Europe will again become Healthy

Source: Germanische Leithefte, volume 1, issue 1, 1941

We humans live in a world in which all becoming, living, maturing and passing proceeds according to unbending, godly laws of nature. Subservient to them are the stars, heavens and earth, sea and stones, as well as the life of plants and animals.

Nobody in possession of his five faculties doubts that human life also runs according to the same laws. So, too, are the differences between humans determined by the laws of heredity.

In a healthy, naturally-feeling community, for example in peasant life, the sickly is prevented from procreating, and the healthy bonds itself again with the healthy. Only the big city life, estranged from nature, or economic considerations, unfortunately cause many a healthy person to enter marriage with a sickly one.

Then, however, nature avenges itself for the non-observance of its laws: the offspring can become sickly or carry within themselves a tendency toward sickness.

The peasant who still lives bound to nature has always known that, in every species of animal and plant, lines and races must be distinguished, which can not be indiscriminately interbreed. That would destroy the breed. Among humans there are likewise various races. Originally our ancestors respected these barriers, created by the creator. Later certain spiritual and political tendencies gradually suppressed the feeling for natural differences among humans. „Everything is the same which has a human face“, that is what they said at the time of the French Revolution. Liberalism, Marxist-Socialism and Communism – those are the milestones in the decay of a Europe misled by Jewry. For the Bolshevist, racial differences are just prejudices which must be overcome. All of that, however, is a human deviation from the godly laws of nature; a disloyalty toward one’s own blood, which must have the most serious consequences for folk, health and culture. Physical damage, psychological disorder and character inferiority are often the scientifically proven consequences of undesirable race-mixing.

These spiritual, or better said anti-spiritual, tendencies come from racially alien and perverted minds. These teachings do not proceed from the laws of nature at all. In opposition to them. National-Socialism does not seek to construct another humanistic creed, rather it seeks to first of all clearly recognize the natural order created by god. Only this knowledge makes it possible to again lead the misled human back to the natural and hence healthy way of life. Therefore National-Socialism respects the nature-given difference between races. And it recognizes natural barriers.

When I today travel through Germany and everywhere see the children, our little blond youth, I then recognize the purpose of our movement: reaching from the present forward into the German future. – Adolf Hitler

So a National-Socialist also views a future Europe completely differently than a liberal would. Every National-Socialist would instinctively reject a pan-Europe of the American kind. The USA is a mishmash of folks and races. In Europe the various folks have in the course of their development taken on diverse folk characters, because other European races have also blended together – in diverse proportions in the various parts of Germany and its neighbours. All of them have in common, however, a more or less large portion of Nordic blood.

This Nordic blood component is thus that which binds the European folks. A closer union of the Germanic folks is hence not only possible, but also nature-given. The more or less Nordic blood present in the other European folks is primarily of Germanic origin.

If Europe thus does not want to lose its uniqueness, then, above all, the domination of the Nordic race must be secured. The Nordic race, however, has suffered the most by the development of civilization in the last centuries. So has the Nordic race in part nearly ceased to perpetuate itself in the large cities. This valuable race represented and represents not only in the German, but also in all other European folks, the leading segment. This fact is especially significant, because the portion of its blood finds itself in steady decline.

The former, so-called European civilization has likewise had a harmful effect on the health of the folks. The sickly, weak and untalented are promoted with every resource, while the healthy has therefore often had to suffer under the worst social injustice. In nature the sickly and weak are automatically purged and only the strong and healthy come to procreate. Among so-called cultured people, who have created an unnatural environment in their civilization, this „natural selection“ is missing.

This is where the measures of National-Socialism come into play. In the final hour they prevent that the white race perishes in the foreseeable future. Let us designate the racially good and physically and spiritually healthy portion of a folk with the comprehensive concept “healthy Germanic blood“; so all measures of National-Socialism which promote this portion are called „measures for the promotion of healthy Germanic blood’. These measures in National-Socialist Germany take two directions: first they prevent the harmful, and second they promote the beneficial.

The National-Socialist marriage law provides for the presentation of marriage documents before marriage. In this manner can, for the best of the folks, the marriage of the healthy with the congenitally ill or the healthy with people with contagious diseases be prevented. The offering of very favourable, interest-free marriage loans, on the other hand, eases the marriage of the healthy.

These just mentioned measures of the National-Socialist state, however, were always proceeded, often by many years, by similar measures of die SS.

The SS man is selected and educated in such a way that he will not mix with racially alien or congenitally ill blood even without these laws.

But in other areas, too, does the SS set a good example by going along new paths in advance. The SS promotes the return of man to natural living conditions through countless minor measures, for example: promotion of building of one-family homes, physical education and exercise, return of valuable families to the land by promoting new peasantry etc. The SS shows, through the laws of its order and its example, the path along which a strengthening of the Nordic blood portion can be achieved. Similar orders have already existed, scattered throughout history, for example the Toms Wikings of the Baltic Sea, the German Teutonic Knights in Eastern and Western Prussia etc. These orders, too, only accepted valuable, fighting men, and their accomplishments were correspondingly spectacular. But they had one lacking: they limited their laws to males. So their valuable blood was not consciously cared for. But that is what it comes down to in the final analysis, namely that a folk, for the sake of its future, not only preserves its supply of valuable blood, but also increases it.

The Reichsführer SS, therefore, already during die difficult period of struggle in 1931, gave to the SS its memorial „Engagement and Marriage Order“. In it the SS man is given the duty to select his wife according to the same guidelines with which he was accepted into the SS. The wife is then taken into the SS clan. There she is obligated to the same principles as her husband himself. She hence enjoys the same honour and the same high esteem.

Hence the SS stands at the forefront in the struggle for the preservation and strengthening of Germanic blood and shows the path into a future of healthy folk strength and cultural blossoming. The former, creative working of the SS for these ideas of blood has been recognized by the Führer in that he has entrusted to the Reichsführer SS the solidification of the German folk.

From this observance of the National-Socialist laws of blood and race grows an order which for all time will secure not only the protection of the Reich, but will also pave the way ahead in all important questions of human life. It becomes the guardian of the European community of fate. But especially the Germanic folks are bound by this SS order through their common blood. With pride should our children’s children one day say of us:

„You have laid the foundation for the Reich of our race!“

The National-Socialist Critique of Democracy


Democracy or Leadership

Translated by Hadding Scott from the 16th (1940) edition of Hansjoerg Maennel’s Politische Fibel.

Democracy is the doctrine of the equality of all human beings and of the ability of all human beings to govern themselves. (Democracy, Greek = rule by the folk, rule by the masses.)

The starting point of the democratic conception is: “All men are equal.” “Everything that bears a human countenance is equal.” Not only are the peoples equal to each other (this view leads to Internationalism), but even the human beings within a folk are equal. Consequently all have equal rights, even an equal right to participate in the state. “The authority of the state comes from the people.” (Weimar Constitution, Article 1.) – Since direct rule by the people is unworkable, one chooses representative democracy or parliamentary government.

Parliamentarism is the principle of vote by representatives, who make decisions through majority rule. (Parliamentarism, from Lat. parlare = to speak.)

Critique of parliamentary democracy:

  1. It is not true that all men are equal. Human beings are different. The democratic principle, “to each the same,” leads directly to Communism, to the dispossession of the gifted, industrious, and thrifty (precedent: Russia). – Democracy in the modern age started with the French Revolution (1789). “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” (“Gleichheit, Freiheit, Brüderlichkeit”) were the catchwords that ruled the entire 19th Century. The democratic principle of equality is always an instrument of the Jew for the elimination of the best racial forces. When all have equal rights (das gleiche Recht), the capable and intelligent are thereby forced onto the same level as the corrupt and stupid.
  2. It is not true that the best and most capable emerge from a vote. Usually the greatest shouters, the most irresponsible, are chosen. Whoever promises the most has the greatest prospect of going to parliament. The MPs of the democratic system were in no way the elite of the nation. The principle of vote by popular representatives leads inevitably to the creation of economic or religious special-interest parties. The MPs did not represent the folk community, but mostly a specific class or group. Thereby unitary, goal-conscious state-leadership was made impossible. The bourgeois parties and the Marxist parties on the other side cancelled each other out. The power of the nation was likewise nil and could not be effectively and coherently (geschlossen) utilized abroad. International Jewry, however, tipped the balance on the scale of the parliament. – Democracy is always the reign of the Jewish money-bag; it leads to the most evil corruption.
  3. It is not true that the decisions of a majority are always right and beneficial to the people. On the contrary: by no means are 51 voices against 49 voices necessarily correct. “What is the majority? Majority is nonsense. Understanding has always only been among few. One ought to weigh voices, not count them.” (Schiller, Demetrius.) The individual MP conceals himself behind an anonymous majority. He has “obeyed only his conscience.” Mostly however the “representatives of the people” had no conscience. Parliamentary democracy is irresponsibility elevated to a principle of government. It leads to the elimination of all authority, thus ultimately to the complete ruin of folk and state.

Adolf Hitler: “The Jewish democracy of majority rule was always merely a means to the destruction of the existing Aryan leader-class.”

National-Socialism is the fiercest enemy of parliamentary democracy. In opposition to that, it stands for the principle of Fuehrertum. Fuehrertum is the direction of an organization by one over-towering man. The fuehrer-principle is based on the conception of human inequality. There are the intelligent and the stupid, the industrious and the lazy, the good and the bad. The particular peoples and races are different, and so are the individual human beings within a people. – Every folk comrade is appraised according to his performance for the folk. Valuation according to performance. – The standard of valuation must be the same for every folk comrade. We National-Socialists reject preferential treatment for one class. (Examples: absolutism of the 18th Century; the Weimar System, in which the National-Socialist was a second-class person, while lower humanity could run wild with impunity; English plutocracy).

There is no privilege for any special class; all folk comrades are evaluated equally (Program, Point 9). The result of an equal evaluation of the individual person is however not the same, but different. Here this principle applies: “To each what is appropriate,”* not “To each the same,” as in democracy. He who sacrifices and achieves much ought to stand higher than he who achieves little and sacrifices nothing. The National-Socialist idea of leadership (Fuehrergedanke) is founded upon a deliberate selection according to race (genetic value), character, and ability. Thus a rank-order develops. The entire folk organically arrays itself as a pyramid. The most capable and gifted member of the folk, who has prevailed through his over-towering achievements, stands at the head of the folk: he is the Leader.

(Draw this on the blackboard.)

In democracy the “power of the state” comes from the people. It consists in the rule of the mass. Authority (power to give orders) goes from below to above, while on the other hand, responsibility goes from above to below. Both are, however, unworkable in practice. One cannot command upward and assign accountability downward. (Examples.) Democracy thus leads directly to leaderlessness and irresponsibility. – In Fuehrertum by contrast these principles apply: authority from above to below, responsibility from below to above. The Leader appoints his lieutenants (Unterfuehrer), he gives them their orders and guidelines, and for the execution and success of these they are responsible to the Leader.

The National-Socialist movement is an example of true Fuehrertum. If a political leader or an SA-fuehrer gives an order, this must be carried out. Every follower (Gefolgsmann) can be called to account by his leaders. Because Adolf Hitler built up the NSDAP rigorously according to the fuehrer-principle, the movement inevitably prevailed against the Marxist and bourgeois mobs. – Likewise the German state, which is led by means of strict Fuehrertum, prevails against the neighboring democratic states. Against the democratic idea of the mass we National-Socialists set the idea of personality. Everything great in this world, all inventions and all cultural achievements are created by personalities. (Examples.) – Our Leader has formed a German folk out of disintegrating mass. Democracy is a symptom of decline in dying peoples (e.g. Greece, Rome, etc.) All ascending peoples are, by contrast, always led by significant personalities. – Democratic propaganda flatters the mass. Everyone would rather command than obey. Consequently democracy was beloved and the idea of leadership was often unpopular.

It is a mistake to believe that under the “people’s government” it goes well for the people. On the contrary! Experience has shown that parliamentary democracy leads to the ruin of the people. A people can only experience progress (Aufstieg) when a leader (Fuehrer) stands at its head. Heroes make history!

A true leader feels that he is responsible to his people. Here Adolf Hitler is a shining example. This principle of the responsibility of the Leader to the Nation is designated “Germanic democracy.” With Western parliamentary democracy, which we reject, Germanic democracy has nothing in common.

The fuehrer-principle has meaning only in service to the entire nation. To be leader carries obligations The leader is the leader not because he bears special distinctions but because he bears greater responsibility. Leadership is not a privilege but an exalted duty. To be leader is to be an example!

Adolf Hitler is the ideal leader: purposeful and inexorable, but at the same time tactically astute; industrious, never resting, moreover prudent and far-sighted; proud and righteous, but also modest and unpretentious; energetic and austere, but full of warm love for his people. From the simplest origins our Leader has worked his way up against the most difficult obstacles to become the greatest statesman in German history. We National-Socialists are proud that we are privileged to follow a man such as our Leader. He is a lofty example for us. We emulate him with all our powers.

* Jedem das Seine is still the motto of the German military police.

The Colonial Problem

franz-xaver-ritter-von-eppGENERAL RITTER VON EPP
Reich Governor in Bavaria, Reich Leader of the Colonial League and the Colonial Board of the National Socialist Party

Germany’s demand for the return of her Colonial possessions has given rise to an animated world-wide discussion that still continues, thus showing that the Colonial problem is one of those most urgently in need of a satisfactory solution. It will be observed, however, that the most essential aspect of the problem -i.e., Germany’s claim that she has a right to demand the return of her former Colonies – is frequently ignored in the discussions. This circumstance suggests the probability that some writers on the subject lack a clear perception of the arguments by which Germany supports her claim, and that they are not familiar with her Colonial necessities as such. The following account of Germany’s standpoint may therefore be found of some use, as it is doubtful whether a successful outcome of the discussion can be hoped for if it is not based on a sound knowledge of the facts.

Germany was a late-comer in the Colonial sphere.  She only entered it in the last quarter of the past century, when it became apparent that the unclaimed regions of the world were about to be finally distributed among the Powers. She then acquired certain territories in Africa and in the Southern Pacific of which it could be expected that their possession would satisfy at least some of her economic necessities. Her action was in no way prompted by Imperialist motives, but was the direct outcome of a development that had converted her from an agricultural into a highly-industrialised country within a few decades. The more she became industrialised, the greater became her need of imports from abroad, as her own resources of raw materials have always been insufficient. Two reasons combined to bring about her industrialisation: first, the large increase in her population, and second, the unique technical progress achieved ever since. In 1800, her population amounted to about 20,000,000; a century later it had risen to 56,000,000, and in 1914 it had reached a total of 67,800,000. It had thus more than trebled; but as the size of the country had remained almost unchanged, it follows that the “space forces” had decreased by two-thirds.

Additional industries were constantly growing up. A large part of their output was exported, whilst those raw materials and foodstuffs which could not be produced at home were imported. Without such an interchange of commodities, it would have been impossible to provide enough food and work for the steadily growing population. All this development, however, was based on the then existing system of universal free trade. It was taken for granted that peace would continue indefinitely, and that the sanctity of private property and the business man’s initiative would continue to be respected as usual.

The acquisition of Colonial territories by Germany was intended to provide her with a reservoir of supplementary “space forces,” a matter which has at all times been considered the premier aim of all Colonising activities. How firmly this conviction was shared by all the Colonial powers may be gathered from the conclusion of the Congo Convention (1885), which was signed by Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, the United States, Italy, Portugal, and a number of other countries. Article I I of the Congo Act provided that, should any power exercising in Central Africa the rights of sovereignty or those conferred by a protectorate be involved in war, the others would endeavour to ensure that its Central African possessions should be declared neutral, and that they should be treated as though they belonged to a neutral State. The term” Central Africa,” as here used, included not only the whole of the Belgian Congo, but also the whole of German and British East Africa, about one-third of the Cameroons, Uganda, Nyassaland, a small part of Northern Rhodesia, and about one-half of French Equatorial Africa. All these wide domains were to be kept outside the range of a possible European war, and their integrity was to be respected.

Germany vigorously applied herself to the opening-up of her Colonial Empire as soon as the initial difficulties had been overcome. The task was enormous; and Germany had practically no experience as a Colonising power. Large parts of her Colonies had never been explored previous to their peaceable and lawful acquisition by Germany. The natives had to be brought in touch with the administrative system. For reasons of internal policy, the capital required for all these purposes did not flow freely into the Colonies during the first couple of decades; but their opening-up proceeded apace in spite of that drawback; roads and other means of transportation and communication were built, and economic progress was unmistakable. The value of the Colonial export trade increased from 25,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1903 to 160,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1913; and the importance of the Colonies as markets for manufactured articles was steadily growing. By 1914, after less than thirty years of opening-up work, a state of development had been attained that promised well for the future.

It is quite true that Germany’s trade with her Colonies formed a small fraction only of her total trade in those years; but this circumstance has no bearing upon the present economic situation. In the pre-War days, when Free Trade was a fact and not a mere name, and when no obstacles were placed in the way of any country’s foreign trade, Germany was not actually dependent upon the produce of her own Colonies. Besides, she was a large creditor country; she had invested huge sums in all parts of the globe, and she could buy all the necessary raw materials and foodstuffs without endangering her currency.

And then the War broke out. The solemn undertaking given by the signatories of the Congo Act was ignored by Germany’s opponents. On August 2nd, 1914, Dr. Solf, the Colonial Secretary, relying upon the provisions of the Act, advised the administrative authorities of German East Africa by telegram that the Colonies would not be involved in the impending war, and that the European settlers need not fear any complications. A few days later, Great Britain started hostilities in East Africa, and the Colonies became a theatre of war.

This obvious violation of a given undertaking was afterwards sanctioned at Versailles, although those who dispossessed Germany of her Colonies had no legal title to do so. On December 14th, 1917, President Wilson stated before Congress that the War was not to be terminated by an act of revenge, and that no nation and no people should be robbed or penalised; and on February 11th, 1918, he added, that “there shall be no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages.” This was also implied in the fifth of the President’s Fourteen Points, which provided for “a free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all Colonial claims.” Germany accepted the whole of the Fourteen Points by her note of October 3rd; and the Allied and Associated Powers also accepted them after the precise meaning of Point Five had been explained in the so-called Lyons wireless message of October 29th, 1918, which was a report drawn up by American delegates at the request of Colonel House, the President’s confidential adviser. As regards the “justified Colonial Claims of Germany,” it was said in the message that Germany must have access to the tropics and their raw materials, that she needed space for her excess population, and that, in conformity with the proposed terms of peace, the conquest of Colonial territories did not give her opponents a legal title to their possession. In the note of the American Secretary of State (Mr. Lansing) dated November 5th, 1918, it was stated again on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers that President Wilson’s Fourteen Points were to be the sole basis for the contemplated peace.

In spite of these unambiguous declarations, Germany was forced to surrender her overseas possessions (Art. 119 of the Versailles Treaty), although the unwisdom of making her do so was pointed out in many quarters. According to the secret minutes of the Council of Ten (January 24th, 1919), the Allied and Associated Powers were very far from viewing the whole question with unanimity. President Wilson expressed himself as follows:

The world will say that the Powers first of all divided among themselves the defenceless parts of the globe and then proceeded to create a League of Nations. The naked truth is that every one of these parts has been allotted to a big Power. I wish to say quite openly that the world will never tolerate such a proceeding, which will make the League of Nations impossible, and we shall have to revert to the system of competitive armaments, huge accumulations of debt, and the heavy burden of large armies.

To-day it is only too evident that the President’s forecast has come true. As the Powers did not want to lose their hold on the German Colonies, the mandatory system as set forth in Article 22 of the League Covenant was invented. It is interesting to recall the following remarks made by Mr. Lansing in 1921:

It may appear surprising that the big Powers lent their support so readily to the new method of gaining an apparently limited control of the conquered territories, and that they did not try to acquire full sovereign rights over them. There is no need to look far for an adequate and very practical reason. If Germany’s Colonial possessions had been divided among the victors in accordance with the usual method, and if they had been transferred to them with all the rights of sovereignty, Germany would have been entitled to demand that the value of such ceded territories should be credited to her reparations account. The League, however, was supposed to distribute the mandates in the interests of the inhabitants; and the mandates were to be regarded as obligations, but not as a means for the acquisition of additional territory. In this way, the mandatory system deprived Germany of her Colonies, the value of which would have considerably reduced her indebtedness towards the Allies, whilst the latter acquired the Colonies without losing any claim to compensation. Actually, therefore, the apparent altruism of the mandatory system favoured the selfish and material interests of the Powers by whom the mandates were taken over.

In order to justify the seizure of the Colonies and their transfer, under mandates, to the supreme control of the League, it was asserted that Germany was incapable of administering Colonial populations. In the notes dated July 16th, 19 I 9, it is stated among others that

The Allied and Associated Powers are satisfied that the native inhabitants of the German Colonies are strongly opposed to being again brought under Germany’s sway, and the record of German rule, the traditions of the German Government, and the use to which these Colonies were put as bases from which to prey upon the commerce of the world, make it impossible for the Allied and Associated Powers to return them to Germany, or to entrust to her the responsibility for the training and education of their inhabitants.

These charges were based on the” Report on the Natives of South-West Africa and their Treatment by Germany,” issued by the Administrator’s Office, Windhoek, South-West Africa, concerning which the District Council for South-West Africa unanimously resolved on July 29th, 1926, that it was an instrument of war, and that the time had come for discontinuing its use. General Hertzog, the South African Prime Minister, stated on January 28th, 1927: “The unreliability and worthlessness of the document in question were sufficient to condemn it to the same disgraceful oblivion as all similar documents dating from the time of the war.” And it is interesting to note in this connection that Mr. Amery, the former Secretary for the Colonies, expressed himself in a similar manner in January 1937, by way of replying to my explanation of the German view on the Colonial problem, when he said: “As regards Germany’s inability to rule native populations, that is an assertion like many others made in the speeches and even in the official documents originating in the unhealthy atmosphere of those days.” This latter statement should be read in conjunction with a remark on President Wilson and the mandatory system made by Mr. Lansing: “His noble mind and his lofty views made him blind to the base motives which seem to have been at the root of the general consent given to his beloved mandatory system.”

It follows from the foregoing explanations that the alleged reasons for placing the German Colonies under mandates, and therefore those for the continuance of the mandatory system itself, are untenable. Contrary to a belief prevalent in some quarters, there has never been any actual annexation of the Colonies by the mandatory Powers. If it were otherwise, the question might well be asked: Why should there be any mandatory system at all? And what is the use of Article 22 of the League Covenant, which was intended to form an integral whole together with Article 119 of the Versailles Treaty? The fact that, in accordance with the last-named articles, Germany had to surrender her Colonies to the principal Allied Powers, does not imply a transfer of her sovereignty. (Cf. the corresponding provisions respecting Memel and Danzig in Articles 99 and 100.)

Germany, therefore, has a proper legal claim to the return of her Colonies. The German people are profoundly conscious of having such a claim and regard the existing position as a serious discrimination against themselves. It is evident that the question of the Colonies is at the same time a question of equality of status.

Germany’s demand, however, is not only based on legal and moral grounds, but is supported by weighty economic reasons as well. There are many people outside Germany who do not realise the exceedingly unfavourable conditions which she has to endure in many respects. The Versailles Treaty has deeply undermined the foundations of her economic life. Apart from the loss of her Colonial empire, that treaty also forced her to surrender 13 per cent. of her territory at home, together with the valuable mineral and agricultural resources contained in those parts, as well as her entire mercantile tonnage. The confiscation of German property abroad was sanctioned by the terms of the treaty. Germany’s foreign investments, which represented a value far exceeding £ 1,000,000,000 gold, were taken away from their rightful owners by a stroke of the pen. In addition, she was asked to pay fantastic sums by way of reparation. After she had done so for a number of years, it was seen that a continuance of these payments was an absolute impossibility. In order to make the payments on reparations account, she had been compelled to contract so large a foreign debt that, after the lapse of ten years or so, her liabilities towards her creditors abroad were almost as large as the value of her pre-War foreign investments. This foreign indebtedness accounts for the gigantic losses her gold and foreign-exchange reserves have sustained since 1931.

As time advances, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Versailles Treaty has brought about a serious disturbance in the world’s equilibrium. It has given rise to an economic development throughout the world the ultimate effect of which has been to reverse completely pre-War conditions. Before the War, the markets for raw materials were unfettered by any restrictions, and long-term commercial treaties guaranteed the freedom of international trade. The economic era, however, which dates from Versailles, is characterised by protectionist, selfish, and monopolist tendencies. Most countries, notably the United States, the United Kingdom and France, have surrounded themselves with high tariff walls, and have introduced every possible device for promoting trade within their own territories and for preventing the products of other countries from entering them.

Thus, present-day Germany finds herself confronted with the following facts: Considerable territorial losses in Europe and abroad; the complete loss of her foreign assets; a large debt resulting from her reparations payments, and the impossibility of importing sufficient quantities of those commodities vitally necessary for maintaining the standard of living of her population and for ensuring the continued existence of her national economy itself. The consequence of her declining export trade was that the foundation on which her economic system had been based for more than a century suffered a considerable contraction. Even though her Colonies may have been relatively unimportant to the balance of her foreign trade in pre-War time, present economic conditions are so different that the possession or non-possession of Colonies is a question of the very first importance.

All these circumstances have to be taken into account by those who want to understand the justice of Germany’s Colonial claims on economic grounds. The fact that governs the whole situation is this: The centre of Europe is inhabited by a nation which, despite every effort made, finds it impossible to safeguard the foundations of its existence by making use of the resources provided by its native soil.

Before the War, Germany had started to develop, on systematic lines, all those resources of the areas subject to her sovereignty which were-and which are-necessary for the maintenance of her surplus population. At Versailles, however, her Colonial empire (which, although but small, was of great importance to her) was divided among nations that were in no need of additional Colonial possessions. Besides, these nations had so many other matters to attend to that they were not in a position to engage in the work of opening-up the mandated areas. It can be shown that the development of the mandated territories – not only as regards the production of raw materials, but also in connection with many other items ¬ has received far less attention than that of countries adjacent to them where the climatic conditions are very similar. It is very instructive to compare, for example, the export totals of oleaginous seeds and fruits from Togoland and the Cameroons with those from the Belgian Congo and Nigeria, those of timber from the Cameroons with those from French Equatorial Africa, and those of cotton from German East Africa (Tanganyika) with those from Uganda and Kenya. Comparisons such as these indicate that the Colonial possessions of the European countries concerned are developed far more systematically than the territories under mandate. The development of the transportation system in the latter has almost come to a standstill since the advent of the mandatory administrations, as may be seen from the following figures:

Railways open to traffic
or in course of construction.
1914. 1934.
East Africa……… 2,171 km. 2,215 km. 44 km.
South-West Africa……………… 2,178 2,357 179
Cameroons……… 443 504 61
Togoland………… 327 442 115


Thus, almost the whole railway system of the mandated territories dates back to the twenty odd years of German rule, whilst the mandatory Powers have hardly done anything since to extend it. Equally slight has been the increase in the export trade of the Colonies since their taking-over by the mandatory Powers. During the period from 1908- 13, i.e., within five years, the total value of their exports went up from £1,400,000 to £8,000,000, which is undoubtedly a clear proof of Germany’s successful Colonial work in Africa and in the Southern Pacific. By 1936, after seventeen years of mandatory rule, that figure had only risen to £10,000,000 gold. The increase, therefore, has been remarkably slight.

Even in their present state of development, the Colonies could do much to ease Germany’s economic difficulties. They could supply considerable percentages of the raw materials she requires. Based on the export statistics for 1936, these percentages work out as follows: Oleaginous seeds and fruits, 14 per cent.; flax, hemp, etc., 43 per cent. (for sisal alone, 261 per cent.); cocoa, 61 per cent.; coffee, 13 per cent.; bananas, 61 per cent.; mineral phosphates, 49 per cent. Other important raw materials that could be imported from the Colonies are hides and skins, cotton, timber, wool, rubber, and various cereals.

