Tag-Archive for » Marxism «

Hitler’s speech before the Munich Court SPEECH OF FECURARY 26, 1924

13
Aug 2012

IT SEEMS strange to me that a man who, as a soldier, was for six years accustomed to blind obedience, should suddenly come into conflict with the State and its Constitution. The reasons for this stem from the days of my youth. When I was seventeen I came to Vienna, and there I learned to study and observe three important problems: the social question, the race problem, and, finally, the Marxist movement. I left Vienna a confirmed anti-Semite, a deadly foe of the whole Marxist world outlook, and pan-German in my political principles. And since I knew that the German destiny of German-Austria would not be fought out in the Austrian Army alone, but in the German and Austrian Army, I enlisted in the German Army….

When, on November 7, [1918] it was announced that the Revolution had broken out in Munich, I at first could not believe it. At that time there arose in me the determination to devote myself to politics. I went through the period of the Soviets, and as a result of my opposition to them I came in contact with the National Socialist German Workers Movement, which at that time numbered six members. I was the seventh. I attached myself to this party, and not to one of the great political parties where my prospects would have been better, because none of the other parties understood or even recognized the decisive, fundamental problem.

By Marxism I understand a doctrine which in principle rejects the idea of the worth of personality, which replaces individual energy by the masses and thereby works the destruction of our whole cultural life. This movement has utilized monstrously effective methods and exercised tremendous influence on the masses, which in the course of three or four decades could have no other result than that the individual has become his own brother’s foe, while at the same time calling a Frenchman, an Englishman, or a Zulu his brother. This movement is distinguished by incredible terror, which is based on a knowledge of mass psychology….

The German Revolution is a revolution, and therefore successful high treason; it is well known that such treason is never punished….

For us it was a filthy crime against the German people, a stab in the back of the German nation. The middle class could not take up arms against it because the middle class did not understand the whole revolution. It was necessary to start a new struggle and to incite against the Marxist despoilers of the people who did not even belong to the German race – which is where the Marxist problem is linked with the race problem, forming one of the most difficult and profound questions of our time….

Personally, at the beginning I held a lost position. Nevertheless, in the course of a few years there has grown from a little band of six men a movement which today embraces millions and which, above all, has once made the broad masses nationalistic….

In 1923 came the great and bitter scandal. As early as 1922 we had seen that the Ruhr was about to be lost. France’s aim was not merely to weaken Germany, to keep her from obtaining supremacy, but to break her up into small states so that she [France] would be able to hold the Rhine frontier. After all the Government’s reiterations of our weakness, we knew that on top of the Saar and Upper Silesia we would lose our third coal region, the Ruhr; each loss brought on the next one….

Only burning, ruthless, brutal fanaticism could have saved the situation. The Reich Government should have let the hundreds of thousands of young men who were pouring out of the Ruhr into the Reich under the old colors of black-white-red flow together in a mighty national wave. Instead, these young people were sent back home. The resistance that was organized was for wages; the national resistance was degraded to a paid general strike. It was forgotten that a foe like France cannot be prayed away, still less can he be idled away….

Our youth has – and may this be heard in Paris – but one thought: that the day may come when we shall again be free. .. . . My attitude is this: I would rather that Germany go Bolshevist and I be hanged than that she should be destroyed by the French rule of the sword…. It turned out that the back-stabbers were stronger than ever…. With pride I admit that our men were the only ones to really resist in the Ruhr. We intended to hold fourteen meetings and introduce a propaganda campaign throughout Germany with the slogan: DOWN WITH THE RUHR TRAITORS!, But we were surprised by the banning of these mass meetings. I had met Herr von Kahr in 1920. Kahr had impressed me as being an honest official. I asked him why the fourteen mass meetings had been banned. The reason he gave me simply would not hold water. THE REAL REASON WAS SOMETHING THAT COULD NOT BE REVEALED. . – -

From the very first day the watchword was: UNLIMITED STRUGGLE AGAINST BERLIN….

The struggle against Berlin, as Dr. von Kahr would lead it, is a crime; one must have the courage to be logical and see that the struggle must be incorporated in the German national uprising. I said that all that had been made of this struggle was a Bavarian rejection of Berlin’s requests. But the people expected something other than a reduction in the price of beer, regulation of the price of milk and confiscation of butter tubs and other such impossible economic proposals – proposals which make you want to ask: who is the genius that is advising them? Every failure could only further enrage the masses, and I pointed out that while the people were now only laughing at Kahr’s measures, later on they would rise up against them. I said: ‘Either you finish the job – and there is only the political and military struggle left. When you cross the Rubicon, you must march on Rome. Or else you do not want to struggle; then only capitulation is left….’

The struggle had to turn toward the North; it could not be led by a purely Bavarian organization . . . I said: ‘The only man to head it is Ludendorff.’

