Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Mein Kampf

  1. Chapter XII: The First Period of Development of the National Socialist German Workers' Party



    IF AT THE END of this volume I describe the first period in the development of our movement and briefly discuss a number of questions it raises, my aim is not to give a dissertation on the spiritual aims of the movement. The aims and tasks of the new movement are so gigantic that they can only be treated in a special volume.
    In a second volume, therefore, I shall discuss the programmatic foundations of the movement in detail and attempt to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word 'state.' By 'us' I mean all the hundreds of thousands who fundamentally long for the same thing without as individuals finding the words to describe outwardly.

    I what they inwardly visualize; for the noteworthy fact about all reforms is that at first they possess but a single champion yet many million supporters. Their aim has often been for centuries the inner longing of hundreds of thousands, until one man stands up to proclaim such a general will, and as a standard-bearer guides the old longing to victory in the form of the new idea.

    The fact that millions bear in their hearts the desire for a basic change in the conditions obtaining today proves the deep discontent under which they suffer. It expresses itself in thousandfold manifestations with one in despair and hopelessness, with another in ill will, anger, and indignation; with this man in indifference, and with that man in furious excesses. As witnesses to this inner dissatisfaction we may consider those who are weary of elections as well as the many who tend to the most fanatical extreme of the Left.

    The young movement was intended primarily to appeal to these last. It is not meant to constitute an organization of the contented and satisfied, but to embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented, and above all it must not swim on the surface of a national body, but strike roots deep within it.In purely political terms, the following picture presented itself in 1918: a people torn into two parts.

    The one, by far the smaller, includes the strata of the national intelligentsia, excluding all the physically active. It is outwardly national, yet under this word can conceive of nothing but a very insipid and weak-kneed defense of so-called state interests, which in turn seem identical with dynastic interests.

    They attempt to fight for their ideas and aims with spiritual weapons which are as fragmentary as they are superficial, and which fail completely in the face of the enemy's brutality.

    With a single frightful blow this class, which only a short time before was still governing, is stretched on the ground and with trembling cowardice suffers every humiliation at the hands of the ruthless victor.Confronting it is a second class, the broad mass of the laboring population. It is organized in more or less radical Marxist movements, determined to break all spiritual resistance by the power of violence.

    It does not want to be national, but consciously rejects any promotion of national interests, just as, conversely, it aids and abets all foreign oppression. It is numerically the stronger and above all comprises all those elements of the nation without which a national resurrection is unthinkable and impossible.

    For in 1918 this much was clear: no resurrection of the German people can occur except through the recovery of outward power. But the prerequisites for this are not arms, as our bourgeois 'statesmen ' keep prattling, but the forces of the will. The German people had more than enough arms before.

    They were not able to secure freedom because the energies of the national instinct of self-preservation, the will for self-preservation, were lacking. The best weapon is dead, worthless material as long as the spirit is lacking which is ready, willing, and determined to use it.

    Germany became defenseless, not because arms were lacking, but because the will was lacking to guard the weapon for national survival.If today more than ever our Left politicians are at pains to point out the lack of arms as the necessary cause of their spineless, compliant, actually treasonous policy, we must answer only one thing: no, the reverse is true.

    Through your anti-national, criminal policy of abandoning national interests, you surrendered our arms. Now you attempt to represent the lack of arms as the underlying cause of your miserable villainy. This, like everything you do, is lees and falsification.

    This reproach applies just as much to the politicians on the Right. For, thanks to their miserable cowardice, the Jewish rabble that had come to power was able in 1918 to steal the nation's arms.

    They, too, have consequently no ground and no right to palm off our present lack of arms as the compelling ground for their wily caution (read ' cowardice '); on the contrary, our defenselessness is the consequence of their cowardice.Consequently the question of regaining German power is not: How shall we manufacture arms? but:

    How shall we manufacture the spirit which enables a people to bear arms? If this spirit dominates a people, the will finds a thousand ways, every one of which ends in a weapon ! But give a coward ten pistols and if attacked he will not be able to fire a single shot. And so for him they are more worthless than a knotted stick for a courageous man.

    The question of regaining our people's political power is primarily a question of recovering our national instinct of self preservation, if for no other reason because experience shows that any preparatory foreign policy, as well as any evaluation of a state as such, takes its cue less from the existing weapons than from a nation's recognized or presumed moral capacity for resistance.

    A nation1s ability to form alliances is determined much less by dead stores of existing arms than by the visible presence of an ardent national will for self-preservation and heroic death-defying courage.

    For an alliance is not concluded with arms but with men. Thus, the English nation will have to be considered the most valuable ally in the world as long as its leadership and the spirit of its byroad masses justify us in expecting that brutality and perseverance which is determined to fight a battle once begun t04 victorious end, with every means and without consideration of time and sacrifices; and what is more, the military armament existing at any given moment does not need to stand in any proportion to that of other states.

    If we understand that the resurrection of the German nation represents a question of regaining our political will for self-preservation, it is also clear that this cannot be done by winning elements which in point of will at least are already national, but only by the nationalization of the consciously anti-national masses.

    A young movement which, therefore, sets itself the goal of resurrecting a German state with its own sovereignty will have to direct its fight entirely to winning the broad masses. Wretched as our so-called ' national bourgeoisie ' is on the whole, inadequate as its national attitude seems, certainly from this side no serious resistance is to be expected against a powerful domestic and foreign policy in the future.



    Even if the German bourgeoisie, for their well-known narrow minded and short-sighted reasons, should, as they once did toward Bismarck, maintain an obstinate attitude of passive resistance in the hour of coming liberation- an active resistance, in view of their recognized and proverbial cowardice, is never to be feared.

    It is different with the masses of our internationally minded comrades. In their natural primitiveness, they are snore inclined to the idea of violence, and, moreover, their Jewish leadership is more brutal and ruthless. They will crush any German resurrection Just as they once broke the backbone of the German army.

    Above all: in this state with its parliamentary government they will, thanks to their majority in numbers, not only obstruct any national foreign policy, but also make impossible any higher estimation of the German strength, thus making us seem undesirable as an ally.

    For not only are we ourselves aware of the element of weakness lying in our fifteen million Marxists, democrats, pacifists, and Centrists; it is recognized even more by foreign countries, which measure the value of a possible alliance with us according to the weight of this burden. No one allies himself with a state in which the attitude of the active part of the population toward any determined foreign policy is passive, to say the least.

    To this we must add the fact that the leaderships of these parties of national treason must and will be hostile to any resurrection, out of mere instinct of self-preservation. Historically it is just not conceivable that the German people could recover its former position without settling accounts with those who were the cause and occasion of the unprecedented collapse which struck our state. For before the judgment seat of posterity November, 1918, will be evaluated, not as high treason, but as treason against the fatherland.

    Thus, any possibility of regaining outward German independence is bound up first and foremost with the recovery of the inner unity of our people's will.But regarded even from the purely technical point of view, the idea of an outward German liberation seems senseless as long as the broad masses are not also prepared to enter the service of this liberating idea.

    From the purely military angle, every officer above all will realize after a moment's thought that a foreign struggle cannot be carried on with student battalions, that in addition to the brains of a people, the fists are also needed. In addition, we must bear in mind that a national defense, which is based only on the circles of the so-called intelligentsia, would squander irreplaceable treasures.



    The absence of the young German intelligentsia which found its death on the fields of Flanders in the fall of 1914 was sorely felt later on. It was the highest treasure that the German nation possessed and during the War its loss could no longer be made good. Not only is it impossible to carry on the struggle itself if the storming battalions do not find the masses of the workers in their ranks; the technical preparations are also impracticable without the inner unity of our national will.

    Especially our people, doomed to languish along unarmed beneath the thousand eyes of the Versailles peace treaty, can only make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence if the army of domestic stoolpigeons is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anything and everything for the well-known thirty pieces of silvery.

    For with these we can deal. Unconquerable by comparison seem the millions who oppose the national resurrection out of political conviction-unconquerable as long as the inner cause of their opposition, the international Marxist philosophy of life, is not combated and torn out of their hearts and brains.

    Regardless, therefore, from what standpoint we examine the possibility of regaining our state and national independence, whether frost the standpoint of preparations in the sphere of foreign policy, from that of technical armament or that of battle itself,

    In every case the presupposition for everything remains the previous winning of the broad masses of our people for the idea of our national independence.Without the recovery of our external freedom, however, any internal reform, even in the most favorable case, means only the increase of our productivity as a colony.

    The surplus of all socalled economic improvements falls to the benefit of our international control commissions, and every social improvement at best raises the productivity of our work for them. No cultural advances will fall to the share of the German nation; they are too contingent on the political independence and dignity of our nation.

    Thus, if a favorable solution of the German future requires a national attitude on the part of the broad masses of our people, this must be the highest, mightiest task of a movement whose activity is not intended to exhaust itself in the satisfaction of the moment, but which must examine all its commissions and omissions solely with a view to their presumed consequences in the future.

    Thus, by 1919 we clearly realized that, as its highest aim, the new movement must first accomplish the nationalization of the masses.From a tactical standpoint a number of demands resulted from this.(1)

    To win the masses for a national resurrection, no social sacrifice is too great.Whatever economic concessions are made to our working class today, they stand in no proportion to the gain for the entire nation if they help to give the broad masses back to their nation.

    Only pigheaded short-sightedness, such as is often unfortunately found in our employer circles, can fail to recognize that in the long run there can be no economic upswing for them and hence no economic profit, unless the inner national solidarity of our people is restored.

    If during the War the German unions had ruthlessly guarded the interests of the working class, if even during the War they had struck a thousand times over and forced approval of the demands of the workers they represented on the dividend-hungry employers of those days; but if in matters of national defense they had avowed their Germanism with the same fanaticism; and if with equal ruthlessness they had given to the fatherland that which is the fatherland's, the War would not have been lost.

    How trifling all economic concessions, even the greatest, would have been, compared to the immense importance of winning the War!Thus a movement which plans to give the German worker back to the German people must clearly realize that in this question economic sacrifices are of no importance whatever as long as the preservation and independence of the national economy are not threatened by them.(2)

    The national education of the broad masses can only take place indirectly through a social uplift, since thus exclusively can those general economic premises be created which permit the individual to partake of the cultural goods of the nation.(3) The nationalization of the broad masses can never be achieved by half-measures, by weakly emphasizing a socalled objective standpoint, but only by a ruthless and fanatically onesided orientation toward the goal to be achieved.

    That is to say, a people cannot be made 'national' in the sense understood by our present-day bourgeoisie, meaning with so and so many limitations, but only nationalistic with the entire vehemence that is inherent in the extreme. Poison is countered only by an antidote, and only the shallowness of a-bourgeois mind can regard the middle course as the road to heaven.The broad masses of a people consist neither of professors nor of diplomats.

    The scantiness of the abstract knowledge they possess directs their sentiments more to the world of feeling. That is where their positive or negative attitude lies. It is receptive only to an expression of force in one of these two directions and never to a half-measure hovering between the two.

    Their emotional attitude at the same time conditions their extraordinary stability. Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth, has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses, than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward.

    Anyone who wants to win the broad masses must know the key that opens the door to their heart. Its name is not objectivity (read weakness), but will and power.(4)

    The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent of these aims.The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if not a sign of their own unriglxt.

    The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his unconditional subjection.



    The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.(5) All great questions of the day are questions of the moment and represent only consequences of definite causes.

    Only one amongall of them, however, possesses causal importance,land that is the question of the racial preservation of the nation. In the blood alone resides the strength as well as the weakness of man. As long as peoples do not recognize and give heed to the importance of their racial foundation, they are like men who would like to teach poodles the qualities of greyhounds, failing to realize that the speed of the greyhound like the docility of the poodle are not learned, but are qualities inherent in the race.

    Peoples which renounce the preservation of their racial purity renounce with it the unity of their soul in all its expressions. The divided state of their nature is the natural consequence of the divided state of their blood, and the change in their intellectual and creative force is only the effect of the change in their racial foundations.

    Anyone who wants to free the German blood from the manifestations and vices of today, which were originally alien to its nature, will first have to redeem it from the foreign virus of these manifestations.Without the clearest knowledge of the racial problem and hence of the Jewish problem there will never be a resurrection of the German nation.

    The racial question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture.(6) Organizing the broad masses of our people which are today in the international camp into a national people's community does not mean renouncing the defense of justified class interests.

    Divergent class and professional interests are not synonymous with class cleavages but are natural consequences of our economic life. Professional grouping is in no way opposed to a true national community, for the latter consists in the unity of a nation in all those questions which affect this nation as such.

    The integration of an occupational group which has become a class with the national community, or merely with the state, is not accomplished by the lowering of higher dasses but by uplifting the lower dasses. This process in turn can never be upheld by the higher class, but only by the lower class fighting for its equal rights.

    The present-day bourgeoisie was not organized into the state by measures of the nobility, but by its own energy under its own leadership.The German worker will not be raised to the framework of the German national community via feeble scenes of fraternization, but by a conscious raising of his social and cultural situation until the most serious differences may be viewed as bridged.

    A movement which sets this development as its goal will have to take its supporters primarily from this camp.' It may fall back on the intelligentsia only in so far as the latter has completely understood the goal to be achieved.

    This process of transformation and equalization will not be completed in ten or twenty years; experience shows that it comprises many generations.The severest obstade to the present-day worker's approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland.

    The same unions with a fanatical national leadership in political and national matters would make millions of workers into the most valuable members of their nation regardless of the various struggles that took place over purely economic matters.

    A movement which wants honestly to give the German worker back to his people and tear him away from the international delusion must sharply attack a conception dominant above all in employer circles, which under national community understands the unresisting economic surrender of the employee.

    To the employer and which chooses to regard any attempt at safeguarding even justified interests, regarding the employee's economic existence as an attack on the national community. Such an assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie, because the national community imposes its obligations not only on one side but also on the other.