No attention has been paid so far to the considerable possibilities of future development. In view of the relative neglect of the mandated territories by their present rulers, we are justified in assuming that their production totals can be greatly augmented within a short period of time. Experts with a good knowledge of all the facts have ascertained that, on a conservative estimate, the value of the exports can be raised to £30,000,000 gold within eight or ten years, provided that intensive methods of cultivation are employed. This means that the mandated territories could supply Germany with 12 or 15 per cent. of her import requirements. It is obvious that this would materially ease Germany’s foreign-exchange position and her international trade relations and would, above all, give her a feeling of economic security.

To make such an increase possible, it would be necessary, of course, to accelerate very considerably the pace at which the opening-up of the Colonies takes place, both through private initiative and by means of Government assistance. A typical example of the great success that can be achieved by systematic work in the right direction is afforded by the Gold Coast Colony, where the cultivation of cocoa was introduced about the turn of the century. In 1906, about 8,000 tons of it could be exported; and by 1936 that figure had risen to as much as 306,000 tons, so that the Gold Coast is now the principal producer of cocoa. As the climatic and geographical conditions of the Cameroons are very similar to those of the Gold Coast, it would seem quite possible to increase the cocoa production of that country very greatly within a short time. The same possibility presents itself for a number of other products that are of value to Germany as foodstuffs or as industrial raw materials, e.g. timber, oleaginous fruits, sisal, and rubber.

Before the War, there was no need for Germany to adjust her foreign trade with an eye to her Colonies. Today, however, large quantities of Colonial produce could be used to cover the needs of the mother country; and the part not thus used could be sold in other markets. In this way, foreign exchange would become available for purchases in other countries.

All the suggestions put forward with a view to making Germany renounce her Colonial claim fail to do justice to the requirements of the country’s body economic. It has been said that Germany ought to make use of the numerous facilities afforded by “the open door.” But if we look at that “open door,” we find that it is very carefully locked indeed. It has already been emphasised that the principal countries of the world have adopted undiluted protectionism since 1924. Great Britain, more especially, has secured for herself a very favourable position in the great raw material markets by the Ottawa agreements. She, therefore, can hardly claim the right to speak of other countries’ freedom of access to raw materials. A glance at the customs lists and import regulations of practically all parts of the British Empire, Dominions as well as Crown Colonies, shows that the products of non-British countries (more particularly finished articles, in the export of which Germany specialises) are treated far less favourably than those originating within the British Empire. Another example of the tendency on the part of the large Colonial Powers to establish a privileged position for their own products is Britain’s policy in Nigeria and the Gold Coast Colony where a quota system for textiles based on the import figures for 1935 has just been introduced. This step is a serious handicap to the trade of the non-British countries, as 1935 was in many respects a year of bad trade. Since then the purchasing capacity of the inhabitants has considerably improved, so that Great Britain alone will reap the resulting advantage. Besides, nearly all the Colonial territories have established a system of discriminating export duties that make it difficult for Germany to obtain a sufficiency of Colonial produce. All this shows how threadbare is the assertion sometimes heard that the have-nots need only set aside an adequate amount of foreign exchange if they want to share in the Colonial wealth. The very fact that payment must be made in foreign exchange puts us at a disadvantage. Besides, nations deprived of their investments abroad can only obtain foreign exchange by selling their goods.

Experience has shown that Germany is not in a position to sell large quantities of her manufactured products in the mandated territories. This applies still more to the actual Colonies of the European Powers, in whose trade the latter-as a rule-have the lion’s share. France’s share in the import trade of Morocco is 43.7 per cent., Great Britain’s share in that of Nigeria is 55.2 per cent., and Belgium’s share in that of the Congo is 43.4 per cent., whilst Germany’s share in the trade of these and numerous other African territories is very slight. Her trade with them is for the most part passive, because even now imports from them considerably exceed her exports to them. The mandated territories are no exception to this rule, notwithstanding the status of economic equality supposed to exist there. The following figures indicate the losses Germany has incurred in her trade with some of her former Colonies since they have ceased to be administered by her.


South West Africa. German East Africa.
1912. 1933. 1912. 1933.
Percentage of Total Imports
Imports from Germany…………………. 81.4 11.1 51.3 10.2
Imports from British Empire……………………. 13.2 77.7 22.5 46.1
Percentage of Total Exports
Exports to Germany… 83.1 18.5 56.7 11.8
Exports to British Empire……………………. 1.1 64.1 10.8 53.9


These figures show how greatly the share of the British Empire in the trade with these two mandated territories has increased at the expense of Germany. Everywhere the Colonial Powers predominate in the import trade of their Colonies and in that of the mandated territories administered by them. Their nationals are sure to get all the orders from public authorities and also those of any importance from most private firms.

Since all the big Colonial Powers have taken successful steps in recent years to cover an increasing part of their import requirements within the areas subject to their political influence, it is difficult to understand why Colonial possessions should be a burden to the countries that own them – an assertion sometimes made to refute Germany’s Colonial claim. The share of the United Kingdom in the import trade of the British Empire went up from 31 per cent. to 42 per cent. within twelve years, and that in the export trade from 41 per cent. to 49 per cent. The same tendency may be observed in regard to France, where the share of the Colonies in the import trade of the mother country increased from 10 per cent. to 26 per cent. in ten years and that in the export trade from 14 per cent. to 32 per cent. Such developments could only take place at the expense of other countries, largely at that of Germany. But even apart from these facts, it is strange to hear it sometimes said that Colonies are of no value. If that were true, the return of the German Colonies would be felt by the mandatory Powers as a relief, and not as a sacrifice. In Germany it has been noticed with interest that such a view of the Colonial problem has frequently been advanced by British writers on the subject.

From all that has been said it may be inferred that the Colonial question is not simply a “raw-material question.” There is no chance of Germany ever being able to extend her trade unless she is reinstated in the possession of her Colonies. The point of cardinal importance, in view of her foreign-exchange position, is that she must be enabled to obtain from territories subject to her own sovereignty, where her own currency circulates, a considerable part of those raw materials and foodstuffs that have now to be paid for in foreign exchange. In this way alone will it be possible for her trade to gain that measure of security and stability which she so urgently needs in the economic domain. Customs facilities and the removal of trade restrictions are insufficient to do justice to her requirements, however desirable they are in other respects.

Germany asks only for the return of territories that were her own property before she had to relinquish possession of them. She demands nothing unfair, and has no design upon the Colonial possessions of other countries. She only desires to recover those overseas territories to which she has a legal title. It is evident that her claim is directed in the first instance against Great Britain, whose Government was chiefly instrumental in depriving her of their possession. In addition, most of the Colonies are now administered by countries that are constituent parts of the British Empire.

It has been shown that Germany has an unchallengeable claim to the return of the Colonies, based on legal and moral grounds, and on the right of every nation to safeguard the interests vital to its existence. This latter necessity is especially urgent in Germany’s case because of the many restrictions to which her commerce is subject. Her demand is not prompted by a desire to stop up any temporary gaps in the system of her supplies, but rather by a determination to pursue a Colonial policy intended to bring about the economic assimilation of the mother country and the Colonies. Her sole aim is of an economic kind; and all allegations to the effect that she wants to turn her Colonies into military bases are groundless. The Anglo-German naval pact ought to be sufficient proof of the futility of such allegations.

The great task with which the statesmen of the present generation are faced is to establish a lasting peace among the nations. No Government anxious to collaborate in it can want to maintain indefinitely a policy by which a nation of 68,000,000 people is to be deprived of its vital rights. The Versailles doctrine of the advantages to be derived from a system of arbitrary restrictions must be abandoned, more particularly in so far as it applies to restrictions that are meant to be of a punitive kind. Germany therefore expects that the Colonial clauses of the Versailles Treaty will be made the subject of a revision that does justice to her legitimate claims. The solution of the problem must be effected by the method of negotiations, because – as the Führer has said – “the Colonial problem is not a question of peace or war.” Once Germany has regained her proper share in the opening-up of overseas territories, her economic system will function normally again and – above all – a valuable contribution will have been rendered to the recovery of international trade. Such a solution will provide the basis for the peaceful co-operation of the white nations and will initiate a lasting epoch of quiet development. It is the hope of all right-minded people that common sense – so indispensable to all human progress – will prevail in the method of handling Germany’s Colonial problem.

The Spiritual Foundations of the New Europe

Otto Dietrich

Excerpt by Reich Press Chief Dr. Otto Dietrich.


The basic element in the political concept of National Socialism is that of the national state. It has no ambition to make imperial conquests, but strives after inner collectivity and national concentration. And the clear proof of this is the unprecedented organization by National Socialism of that tremendous return migration of racial Germans, the return of German blood to the Motherland.

The political conception of the national state is not directed towards a frittering away of power by outward expansion, but towards rational internal construction and the safeguarding of the national standard of existence. It has enforced the idea that relations between states can be made more permanent if the prospect of the nations is clear and determined and if leadership is responsibly and authoritatively rooted in the nation.

The organization of life in our present-day Germany reflects internal national and political determination and externally also shows definite lines of conduct. The ideas and the driving force of National Socialism are directed exclusively towards peace, as long as the indispensable bases of existence and security are guaranteed to our nation of 85 millions living within the heart of Europe. National Socialist Germany has been forced to fight, because the principles of imperialism and world domination of the Anglo-Saxons negate the simplest preliminary conditions for the development of our peace-loving nation. It was for this reason that they declared war on us. Britain is conducting a war of destructive force against constructive organization in the life of nations. The fact that National Socialist Germany has proved itself to be stronger than its aggressor in a war which has been forced upon it, is no proof of the violence of its principles, but only of the strength inherent in its ideal of order.

They say: “We are fighting for the democratic way of life. We are fighting for the liberty of living our lives as we wish.” But National Socialism has no intention of preventing them from doing so. It holds the opinion that every nation should live its own internal life in accordance with its own desires. The crimes they attribute to us are in reality committed by themselves. In no single country in the world does there exist such a great and disgusting intolerance of the mode of living of others as in the Anglo-Saxon countries. This intolerance is carried on hypocritically in the name of liberty, a liberty the real character of which I have already described.

Our adversaries maintain that this is a war of democracy against tyranny that makes it necessary either to unmask these political play-actors or else to open the eyes of their public to their true nature.

I may be allowed here to quote a neutral scholar, who a short while ago wrote an article “Hitler and the Democracies.” He asked the question why the Führer should be an opponent of the democracies, as he was one of the people himself and as president of the most democratic republic in the world was constantly in sincere and direct contact with the people. During his examination, this scholar comes to the conclusion that only the modern democracies, France, Britain and America in particular, apparently had something in common with the will of the people. In reality it was only a pretext for party interests and the compensatory business of a few political circles among the upper classes. The mistakes of liberal democracy had already been made by its founders who had introduced into it their own material and utilitarian outlook and economic individualism.All this had been shamefully decorated by the founders of liberal democracy behind a facade of idealism. They themselves had never honestly believed in the catchwords of “Liberty,” “Equality” and “Fraternity,” which they had invented. In these so-called Western democracies, power was not actually upheld by the people, but a few thousand capitalists. The functioning of democracy merely concealed the selfishness of a small minority living in ease and comfort.

These statements hit the nail on the head. One should not always only talk of democracy, but for once answer the question: “What is ‘democracy‘? What does it actually mean?”

If democracy is no more than invisible domination by a few, achieved by means of money and the fabrication of public opinion, then our opponents are right in calling themselves democracies. But if democracy really denotes government by the people, then it is not they, but we, who are the democrats. We attach no particular value to decorating ourselves with this word that has become so compromised on account of its political past. But if the plutocrats make use of it to camouflage their domination and to deceive the people, then it is necessary to make its meaning perfectly clear. Whoever studies the conception of the National Socialist state in its innermost structure and practical functioning is bound to recognize that it is the most modern government of the people in history. It demonstrates the principles of responsibility and leadership in the truly national state, in opposition to the anonymous principles of degenerate democracy. It regards the will of the people not as a dead parliamentary majority to be gained by money or financial influence, but recognizes it continually in the permanent and direct alliance with the life of the people itself. The National Socialist Party is, therefore, not a party in the parliamentary sense, but simply and positively the party of the German nation. It is the great guardian of the social conscience of the nation, it holds its hand on the pulse of the people, it feels its slightest stirrings, its anxieties and its needs, its requirements and its desires, its pleasure and its pain. It is its helper and adviser and the unceasing bearer of its suggestions to the higher authorities. It has entrusted hundreds of thousands of citizens of all professions and classes with political responsibility, thereby providing tens of thousands of politically tested Germans with the opportunity of advancement to leading positions in the Reich. It has linked the perpetual stream of youth, organically and eternally, with the life of the nation and has created a system for the selection of leaders, which compels future generations to play their uninterrupted and vital part. Tangible shape is thereby given not to the will of a questionable parliamentary majority, but to the true will of the people. By its principles of training, efficiency and selection of leaders, it has given the nation a wonderfully functional system with the rhythm of strength continually renewing itself.

Nearly 2,500 years ago, Plato wrote in his “Laws” that the most excellent constitution of a nation was that which was successful in persuading the masses to submit voluntary and in raising the most intelligent in their midst to leadership. The new principle of national and political leadership developed by the highly gifted leaders of Germany and Italy has made these sublime political concepts reality. When today the messiahs of democracy and the plutocrats talk contemptuously of “dictatorships,” their intellectual arrogance only conceals the stain of ignorance or the essence of hypocrisy which fears nothing so much as the realization of truth by the awakening of the nations.

the-spiritual-foundations-of-the-new-europePurchase for $10

The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism



By Reichsleiter Dr. Otto Dietrich

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015

Here is the first installment in a serialized translation of Die philosophischen Grundlagen des Nationalsozialismus: ein Ruf zu den Waffen deutschen Geistes by Dr. Otto Dietrich, Reichspressechef of the NSDAP, 1934.

The fact that I have translated this handy presentation from 1934 should not be construed as an endorsement of any statement made by Dietrich after the war, when he was a prisoner of the victorious powers, circumstances under which a number of men were pressured to make statements confirming the propaganda of the victors. On the contrary, part of the purpose here is to show what Dietrich had to say about National-Socialism was when he was a free man.

The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism: 
A Call to Arms of the German Mind a lecture delivered at the University of Köln, 16 November 1934 
Reichsleiter Dr. Otto Dietrich
 national press-director of the NSDAP


We in Germany know what National-Socialism is – because we live it! With justification it has been said that National-Socialism’s work is not an abstract ideological construction, but a volume of experience that has grown out of the solidarity of blood and out of the community of the people, and corresponds to our own innermost essence. We Germans, and above all those who did not themselves come directly from the domain of our National-Socialist thought, comprehend National-Socialism by experiencing it day by day in all its manifestations and effects within the National-Socialist community of the people. And even the Germans beyond our borders can feel National-Socialism due to their inner blood-bond with us. But if we place value on making National-Socialism comprehensible to other nations that live in another world of emotions and ideas, and awakening understanding for it, then we must share our ideas in a form that they understand. We must express National-Socialism’s ideas and spiritual laws of life in a language that allows the union of the new with the old, of the inner world with the outer.

This field of scholarly activity is important; it is urgent. That is because the absence of such a clearly thought-out, distinct form, I might say the lack hitherto of such an internationally understandable intellectual language of National-Socialism, not only contains the source of many errors and misunderstandings, but robs us of the possibility to oppose malevolent broadsides and slanders with the weapons of the mind. And that applies not only to the rest of the world, but also to a part of our own intellectual and scholarly world. Indeed, sensing this, Alfred Rosenberg, the party’s commissioner, also recently called for a stronger intellectual affirmation of our worldview. „After gaining power“ – as he explained – „the National-Socialist movement must be more concerned than ever about affirming its worldview, so that the unity of thought and action may be guaranteed not only for today but for all coming generations.“

We National-Socialists so far have been too busy domestically to be able to devote ourselves to the scholarly refinement of our worldview. Unlike others, we have proceeded according to the principle of first arranging practical life in accord with our worldview, and then proving its viability, before perfecting its design in the realm of scholarship. But now it is time to reveal the spirit of the new Germany, which has been actualized in the feeling and will of its folk-comrades, also as a confirmed doctrine. And laying a philosophical foundation seems to me one of the most important and indispensable prerequisites for that. And in service to this mission, I want to make a contribution. Not as a philosopher, but as a National-Socialist who is no stranger to the field of philosophy. I might add, by the way, that it is not the point of my explanations to state claims that are supposed to be accepted as true only because they encounter no contradiction. On the contrary, I place special value on keeping myself within the confines of an exclusively scholarly demonstration. And for that I must first back up a bit.

The Untenability of Individualistic Philosophy

If philosophy aspires to gather all the contents of the world’s happening into a single point that can adequately explain the whole multifariousness of that happening, then the basic duality of spirit and matter – or whatever else one wishes to call it – certainly stands as an obstacle. The principal attempts at a solution – incorporating one of these poles into the other, or rather showing that one is derived from the other, so as to accomplish the oneness of the universe – dominate the history of philosophy.

Disregarding for now the philosophy of religion and its metaphysical orientation, we can classify the great philosophical systems before Kant formally into these two mental tendencies. Rationalism and sensualism select one of the powers of knowing, ratiocination (Verstand) or perception (Sinnlichkeit), as the means to establish the character of the objective world.

Kant was the first who overcame this contradiction in philosophical thought and tried to resolve it in a higher unity. For him the crucial prerequisite for knowledge of the world is neither syllogistic thought (das logisch-begriffliche Denken) alone, nor sense-perception (Wahrnehmung) alone, but the total power of comprehension (der gesamte Intellekt). The totality of consciousness, as a combination of both, constitutes experience (Erfahrung) – the unconditional validity of which he indeed presupposes. Since ratiocination is the sum of the pure forms whereby we are able to think at all, it is for him the precondition of what, with the help of sense-perceptions, becomes experience. And since for him things must first be broken, so to speak, through the medium of the soul before becoming knowledge for man, it was possible to say in Kant’s sense: „The world is my idea.“ While epistemology is Kant’s path to the insight that only the „unity of consciousness“ makes knowledge possible, which limits us however to ideas (Vorstellungen) and demonstrates that the absolute, the „thing in itself,“ is incomprehensible to our mind, Goethe, for example, achieves a similar synthesis from an entirely different, more artistic approach. „If you want to find yourself in the infinite, you must differentiate and then combine.“ He makes the concept of life felt as whole, as totality, into the point of origin for knowledge. With that the course has been set for a philosophy of life, and of course it was on the broader expanses of that territory that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche created their immortal works. Certainly they all unify it, although on a higher level, back into that underlying phenomenon [i.e. consciousness], from whose inexplicability philosophy began.

From yet another perspective however, it is possible to take a cross-section through philosophical thought. Faced with the manifoldness of phenomena, with the infinity of Being (Sein), the human mind can penetrate only by separating it into form and content. While on the one hand the idea that something persists amid all that changes allows formless substance to grow into the totality of Being, on the other hand the attempt to make contentless form, the very thing that changes in all that persists, into the highest principle of the universe, is also found everywhere in the history of philosophy. The „philosophy of Being“ found its most decisive expression in Spinoza’s „Substantia sive deus.“ In Hegel’s „self-movement of the idea“ the philosophy of Becoming reached its zenith in close association with the idea of evolution.

We see from the history of philosophical thought, from whichever perspective we ourselves always contemplate it, that the contradictoriness of the world’s contents also encompasses all attempts by the philosophical mind to master it. The philosophical striving for the ultimate scientific unity, for conceptual completion of positive knowledge, to a closed mental picture of Being, has remained in the final analysis unsatisfied to this day. Metaphysics, the appeal to the unprovable, has always been its last word. Even the so-called phenomenological philosophy has not so far convinced us to the contrary, since it can show no positive results whatsoever.

Thus the history of philosophy so far seems itself to affirm that the ultimate absolute truth is an ideal toward which cognition strives as a distant enticing light, a direction-sign pointing out of the darkness into the bright light and leading to humanity’s relentless scientific progress. We are far from advocating any philosophical pessimism. That is because value and meaning, which these philosophical systems for the development of the human spirit have had, remain unaffected by the temporal limitedness of their cognitions. Like life itself, scientific knowledge is found in constant flux. And as Fichte’s saying, „What kind of philosophy one would choose depends on what kind of human being one is,“ has meaning even today, so too will the philosophical thought of an epoch always reflect the spirit of that time.

If for that reason we seek the position of the philosophical thought of the present, the task is facilitated in no small degree by the fact that the philosophers of the world met a few weeks ago at the 8th International Philosophers’ Congress in Prague. What became apparent before all the world at this congress, which was attended by more than 600 philosophers from 21 countries, was nothing other than the crisis of philosophy in our age, as of course had quite long ago ceased to be a secret to philosophical contemporaries. It would be of only slight value for the purpose of these explanations to go into the details of the disputes at the Prague congress; we shall in due course have opportunity to touch on some ideas. The net result of this philosophical discussion in any case consists not at all in positive solutions of a particular kind, but on the contrary, precisely in the absence of large and consistent perspectives of any kind. Even shifting the main theme to the field of the modern doctrine of the state by passionately debating the problem, „the crisis of democracy,“ could not obscure this impression, but only strengthened it further. The outcome finds perhaps its best expression in the lecture that the philosopher Edmund Husserl delivered to the congress, wherein he argued that philosophy today is in danger of dying out.

Skepticism, horizons of unclarity (Unklarheitshorizonte), and disunity of the philosophical discipline are indications of it, he said. The few still genuine philosophers are united only in their ethos. The question of what actually is (die Frage nach dem Seienden) must be posed radically anew. Only then, Husserl concluded, will philosophy be able to come together again in communal creating.

With that, the international forum of philosophers was told by someone from its own ranks what the philosophical consciousness of our age quite universally is really driving at: the question of what actually is must be posed radically anew in an age wherein the mind presently confronts such a fundamentally new configuration of social life. We live today at the intersection of two epochs, the changing and transition of which were unleashed by the World War and by the socialist and nationalist revolutions in its wake. Is it amazing, or isn’t it entirely natural, that this transition, wherein the old collapses and the new is not yet ready, precipitates also an intellectual revaluation, a crisis of the mind and of philosophical thought as we see it today? For us this crisis would only warrant a skepticism if we felt ourselves shackled to the downfall of what was. But the fact that today everywhere in the world the old still struggles with the new does not absolve us, in whom the new has already taken shape, from the necessity of carrying it forward also intellectually, as standard-bearers of a new age.

If the intellectual picture of the world as most philosophers of the past have seen it and investigated it is reduced to a starting-point shared by all, to a common denominator, it has been individualism, to which almost all were subject in their thinking. „Man is the measure of all things.“ Man as „unity of mind and matter,“ as „unity of subject and object,“ as „the beginning and end of all philosophy.“ The individual was for the philosophy of all ages the point of reference of all knowledge whatsoever. The individual was the uniquely indisputable thing, the stationary pole amid the flight of phenomena – unless an easier way of thinking preferred also to dissolve this awkward-to-bear earthly remnant in the aether of an exclusive principle. Individualism was, to put it in Kant’s terminology, the category of philosophical thought in general. What could be more obvious than the fact that the crisis of individualism that we are experiencing today must also be the crisis of individualistic philosophy! And as life itself orients itself anew, forward from the worship of the individual and onward to the community, the same must be expected of intellectual life in general and of philosophy in particular, if it is supposed to acquire new life. That is no cheap assertion, but a reference to the fundamental situation.

Individualistic thought proceeds from individual consciousness as the only given fact, and makes it sovereign over the world. With this sovereignty of the individualistic spirit over the world, philosophy is given a practically boundless arena for metaphysical speculation. To arrive at knowledge of the world through philosophy: an enticing prospect that always has and always will attract the best minds. But all individualistic philosophy ends – as history shows us – in unprovables. It cannot grasp what the whole of life precisely is; only where individualism establishes assumptions and boundaries for knowledge does it arrive at practical, positive cognitions. For individualism, the identity of the subject with the object, as in consciousness of oneself, comes to light in the self-knowledge of the individual, the ultimate … inexplicable thing. This unity of the knower with the known, which can be traced no further, remains for individualism the miracle, the „node of the world“ as even a Schopenhauer must confess. And Kant’s ingenious individualistic theory of knowledge that limits the world of experiences to ideas, ends in the postulate of practical reason (praktische Vernunft) – in the moral law of the community. Individualistic philosophy, which was elaborated in order to arrive at ultimate knowledge of the world, thus, at the end of its journey, sees itself faced with the community, and finds its practical cognitions for the first time where universal thought begins. With that we have reached a crucial point in our observations.

I found this section of Otto Dietrich’s Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism very difficult, not only to translate but to understand after I had translated it. (Translation was complicated by apparent misprints, including absence of some necessary commas and I had to read it many times to arrive at what I think is a correct understanding of the whole section. I think that this is because of the knowledge and assumptions that Dietrich took for granted in his audience and therefore did not articulate, which are unknown to Americans. I think that a German philosophical audience of 1934 would certainly have had more of the necessary background information for a clear understanding of what Dietrich meant, whereas for a 21st-century American audience not trained in the German intellectual tradition, some of the references are totally obscure. In particular, Americans might not immediately understand what Dietrich means when he talks about the controversy over defining sociology, or why this is relevant. Americans may also be dubious about Dietrich’s use of the term universal to mean something different from our individualistic understanding of it (which I think is also a problem that Americans encounter when trying to understand some of the German Idealistic philosophers).

Nonetheless, I think it is possible to get something out of it. For example, the statement that man is a collective essence (which could also be rendered as collective being), not an individual essence – and that only the community, not the individual, is real – points to the premise of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology, that the gene-pool, not the individual, is the unit of survival and evolution.

One would like to have a fuller explanation of how the new community-based thinking necessitates the reorganization of academic knowledge. There is only the briefest mention of that here: new and different approaches to history, politics, law, and philology from the perspective of race and community. I should add though, that H.S. Chamberlain, in his Aryan Worldview, had complained years earlier about the way academic knowledge was compartmentalized into distinct disciplines, which Chamberlain seemed to think robbed the particular disciplines of unity and meaning. The new worldview facilitates restoration of unity and meaning, with some reorganization, according to Dietrich. His use of the term Einzelwissenschaften (individual sciences) seems to imply an analogy to Einzelwesen (individual being), so that the scholarly disciplines are reunified with the whole of knowledge in the same way that the individual man is reunited with his community, in this worldview.

By the way, the German word normally rendered as „science“ (Wissenschaft) really refers to any field of scholarship. When science in the usual English sense of physics and biology is meant, the term is „natural science“ (Naturwissenschaft). Meanwhile, „humanities“ (Geisteswissenschaft) apparently includes what we somewhat artificially distinguish as social sciences.

Now that you already know some the things that you are likely to find puzzling here, you won’t feel stumped when you encounter them! I have written a synopsis of this section to make it even easier to digest.


Man cannot exist as an individual, only as a member of a community. Races, peoples, and nations are therefore more real than individuals. Therefore universalistic thought must replace individualistic thought in philosophy, and the organic view of the world must replace the mechanical view. But do not misunderstand what is meant here by universalistic. Community-consciousness that is fundamentally rooted in biology. Sociology was the beginning of an attempt to understand man in his collective nature, but it was in some ways on the wrong track, because „society“ is still an essentially individualistic term. „Community“ by contrast denotes an organic unity.

Recent thinkers who pointed the way to the new community-conscious thought are Johannes Rehmke and the National-Socialist Paul Krannhals. But really it has been a long time coming, foreshadowed by Meister Eckhart, Kant, and Fichte.

With the turn from individualistic to community-based epistemology, the divisions of scholarship will have to be reorganized in a way that makes sense within the new worldview.

This new mode of thought is valid for all races and peoples, even if not all are yet able to recognize it.

From: The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism – by Otto Dietrich

 The Development of Community-Thought

Underlying individualistic thought is the premise, taken to be self-evident, that man is an individual essence (Einzelwesen). This premise – however firmly it may even be rooted in the universal conception – is false and based on a catastrophic error in thinking. Man confronts us in the world not as an individual essence but as a member of a community. Man is in all his actions a collective essence (Kollektivwesen), and is utterly unthinkable except in this way. Man by definition therefore lives in community with others; his life actualizes itself only in the community. Community is a concept to which the whole history of humanity is subordinate; it is the form in which human life runs its course from cradle to grave, without which it would be unthinkable.