I had first seen Ludendorff in 1918, in the field. In 1920 I first spoke personally with him. I saw that he was not only the outstanding general, but that he had now learned the lesson and understood what had brought the German nation to ruin. That Ludendorff was talked down by the others was one more reason for me to come closer to him. I therefore proposed Ludendorff, and Lossow and Seisser had no objections.

I further explained to Lossow that right now nothing could be accomplished by petty economic measures. The fight was against Marxism. To solve this problem, not administrators were needed but firebrands who would be in a position to inflame the national spirit to the extreme. Kahr could not do that, I pointed out; the youth were not behind him. I declared that I could join them only on the condition that the political struggle was put into my hands alone. This was not impudence or immodesty; I believe that when a man knows he can do a job, he must not be modest….

One thing was certain: Lossow, Kahr, and Seisser had the same goal that we had: to get rid of the Reich Government with its present international and parliamentary position, and to replace it by an anti-parliamentary government. If our undertaking was actually high treason, then during this whole period Lossow, Seisser, and Kahr must have been committing high treason along with us – for during all those months we talked of nothing but the aims of which we now stand accused….

How could we have called for a new government if we had not known that the gentlemen in power were altogether on our side? How else could we, two days before, have given such orders as: at 8:30 o’clock such and such a government will be proclaimed….

Lossow talked of a coup d’etat. Kahr quite openly declared that he would give the word to strike. The only possible interpretation of this talk is that these men wanted to strike, but each time lost their nerve. Our last conversation, on November 6, was for me the absolute confirmation of my belief that these men wanted to, but – !….

Enhanced by Zemanta

Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

Education about the Jewish Question

08
Jul 2012

The atrocity propaganda of International Jewry has brought interest and understanding of the Jewish Question to the foreground. The introduction of the numerus clausus gave many people’s comrades opportunity for the first time to think about the racial question. It is, therefore, a good idea to take advantage of the current interest in the Jewish Question.

The concept of “International Jewry” is easier to understand today since Jewry has made its world organization clear through its atrocity propaganda, whereas it formerly hid its influence behind such concepts as “democracy, Marxism, pacifism, etc.” We can, therefore, assume that the widest circles are aware of the existence of a Jewish world organization.

Our task is to reveal the activities and dangers of this organization not only for us, but also for all other peoples. This will give our movement enormous new strength for its future tasks.

We have to make up for lost time in this area, since the daily political battles of recent years forced ethnic questions into the background.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

Egalitarianism

23
Jun 2012

“Ideas have consequences,” 2 and one might add that bad ideas (ideas that conflict with reality) have bad consequences. Certainly the prize for the worst idea of all time has to go to Marxism and its political embodiment, Communism, which resulted in the death of over 100,000,000 people in the twentieth century. 3 Today, Marxism lives on only in the minds of academics, who live quite comfortably under capitalism. 4
The second worst idea could well be egalitarianism. 5 The dictionary says it means, “a belief in human equality.” That idea might not be objectionable if it were limited equality before God 6 or before the law, 7 as in “all men are created equal,” but it is now applied to genetically-controlled traits, that no population differs genetically from any other population, except in trivial differences in appearance. 8
But obvious racial differences in appearance are only a small percentage of the number of racial differences, and whether they are “trivial” or not depends upon who is making that decision; what is of no importance to one person may be vital to another. 9 As we have seen, egalitarianism must ignore some genetic differences as “trivial,” though the line that divides the trivial from the important is hard to draw. Since, clearly, man’s early ancestors were not the equal of modern man, egalitarians must divide our ancestors into those who were our equals (“Homo erectus?) and those earlier in our lineage who were not. The living are all supposedly equal and the long-ago deceased are all presumably unequal, but the vast humanity in between is anyone’s guess. How far back in man’s lineage is it necessary to go to reach the unequal, where differences are no longer “trivial”? And, no matter where the line is drawn, some on one side will be more like those on the other side, and those near the boundary will differ in ways so minuscule as to be of no significance.
There are a number of other problems with egalitarianism. If there are no significant genetic differences between populations, then:

