, which only means that you don't think for yourself. Your kinda like a follower.

Let's here some of YOUR reason's of racial superiority. We don't want to hear what has been said by someone else. Stand up for what you believe in, but do it under your own flag.

[Mraka]

Snake you don`t believe what you posted?For the case just give back your drivers license.
And for the others on the Forum; this is what I expirienced when I was 17 from "Republikans" and conservatives.From friends I grew up with,like in south pasrk.
The newest historical analysis deals with the fact ,that the robbing of Jews in that time was the wealth factor untill the occupation of other countrys ,that victims had to pay 2 times their budget; from which all the Nazi millitary was fed.Also explains the confidence of Germans with the situation during the war ,when they got paid better than before war.Even wimen claim all was better,and indeed the soldiers came only on holidays packed with presents.The women relieved of the opressing fatherfigure ,and the nazi social system.

[Kemosave]

I think this thread should be called "What is racism?" Racists come in all sizes, colors, and flavors. Some like to mask their racism, justify their racism, and deny their racism but they cannot. Because it is real and it is present within them: the root of it.

[Mraka]

That`s what you say if you are offended by it.Like right know.Though your reaction and what you write goes one with another.Had it.

[Kemosave]

I would respond Mraka if I knew what you are even talking about.. lol.

[Sentenza]

There are so many mistakes in that argumentation, that i dont even bother answering to it.
only just one thing: National Socialism is an ideology which contradicts every law of nature and human ethics. And i hate that people out there still feel attracted to that psycho stuff.

[Kemosave]

There are so many mistakes in that argumentation, that i dont even bother answering to it.
only just one thing: National Socialism is an ideology which contradicts every law of nature and human ethics. And i hate that people out there still feel attracted to that psycho stuff.

I feel you. Often young white men enter a level 3 or 4 yard and are quickly abused and, as a result, end up subscribing to this racist nonsense. I don't ever mean to take away from the pain and evil of what they were subjected to but this is not the answer. Solidarity and an accurate understanding of reality are the answer in there but neither exist in there unless you are subscribing to this position. See the contradiction?

Anyways, you have Black activists on here (maybe they took a white sissy while inside) pointing folks to books that have no real historical or scientific position but agree with feminist Black cultural program studies in certain educational programs that encourage this sort of evil behavior against people who happen to be white.

Now I am no racist but when I see racists of other colors promoting their racism (directly or indirectly), I do feel a sadness for them just as I feel a sadness for racists of my own race. None of it is right and none of it will be rewarded but I assert to you that it will be punished when they pass from this physical existence.

[Sentenza]

i agree with oyu... blacks adapting the ideology of their worst enemies (Nazis) have given up the struggle for justice and are blind.....