The actual givens that we find in the world are not individual men but races, peoples, and nations. Man as individual may be an object of research for the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften). But in the humanities (Geisteswissenschaften) he is an object of cognition only as a member of a community, in which his life has an effect and usefully (praktisch) runs its course.

The humanities, and especially philosophy in its epistemological ground-laying, must take account of this fundamental fact, if they want to assert their prominent position in the intellectual life of the German nation, and to maintain a living, fruitful connection to its evolution. Universalistic thought, community-conscious thought, must take the place of individualistic thought; and the universalistic – or if one wishes, the organic – picture of the world must take the place of the mechanical picture of the world..

I would like to emphasize beforehand that the term universalistic, which I shall continue to use, is not identical with the empty umbrella-term, human society or humanity, but instead that universalism here stands as the terminological opposite of individualism. The term universalistic represents a concept that is actualized not in „society“ (Gesellschaft) but in community (Gemeinschaft)[1]. The fact that individualistic thought has misused the term universalistic for its own purposes will not prevent me from restoring it to its actual meaning.

We shall see later how the tremendous ideological and revolutionary happening of our days points toward such a new ground-laying of thought that is founded upon community-consciousness as a fact ultimately rooted in biology.

Now, the scientific consciousness of how strongly the individual is bound to a whole (Gesamtheit) is not in itself a new discovery that I could claim for myself. The social or „gesellschaftlich“ mode of interpretation has long been one of the most fundamental but also most controversial problems in many of our individual sciences (Einzelwissenschaften). In the „universalistic conception of the state“ as for example Othmar Spann teaches it, in the science of law, in political economy, in social psychology, and so on, it has produced results for decades, but without any inner connection to National-Socialism’s universalistic-organic thinking based on race and biology. In sociology, which Comte already established, the growing importance, the rising scientific interest in the problems of society congealed, as is well known, into a special science. How much this problem and the instinctive consciousness of its importance has been occupying minds, one sees from the decades-long scientific dispute over determining the object of sociology as a science in its own right. One faction proclaimed that all sciences of human affairs were only parts of an all-encompassing science of society; everything that was not natural science, they said, should be housed in this new science, „sociology.“ Others, by contrast, limited sociology’s area of knowledge to the forms of human society, while the remainder entirely denied to sociology the right to be a science, and they wanted to have it regarded only as a method of social-scientific research.

As we see, the problem has long been recognized and felt by science. Its solution has been attempted sporadically and piecemeal, but never radically and comprehensively completed for epistemological thought. While the fundamental distinction between community and society was clarified for science by Tönnies[2], it was Eucken[3] who laid the notional groundwork for it, but without the science having recognized the worthlessness of the concept of society (Gesellschaft) for its ground-laying work. Here the National-Socialist worldview is called to perform the scientific breakthrough, and to raise universalistic, community-conscious thought finally to the throne of true cognizance in the humanities, to which it is entitled.

The scientific ground-layings of such a universalistic foundation for philosophical thought, upon which a new construction in the spirit of our age can take place, have been present for a very long time. I name here the philosopher Johannes Rehmke[4], who, in his works Philosophie als Grundwissenschaft and Grundlegung der Ethik als Wissenschaft, counters in compelling, strongly scientific argumentation, but also in all pointedness, the erroneous view that man is an individual essence. In his doctrine of the community’s rules of life he has created valuable ammunition for a universalistically oriented philosophy. „Every man is indeed individual, but not an individual essence,“ says Rehmke. „We know that in the world without exception what truly has an effect (das Eigentlich-Wirkende) is a universal,“ and furthermore, „In science, man the individual essence, as a type, must be placed at the root of all evil. Dreaming and poetizing in philosophy must come to an end. Facts are all that matter even in philosophy.“ Communities, races, peoples, and nations, as historical and material actualities, are such a fact that cannot be further reduced.

And I would also like to mention here a thinker who has unfortunately left us too soon, the young philosopher Paul Krannhals[5], who died a few months ago in Munich. It is for me an honor-bound duty to introduce to the broader public this man who in the years of his creative activity was so closely connected to us National-Socialists, and to make a place for his work in the philosophical ground-laying of National-Socialism. His book published in Munich in 1928, Das Organische Weltbild, I would like to designate as the first correctly envisioned attempt from a National-Socialist perspective scientifically to clarify and to present the organic or universalistic conception of the world as the one that internally conforms to our German way of life. „The individual as such,“ as Krannhals also says, „has neither the right nor the duty to exist, since all right and all duty derive first from the community.“ He demands organic thought as an expression of the German soul’s awakening return to mindfulness (Wiederbesinnung) of itself. Not in the rational orientation toward the world does he see the inmost core of the German essence, but instead precisely in that soul’s non-rational comprehension (Erfassung) in experience. Instinct and intuition here become active powers of cognition. „The philosophical return to mindfulness of the German present is the return to mindfulness of the totality of our soul. Its goal is the rule of the ethnically distinct soul of our kind (Gattungsseele),“ what Rosenberg calls the race-soul (Rassenseele). As Krannhals assigns the crucial place among the powers of the German spirit to the creative power of the German soul-type (Seelentum), of the German folk-soul (Volksseele) that is the root of German culture, so does he demand education into community-consciousness and the development of all powers of the soul for this. „The creative Nordic soul-type has put its impression on a series of cultures and will do so also in the future.“ „It is the inestimable merit of the great German artworks that they make us experience most deeply the inner connectedness of all generations of German lineages with each other and with the soil of our homeland.“ Type-consciousness, on the other hand, which is acquired in the gradual accumulation of hereditary qualities, can be preserved only „if the ethnic character’s racial foundation, its biological root, remains vigorous.“ Krannhals makes the attempt, magnificent in conception, at a national organization of knowledge (Wissen), so that knowledge too is organically connected to life and enters into the process of life. He poses the question: „How must we organize knowledge so that its maintenance and promotion correspond to the material and ideal aspects of the people as a w, so that the unfolding of all its features to the highest degree can bestow the greatest possible service to the people?“

We see from these few hints how here a young German philosopher, whom the University of Marburg awarded a doctorate honoris causa just a few weeks before his death, grasped scientifically and philosophically the essential content of the National-Socialist worldview, and fashioned it into the foundation of a universalistic-organic picture of the world that does justice to the spirit of our age. It is not a complete system and it did not wish to be one, but it is a beginning and shows the task at which we must build.

Such an organic construction of ideas (Gedankenbau) into a National-Socialist picture of the world originates from the mentality (Geisteshaltung) of the best philosophers of the German tongue, whose German soul-type could not be suffocated by rational and individualistic thought.

In Cologne circa 1300 the Dominican prior Meister Eckhart, the philosopher called by us the discoverer of the German soul (Seele), taught about the ardor of the German soul (Gemüt), about the „pillar of the soul“ and about the „will that is capable of all things.“

Kant’s moral law: „Act in such a way that the maxim of your will is at all times applicable simultaneously as the principle of a universal legislation,“ is an almost classical formulation of National-Socialist ethics.

The philosopher Fichte is both preacher and prophet of the nation. He demands that the scientific situation be understood not according to the letter but according to the spirit, that it ought to encompass the whole man. His principle, „I do not want merely to think; I want to act,“ epitomizes the National-Socialist spirit. His demand that the state organize labor so that everyone can live from his own labor, as he demands in der Geschlossene Handelsstaat, is practical National-Socialism in the best sense.

All of that is not individualism, not liberalism, but instead universalistic, organic thought in conformity with the National-Socialist worldview as Alfred Rosenberg has expounded it in his works in so many fields of art and science. Only in this universal turning of epistemology away from individualism to universalism can the revolutionizing of minds be completed also in the field of science. That is because the philosophical spirit of an epoch is also always crucial ultimately for the structure and the systematization of the particular fields of research. From this new ground-laying of thought from the perspective of the community in the age of the national and social revolution, we can access and meaningfully articulate the world of the mind.

„There is no world-history in the proper sense, instead only the history of various races and peoples,“ says Rosenberg regarding the science of history. Consequently racial doctrine and racial research will necessarily be one of the most important fields of research of the scientific world. The univeralistic-organic conception of the state produces its result in the doctrine of the community of the people (Volksgemeinschaft) as the essential foundation of the state. It is from the community, not from the individual, that the science of law derives its principles and tenets. The science of law takes not the individual but the social community as its point of departure. Philology has the mission of educating the youth into community-consciousness, into community-thought, and so on. All these fields of knowledge thus gain their unity from one root, from that root underlying National-Socialist thought and determining its picture of the world (Weltbild): from the community, the only real sphere of human life on this Earth.

Such a new ground-laying of philosophy however hardly remains limited to the confines of thought pertaining to a specific nation, even if it originates from that. It is a universally valid epistemological principle that is valid for all communities and applicable to all nations, even if their political evolution today is still not ripe for such a community-thought. For not only the life of peoples, but also the human power of comprehension is subject to progressive development. The German nation is far enough along to be able to make this ground-laying step in the sphere of scientific knowledge. It matters only that the newly acquired cognition, which today seems to be still impossible for a different kind of thought to recognize, is correct. I believe that I have given some evidence for this correctness.

1 The distinction between society (Gesellschaft) and community (Gemeinschaft) is very important in German social thought. Gemeinschaft, community, connotes a much deeper kind of relationship than Gesellschaft, society. A National-Socialist term that intensifies the distinction is Volksgemeinschaft, community of the people. A term that intensifies the distinction in the other direction would be Aktiensgesellschaft, which means joint-stock company. A Gemeinschaft is a group of persons deeply linked to each other, whereas a Gesellschaft is a group of persons united by only external, practical considerations such as gaining money. It is important to note that in National-Socialist discourse, society and community are not interchangeable terms.

2 Ferdinand Tönnies (1855-1936), famous for differentiating Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, has been highly influential in Germany but is practically unknown in the anglophone world. Notwithstanding the seminal value of his work for National-Socialist thought, Tönnies was a Social-Democrat who had friction with the National-Socialists – which may be why Dietrich, although giving due credit to Tönnies, did not omit to mention that Tönnies’ thinking was derivative of Eucken’s.

3 Rudolf Christoph Eucken (1846-1926) was a philosopher who was awarded a Nobel Prize for literature in 1908.

4 Johannes Rehmke (1848-1930) was a philosophical psychologist who wrote many books. For his doctoral thesis (Zürich, 1875) Rehmke wrote a critical study of Eduard von Hartmann’s theory of the unconscious, and for his Habilitation (Berlin, 1884) wrote a treatise titled Die Welt als Wahrnehmung und Begriff (The World as Perception and Concept). He joined the faculty of the University of Greifswald in 1885, and became rector of the university in 1898, which he remained until forced into retirement in 1921.

5 Paul Krannhals (1883-1934) having studied chemistry, developed the foundation of his philosophy while a prisoner of war in Russia. In the period 1920-1925 he was a newspaper-editor. His book Das Organische Weltbild (The Organic Picture of the World) according to Dietrich was published in 1928. In 1929 Krannhals cofounded with Alfred Rosenberg the Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur (Alliance for German Culture) and was involved with the National-Socialist students’ organization. In 1934 he was a speaker in the National-Socialist teachers’ organization, and copublisher of a periodical called Die Sonne. The department of philosophy at Philipps-Universität Marburg awarded him an honorary doctorate shortly before his death, in 1934.

The community, as a coherent whole, is a universe. „Universalistic thought sets the community as the uppermost principle,“ says Dietrich. Thus it is one’s own community that is the uppermost principle. In this instance community means das Volk, which Dietrich calls „the only real, organically grown totality.“ Freedom is defined as „harmony of one’s own personal willing with the duties toward the community.“ (This is similar to the traditional Catholic teaching that man is free when he is moral.) All freedom that the individual has derives from his membership in the community. Freedom therefore presupposes living in a community of shared values, and is fulfilled in becoming a responsible member of that community.

This is a doctrine that will try the patience of anyone immersed in the typically American individualism that likes to believe that a man can accomplish great deeds entirely by himself. What must be remembered is that even when a man undertakes some actions alone, he still carries the influence of his community with him; it is the community that gives meaning to the actions of the individual, and has prepared him for such actions.

Dietrich’s statements about the boundaries of science refer mainly to the social sciences, and not „the kind of scientific inquiry that is aimed strictly at matter and has no relevance for the soul.“ (The social sciences are treated much more seriously in Germany than in the United States.) Dietrich says that the pursuits of the social sciences must not conflict with „the laws of life of this community.“

Here grow the new great assignments of German spirituality, not only inwardly, but also outwardly, toward the world. One might think that especially liberalism would keep its distance from dogmatically rigid thought, and would at least give free rein to its own principles in the sphere of the mind, where new life begins to bloom. But the so-called immortal ideas of liberalism are the ideas whereby peoples die. In the nations’ progress toward becoming peoples however, which we see has already reached a breakthrough today in Germany and Italy, that great cultural restructuring within peoples proclaims itself; this cultural restructuring is destined not only to unfold the nations’ inner powers for the wellbeing of all, but also to guarantee the ordering of the nations in relation to each other, through a natural delineation of their vital needs and interests. The turning from individualism to universalism, which is the way of the future, corresponds to this evolution in the direction of a dynamic order of the nations, instead of mechanical juxtaposition and conflict (Neben- und Gegeneinander).

Today this turning is already more than a European spiritual problem that is exported from Germany and Italy to the rest of the world.

Italian Fascism is akin to the National-Socialist mindset (Geisteshaltung). The first manifesto of the Fascist Party begins with the following principle: „The nation is not the simple sum of living individuals (Individuen) but instead an organism that encompasses the endless series of generations, and particular persons (die Einzelnen) are nothing but transitory elements in it. [The nation] is the highest synthesis of all material and non-material assets of the nation.” And in the first chapter of the Carta del Lavoro it says: „The Italian nation is an organism, whose purpose, existence, and means take precedence both in power and in duration over those of particular persons or groups.” Here Fascism takes a position fundamentally opposed to individualism, but the Fascist doctrine of the state, as laid out for example by Guido Bortolotto in his work Faschismus und Nation, does not rise to the level of a spiritually consistent, universalistic idea. It repudiates individualism, without however making the universalistic principle into its own; instead it tries to set up between the two principles a third that is supposed to bear the specifically and exclusively Fascistic character: the corporative principle, corporativism. „The distinction for us,” says Bortolotto, „is that with individualism the individual rules over the whole, while with universalism the whole rules over the individual. In between, however, stands corporativism, whereby the individual and the whole exist together in harmony.” Here in the Fascistic doctrine of the state, as presented by Italian science, we thus see the attempt, in any case interesting, to affirm the community while saving the individual from disappearing in the community. And if this attempt also involves the endeavor to include certain inconsistencies as part of the foundation, and intellectually to legitimize them, of course it seems necessary to argue against it.

The problem that confronts us here is, how individualistic freedom is possible within the framework of universalistic connectedness (Gebundenheit). And National-Socialism can give an unassailable answer to this crucial question as well. I want to try to formulate this answer.

Universalistic thought sets the community as the uppermost principle, just as National-Socialism treats not the „individual” (das „Individuum”) or „humanity” (die „Menschheit”) but the people (das Volk) as the only real, organically grown totality (Ganzheit). Since the individual exists only through the community, he can derive his personal freedom only through and from the community. The National-Socialist worldview thus consistently not only acknowledges but indeed demands the freedom of personality – demands it for the sake of the community, which means in the interest of the community and its ever fuller configuration (Gestaltung). The crucial salient characteristic (Wesensmerkmal) of the National-Socialist idea is precisely that it induces the unfolding of the configuring forces and creative values of personality within the community, and exerts them on behalf of the community. So-called individual freedom is not something that would in any way be given to man from nature. From nature is given to man community-consciousness, consciousness of duty toward the community in which he is born. The individualistic concept of freedom however wants to liberate the individual from this duty toward the community. The verbal nuance of the German language (das Sprachgefühl) accordingly also designates such a man rejecting the duties to his community as an Individuum. „Every human is indeed something unique, but not a solitary being,” („Jeder Mensch ist zwar Einziges, aber nicht Einzelwesen,”) says Rehmke. And we add: as something unique he is a personality, and as „not a solitary being” he is a folk-comrade (Volksgenosse).

Thus we see that natural freedom is the freedom of personality, which means the freedom of the man who creates for his community. This uniquely true concept of freedom was taught as far back as Aristotle, who attributed freedom only to the creative man. One can only be creative, however, for a community. Only he who is conscious of his duties toward the community and acts accordingly can be creative. And therefore the concept of freedom presupposes connection to the community. Whoever possesses this sense of community and acknowledges its moral obligations is free and feels that he is free, since his free activity can never be directed against the rules of the community, but instead runs in harmony with it.

This harmony of one’s own personal willing with the duties toward the community however cannot be forcibly and artificially produced through a contrived, corporative system such as occurs in Italian corporativism; rather this harmony results a priori from the actuality of the community, if community-consciousness is cultivated and kept awake in it. On the other hand, whoever does not possess this sense of responsibility toward the community and does not acknowledge his moral obligations places himself outside the community. What he calls individual freedom is not freedom but rather unbridledness (Zügellosigkeit).

We still stand too close to the epoch of individualistic thought from which the National-Socialist worldview has liberated us, or the individual in his thinking is still too much caught in that epoch, to be fully gripped and permeated already by the inner necessity of universalistic thought. This spiritually revolutionary change and transition brings tensions with it, wherein someone still a prisoner to the Individuum may perhaps at times see his mental freedom threatened. But to the degree that, through education into National-Socialist thought, the sense of community will again become something self-evident and natural – and in the young generation that is already the case – the problematic natures of today are relieved of the urge to mourn the passing of an individual freedom that was an error in thinking now hard to imagine, which has become pointless and has been replaced by the true freedom of personality within the universalistic world-picture of National-Socialism.

We see therefore that National-Socialism can guarantee space and free opportunity for action (Wirkungsmöglichkeit) within the community, because it teleologically establishes this freedom through the community itself, thus necessarily through its own principle – while the corporativism of the Fascist conception of the state can only achieve individualistic freedom by borrowing it back as needed from the individualism that it had initially conquered. Here National-Socialism shows greater consistency in its worldview and far stronger deep effect than Fascism, as indeed generally the permeation and encompassing of the people with the worldview of National-Socialism, which derives from the deepest experience of the soul, has much wider ramifications than Italian Fascism.

From the perspective thus acquired is unleashed also the controversy over scientific and academic freedom that many do not want to see guaranteed in the National-Socialist state. The National-Socialist state grants and guarantees this scientific freedom as a matter of principle whenever this freedom, for its own part, also fulfills just the most basic requirements demanded of every citizen, in other words whenever it moves within the boundaries that Nature has set for us through our life in the community. We have seen that universalistically oriented, community-conscious thought is the fundamental category of all scientific inquiry, apart from the kind of scientific inquiry that is aimed strictly at matter and has no relevance for the soul. Whoever affirms this community-conscious thought will also be able to teach within its limits, able in fact to teach freely and without restriction. Whoever by contrast rejects it is intellectually in a dead rut from the start, and the National-Socialist state performs a service to humanity if it does not place a professorial chair at his disposal. Such a doctrine, wrongly oriented from the start, excludes itself from the intellectual life of the nation, since it is no longer science but error.

I would like to adduce as an example from bygone times the Marxist doctrine, the so-called scientific socialism that was built upon the materialistic conception of history, and upon a scientifically impossible economic theory of value, thus upon capital errors in science. Today it is hardly imaginable anymore that this doctrine, this scientific lunacy that was guiding the entire people to destruction, could be taught for decades in German universities merely to satisfy the demand for a wrongly understood, individualistic academic freedom that proclaims science without restriction as a goal in itself. In the sphere of private research, especially in the physical sciences, science can be a goal in itself, but to the extent that its results are handed over to the public, and offered to the community accompanied by a value-judgment that they are universally valid, they cannot possibly stand in contradiction to the laws of life of this community. If they do, they prove thereby that they are wrong. The epistemological point of reference newly acquired through National-Socialism, however, relieves us of all these erroneous paths of thought, since it conquers them from the inside out and makes them impossible. And therefore National-Socialism is in fact the power that also liberates science, since it can give full freedom to science that is relevant to the life of the nation and the foundations of its being (Sein).

From this universalistic or organic groundlaying of thought therefore must also proceed that new philosophical mindfulness (Besinnung) that can ascend to the loftiest heights of the spirit without running the risk of leaving behind the deep connectedness with life and its practical contents. In this sphere of practical life, just as our Leader teaches us, the National-Socialist worldview has yielded in a unique way the proof of its correctness and configuring force.

The Manifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money

With explanations provided by Gottfried Feder, Dipl. Engineer



The Manifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money

  1. What is Mammonism?
  2. What is the cure for Mammonism?
  3. The nine points of the Manifesto.

Implementation and Rationale

  1. Because of failed promises of the German Revolution of 1918 the people are tending more and more toward Bolshevism.
  2. The German folk are sick with Mammonism.
  3. Mammonism derives its power from interest on loans.
  4. The way to cure Mammonism is by abolishing interest on loans, especially war-bonds.
  5. The vast majority of Germans holding war-bonds really lose money because of them, because they have to pay taxes to cover the interest payments; only the largest holders of war-bonds have a net profit from them.
  6. Germany’s real wealth consists not in any material assets but in the productivity of the German people.
  7. If the obligation to pay interest on public debt were ended, the Bavarian state could abolish all direct and indirect taxes and fund itself entirely on the revenues from state-owned industries.
  8. Interest-payments are the reason why the state cannot do without taxes; those receiving the largest sums of interest pay relatively little in taxes. The Reich is financially in a much worse situation than the federal states.
  9. Comparison of the affluent bondholder, the working-class bondholder, and the dependent bondholder. Expansion of social welfare for the dependent bondholder after cancellation of interest.
  10. Instead of repaying the principal of war-bonds under cancellation of interest the state could simply declared the bonds to be currency.
  11. For other fixed-interest assets, including mortgages, repayment under cancellation of interest is recommended. This should solve the housing problem.
  12. A history of opposition to interest-slavery.
  13. Curtailment and prohibition of interest before the 19th century.
  14. Enshrinement of interest under the developing global order during the 19th century.
  15. Cancellation of interest will dissolve the interest- community within Germany and enables the German nation to unite against the Gold International.

The Conversion of War-Bonds into Bank-Credit

Rather than simply declare war-bonds to be currency, a better idea is to require that they be surrendered for conversion into bank-credit.

Special Comments on the Demand for Laws in the Manifesto

Elaboration of the nine points.

The Objections and their Refutation

Objections from various perspectives are addressed.

  1. Three objections based on a failure to comprehend how conditions would change under abolition of interest-slavery.
  2. A question from the perspective of a large bondholder.
  3. How is depriving investors of interest supposed to help the worker? d. What about the importance of inheritance in holding families together? e. Three objections from officials of the current system.
  4. The Communist complaint that abolition of interest will not abolish economic inequality.
  5. Social-Democracy is doomed because it is based on Marxist ideology, which does not recognize the radical difference between industrial capital and loan-capital. Social-Democratic government, as a moderate application of Marxism that fails, paves the way for Communism.
  6. The contemptible bourgeois and two objections from the bourgeois perspective. Won’t abolition of interest adversely affect savings? No. Is big loan-capital really not in some way productive? Only labor is productive.

Further Program

  1. Abolition of interest-slavery is the prerequisite for establishment of the social state.
  2. Reconstruction of the German state according to the true spirit of socialism.
  3. Liberation of the entire world from Jewish control.

Manifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money

Mammonism is the heavy, all- encompassing and overwhelming sickness from which our contemporary cultural sphere, and indeed all mankind, suffers. It is like a devastating illness, like a devouring poison that has gripped the peoples of the world.

By Mammonism is to be understood: on the one hand, the overwhelming international money-powers, the supragovernmental financial power enthroned above any right of self-determination of peoples, international big capital, the purely Gold International; on the other hand, a mindset that has taken hold of the broadest circle of peoples; the insatiable lust for gain, the purely worldly- oriented conception of life that has already led to a frightening decline of all moral concepts and can only lead to more.

This mindset is embodied and reaches its acme in international plutocracy.

The chief source of power for Mammonism is the effortless and endless income that is produced through interest.

From the thoroughly immoral idea of interest on loans the Gold International was born. The mental and moral constitution grown from the lust for interest and profiteering of every kind has led to the frightening corruption of a part of the bourgeoisie.

The idea of interest on loans is the diabolical invention of big loan-capital; it alone makes possible the lazy drone’s life of a minority of tycoons at the expense of the productive peoples and their work-potential; it has led to profound, irreconcilable differences, to class-hatred, from which war among citizens and brothers was born.

The only cure, the radical means to heal suffering humanity is the abolition of enslavement to interest on money.

The abolition of enslavement to interest on money signifies the only possible and conclusive liberation of productive labor from the hidden coercive money- powers.

The abolition of enslavement to interest signifies the restoration of the free personality, the redemption of man from slavery, from the curse whereby Mammonism has bound his soul. Whoever wishes to fight capitalism, must abolish enslavement to interest.

Where must the abolition of enslavement to interest begin? With loan-capital! Why? Because loan-capital, compared to all industrial big capital, is so overpowering that the great money- powers can only be fought effectively through the abolition of interest-slavery.

20:1 is the proportion of loan-capital to industrial big capital. The German people must annually raise more than 12 billion in interest for loan-capital in the form of direct and indirect taxes, rent, and the rising cost of living, while even in the boom-years of the war the sum- total of all dividends distributed by the German joint-stock companies amounted to only 1 billion.

The avalanche-like growth of loan- capital surpasses all human capacity for calculation, through eternal, endless, and effortless income from interest, and from interest on interest.

What blessing does the abolition of enslavement to interest bring for the laboring folk of Germany, for the proletarians of all countries of the Earth? The abolition of enslavement to interest gives us the possibility of pursuing the repeal of all direct and indirect taxes. Hear this, you value-producing men of all lands, all states and continents: all state revenues flowing from direct and indirect sources pour constantly into the pockets of big loan-capital.

The profits of state-owned businesses, including the postal service, telegraph, telephone, railroad, mines, forests, and so on, suffice entirely for the funding of all essential state commitments for schools, universities, courts, administrative agencies, and social welfare.

Thus no true socialism will bring any blessing to humanity as long as the profits from public enterprises remain tributary to big loan-capital.

Therefore we demand as a fundamental law of the state, first for the German peoples, then as a fundamental law for all those kindred peoples that wish to enter with us into the cultural community of a league of nations, the following:

§ 1. War-bonds, along with all other debt-instruments of the German Reich, along with all other debt-instruments of the German federal states, especially railroad-bonds, as well as debenture-bonds of all local governments, are declared, under cancellation of the obligation for interest, to be legal tender for the face-value [or rather are to be converted into bank-credit].

§ 2. With all other fixed-interest papers, covered bonds, industrial bonds, mortgages, etc., the obligation for interest is replaced by the obligation to repay the principal; thus after 20 or 25 years, depending on the interest- rate, the lent capital is repaid and the debt retired.

§ 3. All real-estate debts, mortgages, etc., are to be paid off on installments of the same amount as the payments required hitherto, in keeping with the charges recorded in the land-register. The property in houses and land freed from debt in this manner becomes partly the property of the state or of the local government. [In this way the state becomes better situated to control and to lower rents.] § 4. The entire monetary system should be under the state’s central bank. All private banks likewise; postal-check banks, savings banks, and credit unions, all become affiliated as branch-operations.

§ 5. All credit for real estate is awarded only through the state’s bank. Personal credit and commercial credit are mandated to private bankers under a concession from the state. This concession is granted based on consideration of need, with a ban on the establishment of branches for certain districts. The scale of charges is fixed by the state.

§ 6. Equity-securities are paid off in the same manner as fixed- interest papers at the annual rate of 5%. Excess profits are paid out in part to the stockholders as compensation for “risked” capital (in contrast to fixed-interest and coin-backed papers), while the remaining surplus, by the sovereign right of labor, is either socially distributed or applied for the reduction of the prices of products.

§ 7. For all persons who for physical reasons (advanced age, illness, physical or mental work- disability, extreme youth) are not in a position to earn their livelihood, the interest-incomes from present capital assets continue to be paid as a pension at the same, and eventually even increased levels, in return for delivery of securities.