    “voluntarily segregated all-white and all-black societies would be equal and there would be no ethical or logical argument against such societies. It is only if the races are not equal that arguments (not necessarily valid arguments) can be made for integration or the immigration of one race into the homeland of another race; and
    “diversity cannot be ‘celebrated’ and it cannot be a ‘strength’ as there is no racial diversity of any significance.”    10Some ideologies tell you what reality should be (i.e., how we should live our lives) but others tell you what reality is. An example of the former is modern day Christianity, other than anti-evolution fundamentalists, and an example of the latter is the old Roman Catholic Church, which insisted that the sun revolved around the earth. The ideologists who tell us what reality is typically insist that it must be that way and become quite agitated when reality doesn’t behave the way it is supposed to, and angry at those who disturb their equanimity by pointing this out to them. Egalitarianism is such an ideology. It holds that all populations are genetically equal, but when reality refuses to cooperate, its adherents desperately insist that it must be so, that somehow a reality in which it is not so is not possible. 11
    Egalitarianism, and any ideology that conflicts with reality, is doomed from the beginning though, like a zombie, once killed it refuses to remain dead because it fulfills a psychological need. Examples abound. Communism held that people could be educated to sacrifice for the state, and that once they were transformed, their children would inherit this admirable quality. They were not and they did not. Feminism, the fatherless child of egalitarianism, held that the sexes, including confused and undifferentiated sexes, are genetically equal and therefore interchangeable, except for giving birth and nursing, where nature refused to go along. Thus, any suggestions that women cannot compete with men at sports and are less suited for careers in the military, sciences, or in math, are met with fury. 12 Not only women, but anyone who does not measure up, including the handicapped and uninvited non-English speakers from other countries, must be raised to their inherently equal abilities by giving them the special teachers and facilities needed to let a thousand flowers bloom. Anyone incapable of distancing himself from reality who points out that, despite these efforts, people are still not equal, must be silenced, for they threaten the desperately-held beliefs of the emotionally-controlled equalizers. Every ideology that is at war with reality, as egalitarianism is, must ultimately fail; the only question is how much harm it will do before it does.
    Man’s ideological conflicts with reality arise from his anthropocentrism, his arrogant view that the universe revolves around him. Egalitarianism is an anthropocentric ideology – it is based on the premise that man is not like other animals, each evolving differently to adapt to a different environment, but was somehow miraculously spared the “try and die” gauntlet of evolution. Unlike animals, who fight for territories and mates, all human populations are supposedly capable of living in harmony in the same territory, cheerfully yielding to those who threaten the survival of their alleles. But the reality is that the same biological laws that constrain other animals also apply to us.
    As cheerleaders have long known, people who believe that their own group is superior to other groups, even if it is not, are more successful than people who believe their group is the pits. 13 Greater success is an excellent reason for having a group identity and for favoring one’s own group.
    There is a subtle conflict between egalitarianism and man’s nature as a group animal. Egalitarianism is not just an intellectual ideology – that people are genetically equal – but, in order to gain adherents, it must heavily rely upon the emotion of empathy. Normal people (i.e., not sociopaths) identify with others and can and do feel what other people are suffering. That feeling provides a basis for egalitarianism’s intellectual case. But we feel empathy only because we are group animals;14 our feeling of empathy is there to control us and induce us to sacrifice for the benefit of our group (“Group Selection,” Chap. 5) so that our group can successfully compete with other groups – that is its biological reason d’être. If we were not group animals, we would have no need to feel empathy. Indeed, empathy would be maladaptive and would soon disappear because those who felt it would reduce their own chances of reproducing and increase the chances of those who lacked it to reproduce, i.e., everyone would be a psychopath. Egalitarianism, however, needs that emotion to play a different and conflicting role, namely to sacrifice for other groups to the detriment of our own group. Thus, empathy is “bad” for egalitarianism when it is adaptive and does what it evolved to do – increase ethnocentricity, but “good” when it is maladaptive and does the opposite of what it evolved to do – reduce ethnocentricity by making us identify with people of other ethnies.
    For millions of years, man and his predecessors lived in small groups that competed with other groups. Man evolved when individuals in his group became better adapted for surviving and reproducing not only as individuals, but also as a group. Group-orientated behavior is deeply ingrained in man’s genome; ideology can suppress it, but it will not remove it. Even if two groups are genetically equal (and races are not), they are not equal socially because the members of each group do not see the members of other groups as their equals – the members of one group are not interchangeable with members of another group, so they are not equal in the eyes of the only people who count, the members of the two groups. 15 Egalitarianism is an ideology that is at war with biology, and nature’s creations cannot long survive following a self-destructive ideology. 16 Biology tells man to fight and defeat his competitors. Egalitarianism tells man, at least if he is white, to welcome his competitors and help them triumph over him.
    And how will those non-whites who benefited from the white egalitarian’s hara-kiri remember him? As a noble creature who would rather go extinct than forego his ideology and Christ-like morality? No, if he is remembered at all it will be as a fool who was conned into casually tossing away 3½ billion years of evolution to benefit those who were less adapted to successfully contribute to modern civilization, thereby setting back the entire human species.