    Just as surely as a worker sins against the spirit of a real national community when, without regard for the common welfare and the survival of a national economy, he uses his power to raise extortionate demands, an employer breaks this community to the same extent when he conducts his business in an inhuman, exploiting way, misuses the national labor force and makes millions out of its sweat.

    He then has no right to designate himself as national, no right to speak of a national community; no, he is a selfish scoundrel who induces social unrest and provokes future conflicts which whatever happens must end in harming the nation.

    Thus, the reservoir from which the young movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion, to free them from their social distress, to raise them out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor, national in feeling and desire.

    If, in the circles of the national intelligentsia, there are found men with the warmest hearts for their people and its future, imbued with the deepest knowledge of the importance of this struggle for the soul of these masses, they will be highly welcome in the ranks of this movement, as a valuable spiritual backbone.

    Winning over the bourgeois voting cattle can never be the aim of this movement. If it were, it would burden itself with a dead weight which by its whole nature would paralyze our power to recruit from the broad masses. For regardless of the theoretical beauty of the idea of leading together the broadest masses from below and from above within the framework of the movement,

    There is the opposing fact that by psychological propagandizing of bourgeois masses in general meetings, it may be possible to create moods and even to spread insight, but not to do away with qualities of character or, better expressed, vices whose development and origin embrace centuries.

    The difference with regard to the cultural level on both sides and the attitude on both sides toward questions raised by economic interests is at present still so great that, as soon as the intoxication of the meetings has passed, it would at once manifest itself as an obstacle.

    Finally, the goal is not to undertake a reskatification in the camp that is national to begin with, but to win over the antinational camp.And this point of view, finally, is determining for the tactical attitude of the whole movement.(7) This one-sided but thereby clear position must express itself in the propaganda of the movement and on the other hand in turn is required on propagandist grounds.

    If propaganda is to be effective for the movement, it must be addressed to only one quarter, since otherwise, in view of the difference in the intellectual training of the two camps in question, either it will not be understood by the one group, or by the other it would be rejected as obvious and therefore uninterestingEven the style and the tone of its individual products cannot be equally effective for two such extreme groups.

    If propaganda renounces primitiveness of expression, it does not find its way tothe feeling of the broad masses. If, however, in word and gesture, it uses the masses' harshness of sentiment and expression, it will be rejected by the so-called intelligentsia as coarse and vulgar.

    Among a hundred so-called speakers there are hardly ten capable of speaking with equal effect today before a public consisting of street.sweepers, locksmiths, sewer-cleaners, etc., and tomorrow holding a lecture with necessarily the same thought content in an auditorium full of university professors and students.

    Among a thousand speakers there is perhaps only a single one who can manage to speak to locksmiths and university professors at the same time, in a form which not only is suitable to the receptivity of both parties, but also influences both parties with equal effect or actually lashes them into a wild storm of applause. We must always bear in mind that even the most beautiful idea of a sublime theory in most cases can be disseminated only through the small and smallest minds.

    The important thing is not what the genius who has created an idea has in mind, but what, in what form, and with what success the proph ets of this idea transmit it to the broad masses.The strong attractive power of the Social Democracy, yes, of the whole Marxist movement, rested in large part on the homogeneity and hence one-sidedness of the public it addressed.

    The more seemingly limited, indeed, the narrower its ideas were, the more easily they were taken up and assimilated by a mass whose intellectual level corresponded to the material offered.Likewise for the new movement a simple and clear line thus resulted.Propaganda must be adjusted to the broad masses in content and in form, and its soundness is to be measured exdusively by its effective result.

    In a mass meeting of all classes it is not that speaker who is mentally closest to the intellectuals present who speaks best, but the one who conquers the heart of the masses.A member of the intelligentsia present at such a meeting, who carps at the intellectual level of the speech despite the speaker's obvious effect on the lower strata he has set out to conquer, proves the complete incapacity of his thinking and the worthlessness of his person for the young movement.

    It can use only that intellectual who comprehends the task and goal of the movement to such an extent that he has learned to judge the activity of propaganda according to its success and not according to the impressions which it leaves behind in himself.

    For propaganda is not intended to provide entertainment for people who are national-minded to begin with, but to win the enemies of our nationality, in so far as they are of our blood.In general those trends of thought which I have briefly summed up under the heading of war propaganda should be determining and decisive for our

    movement in the manner and execution of its own enlightenment work.That it was right was demonstrated by its success(8) The goal of a political reform movement will never be reached by enlightenment work or by influencing ruling circles, but only by the achievement of political power.

    Every world-moving idea has not only the right, but also the duty, of securing, those means which make possible the execution of its ideas. Success is the one earthly judge concerning the right or wrong of such an effort, and under success we must not understand, as in the year 1918, the achievement of power in itself, but an exercise of that power that will benefit the nation.

    Thus, a coup d'etat must not be regarded as successful if, as senseless state's attorneys in Germany think today, the revolutionaries have succeeded in possessing themselves of the state power, but only if by the realization of the purposes and aims underlying such a revolutionary action, more benefit accrues to the nation than under the past regime. Something which cannot very well be claimed for the German revolution, as the gangster job of autumn 1918, calls itself.

    If the achievement of political power constitutes the precondition for the practical execution of reform purposes, the movement with reform purposes must from the first day of its existence feel itself a movement of the masses and not a literary tea-club or a shopkeepers' bowling society.(9)

    The young movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects, in general and in its own inner structure, a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of a mere executant of other people's will and opinion.

    In little as well as big things, the movement advocates the principle of a Germanic democracy: the leader is elected, but then enjoys unconditional authority.The practical consequences of this principle in the movement are the following:The first chairman of a local group is elected, but then he is the responsible leader of the local group.

    All committees are subordinate to him and not, conversely, he to a committee. There are no electoral committees, but only committees for work. The responsible leader, the first chairman, organizes the work. The first principle applies to the next higher organization, the precinct, the district or county.

    The leader is always elected, but thereby he is vested with unlimited powers and authority. And, finally, the same applies to the leadership of the whole party. The chairman is elected, but he is the exclusive leader of the movements All committees are subordinate to him and not he to the committees. He makes the decisions and hence bears the responsibility on his shoulders.

    Members of the movement are free to call him to account before the forum of a new election, to divest him of his office in so far as he has infringed on the principles of the movement or served its interests badly. His place is then taken by an abler, new man, enjoying, however} the same authority and the same responsibility.

    It is one of the highest tasks of the movement to make this principle determining, not only within its own ranks, but for the entire state.Any man who wants to be leader bears, along with the highest unlimited authority, also the ultimate and heaviest responsibility.Anyone who is not equal to this or is too cowardly to bear the consequences of his acts is not fit to be leader; only the hero is cut out for this.

    The progress and culture of humanity are not a product of the majority, but rest exclusively on the genius and energy of the personality.To cultivate the personality and establish it in its rights is one of the prerequisites for recovering the greatness and power of our nationality.

    Hence the movement is anti-parliamentarian, and even its participation in a parliamentary institution can only imply activity for its destruction, for eliminating an institution in which we must see one of the gravest symptoms of mankind's decay.(10) The movement decisively rejects any position on questions which either lie outside the frame of its political work or, being not of basic importance, are irrelevant for it. Its task is not a religious reformation, but a political reorganization of our people.

    In both religious denominations it sees equally valuable pillars for the existence of our people and therefore combats those parties which want to degrade this foundation of an ethical, moral, and religious consolidation of our national body to the level of an instrument of their party interests.

    The movement finally sees its task, not in the restoration of a definite state form and in the struggle against another, but in the creation of those basic foundations without which neither republic nor monarchy can endure for any length of time. Its mission lies not in the foundation of a monarchy or in the reinforcement of a republic, but in the creation of a Germanic state.

    The question of the outward shaping of this state, its crowning, so to speak, is not of basic importance, but is determined only by questions of practical expediency.For a people that has once understood the great problems and tasks of its existence, the questions of outward formalities will no longer lead to inner struggle.(11)

    The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle.The best organization is not that which inserts the greatest, but that which inserts the smallest, intermediary apparatus between the leadership of a movement and its individual adherents. For the function of organization is the transmission of a definite idea-which always first arises from the brain of an individual -to a larger body of men and the supervision of its realization.

    Hence organization is in all things only a necessary evil. In the best case it is a means to an end, in the worst case an end in itself.Since the world produces more mechanical than ideal natures, the forms of organization are usually created more easily than ideas as such.

    The practical development of every idea striving for realization in this world, particularly of one possessing a reform character, is in its broad outlines as follows:Some idea of genius arises in the brain of a man who feels called upon to transmit his knowledge to the rest of humanity. He preaches his view and gradually wins a certain circle of adherents.

    This process of the direct and personal transmittance of a man's ideas to the rest of his fellow men l is the most ideal and natural. With the rising increase in the adherents of the new doctrine, it gradually becomes impossible for the exponent of the idea to go on exerting a personal, direct influence on the innumerable supporters, to lead and direct them.

    Proportionately as, in consequence of the growth of the community, the direct and shortest communication is excluded, the necessity of a connecting organization arises: thus, the ideal condition is ended and is replaced by the necessary evil of organization.

    Little sub-groups are formed which in the political movement, for example, call themselves local groups and constitute the germ-cells of the future organization.If the unity of the doctrine is not to be lost, however, this subdivision must not take place until the authority of the spiritual founder and of the school trained by him can be regarded as unconditional.

    The geo-political significance of a focal center in a movement cannot be overemphasized. Only the presence of such a place, exerting the magic spell of a Mecca or a Rome, can in the long run give the movement a force which is based on inner unity and the recognition of a summit representing this unity.

    Thus, in forming the first organizational germ-cells we must never lose sight of the necessity, not only of preserving the importance of the original local source of the idea, but of making it paramount.

    This intensification of the ideal, moral, and factual immensity of the movement's point of origin and direction must take place in exact proportion as the movement's germcells, which have now become innumerable, demand new links in the shape of organizational forms.

    For, as the increasing number of individual adherents makes it impossible to continue direct communication with them for the formation of the lowest bodies, the ultimate innumerable increase of these lowest organizational forms compels in turn creation of higher associations which politically can be designated roughly as county or district groups.

    Easy as it still may be to maintain the authority of the original center toward the lowest local groups, it will be equally difficult to maintain this position toward the higher organizational forms which now arise. But this is the precondition for the unified existence of the movement and hence for carrying out an idea.

    If, finally, these larger intermediary divisions are also combined into new organizational forms, the difficulty is further increased of safeguarding, even toward them, the unconditional leading character of the original founding site, its school, etc.

    Therefore, the mechanical forms of an organization may only be developed to the degree in which the spiritual ideal authority of a center seems unconditionally secured. In political formations this guaranty can often seem provided only by practical power.From this the following directives for the inner structure of the movement resulted:

    (a) Concentration for the time being of all activity in a single place: Munich. Training of a community of unconditionally reliable supporters and development of a school for the subsequent dissemination of the idea. Acquisition of the necessary authority for the future by the greatest possible visible successes in this one place.

    To make the movement and its leaders known, it was necessary, not only to shake the belief in the invincibility of the Marxist doctrine in one place for all to see, but to demonstrate the possibility of an opposing movement.

    (b) Formation of local groups only when the authority of the central leadership in Munich may be regarded as unquestionably recognized.

    (c) Likewise the formation of district, county, or provincial groups depends, not only on the need for them, but also on certainty that an unconditional recognition of the center has been achieved.Furthermore, the creation of organizational forms is dependent on the men who are available and can be considered as leadersThis may occur in two waysa)

    The movement disposes of the necessary financial means for the training and schooling of minds capable of future leadership. It then distributes the material thus acquired systematically according to criteria of tactical and other expediency.

    This way is the easier and quicker; however, it demands great financial means, since this leader material is only able to work for the movement when paid.(b) The movement, owing to the lack of financial means, is not in a position to appoint official leaders, but for the present must depend on honorary officers.

    This way is the slower and more difficult.Under certain circumstances the leadership of a movement must let large territories lie fallow, unless there emerges from the adherents a man able and willing to put himself at the disposal of the leadership, and organize and lead the movement in the district in question.

    It may happen that in large territories there will be no one, in other places, however, two or even three almost equally capable. The difficulty that lies in such a development is great and can only be overcome in the course of years.The prerequisite for the creation of an organizational form is and remains the man necessary for its leadership.As worthless as an army in all its organizational forms is without officers, equally worthless is a political organization without the suitable leader.

    Not founding a local group is more useful to the movement when a suitable leader personality is lacking than to have its organization miscarry due to the absence of a leader to direct and drive it forward.Leadership itself requires not only will but also ability, and a greater importance must be attached to will and energy than to intelligence as such, and most valuable of all is a combination of ability, determination, and perseverance.



    (12) The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism yes, the intolerance, with which its adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement, and push it past other formations of a similar sort.

    It is the greatest error to believe that the strength of a movement increases through a union with another of similar character. It is true that every enlargement of this kind at first means an increase in outward dimensions, which to the eyes of superficial observers means power; in truth, however, it only takes over the germs of an inner weakening that will later become effective.

    For whatever can be said about the like character of two movements, in reality it is never present. For otherwise there would actually be not two movements but one.

    Regardless wherein the differences lie-even if they consisted only in the varying abilities of the leadership-they exist, the natural law of all development demands, not the coupling of two formations which are simply not alike, the victory of the stronger and the cultivation of the victor's force and strength made possible alone by the resultant struggle.

    Through the union of two more or less equal political party formations momentary advantages may arise, but in the long run any success won in this way is the cause of inner weaknesses which appear later.The greatness of a movement is exclusively guaranteed by the unrestricted development of its inner strength and its steady growth up to the final victory over all competitors.

    Yes, we can say that its strength and hence the justification of its existence increases only so long as it recognizes the principle of struggle as the premise of its development, and that it has passed the high point of its strength in the moment when complete victory inclines to its side.

