Updated: November 15th 2022 at 17:29 (UK Time).
Many on the right naively recoil at the term Socialism. However, the problem lies in the misunderstanding, or bastardization of the term by the usual suspects and it only being viewed from the corrupt Marxian context rather than the true Nationalist one. There is a difference and we certainly should not turn our noses up at Socialism unless we can also view it through the Nationalist, anti-Marxist lense. Only then can we make an educated, unbiased and fully informed opinion on the matter.
So, to begin, there is an often quoted statement by Adolf Hitler regarding Socialism. I have seen it in many forms spread all over the internet and in books; some with minor changes in wording and some with grammatical differences. Both with errors as I have since learned. Short of seeing the quote on the written page itself at source I have been holding back from using it, such as the “Source Nazi” title that I have often been given would suggest. However, I now have scans of the original source so that I have viewed it for myself and can now correct the record.
The quote comes from a September 28th 1930 article in the Sunday Express, the sister paper of the Daily Express, as quoted in Vol. I of ‘Hitler’s Speeches’ or ‘The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922 – August 1939 (An English translation of representative passages arranged under subjects and edited by Norman H. Baynes)’, Oxford University Press, issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1942. The specific section that is relevant here is ‘National-Socialism’ from Chapter II: The Formation of the Party: Hitler’s Retrospect, pp. 92-93. You can purchase a PDF scan of the two volumes from the Telegram page Rare Book Club (Military, Political & Social History of Germany, The NSDAP & The Third Reich). Additional contact details for Rare Book Club are found at the end of this article. I HIGHLY recommend you support them.
The exact passage reads as follows:
[ed.: what follows is from page 92] In an article published in the “Sunday Express” 28 September 1930 Hitler gives his definition of “Nationalist”: “One to whom duty to country or community comes before self-interest; in other words, ‘One for all’, but with justice for the one where interests clash.” He proceeded: “ ‘Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.” “Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community.” “All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain.” “It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist.” “Both charges are false.”1
In a speech to the “Old Guard” of the Party at the Anniversary of the Foundation of the Party (24 February 1934) Hitler said that in the early days many came to him and said, “If only you had not adopted the word ‘National’ we would go with you”, and the others said, “If you were not Socialistic we would join you”. We adopted both words precisely in order to prevent these folk from going with us. We did not want them, these Apostles of the Past. We were convinced that we could make our Movement great only if we succeeded in the future in keeping at a distance the ferments of disintegration derived from the past. In uniting Nationalism and Socialism we have scared away from us both the bourgeois Nationalists and the International Marxists [ed.: what follows is page 93] to find immeasurable new sources of strength in the inexhaustible well-spring of our own people (Volkstums)1
1 The Sunday Express, 28 Sept. 1930. (ed.: this is note 1 on page 92)
1 F.Z., 27 Feb. 1934. (ed.: this is note 1 on page 93)
You can see the text (screenshots of PDF scan) of the relevant two pages by scrolling down to the end of this page for exactitude which I received from an acquaintance. Again, I highly recommend you support Rare Book Club! See contact details at the end of this page.
Another excellent explanation of Socialism from a Nationalist perspective can be viewed (for free) from the publication ‘Hitler’s Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs’ by Richard Tedor (Expanded Edition 2017. First published in 2013).
