The Fuhrer's Challenge
Posted by Robert Ransdell on: 2010-11-06 23:15:16
ADV Broadcast Of November 6, 2010
Hello, and welcome back to another edition of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of North America’s foremost racialist organization, the National Alliance. I’m your host and the Chairman of the National Alliance, Erich Gliebe.
I’ve said many times that the worldview of the National Alliance is NOT a mirror image of the worldview of the German National Socialists of the middle of the last century. There are many, many similarities, but to say that Our Cause today is identical to the struggle waged by the National Socialists is incorrect.
For one thing, the German National Socialists were much more concerned about Communism as a concrete political movement than we are. In the United States today, although the ideas of Communism are still very much alive, the fear that the Communist Party might take over the government and institute a tyranny like that seen in Russia for most of the 20th Century is nonexistent. Communism is an ideological obstacle for us today, but it is not a political obstacle.
That wasn’t the case in post-World War I Germany. Few people realize just how close Germany was to collapsing under the terror of the Red Beast after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. After destroying the German war effort through strikes and terrorism – which led directly to the Kaiser’s decision to pursue peace with the Entente powers – the Reds formed armed brigades throughout Germany, taking over local government buildings and spreading a paralyzing fear in the civilian population throughout much of the year 1919. It was only after German soldiers who had returned home from the Western Front and who saw the horror that threatened to overwhelm Germany that any sort of resistance to the Red terror was organized. That resistance was weak and sporadic at first, and it took the iron hand of Gustav Noske and the nationalist freikorps to prevent in Germany a Communist takeover like what happened in Russia.
Incidentally, nearly every single one of the Bolshevik leaders in post-war Germany was a Jew, the most well-known one being Rosa Luxemburg, who was eventually beaten to death with rifle butts and dumped into a river after being captured by German nationalists. Noske knew that the only way to break the grip that the Jewish Red Terror had on Germany was to use equal or greater terror...which he did, and he might just have saved Germany in the process. But that’s another story.
But in the United States today, we don’t have to deal with gangs of bloodthirsty Communists like the National Socialists experienced firsthand. We have other bloodthirsty gangs – and many observers have predicted that America will eventually descend into a state of chaos similar to that which engulfed post-World War I Germany – but the formal political movement of Communism is the least of our worries. Our biggest worry, which brings up another difference between us and the German National Socialists of the 1930s, is the race problem.
Except for a couple million Jews and perhaps a handful of gypsies, Germany during the 1920s and 1930s was populated by – of all things – Germans. Yes, the Jews were a problem and, yes, many Germans had given up their pride and hung their heads in shame as a result of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, a treaty that supposedly ended the First World War, but actually did nothing more than guarantee that a second destructive war would soon follow.
But the race issue in 1920s Germany wasn’t nearly as critical as it is in the United States today. The issues we face today – miscegenation, the aging of the White population, and the breakdown of White racial esprit de corps due to a huge and pervasive non-White presence – were essentially non-issues for Hitler and his compatriots. In that sense, today’s Germany of the 21st Century, too, is quite different from the Germany of a century ago: the non-White presence in Germany today – mainly Turkish and Middle Eastern but also, to some extent, African – is a fearful development for that country.
So although our programs, policies, and exact goals today do not coincide precisely with those of the German National Socialists of the last century, we do share many common goals with them. Like them, we demand freedom from all Jewish influence because, like them, we see that influence as being alien and harmful to us: physically, economically, and spiritually. Like the German National Socialists, we demand a folkish state that puts the biological connection between men above all the other ways that men can be connected, such as religion, vocation, or socio-economic level. Like the German National Socialists, we demand that all elements of the folkish state – government, media, industry, schools, as well as every single individual – work as a single organism to maintain the health and well-being of the entire people. We demand a folkish state based on what might be called “monoracial altruism” – the altruism that every White citizen will express for his fellow White citizens and for the entire White race.
And because we share much of our ideology with the National Socialists, it’s a good idea for us to pay attention to what worked for them. Because times have changed over the years, we might find that their tactics might not work exactly for us today, but it’s still good to make note of their tactics. And the good news is that because the basic psychology of White people hasn’t changed much, the mental perspective of the audience that the German National Socialists were targeting is more-or-less the same as that of our target audience today.