    Therefore, it is only profitable for a movement to strive for this victory in a form which does not lead to an early momentary success, but which in a long struggle occasioned by absolute intolerance also provides long growth.Movements which increase only by the so-called fusion of similar formations, thus owing their strength to compromises, are like hothouse plants.

    They shoot up, but they lack the strength to defy the centuries and withstand heavy storms.The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.

    If an idea in itself is sound and, thus armed, takes up a struggle on this earth, it is unconquerable and every persecution will only add to its inner strength.The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.

    The apparent head start which movements achieve by fusions is amply caught up with by the steady increase in the strength of a doctrine and organization that remain independent and fight their own fight.(13) On principle the movement must so educate its members that they do not view the struggle as something idly cooked up, but as the thing that they themselves are striving for.

    Therefore, they must not fear the hostility of their enemies, but must feel that it is the presupposition for their own right to exist. They must not shun the hatred of the enemies of our nationality and our philosophy and its manifestations; they must long for them. And among the manifestations of this hate are lies and slander.

    Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist. The best yardstick for the value of his attitude, for the sincerity of his conviction, and the force of his will is the hostility he receives from the mortal enemy of our people.

    It must, over and over again, be pointed out to the adherents of the movement and in a broader sense to the whole people that the Jew and his newspapers always lie and that even an occasional Ruth is only intended to cover a bigger falsification and is therefore itself in turn a deliberate untruth.

    The Jew is the great master in lying, and lies and deception are his weapons in struggle.Every Jewish slander and every Jewish lie is a scar of honor on the body of our warriors.The man they have most reviled stands closest to us and the man they hate worst is our best friend.Anyone who picks up a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does not see himself slandered in it has not made profitable use of the previous day; for if he had, he would be persecuted, reviled, slandered, abused} befouled.

    And only the man who combats this mortal enemy of our nation and of all Aryan humanity and culture most effectively may expect to see the slanders of this race and the struggle of this people directed against him.When these principles enter the flesh and blood of our supporters, the movement will become unshakable and invincible.(14)

    The movement must promote respect for personality by all means; it must never forget that in personal worth lies the worth of everything human; that every idea and every achievement is the result of one man's creative force and that the admiration of greatness constitutes, not only a tribute of thanks to the latter, but casts a unifying bond around the grateful.Personality cannot be replaced; especially when it embodies not the mechanical but the cultural and creative element.

    No more than a famous master can be replaced and another take over the completion of the half-finished painting he has left behind can the great poet and thinker, the great statesman and the great soldier, be replaced. For their activity lies always in the province of art. It is not mechanically trained, but inborn by God's grace.

    The greatest revolutionary changes and achievements of this earth its greatest cultural accomplishments the immortal deeds in the field of statesmanship, etc., are forever inseparably bound up with a name and are represented by it. To renounce doing homage to a great spirit means the loss of an immense strength which emanates from the names of all great men and women.

    The Jew knows this best of all. He, whose great men are only great in the destruction of humanity and its culture, makes sure that they are idolatrously admired. He attempts only to represent the admiration of the nations for their own spirits as unworthy and brands it as a 'personality cult.'

    As soon as a people becomes so cowardly that it succumbs to this Jewish arrogance and effrontery, it renounces the mightiest power that it possesses; for this is based, not on respect for the masses, but on the veneration of genius and on uplift and enlightenment by his example.

    When human hearts break and human souls-despair, then from the twilight of the past the great conquerors of distress and care, of disgrace and misery, of spiritual slavery and physical compulsion, look down on them and hold out their eternal hands to the despairing mortals!

    Woe to the people that is ashamed to take them!In the first period of our movement's development we suffered from nothing so much as from the insignificance, the unknownness of our names, which in themselves made our success questionable.

    The hardest thing in this first period, when often only six, seven, or eight heads met together to use the words of an opponent, was to arouse and preserve in this tiny circle faith in the mighty future of the movement.Consider that six or seven men, all nameless poor devils, had joined together with the intention of forming a movement hoping to succeed-where the powerful great mass parties had hitherto failed-in restoring a German Reich of greater power and glory.

    If people had attacked us in those days, yes, even if they had laughed at us, in both cases we should have been happy. For the oppressive thing was neither the one nor the other; it was the complete lack of attention we found in those days.

    When I entered the circle of these few men, there could be no question of a party or a movement. I have already described my impressions regarding my first meeting with this little formation. In the weeks that followed, I had time and occasion to study this so-called 'party' which at first looked so impossible.

    And, by God the picture was depressing and discouraging. There was nothing here, really positively nothing. The name of a party whose committee constituted practically the whole membership, which, whether we liked it or not, was exactly what it was trying to combat, a parliament on a small scale.

    Here, too, the vote ruled; if big parliaments yelled their throats hoarse for months at a time, it was about important problems at least, but in this little circle the answer to a safely arrived letter let loose an interminable argument!The public, of course, knew nothing at all about this. Not a soul in Munich knew the party even by name, except for its few supporters and their few friends.

    Every Wednesday a so-called committee meeting took place in a Munich cafe, and once a week an evening lecture. Since the whole membership of the 'movement' was at first represented in the committee, the faces of course were always the same. Now the task was at last to burst the bonds of the small circle, to win new supporters, but above all to make the name of the movement known at any price.In this we used the following technique:

    Every month, and later every two weeks, we tried to hold a 'meeting.' The invitations to it were written on the typewriter or sometimes by hand on slips of paper and the first few times were distributed, or handed out, by us personally. Each one of us turned to the circle of his friends, and tried to induce someone or other to attend one of these affairs.

    The result was miserable.I still remember how I myself in this first period once distributed about eighty of these slips of paper, and how in the evening we sat waiting for the masses who were expected to appear.An hour late, the ' chairman ' finally had to open the 'meeting.' We were again seven men, the old seven.We changed over to having the invitation slips written on a machine and mimeographed in a Munich stationery store.

    The result at the next meeting was a few more listeners. Thus the number rose slowly from eleven to thirteen, finally to seventeen, to twenty-three, to thirty-four listeners.By little collections among us poor devils the funds were raised with which at last to advertise the meeting by notices in the then independent Munchener Beobachter in Munich.

    This time the success was positively amazing. We had organized the meeting in the Munich Hofbrauhauskeller (not to be confused with the Munich Hofbrauhaus-Festsaal), a little room with a capacity of barely one hundred and thirty people.



    To me personally the room seemed like a big hall and each of us was worried whether we would succeed in filling this 'mighty' edifice with people.At seven o'clock one hundred and eleven people were present and the meeting was opened.

    A Munich professor made the main speech, and I, for the first time, in public, was to speak second.In the eyes of Herr Harrer, then first chairman of the party, the affair seemed a great adventure. This gentleman, who was certainly otherwise honest, just happened to be convinced that I might be capable of doing certain things, but not of speaking. And even in the time that followed he could not be dissuaded from this opinion.

    Things turned out differently. In this first meeting that could be called public I had been granted twenty minutes' speaking time.I spoke for thirty minutes, and what before I had simply felt within me, without in any way knowing it, was now proved by reality: I could speak After thirty minutes the people in the small room were electrified and the enthusiasm was first expressed by the fact that my appeal to the self-sacrifice of those present led to the donation of three hundred marks.

    This relieved us of a great worry. For at this time the financial stringency was so great that we were not even in a position to have slogans printed for the movement, or even distribute leaflets. Now the foundation was laid for a little fund from which at least our barest needs and most urgent necessities could be defrayed.

    In another respect as well, the success of this first larger meeting was considerable.At that time I had begun to bring a number of fresh young forces into the committee. During my many years in the army I -had come to know a great number of faithful comrades who now slowly, on the basis of my persuasion, began to enter the movement.

    They were all energetic young people, accustomed to discipline, and from their period of service raised in the principle: nothing at all is impossible, everything can be done if you only want it.How necessary such a transfusion of new blood was, I myself could recognize after only a few weeks of collaboration.Herr Harrer, then first chairman of the party, was really a journalist and as such he was certainly widely educated.

    For a party leader he had one exceedingly serious drawback: he was no speaker for the masses. As scrupulously conscientious and precise as his work in itself was, it nevertheless lacked-perhaps because of this very lack of a great oratorical gift-the great sweep.

    Herr Drexler, then chairman of the Munich local group, was a simple worker, likewise not very significant as a speaker, and moreover he was no soldier. He had not served in the army, even during the War he had not been a soldier, so that feeble and uncertain as he was in his whole nature, he lacked the only schooling which was capable of turning uncertain and soft natures into men.

    Thus both men were not made of stuff which would have enabled them not only to bear in their hearts fanatical faith in the victory of a movement, but also with indomitable energy and will, and if necessary with brutal ruthlessness, to sweep aside any obstacles which might stand in the path of the rising new idea.

    For this only beings were fitted in whom spirit and body had acquired those military virtues which can perhaps best be described as follows: swift as greyhounds, tough as leather, and hard as Krupp steel.At that time I myself was still a soldier.

    My exterior and interior had been whetted and hardened for well-nigh six years, so that at first I must have seemed strange in this circle. I, too, had forgotten how to say: 'that's impossible,' or 'it won't work'; 'we can't risk that,' 'that is too dangerous,' etc.For of course the business was dangerous.

    Little attention as the Reds paid to one of your bourgeois gossip clubs whose inner innocence and hence harmlessness for themselves theyknew better than its own members, they were determined to use every means to get rid of a movement which did seem dangerous to them.

    Their most effective method in such cases has at all times been terror or violence.In the year 1920, in many regions of Germany, a national meeting that dared to address its appeal to the broad masses and publicly invite attendance was simply impossible. The participants in such a meeting were dispersed and driven away with bleeding heads.

    Such an accomplishment, to be sure, did not require much skill: for after all the biggest so-called bourgeois mass meeting would scatter at the sight of a dozen Communists like hares running from a hound.Most loathsome to the Marxist deceivers of the people was inevitably a movement whose explicit aim was the winning of those masses which had hitherto stood exclusively in the service of the international Marxist Jewish stock exchange parties.

    The very name of ' German Workers' Party ' had the effect of goading them. Thus one could easily imagine that on the first suitable occasion the conflict would begin with the Marxist inciters who were then still drunk with victory.In the small circle that the movement then was a certain fear of such a fight prevailed.

    The members wanted to appear in public as little as possible, for fear of being beaten up. In their mind's eye they already saw the first great meeting smashed and go the movement finished for good. I had a hard time putting forward my opinion that we must not dodge this struggle, but prepare for it, and for this reason acquire the armament which alone offers protection against violence. Terror is not broken by the mind, but by terror.

    The success of the first meeting strengthened my position in this respect. We gained courage for a second meeting on a somewhat larger scale.About October, 1919, the second, larger meeting took place in the Eberlbraukeller. Topic: Brestlitovsk and Versailles.

    Four gentlemen appeared as speakers. I myself spoke for almost an hour and the success was greater than at the first rally. The audience had risen to more than one hundred and thirty. An attempted disturbance was at once nipped in the bud by my comrades. The diturbers flew down the stairs with gashed heads.Two weeks later another meeting took place in the same hall.

    The attendance had risen to over one hundred and seventy and the room was well filled. I had spoken again, and again the success was greater than at the previous meeting.I pressed for a larger hall. At length we found one at the other end of town in the 'Deutsches Reich' on Dachauer Strasse.

    The first meeting in the new hall was not so well attended as the previous one: barely one hundred and forty persons. In the committee, hopes began to sink and the eternal doubters felt that the excessive repetition of our 'demonstrations' had to be considered the cause of the bad attendance.

    There were violent arguments in which I upheld the view that a city of seven hundred thousand inhabitants could stand not one meeting every two weeks, but ten every week, that we must not let ourselves be misled by failures, that the road we had taken was the rightone, and that sooner or later, with steady perseverance, success was bound to come.

    All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains.The next meeting in the same hall showed me to be right.

    The attendance had risen to over two hundred; the public as well as financial success was brilliant.I urged immediate preparations for another meeting. It took place barely two weeks later and the audience rose to over two hundred and seventy heads.

    Two weeks later, for the seventh time, we called together the supporters and friends of the new movement and the same hall could barely hold the people who had grown to over four hundred.It was at this time that the young movement received its inner form. In the small circle there were sometimes more or less violent disputes. Various quarters-then as today-carped at designating the young movement as a party.

    In such a conception I have always seen proof of the critics' practical incompetence and intellectual smallness. They were and always are the men who cannot distinguish externals from essentials, and who try to estimate the value of a movement according to the most bombastic-sounding titles, most of which, sad to say, the vocabulary of our forefathers must provide.

    It was hard, at that time, to make it clear to people that every movement, as long as it has not achieved the victory of its ideas, hence its goal, is a party even if it assumes a thousand different names.If any man wants to put into practical effect a bold idea whose realization seems useful in the interests of his fellow men, he will first of all have to seek supporters who are ready to fight for his intentions.

    If this intention consists only in destroying the existing parties, of ending the fragmentation, the exponents of this view and propagators of this determination are themselves a party, as long as this goal has not been achieved.

    It is hair-splitting and shadow-boxing when some antiquated folkish theoretician, whose practical successes stand in inverse proportion to his wisdom, imagines that he can change the party character which every young movement possesses by changing this term.On the contrary.

    If anything is unfolkish, it is this tossing around of old Germanic expressions which neither fit into the present period nor represent anything definite, but can easily lead to seeing the significance of a movement in its outward vocabulary. This is a real menace which today can be observed on countless occasions.

    Altogether then, and also in the period that followed, I had to warn again and again against those deutschvolkisch wandering scholars whose positive accomplishment is always practically nil, but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. The young movement had and still has to guard itself against an influx of people whose sole recommendation for the most part lies in their declaration that they have fought for thirty and even forty years for the same idea.

    Anyone who fights for forty years for a so-called idea without being able to bring about even the slightest success, in fact, without having prevented the victory of the opposite, has, with forty years of activity, provided proof of his own incapacity.

