The purpose of this article, then, is to dispel the myth that National Socialism belongs in the same category as Marxism, or any of the other variants of socialism (which, it should be noted, take their cues from the same doctrinal foundation as Marxism), and to show how National Socialism is unique and how it stands apart from the others. Unlike them, National Socialism is attenuated to the individualist psyche of Western Man. National Socialism is the synthesis of nationalism and socialism, the individualistic aspirations of our people combined with recognizing our collective (racial) interests. Marxism is the opposite; it is the antithesis of Western Civilization. The conflict between National Socialism and Marxism runs deeper, however, than mere economics or politics (though it is that as well). It is a spiritual conflict; the two doctrines are completely contrary both philosophically and ideologically. They are two entirely different systems of thought. At root this conflict manifests the eternal struggle between Aryan and Jew. In Mein Kampf, Hitler states it plainly –

"Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago. And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."[1]

In my last article ["Division: the greatest threat to our survival," June 2009] I spoke of the individualist-collectivist paradigm and Professor Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on the Jews, though my explanation of it was lacking as I was forced to rely on memory alone; I’m better able to expand upon it here. Professor MacDonald’s study is a monumental historical examination of group evolutionary strategies developed by different peoples adapting to radically different environments; he uses the Jews as a case study – discusses their interactions with other peoples, and examines Judaism as an example of hyper-collectivist group evolutionary strategy in contrast to our own hyper-individualist tendency. Those who take issue with evolution needn’t worry, this discussion does not include speciation (that is, the transition of one species into another); this is simply an examination of survival strategies developed by groups of humans in their efforts to adapt to environmental conditions, and in this context "evolutionary" refers to inherited traits. Professor MacDonald explains it thus:

"The theoretical perspective developed here specifically allows for "cultural" influences on evolutionary strategies. Humans are viewed as "flexible strategizers" who are able to develop ideologies and social systems that are intended to further evolutionary ends [adaptation, survival]. These evolutionary goals, such as attaining power and social status, are viewed as having a powerful genetic component, but the means by which one attains these evolutionary goals can utilize higher-level ("domain-general") cognitive processes (e.g., IQ) and be influenced by experience. In the same way that their cognitive capabilities enable humans to make inventions or learn new methods of warfare, the present perspective is highly compatible with the idea that an evolutionary strategy could be contrived on the basis of specific experiences or on the basis of a general understanding or theory of human nature…

"The theory eventually developed here considers three components, all of which involve cultural and environmental factors: (1) Jews are biologically predisposed to be high on psychological traits predisposing them toward collectivist social structures and ethnocentrism; (2) Jews organized as a people during the Egyptian sojourn and utilized this experience as a basis for interpreting their history and constructing their group evolutionary strategy; (3) Judaism was profoundly influenced by the invention of a hereditary (tribal) priestly class with a powerful motivation to maintain the integrity of the group…

"Collectivist cultures… place a great emphasis on the goals and needs of the ingroup, rather than individual rights and interests. Ingroup norms and the duty to cooperate and submerge individual goals to the needs of the group are paramount. Collectivist cultures develop an ‘unquestioned attachment’ to the ingroup, including ‘the perception that ingroup norms are universally valid (a form of ethnocentrism), automatic obedience to ingroup authorities, and willingness to fight and die for the ingroup. These characteristics are usually associated with distrust of and unwillingness to cooperate with outgroups’… In collectivist cultures morality is conceptualized as that which benefits the group, and aggression and exploitation of outgroups are acceptable… Such peoples are prone to a suite of traits that predispose them to form cohesive evolutionarily interesting group strategies: extended kinship groups, patricentric social organization, endogamous marriage, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and moral particularism."[2]

Now anybody who has studied the Jews to any significant extent is bound to recognize that this theoretical perspective describes them perfectly. Of course, there are other collectivist cultures of note (the Chinese and Gypsies are also discussed in the book), and, in fact, most of the world’s people belong on the collectivist side of the individualist-collectivist continuum; the Jews, however, are hyper-collectivist. Unique among the world’s people, the Aryan is an individualist, and the more Nordic the blood the more individualistic one tends to be. This is because European culture derives from north European and circumpolar hunter-gatherer populations that survived the Ice Age in Europe. Large groups of people could not survive such conditions, so the monogamous family unit (few children, high investment parenting) was ideal, as opposed to the polygamous tendency (many children, low investment) of some collectivist cultures, i.e., Arabs and Africans; and individuals were required to be both intelligent and self-sufficient in order to survive. Also, cooperation (altruism) with other small bands, or family units, was often beneficial in such conditions. Professor MacDonald describes it thus:

"People in individualist cultures, on the other hand, show little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and ‘finding yourself.’ Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and outgroup members are more likely to behave in a pro-social, altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is more ‘rational’ in the sense that there is less a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups…

"Group strategies are expected to be relatively difficult to develop for individualistic peoples such as Europeans who derive from northern hunter-gatherer peoples. Such people tend toward the opposite set of traits: simple family structure, exogamous marriage, relative lack of ethnocentrism and xenophobia, and moral universalism. This general difference is compatible with individual differences among Europeans in proneness to joining collectivist groups and with the general finding that people are more inclined toward collectivism in times of personal threat." (op. cit.)

Western civilization is the expression of the social idea as manifested in the mind of Aryan Man, the very pinnacle of human achievement in the social sphere, and the envy of the world: a combination of free enterprise, personal liberty and individual responsibility all within a cooperative framework – the social contract. The social idea thus conceived is a purely Aryan idea, and no other people can equal it; its very openness, however, this "egalitarian ethic," leaves it vulnerable to infiltration and destruction. For centuries the Aryan and the Jew have struggled one against the other. First the Aryan allows the Jew in, then Jewish power ascends – usually in the form of financial middleman between the ruler and the ruled. The Aryan rises up in righteous anger and kicks the Jew out, and the cycle repeats itself. In each case, the Aryan response was collective and guided by a central authority. Examples include corporate Catholicism in the late Roman Empire and the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th Century. The rise of National Socialism in Germany was just the latest manifestation of this conflict. By my count, Jews have been expelled from European countries at least 46 times throughout our history.

I believe the key to understanding the differences between National Socialism and Marxism, and likewise the conflict between Aryan and Jew, is to examine them in relation to the individualist-collectivist paradigm: basically an issue of psychology. First of all, individualism and collectivism are by their very nature incompatible. They exist in tension; their existence side by side within the same society leads inevitably to conflict. Unfortunately, collectivists always have the upper hand because they operate as a cohesive unit while individualists by and large do not. Even worse, in competition between the two, individualist inclinations – our distinct sense of fair play, willingness to help strangers (what David Lane called "misplaced compassion") and our tendency to judge people according to individual characteristics rather than as members of groups – all work to our disadvantage. Not only do collectivists not operate within this framework, they scorn it and take advantage of every opportunity to use it against us.

The individualist pattern works for us because there is expectation of conscientious behavior and reciprocation all around. But collectivists adhere only to their ingroups, and that does not include us.

Throughout the 20th Century we have undergone a virtual paradigm shift. We have gone from a predominantly White nation in which our collective interests were largely secure, even within an individualist framework, to a nation in which our own interests are subsumed by the collective interests of various "minority" groups. Incidentally, these groups are all collectivist to one extent or another, and with the guidance and financial support of the Jews they have grown very adept at turning our individualism against us.

The struggle between Aryan and Jew has come to a head once again, and Marxism is simply one weapon among many in the Jewish arsenal (more on this later). The combined use of these weapons has one purpose – the destruction of our Western civilization – and they have very nearly succeeded. They have been so successful, in fact, that I fear the cycle will not repeat itself; the International Jew is bent on our subjugation and enslavement, and in this final struggle there can be only one winner. National Socialism is the only tool by which we can effectively combat this threat to our existence, and I will explain why.