    In 1950, the hooligans at the United Nations officially declared that “all the races are equal in intelligence.” Although losing contact with reality is a psychosis, let’s be more generous and say that the statement is due to either ignorance or deception. That all human populations, living in vastly different environments all over the world for at least hundreds of thousands of years should, just coincidently, end up with exactly the same intelligence, though they differ in thousands of other traits is contradicted by every intelligence test ever given to them. Are all dog breeds also equally intelligent?
    Every teacher of an integrated class, every social worker, every policeman on the beat, soon learns that the races are not interchangeable. No one denies that genetics makes dog breeds differ in intelligence and behavior, but it is a modern day sin to suggest that the same is true of human races. Although there is massive evidence (Section II) that the “Mysterious Black-White Gap” between black and white achievement is due to genetic racial differences, the egalitarians insist it is environmental – whites simply have a superior environment. But to blame whites for not giving blacks the same environment that whites have created for themselves implies that, without whites, blacks are incapable of creating that environment. Since blacks who have never seen a white person (e.g., some Africans) achieve even less than blacks who suffer under white racism, 17 that implication is no doubt true.
    The logic of the egalitarian is that since everyone is genetically equal, the fact that everyone is not equal in wealth, accomplishments, or in other ways means that their environments are not equal; to an egalitarian, physical racial differences (most of Section II) are trivial and of no significance and therefore behavioral racial differences (Chapter 12) must be environmental, not genetic. Thus, equalizing the environments of blacks and whites will make everyone equally intelligent, civilized, and well-behaved. When it does not, a more sinister source of inequality is sought – the whites must be deliberately, or at least unconsciously, oppressing the blacks. 18 This leads to hostility towards the productive whites, who must be at least insensitive, if not wicked, and sympathy for and glorification of their less productive black victims.
    Whenever a minority politician is elected to office, or achieves any position of power, he is quite explicit in stating that he wants to helphis people, and everyone finds that normal and acceptable, and even commendable. 19 And, when he does help his people, he helps propagatehis own alleles, because his people have more of his alleles than do other people; bias is adaptive. 20 But such adaptive behavior is not permissible for whites, who are expected to watch their own people lose out without a whimper.
    The best strategy for elected politicians is usually to offend no one. Politicians fear divisive issues like vampires fear sunlight. Ethnic strife forces them to take sides, which means losing large blocks of votes no matter which side they take. Using hate laws and censorship to stamp out those who stir up ethnic conflict makes getting re-elected so much easier. Similarly, the mass media has little to gain and much to lose from publicizing material that is insulting to some of its viewers, readers, and advertisers. Recently, for example, the U.S. press and television refused to show cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that had sparked world-wide protests by Muslims.
    Egalitarians should support democracy, especially for multicultural nations because, if everyone is genetically equal, everyone should have one vote. However, one can only imagine what would happen if the last remnants of the white majority voted as a block in their own racial interests, the way various racial minorities do. 21 When voters vote as blocks, one vote is not one equal portion of political influence, even in those rare occasions when influence is not for sale; eventually democracies become troops of hyenas fighting over a dead carcass. The only solutions are a dictatorship, e.g., Tito in Yugoslavia or Hussein in Iraq, who can dish out the rewards and punishments needed to hold a multicultural nation together, or libertarianism, where the government is so small that it has no loot to dish out; the latter, however, is unlikely to ever be adopted as no one wants to forego what he is now getting.
    Certainly, a democracy is maladaptive for a genetically cohesive majority, as it reduces their genetic fitness. It would be far wiser for that majority to limit voting to (mostly) their own members, as the Jews in Israel have done. To the egalitarians this is, of course, the most blatant form of racism, but for the white majority the choice is racism or extinction. The minorities can always go to or form their own countries, where they are the majority, and run it as they wish.
    (Genetic) egalitarianism is based not on rationality, but on the Kum-bay-yah sentimentality of universal brotherhood and love. Any facts contrary to those feel-good, but unrealistic, emotions, e.g., genetic differences, must be denied and suppressed because they are just too upsetting. Egalitarianism is stress-relief for the reality-challenged.
    One can imagine an egalitarian going to a race track and saying to the first person he meets, “You know, all those horses would be equally as fast if they had just had the same quality of food and training.” Blank stare. “I think some of the horses lose because people think they can’t win and the horses believe it,” he adds. Another blank stare. His last statement is, “Horse racing is really just plain wrong because it makes the horses that lose feel bad about themselves.” Yet, when he makes the same points about people, hundreds of billions of dollars chase his every word.
    Egalitarianism is a reckless experiment promoted by rebellious teenage minds, a bet of the entire future of our species, based on only the arrogance of those who will brook no challenge to their ideology. When the experiment is finally complete, and human diversity has been replaced by a single mongrelized breed incapable of maintaining a modern civilization, it will be too late to recover what we once had.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

    Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag, Berlin SPEECH OF MARCH 23, 1933

    21
    May 2012

     

    IN NOVEMBER, 1918, Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of the Reich and of the States removed from office, and thereby a breach of the Constitution was committed. The success of the revolution in a material sense protected the guilty parties from the hands of the law. They sought to justify it morally by asserting that Germany or its Government bore the guilt for the outbreak of the War.

    This assertion was deliberately and actually untrue. In consequence, however, these untrue accusations in the interest of our former enemies led to the severest oppression of the entire German nation and to the breach of the assurances given to us in Wilson’s fourteen points, and so for Germany, that is to say the working classes of the German people, to a time of infinite misfortune….

    The splitting up of the nation into groups with irreconcilable views, systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism, means the destruction of the basis of a possible communal life…. It is only the creation of a real national community, rising above the interests and differences of rank and class, that can permanently remove the source of nourishment of these aberrations of the human mind. The establishment of such a solidarity of views in the German body corporate is all the more important, for it is only thereby that the possibility is provided of maintaining friendly relations with foreign Powers without regard to the tendencies or general principles by which they are dominated, for the elimination of communism in Germany is a purely domestic German affair.

    Simultaneously with this political purification of our public life, the Government of the Reich will undertake a thorough moral purging of the body corporate of the nation. The entire educational system, the theater, the cinema, literature, the Press, and the wireless – all these will be used as means to this end and valued accordingly. They must all serve for the maintenance of the eternal values present in the essential character of our people. Art will always remain the expression and the reflection of the longings and the realities of an era. The neutral international attitude of aloofness is rapidly disappearing. Heroism is coming forward passionately and will in future shape and lead political destiny. It is the task of art to be the expression of this determining spirit of the age. Blood and race will once more become the source of artistic intuition….

    Our legal institutions must serve above all for the maintenance of this national community. The irremovableness of the judges must ensure a sense of responsibility and the exercise of discretion in their judgments in the interests of society. Not the individual but the nation as a whole alone can be the center of legislative solicitude. High treason and treachery to the nation will be ruthlessly eradicated in the future. The foundations of the existence of justice cannot be other than the foundations of the existence of the nation.

    The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, is creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.

    The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. It will respect the agreements concluded between it and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed. But the Government hopes and expects that the work on the national and moral regeneration of our nation which it has made its task will, on the other hand, be treated with the same respect….

    Great are the tasks of the national Government in the sphere of economic life.

    Here all action must be governed by one law: the people does not live for business, and business does not exist for capital; but capital serves business, and business serves the people. In principle, the Government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property….

    The Government will systematically avoid currency experiments. We are faced above all by two economic tasks of the first magnitude. The salvation of the German farmer must be achieved at all costs….

    Furthermore, it is perfectly clear to the national Government that the final removal of the distress both in agricultural business and in that of the towns depends on the absorption of the army of the unemployed in the process of production. This constitutes the second of the great economic tasks. It can only be solved by a general appeasement, in applying sound natural economic principles and all measures necessary, even if, at the time, they cannot reckon with any degree of popularity. The providing of work and the compulsory labor service are, in this connection, only individual measures within the scope of the entire action proposed….

    We are aware that the geographic position of Germany, with her lack of raw materials, does not fully permit of economic self-sufficiency for the Reich. It cannot be too often emphasized that nothing is further from the thoughts of the Government of the Reich than hostility to exporting. We are fully aware that we have need of the connection with the outside world, and that the marketing of German commodities in the world provides a livelihood for many millions of our fellow-countrymen.

    We also know what are the conditions necessary for a sound exchange of services between the nations of the world. For Germany has been compelled for years to perform services without receiving an equivalent, with the result that the task of maintaining Germany as an active partner in the exchange of commodities is not so much one of commercial as of financial policy. So long as we are not accorded a reasonable settlement of our foreign debts corresponding to our economic capacity, we are unfortunately compelled to maintain our foreign-exchange control. The Government of the Reich is, for that reason, also compelled to maintain the restrictions on the efflux of capital across the frontiers of Germany….

    The protection of the frontiers of the Reich and thereby of the lives of our people and the existence of our business is now in the hands of the Reichswehr, which, in accordance with the terms imposed upon us by the Treaty of Versailles, is to be regarded as the only really disarmed army in the world. In spite of its enforced smallness and entirely insufficient armament, the German people may regard their Reichswehr with proud satisfaction. This little instrument of our national self-defence has come into being under the most difficult conditions. The spirit imbuing it is that of our best military traditions. The German nation has thus fulfilled with painful conscientiousness the obligations imposed upon it by the Peace Treaty, indeed, even the replacement of ships for our fleet then sanctioned has, I may perhaps be allowed to say, unfortunately, only been carried out to a small extent.

    For years Germany has been waiting in vain for the fulfillment of the promise of disarmament made to her by the others. It is the sincere desire of the national Government to be able to refrain from increasing our army and our weapons, insofar as the rest of the world is now also ready to fulfill its obligations in the matter of radical disarmament. For Germany desires nothing except an equal right to live and equal freedom.

    In any case the national Government will educate the German people in this spirit of a desire for freedom. The national honor, the honor of our army and the ideal of freedom must once more become sacred to the German people!