    The danger above all lies in the fact that such natures do not want to fit into the movement as links, but keep shooting off their mouths about leading circles in which alone, on the strength of their age-old activity, they can see a suitable place for further activity. But woe betide if a young movement is surrended to the mercies of such people.

    No more than a business man who in forty years of activity has steadily run a big business into the ground is fitted to be the founder of a new one, is a folkish Methuselah, who in exactly the same time has gummed up and petrified a great idea, fit for the leadership of a new, young movement!Besides, only a fragment of all these people come into the new movement to serve it, but in most cases, under its protection or through the possibilities it offers, to warm over their old cabbage.

    They do not want to benefit the idea of the new doctrine, they only expect it to give them a chance to make humanity miserable with their own ideas. For what kind of ideas they often are, it is hard to tell.The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined.

    For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their bearded heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack. Posterity will have little occasion to glorify their own heroic existence in a new epic.

    I came to know these people too well not to feel the profoundest disgust at their miserable play-acting. But they make a ridiculous impression on the broad masses, and the Jew has every reason to spare these folkish comedians, even to prefer them to the true fighters for a coming German state.



    With all this, these people are boundlessly conceited; despite all the proofs of their complete incompetence, they daim to know everything better and become a real plague for all straightforward and honest fighters to whom heroism seems worth honoring, not only in the past, but who also endeavor to give posterity a similar picture by their own actions.

    Often it can be distinguished only with difficulty which of these people act out of inner stupidity or incompetence and which only pretend to for certain reasons.

    Especially with the so-called religious reformers on an old Germanic basis, I always have the feeling that they were sent by those powers which do not want the resurrection of our people. For their whole activity leads the people away from the common struggle against the common enemy, the Jew, and instead lets them waste their strength on inner religious squabbles as senseless as they are disastrous.

    For these very reasons the establishment of a strong central power implying the unconditional authority of a Kadership is necessary in the movement. By it alone can such ruinous elements be squelched.

    For this reason the greatest enemies of a uniform, strictly led and conducted movement are to be found in the circles of these folkish wandering Jews. In the movement they hate the power that checks their mischief.Not for nothing did the young movement establish a definite program in which it did not use the word 'folkish.'

    The concept folkish, in view of its conceptual boundlessness, is no possible basis for a movement and offers no standard for membership in one. The more indefinable this concept is in practice, the more and broader interpretations it permits, the greater becomes the possibility of invoking its authority.

    The insertion of such an indefinable and variously interpretable concept into the political struggle leads to the destruction of any strict fighting solidarity, since the latter does not permit leaving to the individual the definition of his faith and will.

    It is disgraceful to see all the people who run around today with the word 'folkish' on their caps and how many have their own interpretation of this concept. A Bavarian professor by the name of Bayer,l a famous fighter with spiritual weapons, rich in equally spiritual marches on Berlin, thinks that the concept folkish consists only in a monarchistic attitude.

    This learned mind, however, has thus far forgotten to give a closer explanation of the identity of our German monarchs of the past with the folkish opinion of today. And I fear that in this the gentleman would not easily succeed. For anything less folkish than most of the Germanic monarchic state formations can hardly be imagined.

    If this were not so, they would never have disappeared, or their disappearance would offer proof of the unsoundness of the folkish outlook.And so everyone shoots off his mouth about this concept as he happens to understand it. As a basis for a movement of political struggle, such a multiplicity of opinions is out of the question.I shall not even speak of the unworldliness of these folkish Saint Johns of the twentieth century or their ignorance of the popular soul.

    It is sufliciently illustrated by the ridicule with which they are treated by the Left, which lets them talk and iaughs at them.Anyone in this world who does not succeed in being hated by his adversaries does not seem to me to be worth much as a friend.

    Thus the friendship of these people for our young movement was not only worthless, but solely and always harmful, and it was also the main reason why, first of all, we chose the name of 'party'-we had grounds for hoping that by this alone a whole swarm of these folkish sleepwalkers would be frightened away from us-and why in the second place we termed ourselves National Socialist German Workers' Party.

    The first expression kept away the antiquity enthusiasts, the big-mouths and superficial proverb-makers of the so-called folkish idea,' and the second freed us from the entire host of knights of the 'spiritual sword,' all the poor wretches who wield the 'spiritual weapon' as a protecting shield to hide their actual cowardice.

    It goes without saying that in the following period we were attacked hardest especially by these last, not actively, of course, but only with the pen, just as you would expect from such folkish goose-quills.

    For them our principle, 'Against those who attack us with force we will defend ourselves with force,' had something terrifying about it.

    They persistently reproached us, not only with brutal worship of the blackjack, but with lack of spirit as such. The fact that in a public meeting a Demosthenes can be brought to silence if only fifty idiots, supported by their voices and their fists, refuse to let him speak, makes no impression whatever on such a quack. His inborn cowardice never lets him get into such danger. For he does not work 'noisily' and 'obtrusively,' but in 'silence.'

    Even today r cannot warn our young movement enough against falling into the net of these so-called 'silent workers.' They are not only cowards, but they are also always incompetents and do-nothings.

    A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work 'silently,' but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure. If he does not do so, he is a disloyal, miserable weakling who fails either from cowardice or from laziness and inability.

    To be sure, this does not apply at all to most of these people, for they know absolutely nothing, but behave as though they knew God knows what; they can do nothing but try to swindle the whole world with their tricks; they are lazy, but with the 'silent' work they claim to do, they arouse the impression of an enormous and conscientious activity; in short, they are swindlers, political crooks who hate the honest work of others.

    As soon as one of these folkish moths praises the darkness 1 of silence, we can bet a thousand to one that by it he produces nothing, but steals, steals from the fruits of other people's work.To top all this, there is the arrogance and conceited effrontery with which this lazy, light-shunning rabble fall upon the work of others, trying to criticize it from above, thus in reality aiding the mortal enemies of our nationality.

    Every last agitator who possesses the courage to stand on a tavern table among his adversaries, to defend his opinions with manly forthrightness, does more than a thousand of these lying, treacherous sneaks. He will surely- be able to convert one man or another and win him for the movement.

    It will be possible to examine his achievement and establish the effect of his activity by its results. Only the cowardly swindlers who praise their 'silent' work and thus wrap themselves in the protective cloak of a despicable anonymity, are good for nothing and may in the truest sense of the word be considered drones in the resurrection of ourpeople.

    # #At the beginning of 1920, I urged the holding of the first great mass meeting.

    Differences of opinion arose. A few leading party members regarded the affair as premature and hence disastrous in effect. The Red press had begun to concern itself with us and we were fortunate enough gradually to achieve its hatred. We had begun to speak in the discussions at other meetings. Of course, each of us was at once shouted down.

    There was, however, some success. People got to know us and proportionately as their knowledge of us deepened, the aversion and rage against us grew. And thus we were entitled to hope that in our first great mass meeting we would be visited by a good many of our friends from the Red camp.I, too, realized that there was great probability of the meeting being broken up. But the struggle had to be carried through, if not now, a few months later.

    It was entirely in our power to make the movement eternal on the very first day by blindly and ruthlessly fighting for it. I knew above all the mentality of the adherents of the Red side far too well, not to know that resistance to the utmost not only makes the biggest impression, but also wins supporters.

    So we just had to be resolved to put up this resistance.Herr Harrer,l then first chairman of the party, felt he could not support my views with regard to the time chosen and consequently, being an honest, upright man, he withdrew from the leadership of the party. His place was taken by Herr Anton Drexler. I had reserved for myself the organization of propaganda and began ruthlessly to carry it out.

    And so, the date of February 4, 19202 was set for the holding of this first great mass meeting of the still unknown movement.I personally conducted the preparations. They were very brief.

    Altogether the whole apparatus was adjusted to make lightning decisions. Its aim was to enable us to take a position on current questions in the form of mass meetings within twenty-four hours. They were to be announced by posters and leaflets whose content was determined according to those guiding principles which in rough outlines I have set down in my treatise on propaganda.

    Effect on the broad masses, concentration on a few points, constant repetition of the same, self-assured and self-reliant framing of the text in the forms of an apodictic statement, greatest perseverance in distribution and patience in awaiting the effect.On principle, the color red was chosen; it is the most exciting; we knew it would infuriate and provoke our adversaries the most and thus bring us to their attention and memory whether they liked it or not.

    In the following period the inner fraternization in Bavaria between the Marxists and the Center as a political party was most clearly shown in the concern with which the ruling Bavarian People's Party tried to weaken the effect of our posters on the Red working masses and later to prohibit them.

    If the police found no other way to proceed against them, 'considerations of traffic' had to do the trick, till finally, to please the inner, silent Red ally, these posters, which had given back hundreds of thousands of workers, incited and seduced by internationalism, to their German nationality, were forbidden entirely with the helping hand of a so-called German National People's Party.

    As an appendix and example to our young movement, I am adding a number of these proclamations. They come from a period embracing nearly three years; they can best illustrate the mighty struggle which the young movement fought at this time.

    They will also bear witness to posterity of the will and honesty of our convictions and the despotism of the so-called national authorities in prohibiting, just because they personally found it uncomfortable, a nationalization which would have won back broad masses of our nationality.

    They will also help to destroy the opinion that there had been a national government as such in Bavaria and also document for posterity the fact that the national Bavaria of 1919, 1920, 1921 1922, 1923 was not forsooth the result of a national government, but that the government was merely forced to take consideration of a people that was gradually feeling national.

    The governments themselves did everything to eliminate this process of recovery and to make it impossible.Here only two men must be excluded:Ernst Pohner, the police president at that tirne, and Chief Deputy frick his faithful advisor, were the only higher state officials who even then had the courage to be first Germans and then officials.

    Ernst Pohner was the only man in a responsible post who did not curry favor with the masses, but felt responsible to his nationality and was ready to risk and sacrifice everything, even if necessary his personal existence, for the resurrection of the German people whom he loved above all things.

    For this reason he was always a troublesome thorn in the eyes of those venal officials the law of whose actions was prescribed, not by the interest of their people and the necessary uprising for its freedom, but by the boss's orders, without regard for the welfare of the national trust confided in them.A

    Above all he was one of those natures who, contrasting with most of the guardians of our so-called state authority, do not fear the enmity of traitors to the people and the nation, but long for it as for a treasure which a decent man must take for granted.

    The hatred of Jews and Marxists, their whole campaign of lies and slander, were for him the sole happiness amid the misery of our people.

    A man of granite honesty, of antique simplicity and German straightforwardness, for whom the words 'Sooner dead than a slave ' were no phrase but the essence of his whole being.He and his collaborator, Dr. Frick, are in my eyes the only men in a state position who possess the right to be called cocreators of a national Bavaria.

    Before we proceeded to hold our first mass meeting, not only did the necessary propaganda material have to be made ready, but the main points of the program also had to be put into print.In the second volume I shall thoroughly develop the guiding principles which we had in mind, particularly in framing the program. Here I shall only state that it was done, not only to give the young movement form and content, but to make its aims understandable to the broad masses.

    Circles of the so-called intelligentsia have mocked and ridiculed this and attempted to criticize it. But the soundness of our point of view at that time has been shown by the effectiveness of this program.In these years I have seen dozens of new movements arise and thev have all vanished and evaporated without trace. A single one remains:

    The National Socialist German Workers' Party. And today more than ever I harbor the conviction that people can combat it, that they can attempt to paralyze it, that petty party ministers can forbid us to speak and write, but that they will never prevent the victory of our ideas.

    When not even memory will reveal the names of the entire present-day state conception and its advocates, the fundamentals of the National Socialist program will be the foundations of a coming state.Our four months' activities at meetings up to January, 1920, had slowly enabled us to save up the small means that we needed for printing our first leaflet, our first poster, and our program.

    If I take the movement's first large mass meeting as the conclusion of this volume, it is because by it the party burst the narrow bonds of a small club and for the first time exerted a determining infiuence on the mightiest factor of our tirne, public opinion.

    I myself at that time had but one concern: Will the hall be filled, or will we speak to a yawning hall? 1 I had the unshakable l inner conviction that if the people came, the day was sure to be a great success for the young movement. And so I anxiously looked forward to that evening.

    The meeting was to be opened at 7:30. At 7:15 I entered the Festsaal of the Hofbrauhaus on the Platzl in Munich, and my heart nearly burst for joy.

    The gigantic hall-for at that time it still seemed to me gigantic-was overcrowded with people, shoulder to shoulder, a mass numbering almost two thousand people. And above all-those people to whom we wanted to appeal had come.

    Far more than half the hall seemed to be occupied by Communists and Independents. They had resolved that our first demonstration would come to a speedy end.But it turned out differently. After the first speaker had finished, I took the floor.

    A few minutes later there was a hail of shouts, there were violent dashes in the hall, a handful of the most faithful war comrades and other supporters battled with the disturbers, and only little by little were able to restore order.I was able to go on speaking.

    After half an hour the applause slowly began to drown out the screaming and shouting.I now took up the program and began to explain it for the first time.From minute to minute the interruptions were increasingly drowned out by shouts of applause.

    When I finally submitted the twenty-five theses, point for point, to the masses and asked them personally to pronounce judgment on them, one after another was accepted with steadily mounting joy, unanimously and again unanimously, and when the last thesis had found its way to the heart of the masses,

    There stood before me a hall full of people united by a new conviction, a new faith, a new will.When after nearly four hours the hall began to empty and the crowd, shoulder to shoulder, began to move, shove, press toward the exit like a slow stream,

    I knew that now the principles of a movement which could no longer be forgotten were moving out among the German people.A fire was kindled from whose flame one day the sword must come which would regain freedom for the Germanic Siegfried and life for the German nation.

    Side by side with the coming resurrection, I sensed that the goddess of inexorable vengeance for the perjured deed of November 9, 1919, was striding forthThe movement took its course.

  2. Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement

    Chapter I: Philosophy and Party





    On February 24th, 1920, the first great mass meeting under the auspices of the new movement took place. In the Banquet Hall of the Hofbräuhaus in Munich the twenty-five theses which constituted the program of our new party were expounded to an audience of nearly two thousand people and each thesis was enthusiastically received.