At least three significant differences separate our past struggles with the Jew from the crisis that confronts us today.

(1) Whereas in the past our people were confident and secure in their sense of self, today our peoplehood, our identity, our knowledge of self and our rightful place in the world have been submerged in the fiction of a multicultural Utopia. As William Gayley Simpson put it:

"I have been saying that the primary fact of life is conflict and struggle. All significant human development has been the result of rising to meet some challenge.

"However, men very early learned to relieve the pressure of the struggle on the individual and to increase his security and well-being by the formation of groups of individuals – of like blood and experience (i.e., of the same gene pool and a common tradition), of like mind and interests, and united by allegiance to a dual code. Within the group the rule was mutual trust, loyalty and cooperation – in short, amity. This, in due time, produced homogeneity and a solidarity in which was massed a strength vastly beyond anything within the reach of the individual standing alone. Fortified with this strength the group faced outsiders, all those who did not belong to it – and this is the other side of the dual code – with indifference, suspicion, antagonism, and readiness for war. Here the rule was enmity.

"This dual code – amity within the group, enmity toward those outside it – served several socially valuable purposes… (a) The dual code amounted to segregation, and this protected the gene pool of the group against adulteration by the genes of aliens… (b) The dual code increased the group’s total strength and thus multiplied its chances for survival and mastery in its struggle with its enemies… (c) The psychological by-products of this process must be specifically and carefully noted. The dual code equipped man, who from his very beginning has been a gregarious creature, with one of the ‘first requirements of his moral health, the security provided by a sense of community . . . of belonging, which is something he has never been able to find . . . [anywhere or at any time] except in some circumscribed group or community made up of individuals much the same as himself.’"[3]

When Europeans came to this continent more than three centuries ago, we were not only secure in our sense of self, we were also driven and united behind a shared purpose – manifest destiny. Some were fleeing persecution, others were driven by the promise of new lands to explore, conquer and civilize; all were united by the dream of a new beginning. And so it was that through much struggle, toil and sacrifice we tamed the wild and built a grand civilization from the ground up. We were a people possessed of an unconquerable spirit, a belief in our own superiority, a long history of struggle and achievement, and the desire to improve, to excel, to continue the struggle, and to leave our mark on the world. The spark of life burned bright in the breast of European Man. It wasn’t until the War Between the States that we began to doubt our innate superiority and the rightness of our mission, and with that doubt the vital spark of life began to dim and everything we had built started its inevitable decline. For when a people begin to doubt their sense of self and purpose, belief in the value of everything they’ve accomplished begins to weaken and they lose touch with the foundational principle that all life must struggle to survive, and that inherent in that struggle is competition and conflict with other life forms. Absent that foundation a people becomes vulnerable to subversion and sabotage.

In spite of individualist inclinations, throughout our history we have sought to protect this gene pool with a combination of laws against miscegenation (de jure) and a cultural belief in the strength and superiority of our own people (de facto) which effectively stigmatized blood adulteration. It didn’t work perfectly, but suited us well enough as the dual code that is largely responsible for the advancement and expansion of Western Civilization throughout the world, with which the White man achieved a greatness unsurpassed by any other people. Unfortunately, our individualist tendencies, manipulated by a powerful media/educational establishment, have caused us to abandon the dual code, and without it everything we’ve built – an extension of our belief in ourself – is now in a state of decline and decay. National Socialism is in essence a reassertion of the dual code for our people; Marxism poses a continuation and further exacerbation of the multicultural nightmare that is currently suffocating all life on earth.

The two other significant differences I see are: (2) whereas in the past the struggle was limited to nation States, or at most continents, it is now global; and (3) over the last century our technological advancement has increased exponentially, even to the point of mankind now possessing the power to annihilate all life on the planet. We have never possessed so much power before, and, worse, this power is securely in the hands of our enemy, an enemy having vowed to deliver the world to utter desolation rather than relinquish its hold on that power. All three of these differences can be traced to a common source – the Industrial Revolution. Much can be said on this subject, but I fear that such a discussion would take us too far afield, so I will stick to some quotes relevant to our discussion:

"If one is even to grasp the problem of the Machine [essentially the corporation- size, impersonal, industrial-technological complex of our day], it is necessary to divest oneself of the current prejudices about it. Its utility seems so obvious and so enormous that most people tend to be blind to the evils that it has caused, and to ignore and to discount these evils even when they are brought to their attention. I must ask my reader, however, to face with me the question of whether its supposed gains may not in reality be largely empty, or have come at a human price too high.

"Also, most of us are all too ready to find in the perfection of our mechanical development the final and conclusive evidence of our cultural superiority to all those who have gone before us. We take it for granted that none have been our equals in the past because they lacked our machines; and equally, as regards the future, that all further cultural advance must be built upon the further extension of our own technics. It is beyond our comprehension that any people might produce a great culture who would not be interested in the Machine, or care for what it was peculiarly able to produce, or for its way of producing…Most of us are quite ignorant of the many respects in which even the lot of the workingman was better in thirteenth century medieval Europe, for instance – a period quite without anything we should call machinery – than it is in our vaunted modern age; and no less unaware that in our own past there have been Roman emperors (for example, Tiberius and Vespasian) and English kings (notably the Tudors and the Stuarts) who, on the ground that a certain mechanical invention would injure the well-being of the people, actually forbade and prevented its introduction or development." (op. cit.)

All through the 19th Century, already concerns about the adverse effects of industrialization were being heard. In his pivotal study on socialism (originally published in 1899), Gustave LeBon had much to say. Some excerpts include:

"The present, perhaps, is the one age in history which has seen the greatest changes in the shortest time. These changes are the consequence of the appearance of factors very different from those which have hitherto dominated society. One of the principal characteristics of the present period is found precisely in the transformation of the determining causes of the evolution of nations. For centuries religious and political factors have exercised a fundamental influence, but to-day this influence has considerably paled. Economic and industrial factors, for a long time very unimportant, are to-day assuming an absolutely preponderating influence.

"The mere fact that man has discovered the means to extract from coal the energies which the sun has slowly stored up in it during millions of years has entirely revolutionized the material conditions of life. In creating new resources it has created new needs, and the changes in everyday life have soon brought in their train transformations in the moral and social state of the nations. Having invented machinery, man has become enslaved by it… It is machinery which has allowed women and children to enter the factory, and which at the same time has disorganized the family and the home. Whilst making work easy to the worker, and obliging him to specialize himself, it has lessened his intelligence and his power of effort. The artisan of the old state of things has sunk to the rank of common laborer, from which he can only very rarely rise.

"The industrial role of machinery is not limited to the immense multiplication of available power. In transforming the means of transport it has considerably reduced the distances which separate country from country, and has brought nations face to face which were formerly completely separated… Thanks to coal again, the products of one country are rapidly distributed among the others, and the whole world has become a vast market emancipated from the actions of Governments."[4]

Rarely if ever have such observations been understood or heeded as warnings, but that’s exactly what they were. The Jew, though, whether through perspicacity or simply being in the right place at the right time, was ever ready to use the destabilizing effects of the Industrial Revolution to his advantage. It is a fact beyond question that the Enlightenment in Europe released the Jew from many of the political and religious constraints that had bound him in the past, and, since his "emancipation from the ghetto" he has used his notorious financial acuity to deadly effect, first to lay hold of the financial markets of the Western world, and then to branch out and systematically to first influence and then dominate all of the crucial pivot points of power in the White man’s world – business and the trades unions, the mass media and academia; and, finally, politics. He did this methodically and simultaneously, like a spider spinning her web. What most people in the know generally perceive as a "conspiracy to dominate the world" is simply a by-product of the Jew’s efforts to defeat his ancient Aryan enemy; such cohesive-collectivist networks are in his nature, and used only incidentally to further a broader conspiracy. In the realm of industrialization, we have this from Mr. Simpson:

"One will understand nothing unless one understands that the Machine, as the greatest material force in the Western world, is an instrument and a weapon, and that he who controls it is the master of our society and of most of the people in it. Inevitably, therefore, between those who control it and are masters, and those who seek to control it and to become masters, it is the chief bone of contention. And it must be realized, accordingly, that whoever controls it will always, within certain limits of expediency, shape it and use it, not with any primary concern for general human welfare, or even for efficiency, but in whatever way promises the best to ensure his mastery and to further his ends.