    The German nation wishes to live in peace with the rest of the world. But it is for this very reason that the Government of the Reich will employ every means to obtain the final removal of the division of the nations of the world into two categories. The keeping open of this wound leads to distrust on the one side and hatred on the other, and thus to a general feeling of insecurity. The national Government is ready to extend a hand in sincere understanding to every nation that is ready finally to make an end of the tragic past. The international economic distress can only disappear when the basis has been provided by stable political relations and when the nations have regained confidence in each other.

    For the overcoming of the economic catastrophe three things are necessary:

    1.Absolutely authoritative leadership in internal affairs, in order to create confidence in the stability of conditions.

    2.The securing of peace by the great nations for a long time to come, with a view to restoring the confidence of the nations in each other.

    3.The final victory of the principles of common sense in the organization and conduct of business, and also a general release from reparations and impossible liabilities for debts and interest.

    We are unfortunately faced by the fact that the Geneva Conference, in spite of lengthy negotiations, has so far reached no practical result. The decision regarding the securing of a real measure of disarmament has been constantly delayed by the raising of questions of technical detail and by the introduction of problems that have nothing to do with disarmament. This procedure is useless.

    The illegal state of one-sided disarmament and the resulting national insecurity of Germany cannot continue any longer.

    We recognize it as a sign of the feeling of responsibility and of the good will of the British Government that they have endeavored, by means of their disarmament proposal, to cause the Conference finally to arrive at speedy decisions. The Government of the Reich will support every endeavor aimed at really carrying out general disarmament and securing the fulfillment of Germany’s long-overdue claim for disarmament. For fourteen years we have been disarmed, and for fourteen months we have been waiting for the results of the Disarmament Conference. Even more far-reaching is the plan of the head of the Italian Government, which makes a broad-minded and far-seeing attempt to secure a peaceful and consistent development of the whole of European policy. We attach the greatest weight to this plan, and we are ready to co-operate with absolute sincerity on the basis it provides, in order to unite the four Great Powers, England, France, Italy, and Germany, in friendly co-operation in attacking with courage and determination the problems upon the solution of which the fate of Europe depends.

    It is for this reason that we are particularly grateful for the appreciative heartiness with which the national renaissance of Germany has been greeted in Italy….

    In the same way, the Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavoring to develop them. We feel sympathy for our brother nation in Austria in its trouble and distress. In all their doings the Government of the Reich is conscious of the connection between the destiny of all German races. Their attitude toward the other foreign Powers may be gathered from what has already been said. But even in cases where our mutual relations are encumbered with difficulties, we shall endeavor to arrive at a settlement. But in any case the basis for an understanding can never be the distinction between victor and vanquished.

    We are convinced that such a settlement is possible in our relations with France, if the Governments will attack the problems affecting them on both sides in a really broadminded way. The Government of the Reich is ready to cultivate with the Soviet Union friendly relations profitable to both parties. It is above all the Government of the National Revolution which feels itself in a position to adopt such a positive policy with regard to Soviet Russia. The fight against communism in Germany is our internal affair in which we will never permit interference from outside….

    We have particularly at heart the fate of the Germans living beyond the frontiers of Germany who are allied with us in speech, culture, and customs and have to make a hard fight to retain these values. The national Government is resolved to use all the means at its disposal to support the rights internationally guaranteed to the German minorities.

    We welcome the plan for a World Economic Conference and approve of its meeting at an early date. The Government of the Reich is ready to take part in this Conference, in order to arrive at positive results at last. . . .

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

    Our Speakers in the Anti-Marxist Battle by Fritz Oerter

    17
    May 2012

    As we review the Reichstag, provincial parliament, and city elections of 1932, we must conclude that the day of huge mass meetings and mass marches is over, at least when it comes to winning new supporters for the National Socialist movement.

    Those citizens whom we could interest in our world view through marches and mass meetings, the sensible members of the middle class, have been reached. The “middle class” reactionary front has been ground down — despite their election “victory” of 6 November. Nationalist circles are the ones that increasingly visited our mass meetings, that saw our marches with growing enthusiasm, and remain today about 95% of the attendees at our meetings, although they have long since been won over to National Socialism.

    But this loyal core of National Socialist supporters will surely grow weary of filling our mass meetings. In someGaue, it is already true that only the most prominent leaders of our party like Hitler, Straßer, Goebbels, Goering, Frick, etc., are able to bring out crowds in the tens of thousands. The high point of this form of propaganda is over, and we must now reach those circles which our propaganda so far has unfortunately been unable to reach in sufficient numbers.

    Let us be honest with ourselves. The road is free and open, but our main enemy has done unexpectedly well in resisting the National Socialist advance. We have certainly succeeded in fragmenting the Marxist front and in winning a large number of former Marxists for our worldview. The Social Democrats are fighting desperately for their survival, and thanks to National Socialist educational work hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people who once were firm supporters of Marxist nonsense are beginning to waver. They are looking into the National Socialist movement, naturally against the wishes of their “leaders.” Still, Marxist propaganda, and especially its press, regularly succeeds in leading people have have seen the light back into error, and bringing them back under the control of Marxist party leaders.