    Thus we brought to the knowledge of the public those first principles and lines of action along which the new struggle was to be conducted for the abolition of a confused mass of obsolete ideas and opinions which had obscure and often pernicious tendencies. A new force was to make its appearance among the timid and feckless bourgeoisie. This force was destined to impede the triumphant advance of the Marxists and bring the Chariot of Fate to a standstill just as it seemed about to reach its goal.

    It was evident that this new movement could gain the public significance and support which are necessary pre-requisites in such a gigantic struggle only if it succeeded from the very outset in awakening a sacrosanct conviction in the hearts of its followers, that here it was not a case of introducing a new electoral slogan into the political field but that an entirely new world view, which was of a radical significance, had to be promoted.

    One must try to recall the miserable jumble of opinions that used to be arrayed side by side to form the usual Party Programme, as it was called, and one must remember how these opinions used to be brushed up or dressed in a new form from time to time. If we would properly understand these programmatic monstrosities we must carefully investigate the motives which inspired the average bourgeois 'programme committee'.

    Those people are always influenced by one and the same preoccupation when they introduce something new into their programme or modify something already contained in it. That preoccupation is directed towards the results of the next election. The moment these artists in parliamentary government have the first glimmering of a suspicion that their darling public may be ready to kick up its heels and escape from the harness of the old party wagon they begin to paint the shafts with new colours.

    On such occasions the party astrologists and horoscope readers, the so-called 'experienced men' and 'experts', come forward. For the most part they are old parliamentary hands whose political schooling has furnished them with ample experience. They can remember former occasions when the masses showed signs of losing patience and they now diagnose the menace of a similar situation arising.

    Resorting to their old prescription, they form a 'committee'. They go around among the darling public and listen to what is being said. They dip their noses into the newspapers and gradually begin to scent what it is that their darlings, the broad masses, are wishing for, what they reject and what they are hoping for.

    The groups that belong to each trade or business, and even office employees, are carefully studied and their innermost desires are investigated. The 'malicious slogans' of the opposition from which danger is threatened are now suddenly looked upon as worthy of reconsideration, and it often happens that these slogans, to the great astonishment of those who originally coined and circulated them, now appear to be quite harmless and indeed are to be found among the dogmas of the old parties.

    So the committees meet to revise the old programme and draw up a new one. For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes his shirt in war – when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme everyone gets everything he wants.

    The farmer is assured that the interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and orphans will receive generous assistance from the State.

    Trade will be promoted. The tariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they cannot be entirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes happens that one section of the public is forgotten or that one of the demands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of the party.

    This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should there be any space available for it: until finally it is felt that there are good grounds for hoping that the whole normal host of philistines, including their wives, will have their anxieties laid to rest and will beam with satisfaction once again. And so, internally armed with faith in the goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the Reich' can now begin.

    When the election day is over and the parliamentarians have held their last public meeting for the next five years, when they can leave their job of getting the populace to toe the line and can now devote themselves to higher and more pleasing tasks,

    Then the program committee is dissolved and the struggle for the progressive reorganization of public affairs becomes once again a business of earning one's daily bread, which for the parliamentarians means merely the attendance that is required in order to be able to draw their daily remunerations.

    Morning after morning the honorable deputy wends his way to the House, and though he may not enter the Chamber itself he gets at least as far as the front hall, where he will find the register on which the names of the deputies in attendance have to be inscribed.

    As a part of his onerous service to his constituents he enters his name, and in return receives a small indemnity as a well-earned reward for his unceasing and exhausting labours. When four years have passed, or in the meantime if there should be some critical weeks during which the parliamentary corporations have to face the danger of being dissolved, these honourable gentlemen become suddenly seized by an irresistible desire to act.



    Just as the grub-worm cannot help growing into a cock-chafer, these parliamentarian worms leave the great House of Puppets and flutter on new wings out among the beloved public. They address the electors once again, give an account of the enormous labours they have accomplished and emphasize the malicious obstinacy of their opponents. They do not always meet with grateful applause; for occasionally the unintelligent masses throw rude and unfriendly remarks in their faces.

    When this spirit of public ingratitude reaches a certain pitch there is only one way of saving the situation. The prestige of the party must be burnished up again. The programme has to be amended. The committee is called into existence once again. And the swindle begins anew. Once we understand the impenetrable stupidity of our public we cannot be surprised that such tactics turn out successful.

    Led by the Press and blinded once again by the alluring appearance of the new programme, the bourgeois as well as the proletarian herds of voters faithfully return to the common stall and re-elect their old deceivers. The 'people's man' and labour candidate now change back again into the parliamentarian grub and become fat and rotund as they batten on the leaves that grow on the tree of public life – to be retransformed into the glittering butterfly after another four years have passed.

    Scarcely anything else can be so depressing as to watch this process in sober reality and to be the eyewitness of this repeatedly recurring fraud. On a spiritual training ground of that kind it is not possible for the bourgeois forces to develop the strength which is necessary to carry on the fight against the organized might of Marxism. Indeed they have never seriously thought of doing so.

    Though these parliamentary quacks who represent the white race are generally recognized as persons of quite inferior mental capacity, they are shrewd enough to know that they could not seriously entertain the hope of being able to use the weapon of Western Democracy to fight a doctrine for the advance of which Western Democracy, with all its accessories, is employed as a means to an end. Democracy is exploited by the Marxists for the purpose of paralysing their opponents and gaining for themselves a free hand to put their own methods into action.

    When certain groups of Marxists use all their ingenuity for the time being to make it be believed that they are inseparably attached to the principles of democracy, it may be well to recall the fact that when critical occasions arose these same gentlemen snapped their fingers at the principle of decision by majority vote, as that principle is understood by Western Democracy.

    Such was the case in those days when the bourgeois parliamentarians, in their monumental shortsightedness, believed that the security of the Reich was guaranteed because it had an overwhelming numerical majority in its favour, and the Marxists did not hesitate suddenly to grasp supreme power in their own hands, backed by a mob of loafers, deserters, political place-hunters and Jewish dilettanti.

    That was a blow in the face for that democracy in which so many parliamentarians believed. Only those credulous parliamentary wizards who represented bourgeois democracy could have believed that the brutal determination of those whose interest it is to spread the Marxist world-pest, of which they are the carriers, could for a moment, now or in the future, be held in check by the magical formulas of Western Parliamentarianism.

    Marxism will march shoulder to shoulder with democracy until it succeeds indirectly in securing for its own criminal purposes even the support of those whose minds are nationally orientated and whom Marxism strives to exterminate, if the Marxists should one day come to believe that there was a danger that from this witch's cauldron of our parliamentary democracy,

    A majority vote might be concocted, which by reason of its numerical majority would be empowered to enact legislation and might use that power seriously to combat Marxism, then the whole parliamentarian hocus-pocus would be at an end.

    Instead of appealing to the democratic conscience, the standard bearers of the Red International would immediately send forth a furious rallying-cry among the proletarian masses and the ensuing fight would not take place in the sedate atmosphere of Parliament but in the factories and the streets.

    Then democracy would be annihilated forthwith. And what the intellectual prowess of the apostles who represented the people in Parliament had failed to accomplish would now be successfully carried out by the crow-bar and the sledge-hammer of the exasperated proletarian masses – just as in the autumn of 1918.



    At a blow they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of thinking that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be effectually opposed by means of Western Democracy.

    As I have said, only a very credulous soul could think of binding himself to observe the rules of the game when he has to face a player for whom those rules are nothing but a mere bluff or a means of serving his own interests, which means he will discard them when they prove no longer useful for his purpose.

    All the parties that profess so-called bourgeois principles look upon political life as in reality a struggle for seats in Parliament. The moment their principles and convictions are of no further use in that struggle they are thrown overboard, as if they were sand ballast. And the programmes are constructed in such a way that they can be dealt with in like manner. But such practice has a correspondingly weakening effect on the strength of those parties.

    They lack the great magnetic force which alone attracts the broad masses; for these masses always respond to the compelling force which emanates from absolute faith in the ideas put forward, combined with an indomitable zest to fight for and defend them.

    At a time in which the one side, armed with all the fighting power that springs from a systematic conception of life – even though it be criminal in a thousand ways – makes an attack against the established order the other side will be able to resist when it draws its strength from a new faith, which in our case is a political faith. This faith must supersede the weak and cowardly command to defend.

    In its stead we must raise the battle-cry of a courageous and ruthless attack. Our present movement is accused, especially by the so-called national bourgeois cabinet ministers – the Bavarian representatives of the Center, for example – of heading towards a revolution. We have one answer to give to those political pygmies. We say to them:

    We are trying to make up for that which you, in your criminal stupidity, have failed to carry out. By your parliamentarian jobbing you have helped to drag the nation into ruin. But we, by our aggressive policy, are setting up a new philosophy of life which we shall defend with indomitable devotion. Thus we are building the steps on which our nation once again may ascend to the temple of freedom.

    And so during the first stages of founding our movement we had to take special care that our militant group which fought for the establishment of a new and exalted political faith should not degenerate into a society for the promotion of parliamentarian interests.

    The first preventive measure was to lay down a program which of itself would tend towards developing a certain moral greatness that would scare away all the petty and weakling spirits who make up the bulk of our present party politicians.

    Those fatal defects which finally led to Germany's downfall afford the clearest proof of how right we were in considering it absolutely necessary to set up programmatic aims which were sharply and distinctly defined. Because we recognized the defects above mentioned, we realized that a new conception of the State had to be formed, which in itself became a part of our new conception of life in general.

    In the first volume of this book I have already dealt with the term völkisch, and I said then that this term has not a sufficiently precise meaning to furnish the kernel around which a closely consolidated militant community could be formed. All kinds of people, with all kinds of divergent opinions, are parading about at the present moment under the device völkisch on their banners.

    Before I come to deal with the purposes and aims of the National Socialist Labour Party I want to establish a clear understanding of what is meant by the concept völkisch and herewith explain its relation to our party movement. The word völkisch does not express any clearly specified idea. It may be interpreted in several ways and in practical application it is just as general as the word 'religious', for instance.

    It is difficult to attach any precise meaning to this latter word, either as a theoretical concept or as a guiding principle in practical life. The word 'religious' acquires a precise meaning only when it is associated with a distinct and definite form through which the concept is put into practice. To say that a person is 'deeply religious' may be very fine phraseology; but, generally speaking, it tells us little or nothing.

    There may be some few people who are content with such a vague description and there may even be some to whom the word conveys a more or less definite picture of the inner quality of a person thus described. But, since the masses of the people are not composed of philosophers or saints, such a vague religious idea will mean for them nothing else than to justify each individual in thinking and acting according to his own bent.

    It will not lead to that practical faith into which the inner religious yearning is transformed only when it leaves the sphere of general metaphysical ideas and is moulded to a definite dogmatic belief. Such a belief is certainly not an end in itself, but the means to an end. Yet it is a means without which the end could never be reached at all. This end, however, is not merely something ideal; for at the bottom it is eminently practical.

    We must always bear in mind the fact that, generally speaking, the highest ideals are always the outcome of some profound vital need, just as the most sublime beauty owes its nobility of shape, in the last analysis, to the fact that the most beautiful form is the form that is best suited to the purpose it is meant to serve.

    By helping to lift the human being above the level of mere animal existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own existence. Taking humanity as it exists today and taking into consideration the fact that the religious beliefs which it generally holds and which have been consolidated through our education, so that they serve as moral standards in practical life,

    If we should now abolish religious teaching and not replace it by anything of equal value the result would be that the foundations of human existence would be seriously shaken. We may safely say that man does not live merely to serve higher ideals, but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the necessary conditions of his existence as a human being. And thus the circle is closed.

    Of course, the word 'religious' implies some ideas and beliefs that are fundamental. Among these we may reckon the belief in the immortality of the soul, its future existence in eternity, the belief in the existence of a Higher Being, and so on, all these ideas, no matter how firmly the individual believes in them, may be critically analysed by any person and accepted or rejected accordingly,

    Until the emotional concept or yearning has been transformed into an active service that is governed by a clearly defined doctrinal faith. Such a faith furnishes the practical outlet for religious feeling to express itself and thus opens the way through which it can be put into practice.

    Without a clearly defined belief, the religious feeling would not only be worthless for the purposes of human existence but even might contribute towards a general disorganization, on account of its vague and multifarious tendencies.

    What I have said about the word 'religious' can also be applied to the term völkisch. This word also implies certain fundamental ideas. Though these ideas are very important indeed, they assume such vague and indefinite forms that they cannot be estimated as having a greater value than mere opinions, until they become constituent elements in the structure of a political party.
    For in order to give practical force to the ideals that grow out of philosophical ideals and to answer the demands which are a logical consequence of such ideals, mere sentiment and inner longing are of no practical assistance, just as freedom cannot be won by a universal yearning for it.

    No. Only when the idealistic longing for independence is organized in such a way that it can fight for its ideal with military force, only then can the urgent wish of a people be transformed into a potent reality.

    Every philosophy of life, even if it is a thousand times correct and of the highest benefit to mankind, will be of no practical service for the maintenance of a people as long as its principles have not yet become the rallying point of a militant movement. And, on its own side, this movement will remain a mere party until is has brought its ideals to victory and transformed its party doctrines into the new foundations of a State which gives the national community its final shape.

    If an abstract conception of a general nature is to serve as the basis of a future development, then the first prerequisite is to form a clear understanding of the nature and character and scope of this conception. For only on such a basis can a movement he founded which will be able to draw the necessary fighting strength from the internal cohesion of its principles and convictions.

    From general ideas a political programme must be constructed and general ideas must receive the stamp of a definite political faith. Since this faith must be directed towards ends that have to be attained in the world of practical reality, not only must it serve the general ideal as such but it must also take into consideration the means that have to be employed for the triumph of the ideal. Here the practical wisdom of the statesman must come to the assistance of the abstract idea, which is correct in itself.

