March 31, 2002 Posen Speech Full Text Relevant passages are quoted below.
As I prepared this book list, I searched diligently for some worthwhile writings from the Third Reich. Alas, it was not to be. The Third Reich left few intellectual guideposts for understanding our plight and mapping future courses of action.
The lack of any meaningful intellectual analysis of racial interactions from the Third Reich is stunning and surprising.
Mein Kampf is a dreadful tome. Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century is too.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain's stuff is interesting, but ultimately not very satisfying pound for pound and page for page.
The cruel irony is that the best explanation of National Socialism was written by an American long after the collapse of the Third Reich. It is a marvelously insightful book with the dreadfully humiliating title of "White Power", authored by George Lincoln Rockwell (see http://www.americannaziparty.com/WP/WPcont.htm and also http://www.americannaziparty.com/TTTW/TTTWcont.htm
Probably the best and most engaging discussion of Fascism and National Socialism is set forth in the biography of Sir Oswald Moseley by Robert Skidelsky see http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p134_Stimely.html).
However there is one relatively short text produced during the Third Reich that stands out like a brilliant exploding star in the heavens. It stands out not because of its complexity of conceptual analysis but for the dead on accuracy of its observation. Those observations have clear contemporary relevance.
I had some difficulty deciding whether to place this text under Popular Delusions, or under the Dispossessed Majority. But it seems clear that the Posen speech sets forth a series of factual and attitudinal observations that bear on two very important long cycle delusions of Western Europeans. First and most important is our inability to recognize the dual code that seems so obviously a part of the basic mental equipment of the rest of humanity. The consequence of our inability to understand the dual code is our powerful tendency to sacrifice ourselves in the name of theoretical abstractions or for the interests of some competing group. A second long cycle delusion is the idea that we may escape our competitive defects as a people by using the power of the state.
The truth is that we are going to have to reform ourselves from the bottom up, individual by individual - to take the vaccine, so to speak, at our own pace - or be subjected to a rapid, forced and very painful administration of the vaccine at the hands of our competitors in the gulag of multi-cultural violence and cultural decline they are creating for us.
One of the great unexplained mysteries of the universe is the utter lack of resistance by the German people to the propaganda of the Allies following WW-2. When I say "resistance," I do not mean armed resistance. Rather, I mean passive cultural and economic resistance that would have nominally accepted the Allied agenda and institutions, but would have automatically and reflexively subverted those imposed forms and institutions in such a manner as to leave the German people in control of their own evolutionary destiny.
After all, Japan went through a similar occupation but remained a racial nation very much in control of its own culture and evolutionary destiny. The contrast is striking.
Following the War, Germany had a mere 20,000 members of the inner party. Even today, they number a mere 80,000 or so, far too few to police behavior within the German elites as they do in the United States.
But following the war, the German people warmly embraced Allied propaganda about their collective guilt, and the uniqueness of their crimes against humanity. Germany now pays the equivalent of our Social Security old age benefits to nearly 4 million inner party "holocaust victims", a staggering and wildly implausible number given their age, the normal decrease due to mortality, and the fact that no more than 3.5 million inner party ever came under the control of Germany during WW-2.
In addition, Germany pays approximately 10 billion dollars per year in foreign aid to one of the richest nations on earth - Israel - so that the Inner Party can do to the Palestinians what it accuses Germany of doing to them over 60 years ago.
This collective behavior is all the more bizarre, as it would have been relatively easy for Germans to discover the truth simply by asking the tens of thousands of guards and other low level functionaries who staffed the various chambers of horror claimed by the Allies about their experiences. The 5 year jail sentences that the puppet government adopted at the command of the Allies to prevent these survivors from contradicting Allied propaganda could never have stopped a widespread underground effort at compiling, preserving and propagating the truth.
But remarkably, the German people seemed to adopt the Allied war propaganda of massive collective guilt for unspeakable crime as its core collective identity and as its central and unifying national mythos.
The Germans had no functional equivalent of Nathan Bedford Forrest following WW-2.
It is no accident that the Protestant Reformation/Revolution began in Germany.