    Why? In opposing Marxism, we oppose a deeply-rooted worldview that is based on over sixty years of intensive work. It is in turn founded on the still older liberal worldview and economic order. It enjoys not only the protection of tradition, but the strength a younger movement can bring to bear against an older one. Liberalism was not able to resist Marxism. The liberal parties and ideologies could only fight defensively against a worldview with greater strength and clarity of purpose. Even the Marxist worker who long doubted and sought for something better eventually had to conclude that Marxism is the only worldview that can bring a new and better society and economic order. Who can hold it against him that he rejected the forces that denied him equality and a share in the results of his labor? The German worker absorbed Marxism in his parents’ home, and was surrounded by people who thought the same in the workplace. In what remained of his sound understanding, he knew that there was a flaw somewhere in the worldview. He realized that there was a catch somewhere to the lovely teachings of “expropriating the expropriators,” of “the equality of everyone with a human face,” of “international brotherhood,” of “international solidarity,” but he did not know where, and there was no one to show him the contradictions, the weak points, in the thinking of Karl Marx and his followers.

    Thanks to our ten years of educational work, he is suspicious. He became a seeker, a doubter, but unfortunately only a few of his comrades have found their way to us. The 1932 election results prove this. We have made inroads into the ranks of the SPD [Socialists] and the KPD [Communists], but not to the extent that the “leaders” of the Marxist parties have deserved as a result of their inability, incompetence, and contradictory policies.

    Every National Socialist fighter who speaks to meetings of Marxist workers must recognize this and draw the necessary conclusions. The Marxist party “leaders” have made mistake after mistake. They have promised everything since 1918 and delivered nothing. They have worked a hundred times with Jewish racketeers and a thousand times with capitalism. They are responsible for all the need and misery of the German people, and of German workers. Yet if our Reich, Gau, and county speakers do not succeed in reducing the Marxist nonsense propounded by the Socialists and Communists to absurdity, their sacrificial work will not succeed in widening the breach in the Marxist front. Without that, the deceptive Marxist worldview will fail to collapse in the manner of those organizations that supported calcified liberalism.

    We should not take Marxism lightly! To defeat the enemy, we must know its weapons. If its weapons are good, we must have better ones if we are to survive. Only when we know, and know precisely, what Marxism teaches can we succeed in convincing the Social Democratic and Communist workers of the unfruitfulness of this doctrine, thereby making National Socialists of them. Of course, it remains necessary to show German workers who are still enthused about the doctrines of Marx, Engels, Lassalle, or Lenin what kind of “leaders” they have. However, revealing the nature of their “leaders” and policies shakes only their confidence in their party, but rarely their attitudes about the worldview.

    Our propaganda, our intensive educational work, must make clear to the German worker that the aims of the “Communist Manifesto” and the “Erfurt,” “Görlitz,” and “Heidelberg” programs, proclaimed for decades, are impossible and utopian, and that the materialist philosophy and economic system of the “Capital” are erroneous and lead in the wrong direction. We must show them that this is the reason for the behavior of many Social Democratic and Communist “leaders.” They have no choice but to play such a treasonous role. Only if we do this will Marxism’s supporters give up all hope of a future Marxist state and become willing to consider true German socialism.

    The conclusion is simple: Training, untiring and thorough training, is necessary! It is necessary not only for the members, whom some functionaries and speakers handle as if they were a bit stupid, but for everyone at the political front. For officials and speakers, anti-Marxist training is of the greatest importance. Unfortunately, many of our speakers — and often not the worst ones either — have completely avoided training about Marxism. True, they understand National Socialist thinking, but not Marxist views and theses. They are like army officers who have good soldiers, but do not know how strong the enemy is or where he is located.

    That is why there are complaints about this or that speaker in nearly every Gau. Party members want better education, better speakers, to enable them to hold their own against opponents, even if a question comes up that goes beyond current events. Marxist meeting visitors have been worked on through the lies of an unscrupulous press. They are especially critical. A single ill-chosen phrase or the least sign of uncertainly drives these citizens away, and some who were making their way toward us are lost forever. Our work has made them distrust their own leaders, but the long rabble-rousing of their “leaders” has also left them suspicious about National Socialist thinking.

    It is nonsense to think that a popular style of speaking (which often turns out to be vulgar) is enough to win sympathy for the speaker in a meeting of workers. The opposite! The Marxist worker can tell what is genuine and what is artificial. When he sees that a speaker has taken on a “popular” style of speaking, or that he wears a shirt without a collar, or rolled up sleeves or other things like that, he becomes reserved and critical. Obviously a workers’ meeting is not a university auditorium. The speech must be simple and clear. But coarse language and shabby clothing generally harm the overall impression, just as do an elevated, lecturing style and elegant dress.