Here is what Tedor has to say about Socialism from pages 25-27:
There is considerable difference in the socialism of Hitler and that of Marxist doctrine. Die SA explained that the objective of a socialist state is “not the greatest possible good fortune of the individual or a particular party, but the welfare of the whole community.”62 Marx’s purely economic socialism “stands against private property… and private ownership.”63 Marx saw socialism as international, unifying the world’s working class people who were social pariahs in their own country. He therefore considered nationalism, advocating the interests and independence of one’s own nation, incompatible with socialist ideals. Die SA argued that since socialism really stands for collective welfare, “Marxist socialism divides the people and in this way buries any prerequisite for achieving genuine socialist goals.”64 Hitler saw nationalism as a patriotic motive to place the good of one’s country before personal ambition. Socialism was a political, social and economic system that demanded the same subordination of self-interest for the benefit of the community. As Hitler said in 1927, “Socialism and nationalism are the great fighters for one’s own kind, are the hardest fighters in the struggle for survival on this earth. Therefore they are no longer battle cries against one another.”65 Die SA summarized, “Marxism makes the distinction of haves and have-nots. It demands the destruction of the former in order to bring all property into possession of the public. National Socialism places the concept of the national community in the foreground. . . . The collective welfare of a people is not achieved through superficially equal distribution of all possessions, but by accepting the principle that before the interests of the individual stand those of the nation.”66 It should be noted that in the Soviet Union, the flagship Marxist state, the regime dealt with the non-proletariat far more harshly than what downtrodden labor suffered during the Industrial Revolution in Western countries. The Soviet police official Martyn Latsis for example, defined the criteria for trials of dissidents: “Don’t seek proof of whether or not he rose against the Soviet with weapon or word. You must first ask him what class he belongs to, what extraction he is, what education and what occupation he has. These questions should decide the fate of the accused.”67 The Russian historian Dimitri Volkogonov wrote that Soviet purges targeted “the most energetic, most capable, frugal and imaginative” elements in society.68 Systematic mass starvation, imprisonment, deportation, and execution in the Marxist utopia so decimated the Russian population that the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, forbade the 1937 census from being published.69 Der Schulungsbrief stated in a 1942 issue, “The senseless extermination of all intelligence and talent, replacing every impulse of personality with passive herd mentality, has wiped out any natural creative aptitude” in Russia.70 Hitler regarded Marxist economic policy as no less repugnant to genuine socialism as the concept of class warfare was. Marx advocated de-privatizing all production and property. State control would supposedly insure equitable distribution of manufactured goods and foodstuffs, and protect the population from capitalist exploitation. Hitler advocated private ownership and free enterprise. He believed that competition and opportunities for personal development encourage individual initiative. He said in 1934, “on one hand, the free play of forces must be guaranteed as broad a field of endeavor as possible. On the other, it should be stressed that this free play of forces must remain for the person within the framework of communal goals, which we refer to as the people and the national community. Only in this way can we attain … the highest level of human achievement and human productivity.”71 Der Schulungsbrief dismissed Marx’s disparate clamor for equitable shares in national assets and equal pay for all work as stifling to personal motivation: “The man capable of greater achievement had no interest in realizing his full potential, when he saw that the lazy man sitting next to him received just as much as he himself. . . . Any initiative to do more and willingness to accept responsibility could only die out under this system.”72 Well before taking power, Hitler combated a tendency toward Marxist socialism in his own movement. In November 1925, district party leaders in Hannover proposed dividing large farms and distributing the land among farmhands. The state would require everyone employed in the agrarian economy to join a cooperative. Independent sale of foodstuffs would be illegal. “Critical industries” such as power companies, banks and armaments manufacturers were to yield 51 percent of the shares as “property of the nation,” in other words become state controlled. The program also recommended that the government acquire 49 percent of other large business enterprises. In May 1930, Hitler met with a Berlin subordinate, Otto Strasser, who supported a similar program. Hitler told him his ideas were “pure Marxism” and would wreck the entire economy.73 He bounced Strasser out of the party that July, underscoring his intolerance of Marxist socialism. Hitler considered the opportunity to acquire wealth and property an incentive for “eternal, enterprising personal initiative.” Enabling talented individuals to realize their full potential in life also elevated the society they belong to and serve.