The Catholic notion of forgiveness was insupportable. Sin was immortal and could not be forgiven - ever!
Salvation could come only if each German nailed himself to a cross and perished for his sins.
Religions spread and flourish not because of their historical or theological truth, but because they are consistent with the pre-existing evolutionary psychology of the adopting group.
As Christianity drifted northward from the Mediterranean it changed in fundamental ways.
The dual code - amity and forbearance toward ones own kind and enmity towards competing groups was a given among all of Christ's contemporaries in the Eastern Mediterranean.
In Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, Christ is speaking to his followers and announces a very stringent moral code of turning the other cheek and walking the extra mile. He uses the word "brother" throughout to make clear that this code of amity is to be applied to within-group relations. It is a code of amity so demanding that only the most committed would join, thus reinforcing group boundaries. He announced a code of sexual morality so stringent as to guarantee the genetic separation of the group for generations.
In contrast to the mosaic law with its jealous god and collective guilt and punishment, the concept of sin announced by Christ was purely individual, for violation of the rules of amity that govern within-group relationships.
Central to this notion of individual sin for breach of an exacting code of in-group amity was the expansive and generous notion of forgiveness, allowing a group member to remain within the group despite breaches of that exacting code.
Christ's code for dealing with the competing out-groups - the Pharisees (followers of the Babylonian Talmud) and Levites - both of which are attempting to kill him and his followers - is equally clear.
In Matthew 23 he calls them the "sons of hell" - the very personification of evil. When he encounters them in public Christ is deceptive and evasive, answering them with riddles and questions - ever mindful of the boundaries between speech that will allow him to continue his mission and speech that might get him killed prematurely - before he was ready to sacrifice himself for the individual sins of his followers and to reinforce their group identity.
Christ inhabits a multi-cultural world, a world of competing tribal groups seeking to displace and kill their rivals.
All of this was clearly understood by Christians for the first three centuries following Christ's death. The stringency of the moral code applicable to within-group relations was carefully balanced by the generous notions of forgiveness - all isolating mechanisms which conferred a practical survival advantage upon being Christian during the decline of the Roman Empire.
But as Christianity moved North, Matthew 23 became utterly incomprehensible.
The conspicuous lack of any reference by Christ to forgiveness of Pharisees and Levites would have been interpreted by any native of the Levant as compelling evidence that they were competing and hostile tribes at war with Christ and his followers. But as Christianity moved North, Pharisees and Levites were transformed from permanently hostile racial enemies into temporary aggregations of individuals possessed of erroneous thoughts.
And as individual states of mind are transitory, the existence of Pharisees and Levites hundreds or thousands of years earlier could have no contemporary relevance.
Christ's rants about Pharisees and Levites came to appear as inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount, and Christianity became obsessed with translation to attempt to shed light on these inconsistencies.
The critical words "neighbor" "alien" "sojourner" and "brother" are used hundreds of times and their meaning is absolutely clear from the context, if one is willing to see it. Accurate translation is not the problem.
Similarly, the extent to which Christ was repudiating vast tracts of the Old Testament as "laws of men" in his testy and evasive exchanges with his tribal enemies became incomprehensible to the linear thought patterns of the northern European.
The Christ who advocated turning the other cheek in Matthew 5 became completely inconsistent with the violent and aggressive Christ who grabbed a whip and drove the money changers from the temple by force in John 2, 15. Once you understand that Christ operated under the dual code, then the inconsistency disappears.
But once you recognize that Christ lived according to the dual code, then if you are a Christian, you must adopt the dual code yourself, and that is a difficult stretch for our Northern Europeans.
Sin and forgiveness also changed as Christianity moved North.
Sin was no longer the violation of rules that applied to relations within an extended group based on blood relations, but became violations of an abstract and universal code similar in its reach and operation to Newtonian laws of physics.
Sin was not conditional and local but cosmic and eternal, with the scream of its offense extending to the very edges of the universe - and the memory of violation of Christ's law surviving in the vast and expansive universe for an eternity.