"It is important to note at the very outset that, throughout its entire history, the Machine has been developed as an instrument of power… Within the limits set by human capability and endurance, it has been developed almost solely in accord with the abstract logical demands of technical efficiency. Technics is an elaboration of ideas based primarily on an exploration of the nature of metal and the inanimate, and only incidentally making even any concession to the entirely contrary nature of the organic and of man. Inevitably, therefore, wherever the human worker has become the mere tender of a machine, it has meant the imposition of the dead hand of a reason inherent in something alien to himself upon his living impulse…

"[W]hen Marcus Eli Ravage boasted that the Jews had been ‘at the bottom of all your revolutions,’ I am not sure that he had in mind only those of a political nature. As I have turned things over in my mind through the years, I have found myself wondering increasingly whether the Jews may not have been primarily responsible for the way our industrial system and our technology have developed – into something not altogether to be proud of, and certainly not in accord with the basic instincts, values, and traditions of Nordic man…

"We know that the Industrial Revolution began in England about 1760, long before the Jews with their Bank ‘of England’ had become the dominant financial power in the land. We know that either in obedience to their universal inborn instincts, or in accord with the injunctions in their Talmud, they were everlastingly looking upon every invention, development or event for the opportunity it afforded for the making of money. We know, too, that nowhere have they felt any deep bond to the soil, to the land, or to the people among whom they have dwelt, and that gentiles, again on the commands of their Talmud, were to be looked upon as cattle to be milked, with a total lack of concern for the long-range welfare of the people who have been their hosts. And does not such an attitude provide the perfect setting for that utterly heartless and soulless expropriation and exploitation of the English people, which called forth so many anguished cries of protest during the period when the Industrial Revolution was taking on its distinctive form and setting its decisive direction? And does it not explain, as nothing else can, the fact that our whole industrial system, and the technology that steered its development, has driven remorselessly toward an economy of mad, reckless profit-seeking, of sheer pillage, rape, and desecration, utterly without regard for what might be its effect on Man himself, on the Earth entrusted to his care, or on those who must come after him? ‘Who knows,’ jeered Ravage, ‘what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone?’"[3]

Of course that all makes perfect sense. The Jew, generally parasitic by nature, has ever been averse to physical labor, preferring instead to exploit the labor of others. The above profile fits him perfectly. And the decidedly destructive character of the Industrial Revolution is certainly more consonant with his personality than with our own – a tool for the maximum exploitation of labor. He has hijacked our creative genius and turned it to ill effect. But, whether Mr. Simpson was correct in his assessment or not is immaterial at this point; industrialization is a fact of life. What matters is how we deal with what we’ve created. We must choose whether to let it continue destroying our humanity, or, if we prefer life – vibrant, healthy life – then we must needs reassert ourselves, and regain control of our destiny. National Socialism would allow us to do that. No other form of government that the White man has yet devised can unite and give us the power to effectively combat the crisis that confronts us.

National Socialism is more than just a political theory, however; it’s a worldview (Weltanschauung). Marxism, to which peecee dogma (a.k.a. Cultural Communism) is so intimately entwined, is also a world- view. And, as Hitler correctly pointed out in Mein Kampf, "Ideas and philosophical systems as well as movements grounded on a definite spiritual foundation, whether true or not, can never be broken by the use of force after a certain stage, except on one condition: namely that this use of force is in the service of a new idea or Weltanschauung which burns with a new flame." And we all know that force will become necessary before this is over, for the ballot box can not deliver us from subjugation. So what better tool than that designed specifically to unite our people in common cause against the Marxist world pest? Democracy won’t do it, nor will republicanism; only National Socialism has a proven track record in combating this menace.

National Socialism embodies the spirit of Western civilization, our historical struggle as a people destined to greatness, our accomplishments, pursuit of excellence, our distinctly Aryan code of honor and sense of fair play, our cultural treasures and mores, even our spirituality (more on which later). All of these and more are idealized and valued by the National Socialist worldview. Perhaps most importantly, in light of our current circumstances, National Socialism recognizes the Jew as the greatest threat to our continued survival and effectively unites our people to eliminate this threat. The meaning of National Socialism was best summed up by Hitler when he said:

" ‘Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity.’ A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.

"Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.

"The question of ‘nationalizing’ a people is first and foremost one of establishing healthy social conditions which will furnish the grounds that are necessary for the education of the individual. For only when family upbringing and school education have inculcated in the individual a knowledge of the cultural and economic and, above all, the political greatness of one’s country – then, and then only, will it be possible for him to feel proud of being a citizen of such a country. I can fight only for something that I live. I can only love what I respect. And in order to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge of it."[5]

Above all else, National Socialism concerns itself with the health and well- being of the White race. Monogamous marriage is idealized as foundational, and large families are encouraged. Health of body and mind are fostered through education and extracurricular youth programs, and a practical application of eugenic principles is adhered to in order to cleanse the gene pool of genetic defects and abnormalities (no, that doesn’t mean murder, though sterilization is enforced in extreme cases). Each individual is provided general educational instruction as well as boys’ martial training and home economics for girls; strengths and inborn capacity are identified and fostered. Every individual has a place in the fabric of the nation, and all are taught to use their talents to benefit self and community; all work has value. Individual responsibility (the leadership principle) is deeply ingrained in National Socialist society.

In contrast to all this, Marxism embodies the spirit of negation. Everything that Western civilization represents, Marxism repudiates. The philosophy of dialectic materialism perceives man as matter, devoid of soul or spirit; everything is viewed in terms of material criteria, thus consciousness is reduced to "matter in motion." The nuclear family is seen as oppressive to women, thus they are encouraged to abandon their traditional role as mother and conveyer of culture; homosexuality and "alternative lifestyles" are encouraged.

Religion and spirituality are condemned and ridiculed except for Judaism, of course, and Western morality and cultural mores are slandered as oppressive to the "common man."

Absolute equality, both of capacity and opportunity, is a foundational tenet of Marxism, and when individuals nevertheless excel and produce unequal results in spite of this impossible doctrine, the redistribution of wealth, and even murder, often follows. To use a phrase coined by Terry Goodkind in his Sword of Truth series (fiction), Marxism amounts to "benevolence through brutality." In AFP’s special report on "Cultural Communism," we find this:

"Religion is where most people get their morals. Sexuality and sexual behavior is a function of the morals that you get from religion. So what you want to do is loosen people’s allegiance to these things and the first step in this was to liberalize divorce, then came contraception, then came abortion, then came homosexuality and feminism.

"The most important job in any society is left to the woman and that is the trans- mission of culture to the next generation. So if you could recruit women into an effort to destroy that culture, you have struck the culture a deadly blow. That’s what feminism has done."[6]

These are the words of Dr. E. Michael Jones and historian William Lind, respectively, in interviews on Radio Free America. And Wilhelm Reich, a communist who fled to America from Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s, wrote in his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism –

"We, as communists, used to debate people about the existence of God and after awhile, I came to the conclusion that this was a waste of time. You aren’t going to debate people away from the existence of God. But what we found was that if you get people involved in deviant sexual behavior, the whole idea of God just disappears automatically." (op. cit.)