§ 8. In the interest of a reduction of the current inflation of paper money, a universal, strongly graduated tax on war-bond certificates and other debt- instruments of the Reich and of states is enacted. These papers are to be pulped.

§ 9. Through intensive enlightenment of the people, it is to be made clear to the people that money is and should be nothing other than a voucher for completed labor; that while every highly developed economy of course has need of money as a medium of exchange, the function of money also ends with that, and in no case should money be lent a supramundane power to grow of itself by means of interest, at the expense of productive labor.

Why have we not already done all this, which is so self-evident, which must be regarded as the Egg of Columbus for the social question? Because in our Mammonistic blindness we have unlearned how to see clearly that the doctrine of the sanctity of interest is a monstrous self-deception, that the gospel of the loan-interest that alone makes one blessed has entangled our entire thinking in the golden web of international plutocracy. Because we have forgotten and are deliberately kept in confusion by the omnipotent money- powers about the fact that — except in the case of a few rich people — the interest that seems so lovely, and is so beloved of the thoughtless, is completely offset by taxes. All of our tax-legislation is and remains, so long as we do not have liberation from enslavement to interest, only a tribute-obligation to big capital, and not, as we would imagine, a voluntary sacrifice for the accomplishment of labor for the community.

Therefore liberation from enslavement to interest on money is the clear motto for the global revolution, for the liberation of productive labor from the chains of the supragovernmental money-powers.

Implementation and Rationale We stand in the midst of one of the most grievous crises that our impoverished folk has had to endure in its painful history. Seriously ill is our folk; seriously ill is the entire world. Helplessly the nations stammer; a passionate longing, a cry for redemption passes through the gloomy masses. With laughter and dancing, with cinema and pageantry, the folk seeks to forget its own lamentable destiny — to forget about its disillusioned hopes, about the deep inner pain, about the terrible disappointment over what one would so gladly call “gains of the revolution.” But how did we imagine it all differently? How did all the fine promises run differently? All that we hoped to gain in the dark of night, in the darkness of our military collapse, seemed to be glistening gold, but now, when the gray day illuminates the find, it is all rotten bits of wood. Now we stand here at a loss. For the sake of these rotten bits of wood that shone so finely in the night, we have thrown away everything that hitherto was dear and valuable to us, and have stuffed all our pockets with this lamentable trove. No wonder that the rage of despair grips precisely the poorest of the poor, and that they rage in senseless wrath against their own brothers, and in their deep longing for redemption seek to destroy all that stands in the way. This condition must lead to utter madness, if consciencelessness and stupidity goad the people further.

And whither this madness leads, we see in Bolshevik Russia. Nationalization, as socialization is called in Russia, has proven to be a failure, declares an unperturbed Lenin. The economy is destroyed, the buying-power of money down to nothing, the intelligentsia killed, the laborer without bread. Despair in the entire people; only bloody terror based on Chinese and Latvian mercenaries is able to protect the Red dictators from the vengeance of the betrayed folk. Among us too the development will follow this course, if international speculators, obsessed party-fanatics, representatives of the most grievously burdened bourgeoisie, and members of a race most deeply alien in nature to the German folk, continue to be allowed in the government.

What indeed were those pretty, pretty words that one whispered into our ear? Negotiated peace, League of Nations, parliamentarism, sovereignty of the people, democracy, dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism, destruction of capitalism, liberation from militarism, and other such pretty slogans. A new free people was supposed to arise, which should determine its own destiny.

None of any of that has come true, was able to come true, or ever could come true, if we do not with the highest moral seriousness investigate all these apparitions, all these slogans — if we do not conscientiously test the symptoms of the illness like an intelligent, concerned physician, and painstakingly diagnose the present condition of the sick person, sparing no effort to ascertain whence this serious critical illness arises.

* * * * *

The sickness of our age is called Mammonism.

What is Mammonism? Mammonism is the sinister, invisible, mysterious reign of the great international money-powers. Mammonism is however also a mindset; it is the worship of these money-powers on the part of all those who are infected with the Mammonistic poison. Mammonism is the unlimited hypertrophy of the — in itself healthy — human drive for acquisition.

Mammonism is the lust for money grown into a madness, which knows no higher goal than to pile money on top of money, which seeks with unequaled brutality to coerce all forces of the world into its service, and must lead to the economic enslavement, to the exploitation of the work-potential of all peoples of the world. Mammonism is the mindset that has led to a decline of all moral concepts. Mammonism considered as a worldwide phenomenon is to be equated with brutal, ruthless egoism in man. Mammonism is the spirit of greed, of boundless desire to rule, of the mentality entirely focused on seizing the goods and treasures of the world; it is at its core the religion of the purely worldly- oriented human type.

Mammonism is the direct opposite of socialism. Socialism, conceived as the highest moral idea, as the idea that man is not in the world only for himself alone, that every man has duties toward the community, toward all humanity, and that he is not only responsible for the momentary wellbeing of his family, of the members of his tribe, of his folk, but that he also has unshakable moral obligations toward the future of his children and his folk.

More concretely, we must see Mammonism as the conscious collusion of the power-hungry big capitalists of all peoples. Noteworthy in this has always been the hidden arrival of Mammonism.

The big tycoons lurk indeed as the ultimate driving force behind world- encompassing Anglo-American imperialism; nothing else. The great money-powers indeed financed the terrifying mass-homicides of the World War. The great money-powers have indeed, as owners of all great newspapers, woven the world into a web of lies. They have with satisfaction whipped up all lower passions, have diligently fostered the growth of present tendencies, and have through clever press-propaganda brought French revanchism to a boil. They carefully nurtured the Pan-Slavic idea, the Serbian conceit of being a great power, and the need of these states for money, to the point that the world conflagration must ignite.

Even among us in Germany the spirit of Mammonism that wanted to know only more export-figures, national wealth, expansion, big bank projects, and international finance deals, led to a rout of public morality, to the decline of our ruling circle into materialism and hedonism, to a superficiality in our national life, all factors that share blame for the terrifying collapse.

* * * * *

With astonishment we must ask ourselves whence Mammonism, whence international big capital derives its irresistible power.

It is not to be overlooked that the international collaboration of the great money-powers represents a completely new phenomenon. We have no parallel for this in history. International obligations of a monetary nature were practically unknown. Only with the rising global economy, with general global commerce, did the idea of international interest-economy establish itself, and here we touch the deepest root, here we have hit upon the innermost source of strength from which the Golden International draws its irresistible power.

Interest, the effortless and endless influx of goods based on the mere ownership of money without any addition of labor, has caused the great money-powers to grow. Loan-interest is the diabolical principle from which the Gold International was born. Loan- capital has firmly attached its blood- funnel absolutely everywhere. Like the arms of an anemone big loan capital has ensnared all states, all peoples of the world.

Government loans, government bonds, railroad bonds, war bonds, mortgages, covered-bond obligations — in short loan-instruments of every kind have in a manner ensnared our entire economic life, so that henceforth all the peoples of the world wriggle helplessly in the golden webs. For the sake of the interest-principle, in keeping with a thoroughly mad political delusion that every kind of possession carries an entitlement to earnings, we have submitted to enslavement to interest on money. Not a single real, valid moral reason can be given as to why mere possession of money should bring an entitlement to perpetual interest- payments.

This inner opposition to interest, and to income of every kind without any occurrence of productive labor, extends through the soul-life of all peoples and times. But never has this deep inner resistance to the power of money become so conscious for the nations as in our time.

Never has Mammonism been prepared in such a world-encompassing manner to begin world-domination. Never yet has it placed in its service all baseness, lust for power, lust for revenge, greed, envy, and falsehood in such a cleverly concealed and yet brutally pushy manner as now. The World War is at its inmost core one of the biggest decisions in the evolutionary process of humanity in the struggle to decide whether in the future the Mammonistic-materialistic worldview or the socialistic-aristocratic worldview should determine the fate of the world.

* * * * *

On the surface, the Mammonistic Anglo- American coalition has without a doubt been initially victorious. As a reaction against it, Bolshevism arose in the East, and if one wishes to see a great idea in Bolshevism, it is without a doubt the position diametrically opposed to the Mammonistic worldview. The methods that Bolshevism seeks to employ for this however are the botched cures of a Dr. Eisenbarth. They are the attempt to help someone sick from internal poisoning with a scalpel, by amputating his head, arm, and legs.

Against this rampage of Bolshevism, against this senseless overturning, we must present a workable new idea that with unifying force unites all laboring classes, so as to drive out the poison that has made the world sick.

I see this means in the abolition of enslavement to interest on money.

There are three factors that make interest on loan-capital conspicuous as the authentic and true cause of our financial misery.

First, the monstrous disproportion of fixed-interest loan-capital, thus of capital that grows of its own accord without application of creative labor, and indeed grows on forever. Among us in Germany this loan-capital has already reached a level that we do not consider too high at 250 billion. In contrast to this enormous sum, the industrial working capital of our entire German industry stands at only 11.8 billion. In addition there is the 3.5 billion in capital of the 16,000 industrial limited-liability companies [G.m.b.H], so that altogether we have only about 15 billion in industrial capital to tabulate. 20:1is the first fundamental finding. [* Obviously 17:1 is more accurate, but maybe Feder is allowing for the likelihood that the proportion will increase.] This appraisal means that in financial problems of the largest importance, all measures concerned with loan-capital must prove 20 times as effective as measures directed at industrial big capital.

Second: the interest-payment on the loan-capital above, estimated at 250 billion, considered in its totality for all times, amounts to about 12½ billion annually. By contrast, the sum-total of all industrial dividends distributed in the year 1916 amounted in the year 1915 to about one billion marks. In the preceding decades this number was, on the average, about 600 million. In the last two years of the war [1914-1918] it may very well have gone up considerably, but will record an all-the- greater crash for the current year [1919].

The average profitability of all German stock-corporations [A.G.] was 8.21%; thus only about 3½% higher than the average return on fixed-interest loan- values.

Thus, I recapitulate, in the future the German people will have to pay about 12.5 billion [annually] for the various eternal interest-charges of big loan- capital, while the yield from industrial capital in the greatest boom-year was 1 billion, and in times of undisturbed prosperity only 0.6 billion. Thus we see again here a proportion on the orders of magnitude of 20:1 to 12:1.

The third and most dangerous factor is the enormous growth beyond comprehension of big loan-capital through interest and through interest on interest. I must here digress a bit more and hope through a small excursion into higher mathematics to explain the problem. First some examples.

The charming story of the invention of the game of chess is well known. The rich Indian king Shihram granted to the inventor, as thanks for the invention of the royal game, the fulfillment of a wish. The wish of the wise man was that the king should give him one grain of wheat on the first square of the chess-game, two on the second, four on the third, and thus always on each square twice as many as on the one before. The king smiled at the seemingly modest wish of the wise man and ordered that a sack of wheat be brought so that for every square the grains of wheat could be apportioned. As we all know, the fulfillment of this wish was impossible even for the richest prince in the world. All the world’s harvests in a thousand years would not suffice to fill the 64 squares of the chessboard.

One more example: many will still remember from their schooldays the torture of calculating compound interest; how the penny invested at the time of the birth of Christ multiplies at compound interest so that it doubles every 15 years. In the year 15 after the birth of Christ the penny has grown into 2 pennies, in the year 30AD to 4 pennies, in the year 45AD to 8 pennies and so on. Very few will remember what value this penny would represent today: a volume of gold equivalent to the volume of the Earth, the Sun, and all the planets combined would not be adequate to represent the value of this penny invested at compound interest.

A third example: the fortune of the House of Rothschild, the oldest international plutocracy, is valued today at about 40 billion. It is well known that in Frankfurt around the year 1800, old Mayer Amschel Rothschild, without wealth of his own worth mentioning, laid the foundation for the gigantic fortune of his house through fractional- reserve lending of the millions that Count Wilhelm I of Hesse had entrusted to him for safekeeping.

Had the accretion of money through interest and interest on interest with Rothschild succeeded only at the modest rate of the penny, the curve would not have climbed so steeply as it has. But assuming that the Rothschilds’ collective wealth increased only at the rate of the penny, the Rothschilds’ fortune in the year 1935 would be 80 billion, in 1950 160 billion, in 1965 320 billion, and with that it would already exceed by far the total German national wealth.

From these three examples a mathematical law can be derived. The curve that represents the rise of the Rothschild fortune, the curve that can be derived from the number of wheat-grains for the chessboard, and the number that the multiplication of the penny produces at compound interest, are simple mathematical curves. All of these curves have the same character. After initially modest and gradual increase the curve becomes ever steeper and soon practically approaches being almost tangential to infinity.

Altogether differently, however, does the growth-curve of industrial capital proceed. Likewise sprung mostly from small beginnings, soon a strong escalation of the curves appears, until a certain saturation of capital is reached. Then the curves run flatter, and in certain industries will perhaps even decline slightly, if new inventions have led to the devaluation of existing factories, machines, and so on. I would like to select only one example here, the development of the Krupp works. In 1826 old man Krupp died almost without assets. In 1855 Alfred Krupp received his first order for 36 cannons on behalf of the Egyptian government. In 1873 Krupp already employed 12,000 workers. In 1903 Frau Berta Krupp sold the entire works and property to the Alfred Krupp joint-stock company for 160 million. Today the total value of the stock-capital amounts to 250 million. What does the name Krupp connote for us Germans? The acme of our industrial development. The world’s first maker of [steel] cannons. A vast sum of the most tenacious, purposeful, intensive productivity. For hundreds of thousands of our folk-comrades the Krupp endeavor has meant bread and work. For our nation, weapons and defense – and yet it is a dwarf compared to the Rothschild billions. What significance does the growth of the Krupp fortune during a century have compared to the growth of the Rothschild fortune through effortless and endless accretion from interest and interest on interest?


The two curves drawn in bold lines represent loan-interest and indeed the upper curve shows the development of the Rothschild fortune and the lower curve, at first flat and then rapidly rising, shows in a very general way the characteristic development of all such curves, in which a small advance on the horizontal axis can produce a doubling of the value on the vertical axis. The hatched line shows the development-curve of our total industry in the course of the last 40-50 years. The differently hatched fine lines show the development of several randomly selected big industrial enterprises from which the general character of the hatched curve of industrial capital is derived.

It must be expressly remarked that the curves of loan-capital are shown strongly compressed. Thus for example the curve of the Rothschild fortune must be set 80 times so high as the Krupp curve. The purpose of showing the curves of course is only to demonstrate the fundamentally different character of the two types of capital. The curves of loan-capital show at first a quite gradually rising development; the development then goes faster until, ever wilder and dragging everything with it, it raises itself far beyond human concepts and strives toward infinity.

The curve of industrial capital by contrast remains in the finite! However strong the divergences that a trace may show in detail, overall the fundamental character of industrial development will always be such that after strong initial development a certain period of maturity, of saturation, follows, after which sooner or later the decline ensues.

Nothing shows us more clearly the deep essential difference between loan- capital and industrial capital. Nothing can make the difference clearer for us between the devastating effects of loan- capital and the business-profits (dividends) of business-capital put up and risked in large industrial enterprises, than this comparison.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the recognition of the mathematical laws that loan-capital and industrial capital follow, alone shows us the clear path where the lever is to be applied for setting aright our wrecked finance- economy. We recognize clearly that not the capitalistic economic order, not capital in itself and as such, is the scourge of humanity. The insatiable interest-need of big loan-capital is the curse of all laboring humanity! Capital must be! Labor must be! Labor alone can do little. Capital alone can do nothing! Capital without labor can only be sterile! Therefore the most important demand, the most noble task of the revolution, the most sensible meaning of a world-revolution, is the abolition of enslavement to interest on money.

The House of Rothschild today is valued at 40 billion. The billionaires of American high finance, Misters Cahn, Loeb, Schiff, Speyer, Morgan, Vanderbilt, and Astor, are valued together at 60-70 billion at the least. At an interest-rate of only 5% this means an income for these eight families of 5-6 billion, which, according to the researches of Karl Helfferich, is roughly 75% of the annual income that all taxpayers in Prussia had in the year 1912. (There were at that time around 21,000,000 taxpayers, 75% of that would be about 15,000,000. For every taxpayer there are on the average 1.56 relatives; hence 23 million relatives.) Around 38,000,000 Germans thus have had to live on what the afore-mentioned billionaires have as a yearly income. Certainly the American billionaires are not pure loan-capitalists in the same sense as the House of Rothschild and so on. I do not care at all to argue about whether the American billionaires are really “100-million-dollar millionaires” or “1000-million-mark billionaires”; in the former case one would just have to reckon in one or two dozen additional Croesuses. Or let us simply accept Rathenau’s “300”; then our inventory will certainly be in order. Here it is not important to give an exact number, but the acknowledged ratio of 300 to 38,000,000 opens our eyes about the brutal reign of international loan-capital.

Therefore let us cast off these terrible chains that can only strangle all energetic labor; let us tear away from money the power to bear interest, and ever again to bear interest until all humanity has become entirely obligated for interest to international loan-capital.

Thus it is these three points that make clear to us for the first time where alone the lever may be effectively applied for the alleviation of our internal financial distress.

For another thing, we recognize that the assault of the entire socialist world of ideas against industrial capital has been completely off the mark, because even an intended complete regulation or socialization of all entrepreneurial profit – assuming an unweakened economy – would yield a laughably meager sum, compared to the enormous financial burdens of the budgets of our Reich and our State.

Through the abolition of enslavement to interest on money the entire financial malaise can be eliminated with one blow. At once we feel solid ground under our feet again; at once it must and will become clear to us that we have only deceived ourselves in the most grotesque manner with this wretched bond-economy.

For what else is loan-capital, but debts? Loan-capital is debts! One cannot repeat that often enough. What form of madness is it when the German people in its totality have borrowed 150 billion for its war? When it has even promised itself for this a quantity of 7½ billion in interest and now feels itself shifted into the awkward situation, inevitable from the start, of trying to collect this 7½ billion from itself in the form of entirely fanciful taxes?

* * * * *

The tragic thing about this self-deception meanwhile is less the stupidity of this whole war-bond economy, of which we have always made so much better use than the rest of the world, than the fact that only a relatively small number of big capitalists derives enormous benefit from it, while the entire laboring folk, including the medium-sized and smaller capitalists, as well as business, trade, and industry, must pay the interest. And here the political side of the whole idea comes to light. Here they can recognize that in fact big loan-capital and only this [i.e. not industrial capital] is the curse of all laboring humanity. One may twist and turn the thing as one wishes, but always the mass of all hard-working people must in the end bear the cost of interest- payments on loan-capital. The middle- sized and smaller capitalists have nothing to show for their lovely interest-payments; can have nothing to show, for the sums of interest must be entirely taxed away. Whether in the form of direct taxes or indirectly in the way of indirect taxes, stamps, tariffs, or other burdens on commerce, the hard-working folk is always the sucker and big capital the beneficiary.

It is now quite astonishing to see how the socialist idea-world of Marx and Engels, from the Communist Manifesto to the Erfurt Program (especially Kautsky), and even the current socialist leaders, spare the interests of loan- capital as if on command. The sanctity of interest is taboo; interest is the holy of holies; no one has yet dared to call it into question. While property, nobility, security of person and possessions, the laws of the Crown, privileges and religious conviction, honor of officers, fatherland, and freedom are more or less outlawed, interest is holy and unassailable. Confiscation of wealth and socialization, thus outright violations of the law that are only somewhat sugarcoated, insofar as they are committed ostensibly in the name of the totality of individuals, are the order of the day: all of that is permitted, but interest, interest is the noli me tangere, the “touchmenot.” The interest payment on the Reich’s debt is the alpha and omega of the state budget. Its gigantic weight drags the ship of state into the abyss and yet … it is all a big swindle … a monstrous self- deception, fostered only and solely for the benefit of the great money-powers.

Here I would like to touch briefly now upon the objections relating to small pensioners, to be discussed later, so that one does not get hung up thinking about them. In the consideration of the very big questions these are not considered, but it goes without saying that these compensations will be provided through the broadest expansion of social-welfare services.

Swindle, I said! Interest-swindle! A strong word. But if this word has justification, which during the war was perhaps the most used word in the field and at home, it has the most justification in regard to the interest-swindle.

But what about the war-bonds? With the first 5 billion, the Reich took out of the pockets of the people savings that actually existed. The money flowed back again. Then came the new loan to suck up the money again, and with that the last residual savings. And again came the pump and sucked up the billions, and again they ebbed back again, until merrily, after this charming game was repeated nine times, the Reich had incurred 100 billion in debt.

In exchange the people of course held in their hands 100 billion in finely printed paper – at first we imagined that we had become so much richer – but then comes the state and says, “I am facing bankruptcy.” Yes, but why? – I myself certainly cannot go bankrupt even if I occasionally take a hundred-mark note from the right upper pocket and put it into the left. Certainly it would be the biggest folly of all if we continued the folly of our war- bond economy by declaring bankruptcy. [* Feder here is regarding the German nation as a unified entity rather than a mere aggregation of individuals: the money that has been transferred from some Germans to other Germans remains within the German nation, which means that it is within the power of the German government to adjust the distribution, perhaps to the immediate disadvantage of some individuals but for the good of the nation as a whole.] Let us break the enslavement to interest on money! Let us declare the war-bond certificates to be legal tender with interest canceled, and the nightmare of state bankruptcy will melt away from us like March snow under the Sun.

People say to me, the cancellation of interest-payments is a disguised state bankruptcy. No, that is not true! – The specter of state bankruptcy is really only a fairytale and a bogeyman invented by the Mammonist forces.

The book by Franz Röhr, Was jeder vom Staatsbankerott wissen muß [What Everyone ought to Know about State Bankruptcy], is completely stuck in Mammonistic ways of thinking. Although the author in general quite clearly recognizes the economic problems that threaten us through socialization, and although he advises emphatically and correctly that in the end only a rebuilding of our economy can save us – he cannot free himself from the superstitious belief in the sanctity of interest, and therefore he depicts state bankruptcy entirely in accord with the interest of Mammonism, as a completely terrifying catastrophe.

It is interesting to observe that Röhr, in spite of better historical knowledge, cannot free himself from the Mammonistic view, and notes in his closing word: “If the ruinous economic catastrophe is not averted, no one will be spared by it,” while on page 81 he admits that the consequences of public financial mismanagement have been partially reversed very quickly, and on page 68 he says that in any case there should be no doubt that Russia (in the last century) overcame these currency- crises without lasting problems. On page 76 he says, while examining the effects of state bankruptcies, that although of course profound economic problems etc. have occurred, by and large neither the destruction of the state nor that of its economic strength resulted. On the contrary a rapid revival of the national economy and a recovery of public finances have been observed often enough. When the author then continues for three more lines saying that state- bankruptcy absolutely means economic catastrophe and causes infinite misery; I regret being unable to follow this logic.

But back to our particular case! Which would be more honest? To speak pharisaically of the unassailability of war-bonds while oppressing the people with an egregious tax-burden? Or, if a finance-minister had the courage to approach the people openly and to declare, “I cannot make the interest- payments on the war-bonds, or I can only if I collect exactly the same amount in taxes from you. “. . . . But back then during the war I absolutely needed money; nothing more clever (see England) occurred to me, and so I did the swindle with the high-interest war- bonds. You must forgive me, beloved folk; it was ultimately all for you, but if we wish to play hide-and-seek no more … I, the state, shall pay no more interest, and you, the taxpayer, need not pay taxes to cover these interest payments…. That thoroughly simplifies our transactions; we avoid the enormous tax-bureaucracy and likewise the enormous interest- paying bureaucracy, thus conserving an immense quantity of money and work- potential.” I have lingered long on exposing this swindle, but I consider it absolutely fundamental here at no point to lose sight of the big picture.

* * * * *

According to Bavarian tax-returns, the circle of people that would suffer — let us say, precisely those that according to their tax-returns received over 30,000 marks in interest-payments — are 822 people, which is only 0.4% of those obliged to pay taxes (Bayr. St-Z. 1913) in all Germany, therefore, approximately 10,000. (The upper 10,000!) Let us clarify for ourselves now as briefly as possible the most important aspects of this revolutionary demand, and indeed let us consider the questions first from our national perspective.

For this there is first need of a clear look at our current situation. Secretary of State Eugen Schiffer, in his big speech in the Berlin Chamber of Commerce, has declared it “impossible to ignore.” That is only partially correct. Possible to ignore is the enormous indebtedness of our national economy, and the unprecedented devaluation of our currency — in short, the fact that we have become an impoverished people overnight.

The burdens that are being imposed on us through the peace-treaty, however, cannot be ignored. The currently existing certificates of indebtedness, as we have seen, amount to around 250 billion. Let us assume first that the Entente imposes on us an additional 50 billion in war- reparations in some form: that makes a total of around 300 billion in debt.

However heavily it may strain the narrow confines of this treatise, nonetheless some words must be said about the magnitude of German national wealth. The investigations of Helferrich and Steinmann-Bucher assess the German national wealth at around 350 billion. One can only attribute very limited value to such findings, however carefully they may have been derived. They are valid only for times of undisturbed economic activity. But they are also quite misleading since state and municipal properties are included, thus for example also road-repairs, waterway-modifications, and so on. It is clear that although the production of such works may have cost enormous money, nonetheless they have strictly speaking no intrinsic value. A better yardstick for national wealth is so-called taxable wealth as it emerges from the tax-returns for the defense-contribution or the wartime wealth-tax. For this a sum-total of 192 billion results, thus much less by far than Helfferich’s figure. To this sum nonetheless about 10% may be added, according to experience, for the legally tax-free small fortunes, and about an equal amount for “silent reserves.” [* “Silent reserves” are the result of underestimating positive values and overestimating negative values in accounting, so as to create the appearance of the lowest possible net- worth.] In any case it seems to me overly optimistic to speak of a national wealth of more than 250 billion. But even this number has only a very limited importance. The most correct thing would be to break away entirely from the idea of a national wealth that is at all numerically graspable, and to penetrate to the recognition that national wealth finds its expression exclusively in the mental and physical work-potential of the entire nation, and thus belongs to orders of magnitude that have no relation to the narrower concept of capital.

Indeed we must still see a further source of national wealth in the presence of mineral resources, the riches of the forest, and fertile soil, but these things also cannot be grasped numerically, since their value fluctuates between zero and infinity, depending on whether the mineral resources lie unexploited, or, based on a geological report, can be reckoned for billions of tons of coal and so on.

Let us not forget that Germany really is a poor country. Of monopolies it possesses almost none. In wealth of mineral resources it stands far behind most of its neighbors, to say nothing of the unparalleled mineral resources of the Chinese, Indian, and American empires. In fertility of the soil it falls far short compared to the blessed fields of Russia’s black soil, and compared to the effortlessly productive stretches of tropical and subtropical land. Therefore in the end we have always only the potential and will of our people to work, as well as the availability of sufficient work, and we must understand clearly that in this state of affairs there can be no talk of secured debts, of collateral for our debt-instruments…

Whether interest-bearing war-bonds or non-interest-bearing Reich banknotes, behind them stands only and solely the tax-potential of the entire people – and what is tax-potential other than a function of the work-power of the total working population? * * * * * We must now clarify for ourselves yet another relevant complex of questions, and of course the chief entries of our state revenue-sources and expenditures. There is a remarkable contrast between the broad space that the concern for making money occupies in our private lives, and the attention that we give to the great questions of our state financial management, and yet between individual economy and national economy no essential difference exists whatsoever.

The chief entries for state revenue are: first, the net profits of the post-offices and railroads; second, those of the mines, forestry-administrations, and other state enterprises; third, tolls and indirect taxes; fourth, direct taxes.

So as not to foster purely theoretical discussions in such eminently practical questions, I want to elucidate the individual entries from the Bavarian state budget[1] of the year 1911 according to their order of magnitude.

Post, telegraph, and railroads[2] brought 120 million; forests, mines, etc., around 40 million; indirect taxes, 53 million; direct taxes, 60 million. An additional 67 million flowed from stamp-duties, fees, inheritance-taxes, land-taxes, revenue-transfers from the Reich, and so on.

What about expenditures? We find here in the first place the payments for interest on the state debt including the railroad-debts with 85 million. For the royal house, 5 million; administration of justice, 27 million; internal administration, 40 million; churches and schools, 51 million; financial administration, 13 million; expenditures for Reich-related purposes, 50 million; pensions, 36 million. Miscellaneous expenditures 5 million. Back then in this fortunate year of Bavarian finances the annual budget left a revenue-surplus of 27 million.