Likewise forgiveness became problematic and irrational. It was transformed from the emotional reaction one would expect from an uncle or cousin, anxious to reaffirm the values of the group and strengthen that group by rehabilitating a valuable member, into something unbounded by any human experience.
How could one atone for violation of an abstract and universal truth without eternal and boundless suffering and sacrifice? What Catholicism had taken for granted for centuries became ever so problematic to the Northern European mind.
The problem we face is not with Christianity, but with our own evolutionary psychology.
And with that as background, it is time to transport ourselves back to October 4, 1943 and join the annual conference of SS officers, listening to their chief, Heinrich Himmler.
Himmler's Posen speech represents the MOMENT OF RECOGNITION - that unique point in European history when a major leader clearly looks in the mirror and recognizes the problematic evolutionary psychology of the German people (including himself).
Everyone who cares about the survival of our race needs to internalize the lessons which Himmler began to grasp too late.
Professor Ginzberg in "The Fatal Embrace" correctly notes that the policy of Germany towards the inner party was something of a disorganized "CF" (a military term). On one side were Goebbels and Ernst Rohm, who advocated direct and violent mob action by the people of Germany. On the other were Himmler and Goering, who were conscious of international opinion and wished to avoid encouraging habits of street violence and uncivilized behavior among the German people, preferring instead to let the state handle the problem with asset confiscations, anti-miscegenation laws, disenfranchisement and, ultimately, resettlement of the inner party to some other part of the World.
Following Bismark's example, Himmler believed in the power of the centralized state to solve all problems. The bureaucracy would handle the problem quietly, in as humane a manner as possible given the nature of the mission, and keep the solution largely out of the view of the German population.
By 1943 it was clear that Germany might lose the war, and Himmler had this to say to his SS officers:
"The domestic front
"I now come to another aspect of this war, the domestic front. Some of the German people, namely the older men drafted, are now doing their second four-year world war. The German people were already very tense *gespannt*, years before the war, because of the armaments, the Four Year Plan, the recovery of Austria, the Sudetenland, and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia.
"There can be no doubt that hostile propaganda is now streaming and trickling into the German people from many sides. We are unfortunately unable to screen off hostile broadcasters entirely, or in any manner worth mentioning. The temptation has grown to listen to hostile broadcasters, who achieve better psychological effects than we do, sometimes, unfortunately, very good ones.
"As in all cases in which a prohibition or law cannot be given the emphasis of enforcement by executive authority and punishment, the effect of the prohibition is harmful to authority; that is true in this case as well. We have, of course, prohibited listening to hostile broadcasters, but we were not, and are not, able to punish violations of this prohibition in any meaningful way. Today we pay somewhat more attention to it to some extent, since, when Mr. Badoglio committed his piece of piggery, when treason ran amuck in Europe, the result was naturally a wave of defeatism in Germany. Shortly before, after the air attacks on Hamburg, a mood of crisis prevailed in many cities, which were, particularly our beloved capital of Berlin, almost panicky for days, until the mood calmed down and leveled off again.
"As a result of listening to foreign broadcasters, talk then circulated through the channels which always exist, even in a great people, "Oh God, we can no longer win the war. Wouldn't it be better therefore", etc. etc. Then came this highly interesting remark: "Ah, a Duce can be arrested, how interesting". When the Duce was arrested I said to myself, now we've really got to watch it. The people who think that's so interesting, they interest me.
"Since that time, as you may note from the reports from the Reichsministry of Justice, and you will continue to note over the coming few weeks, Mr. Administrative Advisor so and so, and Mr. Factory Owner so and so, and Mr. Waiter, and Mr. Chauffeur, and Mr. Plumber, and Mr. Employee, have all had their pretty little heads cut off and placed between their feet for damaging the morale of the German people as defeatists, for disintegrating the powers of resistance of the German people, and for treason. It's really not important for us to kill anyone. If we really had to shoot as many people as all that, or as many as I'd have to, it would get increasingly difficult to sign a death sentence.