Such a frank admission from a communist ideologue, that deliberately targeting the sexual mores of a people is a sure way to undermine their national culture, certainly helps to put the sexual revolution of the 1960s into perspective. Many people mistakenly believe that with the end of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR, communism is no longer a threat; unfortunately, such a view is incredibly naive. Even in the midst of the Cold War, the Marxist poison was methodically subverting the national cultures of the Western world, and it continues to do so today; the Cold War was simply a smoke screen. Perhaps the most deadly tools in this regard are academia and the mass media, long ago infiltrated by predominantly Marxist and Zionist Jews. F. C. Blahut states it thus:

"In 1917, when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, their attack was economic and political. Only after they had seized power did they turn to destroying the Christian-based culture of the West.

"With the political correctness movement we see the reverse – an attack on the Christian culture so that the communists can take over…

"Cultural Communism encompasses all of the modernist changes that have invaded America, including – but not limited to – multiculturalism, feminism, racial and gender quotas, school busing based on race and so forth… One of the main targets of Cultural Communism is Christianity." (op. cit.)

And William Lind adds:

"I wouldn’t call it ‘cultural bolshevism’ because the people who put this together specifically reject the Bolshevik model, which is seizing political power through a coup or revolution and then using that to remake the rest of society.

"They said: No, you can’t do that in Western countries. Instead, you have to engage in what Gramsci [an influential Italian communist of the 1920s] called a ‘long march through the institutions’ where first you take the cultural institutions, the schools, the churches, the entertainment industry, the media and then you only take political power at the end, after you have captured all of the others." (op. cit.)

Sound familiar? We see this exact pattern in America today. So let it be understood that Cultural Communism and peecee dogma are synonymous. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, at least, Marxism has initiated a two-pronged assault on civilization: armed revolution in the East (Russia and China), and a subversive cultural revolution in Western countries. In our own country these corrosive influences can easily be traced to academia, where a number of prominently Jewish intellectual movements have created what Professor MacDonald designates a "Culture of Critique." Three prominent examples of such movements are Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian Cultural Anthropology and the Frankfurt School of Social Research. In a review of Yuri Slezking’s book The Jewish Century, the professor states:

"The main weapons Jews used against national cultures were two quintessentially modern ideologies, Marxism and Freudianism, ‘both of which countered nationalism’s quaint tribalism with a modern (scientific) path to wholeness’ (p. 80).

"Slezkine correctly views both of these as Jewish ideologies functioning as organized religions, with sacred texts promising deliverance from earthly travail. While most of his book recounts the emergence of a Jewish elite under the banner of Marxism in the Soviet Union, his comments on psychoanalysis bear mentioning. Psychoanalysis ‘moved to the United States to reinforce democratic citizenship with a much-needed new prop.... In America, where nationwide tribal metaphors could not rely on theories of biological descent, Freudianism came in very handy indeed’ by erecting the ‘Explicitly Therapeutic State’ (pp. 79-80). The establishment of the Explicitly Therapeutic State was much aided by yet another Jewish intellectual movement, the Frankfurt School, which combined psychoanalysis and Marxism. The result was a culture of critique which fundamentally aimed not only at de-legitimizing the older American culture, but even attempted to alter or obliterate human nature itself."[7]

Unfortunately, at this writing I do not have my copy of the Culture of Critique (the third book in his trilogy), though I strongly recommend you read the entire treatise. Talk about a Eureka moment! The most notorious contribution of Freudian Psychoanalysis has been to pathologize Western cultural mores, especially in the realm of Christian morality and sex. According to Freud, any sign of psychological imbalance – be it stress, depression, anger or some more serious disturbance – was inevitably the result of some repressed sexual urge (i.e., Oedipus Complex) or traumatic sexual experience from childhood. The man was obsessed with sex, and what’s more he and his disciples often played out their deviant sexual fantasies by forcing patients to express or relive (to purge) the supposedly repressed sexual urges/experiences via hypnosis and suggestion (referred to as "recovered memories," and which, incidently, have caused no end of social stigma and broken homes as a result of – often false – accusations of molestation/ incest).

And Franz Boas, well, he’s the father of the "equality" myth (and cultural relativism, the idea that there is no objective standard by which to measure cultural advancement). His "Cultural Anthropology" transformed the physical science studying the physical characteristics of human races and their evolutionary development into two disciplines (physical and cultural), which new social science effectively turned the study of race on its head. As for the Frankfurt School, historian William Lind said:

"Think tanks go back a lot longer than people realize. One was established at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923 called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, particularly after 1930 when a young fellow named Max Horkheimer became director, set out specifically to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms. That cultural Marxism is what we now call ‘political correctness’...

"Cultural Marxism translates a lot of the traditional Marxist framework into cultural terms. Whereas the old economic Marxism said that workers and peasants were automatically good and capitalists and aristocrats are automatically evil (regardless of what an individual does) so the new cultural Marxism says that Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, feminists, etc., are automatically good and White males automatically evil and by the way, non-feminist women don’t exist…

"One of the most important tools they developed in the 1930s was what they called ‘critical theory.’

"The term is a bit of a play on words. If someone says this term, you want to know what the theory is. The answer is that the theory is to criticize.

"The theory is to criticize every institution, every traditional belief in Western culture (family, religion, education), and to criticize them in the most destructive way possible and to do so unremittingly. That we see all around us today."[6]

And that, ladies and gents, brings us full circle because, interestingly enough, all of this ties into the individualist-collectivist paradigm. Not only does the culture of critique created by Cultural Marxism undermine the foundations of civilization generally; it also seems to activate an individualist defense mechanism referred to as "altruistic punishment" (mistakenly described as "collective punishment" in my previous article), which has turned us into our own worst enemy. Professor MacDonald explains it thus:

"I am continually amazed at the extent to which evolutionists have been indoctrinated – mainly by Richard Dawkins – against supposing that groups have any important role to play in human evolution. The problem comes about for two reasons: Failure to comprehend cultural group selection, and failure to appreciate the extent to which selection between groups has shaped the human mind."

For those of you unfamiliar with evolutionary theory, one of its central (modern) tenets is that natural selection operates only on an individual level – not on the group level – because, they say, variation in genetic traits affects an individual’s ability to secure resources, and to survive and reproduce in particular environments, and therefore that no two individuals can evolve in the same way. In fact, they often fall back on this argument in their efforts to dispute the existence of races among our species. Professor MacDonald continues:

"There is a critical difference between humans and other animals that renders all of the arguments against group selection moot. It is simply this: Humans are able to solve the free-rider problem by monitoring and enforcing compliance to group goals. So far as we know, animals can’t do this. As a result, although there may well be limits on the extent to which natural selection can build stable cohesive groups, much less altruistic groups, in the absence of massive genetic overlap, these limits do not apply to humans… Humans are able to solve the free-rider problem – the problem that organisms would tend to take advantage of group membership without paying the costs…

"Boehm (1997) shows that human hunter-gatherer groups are characterized by an ‘egalitarian ethic’ for an evolutionarily significant period – long enough to have influenced both genetic and cultural evolution. The egalitarian ethic implies that meat and other important resources are shared among the entire group, the power of leaders is circumscribed, free-riders are punished, and virtually all important decisions are made by a consensus process. The egalitarian ethic thus makes it difficult for individuals to increase their fitness at the expense of other individuals in the same group, resulting in relative behavioral uniformity and relatively weak selection pressures within groups. Mild forms of social control, such as gossip and withholding social benefits, are usually sufficient to control would-be dominators, but more extreme measures, such as ostracism and execution, are recorded in the ethnographic literature. By controlling behavioral differences within groups and increasing behavioral differences between groups, Boehm argues that the egalitarian ethic shifted the balance between levels of selection and made selection between groups an important force in human evolution.

"Recently, Fehr and Gächter (2002) found that people will altruistically punish defectors in a ‘one-shot’ game – a game in which participants only interact once and are thus not influenced by the reputations of the people with whom they are interacting… Subjects who made high levels of public goods donations tended to punish people who did not even though they did not receive any benefit from doing so… Fehr and Gächter suggest that people… have an evolved negative emotional reaction to free riding that results in their punishing such people even at a cost to themselves hence the attribution of altruism.