In the scope of our thought however only those expenditures concern us that can be omitted through the abolition of interest-slavery. Here the interest- payment on the state debt naturally stands in first place at 85 million marks; add to that the greatest part of our payment for financial administration at about 10 million; furthermore a large part of the payments for Reich-related purposes, of which let us add half, 25 million, and finally the 5 million in payments for the royal house are now gone: a total of 125 million.

The disappearance of these entries means the possibility of renouncing imposition of all direct and indirect taxes, which, as we saw, brought in 53 million and 60 million marks, a total of 113 million marks! We are now not at all of the opinion that one should entirely abolish direct and indirect taxes; unquestionably within reasonable limits they serve on the one hand to educate, on the other hand to regulate. It is certainly not more than right and fair that the profits from property owned free and clear remain subject to a moderate, graduated tax, since the state of course must also maintain secure ownership with its policing agencies. It seems just as advisable that trade and industry be required to make tax-contributions corresponding to their working profits, since the state also has to care for the maintenance and development of public paths of commerce for them. A corresponding minimum poll-tax for every citizen entitled to vote is likewise a requirement of fairness, since care for the security of the person and his property is also required from the state.

In the area of indirect taxes a strong expansion of all pure luxury-taxes has a regulatory effect in the best sense, while all simple foodstuffs and necessities of the people should be kept free of taxes! The result of such a tax-policy would be found less in high revenues – about which there can be no talk, since for the great mass of the population taxation should be not a real burden but only a reminder that the person is not only an individual essence but also a citizen of the state, and that in addition to civil rights he also has civil duties.

Tax-revenues should be less necessary for paying off the debts of state-owned businesses, whose net-profits, as we have seen, suffice to cover the normal expenditures of the state for schools, universities, administration of justice, internal administration, etc. Tax- revenues should be used to advance special cultural tasks of the state for which adequate resources were never available in the scope of the normal state budget. Here I am thinking primarily about orphanages, institutes for the blind and the crippled, daycare centers, care for expectant mothers, the battles against tuberculosis, alcohol, and venereal diseases, and the construction of garden- cities and settlements, especially for the accommodation and humane care of our war-disabled.

* * * * *

Our view broadens. We see virgin land. Could the abolition of interest-slavery mean the cancellation of all taxes? It would mean that, if we had come out of this gigantic struggle as a victorious people. As things are, let us not celebrate too early; the burdens imposed on us by our enemies will make sure that we do not. But in any case we see virgin land based on the indeed quite simple example of our Bavarian state budget that we just used…

In general we find quite similar relationships in the other German federal states, and it is not too much to say that from the surpluses of the state-owned businesses, the railroads, post-offices, telegraphs, forests, mines, and so on, all state expenditures for the entire administration of justice, for all internal administration, including state construction-projects, all outlays for schools and universities, just as for cultural purposes, could be covered without difficulty. Thus a perfectly ideal condition.

Why is that not the case? Interest has crept in. Because of the payment of interest the population’s foodstuffs become expensive; because of interest sugar and salt, beer and wine, matchsticks and tobacco and countless other necessities of daily need carry indirect taxes. Because of interest, direct taxes must be raised, which are divided into land-taxes that are passed on in the form of higher prices for grain, house- taxes that drive up rent, business-taxes that burden productive labor, income- taxes that unavoidably depress the living-standards of civil servants and people on fixed salaries, and finally at the very end, modest in giving but insatiable in taking, loan-capital pays taxes on capital dividends. According to the tax-returns of the year 1911, out of 253 million in capital dividends received in Bavaria, all of 8.1 million was paid in state taxes.

We have seen that all capital dividends, all interest on capital, ultimately must be raised through the labor of the entire people. We have seen that the interest- payment on public debts constitutes the largest entry in our state budget, and we have seen that those obliged to pay taxes on interest-payments make only an extremely limited contribution to state revenues.

In terms of relative magnitude, the capitalist paid 8 million out of a total of 60 million in direct taxes, which is only an eighth to a sixth of the direct state taxes paid in Bavaria in 1911. Direct taxes however are only about a fifth of the total state revenue. Therefore loan- capital contributes only about a thirtieth to a forty-eighth share of the state’s total needs.

It should not be denied that tax- legislation during the war, especially in the last years, resorted to a stronger tax on capital dividends, but stronger indirect taxation has more or less kept pace with it, so that the relative size has hardly changed.

The picture becomes dire when we consider the budget of the Reich. Here the proportions in themselves are already much less favorable. The Reich does not have the same tax-sources as the individual federal states. Direct taxes are reserved to the federal states; the enterprises of the Reich are limited to the Reich’s post-office and railroad (note that this does not include the Prussian state railroads), and consequently only tolls and indirect taxes remain.

The orders of magnitude of the Reich’s revenue-sources (see Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich for the years 1917 and 1918) were, in the year 1915, 1 billion in indirect taxes, 0.8 billion in special revenues (war- contribution, matricular fees), and so on. Here too the same picture again. More than a third, 1.3 billion to be specific, was devoured already in the year 1915 by payment of interest on the Reich’s debt. Here too loan-capital pushed its way in again. Here too it requires all direct taxes to satisfy it. Sugar pays 163 million, salt 61 million, beer 128 million, tobacco, schnapps, sparkling wine, lamp-fuel, matches, playing cards, and countless other items had to be taxed in order to scrape together a billion marks that then flows completely into the pockets of the capitalists.

Today, how to pay the interest on the Reich’s debt is a riddle. Interest- payments alone devour 8 billion [annually], based on 100 billion in war- bonds plus other war-credits. Revenues from the post-office and railroad can hardly be further increased. A further increase in tolls will hardly be tolerated; therefore probably only a five- or ten- fold increase in indirect taxes is left — an impossibility! — or the clear insight that only and solely the abolition of enslavement to interest on money can bring us salvation. An enormous self- deception is what the entire war-bond economy was. The German nation borrowed a hundred billion from itself for its war. For that it promised 5 billion in interest to itself; it must therefore pay 5 billion in taxes. All benefit goes to the big capitalist, who draws so much in capital dividends that he cannot possibly use it up, and yet only a quite modest percentage is taken away through the tax on capital dividends, as we have seen.

* * * * *

I hope now through the main thrusts of my presentation already to have dispelled the humanly comprehensible terror that many readers may have of eventually losing the interest-income from their pretty certificates. Let it just be demonstrated very briefly with one example that the whole interest-economy is a big self-deception, and along with that I want to look at an upper level of solid middle-class income.

Assume that the head of a household has an income from labor of 10,000 marks, and on top of that another 5000 marks from capital dividends. In the first place about 1500 marks of this will be paid in direct taxes; then at least 1000-1200 marks in the form of high rents will be stripped away for eternal interest. Another 1000 marks are likely to be drained off in the form of indirect taxes for a family of five or six, and already now one realizes that not much is left of the lovely capital dividends that the small and middle-sized capitalists enjoyed under the happy tax-rates of earlier years. Indeed, already today there can be no more talk of “surplus”; on the contrary, if one examines for oneself today the current fantastic tax- proposals, considerably more income from labor will probably be taxed away.

Naturally the situation seems to be quite different for the big capitalist, who, let us say for example, collects only 1 million in capital dividends. (Such people are fairly numerous in Germany today.) Of the tax on capital dividends this fortunate man pays at the most 50-60 thousand marks. Of indirect taxes he also pays no more than the family-father of the previous example. On his budget after all he can still live quite comfortably indeed with 40-50 thousand marks, even in the current expensive era. If roughly a nice 900,000 marks cash remain to him, for that with 5% interest on loans he will get another 45,000 marks in the next year and that, by law, at the expense of the working population.

The small pensioner who only lives on his interest undoubtedly would be harmed. If he is able to work, then he must of course resolve to earn an income from labor. With that he then situates himself very much better than the millions of his folk-comrades who have nothing other than their physical or mental work-potential. If he does not want that, then he must eat into his wealth. Ultimately he has 20 years to nibble at it again and again, if he continues to consume the annual sum that he has been receiving at 5% interest. For persons that are not in a position to work, or are weakened by illness or age, obviously an appropriate livelihood must be arranged through the development of social welfare for all segments of the population.

I visualize social welfare as follows: Let us assume that an older lady, a widow, who hitherto had to live on the interest from a capital investment of 60,000 marks, is, through the legally proclaimed abolition of interest-slavery, deprived of her source of income. Here, through the broadest expansion of the pension-system, opportunity would be given the afore-mentioned person to draw a pension corresponding to her capital, wherewith the annual pension could even be increased relative to the previous interest-yield, so as also to give a certain compensation for the diminished value of money even to this circle of people. Thus, for example, in exchange for the surrendered 60,000 marks in debt-instruments of the Reich, of the states, or in covered bonds, an annual lifelong pension of 4000 marks could be given. If the widow has children and she wants to will a portion of the wealth to them, then it can be allowed to her that only 40,000 marks be transformed into a pension, while the remaining 20,000 would be kept for the children. Out of the 40,000 marks, depending on the age of the pension- applicant, up to 1/12 of the received capital could be given annually.

Furthermore, let it also be noted here that, with the discontinuation of oppressive taxes as a result of the abolition of interest-slavery, the widow’s cost of living will be quite considerably decreased.

It would greatly exceed the scope of this essay to examine in detail the personal interests of each stratum of the population. Such a revolutionary demand cannot be about personal interests; nevertheless as the idea takes effect one will find that the healthful consequences personally benefit every individual in the end.

Precisely by the problem already isolated above, of how to achieve release from interest on war-bonds, I have tried to make it clear already that small capitalists — by which I mean all the hundreds of thousands that have been induced through a hyper-American advertising-campaign to devote their savings for subscription to war-bonds — not only receive no benefit from interest, since of course they must pay for it themselves with taxes, but, with tax- legislation tailored for the protection of big capital, must support interest- payments for million-mark subscriptions.

It seems to me that, apart from these immediate considerations, an appeal to all for the sake of their children’s wellbeing must in itself persuade the anxious bondholder to accept as completely natural the renunciation of eternal interest from the Reich’s debts. In this case, what does the patriot, who has given 10,000 marks to his fatherland in direst need, really lose, other than a usurious claim to draw 50,000 marks in interest within a hundred years, without even diminishing the principal? Eternally his children and grandchildren must work, just to pay all the interest.

* * * * *

The question of repayment of the lent sums can be solved in various ways. In my briefly stated main ideas about the problem at hand, which I submitted to the government of the People’s State of Bavaria [under Kurt Eisner] on 20 November of last year [1918], I proposed simply to have repayment take the place of interest-payment at the rate of 5% annually for 20 years. I believe that in what follows I can even make a much better suggestion, which because of its simplicity certainly deserves preference: “The war-bond certificates upon cancellation of interest will be declared to be currency.” That is the Egg of Columbus. The advantage of this measure is in the first place that nobody really feels anything from it. The war- bond certificates continue to lie at rest in the depots; but no young people get them, any more than a book, or a cabinet, or some otherwise useful object that somebody would lend to his friend.

If one needs money, then one simply whips out a war-bond note and pays with that. War-bond notes have, after all, just as much beauty and paper-value as our other 10, 20, 100, and 1000-mark notes. There can certainly be no talk of the market’s being flooded with currency in such a bump-free transition from the interest-economy into the interest-free national economy. All the war-bond certificates are indeed already well protected and stored in bank-vaults, or other places of concealment considered secure by the people, such as a woolen stocking or a manure-heap. Indeed it cannot be denied that our issued paper currency, as much as about 40 billion, is also not in circulation but for the most part is hoarded in the manner described above. Our need for currency in the times of economic boom before the war was also only about 4-6 billion, and it is inconceivable that we would need more than twice that much today in the ever more customary cashless economy.

[In a later section Feder states that he has decided that simply letting war-bond certificates be used as currency is not the best idea. He proposes that they should be converted into bank-credit instead.]

* * * * *

The cancellation of interest is to be done in precisely the same manner for all fixed-interest assets. For these assets, just as for dividend-yielding assets, the originally proposed “repayment” in 20 or 25-year annual pensions is recommended, especially for mortgages.

The abolition of interest-slavery for mortgages means without a doubt the solution of the housing problem, the liberation from exorbitant rents. It is not at all evident why the holder of a mortgage should have the eternal benefit of interest from a sum lent once, why an effortless and endless influx of goods should be granted to him, why the great mass of a people, only for this unhealthy principle of interest, should pay high rents year in, year out. Let it be interjected very briefly that self- evidently there can be no talk of a complete cancellation of rent, since of course the management and upkeep of houses demands constant labor and money. A lowering of rents thus can only occur so far as it results of its own accord through the accomplished repayment of mortgages.

Only one thing should be sharply emphasized, that the abolition of enslavement to interest has not the slightest thing to do with our total value- producing labor, insofar as no hindrance is posed in any way to the entrepreneurial spirit, to productive labor, to the manufacture of goods, to the acquisition of wealth. On the contrary, as we have seen, the entire working folk is liberated from a stifling, unreasonable, heavy burden; our soul- life is purged of an intoxicating poison.

* * * * *

We can tell how correctly the fruitfulness of the interest-problem has been recognized in the course of history, by the fact that minds in all ages and all peoples have been occupied with it…

In various passages of the Old Testament, such as Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15, we find regulations about the cessation of interest in the form that the seventh year should always be an acceptilation or jubilee, in which all debts of folk-comrades should be abated.

Solon in the year 594B.C. abolished personal debt-slavery through legislation. This law was called the great Seisachtheia (shaking off of burdens).

In ancient Rome the Lex Gemicia of the year 332 B.C. abruptly forbade Roman citizens entirely from charging any interest.

Under Justinian a prohibition on compound interest was enacted, with the regulation that no more interest whatsoever should be demanded when overdue interest has accumulated to the level of the sum originally lent.

Pope Leo I (the Great) decreed in the year 443 a general prohibition on taking interest; until then only clerics had been prohibited from demanding interest on a loan. The ban on interest was now part of Canon Law and also a binding regulation for the laity. Secular legislation also gradually fell in line with canonic views, and even threatened punishment for charging interest. We find this in the police ordinances of the Holy Roman Empire for the years 1500, 1530, and 1577.

Of course such laws were now much opposed and frequently circumvented, and in this quite short historical retrospective it may only be mentioned as an astonishing historical fact that although under the canon law of the 11th to 17th centuries the charging of interest was forbidden to Christians, it was permitted to Jews.

It would be extraordinarily charming to investigate in each instance what economic tumors led to these powerful shedding of burdens. It would be especially valuable to see which powers and forces have violated the prohibitions on interest again and again.

In the Middle Ages certainly short work was often made of usurers; the farmers or citizens having been bled dry got together and beat the profiteers to death. Today we have entered into a completely different phase of the interest-problem. Such pogroms are most deeply disapproved.

Also it is no longer a matter of individual locally confined symptoms of illness that could be combated by excising the pus-pocket; what is happening is a serious sickening of all humanity.

* * * * *

It should be most emphatically stressed that precisely our contemporary culture, precisely the internationality of economic relations, make the interest- principle so murderous. The foregoing historical retrospective should also not be regarded as providing an analogy for the circumstances of today. When the Babylonians overcame the Assyrians, the Romans the Carthaginians, the Germans the Romans, then there was no continuation of enslavement to interest; there were no international world- powers. The wars were also not financed through borrowing but with treasures accumulated during peace.

David Hume gives a very nice overview of this in his Essay on Public Credit. Only the modern age with its continuity of ownership and its international law allows loan-capital to escalate into infinity. The penny that was invested at interest at the time of the birth of Christ exists no more, because since then all rights of ownership have had to give way to violence several times; by contrast the penny that old Rothschild invested at interest still exists, and will exist, if there is international law, for all eternity.

In addition it ought to be considered that broad stretches of the Earth have only in the modern age gone over from natural economy to money-economy. It is quite especially important in this connection that only in the middle of the 19th century were all restrictions on charging interest, and likewise all prohibitions on interest, abolished: thus England in the year 1854, Denmark 1856, Belgium 1865, Austria 1868.

Thus today’s concept of interest as inseparable from the possession of money is not much older than half a century. But precisely this interest- concept has for the first time caused money to turn into the demonic power of such universal coercion that we have come to know.

The incipient and then ever-increasing indebtedness of states to capitalists likewise dates only to the middle of the 19th century. Only since that time do we see the state degraded from being the trustee of the folk-community into being the trustee of capitalistic interests. This development has reached its highpoint in war-bonds, which we encounter in all lands, which exclusively, as we have recognized, serve only Mammonistic interests, which should be crowned with the gigantic credit-edifice of a world- loan.

* * * * *

These brief retrospectives should make it easier for us finally to break away from the supposition that unto loan- capital must be lent the supramundane power to grow eternally and interminably from itself. Gifted with a terrifying potential for sucking dry. We must break away from the notion that loan-capital, unaffected by worldly deeds and misdeeds, should be able to sit enthroned above the clouds, unaffected by transitoriness, unaffected by the forces of destruction, unaffected by the shots of our giant guns. For, should even houses and huts, railroads and bridges shattered by shells sink into dust and ash, the mortgages will still exist; the railroad bonds and public certificates of indebtedness are not thereby erased. Should villages and cities, entire provinces fall victim to the insane destruction of war, what is the result? New certificates of indebtedness are what it means. With eyes flashing greed the Gold International enthroned above the clouds watches the mad rush of humanity. And not long distant is the time when all humanity finally shall serve only as interest-slaves to Mammonism.

The idea is international; it must liberate the entire world. Hail to the nation that first dares the bold step. Soon others will follow.

The question often directed to me, whether the idea is nationally realizable at all, I answer with yes. We are internally indebted.

Against foreign interest-claims we are naturally powerless for now; these must simply be paid. Excessive capital- outflow must be blocked to the extent possible, but, as little as the lawgiver refrains from working out laws against murder, manslaughter, fraud, etc., because there would still always be scoundrels, just as little should a people in its totality restrain itself from taking a step recognized as necessary for the healing of its public finances, just because of the fact that not exactly the best elements of the folk are trying to carry their loot into safety outside the country. If we assume that hundreds of millions, even billions in war-bond certificates would be spent abroad; even this could still not be a significant impetus for failing to abolish interest- slavery; for proportionally, of the more than 250 billion marks in fixed-interest domestic investment-assets, by far the majority must still be in the country.

Let us again summarize briefly. – The abolition of enslavement to interest is the radical means for the final and permanent healing of our public finances. – The abolition of the interest- community means the possibility of renouncing oppressive direct and indirect taxes, because the state-owned businesses, especially after the socialization of further suitable sectors (inland navigation, electricity, air- traffic, etc.), will give sufficient surpluses to the public coffers to support all social and cultural tasks of the state.

Aside from this financial consideration, the abolition of the interest-community will grant to productive labor in all fields of endeavor the priority that it deserves. Money is returned once again to the role appropriate to it, to be a servant in the powerful drive of our national economy. It will become again what it is, a voucher for completed labor, and therewith the path is cleared for a higher goal, for abstention from the raging money-lust of our age.

The idea points toward the establishment of a united front of the entire working population: from the unpropertied laborer who, as we have seen, is very heavily burdened with indirect taxes for the satisfaction of loan-capital, through the entire bourgeois class of civil servants and employees, of the farming and small-trades middle class, which get to feel the pitiless tyranny of money in the form of wretched housing, farmland- rental, bank-interest, and so on, all the way up to the leading heads, inventors, and directors of our big industry, who are one and all more or less stuck together in the claws of big loan-capital, for whom the first task of life is always to work for the sake of pensions, dividends, and interest for the money- powers playing behind the scenes. No less do all circles of the intelligentsia – artists, writers, actors, scholars, as well as other independent professionals – also belong to this group.

Although big loan-capital, as a group of natural persons or as the personification of the interest-principle, seeks consciously or instinctively to conceal the fact of its boundless lust for control, and although our entire legal tradition based upon Roman law, thus upon law serving for the protection of a plutocracy, has ever so strongly emphasized the protection of property and therewith permeated our people’s sense of justice, the abolition of enslavement to interest on money must come, as the only way out of the threatening economic enslavement of the entire world by the Gold International, as one of the ways to drive out the poison of Mammonism with its corruption and contamination of the mentality of our age.

The Conversion of War-Bonds into Bank-Credit The demand in § 1, for the conversion of war-bond certificates etc. into legal tender, has on numerous occasions been met with the objection that it would mean excessively flooding the market with currency. This objection is in itself quite erroneous. Inflation occurs through the mere existence of war-bond.

It is however true that, in spite of its wrongheadedness, the concern about the physical presence of these papers declared to be currency is not going away, and therefore despite being unrealistic this concern might generate unfortunate side-effects, as if in fact a new inflation had taken place. Therefore, amending § 1, we demand, after legislative cancellation of the obligation to pay interest, conversion of war-bond certificates, along with other public debenture-bonds, [not into currency but] into bank-credit.

This formulation has the great advantage that the physical existence of war-bonds as paper would cease; the war-bond certificates would be delivered to the Reichsbank by banks, bankers, thrift- institutions, etc., and would be destroyed after a credit-note for the face-value is issued. Therewith nearly every person in Germany would receive a bank-credit, an open bank-account that he could use.

Such a procedure would also have the great advantage that the retention of larger investments in private possession would not be possible, since after the expiration of a specified deadline the undelivered certificates would be declared void.

Furthermore it would at least be possible to control how much war-bond is spent outside the country [thus affecting Germany’s trade-balance]. The last point however must not in any way block fulfillment of the abolition of enslavement to interest. Since we really feel too weak compared to foreign countries, we must satisfy (only) the interest-demands that confront us from abroad. Personally I am entirely of the opinion that we should also uphold the cancellation of interest even for foreign bondholders. We need not fear that foreign interest-claims would be enforced by force of arms, since there has been so much progress in returning [from war-madness] to something resembling self-awareness, and never yet in history has a warlike action been undertaken against a great state because of financial measures affecting private persons. It also ought not to be imagined that even the French people would issue an ultimatum to Germany because of the interest-claims of Messrs. Mayer, Schulze, and Cohn from Germany, based on their German war-bonds carried across the border.

Beyond this it would be possible, so as to avoid even the appearance to the rest of the world of a state bankruptcy, to conduct a lottery of the war-bond, which then of course could easily be rigged based on statistics obtained through the required delivery of certificates, so that at first just the numbers presumably belonging to people abroad would be drawn and paid off in Reich banknotes.

Yet a third thing would be the welcome ascertainment of the distribution of war- bonds, and the accompanying opportunity that still exists for an extraordinarily simple collection of the wealth-tax, while the bursaries of course would need only to instruct the Reichsbank offices to charge the account of Mr. N.N. with so and so many marks in tax. In this manner tax-payments would be more painless by far — although of course the taxpayers’ right of appeal would continue to exist in its full extent.

With such a transformation (conversion) of war-bonds into bank-credits a certain social leveling could also be accomplished, insofar as smaller investments in war-bonds, thus all small subscriptions of all of those for whom the subscription of war-bonds really is to be accounted a patriotic deed; let us say up to 5 or 10 thousand marks, would be made good at par, while all larger subscriptions could be credited at a rate to be established. The credits for all other government paper would be handled precisely the same.

Special Comments on the Demand for Law in the Manifesto On § 1 It is completely indispensable that all state and municipal debt-subscriptions be treated in the same way, since only such a unitary large-scale regulation of our entire monetary system, hand in hand with the abolition of interest-slavery, can be implemented.

On § 2 It is already clear that the abolition of interest-slavery must be applied simultaneously to all the other fixed-interest papers, so as not to cause an absurd boom in these papers, which obviously would occur if the public papers alone were declared interest-free. The reduction of the debt as such would be accomplished through annual repayment, whereby a constant and consistent un-debting of all debt- laden objects would be accomplished.

On § 3 This paragraph is very closely related to the preceding ones, as well as with the demand for nationalization of mortgage- lending in § 5. The farmer or homeowner burdened with mortgages continues, after as before, to pay the amount that he had to pay to his creditors, but no longer as eternal interest, rather as repayment. Thus after 20, 25, or 30 years, depending on the preexisting interest- rate, ownership of land and home will be freed from debt. (The mortgage-bank for its part can naturally likewise only during this time continue correspondingly to pay interest on covered bonds to covered-bond- holders.) Hand in hand with this liberation from debt arises the community’s right of ownership in the real-estate freed from mortgages.

A universal registry of dwellings, or rather a real-estate cadaster, would have to come first; because debt-free real- estate ownership naturally also has the right to repayment of invested capital, and also a permanent claim on a portion of the rent, to pay all the charges, expenses, and so on that come with real- estate-ownership, as well as appropriate compensation for work that the owner himself does. [* The connection between the registry of dwellings and the rights of debt-free owners is puzzling, unless the idea is to manage the growth of rental property so as to keep it reasonably profitable.] Let us consider this in broad outlines with the example of an urban apartment- house. The house has a value of 100,000 marks. Against that is recorded a mortgage-bank’s investment of 50,000 marks at 4% in position 1, a noncorporate investment of 20,000 marks at 5% in position 2, and 30,000 marks is the amount put up by the house- owner himself. The revenues from rent are 7000 marks. From this must be paid 2000 marks for the first mortgage, 1000 marks for the second mortgage, and 1000 marks for expenses, outlays, and so on: in all 4000 marks. Thus 3000 marks remain to the house-proprietor as an interest-payment [so to speak] for his own invested capital of 30,000 marks.

Following implementation of the legal abolition of interest on money the situation after ten years is as follows: 1s t mortgage 30,000 marks, 2nd mortgage 10,000 marks. The house-owner has completely recovered his capital- investment, but on the other hand there is a new, public right of ownership in the amount of 50,000 marks. With that the right of the state to have a say about further income from rent and to determine the amount of rent begins. [* Feder does not state how he derives the figure of 50,000 marks: it is half the value of the apartment-house, but also equal to the amount of the corporate mortgage. Probably the most important fact is that it is not more than the amount owed in mortgages, and therefore causes no pain to the house-owner. Presumably, given the emphasis that Feder puts on painless transition, if the amount owed on the house were less than half the value, the state according Feder’s plan would still not claim a share of ownership greater than what is owed on mortgages.] It would be unjust now, in regard to repayment, to put the house-proprietor on the same level as mortgages. For his capital is not pure loan-capital in the narrower sense that should be affected by the abolition of interest-slavery; here we are talking about “risk” capital, specifically about money converted into a valuable good, specifically a house. It is therefore up to the owner of the house whether to grant a longer duration of payments, or a corresponding percentage permanently included in the operating expenses of the house.

It cannot be the purpose here to make any binding proposals; here only suggestions are being made as to how a frictionless transition of the interest- economy into the interest-free economy could occur even in the area of real- estate.

So as to complete the example, let the status after 25 years be presumed as follows: by that time all mortgages are paid off; only the permanent expenses are the same or, because of the greater age of the house, increased from 1000 marks to perhaps 1500 marks. Let the return afforded to the house-proprietor from this sum also be about 1000 to 1500 marks; thus accordingly it appears that around 3000 marks of the rent- revenues go to cover non-negotiable charges, while the remaining 4000 of the original 7000 in rent-revenues would be freely disposable. The state thus has the possibility of lowering the rents by more than half; it will do this e.g. in workers’ dwellings, or the state may cut rents by only 20, 30, or 40%, and thus gain from the difference an enormous source of revenue for other public necessities, above all naturally for publicly conducted home-construction. For mansions the rents are not lowered, or not lowered much, whence very great additional means become available also for the better construction of homes, or for special social purposes. This future state of affairs however reveals – and I hold this for a very fruitful prospect – the inner justification for the community (state) even now to take part in determining the amount of rent in the manner that I sketched above, with a lowering of rent for workers’ dwellings.

In the growing right of the state to participate in real-estate-ownership also lies the foundation for a sound bank of issue, and issue of credit to mortgage- creditors.