"When I was appointed Reichsminister of the Interior, everybody said (since it's so awfully easy to say), "Mister, hit hard, stay tough. The German people expect terrible severity from you". I'm already severe, I don't need any admonitions. It's very easy to say something like that, but a death sentence means eternal misery for a whole family; it means bringing shame on a name which was once honorable. Imagine for a moment what it will mean to the children and grandchildren of that family, when it is later said (you must always visualize these things as they will look 10 or 15 years after the war): "The father of this family was beheaded for high treason during the Great War, which involved the fate of the Germanic nation". (In the distant future, everything we do today will look heroic. Human weaknesses will then be forgotten. All the cowards will have died off in the meantime, and in the end everybody will be considered a hero). Such a family will be shamed for all time.
"I know all that. I know how hard it is; and I therefore try to restrict the necessary educational measures.
"I know that there's a great deal of theft in Germany, that the concept of private property has been much weakened by suffering, and by the relaxation of all moral standards such as always happens in war, or due to a poor upbringing of the German people in this regard. I can't catch every thief, I'll never catch them all. I don't even want to catch them all, otherwise I'd have to arrest too many thousands of people. I'll never catch every defeatist. I'm perfectly well aware that, in one or two years, when the divisions and regiments withdraw into their garrisons -- some of the older veterans having been wounded up to 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 times, while the rest no longer march with us because they lie under the grass; when, I hope, a still decent part of the old SS once again marches back to Germany, I know that many thousands will applaud us then, and perhaps feel themselves to have been much more heroic than we were, or -- we don't think of ourselves as heroic -- more decent than we were.
"It will always be like that. I don't mind. We shouldn't mind either. We should never lose our sense of humor. It is, however, necessary to set an example for the number of cowards who can be found among every people. It is, God knows, unfortunately true that these cowards are always found in the upper, rather than the lower or middle, ranks of a people. Intellect obviously ruins the character in some manner, at least as regards the formation of will and energy. It's enough for me, for such education, if I always grab one out of 100 of the defeatists who later cry "hurrah", and lay his head between his feet. Then the others will shut up for a quarter of a year. Then all the little mommies will say, "For God's sake, don't get yourself killed, don't make us unhappy. Somebody we know was recently beheaded. It's in the newspapers. So just keep quiet, cry 'hurrah' very loud".
"Good, let him; we've achieved our objective. We could never storm a fort or a front line position with a person like that anyway. We know that anyway. But the main thing is to keep them from hurting our decent people. Insofar as is necessary, action will be taken brutally and mercilessly. None of us enjoys that. Although we don't like it, you must act mercilessly, gentlemen, without regard to family relationships, or acquaintance, or class, or possible previous earlier service; without regard to whether he is a party comrade or not, when the fate of the nation so requires. Always go after a big fish rather than a little one who's stupid and has been fooled. The domestic front will always be in order if we have the nerve to keep it in order, although it gives us no pleasure to take action personally.
"The evacuation of the Jews
"I want to mention another very difficult matter here before you in all frankness. Among ourselves, it ought to be spoken of quite openly for once; yet we shall never speak of it in public. Just as little as we hesitated to do our duty as ordered on 30 June 1934, and place comrades who had failed against the wall and shoot them, just as little did we ever speak of it, and we shall never speak of it. It was a matter of course, of tact, for us, thank God, never to speak of it, never to talk of it. It made everybody shudder; yet everyone was clear in his mind that he would do it again if ordered to do so, and if it was necessary.
"I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the wiping out *Ausrottung* of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be wiped out" *wird ausgerottet*, says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination *Ausschaltung* of the Jews, wiping out *Ausrottung*; that's what we're doing." And then they all come along, these 80 million good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew. Of course, it's quite clear that the others are pigs, but this one is one first-class Jew. Of all those who speak this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained decent, that has made us hard. This is a chapter of glory in our history which has never been written, and which never shall be written; since we know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as secret saboteurs, agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in every city -- during the bombing raids, with the suffering and deprivations of the war. We would probably already be in the same situation as in 1916/17 if we still had the Jews in the body of the German people.