62. Rehm, Theo, “Politisches Wörterbuch,” Die SA. #13/14, 1940, p. 10
65. Zitelmann, Rainer, Hitler Selbstverständnis eines Revolutionär, p. 459 (Stuttgart 1987)
66. Rehm, “Politisches Wörterbuch,” Die SA. #13/14, 1940, p. 11
67. Papst, Martin, Roter Terror, p. 40 (Graz 1997)
68. Ibid, p. 60
69. Ibid, p. 62
70. Gross, Walter, “Sieg der Rassenkraft,” Der Schulungsbrief 11/12, 1942, p. 67
71. Kaütter, Eberhard, “Das Sozialproblem,” Der Schulungsbrief 5/37, p. 185
72. Ibid, p. 183
73. Klüver, Max, Vom Klassenkampf zur Volksgemeinschaft, p. 18 (Leoni 1988)
Free PDF here. Paperback edition here. Kindle edition here. You can also listen to an interview with the author on Renegade Tribune from April 11th 2014 here and with the author on Realist Report from March 11th 2014 here.
On August 13th 1920 Hitler stated the following at a public meeting in the Great Hall of the Hofbräuhaus:
“Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” (Original German: “Sozialismus als letzte Auffassung der Pflicht, der sittlichen Pflicht der Arbeit nicht um seiner selbst, sondern auch um seiner Mitmenschen willen, vor allem gemäß dem Grundsatz: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz, Kampf gegen alles Drohnentum und vor allem gegen das mühe- und arbeitslose Einkommen. Und wir waren uns bewußt, daß wir bei diesem Kampf auf niemand uns stützen können als nur auf unser eigenes Volk. Wir waren der Überzeugung, daß Sozialismus in dem Sinne nur zu finden sein wird und sein kann bei Nationen und Rassen, die arisch sind, und da in erster Linie hoffen wir auf unser eigenes Volk und sind überzeugt, daß deshalb auch Sozialismus unzertrennbar ist von Nationalismus.”)
In 1932 Dr, Joseph Goebbels published his book, Struggle for Berlin (Kampf um Berlin, München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Franz Eher Nachf., 1932) in Part 1: Against the Decay (Teil 1: Gegen den Zerfall) that:
“Socialism, as we understand it, is essentially the result of a healthy sense of justice, combined with a sense of responsibility towards the nation, regardless of the interests of any individual.” (Original German: “Der Sozialismus, wie wir ihn verstehen, ist im wesentlichen das Ergebnis eines gesunden Gerechtigkeitsgefühls, verbunden mit Verantwortungsbewußtsein der Nation gegenüber, ohne Rücksichtnahme auf die Interessen einer Einzelperson.”
“…the greatest nationalism and the truest socialism are the same: the spirit of simple service to the community”
– Rudolf Heß, June 13th 1936 [“An das Schulschiff ‘Horst Wessel’,” in Rudolf Hess, Reden (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1938), pp. 191-194.]
In 1938 the German author Prof. Dr. Helmut Stellrecht wrote the book, ‘Glauben und Handeln‘ (Faith and Action) of which had a section on Socialism. The following is that segment:
Socialism means: “The common good before the individual good.”
Socialism means: “Think not of yourself, but of the whole, of the people and the state.”
Socialism means: “Not the same for everyone, but to each his own.”
These sentences make clear what we call “German socialism.” No one is a socialist who does not live according to them. A new order grows from these sentences. The sentence “To each his own” has killed the “mass,” the slogan of Marxism, and replaced it with the “community.” Every community grows around a leader. He is the center of its order, which forms around him. A number of these leaders form a larger community, and stand around their leader as a living order. It all grows from below—the number growing ever smaller—like a pyramid, and finds its epitome in the Führer of the Reich. All are bound by the community. Each community is a living order. The whole, the great living order, is the people’s community. It binds inextricably person to person, leader to leader. It does not give the same to everyone, but to each his own. It creates the socialist people in a socialist state. Each has his task in the community, given to him according to his gifts. Never do all have the same task, but rather each his own. His task gives him a place in the community, If he fulfills it completely, he wins the esteem of the others. He is happy, even if his task is not large in the overall scheme of things. Such communities grow in the field, in assault troops, in artillery battalions, in submarines, in S.A. units. Strong, bound forever together, wordlessly understanding each other, together until the end, sworn to a common goal. Strength grows from such communities, and from them grows the state. We want community in Germany so that we can stand unshaken in the face of whatever may come. The mass is conquered by the community. It gives to each his own, to each his goal and his task, and everyone together one goal: the people’s community in the new state.