"These results are of great importance for thinking about situations where people help strangers in situations where future interactions are not anticipated. Essentially Fehr and Gächter model the evolution of cooperation among individualistic peoples. Their results are therefore least applicable to groups such as Jews which in traditional societies were based on extended kindred relationships, known kinship linkages, and repeated interactions among members… The results are most applicable to individualistic groups because such groups are not based similarly on extended kinship relationships and are much more prone to defection. In general, high levels of altruistic punishment are more likely to be found among individualistic, hunter-gatherer societies than in kinship based societies based on the extended family.

"The key therefore for a group intending to turn the Puritans (one of the groups discussed in the book) and other Europeans derived from hunter-gatherers against themselves is to convince them of the evil of their own people. Because they are individualists at heart, Europeans readily rise up in moral anger against their own people once they see them as morally blameworthy – a manifestation of their much stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter-gatherers. Relative genetic distance is irrelevant: morally blameworthy ‘free-riders’ must be subjected to the sternest discipline… And the best strategy for a collectivist group like the Jews for destroying Europeans therefore is to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy… (and) this is exactly what Jewish intellectual movements have done. They have presented Judaism as morally superior to European civilization and European civilization as morally bankrupt and the proper target of altruistic punishment."[2]

From this we can surmise not only that Marxism is a weapon specifically designed to undermine the moral fiber of Western civilization, but also that the now ubiquitous guilt complex foisted upon our people (for slavery, the Holohoax, etc.) is more than just an emotional battering ram; it’s a virus designed to cripple us psychologically. And all of these psychological weapons we’ve been discussing are employed for one purpose: to conquer and subjugate by turning us against each other. It’s the whole divide-and-conquer, attenuated to our individualist psyche, and it’s working remarkably well, unfortunately. But, as knowledge is power, understanding our own psychology will help us guard against manipulation; and, conversely, knowing collectivist psychology will help recognize how the cohesive-network strategy of the Jews (and others, to lesser extent) operates, for it’s more than just a "fantastic conspiracy theory." Conspiracies may be foreign to the way our mind works, and thus difficult for us to comprehend, but that does not detract from their reality. Not everything is a conspiracy, though, so a healthy dose of skepticism keeps one balanced.

When people think of socialism I’m sure the word "atheist" immediately comes to mind, and, while this is certainly true of Marxism, it’s not true of National Socialism. So, for a full understanding of the two doctrines, it is important to clarify the issue of religion in relation to each; and it may surprise some, but not even Marxism can suppress the spiritual inclination of human beings. Instead, it attempts to replace that spirituality with a secular faith.

Marxism, as the most extreme manifestation of socialism, is largely irrational in its aims, and thus assumes the character of a religion by which faith is necessary in order to persuade its followers that said aims are within reach. In contrast to this, National Socialism, as a synthesis of both socialism and nationalism, incorporates some of the more realistic aspects of socialism (and redefines others) with the national/ racial inclinations of human beings; it is entirely rational in its examination of human nature, while simultaneously allowing for spirituality if one so chooses. Hitler stated it thus:

"National Socialism is a cool-headed doctrine of realities; it mirrors clearly scientific knowledge and its expression in thought. Since we have won the heart of our people for this doctrine we do not wish to fill their minds with a mysticism which lies outside of that doctrine’s goal and purpose.

"National Socialism is not a cult-movement, a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkish’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood relationship.

"The national government regards the two Christian confessions as the most important factors of the maintenance of our ethical personality…

"The Government will adopt a just and objective attitude towards all other religions."[5]

And Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s right-hand man, had this to say on the issue:

"No National Socialist shall be allowed to suffer because he does not subscribe to a certain religion or because he ascribes to no religion at all. Belief is a matter for each one to resolve in the light of his own conscience." (op. cit.)

The Christianity of Adolf Hitler was not of the Judeo-Christian variety; he was, in fact, a fundamentalist in the spirit of pre-Enlightenment Christianity. For those who don’t know, fundamentalism is defined by two central tenets: (1) that the Jews were solely responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus; (2) that the Jews were no longer the "chosen" children of God’s promise of salvation, and that said promise was now reserved for those who sought forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ (i.e., Christians). Alfred Rosenberg, the party ideologue, proposed to "Aryanize" Christianity further by eliminating much of the Old Testament recounting of Jewish history, but Hitler rejected this idea; he sought instead to follow in the footsteps of Jesus as a fighter of the Jews:

"…my feelings as a Christian points me to the Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to a man who once in loneliness, surrounded only be a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!, was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison.

"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross." (op. cit.)

Conversely, it is the religious nature of Marxism itself that gives it the power to attract people from many different walks of life. There is something in it for almost everyone; and man is ever an emotional creature, choosing to believe in what is unattainable in spite of the reality staring him in the face. The eschatological ideal of Marxism is the ultimate classless society and its doctrine of predestination through historical necessity. And, though secular, it has scriptures, prophets, saints and martyrs much like any other religion. It professes scientific truth as a guiding principle (at least, that is, insofar as science bends to its doctrine), while rejecting any scientific conclusions that tend to repudiate the philosophical foundations of Marxism itself (e.g., outlawing the study of genetics which disproves "equality," and replacing it with ideologically-inspired Lysenkoism), all under the maxim that "truth is relative." In his Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx even went so far as to rationalize (sic) the use of lies and misinformation in the furtherance of an ideal, claiming "the end justifies the means." Mr. LeBon points out:

"Perhaps it is above all through its apostles that Socialism may be able to triumph for a moment. Only these enthusiasts possess the zeal indispensable to create a faith, the magic power which has at several periods transformed the world. They are skilled in the art of persuasion; an art simple at once and subtle, whose actual laws no book has ever taught. They know that the crowd has a horror of doubt; that they know none but extreme sentiments; energetic affirmation, energetic denial, intense love, or violent hatred; and they know how to evoke these sentiments, and how to develop them.

"The apostles of Socialism, who anathematize or deny the old dogmas of Christianity, are none the less eminently religious persons. The nature of their faith has changed, but they are still under the sway of all the ancestral instincts of their race. The paradisial society of their dreams is very like the celestial paradise of our fathers. In these ingenuous minds, entirely at the mercy of atavism, the old deism is objectified under the earthly form of a providential State, repairing all injustice, and possessing the illimitable power of the ancient gods."[4]

As for economics, while Cultural Marxism has supplanted economic issues in Western countries, it is nevertheless an important topic in the present discussion; the issue of class conflict is also germane. Economics is a central factor in the pending collapse of all that we’ve built, so it is important that we understand what’s wrong.

I’m a bit out of my element here, but some general observations will suffice.

Reading Karl Marx’s Das Kapital is an experience in tedium: a pedantic treatise and, like any text on our current money system, it tends to obfuscate and confuse rather than explain and clarify. Suffice it to say that Marxist economic doctrine – that is, State ownership and control of the means of production – was an abysmal failure. It led to starvation, destitution and waste. Only massive infusions of capital from Western (capitalist) countries allowed the Soviet Union to last as long as it did, and obviously such a lopsided relationship could not continue indefinitely. Now even Communist China has, to a large extent, converted her economy to the capitalist model. But communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin; at bottom they share a common foundation – debt – which means slavery to International Finance. Both systems send money into circulation at interest (usury), employing the fractional reserve banking system based on compound interest. Both issue a fiat currency and a fictitious gold standard, participate in the stock market and are international. Both control a system of inflation/deflation by adjusting interest rates to regulate the value of those currencies. And, while capitalism did not originally employ a graduated income tax, it long ago adopted this method from the communist model.

Both systems create wide disparities in wealth between rich and poor, though under capitalism there exists a broad middle class (in times of prosperity, at least), while under communism the redistribution of wealth and forced equality eliminates most of this central economic foundation. Under communism, gradations in wealth are scorned as "oppressive" – so, instead, there are the haves and the have-nots: the rulers and elites on one side, the ruled and everyone else on the other.