"The riches they had, we've taken away from them. I have given a strict order, which SS Group Leader Pohl has carried out, that these riches shall, of course, be diverted to the Reich without exception. We have taken none of it. Individuals who failed were punished according to an order given by me at the beginning, which threatened: he who takes even one mark of it, that's his death. A number of SS men -- not very many -- have violated that order, and that will be their death, without mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people which wanted to kill us *dieses Volk, dass uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen*
"But we don't have the right to enrich ourselves even with one fur, one watch, one mark, one cigarette, or anything else. Just because we uprooted *ausgerottet* a bacillus, after all, doesn't mean we want to be infected by the bacillus and die. I will never permit even one little spot of corruption to arise or become established here. Wherever it may form, we shall burn it out together. In general, however, we can say that we have carried out this most difficult task out of love for our own people. And we have suffered no harm to our inner self, our soul, our character in so doing."
It would appear from the above two passages that the Third Reich has a serious problem.
Its people seem to be lacking some very basic survival skills. First, a unified race equipped with the dual code would not only ask the obvious question "why is this wartime propaganda being directed at me - who financed it and who benefits?," but they would also enforce the concensus prohibition against listening to the broadcasts by exerting massive social pressure on their errant comrades to stop. The state should not need to take an active role at all.
Indeed, even if the Germans were to decide to surrender and then commence passive resistance thereafter, this decision should not be subject to the influence of enemy propaganda. Indeed, it should have been obvious to every German in the land that no matter how bad things were, they could never be "better off" under the domination of an alien, and so the temptation to listen to the alien's propaganda should not even arise. Such a temptation could only arise if there were no social or other costs associated with selling out to the alien.
The powerful impression left by Himmler is that the German people are in fact an atomized de-tribalized, de-racinated group of individuals, similar to our own beloved Euro-American sheeple, and not a nation at all.
This impression becomes overwhelming in the second passage concerning the uprooting of the inner party.
Himmler complains that while "80 million good Germans" (a number equal to their entire population) may agree with ethnic cleansing as an abstract or conceptual proposition, once the SS or police start rounding them up, it seems that all "80 million good Germans" have a personal relationship with at least one inner party member and will complain and cry for an exemption for him.
Himmler goes on to note that even in wartime, when the SS has to see 500 or 1000 corpses of their fallen comrades and stand firm in their resolve, the average German sees none of that and would just as soon have a "fifth column" in their midst making the problem worse. That is the matter about which Himmler would "never speak publicly."
Himmler is saying that the German people are utterly incapable of imagining that neighbors who smile in their faces from day to day as they meet in public, nevertheless work tirelessly in private to ensure their subordination and demise as soon as the last German leaves the room.
In other words they were incapable of defending themselves in a multi-cultural society.
It follows that they are helpless against aggression from aliens among them without the State to intervene defend them. It is left to the state to enforce the essential tribal values of internal cohesion and separation from the alien.
And therein lies the central problem confronting all Euro-American nationalists.
As Himmler is beginning to recognize in the passages above, the state is poor substitute for group survival instincts in the people themselves.
Otherwise, the state is forced to meddle in every aspect of peoples lives, as it must concern itself to supply all the deficiencies of their behavior. Thus the state is forced to become "totalitarian," becoming bogged down in endless trivia which it cannot, as Himmler admits, effectively police.
I would suggest that the state is much better at preparing and administering the cultural vaccine for its people than it is at regulating the minutiae of behavior necessary to avoid displacement and subjugation at the hands of aliens. If the people have all taken the vaccine and know what to do, then the government is free to concentrate on what it does best, namely carefully shaping the external environment in such a way as to provide the vaccine to related nations as well, a task which becomes much easier if the government does not always need to be on a war footing.
I am hard on Hitler and the Third Reich. After all, the Second World War made a generation of Euros from around the world fight a war in the name of human equality and to protect the alien communist murderers of our European kinsmen in Russia and the Ukraine. Forced to risk their lives for that particular delusion, the WW-2 generation naturally adopted it as their own. It was the American WW-2 vets who started minority hiring preferences, and all sorts of integration schemes as soon as they returned from combat, and it was they who refused to purge our communist racial enemies and their sympathizers from the American government, entertainment industry, and academia - thus transforming America's institutions into alien infested towers of babel committed to the displacement and disintegration of the Euro-American people.