Earlier in 1925, Dr. Joseph Goebbels penned the very popular short Question and Answer pamphlet, The little abc of National Socialists (Das kleine abc des Nationalsozialisten, Elberfeld: Verlag der
Natinalsozialistischen Briefe) stating:
“Common interest before self-interest!. . . The truly national man thinks socialist, and the true socialist is nationalist!. . . I am a nationally-minded person when I have the will, and use all my power, to make my people and my Fatherland free, healthy, and strong!. . . I think as a socialist when I recognize that the natural rights of the oppressed portion of my folk-comrades, the rights to liberty and bread, are rights that must be fought for and preserved, they are not gifts that are given freely or even imposed!. . . The term ‘social’ means granting the oppressed segments of the people the imperfect rights of fear and cowardice, grace and mercy; ‘socialism’ means giving them their full right to justice and state imperative!. . . For us National Socialists the social question is not only the question of the economic betterment of the oppressed class of our people, rather it is larger and more sweeping: the question of the Volksgemeinschaft’s sense of mutual understanding for one another, in order to elevate, promote, and increase all the moral, cultural, and economic assets of the entire nation and of every individual. . . For us National Socialists, social misery is the lack of common understanding of folkcomrades for one another, with the menacing result being the erosion of all these assets [i.e. moral, cultural, and economic] until they are finally and shockingly depleted. . . The National Socialist Volksgemeinschaft [people’s community] is the realization among folk-comrades of common understanding for one another, therefore yielding socialist thinking and action. . . The meaning of the National Socialist worldview is nothing other than this: feeling liberated, thinking völkisch, acting socialist. . . The Social-Democratic Party is the party of distorted socialism. It attempts to reach the socialist state via the path of international-Marxism and making use of the power of capitalist democracy. Social-democracy stands in service to the stock-exchange, and its leaders are Jews and comrades of the Jews. . . True socialism is that form of political, cultural, and economic attitude which, instead of seeking an inwardly false liberalism, strives instead for the voluntary, socialist binding of every folk-comrade to the state, with their rights and duties corresponding to their nature, their character, and their abilities.”
It is also worth noting Mark Collett’s comments on Socialism. He has stated the below when asked if he was a National Socialist. Mr. Collett answered eloquently and commented as follows:
Well that’s a very interesting question! You see I am a nationalist! I am somebody who believes that the indigenous people should always be put first. I’m somebody who believes that the indigenous people should remain a majority in their own country. I am somebody who believes in closed borders, managed immigration. And I’m somebody who pushes for a policy of voluntary repatriation. And I believe that people who come to this country, or have come to this country, who are not indigenous to this country should have to speak English, do their best to fit in. And if they can’t, they should leave. I am a nationalist! However I also have a social conscience! I believe in looking after one another. I believe in community. I believe in collectivism before individualism. I believe in the NHS. I believe in a benefit system that should protect the elderly, and the vulnerable, and people who fall on hard times. A benefit system that is there as a safety net, not as a hammock for the lazy, or for migrants from all over the world! I believe in community spirit. And if that makes me a “socialist”, well, so be it! And if you think that I’m a nationalist, and if you believe my policies also have a flavour of socialism, you can call me what you want, but I simply define myself as a nationalist.
This can be heard at 01:03 here which can be put in the whole context from the full interview here. The full transcript can be viewed here.
In the 1932 pamphlet by Dr. Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir (Hans Schweitzer), ‘Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler: Etwas zum Nachdenken’ (Munich: Franz Eher Verlag, 1932), which “loosely translated, is “Those Damned Nazis.” Literally, it translates as something like “those cursed swastika lads,” but that does not really work in English.”, Dr. Goebbels states the following:
Why Are We Socialists?We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!
The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.
The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.
We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.
Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.
We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.
We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!
We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!
We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!
We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!