The sole significant difference between the two systems is that capitalism at least nominally recognizes private property, meaning only that the exploitation of the people is more subtle and underhanded. Communism collectivizes property under the guardianship of the State, and this exploitation is a way of life. Also, in theory, government interference in the economy is frowned upon under the capitalist system – though it’s been gradually increasing since FDR’s presidency – while communism’s "central planning" is inherent in its design. However, both models employ a central bank, so central planning exists under both systems whether acknowledged or not. He who controls the bank runs the economy.

The communist economic model is entirely collectivist, arising from an attempt to postulate the Jewish group evolutionary strategy into the economic sphere and on a national-to-international level. It may prove suitable for a highly collectivist group like the Jews (though I doubt even that, for, without a host population to exploit, they could not set down roots). But it is least of all adaptable to individualist peoples, and in fact cannot work for anybody as far as I can see because it devalues individual effort and delegitimizes one’s capacity for achievement and excellence; it completely removes from the equation every incentive to work and do well, and, without that, no economic program can long sustain itself.

Conversely, the capitalist system arises from Aryan Man’s individualist pursuit of excellence and sense of fair play. It values individual capacity and rewards individual effort, recognizing private property as the only sound and secure foundation for an individual’s happiness and prosperity.

The problem is that the capitalist model, being initially open to all competitors, did not anticipate, and couldn’t have foreseen, the cohesive social networks introduced by such collectivist peoples as the Jews, who have effectively put individual competitors at a disadvantage. Our capitalist system has been completely undermined, markets and business enterprises monopolized, because governments – indebted to creditors and generally corrupt – became impotent in the face of this overwhelming power wielded by International Finance. Yet a return to traditional laissez faire capitalism, even if it were possible, will not save us because its doctrine of total non-interference is what allowed the Jews with their predatory, entirely materialistic business practices (recall what Mr. Simpson said about the Industrial Revolution) to gain that upper hand in the first place.

Needed is a balanced, middle-ground economic model; one that incorporates the incentivized system and recognition of private property inherent in our capitalist model, yet empowers the government to break up monopolies and punish predatory business practices – ensuring the people’s welfare generally.

National Socialist Germany employed just such a system.

Hitler spoke of the competition between Aryan and Jew quite often. In his words:

"We said to ourselves that race differs from race and, further, that each race in accordance with its fundamental demands shows externally certain specific tendencies, and these tendencies can perhaps be most clearly traced in their relation to the conception of work. The Aryan regards work as the foundation for the maintenance of the community of the people amongst its members, the Jew regards work as the means to the exploitation of other peoples. The Jew never works as a productive creator without the great aim of becoming the master. He works unproductively, using and enjoying other people’s work. And thus we understand the iron sentence which Mommsen once uttered: ‘The Jew is the fermentation of decomposition in peoples, that means the Jew destroys and must destroy because he completely lacks the conception of an activity which builds up the life of the community.’ And therefore it is beside the point whether the individual Jew is ‘decent’ or not. In himself he carries those characteristics. And to us he is harmful. Whether he harms us consciously or unconsciously, that is not our affair. We have consciously to concern ourselves for the welfare of our own people."[5]

And Hitler rejected the system of international subjugation to capital when he said:

"In the sphere of economic life all action must be governed by one law; capital serves industry, and industry serves the people. German economic salvation has been brought about solely through the efforts of the German people and the experience they have gained. Countries abroad have contributed nothing to this…

"Life is not a problem of financial speculations, but always only a problem of work. The folk community does not exist on the fictitious value of money, but on the results of productive labor, which is what gives money its value. This production, and not a bank or gold reserve, is the first cover for a currency." (op. cit.)

When in want of some commodity not produced within Germany itself, Hitler employed the barter system. He rejected the gold standard, and related the value of currency to the people’s productive capacity. National Socialism recognizes private property and private ownership of the means of production, while reserving the right to intervene in economic matters as, for instance, when public work projects (e.g., the Autobahn) or focusing production in important and necessary directions may demand. Eminent Domain was practiced when requisite for communal purposes, but housing became affordable, within the reach of the common man; also, financial speculation on land was strictly prohibited. Land holdings were to be inherited from father to son in perpetuity. Some of these policies have led many to label National Socialist Germany as Fascist, but mostly as a distraction (a bogey man, so to speak) while ignoring the merits of the National Socialist economic model. The primary economic concern of the National Socialist government was production, and to this end it employed the incentivized system of the free market on a national level. W. G. Simpson had this to say:

"Hitler began his rule by breaking with the international bankers. He believed that Germany could never be a sovereign and really independent State so long as she had to live on borrowed money. Instead of going to the bankers for money to buy what she had to procure from abroad, she bartered (that is, swapped) some of her surplus to obtain what she needed from the surplus of other nations – without debts being incurred on either side. And with this approach Germany was soon crowding out all competitors. Moreover, for the money required to finance her vast programs for a complete regeneration of the life of the German people and for making Germany the most powerful State in Europe, he simply issued what money was needed, on the authority of the German government, and based it not on gold, of which he had none, but on the productive wealth of the land within German confines, combined with the productivity inherent in German brains and German labor.

"And it proved sound. It worked. In less than ten years Germany became easily the most powerful State in Europe. It worked so magically and magnificently that it sounded the death knell of the entire Jewish money system. World Jewry knew that they had to destroy Hitler’s system, by whatever means might prove necessary, or their own would necessarily die. And if it died, with it must die their dream and their hope of making themselves masters of the world. The primary issue over which World War II was fought was to determine which money system was to survive. At bottom it was not a war between Germany and the so-called allies. Primarily it was war to the death between Germany and the International Money Power.

"In this war Germany fought for Europe, the racial homeland of Nordic White men and the cradle of Western civilization, while Britain, France and the U. S. were deliberately tricked into betraying their own kind and joining hands with their Jewish enemies to make the International Money Power the master of the world."[3]

From this we can understand the drive to consistently vilify Hitler and National Socialism, to smear and make both himself and National Socialism objects of scorn and hatred. It also explains the all-consuming need to turn the Holohoax into what amounts to religious dogma, beyond question, even in the face of all the evidence now arrayed against it. Without the "evil Nazis" and the "genocide of six million Jews," Hitler’s regime and, more importantly, his accomplishments, become a topic for objective examination. The Jewish New World Order would collapse on the eve of its realization. So this war against Hitler and National Socialism continues unabated, in spite of the military victory in 1945. As Ezra Pound said, "A nation that will not get itself into debt drives the usurers to fury." And again, "War is the highest form of sabotage, the most atrocious form of sabotage. Usurers provoke wars to impose monopolies in their own interests, so that they can get the world by the throat." This is exactly what has happened; since the end of the war more than 25 central banks have been founded – modeled after our own Federal Reserve. "Each one contains a clause in its constitution placing it outside the control of the government of the country in which it was founded." (op. cit.)

Since Germany’s defeat, Aryan Man has retreated in on himself, no longer sure of his place in the world, and everything we’ve built has been eclipsed by a multicultural nightmare; nowhere in the world does Western civilization still shine as a beacon of health and prosperity (though Russia’s star is rising, ironically enough; maybe it will take communist revolution and domination to wake us up – a scary thought).