WW-2 was not only a disaster for Germany but a disaster for all of European civilization. Sadly, its deleterious effects are still with us, accreting mass and power even as a new millenium dawns.
With all of the new research coming from Russia to the effect that Stalin was planning his own invasion, perhaps my condemnation is too harsh. Indeed, Himmler and the rest had very little time or space for maneuver.
But damn it, they had seen this movie before and they didn't prepare any vaccine!
I cannot understand how any literate human could read Pakenham's history of the Boer War and yet fail to deduce some incredibly important geopolitical conclusions.
First was the clear lesson of just how murderous a supposedly civilized army could behave once enlisted to defend the interests of a handfull of inner party mine owners and financiers living in Southern Africa.
Once Britain encountered the Boers in combat, they discovered not a national or imperial army of conscripts - an army who's commander would give up after it was clear that his resources were overmatched, but rather bands of soldiers fighting for the self determination of their people - bands of soldiers who would never give up.
So very quickly, the British began burning the Boer farms and herding Boer women and children into concentration camps. More women and children died than Boer soldiers. Boer solders who were captured in battle were shot. None survived.
Now in this particular case, the survival of England wasn't threatened in the slightest. The stakes for Britain were entirely financial and relatively modest. Nevertheless, when the British encountered this small, fiercely independent European Protestant tribe, and found them fighting as a people to preserve that independence, all the rules of civilized warfare and humanity went right out the window. On the spot, Britain invented concentration camps for a civilian population, and resorted to a savagery which including murdering prisoners of war - all carefully calculated to keep the cost of the war commensurate with its modest benefits.
This case history from 1898 should have set off alarm bells thoughout Germany and, indeed, throughout the NSDAP long before it came to power.
The first lesson is that nothing so informs the rage of a universalist egalitarian than a European self determination movement.
All the rules of civilization go out the window. And this makes perfect sense, if you stop and think about it. Egalitarian universalists seek world domination. The ultimate threat to that dream and to their sense of self worth is a particularist revolt by their native populations, insisting that the egalitarian universalists represent the interests of their own people. In that event, the dream of world domination goes right out the window.
Himmler had a clear duty not only to the German people, but to the rest of us as well, to understand the full implications of the Boer War.
And indeed, the Boer War shatters forever the illusion of historical determinism - the notion that wars are the inevitable consequence of economic interests.
The Boer War was provoked by no more than a dozen men.
The few individuals who wanted war, Barnato (Issacs) , Beit, Wertheim and the rest of the IP gang were well known to the Boers. They lobbied the legislatures of the Boer Republics and certainly disclosed exactly what they wanted and why.
They then staged and armed coup, which the Boers easily defeated. But then the Boers set the conspirators free and did absolutely nothing to the IP gang of sponsors.
Being thus encouraged by the lack of any personal costs associated with plotting violence against the Boers, Issacs, Beit, Wertheim and the rest of the IP gang lobbied Britain to conquer the Boers.
It was all so predictable.
What the Boers failed to realize is that these international capitalists are the most risk sensitive and risk averse people on earth. They are the most powerfully motivated by reward and punishment, constantly calculating odds and payoffs from various courses of action. Their behavior is thus easier to change than that of any other group or class of citizen.
Once it is made clear that they will be the very first casualties of any effort to foment war, they will become pacifists. Life for them is about opportunities and costs, profit and loss. It is not about sacrificing one's life.
Economists and historians argue that the economic and cultural differences between the North and South in the U.S. made civil war inevitable in 1860.
Not so. The economic and cultural difference made disagreement inevitable, but such disagreement had several possible outcomes, including allowing the South to secede and go its own way. War was far from inevitable. It was not popular with the voters.
Rather, it was approximately 25 railroad barons, four war governor politicians and one very famous president who they financed that made war "inevitable". Once the confederacy surrendered and the long lines of the railroad barons were secured, the carpetbaggers were withdrawn and Nathan Bedford Forrest and his followers were left free to organize the Southern States in pretty much any fashion they desired.