Prof. Dr. Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. comments on the Socialist aspect of National Socialism as follows which can be viewed in its full context here or here:
“What about socialism? Certainly nothing evil there. Socialism—loosely defined as a system in which the government owns or controls large sectors of the economy—is widely practiced around the world, often in a kind of partnership with capitalist activities. Socialism is not ‘a’ system, but rather a spectrum of political and economic positions that can range from relatively unobtrusive to highly active and controlling. Most European countries today are mildly socialist and are able to produce very high qualities of life. American capitalists love to bash socialism, primarily because it tends toward higher taxes (especially on the rich) and because it tends to restrict otherwise unrestrained business practices and speculations. In a nutshell, socialism tends to benefit society as a whole, especially the middle and lower classes, whereas capitalism tends to benefit capital—i.e. the wealthy.”
It is also worth noting the relevant passage “What Do We Mean By Socialism?” from the 1944 Third Reich National Socialist publication, Wofür Kämpfen Wir?
This book was edited by the German Army Personnel Office [Herausgegeben vom Personal-Amt des Heeres] and published by Elsnerdruck in January of that year. The book has a foreword by Dr. Alfred Rosenberg.
The relevant passage (pp. 86-87) which I have transcribed from the published English translation is as follows.
28. What do we mean by Socialism
The term socialism is derived from socius = the comrade, the companion. Socialism would then be the concept that one makes about the order of the living together of people, who are “companioned”, this means united in a society or community. Depending on what community one assigns the highest value , quite different concepts could be tied to the concept “socialism”. Since for us Germans the folk is the highest value and not – like for Marxists – the “international class of the proletariat”, socialism is for us a certain form of “folk” order, which we could perhaps best translate as folk comradeship; hence an order, in which the correct placement of the individual in the really decisive questions does not depend on whether he is peasant or worker, official or employee, tradesman or scholar, rather, above all, on whether or not he is a folk comrade.
But every order preconditions a measure of evaluation, according to which the various rank levels within the order are established. This measure, in the German social state, can only be the performance of the individual for his folk.
The Führer: “We imagine a state, in which in the future every position should be occupied by our folk’s most capable son, quite regardless of where he comes from; a state, in which birth means nothing and performance everything.”Socialism hence has nothing to do with equalization [Gleichmacherei]. This form of folk order, whose complete expansion was interrupted only by the war forced on us, has returned his honor to the German worker as well as the German peasant, and integrated him as fully-worthy member into the German folk community. In the German social state, every productive person, whether white or blue collar, is respected equally. The bourgeois-capitalist world has failed in the solution of this task. It believed it could get by with a so-called social reform, which essentially, along the path of alms-giving, sought to heal the worst excesses of the capitalist economic order. The doctrines of pity and mercy as well could not cure the social damages, which had arisen through the Jewish-materialist view of life and economics. National Socialism contrasts the ideas of charity and mercy with the duty of standing up with every sacrifice for the community.A real solution was only possible through genuine revolutionary transformation of the folk order itself. For the worker does not need pity, rather right and justice. He has found both in the National Socialist state. And this tremendous success has so peaked the attention of the plutocratic lands that they had to fear the collapse of their organizations for the exploitation of the world, if this example found followers among them as well. Hence their hatred against National Socialist Germany, which for us is just one more piece of evidence how much we are on the right path. The hatred fanned especially by Jewry was then also what led to the unleashing of the present war. That is why this war is about German socialism and the freedom to shape our own folk order according to our nature.
But let it be laid down here: Socialism means for us not only the solution of the worker question, rather the organizing together of all German folk comrades into a genuine life community, means the preservation and further development of the nationality on the basis of the true-to-type [arteigen] laws of development.
The passage in the original German (pp. 104-105) can viewed below from this PDF screenshot.
Dr. Joseph Goebbels answers the question in his 1931 book, Die Nazi-Sozi:
Social and Socialist
„Yes, we call ourselves Socialist. That’s the second step. The second step away from the middle-class State. We call ourselves Socialist in protest against the lie of social middle-class pity. We don’t want pity, and we don’t want social-mindedness. We don’t care a hoot for that which you call ‘social welfare legislation.’ That’s barely enough to keep body and soul together.