    There is too much of this going on, in part due to a lack of through training that is replaced by outward appearances. Unnecessary exaggeration is also harmful. For example, a speaker at a meeting of workers before the 6 November election announced that our vote total would rise significantly and that we would win 250 seats. The half-won Marxists lost faith in this prophet and the worldview he preached. Even worse, some National Socialist speakers who fail to understand Marxism’s idea of class struggle said that the NSDAP might call for a general strike if Herr von Papen dared to dissolve the newly elected Reichstag. Similar exaggerations, of which there were unfortunately many, destroy everything that the speaker thinks he accomplished in his speech.

    One mistake is particularly common. When National Socialist speakers who were formerly Marxists speak in workers’ areas, the publicity often says : “The former Marxist union secretary so-and-so will speak on the theme “Marxism or German workers.” The Marxist worker attends such a meeting to hear a discussion of worldviews. He is deeply disappointed when he gets only a normal discussion of current events, which does not in any way make it easier for him to decide which worldview to support.

    What good does such a meeting do the Marxist worker? He knows that his “leaders” have betrayed the “goals of the revolution.” He knows they supported the Young Plan. He knows that Soviet Russia is not a land of milk and honey. He knows that National Socialism is fighting von Papen. He knows that Hindenburg was supported by the Social Democrats and some in the KPD. He did not come to listen to a former Marxist speaker to hear these things again. He wants to hear something different. He wants to know why this former Marxist left the red flag and now fights for the swastika. He is a seeker. He has lost faith in Marx and his doctrines. His world is threatening to collapse, and he wants a new and better worldview.

    The former Marxist who found a new worldview in National Socialism should help his former party members to make a final break with Marxism. He should make it easier to for them to become National Socialists. The Marxist worker wants to hear why the speaker today opposes which he once honestly fought for, perhaps for more than a generation. He wants to know why the speaker chose National Socialism, and how it is superior to Marxist thinking.

    The attitude of a large part of the Marxists who come to our meetings can be summarized in this way: They no longer believe their “leaders”; they doubt Marxist doctrine; they look to the worker-speakers of the National Socialist people’s movement to find a justification to bring them from Marxism to National Socialism.

    They want a plausible justification and good reasons for doing what they instinctively feel. For decades the materialist worldview was pumped into them. They learned to evaluate everything from a materialistic and rational perspective. As convinced Marxists, they were ruled by cold, clear reason, not by feelings. Mind and stomach, not heart and soul, were the driving forces behind events. In their heart and soul, many of these former Marxist workers are already National Socialists; only their materialism keeps them from breaking with the false gods of the past.

    The movement’s speaker has the task of making it easier for Marxist workers to break with the past. He must be ready and able to give these citizens a logical basis for their emotional longing for National Socialism. He can do that only by knowing the Marxist worldview as well as he knows his own. He must be able to deal directly with the ideas of Marxists in the audience. He must be able to handle even the best Marxist discussion speakers.

    Can every National Socialist speaker do that? No. The news from the Gaue proves it. The order of the day is thus training and more training. Some good National Socialist literature already deals with the fundamentals of Marxism. The National Socialist who has read these materials and understood them is capable of dealing with the average Marxist speaker, but not with well-trained Marxist speakers who have a solid understanding of the writings of Marx and Engels and who have mastered them. Therefore, the training should be conducted by party comrades who have studied Marxist doctrine in depth and are able to cross swords with even the best opponents from the Marxist camp.

    Unfortunately, many diligent speakers have the incorrect belief that they do not need to learn anything further, that it is enough if they keep up with current events. They will know better once they have participated in a well-organized training course in which Marxist workers with better than average political education defend their worldview against the attacks of National Socialism. In such a course, the National Socialist speaker learns what he is lacking in order to be able to win the German worker to National Socialism. In fair and factual ways, but also in compelling and precise form, these training courses discuss the worldviews of National Socialism and Marxism. These discussions prove that the National Socialist worldview is far superior to Marxist ideology, but also that Marxist spokesmen, including minor functionaries and speakers, enjoy training that could be of great value to some of our speakers in workers’ meetings. The lack of such training is the reason that many of them lack the success they desire.

    When our Führer determines Germany’s fate, such training will be of particular importance. Hand in hand with the practical refutation of Marxist theories that will come by realizing National Socialism, we need an intensive theoretical education of the working masses in order to free the last German worker from internationalism and materialism. They need to be persuaded of German idealism, of the principle that “the common good goes before the individual’s good.”

    This is hard work, but the goal is worth it. Millions of German citizens will once again believe in their race, fatherland, and social justice. To work, then, you National Socialist fighters against Marxism and Reaction! Prepare yourselves for the final battle against Marx and his followers! Then victory will no longer be denied us!

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment
    « Previous Entries