For that reason, it is wise for us to pay attention not only to WHAT they did, but also to WHY they did it. After all, the National Socialists created a racial and spiritual revolution in Germany that is unparalleled in modern history. Led by the National Alliance, the White Racialist Cause today seeks to equal and eventually surpass the German revolution of the 1930s. That’s a tall order, and we have a lot of work to do, but maybe if we look back and think a little bit, Adolf Hitler himself might be able to point out a few things that might move us ahead.
The best place to look for guidance on questions about German National Socialist ideology is, of course, Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Written while Hitler was serving time in prison and first published in 1924, the book was modified only slightly during Hitler’s lifetime, and – untarnished by time – it remains a beacon of sanity in an insane world. While the specific personalities, political parties, and even nations and states have faded into history, the ideas contained in the work are far from obsolete, and are in fact as relevant today as they were to Hitler and his contemporaries.
If you haven’t yet read the book because you think it is just a historical account of the emergence of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (or NSDAP), I encourage you to read Hitler’s work for yourself. There are two good English translations available from National Vanguard Books, as well as a version in the original German. No patriot can expect to fully understand the vexing problems of the present without a strong familiarity with Hitler’s epic work.
What I’d like to do today is to take a few ideas from Mein Kampf, elaborate on them a bit, and then suggest how we might incorporate those ideas into what we’re doing. As I mentioned above, it’s a good idea to, every once in a while, step back from the rush of our present work in Our Cause and to take some time to reflect on the ideas and tactics that brought success to those who came before us. That’s true in our daily lives outside of the Cause, I know, and so I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to benefit in our racial struggle from a little reflective time.
First off, it’s a well-known fact in racialist circles that many White people decide against contributing to Our Cause because they believe all of the lies about racialism being immoral. They see immorality in our opposition to the present government, and they see immorality in our demands for racial self-determination. Even if a part of them, down deep, leans toward the tiniest bit of racial loyalty, they still accept the false notion that White racialism is wicked. After all, that’s what the churches say; that’s what the schools say; that’s what the news anchors and the movies and the sitcoms say. Mom and Dad probably say that, too. With so many people appearing to agree about the immoral nature of racialist beliefs, these wafflers reason, who are they to stand up and say otherwise? Hitler has an answer:
“There can be no such thing as state authority as an end in itself, for, if there were, every tyranny in this world would be unassailable and sacred.”
That is essentially the logic used by the Founding Fathers of the United States to justify their throwing-off of the yoke of British rule to form an independent nation. Don’t contradict yourself by praising the Founding Fathers and, at the same time, condemning the National Socialists for taking the same stance on existing state authority.
Hitler then goes on to address a related concern: “If, by the instrument of governmental power, a nationality is led toward its destruction, then rebellion is not only the right of every member of such a people – it is his duty.” How many millions of Americans bemoan the destruction of the American Indian and his way of life, and how many millions firmly agree that the Indians were morally justified in resisting the White seizure of the land? Well, we racialists look at the same question from the White perspective. Today, our way of life and our very existence are threatened, and our choice is to resist. Metaphorically, we are in “fight or flight” mode, and there is nowhere left to run. No; the “immorality” argument against White racialism is no argument at all. We ARE in the right, and that’s all there is to it.
In several of my recent broadcasts, we’ve touched on some ideas regarding the White masses and White leadership. We’ve talked about where these groups fit into the scheme of things in Our Cause today. In Mein Kampf, Hitler also discusses both groups, and it is instructive to consider his perspectives.
With regard to the leadership class, which Hitler describes with the adjective “bourgeois” – a term that would have been very familiar to his readers, since the many Communists in Europe at that time also used the term in roughly the same sense – he states that, while often filled with good intentions, the “bourgeois” classes tend to lack the toughness to carry a political struggle to ultimate victory.
For example, about the Austrian Pan-German leader Georg von Schönerer, whom Hitler admired as a great thinker and an effective exponent for nationalist German ideology, Mein Kampf’s author states: “Unfortunately, he saw only to a limited extent the extraordinary limitation of the will to fight in so-called ‘bourgeois’ circles, due, if nothing else, to their economic position which makes the individual fear to lose too much and thereby holds him in check.”