Finally, no discussion of socialism would be complete without an examination of class conflict. As stated earlier, two articles of faith in Marxism as a secular religion are the ultimate classless society and predestination through historical necessity. In his Communist Manifesto Karl Marx outlines his interpretation of history as being dominated by class struggles over economic interests, and he asserts that this struggle will eventually culminate in the absorption of all classes into one fold – the working class. This final "classless society" is the idealized communist dream that all of the various Marxian socialists presage. But this assumes that class is artificial rather than something predetermined by the inherited inequalities among men. While it’s true that class differences can be exacerbated by artificial means, the fact remains that classes can never be made to disappear through social engineering or any other means. According to Gustave LeBon:

"The struggle of the classes, is a banality as old as the world. By the mere fact of the unequal partition of wealth and power, caused by natural inequalities, or merely by social necessities, men have always been divided into classes, of which the interests were necessarily more or less exposed, and consequently at war. But the idea that this struggle might cease is one of those chimerical conceptions that are completely contradicted by the realities, and its realization is very far from being a desirable thing."[4]

Obviously a precondition for achieving a classless society would be equality among its citizens, and because this is impossible from a natural standpoint it must of necessity be accomplished through the use of force.

But the pursuit of equality, by whatever means, is the seed of civilization’s decay; for, at its core, our Western civilization embodies the aristocratic principle – that is, that men are by nature unequal, and are therefore destined to a differentiation of function. Indeed, without the aristocratic principle our civilization will collapse.

Mr. Simpson said it best:

"The doctrine of equality is essentially a repudiation of quality, for it is a denial of that differentiation apart from which quality cannot exist. The whole movement toward equality is part of the process by which the typical and normal texture and organic structure of a sound society breaks down into the mush of decay – loss of all distinctive size, shape, color, relationship, and function, into a meaningless mass. Thus it is a presage of the end.

"In any society its members fall naturally, by virtue of their very character and capacities, into several classes. They are roughly graded by the caliber of their service to their society. Thus comes about what is often described as the pyramidal form of a people’s life, but… it is perhaps more accurately compared with a living organism, between whose parts there is a marked differentiation of function. Each has a necessary service to render to the whole, for which it is specially fitted…

"We, with our democratic prejudices, reject the pyramidal form and resent the idea of class. But we overlook the fact that class is inherent not only in all social organization but above all in human nature itself, in the inborn and insurmountable differences between man and man. Our democracy has not prevented its emergence. Class is all around us – unmistakably. The trouble is that our classes are founded on a difference in the possession of money or of adroitness at money-making – surely one of the basest criteria by which men have ever been distinguished. Among us, those who rule are not superior men, and therefore – as every man of superior instinct knows – their control of affairs is unjustified."[3]

Of course, all of this is obvious to those of us whose eyes are not blinded by peecee dogma. In the pursuit of impossible equality, though, Marxism panders to the passions of the lowest among us, and thus elevates the mediocre above the superior; it is the idealization of the lowest common denominator. The Marxist absolutely hates the idea that any one man can be the superior of another in innate capacity. To quote LeBon:

"The Socialists of every school are loath to admit the importance of intellectual superiority. Their high priest Marx understands by the term work nothing but manual labor, and relegates the spirit of invention, capacity, and direction, which has nevertheless transformed the world, to a second place.

"This hatred of intelligence on the part of the Socialists is well founded, for it is precisely this intelligence that will prove the eternal obstacle on which all their ideas of equality will shatter themselves."[4]

Not surprisingly, there is an obvious dichotomy here. Anyone who has read a major Marxist text is aware of its obscurant and pedantic nature, and so it’s no wonder therefore that Marxism’s leadership is predominated by intellectuals. But Marxism, which concerns itself only with labor and capital, seems to remake man, devoid of culture or personal value, into an automaton – a wage slave for International Finance. It is mechanical, and lacks any sympathy for human nature, anything with inherent or lasting value such as art, music, literature, morality, religion, education, etc., all of which are bastardized and slandered, corrupted and destroyed. Marxism equals arrested development.

Add to this poisonous brew the adverse effects of industrialization-globalization and free trade, a desensitized and dispirited workforce, a shrinking middle class with the gulf between rich and poor becoming ever wider, and the unnatural rape and pillage of the earth upon which we depend for survival – and you get an army of what Gustave LeBon calls the "unadapted":

"Among the most important characteristics of our age we must mention the presence, in the midst of society, of a number of individuals who, for one reason or another, have been unable to adapt themselves to the necessities of modern civilization, and are unable to find a place therein. They form a superfluity which cannot be utilized. They are the unadapted.

"All societies have always possessed a certain number of these individuals, but never was their number so great as it is today. Unadapted to industry, science, the trades and the arts, they form an ever- increasing army. Notwithstanding their diversity of origin, they are united by one common sentiment – the hatred of the civilization in which they can find no place. Every revolution, no matter what end it pursue, is certain to find them hasting to join it at the first signal. It is among them that Socialism recruits its most ardent soldiers." (op. cit.)

Whereas National Socialism inclines to ameliorate those cultural, economic and industrial conditions that create masses of the unadapted, Marxism fosters such tendencies with the explicit intent to use the unadapted as a battering ram against the edifice of Western civilization. In the days of Roman glory, when that empire was still young, she withstood the assaults of "barbarians" for centuries before her imperial ambitions rendered the frontiers indefensible. Today in our modern empire the barbarians are within the gates, their leaders long ago having stormed the citadel.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the unadapted is their fecundity – they breed like jackrabbits! This has led to a differential birthrate that is disgenic in the extreme. On top of that, insanely-misguided social policies, i.e., open borders, affirmative action, unlimited welfare, etc., are a sure recipe for national suicide. And keep in mind that this is all interconnected; there’s a method to this madness; none of it is accidental.

In stark contrast to all of this, National Socialism idealizes the pursuit of excellence irrespective of class by recognizing that all work (physical, intellectual and spiritual) has value, and contributes to the general health of the societal organism. At the same time, the botched and ill-favored are prevented from procreating through social conditioning (their contribution to society lies outside of reproduction), in extreme cases applying the practical rulings of eugenics courts (i.e., sterilization). National Socialist Germany was truly a meritocracy.

"I reject the word ‘proletariat.’ The Jew who coined the word meant by ‘proletariat’ not the oppressed but those who work with their hands. And those who work with their intellects are stigmatized bluntly as ‘bourgeois.’ It is not the character of a man’s life which forms the basis of this classification, it is simply the occupation – whether a man works with his brain or with his body. And in this turbulent mass of the hand-workers the Jew recognized a new power which might perhaps be his instrument for the gaining of that which is his ultimate goal: World-supremacy, the destruction of the national-States.

"The results of class warfare are to be seen all around us and we wish to learn a lesson from them, for we have recognized one thing as necessary for the return of health to our nation: The German people must learn to know each other again. The millions who have been split up into professions and kept apart by artificial class distinctions, who, foolishly, clinging to profession and status, cannot understand each other any longer, must find once more the way to each other.

"We have not broken down classes in order to set new ones in their place; we have broken down classes to make way for the German people as a whole. Our education also trains men to respect intellectual achievement: we bring one to respect the spade, another to respect the compass or the pen. All now are but German fellow- countrymen, and it is their achievement which determines their value."[5]

The National Socialist government utilized the productive capacity of all classes of people to ensure the common good of all, and in the process brought the nation together, united in the pursuit of a common goal and purpose; it awarded excellence and employed an incentivized system of competition to ensure progress. As stated earlier, industry was made to serve the people, not the other way around; workers were provided a living wage, and healthcare, housing and transportation were made affordable, while the trades unions were incorporated into a Central Economic Parliament where grievances could be addressed and problems between employer/ employed could be resolved justly. And National Socialist Germany was one of the first (if not the first) among industrialized nations to set about curtailing industrial pollution and cutting back on deforestation, all with an eye toward environmental protection. Finally, citizenship was strictly regulated to accord with racial principles; in fact, there were three classifications of people – citizens, subjects and foreigners – and the rights of citizenship had to be earned by reaching adulthood and proving oneself a productive member of the national community. Children were born "subjects of the State," and earning their rights of citizenship was a source of great pride. Ultimately, the very heart of National Socialism is "Aryan vs. Jew." Professor MacDonald states it thus:

"National Socialism developed in the context of group conflict between Jews and gentiles… Most basically, National Socialism aimed at developing a cohesive group. There was an emphasis on the inculcation of selfless behavior and within-group altruism combined with outgroup hostility…

"Within-group egalitarianism is often an important facilitator of a group evolutionary strategy, because it cements the allegiance of lower-status individuals. While the National Socialist movement retained traditional hierarchical Western social structure, the internal cohesiveness and altruism characteristic of National Socialism may have been facilitated by a significant degree of egalitarianism. There were real attempts to increase the status and economic prospects of farmers in the Hitler Youth Land Service, and class divisions and social barriers were broken down within the Hitler Youth movement to some extent, with the result that lower and working-class children were able to move into positions of leadership."[2]

So, you see, National Socialism is not "socialism" in the pejorative sense usually implied by that word; quite the opposite, in fact. I often cringe when hearing or seeing in writing a common reactionary sentiment that something or other "threatens our standard of living."