„We want the rights to which nature and the law entitle us.
„We want our full share of what Heaven gave us, and of the returns from our physical and mental labours.
„And that’s Socialism!
Later Dr. Goebbels goes on to state:
Nationalist and Socialist
„Then we will prove that nationalism is more than a comfortable moral theology of middle-class wealth and Capitalist profit. The cesspool of corruption and depravity will then yield to new nationalism as a radical form of national self-defence, and to new Socialism as the most conscious creation of its requisite preconditions.“
Despair of Marxism
„You speak of Socialism! But after a 60-year struggle for Socialism which has resulted in the complete undoing of the ideal of the State, is the German worker not justified in despairing of Socialism and the future of his social class?“
1. He has not fought for 60 years for Socialism, but for Marxism. And Marxism, with its destructive theories of peoples and races, is the exact opposite of Socialism.
2. Marxism was never the German worker’s ideal of the State. He accepted this jumble of Jewish ideas only because there were no other choices open to him in his struggle for the freedom of his class.
3. Marxism is the graveyard not only for national peoples but also particularly for the one class that fights whole-heartedly for its realization: the working class. „It is therefore not the worker’s right to give up on Socialism, but rather his duty to give up on Marxism. The sooner he does so, the better for him. The clock is about to strike midnight.“
If we were only anti-Semitic, then yes, that would indeed be passé. But we are also Socialist. We can’t have one without the other: Socialism, that is, the freedom of the German workers, and thus of the German nation can only be achieved in opposition to the Jews, and because we want Germany’s liberty, and Socialism, we are anti-Semitic.
The NSDAP is not a petty middle-class movement, but rather, on the contrary, a protest against the bourgeoisification of Socialism in a social democracy…
„In other words: you want to counter the International of Marxism with the nationalism of German Socialism?“
„Exactly! Finally we’ve begun to understand each other!“ „But you do have to grant me one question: if you’ve recognized that the enemy — whether we call him the Jews, Capitalism, or whatever — thinks and feels internationally, then surely he can’t be combated in any but an international way. And the result of such a fight will be the International of Socialism, which shatters once and for all the International of Capitalism?“
If you keep talking about an International of Socialism, you only prove that you’ve failed to understand even the most basic natural foundations of nation and people. No great conception of a State — and Socialism is certainly one — has ever led to an International. The guiding principle of history is not blending, but diversity and difference. That has always been so, always will be. Fighting is what shapes peoples and nations, and anyone who refuses to fight is doomed. „You may say, that is terrible — that’s the way it is; we have to come to terms with it, and to fight. History is shaped by eternal laws of nature, not by placatory Marxist phrases.
„Nature loves diversity, not uniformity. It does not want a homogenous porridge of mankind — it wants mankind composed of many different peoples and races, among which the strongest will ever hold its own against the weak. „We have recognized this fact, and are willing to act accordingly in order to help our German nation forge the weapons it needs in the struggle for existence on this Earth, so that it can assert itself in this world of struggle and of triumph of the stronger over the weaker.
„That’s what we call being nationalistic!“
„This future will be ours, or it will not be at all.
„Liberalism will die so that Socialism may live.
„Marxism will die so that Nationalism may live.
„And then we will shape the new Germany — the nationalistic,Socialist Third Reich!“
See also the 1938 book Germany Speaks. here.
Also view Mark Collett’s views on Capitalism. Mark Collett on Capitalism: https://www.bitchute.com/video/iN7iizt2HjKN/ also see his book which also covers this topic.
The below are photos of the pages from Vol. I of ‘Hitler’s Speeches’ or ‘The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922 – August 1939.
Further informational images follows…
Vol I title page
Vol. II cover.
Vol. II title page
RARE BOOK CLUB crowd funded for donations to purchase a professional book scanner (£700) so they could then offer these books in a PDF format at a nominal fee.
Vol. I and II covers