I encourage those of you among my audience who are part of the modern American version of the bourgeoisie to take Hitler’s words as a challenge. Don’t accept less than total victory for Our Cause. Don’t let your ephemeral and meaningless material possessions stand between your White man’s soul and your destiny. Don’t let yourself succumb to giving anything less than everything you’ve got to our struggle. Hitler spoke the truth about the upper leadership class, but that truth applies to the group as a whole, not necessarily – if you’re a part of it – to you individually. Make the choice to join our struggle.
Besides his views on Schönerer, Hitler also offers up his insights on another man – once a mayor of Vienna, the Christian Social Party’s Dr. Karl Lueger – whose efforts were further inspiration for the future leader of the German Reich. With regard to Dr. Lueger, Hitler writes:
“He understood only too well that the political fighting power of the upper bourgeoisie at the present time was but slight and inadequate for achieving the victory of a great movement. He therefore laid the greatest stress in his political activity on winning over the classes whose existence was threatened and therefore tended to spur rather than paralyze the will to fight...
“Thus he adjusted his new party primarily to the middle class menaced with destruction, and thereby assured himself of a following that was difficult to shake, whose spirit of sacrifice was as great as its fighting power.”
You can see here Hitler’s high regard for the working classes. That regard he showed for the masses, which came forth as a new philosophy and a new social system, captured the energy of the German people like nothing else ever has.
After showing that the masses must be a crucial part of any successful political movement, Hitler then turns to the tactics required to bring about that radical social change. First, he tackles parliamentary democracy and the upper-class TALKERS that are attracted to it.
Hitler noted that modern bourgeoisie as a group tend to favor parliamentary resolutions and majority votes. Hitler makes known his distaste for such methods of softness when he writes:
“As soon as the Pan-German movement sold its soul to parliament, it attracted ‘parliamentarians’ instead of leaders and fighters.
“Thus it sank to the level of the ordinary political parties of the day and lost the strength to oppose a catastrophic destiny with the defiance of martyrdom.”
Hitler asserted again and again that the legislative house was the end of political movements that seek to bring about sweeping changes in society. Debating in the safe confines of the legislature leads to the compromise of a movement’s ideals and results in a meshing of dumbed-down ideals with those of rival groups within the legislature. The upshot is the complete disinterest of the class that has the hardiness and single-mindedness of purpose to carry to the end any political movement: the masses.
Hitler gives high compliments to the masses in Mein Kampf. Among other things, he states that a movement’s political success depends completely on its passionate acceptance by the masses, when he states:
“...on the whole, a philosophy can hope for victory only if the broad masses adhere to the new doctrine and declare their readiness to undertake the necessary struggle.”
And again, about the pan-German groups and their mistakes in Austria: “If they had recognized the tremendous power which at all times must be attributed to the masses as the repository of revolutionary resistance, they would have worked differently in social and propagandist matters. Then the movement’s center of gravity would not have been shifted to parliament, but to the workshop and the street.”
The correlations between Hitler’s 1924 work and the present day go on and on in the book. It’s clear to me that the man who led the greatest White racial revolution in history still has something to say to all of us today. Through his book, beyond the grave he has challenged the members of today’s White upper class to overcome their traditional vacillation and weakness in revolutionary political matters. He has challenged the middle class and the masses to lend their redoubtable will and fighting strength to a new philosophy that seeks to vanquish the old order.
And he has challenged racialist organizations (the National Alliance included) to build not only a worldview that moves the mind and spirit – a philosophy of racial renewal – but also to build a successful political movement; that is, to not only provide the blueprint for the new White world, but also to actually build that new world that will supersede the present Jewish world.
We’ve all got work to do, on an individual level and as an organization, and there is no one better to consult for guidance than the man who dared more, believed more strongly, and fought with superhuman strength for the realization of a German folkish state and a Communist-free Europe. He succeeded against all odds, and so can we, if we set our minds and hearts to it. Join us, and together lets nourish the minds and spirits of our people, and let’s use our muscle to sweep away the old, cancerous order and those who support it.
I’m Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.