"What standard of living?!" I want to yell. "One that corrupts our youth, perverts our code of honor and suffocates the will to stand in defense of our collective (racial) interests?" Our standard of living has made us fat, lazy and stupid, so why is it worthy of preservation? In the final chapter of his study on socialism, LeBon declares:

"If we set aside the fantastic portions of the innumerable socialistic programs, and consider only those parts which are essential, and which are rendered possible of realization in certain countries by the natural evolution of things, we shall find that these programs may be reduced to four principal points:

"1. The suppression of the too great inequality of wealth by progressive taxation, and especially by sufficiently high death duties.

"2. The progressive extension of the rights of the State; or of the collectivity which will replace the State, and will differ from it only in name.

"3. The resumption of the soil, capital, industries, and enterprise of all sorts by the State; that is to say, the expropriation of the present proprietors for the profit of the community.

"4. Suppression of free competition and equalization of salaries.

"The socialistic ideal is perfectly formulated in the preceding lines; an ideal of base equality and humiliating servitude, which would necessarily conduct the nations which should submit to it to the last degree of decadence. When we see such a program proposed by educated people we perceive at the same moment the headway and the mischief which the socialistic ideas have accomplished."[4]

Though published in 1899, this book is remarkably astute; prescient even. I’d like to have seen the author’s analysis of this struggle between Marxism and National Socialism. To a large extent, all four of the above points have already been realized or are currently festering in this country. Even worse, our institutions have been thoroughly infiltrated by Cultural Marxists; they have methodically advanced their agenda over the past hundred years everywhere – truly The Jewish Century, as Yuri Slezkine brags in his book. And, before their advance, we retreat. So you fear socialism? And threats to our "standard of living," you say? Well, guess what, socialism is already here, hiding in plain sight, and this degenerate "standard of living" is not of our making, doesn’t fit our needs and does not guarantee continued health and survival to our people. It’s not worthy of preservation, so wake up!

National Socialism provides us with all the tools we need to reclaim our destiny. Some may quail at its authoritarian nature but, after much thought and my objective examination for and against, I’m convinced that a strong, central authority is the only kind that can effectively unite our people and cleanse the pollution that has brought us to this edge of the abyss. The history of Europe reads like a continuing struggle of one people against another where religious and nation-States have constantly vied for domination; but, when it came to fighting the Jew, the only strategy that ever worked for us was a collective assault guided by a central authority. And this is because our individualist tendencies – egalitarianism, altruism toward strangers and our moral universalism – are no match against a clan predisposed to hyper-collectivism. Today more than ever, as it’s no longer simply a European affair but a global struggle, it is us against a world of largely collectivist peoples. One final quote from Professor MacDonald:

"Given the propensity of gentile collectivist societies to exclude Jews, it is not surprising that a powerful strand of Jewish intellectual activity in the 20th Century has been to pathologize highly cohesive, collectivist social structures, gentile nationalism, gentile authoritarian political groups, and gentile ethnocentrism. … It is clearly in the interest of Jews to advocate the continuation of the quintessential Western cultural commitment to individualism as the great environment for the continuation of Jewish collectivism."[2]

At present, we are descending toward dictatorship; and, worse yet, "our" head of State is a Marxist, a globalist completely beholden to the plutocratic-Zionist elite. Our economy is in the crapper, the national debt is increasing exponentially and only Communist China’s forbearance keeps the economy from collapsing – which will not continue indefinitely. Capitalism is an abysmal failure; both it and communism are tools of International Finance, and their purpose is debt as a means of enslavement. There is a mass of unanswerable evidence not only that both systems operate on the same basic principles, but also that without massive infusions of capital from Western countries communism could never have gained a foothold in Eurasia. The facts lead clearly to the conclusion that International Finance is predominantly Jewish, so today’s drive to audit the Federal Reserve and abolish the 16th Amendment are certainly moves in the right direction. But, until the whole system of fractional reserve banking – that is, a system based on debt and the lending of money at interest – is abolished, and replaced with an honest money system, we cannot even begin to free ourselves from Jewish tyranny. Anything else is a half measure. Let these closing comments from Mr. Simpson prove enlightening:

"At bottom, the credit needed to give solid backing to any sound and honest money system is a ‘social phenomenon.’ Spelled out, this means that credit is not something that a nation is forced to procure, and can procure only, from an institution or authority outside itself, or from a specialized part of itself – as a service for which it has to pay. Nor does it need backing from anything of intrinsic value, whether gold or silver or any other commodity. Credit is something that a nation possesses by the very fact of its existence, and which is so inseparable from its existence that it must continue so long as the nation itself holds together. It is a matter of the citizens’ sense that they all stand firm in their collective faith in their country as a going concern, their faith in the potential wealth of its fields, forests, mines and rivers, and in their ability to meet the total aggregate of their needs by transforming this potential wealth into real wealth through the application of their brains and their labor. It is expressed by their confidence in their Government, that it is honestly concerned with their welfare and working efficiently to ensure and to promote it, and by their consequent readiness and will to meet any obligations and commitments their Government may assume. Thus credit comes to rest finally on the individual man’s faith that if he gives his labor or parts with goods in order to get money, money that has his Government behind it, this money will in turn be accepted by any other citizen of his nation…

"Money thus issued would not incur debt by one cent. Indeed, as long as all the essential materials and know-how required for any nation’s existence and well-being are to be found within the nation’s own boundaries, there never has been any legitimate reason why any people should have gone into debt. Nations have been led to believe that fearsome emergencies, or colossal undertakings of any sort, could be met only by borrowing money, and consequently they have accepted their being saddled with debt and the payment of enormous sums of money to meet the interest charges on such debt. But this has been only a deceitful trick for robbing the people."[3]

Capitalism is not the solution, it’s part of our problem; always has been. An honest money system is straightforward and quite simple to understand. Today, few people who wade through reams of paper printed with tiny lines of verbose language grasp the fact that it’s all a monstrous fraud. But we can all see it’s a failure. In his book, The End of Sanity, Martin Gross writes:

"Blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don’t like it."[6]

It is time to reclaim our destiny, and National Socialism is the one tool in our arsenal designed specifically to confront the challenges we face, and ensure victory. Thus it scares the Jews witless. Marxist Socialism is an assault on Western Man and everything we’ve built through long centuries of struggle and sacrifice. Based on the foregoing, I say National Socialism offers us our only means of survival.

This correspondent invites your comments. Please include a SASE when writing to:

Chris DeHuff #P-17205 CSP 3A04/224

P. O. Box 3461

Corcoran, California 93212

1. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler (Murphy translation)

2. A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Book 1, Kevin MacDonald

3. Which Way Western Man?, W. G. Simpson. For those interested in studying the Jewish money system in depth, Chapter 19 is a good place to start.

4. Psychology of Socialism, Gustave LeBon

5. Triumph of Reason, M. Walsh

6. Cultural Communism, an American Free Press Special Report.

7. Cultural Insurrections, a supplement to the trilogy, Kevin MacDonald