Had one or more of the Southern states had the foresight to figure out precisely who had a compelling interest to lobby for war prior to 1860, and to form an intelligence service capable of imposing the ultimate cost on those lobbying for war, others of a like mind would have adopted less aggressive methods of doing business.
Same with the Boer War. The untimely deaths of five or six international capitalists would have had a powerful demonstrative effect on anyone else inclined to lobby for war.
War is only inevitable if those who profit from it are allowed to avoid the same kinds of personal costs imposed on the typical infantry rifleman. If those who stand to profit know they will become the first casualties, war becomes a highly improbable last resort.
The world of 1933 was more complex than that of 1860 or 1898, with many more players and more moving parts.
But Germany in 1933 was a far more capable nation with vastly greater resources. It could have found ways to match the political contributions of the inner party dollar for dollar throughout Britain and the U.S. It could have identified, encouraged and subsidized allies in the U.S. radio and film industries. It could have identified and eliminated particularly dangerous and deceptive wirepullers, including Roosevelt, before they could manipulate the United States into joining a war which 70% of the voters opposed.
I would be less hard on the failure of the Third Reich had Hitler and Himmler begun to prepare and distribute the vaccine.
Alas they did not.
But ultimately, the issue of blame is largely irrelevant and our duties at this point in time are quite clear.
We must recognize that our 250 year delusion of the universal brotherhood of man, coupled with the secularization of Christianity following the Enlightenment has provided the inner party with two opportunities which they have exploited with consummate skill and craft.
On our own initiative, we replaced explicitly Christian notions of individual sin and guilt with a new secular notion of collective sin arising from human inequality, an offense against the universal brotherhood of man.
Next, we transformed forgiveness from something the individual must earn into something which the modern state must purchase, through symbolic gestures or payment of tribute. It is all now beyond our individual control and beyond our individual responsibility, except for the duty to cavil at our fellow citizens for their insufficient devotion to the ideal of human equality.
What the inner party has done is to lever this secularized and throughly modern ritual required by our innate evolutionary psychology into a source of endless and costly tribute to themselves. We can expiate our sin and attain forgiveness only by ceding control of our inherently sinful society to the inner party and then paying them very generous amounts of tribute.
It is a stable system only so long as the industrial economy of the West can generate a surplus sufficient to satisfy the inner party while still providing tangible benefits to the outer party, and only so long as our subordination to their power and authority does not become too crudely visible.
The system of tribute is the price of their participation in our "religion of civility, " a unique inner party contribution undetected or unremarked by John Murray Cuddihy in his work "No Offense; Civil Religion and Protestant Taste".
Second, the secularization of sin into offenses against human equality has given the inner party the opportunity to degrade the culture, thereby creating a void which we have an opportunity to fill.
We have a European evolutionary psychology in search of a belief system.
It will be far easier to make our people feel guilty about the consequences to our less fortunate brethren of this inner party degradation of our culture, than it will be to motivate them to stand up for their own collective self interest. Indeed, by ceding control of our society to those Christ clearly identified as the "sons of hell" we are guilty and responsible for the misery and degradation of Euro-American culture that follows and for any economic catastrophe caused by the inner party.
And for this insight we are, at least in part, indebted to Heinrich Himmler. He was the first to take that belated look in the mirror.
He was the very first to observe that acceptance of racial nationalism as an abstract theory had little practical effect on the German people. Acceptance of the ideology of racial nationalism did nothing to make his job of administering internal security easier. The German people behaved like an atomized de-racinated collection of individuals.
After defeat, they would abandon the ideology of racial nationalism and would lack the basic capacity to defend themselves in the face of Allied propaganda - lacking also the basic ability to compete effectively for survival in a multi-cultural society.
Heinrich Himmler belatedly came to recognize that the power of the modern state and its bureaucracy was limited. It is merely one tool among many.
Survival of a people depends upon endless successive triumphs of the collective will of the people themselves. It does not depend upon the will of any particular leader or the survival of any particular state.
(c) 2002 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.