    In that way an eternal ideal, which has everlasting significance as a guiding star to mankind, must be adapted to the exigencies of human frailty so that its practical effect may not be frustrated at the very outset through those shortcomings which are general to mankind. The exponent of truth must here go hand in hand with him who has a practical knowledge of the soul of the people, so that from the realm of eternal verities and ideals what is suited to the capacities of human nature may be selected and given practical form.

    To take abstract and general principles, derived from a philosophy which is based on a solid foundation of truth, and transform them into a militant community whose members have the same political faith – a community which is precisely defined, rigidly organized, of one mind and one will – such a transformation is the most important task of all; for the possibility of successfully carrying out the idea is dependent on the successful fulfilment of that task. Out of the army of millions who feel the truth of these ideas, and even may understand them to some extent, one man must arise.

    This man must have the gift of being able to expound general ideas in a clear and definite form, and, from the world of vague ideas shimmering before the minds of the masses, he must formulate principles that will be as clear-cut and firm as granite. He must fight for these principles as the only true ones, until a solid rock of common faith and common will emerges above the troubled waves of vagrant ideas.

    The general justification of such action is to be sought in the necessity for it and the individual will be justified by his success. If we try to penetrate to the inner meaning of the word völkisch we arrive at the following conclusions: The current political conception of the world is that the State, though it possesses a creative force which can build up civilizations, has nothing in common with the concept of race as the foundation of the State. The State is considered rather as something which has resulted from economic necessity, or, at best, the natural outcome of the play of political forces and impulses.

    Such a conception of the foundations of the State, together with all its logical consequences, not only ignores the primordial racial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads to a policy in which the importance of the individual is minimized. If it be denied that races differ from one another in their powers of cultural creativeness, then this same erroneous notion must necessarily influence our estimation of the value of the individual. The assumption that all races are alike leads to the assumption that nations and individuals are equal to one another.



    And international Marxism is nothing but the application – effected by the Jew, Karl Marx – of a general conception of life to a definite profession of political faith; but in reality that general concept had existed long before the time of Karl Marx. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have been possible.

    In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a state of gradual decomposition, he used his keen powers of prognosis to detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate them, with the art of a necromancer, in a solution which would bring about the rapid destruction of the independent nations on the globe. But all this was done in the service of his race.

    Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality which underlies the general concept of life today. For this reason alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against Marxism.

    For this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same poisons and its conception of life in general differs from Marxism only in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it. The bourgeois world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people – that is to say, the bourgeoisie – being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews.

    Over against all this, the völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind.

    Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker.

    So it pays homage to the truth that the principle underlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual organism. It selects individual values from the mass and thus operates as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as a disintegrating solvent.

    The völkisch belief holds that humanity must have its ideals, because ideals are a necessary condition of human existence itself. But, on the other hand, it denies that an ethical ideal has the right to prevail if it endangers the existence of a race that is the standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal. For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lost forever.

    On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth.

    To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.

    Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature's will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.

    We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced with problems which can be solved only by a superior race of human beings, a race destined to become master of all the other peoples and which will have at its disposal the means and resources of the whole world.

    It is self-evident that so general a statement of the meaningful content of a folkish philosophy can be easily interpreted in a thousand different ways. As a matter of fact there is scarcely one of our recent political movements that does not refer at some point to this conception of the world. But the fact that this conception of the world still maintains its independent existence in face of all the others proves that their ways of looking at life are quite difierent from this. Thus the Marxist conception, directed by a central organization endowed with supreme authority, is opposed by a motley crew of opinions which is not very impressive in face of the solid phalanx presented by the enemy.

    Victory cannot be achieved with such weak weapons. Only when the international idea, politically organized by Marxism, is confronted by the folk idea, equally well organized in a systematic way and equally well led – only then will the fighting energy in the one camp be able to meet that of the other on an equal footing; and victory will be found on the side of eternal truth.



    But a general conception of life can never be given an organic embodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. The function which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to the function which party principles fulfil for a political party which is in the process of being built up.

    Therefore, for the conception of life that is based on the folk idea it is necessary that an instrument be forged which can be used in fighting for this ideal, similar to the Marxist party organization which clears the way for internationalism.
    This is the goal pursued by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

    The folk conception must therefore be definitely formulated so that it may be organically incorporated in the party. That is a necessary prerequisite for the success of this idea. And that it is so is very clearly proved even by the indirect acknowledgment of those who oppose such an amalgamation of the folk idea with party principles.

    The very people who never tire of insisting again and again that the conception of life based on the folk idea can never be the exclusive property of a single group, because it lies dormant or 'lives' in myriads of hearts, only confirm by their own statements the simple fact that the general presence of such ideas in the hearts of millions of men has not proved sufficient to impede the victory of the opposing ideas, which are championed by a political party organized on the principle of class conflict.

    If that were not so, the German people ought already to have gained a gigantic victory instead of finding themselves on the brink of the abyss. The international ideology achieved success because it was organized in a militant political party which was always ready to take the offensive. If hitherto the ideas opposed to the international concept have had to give way before the latter the reason is that they lacked a united front to fight for their cause.

    A doctrine which forms a definite outlook on life cannot struggle and triumph by allowing the right of free interpretation of its general teaching, but only by defining that teaching in certain articles of faith that have to be accepted and incorporating it in a political organization.

    Therefore I considered it my special duty to extract from the extensive but vague contents of a general world view the ideas which were essential and give them a more or less dogmatic form.

    Because of their precise and clear meaning, these ideas are suited to the purpose of uniting in a common front all those who are ready to accept them as principles. In other words: The National Socialist German Workers' Party extracts the essential principles from the general conception of the world which is based on the folk idea. On these principles it establishes a political doctrine which takes into account the practical realities of the day, the nature of the times, the available human material and all its deficiencies.

    Through this political doctrine it is possible to bring great masses of the people into an organization which is constructed as rigidly as it could be. Such an organization is the main preliminary that is necessary for the final triumph of this world view.

  3. Chapter II: The State



    By 1920-1921 certain circles belonging to the present outlived bourgeois class accused our movement again and again of taking up a negative attitude towards the modern State. For that reason the motley gang of camp followers attached to the various political parties, representing a heterogeneous conglomeration of political views, assumed the right of utilizing all available means to suppress the protagonists of this young movement which was preaching a new political gospel.

    Our opponents deliberately ignored the fact that the bourgeois class itself stood for no uniform opinion as to what the State really meant and that the bourgeoisie did not and could not give any coherent definition of this institution.

    Those whose duty it is to explain what is meant when we speak of the State, hold chairs in State universities, often in the department of constitutional law, and consider it their highest duty to find explanations and justifications for the more or less fortunate existence of that particular form of State which provides them with their daily bread.

    The more absurd such a form of State is the more obscure and artificial and incomprehensible are the definitions which are advanced to explain the purpose of its existence. What, for instance, could a royal and imperial university professor write about the meaning and purpose of a State in a country whose statal form represented the greatest monstrosity of the twentieth century?

    That would be a difficult undertaking indeed, in view of the fact that the contemporary professor of constitutional law is obliged not so much to serve the cause of truth but rather to serve a certain definite purpose. And this purpose is to defend at all costs the existence of that monstrous human mechanism which we now call the State.

    Nobody can be surprised if concrete facts are evaded as far as possible when the problem of the State is under discussion and if professors adopt the tactics of concealing themselves in morass of abstract values and duties and purposes which are described as 'ethical' and 'moral'.

    Generally speaking, these various theorists may be classed in three groups:

    1. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntary association of men who have agreed to set up and obey a ruling authority.

    This is numerically the largest group. In its ranks are to be found those who worship our present principle of legalized authority. In their eyes the will of the people has no part whatever in the whole affair. For them the fact that the State exists is sufficient reason to consider it sacred and inviolable.

    To protect the madness of human brains, a positively dog-like adoration of so-called state authority is needed. In the minds of these people the means is substituted for the end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand movement. The State no longer exists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for the purpose of adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in its functionaries, even down to the smallest official.

    So as to prevent this placid and ecstatic adoration from changing into something that might become in any way disturbing, the authority of the State is limited simply to the task of preserving order and tranquility. Therewith it is no longer either a means or an end. The State must see that public peace and order are preserved and, in their turn, order and peace must make the existence of the State possible.

    All life must move between these two poles. In Bavaria this view is upheld by the artful politicians of the Bavarian Centre, which is called the 'Bavarian Populist Party'. In Austria the Black-and-Yellow legitimists adopt a similar attitude. In the Reich, unfortunately, the so-called conservative elements follow the same line of thought.

    2. The second group is somewhat smaller in numbers. It includes those who would make the existence of the State dependent on some conditions at least. They insist that not only should there be a uniform system of government but also, if possible, that only one language should be used, though solely for technical reasons of administration.

    In this view the authority of the State is no longer the sole and exclusive end for which the State exists. It must also promote the good of its subjects. Ideas of 'freedom', mostly based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of that word, enter into the concept of the State as it exists in the minds of this group.

    The form of government is no longer considered inviolable simply because it exists. It must submit to the test of practical efficiency. Its venerable age no longer protects it from being criticized in the light of modern exigencies. Moreover, in this view the first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee the economic well-being of the individual citizens.

    Hence it is judged from the practical standpoint and according to general principles based on the idea of economic returns. The chief representatives of this theory of the State are to be found among the average German bourgeoisie, especially our liberal democrats.

    3. The third group is numerically the smallest. In the State they discover a means for the realization of tendencies that arise from a policy of power, on the part of a people who are ethnically homogeneous and speak the same language. But those who hold this view are not clear about what they mean by 'tendencies arising from a policy of power'.

    A common language is postulated not only because they hope that thereby the State would be furnished with a solid basis for the extension of its power outside its own frontiers, but also because they think – though falling into a fundamental error by doing so – that such a common language would enable them to carry out a process of nationalization in a definite direction.

    During the last century it was lamentable for those who had to witness it, to notice how in these circles I have just mentioned the word 'Germanize' was frivolously played with, though the practice was often well intended. I well remember how in the days of my youth this very term used to give rise to notions which were false to an incredible degree.

    Even in Pan-German circles one heard the opinion expressed that the Austrian Germans might very well succeed in Germanizing the Austrian Slavs, if only the Government would be ready to co-operate. Those people did not understand that a policy of Germanization can be carried out only as regards human beings.

    What they mostly meant by Germanization was a process of forcing other people to speak the German language. But it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a Negro or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future, and even to cast his vote for a German political party.

    Our bourgeois nationalists could never clearly see that such a process of Germanization is in reality de-Germanization; for even if all the outstanding and visible differences between the various peoples could be bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a common language, that would produce a process of bastardization which in this case would not signify Germanization but the annihilation of the German element.

    In the course of history it has happened only too often that a conquering race succeeded by external force in compelling the people whom they subjected to speak the tongue of the conqueror and that after a thousand years their language was spoken by another people and that thus the conqueror finally turned out to be the conquered.

    What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization only if that process could change the blood of the people who would be subjected to it, which is obviously impossible.

    A change would be possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had enabled the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people.

    It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a superior race intermixes with an inferior one, even though the resultant mongrel race should excel a thousandfold in speaking the language of the race that once had been superior.

    For a certain time there will be a conflict between the different mentalities, and it may be that a nation which is in a state of progressive degeneration will at the last moment rally its cultural creative power and once again produce striking examples of that power.

    These results are due only to the activity of elements that have remained over from the superior race or hybrids of the first crossing in whom the superior blood has remained dominant and seeks to assert itself. But this will never happen with the final descendants of such hybrids. These are always in a state of cultural retrogression.

    We must consider it as fortunate that a Germanization of Austria according to the plan of Joseph II did not succeed. Probably the result would have been that the Austrian State would have been able to survive, but at the same time participation in the use of a common language would have debased the racial quality of the German element.

    In the course of centuries a certain herd instinct might have been developed but the herd itself would have deteriorated in quality. A national State might have arisen, but a people who had been culturally creative would have disappeared.

    For the German nation it was better that this process of intermixture did not take place, although it was not renounced for any high-minded reasons but simply through the short-sighted pettiness of the Habsburgs. If it had taken place the German people could not now be looked upon as a cultural factor.

    Not only in Austria, however, but also in the Reich, these so-called national circles were, and still are, under the influence of similar erroneous ideas. Unfortunately, a policy towards Poland, whereby the East was to be Germanized, was demanded by many and was based on the same false reasoning.

    Here again it was believed that the Polish people could be Germanized by being compelled to use the German language. The result would have been fatal. A people of foreign race would have had to use the German language to express modes of thought that were foreign to the German, thus compromising by its own inferiority the dignity and nobility of our nation.

    It is revolting to think how much damage is indirectly done to German prestige today through the fact that the German patois of the Jews when they enter the United States enables them to be classed as Germans, because many Americans are quite ignorant of German conditions. Among us, nobody would think of taking these unhygienic immigrants from the East for members of the German race and nation merely because they mostly speak German.

    What has been beneficially Germanized in the course of history was the land which our ancestors conquered with the sword and colonized with German tillers of the soil. To the extent that they introduced foreign blood into our national body in this colonization, they have helped to disintegrate our racial character, a process which has resulted in our German hyper-individualism, though this latter characteristic is even now frequently praised.



    In this third group also there are people who, to a certain degree, consider the State as an end in itself. Hence they consider its preservation as one of the highest aims of human existence. Our analysis may be summed up as follows:

    All these opinions have this common feature and failing: that they are not grounded in a recognition of the profound truth that the capacity for creating cultural values is essentially based on the racial element and that, in accordance with this fact, the paramount purpose of the State is to preserve and improve the race; for this is an indispensable condition of all progress in human civilization.

    Thus the Jew, Karl Marx, was able to draw the final conclusions from these false concepts and ideas on the nature and purpose of the State. By eliminating from the concept of the State all thought of the obligation which the State bears towards the race, without finding any other formula that might be universally accepted, the bourgeois teaching prepared the way for that doctrine which rejects the State as such.