On § 4 and 5 These paragraphs demand the socialization of the entire monetary system. Money is only and exclusively a voucher for completed labor issued by a community that has its own state. To issue money-tokens is one of the sovereign fundamental rights of the state. The counterfeiting of the state’s money- tokens is subject to the most severe punishments; thus it is a quite forceful social demand that the monetary system be placed under the control of the collectivity. The work-power of the collectivity is the sole substrate of money-tokens, and only the failure to appreciate this fundamental fact has led in general to the deterioration of our public finances and to complete anarchy of the monetary system in general.

With the surrender of personal and commercial credit by private bankers, proposed in § 5, a deeper incision is made into the total credit-system. For the state credit-system, as well as for municipal and even real-estate credit, one must cleave to the abolition of interest-slavery with utmost rigor and energy, because it is the indispensable prerequisite for the social state in general.

The situation is different with personal credit. We also demand, in and for itself, the interestlessness of personal credit; yet this demand does not carry the same enormous and principal importance. We remember the 250 billion in fixed- interest loan-capital compared to the only 12 billion in dividend-paying stocks.

All such credits, stocks, participation- certificates, mining shares, equity- holdings, and so on, are risk capital. The yield of this capital depends on the industry and efficiency of those persons to whom the money was entrusted. Here the element of risk and danger of loss thus comes into play, along with the question of personal trust. For that, a certain compensation of a special kind still appears indispensable. The owner of stocks and so on is in no way compensated or benefited if the enterprise to which he entrusted his money earns nothing. He loses his money entirely if the enterprise collapses.

It is otherwise with, for example, the owner of debenture-bonds of the Reicheisenbahn. The Reich’s railroads [in Elsaß-Lothringen] are completely lost with the loss of Elsaß-Lothringen. Nonetheless the holder of railroad- bonds continues to receive his interest- payments. From whom? From the taxes of the collectivity. The railroads may work with a deficit balance of any magnitude as in Prussia and Bavaria in the last year; yet the bondholders receive their interest-payments just the same. From whom? From tribute paid out of the work-potential and consumption of the working population.

One would just like to make this fundamental distinction perfectly clear, in order finally to recognize where it is that the vampire sucks from the work- potential of the people.

Thus personal credit should remain, or rather be allocated again, to personal dealing through the private bank. The personal efficiency of the credit-seeker, with which the banker is personally familiar, should again become the determining factor for personal credit. The fees set by the state will regulate themselves by themselves, in accord with the fluidity of money that will in any case commence with the abolition of interest-slavery.

On § 6 The main point of § 5 is also valid for dividend-assets in particular. In the interest of the social state-community it must be demanded that a repayment of the capital once lent be attempted also for the great industrial enterprises – in order to bring about here too a reduction of the indebtedness of the individual industrial works toward those that are only investors.

For in fact what we were able to observe in the relationship of loan- capital toward all peoples repeats itself here on a smaller scale. Here too the capitalist exploits the worker, the foreman, the engineer, the entrepreneur, all equally, because the compulsion to have to earn dividends takes priority. [* This is a problem of joint-stock companies. Companies owned free and clear by families, as is common in Germany, do not have this characteristic.] If however we attain the liberation of industries and businesses from the eternal interest-sucker, then the way is clear for the lowering of prices of products, and for the delivery and distribution of surplus value, partly to the community, partly to the laborers, middle management, and boards of directors of the particular enterprises, thus to those that really alone create manufacturing and values.

On § 7 In this paragraph naturally the entire field of insurance also comes into play, which can be constructed on an analogous interest-free basis. The premiums paid cannot grow through addition of interest; rather the insurance- companies will become thrift- institutions; in other words the risk and advantage of insurance are retained. For this the political community has to be responsible.

On § 8 With regard to the devaluation of our money, which has resulted only through the enormous mass of our innumerable certificates of indebtedness, we demand a strongly graduated wealth-tax. We lay the emphasis in this on “strongly graduated.” A [flat] wealth-tax [for the purpose of] reduction of the number of notes and so forth would be nothing but a self- deception whereby one throws sand into the eyes of the people. For if I also confiscate half of all of the wealth everywhere and receive payment in bonds and pulp these, all that is really accomplished thereby is a diminution of the amount of paper, while in return a conversion-factor will increase the fictive value of the totality of circulating paper to the same level as before. Real value belongs always only to goods for consumption and goods for use, never to the paper vouchers for completed labor.

Another question is whether the foreign exchange-rate of our mark-currency can be improved. But even this improvement of the exchange-rate is again in the final analysis only dependent on work- potential and production, in other words the possibility for production of our total national economy.

The Objections and their Refutation Never yet has an idea been able to establish itself without opposition, least of all an idea that makes such a radical departure from the long-established assumptions about the sanctity and inviolability of interest. With the objections already raised and those expected there is always a two-fold observation to be made: it must be asked, first, what part of the objections being made is based on deliberate distortion of the idea of abolition of interest-slavery, and second, what ought to be said in response to all sincere and fact-based misgivings? The most frequent objection is the assertion: without the charging of interest nobody will lend money.

We do not in fact want anyone to lend his money anymore. Credit was the trick, was the trap, into which our economy entered, and in which it is now helplessly ensnared.

If the folk really urgently needs greater capital, then it gets the needed moneys interest-free at the central state treasury, with only repayment required. Eventually it will issue new banknotes. Why should it issue interest-bearing certificates?! Whether the paper bears interest or not makes no difference! Its only and sole backing is the work- potential and tax-potential of the folk. Why burden every public expenditure from the beginning with the leaden weight of eternal interest? Yes, but how should the state fulfill its cultural labors for the community? It still needs money and can be fair in this task only by way of loans that charge interest.

This assertion is based on an entirely Mammonistic way of thinking. It would have to be deliberately calculated for misdirection after thorough reading of this Manifesto; for in the first place we have proven that after the abolition of interest-slavery all cultural and social tasks of the state can be covered out of state-owned businesses, out of the revenues of the postal service, railroad, mines, forests, and so on, without anything further. In the second place the sovereign people’s state [Volksstaat] has the power, at any time, to take care of special cultural tasks through the issue of interest-free value-tokens in lieu of the interest-bearing certificates declared to be the rule in the Mammonistic state.

It is thoroughly impossible to see why the state should make special cultural tasks, e.g. railroad, canal, and hydroelectric construction, more costly for itself with an eternal promise of interest that is completely unnecessary. If it cannot pay the costs of construction from the revenues of its current state- owned businesses, then there is no reason to see why the state should not create the money; the sovereign people must indeed pay for it, while it recognizes precisely this money as a means of payment. Why however should the folk, with its entire work- and tax- potential, stand behind another slip of paper (the interest-bearing loan), which imposes on the folk in its totality only an eternal interest-obligation for the benefit of the capitalist!? Therefore away with this obsession of the Mammonistic state! The capitalists then will just take up the issued paper notes and accumulate paper money.

This is refuted in two ways. First, the demand that mere possession of money should be rendered unprofitable would then of course be already fulfilled, and the abolition of interest-slavery voluntarily undertaken by the capitalists themselves, since the capitalist renounces interest of his own accord if he piles up his paper notes at home. Second, the capitalist’s fear for his money makes it unlikely; one need only imagine the sleepless nights of the currency-hoarder who keeps great sums of money piled up at home and must constantly see his possession threatened by thieves, robbers, burglars, house- searches, fire, and flood. I am convinced that the upright citizen would become tired of these worries in a short time, and would soon find his way to the state bank. The state bank issues a receipt and is now legally responsible for the account, but not for any interest- payments. Otherwise of course a third possibility still remains open to everyone, specifically to work with his money, to create values and to manufacture goods, to participate in industrial undertakings, to render his life ever richer and finer, to support art and scholarship, in short to make beneficial use of his money while rejecting the Cult of Mammon.

It can however still happen that private need of capital for some goals urgently presents itself, e.g. for testing of inventions, founding of businesses by young, competent craftsmen or businessmen, etc.

To begin with, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the abolition of interest-slavery! For, in the first place, one must logically assume that the capitalist, who after the abolition of interest-slavery of course has no more opportunity to invest his moneys in a bombproof manner and to expect idle consumption of interest, will rather, as in an earlier age, be inclined to risk his money for such purposes, so that a lack or need in this direction will therefore occur much less than hitherto. Or has one not heard on the contrary again and again from the efficient businesspeople, from the cleverest inventors, precisely the complaint of how difficult it is to get money in the Mammonistic state for such purposes unless a “dividend” could be guaranteed? In the second place, it must be the task of the coming state to foster every competent force through generous support. There were indeed even before now already beginnings toward this in the old bureaucratic state, but so small- hearted that, instead of a stimulus, an inhibition and reluctance resulted, because of the harassing regulations that accompanied the granting of public support. In the third place let it be noted that with the allocation of several million marks, enormously much could be achieved. The joy of labor, the industriousness and tenacity of the German inventor, engineer, craftsman, etc. is so great that, through the state’s right of participation in the results of fortunate inventions, the expenditures most likely would be richly rewarded (England as an example).

The abolition of interest-slavery leads necessarily to the exhaustion of wealth.

Oho! Who claims that? But of course! Whoever has adapted his life to the consumption of his interest-payments on capital and cannot resolve to work, with him it is certainly true: consuming 5% annually he will have completely exhausted his wealth in 20 years. Of course, but that is indeed completely in order! What we want is precisely the abolition of interest-slavery; we want living on a pension to cease being the citizen’s highest ideal. We want to end this Mammonistic decadence; indeed we want no longer to tolerate that one, that many, can live in comfort permanently only from interest-payments on loans — in other words at the expense of others! I repeat: it is also not true at all that the abolition of the lordship of interest would lead to the elimination and exhaustion of wealth. On the contrary, the abolition of interest-slavery would promote the creation of wealth based on labor that manufactures goods and produces value, unburdened and liberated from eternal interest-outlays. The abolition of interest-slavery leads, as we have seen, to a comprehensive lowering of costs in all of life; it unburdens us from the excessive weight of taxation so that for every working man the possibility of accumulating savings must be greater in the future than hitherto. One more thing! The goods- and values-producing national-economic labor of industry, commerce, and trade is in no way hindered, but fostered to the utmost through the abolition of interest- slavery.

What does the worker get if capitalists receive no more interest-payments? This question really ought not to be coming up anymore! In the first place, of course it was the constant battlecry of labor that the capitalists would exploit the workers; in the second place we have indeed clearly and plainly seen that it is the laborer more than anyone else that is required to pay the interest on loans. [In other words, what the worker gets is lower taxes and a lower cost of living.] The bonds of family are weakened and damaged if one can leave no wealth behind for the children.

Yes what is the reality here? Quite generally I think that money has little or nothing to do with the sense of family. Or has one heard that the children of wealthier parents cleave to their parents more than those of poor parents? Or do rich parents love their children more than the less propertied? What is likely to be more important for the children, that their parents arrange for them the best possible upbringing and have them learn some discipline, raising them into industrious and healthy and courageous people, or that they leave behind for them the biggest possible moneybag? In particular cases a justified striving to secure the children’s financial future undoubtedly will have to be acknowledged. This striving, and thus the thriftiness of the parents for their children, will be in no way adversely affected by the abolition of interest- slavery; on the contrary. The possibility of saving will become greater, when our national economy will be liberated from the all-encompassing pressure of interest-slavery.

We have seen from the example of the man with earnings of 10,000 marks and pension-income of 5000 marks that all medium-sized and smaller fortunes are in fact robbed of any beneficial effect by the circuitous route of the direct and indirect taxes of housing-rent and so on.

I cannot repeat often enough: interest on bonds for possessors of small and medium amounts of wealth is a swindle, a self-deception, a running around in circles, but big capital through its devoted press has quite diabolically propagated and proclaimed in all the world the faith in the sanctity and inviolability of interest. It allows everyone seemingly to take part in the lovely, anaesthetizing consumption of interest, in order to lull to sleep the bad conscience that must invariably accompany idle, laborless consumption of interest – and in order to recruit comrades for the struggle, for the defense of this highest good of Mammonism.

The civil servant, the statesman, will say: the state cannot renounce the obligation that it has undertaken toward its creditors.

What does “obligations” mean? Is it in any way moral to enter into obligations about which the state must know from the beginning that it can only fulfill these obligations if it takes the interest away from the creditors through direct and indirect taxes in precisely the same amount? Where is the morality in that? Or is it not perhaps more honest to admit: “I can only pay the interest if I collect just as much in taxes – but back during the war I absolutely had to have money, and for that I did the swindle with the war-bond; you have to forgive me, beloved folk; it was ultimately for you, and now we want to play no more hide-and-seek; I the state am paying no interest and you, the taxpayer, need not pay taxes for the interest; that will substantially simplify our transactions. Thus we shall do without the enormous tax-bureaucracy and likewise the extraordinary interest-serving bureaucracy. Right? Do we have a deal?” And you, Herr Scheidemann, do not again post your name on every advertising pillar as the secretary of state of the old compromised government amid foolish declarations relating to the security and inviolability of the war-bond. You only embarrass yourself: the benefit of the entire swindle has indeed gone only and solely to big loan-capital.

Financial officials and banking professionals are declaring that the abolition of enslavement to interest on war-bonds and public debts is impossible because it is synonymous with public bankruptcy.

You will forgive me: according to your speeches we are indeed publicly bankrupt anyway, or must become so. An overt declaration of public bankruptcy however would be the greatest stupidity that we could commit: to the actual incompetence of the current power- holders it would add prematurely the historical confirmation of this incompetence.

Why declare bankruptcy? If I have put 3 marks from the right pants-pocket into the left, I must still not on that account declare the bankruptcy of the right pants- pocket! It was indeed no different with the war- loan! The Reich took out of the people’s pockets the first actually present billions, then the moneys flowed back again; then came the new loan and again the money streamed back; once again came the pump and sucked the billions and again they ebbed back, until, after the game had been repeated nine times, the state had merrily generated 100 billion in debt. For that the people had 100 billion in finely printed paper in their hands. At first the folk imagined that it had become so much richer; then came the state and said: “It is horrible; I have 100 billion in debt and face bankruptcy.” – Yes but why? That is in any case only a self-deception! I myself can indeed never become bankrupt if every so often I take my money from the one pocket and place it in the other. Therefore we can rest at ease about state bankruptcy in regard to our internal war- bond debts. Therefore we really need not declare public bankruptcy and we can really spare ourselves the gigantic labor with the stupid interest-payments and the big, but even stupider, taxes.

Let us indeed finally free ourselves from doing the bidding of big loan-capital! Only big loan-capital benefits from this loan-interest tax-swindle, since a lovelier lump of gold is left over for it and the laboring folk pays this surplus in the form of indirect taxes; meanwhile, however, the small and middle-sized capitalist simply chases his own tail.

The global economic official says: The abolition of interest-slavery is not possible for us to accomplish in Germany alone; it must be done internationally; otherwise we shall lose all credit, capital will flow away, and we will still have to fulfill our interest- obligations toward the rest of the world.

I confess that I myself was at a loss about this question for the longest time.

It is the most difficult question because it involves our relationship with the rest of the world; meanwhile the matter has two sides. On the one hand, the idea of the abolition of interest-slavery is the battlecry of all productive peoples, against international enslavement to interest on money; on the other hand it is the radical cure for our internal financial woe. But it is really no reason to refrain from using a cure, just because the equally sick neighbor does not employ it at the same time. It would however be added stupidity if we in Germany continued to run in a crazy circle and pay taxes and interest when we have clearly recognized that this ridiculous activity benefits only the big capitalists and nobody else. Therefore let us lead the way by our liberating example; let us liberate ourselves from the enslavement to interest on money, and we shall soon see that the force of this victorious liberating idea will stimulate the peoples of the world to follow us.

I am actually convinced that our initiative – if this initiative is not suppressed by the German Mammonists – will sweep the other peoples along with irresistible necessity.

The Spartacist says: The whole idea only amounts to a protection of capital; it still remains then as it was: the poor man has nothing and the rich remain.

Yes, my friend; it is in general very hard to have a discussion with you — if you really are in the depths of your soul a Communist, and will therefore actually maintain that “all things belongs to all men” [* Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread], and if along with that you are indeed familiar with the actual ideas of the great Bolshevik leaders in Russia, especially Lenin, and regard them as correct, and accordingly regard the next tasks of the Soviet Republic designated by Lenin, “universal tendering of accounts and control of all production and distribution,” as humanly possible.

If however you are completely clear about the fact that this task is really only feasible, if at all, under a horrible tyranny, and you still remain at the bottom of your heart a convinced Communist or Spartacist and so on, then let us not dispute further with each other; we just do not understand each other and are speaking different languages, and the future will decide, either for the strait- jacket state that can ultimately result from the chaos of Bolshevism, or the new state for which I hope, with a national economy liberated from interest-slavery.

But if, at the bottom of your Communist heart– if you are honest — you find that you still think about, still long for wife and child, for a human soul that stands closer to you than an Eskimo or a Zulu kaffir, if during factory-labor commanded by the soviet-director you think that it would still be nice to possess your own little cottage, a little garden-plot, if indeed in the very depth of your soul it would really give no true satisfaction that you should be entitled like a dog on the street to use every bitch that crosses your path, if you want to call somebody your wife, if you merely think about saving something from your wage, which then should belong to you alone, then you are already no longer a Communist; then you have already in your heart broken from your so loudly proclaimed catchphrase, “All things belong to all men”; then precisely what you do not want is that all things should belong to all men; you want that precisely what you wish for yourself — wife, child, house, farm, savings — whether you already have it or only hope to get it, even then should belong to you alone.

And do you see, my friend, if you only suspect in your heart that it might make a difference to you, if some random individual came and simply took your savings away from you in the name of “all,” and if he brought another child for you and took with him yours because all children belonged to “all,” then my friend, let us not continue to speak completely past each other.

Perhaps I could ask you to contemplate whether in fact the Communist message that all things should belong to all men would not necessarily mean the end of every culture, because the lack of any concept of ownership must with compelling logic force man down to the level of the beast.

If all things belong to all men, if a tendering of accounts and control of all above-ground production and distribution in Lenin’s sense could be coerced, then in the best-case scenario an ant-colony would result. But in that case we can also do without language, soul, and thought; mutely and instinctively we can perform our forced labor. The end of man is there. [* “The End of Man” is from Ezekiel. There it means the purpose of man but here it could have a double meaning. Man’s purpose under Communism becomes mindless slavery, which is the destruction of man.] But enough now, friend Spartacus. Let this fundamental consideration sink deeply into your head and heart. A more exact answer to your question will then result during conversation with the other parties.

And now, you comrades of the two socialist orientations, moderate and independent! [* Feder refers here to the Social-Democratic Party and its pacifist offshoot, the Independent Social- Democratic Party.] I cannot imagine that serious contradiction or objections against the abolition of interest-slavery would come from your side, and yet I must deal with you categorically, along with the entire socialist world of ideas, from Marx up to the current leaders Ebert, Scheidemann, Kautsky, and so forth.

  1. The socialist will: elevation of the working class is an idea unconditionally bound to prevail; so far we are in agreement.
  2. The paths trodden for the attainment of this great goal are almost entirely wrong, because they 3. are based on false assumptions.
  3. The [Marxist] socialist idea of the state leads necessarily to Communism, thus to decline.
  4. Because however Social- Democracy has a different goal, the elevation of the working class, of all working people in general, it faces a terrible inner conflict, because the logical consequences of Marxism lead to the direct opposite of the practical goal of the workers’ movement.
  5. From this inner division results the overt uncertainty in the direction of the government.
  6. For the sake of the great practical goal (elevation of the working class) a sharper line must be drawn against Spartacus and Bolshevistic Communism, and their methods must be combated with all our might. But Social- Democracy, organized through labor-unions, feels weak today before these radical groups, because it has taken up Marxist thinking as its fundamental principle of education, and because all Marxist ways of thinking logically lead to Communism.

Now the proof: point 2 says that the paths trodden by Social-Democracy are almost entirely wrong.

The whole agitation conducted throughout the country has led to a deep division within the population of our nation. The constantly repeated slanders against employers of every kind, indeed of every bourgeois calling whatsoever, as exploiters and bloodsuckers of the manual laborer working ostensibly unassisted, have led to an unjustified embitterment and to the haughtiness of labor, which today necessarily finds its expression in the demand for the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (Communist Manifesto). The essential demand of the Erfurt Program – the transfer of the means of production from private ownership into the ownership and operation of the community – has today been compressed into the cry for “socialization.” It is completely clear to every serious politician that full socialization of our economic ruin would mean complete state bankruptcy. But one dare not confess this openly and freely to the people.

Not socialization but desocialization would have to be the motto now. Thus one attempts to compensate the blatant miscarriage of every socialization through delusional tax-projects and by this route to “expropriate the expropriators” for the second time. All of that means nothing other than abandoning the entire national economy to utter ruin. Instead of growth (a doubling of production, as the entire socialist literature for the period after the revolution promised, is out of the question) the exact opposite has occurred.

The worst thing however would be if the current socialist government thought of accepting big foreign loans. With that not only would our economic decline be sealed, but we would furthermore quite entirely deliver ourselves into interest-slavery to the Entente, from which there would be no return.

The fundamental failure, the basic error, upon which this whole wrong chain of treaties, demands, and promises to the people has been constructed, is an entirely wrong attitude toward industrial capital and loan-capital. The Communist Manifesto, the Erfurt Program, Marx, Engels, Lasalle, Kautsky, have not recognized the radical difference between industrial capital and loan- capital.

On this point the entire Social- Democracy must relearn; this fundamental error must be clearly recognized and frankly admitted without reservation. Then however one must also relentlessly draw the only possible conclusions. These however signify radical renunciation of the pointless, because completely mistaken, rage against industry, against the employer. Worker and work-giver belong together; they have the same goal — work, production; for without production, without work, there can be no life, no culture, no forward, and no upward. The self-evident and unavoidable oppositions that exist among humans, just because they are humans, are much less important than the great shared interest of employer and employee. These oppositions are and have been resolvable by means of wage- contracts and trade-organizations to the mutual satisfaction of both sides.

But let us not pursue further these questions that are trivial in the scope of our treatise on the largest political lines of force, and let us only emphasize that the interest of labor collectively is perfectly aligned with our national industry, with the national economy of our people.

Whoever teaches otherwise and presents the oppositions between employer and employees as more important reveals himself as irresponsible precisely in regard to the workers; for he thereby lays the axe to the roots of the tree that nourishes and supports the worker.

Social-Democracy however has done that, and with that it has incurred eternal guilt before German labor; with that it has brought unspeakable misery upon our folk, because it cannot keep all its promises, because it cannot bring to us the peace of mutual understanding, because it cannot create work for us, because it must even set up an armed force against us, because it cannot get by without the civil service, because it must demand the obligation to work, because universal equal and direct suffrage for men and women over the age of 20 helps nobody to earn a living, because without the state’s guarantee of the security of person and property chaotic circumstances must occur, because without integration and subordination of the individual into society no vitality of the state is possible.

Thus a deep, despair-filled wave of disappointment passes through the entire people. If individuals still do not understand it, ministers, members of parliament, and people’s delegates continue cheerfully lying to each other that the “gains of the revolution” must be defended against “reaction”: what these two terms mean, if anything, no sincere statesman would be able to tell the people clearly.

The negative actions of the revolution, the deposing of a series of antiquated dynasties, deposing of officers, abolition of the nobility, dissolution of the army, in short the “Great Demolition,” is indeed no “gain.” And reaction?! The swept-away, rotten doctrine of divine right does not have anywhere in the entire folk enough moral support to result in any forceful action; the bourgeoisie, as regards the real bourgeois, is much too cowardly, much too morally corrupt, to rally against class-conscious labor: therefore it is not necessary for the ruling class of the workers to be worried about a dynastic or bourgeois reaction.

But the deep disappointment of the people about the so-called gains of the revolution, in other words about the lack of any real improvement of the people’s situation, that is the great danger. This disappointment leads to the streaming away of great masses ever farther to the left, where the promises already made are outbid by far.

Ultimately one can no longer make promises such as “all things to all men.” That is pure madness, but every idea, every phenomenon, every activity stretched and exaggerated to the extreme becomes madness in the end, and then changes into its opposite. So goes it likewise with the Communist idea that all should belong to all, for this ultimately comes to an end and resolves into all … having nothing. Hunger, despair, misery, sickness, and need have arrived in Russia; people have lost the last remnant of courage and joy in living.

I repeat: the enormous fundamental error in the socialist idea-world is ultimately to be traced back to the failure to recognize the deep essential difference between industrial capital and loan- capital. Interest-devouring loan-capital is the scourge of humanity. It is the eternal effortless and endless growth of big loan-capital, not productive, goods- manufacturing, industrial working- capital, that leads to the exploitation of peoples.

I cannot forgo here the examination of the question of why this essential difference has not been recognized; whether it really has not been recognized, or whether it perhaps has been obscured for the benefit of big loan-capital; whether the leaders and chiefs in the struggle against Capitalism, whether the authors of the Communist Manifesto, of the Erfurt Program, and the current leaders always have proceeded with the necessary conscientiousness.

It is the most grave and terrible thing when one casts doubt on the absolute earnestness and firm conviction of another; it seems all the more grave, the more carefully one seeks after the causes and relationships pertaining to life’s occurrences. I want therefore also to give no answer at all to this question itself, rather only to allude to big, obscure connections by citing an utterance of Disraeli, the greatest English Prime Minister, Lord Beaconsfield. This he writes in his novel Endymion: “No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key of history, and why history is often so confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves.” [Baron Sergius to Endymion] The bourgeois.

The bourgeois, to whom rest appears as his bourgeois duty, is certainly disturbed by every new revolutionary demand, as always with every new idea. It means unrest for him; for perhaps he would even have to think something about it.

All change is odious to him; he wants to have his rest, and woe unto him that covets his moneybag. Now indeed one does want from him his interest- payments, his income from rent on houses, the interest-payments from his covered bonds, the interest that he collects on mortgages; in short, what constitutes his rest, his contentment, and his good fortune.

Even so, we must inquire what the members of the classes owning loan- capital will have to say. They form, apart from the true bourgeois…. Bourgeois is a human type, with which nothing further is to be initiated; the bourgeois is a branch on the tree of humanity that should be lopped off, the sooner the better. These are the smug, self-satisfied Babbitts with their deplorably narrow horizons, who are capable of no enthusiasm. They while away their days in eternal monotony with coffee, morning newspaper, morning drink, noon paper, lunch, afternoon nap, coupon-clipping, afternoon drink, friends at the pub, and occasionally the movie-house. Lacking comprehension for all that moves the world, all for which youth longs, all that distresses the folk, the state, and society, untroubled about war and victory, they vegetate and decay, simultaneously arrogant and obsequious – but the bourgeoisie is such a broad class that it cannot be ignored.

Thus, through the abolition of interest- slavery, thrift is destroyed; people end up in the poorhouse.

That the abolition of interest-slavery quite generally may have its influence on thrift must be decisively denied. Thrift has just as little to do with the prevailing economic views as e.g. wastefulness. Thrift and wastefulness are human qualities that either are present or not, indifferent to whether an age approves or frowns upon the idea of interest.

In times of transition perhaps an increase or diminution of thrift can be promoted. In the given case however I tend much more to the view that a rational, economically minded person will say to himself the following: “I can no longer in the future count on living on my interest alone. I want however to live in later years and also still leave something behind for my children; therefore I must now save more.” The abolition of interest-slavery must, in my opinion, exert this effect on the majority of people. As for the elderly, of course they will be referred to public support.

Here too I must once again stress emphatically that, given the current burden of direct taxes on property and the burden of indirect taxes on every lifestyle, nothing of the lovely interest- payments remains, except in the case of that person for whom – and it is indeed something iniquitous and to be combated – all income flows only from eternal interest-payments. Therefore a decline in thrift is probably not to be feared.

Is (loathsome) big capital really so utterly unfruitful? Has it not also created the means to large-scale progress that bears fruits for humanity greater than what the interest on loan- capital destroys? No! The posing of the question only proves that Mammonistic phraseology has clouded our clear vision.

Big capital has not created the means to large-scale progress; rather big capital has grown from labor! All capital is accumulated labor. Big capital is in itself unproductive, because plain money by itself is a thoroughly unfruitful thing. From mind, labor, and available or already developed raw materials or mineral resources, values are produced and goods are manufactured – through labor and only through labor.

For if one pours so much money onto the most fertile farmland, into the richest coalmine, the farmland does not on that account bear grain, nor the coalmine spit out coals by itself! Let us conclusively affirm this.

If people have invented money, it is accordingly quite useful and reasonable; for in every complex economy one needs this (universally recognized) “voucher for completed labor.” But that a potential should inhere in these “money- empires” to grow eternally from themselves into enormity – and money does that, if it can bear interest – it is that against which the core of our being rebels; it is that which exalts money far above all other earthly manifestations; it is that which makes money into an idol. And all of that is indeed only the most enormous self-deception of humanity! Nothing, nothing at all, can come from money alone. Table, cabinet, clothing, house, tool, in short everything around us has some value; in the end one can still use a broken piece of furniture as firewood to warm oneself, but with a twenty-mark note one cannot do anything; I cannot even wrap a piece of cheese in it. Only after people have sensibly agreed on the facilitation of the exchange of goods for consumption, to write vouchers for completed labor, only with that does the slip of paper receive meaning and purpose, and it is very reasonable that the farmer for his grain receives from the coalmining company not coal but money; thus a voucher for other completed labor, e.g. pitchforks, crockery, plough, and scythe. But with that the power of money should end.

Thus the large-scale progress of humanity has been made not by money but by the men themselves, their bold spirit, their proud daring, their clever mind, the strength of their hands, their shared, therefore social, industrious labor. So proudly and so clearly must we see. The men were the thing, certainly not the pitiful pieces of paper that men invented for the simplification of commerce.

Further Program Although the abolition of interest- slavery is not the final goal of the new statecraft; it is truly the most incisive deed, the only deed that is able to unite all peoples into a true league of nations, against the tyranny of Mammonism that encompasses all peoples. But it is not the end. On the contrary, the abolition of interest-slavery must lead to further steps, because, as we have seen, it lays hold of the global evil by the root, and indeed by the main root.

Only when the groundlaying demand for abolition of interest-slavery is fulfilled, is the path cleared for the first time ever for the social state. This must be clearly recognized, and it must be accomplished in spite of all Mammonistic powers. The cry for socialization [while interest-slavery persists] is nothing more than the attempt to bring about the formation of a trust of all industries and to create giant conglomerates everywhere, over which big loan-capital, in spite of all wealth- taxes, will naturally also have the deciding influence again in the future. A socialistic state on a Mammonistic foundation is an absurdity and leads by nature to a compromise between Social- Democracy, already strongly contaminated with Mammonism, and big capital.

We, by contrast, demand radical rejection of the Mammonistic state and a reconstruction of the state according to the true spirit of socialism, in which the ruling basic idea is the obligation to nourish — in which an old basic demand of Communism can find its rational and useful satisfaction — in the form that every member of the folk shall receive his assigned entitlement to the soil of the homeland through the state’s allocation of the most important foodstuffs.

We further demand, as a skeleton for the new state, a representation of the people through the Chamber of People’s Representatives, which is to be elected on the broadest basis, and next to that a permanent Chamber of Labor, the central council in which the nation’s workers have a voice in proportion to their distribution by profession and economic class. Finally we demand the highest accountability for the directors of the state. This new construction of the state on a socialist-aristocratic basis will be treated in an additional work that will appear soon from the same publisher.

The prerequisite for all this construction however remains the abolition of interest-slavery.

My unshakable belief, nay more, my knowledge makes me recognize clearly that the abolition of interest-slavery is not only enforceable but will and must be taken up everywhere with indescribable jubilation. For bear in mind: in contrast to all other ideas and movements and endeavors, however well intentioned, that aim at the improvement of mankind, my proposal does not want to try to improve human nature; rather it applies itself against a toxic substance, against a phenomenon that was artfully – no, diabolically – invented, completely contrary to the deepest feeling of man, in order to make humanity ill, in order to ensnare humanity in materialism, in order to rob from it the best thing that it has, the soul.

Hand in hand next to it goes the frightful, pitiless tyranny of the money-powers, for which people are only interest- slaves, exist only to work for the dividend, for interest.

Deeply troubled we recognize the frightful clarity and truth of the old Biblical proverbs, according to which the god of the Jews Yahweh promises to his chosen people: “I want to grant to you to own all treasures of the world; at your feet shall lie all peoples of the Earth and you shall rule over them.” This global question is now laid out before all of you. Global questions are not solved with a wave of the hand, but the idea is clear as day. And the deed must be diligently propagated; we must understand clearly that we face the most formidable enemy, the world-encompassing money-powers. All force on the other side, on our side only justice, the eternal justice of productive labor.

Extend your hands to me, working people of all countries, unite! Publisher’s Afterword While repetitive at times, this Manifesto clearly stresses the importance of ending interest-slavery and presents some of the many benefits that would arise from such a radical departure of what we know as the “norm.” What most Americans are unaware of is how much emphasis the Nazis placed on uplifting the working class. This lack of awareness comes in spite of the NSDAP name : National- Socialist German Worker’s Party.

Concern and struggle for the working class continues today, as does the movement to end profits without work – interest-slavery. Such modern struggles have been far more successful in Europe than in the United States, but there is a single American organization calling itself the “American Nazi Party” ( ) that continues to harp on very similar economic principles as Feder and the NSDAP. In fact, due to the ever increasing wage disparity in the US, coupled with high unemployment rates nationwide and general dissatisfaction with the current government, such movements are currently seeing relatively strong growth.

It is clear as to why Feder’s ideas have not taken root in modern society, and that is because of the influence that the international banking powers wield over most nations. In the US, the Federal Reserve is a private banking entity that is not accountable to the US Government, yet they hold tremendous power over the American economy. Had Feder’s ideas been implemented here in the States, Ceteris paribus, it is almost certain that the recent mortgage crisis of 2007, which led to deep recession, high unemployment, and the big bank “bailouts” wouldn’t have occurred.

This publisher hopes that the Manifesto was read with an open mind, free of any preconceived ideas about “Nazism” or the horrors of war that are so often associated with the 3rd Reich. Clearly there was much more to the ideology and practices of National- Socialist Germany than the History Channel or even most “history” books provide. Modern governments have taken much from Nazi Germany such as laws protecting animal rights, the “green” movement (see Richard Walther Darré), paid vacations and other labor comforts that we take for granted today. Would it be too absurd to suggest that maybe their economic policies held some merit as well? [1] The following declarations about the Bavarian state budget are in rounded figures taken from the Bavarian State Yearbook of the year 1913. This is the last statistical yearbook that appeared before the war, which gives exhaustive reporting about Bavarian finances. During the war no more recent reports appeared.

[2] The unceasing increase in interest-rates and material-prices has led to the fact that the net yield of the Bavarian state railroad in the year 1918 has declined to 3 million marks, compared to an average of 80 million in preceding years. In Prussia, according to the reports of Finance-Minister Simon, the previously customary average profit of 700 marks has even been replaced by a deficit of 1,300,000,000 marks. We will therefore be less able than ever to think about continually increasing direct and indirect taxes; we must think more than ever about immediately reducing the new debts that have grown through catastrophic finance-economy by very strong requisitioning of wealth, especially from the very large fortunes.

National-Socialism Basics



In respect of the future of National-Socialism – that idealistic, noble, but mis-understood way of life – it is important to understand that National-Socialist Germany was only a beginning of the practical implementation of National-Socialism. That is, a complete National-Socialist society was being worked toward, but was never fully achieved because of the circumstances of the time – in particular the advent of the First Zionist War (commonly called the Second World War) with the need for Germany to fight a total war in order to try and survive. In many ways, Adolf Hitler (as he himself admitted, for instance to Leon Degrelle) had to make several compromises in order to not only achieve power, but also to keep power in the face of external and internal problems. … Thus, while NS Germany (what it was, not what Zionist hate propaganda has made it appear) should be considered as an inspiring model for us and future generations, it should not be looked upon as the perfect, ideal, National-Socialist society. … It is our task – and that of future generations – to lay the foundations for this complete National-Socialist society. To do this, we must expound pure, idealistic National-Socialism, untainted by any compromise with the societies of our time. That is, we must expressly state what National-Socialism is and involves, however “impractical” or idealistic it might seem, and however unpopular. … We do not need political propaganda – such as stirring speeches, rallies, marches, strident appeals – which only ever appeals to the fickle emotions of people. Instead, we need reasoned literature; factual stories of National-Socialist heroism; and living examples of National-Socialism in action, both individual and communal. That is, we need to show the idealism, the truths, of National-Socialism by personal example – through our own deeds and projects.” – David Myatt

Understanding National Socialism first requires understanding the historical circumstances under which it first arose early in the 20th century.

On the practical plane, Germany had never recovered from WWI, and was at an unprecedented low in morale, in terrible shape economically and hopelessly divided socially. Gottfried Feder describes it: “In the nation, taken as an organic whole, every aspect of our private life shows pain, bondage, suppression, insecurity, and presents a clear picture of a struggle of all against all. Government against people, Party against Party, … employer against employee, merchant against producer and consumer, landlord against tenant, labourer against farmer, officials against the public, worker against ‘bourgeoisie’, Church against State, each blindly hitting out at his particular adversary thinking only of his own selfish interests. … No one thinks of his neighbour’s welfare, or of his higher duties to community.” Alfred Rosenberg describes it: “It did not display a picture of a clear will, nor one of position and opposition but — if I may anticipate the developments of later years — a fight of all against all. In the end the parliamentary system was represented by forty-nine different parties, each one trying to present its own particular problem as the most important.” Hitler himself describes it, and proposes the beginnings of a solution: “What will happen one day when hordes of emancipated slaves come forth from these dens of misery to swoop down on their unsuspecting fellow men? For this other world does not think about such a possibility. They have allowed these things to go on without caring and even without suspecting – in their total lack of instinctive understanding – that sooner or later destiny will take its vengeance unless it will have been appeased in time. … Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these conditions. This method is: first, to create better fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which are incapable of being improved.

On the intellectual plane, the empiricist worldview had (from the Renaissance onwards and ever more sharply with accelerating advances in experimental science during the so-called Age of Enlightenment) increasingly threatened spirituality with materialistic reductionism, promising to ultimately trivialize such things as emotions, dreams, free will and the spirit itself as mere side-effects of entirely physiological mechanisms. As the pressure became too great, philosophical reaction arose in opposition to empiricism by re-affirming intuition and sentiment as valid – indeed superior – routes to knowledge, as Alfred Rosenberg describes: “In various guises, an abstraction began to uproot life. The reaction in the form of German romanticism was therefore as welcome as rain after a long drought. … Where the Greek generalised, … the Romantic man personified.”  However, this reaction itself immediately split into two movements, as reliance on feeling led to different types of people feeling differently.

The Romantic movement began as a movement proposing that empiricism, though powerful in generating knowledge about what is, does so at the devastating cost of cutting us off from knowledge about what ought to be. The latter is considered accessible only via a personal undertaking to refine the spirit, which in turn can only be achieved by immersion in conditions (in practice usually generated by works of art) that remove the usual social constraints to emotional activity, thus allowing us to distance ourselves from our lower emotions and, if possible, hand ourselves over totally to our higher emotions. Particular emphasis is placed on pure love, poetic justice and appreciation for beauty, all of which are believed to converge towards – and function as conduits towards – the Romantic ideal.

The Counter-Enlightenment movement, on the other hand, proposed quite differently that empiricism was cutting us off from primal human urges and hence leading to a dry, sterile humanity that experiences life less richly than those still connected to the primal. The response they recommend is to seek immersion in conditions that unleash primality. They admit that primal feelings might not converge, and indeed often clash with each other for dominance even inside the same mind, but argue that this is not something that should be worth concern, because the very expectation of convergence is a non-primal feeling in itself, and therefore to be rejected. Primalism is considered the only valid guide; rationalism is to be rejected along with empiricism.

In short, the Counter-Enlightenment feared that empiricism would devalue the lower emotions (which they value as primal), whereas the Romantics feared that empiricism’s trivializing method of devaluing the lower emotions would inevitably devalue also the higher emotions (which we value as salvational) at the same time, thereby interfering with the Romantic eschatological vision of the higher emotions directly vanquishing the lower emotions in a triumph of the will. Alfred Rosenberg summarizes the problem with the Counter-Enlightenment from a Romantic perspective: “One is immediately reminded of the sentimental return to nature and the glorification of the primitive which appeared in the late eighteenth century. … But the nature of primitive man—as far as we can reasonably conjecture—was not particularly heroic.”

But many of the Counter-Enlightenment soon started calling themselves “Romantics”, seeing only both movements’ shared disdain towards the industrializing West, shared preference for the medieval or even earlier past and for non-Western* civilizations, shared preference for rural life over urban life, and other superficial shared tastes that in fact were motivated by entirely different feelings. The Romantics naively accepted them, assuming that the Counter-Enlightenment would become initiated into true Romanticism over time. Instead, the opposite happened: the Counter-Enlightenment usurped the label of Romanticism and confused the movement with Counter-Enlightenment ideas, as Alfred Rosenberg describes: “The great German Romantic movement sensed darker and darker veils interposed before the gods of celestial light, and it immersed itself deeper and deeper into the impulsive, formless, demonic, sexual, ecstatic and chthonic, and into mother worship.”

(* Both the Romantics and the Counter-Enlightenment sided politically with non-Western civilizations whenever possible, as empiricism was viewed as a uniquely Western attitude. Hitler himself noted this: “It is perfectly true that we are a people of romantics, quite different from the Americans, for example … The only romance which stirs the heart of the North American is that of the Redskin; but it is curious to note that the writer who has produced the most vivid Redskin romances is a German.”)

Before long, the true Romantics had been pushed to the fringes of the Counter-Enlightenment-dominated so-called “Romanticism”. Frustrated, they needed a new and even more radical movement to rally around. At the time, it was fashionable among Counter-Enlightenment advocates to blame primarily Christianity for creating Western civilization, and hence to call for abandoning Christianity in favour of pre-Christian paganism. In contrast, the true Romantics were fiercely loyal to Christianity due to considering Jesus the greatest Romantic of all. A convincing new movement had to offer an anti-Western narrative that on one hand reassured true Romantic intuition regarding Jesus, and on the other hand accounted for the largely valid Counter-Enlightenment accusation against (Judeo-)Christianity. Dietrich Eckart was ready: “Schopenhauer … said that if one wants to understand the Old Testament one must read it in the Greek version. There it has an entirely different tone, an entirely different color, with no presentiment of Christianity!” With this new interpretation that not Christianity but Judaism was to blame for creating Western civilization, National Socialism was born.

Nationalism, Socialism and National Socialism

“One does not become a National Socialist. One only discovers, sooner or later, that one has always been one.” — Savitri Devi

Nationalism is based on the view of a country as a living being in itself, as opposed to a mere contractual entity produced by interactions between humans. A country consumes food, expends energy and produces waste. A country has a memory of its own past, imagines its own future, and can collect and analyze information to generate knowledge. A country communicates and forms friendships or hostilities with other countries. A country goes through the cycle of birth and death. A country can produce offspring countries. By any characteristic commonly used to define life or consciousness, a country really is alive and conscious. This view does not deny that inhabitants of the country each have a consciousness of their own, but perceives at the same time a national consciousness as a larger-scale unit**. A nationalist therefore attempts to relate to a country holistically, as if to a person.

“The present day doctrine is: Society is the sum of the individuals — the State at its best a convenient aggregation of individuals or associations. We may compare this doctrine of the construction of society to a heap of stones. The only real thing about it is the individual piece of stone. Its shape is a matter of chance; whether a stone is on top or underneath is indifferent. The result is neither more nor less than a heap. … But the National Socialist doctrine of society and philosophy of the State is the house. Speaking mechanically, a house also consists of so many individual bricks. … But anyone can see that a house is a higher entity, something new and peculiar … more than a mere sum total of bricks heaped together.” – Gottfried Feder

(** By this logic, the reverse also applies, so that smaller-scale units can also be considered to have consciousness of their own. As Miguel Serrano asserts: “For Aryans, atoms have never been numeric abstract empty formulas. They are gnomes.”)

Broadly speaking, any ideology committed to the development of the country as a whole unit can be described as a nationalist ideology. Nationalism never confines itself to the interests of any subgroup within the country, but always considers the impact of an action on every subgroup within the country, based on a view of every subgroup as akin to an internal organ in the body, and an understanding that depriving one organ in order to boost another is no way to a healthy body. Instead, nationalism expects every subgroup to be prepared to help out every other during times of crisis, just as in a youthful body the strong organs will automatically work harder than usual to assist weakened organs back to strength (whereas in an elderly body the weak organs receive no help from the strong organs, and hence eventually fail), in Hitler’s words: “If somebody or other objects that the continual giving involves too heavy a burden, then we must reply that that is the idea of a truly national solidarity. True national solidarity cannot find its sense in mere taking.” Nationalism identifies as enemies of the state any and all subgroups within the country with an agenda to exclusively advance its own interests rather than serve the country as a whole, based on a view of such subgroups as cancerous organs that drain the rest of nutrients and at the same time spread the cancer to them. The most well-known example of this is Jewry (see below), but it applies more generally to any group established around racial identity, class consciousness, education level, gender, sexual preferences, religious exclusivity or any other psychological notion that ultimately produces tribalist behaviour. Members of such groups cannot be accepted as citizens of a nationalist state.

Another principle of nationalism is that a country cannot expect and should not wait to be helped from outside (whether by other countries or by entities such as banks or the UN), but must find ways to help itself. This is not to say that a country is obliged to always refuse outside help when offered it, but only that none of its plans should be contingent on outside help to succeed, so that it never finds itself in a position of having to accept help that comes with strings attached. Nor does it mean that a country should not give help to other countries at cost to itself. Nationalism does not imply isolationism, non-interventionism or otherwise indifference to the plight of other countries, and above all does not imply acting solely with the interests of one’s own country in mind. On the contrary, a genuinely nationalist country would encourage other countries not to be perpetually dependent on outside help either, and therefore offer them all short-term help it can give so as to enable their eventual long-term independence, in Hitler’s words: “The aim of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief, which is ridiculous and useless, but it must rather be a means to find a way of eliminating the fundamental deficiencies in our economic and cultural life.”

(In such attitudes, nationalism is in complete disagreement with identitarianism (including Zionism), which declares: “It makes decision for its own people and does not consider its impact on others.” Identitarianism is tribal; nationalism is anti-tribal. The fact that much of the present-day far-right uses the two terms interchangeably is ample evidence of their illiteracy, and of Zionist success in confusing the vocabulary of political discourse.)

Nationalism is not an ideological principle in itself, but rather an executive principle which can serve a wide range of ideologies. A capitalist can be a nationalist provided he believes in attracting money to the country rather than following the money wherever around the world it goes (as an international capitalist would do). In the same way, a nationalist communist will aim at equalizing wealth distribution inside his country, rather than worry about equalizing wealth distribution between different countries. A nationalist fascist will aim at giving his country a state capable of both internal and external power projection, rather than the latter alone. A nationalist libertarian will aim at making his entire country run on minimal government, rather than tolerate more government in some parts of the country than others. And so on.

“Hitler … not only recognised the necessity of national unity above everything else, but was also willing to press to the hilt the demand for social justice.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Socialism is the belief that state intervention is essential to realistically combatting social injustice, and that it is the moral duty of the state to so intervene. It is based on the view that the stateless system (e.g. free markets) is rigged against true merit in favour of non-merit-based competitive advantages, a problem which can therefore only be remedied by adding rules to the system, where the rules have been derived with the promotion of merit in mind, and function as to nullify the non-merit-based competitive advantages.  Any and all who choose not to follow these rules are thus enemies of merit and hence must be declared outlaws who also no longer receive protection from the rules as citizens receive.

“The aim of a National-Socialist government is to encourage the noble change and further evolution of human beings in such a way that they progress upward towards a more noble way of living and the establishment of a noble and just order. This involves creating favourable conditions for the emergence and blossoming of the innate nobility of individuals.” – David Myatt

There are many distinct notions of supposed social injustice, which follow from many distinct notions of merit. Democratic socialism, for example, perceives only injustice perpetrated against the majority in any situation, and its statist remedy is simply to give the majority whatever it wants, even if it involves oppressing the minority. It considers the majority incapable of social injustice against the minority, because majority opinion defines merit, and the minority should just shut up and go along with it. Marxist socialism perceives only injustice perpetrated against the proletariat, and its statist remedy is to take from non-proles to give to proles. It considers proles incapable of social injustice against non-proles, because merit is exclusively equated with being a prole. It is worth noting that Marxist socialism and democratic socialism coincide whenever the proletariat is also the majority.

(Identitarianism (including Zionism) is never to be classified as socialism even when it employs statist means to further its agenda, since it does not argue based on social justice in the first place, but solely based on group interests. For example, the Jewish tendency to accuse anti-Zionists of being ”anti-Semites”, rather than of being “unfair” (as a misinformed but sincere socialist might accuse anti-Zionists), in itself shows that Jews care nothing for fairness, and everything for furthering Jewish group interests whether fair or unfair. The same applies to Gentiles who have copied this trick and accuse their critics of being “anti-[insert Gentile group here]“.)

National Socialism perceives injustice perpetrated against all. At the most fundamental level, just by being born, every one of us is automatically and for the entire duration of our lives a perpetual and constant victim of injustice, because none of us chose to be born. The courage to acknowledge this plainly obvious and utterly irrefutable fact (“The whole of life is one perpetual hazard, and birth is the greatest hazard of them all.” – Adolf Hitler) distinguishes National Socialism from every other form of socialism. Whereas all the others sooner or later tends towards utopianism, National Socialism repudiates utopianism (a False Left idea) from the outset by this acknowledgement and hence elevates itself to a genuinely eschatological ideology on a par with the ancient (True Left) pan-Gnostic religions.

“Even we are not so simple as to believe that there will ever be an age in which there will be no drawbacks. But that does not release us from the obligation to fight for the removal of the defects which we have recognized, to overcome the shortcomings and to strive towards the ideal.” – Adolf Hitler

Every other form of injustice is thus understood in context as a sub-injustice occurring between fellow victims of this principal injustice, which places it in a thoroughly different light than viewing it as an injustice occurring between people who have no oppressor in common. As fellow prisoners in one prison, we all start out on the same side; our only valid enemies among one another are those who choose to “sell out” and side with our imprisoner by losing empathy for other prisoners, and who thus degrade themselves from prisoners to slaves (for which they may well be rewarded by the imprisoner with mastery over other slaves). Such a perspective – often smeared as “pessimistic” by its detractors – is in fact unprecedently positive, as it not only makes fresh rapport possible among people each previously accustomed to viewing every other as a rival against oneself, but also logically demands that the political problem of sub-injustices be tackled by an approach that simultaneously addresses the principal injustice, in other words by the approach of state control over reproduction – in classic socialist terms, adding rules derived with the promotion of merit in mind, in this case concerning genetics.

In this most radical sense, National Socialism does not merely mean ”nationalism plus socialism”, but more gramatically accurately means “socialism as pertains to nation”, which ultimately means “socialism as pertains to being born” (see later section). Where National Socialism achieves parity with the pan-Gnostic religions by its recognition of the exact same principal injustice as they all independently recognized, it excels beyond them all by being the only ideology to propose a realistic strategy for universal salvation. Where the Gnostic offers vision, the National Socialist offers action. Where the Gnostic escapes, the National Socialist counterattacks. Where the Gnostic terminates his own bloodline, the National Socialist is prepared to terminate all bloodlines which refuse to terminate themselves.

“The Aryan hosts have penetrated from beyond the borders of this Universe, warriors and warrioresses. To “crucify themselves” on the four realms of the demiurgic creation they have overturned the entire demonic plan.” – Miguel Serrano


“It rejects in general and in its own structure all those principles according to which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according to which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in the greatest problems, one person must have absolute authority and bear all responsibility. In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the following: The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higher organizations – the Bezirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (region). In each case the president is appointed from above and is invested with full authority and executive power. … One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.” – Adolf Hitler

National Socialism values the individual personality above all. This may at first glance appear contradictory to the National Socialist position that demography is destiny, but upon closer inspection is in fact part of the same position. It is the individual who introduces the potential for positive change (negative change requires no individual inspiration), and then it is demographics which determine the extent to which this potential can be actualized. As Hitler asks rhetorically: “Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?” National Socialists view all of history as a moral struggle of rare individual heroic idealists in opposition to traditionally popular norms. Aryan racial theory merely adds the proposition that these idealists are who they are by blood.

“From amidst a world in which slavery was considered as a necessary evil by respectable people, sprang a few individuals who condemned it … To those to whom the age-old exploitation of animals seems normal just because it is practically universal and as old as man, we shall say that there are today people who strongly disapprove of it — never mind if they be but a handful scattered among millions of human beings still at a more barbaric stage of evolution. There are today a few men and women, far in advance of our times, who keenly feel the revolting injustice of all exploitation … the horror of all gratuitous infliction of suffering. … Those few are now “dreamers,” “eccentric folk,” “cranks” — like all pioneers. But who can tell whether their opinion will never become that of average man, and their principles the law of the world?” – Savitri Devi

It is therefore accurate to call National Socialism an individualist ideology, but this radical individualism is almost the total opposite of the so-called “individualism” of liberal/libertarian/anarchist conception. Any true conception of individualism does not and could never imply individual expression by everyone, for the simple reason that whenever everyone in the same society simultaneously attempts individual expression, the result is mutual cramping and hence no individual expression for anyone. True individual expression is only ever achieved when only one person per society – the leader by definition – is expressing his individuality, and the duty of all sincere individualists in the same society is to support this leader such that the leader’s individuality is able to be expressed to the fullest. Radical individualism is thus wholly devoid of (and indeed contrary to) self-centredness; the radical individualist purely wishes to see individuality maximally expressed – not necessarily one’s own individuality. This is none other than the attitude of die-hard fans of pop culture icons (musicians, actors, athletes, fictional characters, etc.), who feel that their greatest or even only meaning in life is to support the individual expression of the icon to whom they have devoted themselves, whether financially or via production of fanworks, presence at fan events and offering fan feedback, and who set aside much of their own individuality in order to do so. A political radical individualist is always an absolute monarchist, who (unless he happens to be the leader himself) would consider it his calling in life to seek and find a worthy leader to serve, making himself an extension of his leader’s personality much as pop culture fans make themselves (by the processes described above) extensions of their icon’s personality. As Rudolf Hess succinctly stated: “Hitler is Germany.”

The word “folk” etymologically derives from the word “follow”, and hence has the same meaning as the present-day word “following” (noun) as commonly used in pop culture to describe a fanbase of a particular icon. The state in this worldview is simply the totality of the mechanisms that most efficiently allow the leader’s following a.k.a. folk to assist in the expression of the leader’s personality. And, just as the true die-hard fan lives up to his name by psychological readiness to die for his icon without question and at a moment’s notice, the true political individualist is similarly ready to die for his leader. It is no coincidence that National Socialism is aligned with youth (“The Hitler Youth has taken his name. It is the only organization in the Reich that does bear his name.” – Joseph Goebbels), as fan passion is most closely associated with youthful enthusiasm and declines with age among most people.

“The insane belief in equality that found its crassest expression in political parties is no more. The principle of personality has replaced the notion of popular idiocy.” – Joseph Goebbels

national-socialism-basics02A true leader is not supposed to represent popular opinion.

national-socialism-basics03A true leader demands the loyalty of his country’s youth to himself, not to their families.

national-socialism-basics04Original Nobility is what a true leader is supposed to represent.

To further elaborate on the spirit of radical individualism, one who sincerely wishes to see individuality maximally expressed can feel no urge to follow anyone who does not indeed possess an outstanding individual personality. Thus a leader in the individualist worldview is never a traditionalist, and a follower in the individualist worldview is also never a traditionalist, for traditionalism only appeals to those who lack reverence for individuality. A radical individualist wishes to see individuality expressed always and only ever in opposition to tradition, the latter being invariably determined by the norm rather than by the exception. Furthermore, a radical individualist defines personality always and only ever as opposition to identity (“Personality (will plus reason) is a power representing the spiritual in man opposed to the material. … Persona (instinct plus understanding) is the body of man and his interests.” – Alfred Rosenberg), the latter being invariably determined by pre-existing roles into which we are placed without our own consent rather than by our own sincerity of spirit in absence of pressure to meet expectations. Thus a good measure of individual personality is the extent to which it scorns confinement by tradition (identity being one aspect of tradition), so that a shallow personality is anti-traditional only in superficial ways, whereas a deep personality is anti-traditional in the very fundamentals of its thought. (“True personality at first hostilely faces the object to be altered, then the latter is forced to answer to a formal will. When this occurs, personality style is the result.” – Alfred Rosenberg) As such, so-called “traditionalist leaders” are not leaders at all in our eyes, but mere paternalistic mediocrities, or – more bluntly – slave prefects.