    That is why the bourgeois struggle against Marxist internationalism is absolutely doomed to fail in this field. The bourgeois classes have already sacrificed the basic principles which alone could furnish a solid footing for their ideas. Their crafty opponent has perceived the defects in their structure and advances to the assault on it with those weapons which they themselves have placed in his hands though not meaning to do so.

    Therefore any new movement which is based on the racial concept of the world will first of all have to put forward a clear and logical doctrine of the nature and purpose of the State.

    The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but the means to an end. It is the preliminary condition under which alone a higher form of human civilization can be developed, but it is not the source of such a development. This is to be sought exclusively in the actual existence of a race which is endowed with the gift of cultural creativeness.

    There may be hundreds of excellent States on this earth, and yet if the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual needs of the superior nations today would also disappear.

    We may go still further and say that the fact that States have been created by human beings does not in the least exclude the possiblity that the human race may become extinct, because the superior intellectual faculties and powers of adaptation would be lost when the racial bearer of these faculties and powers disappeared.

    If, for instance, the surface of the globe should be shaken today by some seismic convulsion and if a new Himalaya would emerge from the waves of the sea, this one catastrophe alone might annihilate human civilization. No State could exist any longer. All order would be shattered. And all vestiges of cultural products which had been evolved through thousands of years would disappear.

    Nothing would be left but one tremendous field of death and destruction submerged in floods of water and mud. If, however, just a few people would survive this terrible havoc, and if these people belonged to a definite race that had the innate powers to build up a civilization, when the commotion had passed, the earth would again bear witness to the creative power of the human spirit, even though a span of a thousand years might intervene.

    Only with the extermination of the last race that possesses the gift of cultural creativeness, and indeed only if all the individuals of that race had disappeared, would the earth definitely be turned into a desert. On the other hand, modern history furnishes examples to show that statal institutions which owe their beginnings to members of a race which lacks creative genius are not made of stuff that will endure.

    Just as many varieties of prehistoric animals had to give way to others and leave no trace behind them, so man will also have to give way, if he loses that definite faculty which enables him to find the weapons that are necessary for him to maintain his own existence. It is not the State as such that brings about a certain definite advance in cultural progress. The State can only protect the race that is the cause of such progress.

    The State as such may well exist without undergoing any change for hundreds of years, though the cultural faculties and the general life of the people, which is shaped by these faculties, may have suffered profound changes by reason of the fact that the State did not prevent a process of racial mixture from taking place.

    The present State, for instance, may continue to exist in a mere mechanical form, but the poison of miscegenation permeating the national body brings about a cultural decadence which manifests itself already in various symptoms that are of a detrimental character. Thus the indispensable prerequisite for the existence of a superior quality of human beings is not the State but the race, which is alone capable of producing that higher human quality.

    This capacity is always there, though it will lie dormant unless external circumstances awaken it to action. Nations, or rather races, which are endowed with the faculty of cultural creativeness possess this faculty in a latent form during periods when the external circumstances are unfavourable for the time being and therefore do not allow the faculty to express itself effectively.

    It is therefore outrageously unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as barbarians who had no civilization. They never have been such. But the severity of the climate that prevailed in the northern regions which they inhabited imposed conditions of life which hampered a free development of their creative faculties.

    If they had come to the fairer climate of the South, with no previous culture whatsoever, and if they acquired the necessary human material – that is to say, men of an inferior race – to serve them as working implements, the cultural faculty dormant in them would have splendidly blossomed forth, as happened in the case of the Greeks, for example.

    This primordial creative faculty in cultural things was not solely due to their northern climate. For the Laplanders or the Eskimos would not have become creators of a culture if they were transplanted to the South. No, this wonderful creative faculty is a special gift bestowed on the Aryan, whether it lies dormant in him or becomes active, according as the adverse conditions of nature prevent the active expression of that faculty or favourable circumstances permit it.

    From these facts the following conclusions may be drawn: The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence of the race,

    Thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free development of all the forces dormant in this race. A great part of these faculties will always have to be employed in the first place to maintain the physical existence of the race, and only a small portion will be free to work in the field of intellectual progress.

    Os a matter of fact, the one is always the necessary counterpart of the other.
    Those States which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities. The fact that they do exist is no more of a justification than the successful raids carried out by a band of pirates can be considered a justification of piracy.

    We National Socialists, who are fighting for a new philosophy of life must never take our stand on the famous 'basis of facts', and especially not on mistaken facts. If we did so, we should cease to be the protagonists of a new and great idea and would become slaves in the service of the fallacy which is dominant today. We must make a clear-cut distinction between the vessel and its contents. The State is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a meaning only if it preserves and safeguards the contents. Otherwise it is worthless.

    Hence the supreme purpose of the folkish State is to guard and preserve those original racial elements which, through their work in the cultural field, create that beauty and dignity which are characteristic of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can consider the State only as the living organism of a people, an organism which does not merely maintain the existence of a people, but functions in such a way as to lead its people to a position of supreme liberty by the progressive development of the intellectual and cultural faculties.



    What they want to impose upon us as a State today is in most cases nothing but a monstrosity, the product of a profound human aberration which brings untold suffering in its train.

    We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a revolutionary stand in the world of today and that we are branded as revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries,

    Only by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer insight, and will not only understand the work we are doing today, but will also ratify it as the right work and will exalt it accordingly.

    On these principles we National Socialists base our standards of value in appraising a State. This value will be relative when viewed from the particular standpoint of the individual nation, but it will be absolute when considered from the standpoint of humanity as a whole. In other words, this means:

    The quality of a State can never be judged by the level of its culture or the degree of importance which the outside world attaches to its power, but that its excellence must be judged by the degree to which its institutions serve the racial stock which belongs to it.

    A State may be considered as a model example if it adequately serves not only the vital needs of the racial stock it represents but if it actually assures by its own existence the preservation of this same racial stock, no matter what general cultural significance this statal institution may have in the eyes of the rest of the world.

    For it is not the task of the State to create human capabilities, but only to assure free scope for the exercise of capabilities that already exist. Thus, conversely, a State may be called bad if, in spite of the existence of a high cultural level, it dooms to destruction the bearers of that culture by breaking up their racial uniformity.

    For the practical effect of such a policy would be to destroy those conditions that are indispensable for the ulterior existence of that culture, which the State did not create but which is the fruit of the creative power inherent in the racial stock whose existence is assured by being united in the living organism of the State.

    Once again let me emphasize the fact that the State itself is not the substance but the form. Therefore, the cultural level is not the standard by which we can judge the value of the State in which that people lives.

    It is evident that a people which is endowed with high creative powers in the cultural sphere is of more worth than a tribe of negroes. And yet the statal organization of the former, if judged from the standpoint of efficiency, may be worse than that of the negroes.

    Not even the best of States and statal institutions can evolve faculties from a people which they lack and which they never possessed, but a bad State may gradually destroy the faculties which once existed. This it can do by allowing or favouring the suppression of those who are the bearers of a racial culture.

    Therefore, the worth of a State can be determined only by asking how far it actually succeeds in promoting the well-being of a definite race and not by the role which it plays in the world at large. Its relative worth can be estimated readily and accurately; but it is difficult to judge its absolute worth, because the latter is conditioned not only by the State but also by the quality and cultural level of the people that belong to the individual State in question.

    Therefore, when we speak of the high mission of the State we must not forget that the high mission belongs to the people and that the business of the State is to use its organizing powers for the purpose of furnishing the necessary conditions which allow this people freely to unfold its creative faculties. And if we ask what kind of statal institution we Germans need, we must first have a clear notion as to the people which that State must embrace and what purpose it must serve.

    Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul.

    The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily.

    Out of this melting-pot no new race arose. The heterogeneous elements continue to exist side by side. And the result is that, especially in times of crisis, when the herd usually flocks together, the Germans disperse in all directions.

    The fundamental racial elements are not only different in different districts, but there are also various elements in the single districts. Beside the Nordic type we find the East-European type, beside the Eastern there is the Dinaric, the Western type intermingling with both, and hybrids among them all.

    That is a grave drawback for us. Through it the Germans lack that strong herd instinct which arises from unity of blood and saves nations from ruin in dangerous and critical times; because on such occasions small differences disappear, so that a united herd faces the enemy.

    What we understand by the word hyper-individualism arises from the fact that our primordial racial elements have existed side by side without ever consolidating. During times of peace such a situation may offer some advantages, but, taken all in all, it has prevented us from gaining a mastery in the world.

    If in its historical development the German people had possessed the unity of herd instinct by which other peoples have so much benefited, then the German Reich would probably be mistress of the globe today. World history would have taken another course and in this case no man can tell if what many blinded pacifists hope to attain by petitioning, whining and crying, may not have been reached in this way:

    Namely, a peace which would not be based upon the waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering of pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world and administer it in the service of a higher civilization.

    The fact that our people did not have a national being based on a unity of blood has been the source of untold misery for us. To many petty German potentates it gave residential capital cities, but the German people as a whole was deprived of its right to rulership. Even today our nation still suffers from this lack of inner unity; but what has been the cause of our past and present misfortunes may turn out a blessing for us in the future.

    Though on the one hand it may be a drawback that our racial elements were not welded together, so that no homogeneous national body could develop, on the other hand, it was fortunate that, since at least a part of our best blood was thus kept pure, its racial quality was not debased.

    A complete assimilation of all our racial elements would certainly have brought about a homogeneous national organism; but, as has been proved in the case of every racial mixture, it would have been less capable of creating a civilization than by keeping intact its best original elements.



    A benefit which results from the fact that there was no all-round assimilation is to be seen in that even now we have large groups of German Nordic people within our national organization, and that their blood has not been mixed with the blood of other races. We must look upon this as our most valuable treasure for the sake of the future.

    During that dark period of absolute ignorance in regard to all racial laws, when each individual was considered to be on a par with every other, there could be no clear appreciation of the difference between the various fundamental racial characteristics. We know today that a complete assimilation of all the various elements which constitute the national being might have resulted in giving us a larger share of external power:

    On the other hand, the highest of human aims would not have been attained, because the only kind of people which fate has obviously chosen to bring about this perfection would have been lost in such a general mixture of races which would constitute such a racial amalgamation. What has been prevented by a friendly Destiny, without any assistance on our part, must now be reconsidered and utilized in the light of our new knowledge.

    He who talks of the German people as having a mission to fulfil on this earth must know that this cannot be fulfilled except by the building up of a State whose highest purpose is to preserve and promote those nobler elements of our race and of the whole of mankind which have remained unimpaired.

    Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth.

    Out of a dead mechanism which claims to be an end in itself a living organism shall arise which has to serve one purpose exclusively: and that, indeed, a purpose which belongs to a higher order of ideas. As a State the German Reich shall include all Germans. Its task is not only to gather in and foster the most valuable sections of our people but to lead them slowly and surely to a dominant position in the world.

    Thus a period of stagnation is superseded by a period of effort. And here, as in every other sphere, the proverb holds good that to rest is to rust; and furthermore the proverb that victory will always be won by him who attacks. The higher the final goal which we strive to reach, and the less it be understood at the time by the broad masses, the more magnificent will be its success. That is what the lesson of history teaches.

    The achievement will be all the more significant if the end is conceived in the right way and the fight carried through with unswerving persistence. Many of the officials who direct the affairs of State nowadays may find it easier to work for the maintenance of the present order than to fight for a new one.

    They will find it more comfortable to look upon the State as a mechanism, whose purpose is its own preservation, and to say that their lives 'belong to the State' -- as if anything that grew from the inner life of the nation can logically serve anything but the national being, and as if man could be made for anything else than for his fellow beings.

    Naturally, it is easier, as I have said, to consider the authority of the State as nothing but the formal mechanism of an organization, rather than as the sovereign incarnation of a people's instinct for self-preservation on this earth.

    For these weak minds the State and the authority of the State is nothing but an aim in itself, while for us it is an effective weapon in the service of the great and eternal struggle for existence, a weapon which everyone must adopt, not because it is a mere formal mechanism, but because it is the main expression of our common will to exist.

    Therefore, in the fight for our new idea, which conforms completely to the primal meaning of life, we shall find only a small number of comrades in a social order which has become decrepit not only physically but mentally also. From these strata of our population only a few exceptional people will join our ranks, only those few old people whose hearts have remained young and whose courage is still vigorous, but not those who consider it their duty to maintain the state of affairs that exists.

    Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who are lazy-minded and indifferent rather than evil, and those whose self-interest leads them to uphold the present state of affairs. On the apparent hopelessness of our great struggle is based the magnitude of our task and the possibilities of success. A battle-cry which from the very start will scare off all the petty spirits, or at least discourage them, will become the signal for a rally of all those temperaments that are of the real fighting metal.

    It must be clearly recognized that if a highly energetic and active body of men emerge from a nation and unite in the fight for one goal, thereby ultimately rising above the inert masses of the people, this small percentage will become masters of the whole. World history is made by minorities if these numerical minorities represent in themselves the will and energy and initiative of the people as a whole.

    What seems an obstacle to many persons is really a preliminary condition of our victory. Just because our task is so great and because so many difficulties have to be overcome, the highest probability is that only the best kind of protagonists will join our ranks. This selection is the guarantee of our success.

    Nature generally takes certain measures to correct the effect which racial mixture produces in life. She is not much in favour of the mongrel. The later products of cross-breeding have to suffer bitterly, especially the third, fourth and fifth generations. Not only are they deprived of the higher qualities that belonged to the parents who participated in the first mixture, but they also lack definite will-power and vigorous vital energies owing to the lack of harmony in the quality of their blood.

    At all critical moments in which a person of pure racial blood makes correct decisions, that is to say, decisions that are coherent and uniform, the person of mixed blood will become confused and take measures that are incoherent.