Radical individualism – “individualism for the leader alone” – thus simultaneously opposes both the phony “individualism for everybody” of the modern False Left, and the “individualism for nobody” traditionalism and paternalistic authoritarianism of all right-wing ideologies, and as such is an attitude exclusive to the True Left. Classical Platonist ideas about a “philosopher-king” come close in form to our conception of leadership, but Romantic-influenced National Socialism hits the deeper mark by visualizing the leader as less a philosopher and more an artist, hence further emphasizing the importance of individual personality. Hitler was precisely such a leader, and National Socialism was a movement by and for people with artistic sympathies – the comparison between a National Socialist leader and a pop culture icon becomes even more analogous with this in mind. Such a leader must not be concerned about his own popularity among his followers, or else he would have ceased to be leading his followers and degenerated into doing whatever they want him to do, and thus ceased to be a leader (or even an individual) in any meaningful sense. Instead, as an artist, the leader’s only duty is to stay true to his artistic vision.

“In its organization the State must be established on the principle of personality, starting from the smallest cell and ascending up to the supreme government of the country. There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons. And the word ‘council’ is once more restored to its original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual person alone.” – Adolf Hitler

“If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a Weltanschhauung. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.” – Adolf Hitler

It is inaccurate to describe such a leader as a tyrant, as he does not force anyone to serve himself – the very notion is as nonsensical as the notion of pop culture icons forcing anyone to be their fan. In a practical world of many countries and many leaders, all followers should be allowed to choose to offer their services to whichever leader they prefer, and to physically relocate to the corresponding country as necessary in order to serve their leader of choice alongside the rest of their folk. It is mutually beneficial among leaders to facilitate such a process of free relocation by aspiring followers, as it will match every leader with the followers most loyal to himself. One who believes that he himself can be a better leader than any currently existing is also open to try becoming one via his own means. Only after an oath of loyalty is freely taken by a follower does he become honour-bound to serve the leader until death or until the leader releases him from his oath. It is democracy which is tyrannical by forcing large numbers of citizens to tolerate elected governments towards which they feel no loyalty, based on the excuses: 1) they lost the vote; 2) they can vote again in a few years’ time.


“Our economic principle is: the duty of the national economy is to provide the necessities of life and not to secure the highest possible profits for capital.” – Gottfried Feder

“Our principle as regards social subjects is as follows: the general welfare is the highest law of all. This principle of ours is in direct opposition to present-day practice according to which every class tries to gain advantages for its own particular group.” – Gottfried Feder

No less important to National Socialism is how the leader should treat the folk, and how members of the folk should treat one another. In this, the analogy of the pop culture icon and the fanbase continues to be useful.

A pop culture icon obviously wants his fans to be in the best personal condition possible to appreciate his work. A fan who is hungry or homeless, or who has difficulty paying bills or who remains stuck in debt despite working long hours, or who must deal with chronic illness, or who is intermittently subjected to the stress of litigation, or who is otherwise saddled with formal banalities that consume most if not all of his daily faculties of attention, is unlikely to have the time and concentration or even be in the mood to devote himself to his icon no matter how much he would theoretically wish to. The same is true of a follower in relation to his leader under National Socialism, except that the leader – as a politician – is in a position to actively improve the living conditions of his followers via state initiatives. Therefore an initial objective of the National Socialist leader is to make sure his followers have enough physical and mental health as well as financial and civic reassurance in day-to-day living, all while sparing them from unnecessary bureaucracy, that followers can get back to doing that which they most love to do: providing fan support.

“To fill forms — one of the international occupations of modern civilised humanity.” – Savitri Devi

“It nauseated me to think that one day I might be fettered to an office stool, that I could not dispose of my own time but would be forced to spend the whole of my life filling out forms.” – Adolf Hitler

“Forms and questionnaires should be reduced as much as possible. People have no time to write out their entire biography on some ridiculous form to get something that is important to them. One should be reasonable and require of them only that which is essential.” – Joseph Goebbels

“National-Socialist law … does not accept the absolute necessity of “professional lawyers” or “solicitors”, regarding such a necessity as dishonourable … All the proceedings should be understandable by ordinary people.” – David Myatt

national-socialism-basics05Only a person can help another person. Bureaucracy has never helped anyone.

national-socialism-basics06Of course, a person has to be willing to help.

But by the same reasoning that National Socialism aims to relieve worry among the folk concerning the basic necessities of life, it discourages the pursuit of affluence beyond modest comfort. Just as uncertainty and insecurity in daily life diminishes fan enthusiasm, so too does the lure of unlimited profit distract from it. This is why it is rare for high-powered speculators, entrepreneurs and the like to also be die-hard fans of pop culture icons: their intensive observation of financial trends and networking with lucrative opportunism in mind uses up most of their energy, and they receive immediate rewards for attention or penalties for inattention, so their entire mindset is trained away from contemplation of personality. The National Socialist principle of strictly prohibiting income other than what is earned via productive labour, at the same time as it is about protecting the savings of honest workers against inflation, is also part of establishing a folkish habitat, which is fundamentally incompatible with the presence of capitalist temptations, but which instead works best with simple living.

“A re-organization of our people into a national unit that includes all those whose labour is productive simply pushed aside the old organizations of employers and employees.” – Adolf Hitler

national-socialism-basics07What we had back in the Golden Age.

national-socialism-basics08Simple life is the best!

Further to this line of thought, fans of pop-culture icons are also in poor condition to provide fan support when they feel they are in competition against one another even within the domain of fandom, for this turns their focus away from the icon itself and towards rivalries inside the fanbase. A fanbase thrives when every fan helps every other fan support the icon to the best of each fan’s capacity, but it withers when some warped fans try to restrict the support of other fans in order to prevent them from offering more support than themselves. And again, all the same is true of a folk under National Socialism. Therefore it is incumbent upon the National Socialist leader to instill in each sincere follower a feeling of being valuable to the folk in a way that does not require knocking down the value of other similarly sincere followers. Other forms of socialism rely on the (false) premise of egalitarianism to argue in support of this, but National Socialism, which rejects egalitarianism, relies instead on the principle of citizenship. It matters not that two people are unequal; the simple fact that both are citizens means that both are people whom the leader is glad to have among the folk, both people whom the leader would rather be present than absent, and this is all that any citizen needs to know in order to have an attitude of fellowship towards any other.

national-socialism-basics09Egalitarianism, which argues for fellowship based on equality, actually implies that non-equality is sufficient reason for rejecting fellowship. Thus it sets up a backlash against itself (which is what Zionists designed it for). Fellowship based on citizenship avoids this.

“Life divides us perforce into many groups and occupations. It is the task of the political and mental education of the nation to overcome this division. This task has in the first line been alloted to the Labour Service. Its duty is to unite all Germans in work, and thus to form a community out of them. To this end let us place the same tool in the hand of all, the tool that a nation honours most, the spade.” – Adolf Hitler

Citizenship is not the same as nationality. The term “nation” etymologically derives from root “natus” meaning ”birth”; people are fellow nationals by being born in the same country and therefore possessing shared experiences of growing up in that country. (Racists who claim that common nationality requires common ethnicity again display their illiteracy.) The term “citizen”, on the other hand, etymologically derives from the root “civitas” meaning “commonwealth”; people are fellow citizens by having added value to the same country and therefore possessing a shared stake in that country. For the pop culture comparison, a fan of an icon is supposed to be more than merely a viewer/subscriber of the icon – a fan is expected to have actively participated in fanwork and thus supplemented the icon’s impact rather than merely enjoyed the icon’s impact. It is hoped by the National Socialist state that nationality serves as sufficient motivation for citizenship that every national becomes a citizen, but non-nationals can certainly also become citizens, whereas nationals who have not contributed to the country (as well as warped nationals who themselves may contribute to the country but who try to obstruct others who wish to contribute to the country from doing so) will certainly not become citizens.

“Citizenship must not be a gift at birth, but must be acquired by labour. Only the fulfilment of duty and service for the honour of the folk can award this right. Consequently, we must make a ceremony out of the award of citizenship to take the place of confirmation. Only when sacrifices have been made for something, is one also ready to fight for it. This last measure will also automatically push those racial elements into the foreground which are organically most of all capable of serving the supreme value of our folk.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Therefore it is the duty of the National Socialist state to rigorously define contribution, set the minimum quantity of contribution required from each person for citizenship to be awarded to that person, and establish a system of measuring contribution. Again, this is no more complicated and conceptually no different than running a fanclub. The more purposeful the definition of contribution, the more wisely set the minimum quantity of contribution required for citizenship, and the fairer the system of measuring contribution, the better the state is an example of competent National Socialist administration.


“The call for one’s own space, for one’s own bread, becomes the prerequisite for the achievement of spiritual values.” – Alfred Rosenberg


But in order for a leader to adequately express his individuality, even perfectly loyal support from a folk is on its own generally not enough. Just as a pop culture icon is not truly an expression of the artist behind it unless that artist himself owns all the relevant means of production associated with the franchise (ideally staffed entirely by fans) and therefore is not dependent on intermediary agencies in order to reach the fanbase, so the National Socialist state demands absolute possession by the leader of living space for the folk on which a reliable economic autarky and political autonomy can be established. The initial mission of a folk once formed around a particular leader is to establish such living space. In this respect, National Socialism exhibits its fundamentally Aryan roots, for prehistoric nomadic hunting and herding populations had lordship over men – and, in the case of herding, ownership of tradeable assets in the form of their flocks – but not rulership of fixed geographic territory as such (and hence not true statesmanship as Aryans understand the concept), the latter being exclusive to the settled lifestyle associated with subsistence farming. For this reason, nomad patriarchs/matriarchs were always dull traditionalists, since no matter how superficially wealthy and powerful they were, their perpetually itinerant lifestyle ensured that they lacked the deep economic confidence required to imagine radical departure from the traditional social attitudes that have worked successfully for them through the generations. To nomads, social success and economic success were not distinct concepts, but one and the same. The deep confidence required to be anti-traditional, which arises only when economic life is separate from social life, is a possession exclusively of thoroughbred Aryans who live under assurance that they need only vigilantly hold and diligently tend their farmland and waterways in order to be provided in return with sustenance as guaranteed as sunlight itself. To Aryans, all other issues are questions of ethics and/or aesthetics, to be answered with noble personality.

“In creating, on the basis of National-Socialist philosophy and ideology, the political infrastructures and institutions that are the foundation of society, only the honourable and noble will assume the responsibility of governing and administering the new National-Socialist community.” – David Myatt

Mere governmental jurisdiction over land is insufficient to render it living space. The totality of the land and all material wealth associated with it must be defined as fundamentally belonging to the leader in such a way that the leader can theoretically commandeer any of it at any time. Private property is permitted for all citizens under National Socialism (unlike under communism), but it is to be understood that all private property within the living space has merely been variously entrusted to various citizens by the leader to hold in administration on the leader’s behalf, based on the practical consideration that the leader cannot attend to all of it simultaneously via state administration. Hitler’s favourite example for explaining this concept is that the state will let a citizen own farmland within the country, but only so long as this citizen continues to produce sufficient food from this farmland to feed the local community dependent on it; otherwise, the leader had better promptly seize it and give it to someone else more productive before people begin to starve! Property (which derives from “proprietas” meaning “special”) is hence distinguished from belonging (which derives from “be-” + “lang” meaning “to go with”); the former is a duty of citizenship, the latter a duty of leadership. This prevents degeneration into feudalism, where landowners can conspire as an oligarchy to interfere in politics via economic leverage.

It follows that the only valid conception of money is one where the value of money is guaranteed by the National Socialist state and limited to circulation within the territory under the jurisdiction of this same state. Not only must the state be the sole issuer of money, but even the material used for physical tender should itself be as valueless as possible. For example, gold or silver minted coins are an extremely bad choice for tender, as they could be melted down into mintless bullion and sold for the value of the material even after the state which originally minted the coins has fallen, implying separation between currency and state. Paper notes are a better choice, as paper money instantly becomes worthless (except as toilet paper) as soon as the state falls, thus tying the fate of a state’s currency to the fate of the state itself, and hence eliminating the possibility of taking one’s money and running from one’s country when things start going bad. An even better choice would be a stopwatch-like device that measures labour performed and directly converts this into money (which cannot even be used as toilet paper). Hitler himself was known for graphic visualizations of money in terms of labour time: “Since our advent to power we have replaced about five million people in the process of national production. This means that for every working day we have given to the German people an average of between thirty and forty million hours of work more than they previously had. This has been their salvation. It does not matter for what kind of production this working power has been employed in individual cases. Taken all in all, in one year we have given to the nation the fruits of about nine milliard hours of labour.” Obviously the danger of currency counterfeiting still exists and must be contended with by police departments as a criminal issue, but at least the danger of a foreign power flooding the market with valuable materials is eliminated.

“From the moment that I abandoned the gold standard, and while I still had large numbers of unemployed at my disposal, I had no financial problems. I had to support seven million whole-time and four million part-time unemployed. This necessitated a budget of five milliards. We should have saved many milliards of overseas expenditure if the Wehrmacht had from the beginning been content to accept our own synthetic and supplementary raw materials instead of insisting on importing from abroad.” – Adolf Hitler

national-socialism-basics11Autarky is the foundation of living space.

national-socialism-basics12The only test for whether autarky has been established is 100% reliance on national produce.

A National Socialist state must recognize no international laws applicable to its regime. No law exists in absence of law enforcement, therefore recognition of international law on national territory is tantamount to acknowledgement of an external law enforcer whose jurisdiction extends into national territory. A country which acknowledges such is already not a sovereign country, but an implicit colony of a foreign power. This is the point behind Hitler’s words: “I am not in the least willing to allow foreign statesmen to create a second Palestine right here in the heart of Germany.” Having said that, a National Socialist state must strive to uphold foreign relations based on honour and empathy. It must never consider a citizen of another country as a lower ethical priority than a citizen of its own country, but must mercilessly punish citizens of its own country who in any way mistreat citizens of other countries whether at home or abroad – not because it fears international condemnation for failing to do so, but because it genuinely wishes to provide justice for victims and to eliminate tribalism from within its own national body. The exception to this principle is if the foreign citizens are citizens of any state which promotes tribalism among its own people, whereupon all violence towards them can be viewed as retaliatory and hence automatically ethical.

Further to the idea of retaliatory violence against tribalist states, it is entirely ethical – indeed it is a heroic duty – for a National Socialist state to capture the territory of tribalist states for incorporation within its own domain, not as a colony, but as a direct territorial annexation under the exact same laws as the original territory applicable to all inhabitants, and with state initiatives (e.g. Lebensborn homes) to facilitate multiethnic integration according to bloodline quality based on Aryan standards. Children of annexed territories in particular are, unless suspected beyond reasonable doubt of carrying latent tribalist blood (see next section), to be given the opportunity to start fresh without identitarian baggage traditionally imposed on them by their parents (a policy which Zionist historians have spun as “Nazis stealing children”, as if children ever belonged to those who gave birth to them without their own consent). It is only unethical for a National Socialist state to capture the territory of other non-tribalist states.

national-socialism-basics13National Socialist Germany (red), Third Reich (orange) (and Italian Empire (green))

“The larger the territory which a people has at its disposal the stronger are the national defences of that people. Military decisions are more quickly, more easily, more completely and more effectively gained against a people occupying a national territory which is restricted in area, than against States which have extensive territories. Moreover, the magnitude of a national territory is in itself a certain assurance that an outside Power will not hastily risk the adventure of an invasion; for in that case the struggle would have to be long and exhausting before victory could be hoped for. The risk being so great, there would have to be extraordinary reasons for such an aggressive adventure. Hence it is that the territorial magnitude of a State furnishes a basis whereon national liberty and independence can be maintained with relative ease; while, on the contrary, a State whose territory is small offers a natural temptation to the invader.” – Adolf Hitler

In this way, we envision a Pax Arya in which all tribalist (ie. “In Time”) states are eliminated, the universalist but non-heroic (ie. “Above Time”) states keep their rule over their original small territories, but it will be the universalist and heroic (ie. “Against Time”) states that rule larger territories and hence possess the strongest defences against invasion, deservedly on account of their demonstrated willingness to fight for their ideals.


“Defending against the Jewish danger is only part of our plan. When it becomes the only issue when National Socialism is discussed, that is Jewry’s fault, not ours.” – Joseph Goebbels

Many non-Jewish states throughout world history, including many with no other common ground with the National Socialist state, have attempted to deal with the Jewish problem. Therefore, while it is impossible by definition to be National Socialist without being actively anti-Zionist so long as there remains even one Jew alive anywhere in the world, state countermeasures against Jewish power do not on their own imply that the state is “National Socialist” (as overzealous surveyors have a tendency to call any state that is openly adversarial towards organized Jewry). Opposition to Jews can be based on numerous lines of reasoning, only a few of which are compatible with National Socialism. In general, any opposition to Jews intended as a way to advance the interests of one’s own (Gentile) group is incompatible with National Socialism. Only opposition to Jews viewed as pure duty – to the extent of readiness towards collective self-sacrifice if required to ensure the destruction of the enemy – can be compatible with National Socialism.

“One can hardly imagine a bolder, more outspoken world view than [Spinoza’s]; but his ethics would horrify a pig. ‘In all things seek that which is advantageous’ is the quintessence of his moral philosophy – the genuine Jewish viewpoint.” – Dietrich Eckart

“No one any longer will dare to suggest that we are speaking here only in our own interest. The German people has made sacrifices over the past five years because of its recognition of a danger to the world that entitle it to speak on this matter.” – Joseph Goebbels

As such, all serious National Socialists should possess at least moderate familiarity with Judaism, Jewish culture and Jewish history. Pedantic knowledge of details of Jewish law is not essential, but conceptual understanding of the broad principles underlying it is expected, so that one can see clearly its ongoing real-life applications in Jewish behaviour.

“The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer; it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: ‘I’ve been found out!’” – Joseph Goebbels

“The Jew … gradually came to form a State within a State. He came to look upon the commercial domain and all money transactions as a privilege belonging exclusively to himself and he exploited it ruthlessly. At this stage finance and trade had become his complete monopoly. … The cup of his iniquity became full to the brim when he included landed property among his commercial wares and degraded the soil to the level of a market commodity. Since he himself never cultivated the soil but considered it as an object to be exploited, on which the peasant may still remain but only on condition that he submits to the most heartless exactions of his new master, public antipathy against the Jew steadily increased and finally turned into open animosity. … Although public wrath flared up against this eternal profiteer and drove him out, after a few years he reappeared in those same places and carried on as before. No persecution could force him to give up his trade of exploiting other people and no amount of harrying succeeded in driving him out permanently. He always returned after a short time and it was always the old story with him.” – Adolf Hitler

Unlike many other enemies of Jewry who oppose Jews but do not necessarily oppose the teachings of Judaism, National Socialists are utterly appalled by Judaism first, and oppose Jews only because we consider them to be Judaism made flesh. We reject and condemn in the strongest terms the false notion, popular among Jew-aware Judeo-Christians and sundry right-wingers, that Judaism refers only to so-called “rabbinical Judaism” while the Tanakh is somehow not part of Judaism(!). Instead, we maintain that one cannot credibly call oneself anti-Zionist unless one opposes the Tanakh (from which the term “Zion” itself originates).

“All Jews have good reason to celebrate Luther and to ignore his anti-Semitism. Without intending to do so, he paved the way for them, and how! The more they extol his authority, the less the world notices his error.” – Adolf Hitler

“The Jew Goldmann stated their reason plainly enough. ‘Luther has again brought the Old Testament to honor.’ … Even Luther was taken in by the ‘chosen people’. He looked upon the Old Testament as divine revelation. He approached the book with infatuation, convinced that it could contain nothing but sheer preciousness.” – Dietrich Eckart

“He saw the Jews as we have only begun to see them today. But, unfortunately, too late, and even then not there, where he had done the most damage – in Christianity. Oh, had he only seen them there; had he only seen them in his youth! Then … instead of glorifying the Old Testament, he would have branded it as the arsenal of the Antichrist.” – Adolf Hitler

This is not to say that National Socialists consider Jewishness merely to be a matter of religion, for we believe that Jews manifest Judaism racially as well as religiously as a consequence of thousands of years of continuous selective pressure in favour of heritable traits compatible with Judaism, since Jews being extreme racists have always resisted integration into the societies in which they lived. Therefore a Jew who professes renunciation of Judaism has not necessarily ceased to be a Jew. (It could well be that such a Jew is transitioning towards crypto-Jewishness.) Hitler expressed his exasperation towards those among his contemporaries who believed Jewishness was merely religious: “If the worst came to the worst a few drops of baptismal water would settle the matter, hereupon the Jew could still carry on his business safely. … It looked more and more as if the whole movement was a new attempt to proselytize the Jews.” If any individual of known Jewish blood heritage wishes us to believe he is not a Jew, he must not only renounce Judaism but also voluntarily refrain from reproducing, thereby showing serious commitment towards phasing out racial as well as religious Jewishness from existence.

But by far the most poisonous idea popular among far-right organized Gentile movements – mostly those that want their own Gentile ethnostates – is that only diaspora Jews are the problem, while Israel is not a problem at all (or is even something positive!). In contrast, National Socialists are avowedly anti-Israel, as Hitler explains: “They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish state in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign state, this cannot be controlled by other states. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a school for the training of other swindlers.” This does not mean that we ignore or tolerate diaspora Jews, but it is strategically obvious that dealing with diaspora Jews will be immeasurably easier after taking out their base first so as to cut off their retreat. The far-right alternative plan, which consists of keeping Israel and pressuring all current diaspora Jews to move there, is not only inexcusably cruel to the Palestinians and other inhabitants of the region, but also fantastically impractical. In addition to unrealistically presuming that every disapora Jew can even be successfully identified by non-Jews (ignoring the sheer number of crypto-Jews in the world, not least those infiltrated into leadership positions within the far-right itself), it underestimates the ongoing advances in Israeli  technology (ignoring that Jews surpass non-Jews in average IQ by at least one standard deviation, not to mention that Israel (via crypto-Jewish spies) has access to new technological developments in most countries around the world while the rest of the world has no access to new technological developments in Israel) that could eventually leave Israel so far ahead of the rest of the world in military technology that Jews could one day conquer the planet just by pressing a button. Each day we procrastinate in taking out Israel, we reduce our chances of success when we eventually try.

With all this said, the final distinguishing feature of National Socialists towards Jews is our immovable Aryan principle of fair treatment of indviduals based on their own behaviour alone, which includes individuals of Jewish ancestry no less than any other. Many of the concentration camps into which Jews were placed by National Socialist Germany were (contrary to Zionist Allied propaganda) remarkable for the level of comfort they offered their residents, including swimming pools, sports grounds, libraries, theatres and other amenities comparable to those typically found in holiday camps. The actual function of the so-called “gas chambers” was to maintain laundry hygeine among the contained population. As carriers of Jewish blood, they had to be quarantined in the same way as any other group carrying a genetic disease must be quarantined in order to prevent the disease from perpetuating and spreading; as people, it was never National Socialist policy to sanction mistreating them for the sake of mistreating them, nor will it be under our future administration. All Jews who refuse to surrender their Jewishness will have their citizenship removed and be imprisoned for conspiracy to treason based on their membership in a secret society (which is what Jewry is, technically speaking). On the other hand, all individuals of Jewish ancestry who renounce Judaism, and who voluntarily refrain from reproducing, and who have no record of ignoble behaviour otherwise, will be guaranteed by the National Socialist state the privilege to live out the remainder of their lives in safety and dignity as quarantined citizens (ie. medical inpatients, not criminal prisoners), and to moreover receive posthumous recognition as Aryans. In particular, young children of Jewish parents will receive every possible kindness that it is within the ability of National Socialist state to offer them, for they are the first and most innocent victims of Jewish identity. And Jewish parents will surely receive from us less punishment than they deserve for their incalculable evil (inflicted both upon the world by reproducing, and upon their own children by giving birth to them and rearing them as Jews), because even endless torture in hell would not be retribution enough for them. They will, however, be sentenced by the National Socialist state to the maximum punishment physically devisable on a low budget.

(All these principles established for dealing with Jews also hypothetically apply to dealing with heritably tribalistic Gentile groups (and their religions) as may unfortunately arise in future.)


“It was the noblest of ideas to which a German could give all his strength. It made the German nation a gift of unity, it gave the German Reich a new content. It was a social philosophy and an ideal of blood-conditioned cultural cleanliness. National Socialism was misused, and in the end demoralized, by men to whom its creator had most fatefully given his confidence. The collapse of the Reich is historically linked with this. But the idea itself was action and life, and that cannot and will not be forgotten. As other great ideas knew heights and depths, so National Socialism too will be reborn someday in a new generation steeled by sorrow.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Although National Socialist Germany was destroyed in WWII, the spiritual energy which animated it during its brief run in history has remained resplendent in the post-WWII world. Focus on charismatic pop culture icons became part of collective psychology in a way it had never been prior to WWII. Every field of mass entertainment media – literature, music, drama, and more – anomalously and dazzlingly flourished, with one masterpiece rolling out after another so seemingly effortlessly that their beauty was indeed often taken for granted by their contemporary consumers. Vigorous Jewish attempts to steer artistic direction towards hedonistic nihilism did not succeed for long; by the closing decades of the 20th century, heroic characters and romantic themes had retaken centre-stage in the world of pop culture. (“Wagner wanted this: an art as religion. … He did not say in a state of collapse: I no longer understand the world. Rather, he wished to create another world. … Even if the people of our times felt themselves estranged from the forms of the Bayreuth idea or unsympathetic to it, this idea has been the real source of life in the midst of a barbaric time.” – Alfred Rosenberg) Jews peddled egalitarianism to non-Jews in real-life, but pop culture icons became increasingly larger-than-life examples of sparkling individual personality (typically in defiance of identity, by the way). Jews peddled sexual promiscuity to non-Jews in real-life, but pop culture increasingly celebrated pure, chaste, devoted and often unfulfilled love (frequently in defiance of tradition, by the way). Jews peddled moral relativism to non-Jews in real-life, but pop culture increasingly extolled the absolute moral beauty of justified vengeance and overdue retribution (especially against tribalists, by the way). Unable to stop these trends, just as they had been unable to stop Christianity 2000 years ago, Jews then duplicitously switched to claiming credit for them(!) – and neo-Nazis believe this(!!) – based on the beyond-ludicrous assertion that these trends were inspired by sympathy for the supposed Jewish victims of the alleged “Holocaust”. No, they were not. These trends were inspired by sympathy for the worldwide victims of 500 horrific years of post-Renaissance Western civilization, and – though most who felt this way were unaware of this – for the world’s greatest champion against it: Hitler himself. Sensing the sheer nearness of his Arhat personality from the earth-shattering impact it had made only a few decades earlier, people with Aryan blood memory yearned for it as an avatar for their idealism, but believed the Zionist lies about “the Nazis” and therefore never knew that his was the personality whom they sought, thus turned to pop culture icons as imaginary substitutes.

This is the only narrative that accounts for the rise of National Socialism and the development of post-WWII pop culture trends not as distinct phenomena, but as two forms of the same phenomenon: UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY. The 19th century Romantic movement in art gathered the energy for National Socialism in politics during the early 20th century (a point which Hitler explicitly acknowledged by crediting the influence of Wagner on his movement). With its political outlet attenuated by defeat in war, this energy was then recycled back into art by the late 20th century, coming full-circle. But the narrative need not end here. It is now the 21st century. Countries around the world today desperately need this energy to inspire politics again in order to unify societies that have become more divided than ever before. And if it receives it, it will be from us. Not just because we hold the correct historical narrative, but because we are so sure that we do that we are willing to pick it up from where Hitler left it off and prove it to the world.

national-socialism-basics14Are you with us?