    Hence we see that a person of mixed blood is not only relatively inferior to a person of pure blood, but is also doomed to become extinct more rapidly. In innumerable cases wherein the pure race holds its ground the mongrel breaks down. Therein we witness the corrective provision which Nature adopts. She restricts the possibilities of procreation, thus impeding the fertility of cross-breeds and bringing them to extinction.
    For instance, if an individual member of a race should mingle his blood with the member of a superior race the first result would be a lowering of the racial level, and furthermore the descendants of this cross-breeding would be weaker than those of the people around them who had maintained their blood unadulterated.

    Where no new blood from the superior race enters the racial stream of the mongrels, and where those mongrels continue to cross-breed among themselves, the latter will either die out because they have insufficient powers of resistance, which is Nature's wise provision, or in the course of many thousands of years they will form a new mongrel race in which the original elements will become so wholly mixed through this millennial crossing that traces of the original elements will be no longer recognizable.

    Thus a new people would be developed which possessed a certain resistance capacity of the herd type, but its intellectual value and its cultural significance would be essentially inferior to those which the first cross-breeds possessed.

    Even in this last case the mongrel product would succumb in the mutual struggle for existence with a higher racial group that had maintained its blood unmixed. The herd solidarity which this mongrel race had developed through thousands of years will not be equal to the struggle. And this is because it would lack elasticity and constructive capacity to prevail over a race of homogeneous blood that was mentally and culturally superior.

    Therewith we may lay down the following principle as valid: every racial mixture leads, of necessity, sooner or later to the downfall of the mongrel product, provided the higher racial strata of this cross-breed has not retained within itself some sort of racial homogeneity. The danger to the mongrels ceases only when this higher stratum, which has maintained certain standards of homogeneous breeding, ceases to be true to its pedigree and intermingles with the mongrels.

    This principle is the source of a slow but constant regeneration whereby all the poison which has invaded the racial body is gradually eliminated so long as there still remains a fundamental stock of pure racial elements which resists further crossbreeding.

    Such a process may set in automatically among those people where a strong racial instinct has remained. Among such people we may count those elements which, for some particular cause such as coercion, have been thrown out of the normal way of reproduction along strict racial lines.

    As soon as this compulsion ceases, that part of the race which has remained intact will tend to marry with its own kind and thus impede further intermingling. Then the mongrels recede quite naturally into the background unless their numbers had increased so much as to be able to withstand all serious resistance from those elements which had preserved the purity of their race.


    When men have lost their natural instincts and ignore the obligations imposed on them by Nature, then there is no hope that Nature will correct the loss that has been caused, until recognition of the lost instincts has been restored. Then the task of bringing back what has been lost will have to be accomplished.

    There is serious danger that those who have become blind once in this respect will continue more and more to break down racial barriers and finally lose the last remnants of what is best in them. What then remains is nothing but a uniform mish-mash, which seems to be the dream of our fine Utopians.



    That mish-mash would soon banish all ideals from the world. Certainly a great herd could thus be formed. One can breed a herd of animals; but from a mixture of this kind men such as have created and founded civilizations would not be produced. The mission of humanity might then be considered at an end.

    Those who do not wish that the earth should fall into such a condition must realize that it is the task of the German State in particular to see to it that the process of bastardization is brought to a stop.

    Our contemporary generation of weaklings will naturally decry such a policy and whine and complain about it as an encroachment on the most sacred of human rights. But there is only one right that is sacrosanct and this right is at the same time a most sacred duty.

    This right and obligation are: that the purity of the racial blood should be guarded, so that the best types of human beings may be preserved and that thus we should render possible a more noble development of humanity itself.

    A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony from the level of being a constant scandal to the race. The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape.

    The protest which is put forward in the name of humanity does not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it possible for the most depraved degenerates to propagate themselves, thereby imposing unspeakable suffering on their own products and their contemporaries, while on the other hand contraceptives are permitted and sold in every drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be born even among the healthiest of our people.

    In this present State of ours, whose function it is to be the guardian of peace and good order, our national bourgeoisie look upon it as a crime to make procreation impossible for syphilitics and those who suffer from tuberculosis or other hereditary diseases, also cripples and imbeciles.

    The practical prevention of procreation among millions of our very best people is not considered as an evil, nor does it offend against the noble morality of this social class but rather encourages their short-sightedness and mental lethargy.

    For otherwise they would at least stir their brains to find an answer to the question of how to create conditions for the feeding and maintaining of those future beings who will be the healthy representatives of our nation and must also provide the conditions on which the generation that is to follow them will have to support itself and live.

    How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities.

    They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To balance this state of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church.

    While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left to become the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to Central Africa and establishes missionary stations for negroes. Finally, sound and healthy – though primitive and backward – people will be transformed, under the name of our 'higher civilization', into a motley of lazy and brutalized mongrels.
    It would better accord with noble human aspirations if our two Christian denominations would cease to bother the negroes with their preaching, which the negroes neither desire nor understand.

    It would be better if they left this work alone, and if, in its stead, they tried to teach people in Europe, kindly and seriously, that it is much more pleasing to God if a couple that is not of healthy stock were to show loving kindness to some poor orphan and become a father and mother to him, rather than give life to a sickly child that will be a cause of suffering and unhappiness to all.

    In this field the People's State will have to repair the damage that arises from the fact that the problem is at present neglected by all the various parties concerned. It will be the task of the People's State to make the race the centre of the life of the community. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have.

    It must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so.

    On the other hand, it must be considered as reprehensible conduct to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation. In this matter the State must assert itself as the trustee of a millennial future, in face of which the egotistic desires of the individual count for nothing and will have to give way before the ruling of the State.

    In order to fulfil this duty in a practical manner the State will have to avail itself of modern medical discoveries. It must proclaim as unfit for procreation all those who are inflicted with some visible hereditary disease or are the carriers of it; and practical measures must be adopted to have such people rendered sterile.

    On the other hand, provision must be made for the normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in child-bearing through the financial and economic system operating in a political regime that looks upon the blessing of having children as a curse to their parents.

    The State will have to abolish the cowardly and even criminal indifference with which the problem of social amenities for large families is treated, and it will have to be the supreme protector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of. Its attention and care must be directed towards the child rather than the adult.

    Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unfit must not perpetuate their own suffering in the bodies of their children. From the educational point of view there is here a huge task for the People's State to accomplish.

    In a future era this work will appear greater and more significant than the victorious wars of our present bourgeois epoch. Through educational means the State must teach individuals that illness is not a disgrace but an unfortunate accident which has to be pitied, yet that it is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction all the worse by passing on disease and defects to innocent creatures out of mere egotism.

    The State must also teach the people that it is an expression of a really noble nature and that it is a humanitarian act worthy of admiration if a person who innocently suffers from hereditary disease refrains from having a child of his own but gives his love and affection to some unknown child who, through its health, promises to become a robust member of a healthy community.

    In accomplishing such an educational task the State integrates its function by this activity in the moral sphere. It must act on this principle without paying any attention to the question of whether its conduct will be understood or misconstrued, blamed or praised.

    If for a period of only 600 years those individuals would be sterilized who are physically degenerate or mentally diseased, humanity would not only be delivered from an immense misfortune but also restored to a state of general health such as we at present can hardly imagine.

    If the fecundity of the healthy portion of the nation should be made a practical matter in a conscientious and methodical way, we should have at least the beginnings of a race from which all those germs would be eliminated which are today the cause of our moral and physical decadence.



    If a people and a State take this course to develop that nucleus of the nation which is most valuable from the racial standpoint and thus increase its fecundity, the people as a whole will subsequently enjoy that most precious of gifts which consists in a racial quality fashioned on truly noble lines.

    To achieve this the State should first of all not leave the colonization of newly acquired territory to a haphazard policy but should have it carried out under the guidance of definite principles.

    Specially competent committees ought to issue certificates to individuals entitling them to engage in colonization work, and these certificates should guarantee the racial purity of the individuals in question. In this way frontier colonies could gradually be founded whose inhabitants would be of the purest racial stock, and hence would possess the best qualities of the race.

    Such colonies would be a valuable asset to the whole nation. Their development would be a source of joy and confidence and pride to each citizen of the nation, because they would contain the pure germ which would ultimately bring about a great development of the nation and indeed of mankind itself.

    The folkish philosophy of life which bases the State on the racial idea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which men will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs and horses and cats, but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human race itself. That will be an era of silence and renunciation for one class of people, while the others will give their gifts and make their sacrifices joyfully.

    That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in a world where hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy from their own choice, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept.

    Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to this truly original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being passed on from one generation to another.

    Further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.

    Naturally, our wretched army of contemporary philistines will not understand these things. They will ridicule them or shrug their round shoulders and groan out their everlasting excuses: "Of course it is a fine thing, but the pity is that it cannot be carried out." And we reply: "With you indeed it cannot be done, for your world is incapable of such an idea. You know only one anxiety and that is for your own personal existence.

    You have one God, and that is your money. We do not turn to you, however, for help, but to the great army of those who are too poor to consider their personal existence as the highest good on earth. They do not place their trust in money but in other gods, into whose hands they confide their lives. Above all we turn to the vast army of our German youth.

    They are coming to maturity in a great epoch, and they will fight against the evils which were due to the laziness and indifference of their fathers." Either the German youth will one day create a new State founded on the racial idea or they will be the last witnesses of the complete breakdown and death of the bourgeois world.

    For if a generation suffers from defects which it recognizes and even admits and is nevertheless quite pleased with itself, as the bourgeois world is today, resorting to the cheap excuse that nothing can be done to remedy the situation, then such a generation is doomed to disaster. A marked characteristic of our bourgeois world is that they no longer can deny the evil conditions that exist.

    They have to admit that there is much which is foul and wrong; but they are not able to make up their minds to fight against that evil, which would mean putting forth the energy to mobilize the forces of 60 or 70 million people and thus oppose this menace.

    They do just the opposite. When such an effort is made elsewhere they only indulge in silly comment and try from a safe distance to show that such an enterprise is theoretically impossible and doomed to failure. No arguments are too stupid to be employed in the service of their own pettifogging opinions and their knavish moral attitude.

    If, for instance, a whole continent wages war against alcoholic intoxication, so as to free a whole people from this devastating vice, our bourgeois European does not know better than to look sideways stupidly, shake the head in doubt and ridicule the movement with a superior sneer – a state of mind which is effective in a society that is so ridiculous.

    When all these stupidities miss their aim and in that part of the world this sublime and intangible attitude is treated effectively and success attends the movement, then such success is called into question or its importance minimized. Even moral principles are used in this slanderous campaign against a movement which aims at suppressing a great source of immorality. No. We must not permit ourselves to be deceived by any illusions on this point.

    Our contemporary bourgeois world has become useless for any such noble human task because it has lost all high quality and is evil, not so much - as I think - because evil is wished but rather because these people are too indolent to rise up against it. That is why those political societies which call themselves 'bourgeois parties' are nothing but associations to promote the interests of certain professional groups and classes. Their highest aim is to defend their own egoistic interests as best they can.

    It is obvious that such a guild, consisting of bourgeois politicians, may be considered fit for anything rather than a struggle, especially when the adversaries are not cautious shopkeepers but the proletarian masses, goaded on to extremities and determined not to hesitate before deeds of violence.


    If we consider it the first duty of the State to serve and promote the general welfare of the people, by preserving and encouraging the development of the best racial elements, the logical consequence is that this task cannot be limited to measures concerning the birth of the infant members of the race and nation but that the State will also have to adopt educational means for making each citizen a worthy factor in the further propagation of the racial stock.


    Just as, in general, the racial quality is the preliminary condition for the mental efficiency of any given human material, the training of the individual will first of all have to be directed towards the development of sound bodily health. For the general rule is that a strong and healthy mind is found only in a strong and healthy body. The fact that men of genius are sometimes not robust in health and stature, or even of a sickly constitution, is no proof against the principle I have enunciated.

    These cases are only exceptions which, as everywhere else, prove the rule. But when the bulk of a nation is composed of physical degenerates it is rare for a great spirit to arise from such a miserable motley. And in any case his activities would never meet with great success. A degenerate mob will either be incapable of understanding him at all or their will-power is so feeble that they cannot follow the soaring of such an eagle.

    The State that is grounded on the racial principle and is alive to the significance of this truth will first of all have to base its educational work not on the mere imparting of knowledge but rather on physical training and development of healthy bodies. The cultivation of the intellectual facilities comes only in the second place. And here again it is character which has to be developed first of all, strength of will and decision.

    The educational system ought to foster the spirit of readiness to accept responsibilities gladly. Formal instruction in the sciences must be considered last in importance. Accordingly the State which is grounded on the racial idea must start with the principle that a person whose formal education in the sciences is relatively small but who is physically sound and robust, of a steadfast and honest character, ready and able to make decisions and endowed with strength of will, is a more useful member of the national community than a weakling who is scholarly and refined.

    A nation composed of learned men who are physical weaklings, hesitant about decisions of the will, and timid pacifists, is not capable of assuring even its own existence on this earth. In the bitter struggle which decides the destiny of man it is very rare that an individual has succumbed because he lacked learning. Those who fail are they who try to ignore these consequences and are too faint-hearted about putting them into effect.

    There must be a certain balance between mind and body. An ill-kept body is not made a more beautiful sight by the indwelling of a radiant spirit. We should not be acting justly if we were to bestow the highest intellectual training on those who are physically deformed and crippled, who lack decision and are weak-willed and cowardly. What has made the Greek ideal of beauty immortal is the wonderful union of a splendid physical beauty with nobility of mind and spirit.
    Moltke's saying, that in the long run fortune favours only the efficient, is certainly valid for the relationship between body and spirit. A mind which is sound will generally maintain its dwelling in a body that is sound.

    Accordingly, in the People's State physical training is not a matter for the individual alone. Nor is it a duty which first devolves on the parents and only secondly or thirdly a public interest; but it is necessary for the preservation of the people, who are represented and protected by the State.

    As regards purely formal education the State even now interferes with the individual's right of self-determination and insists upon the right of the community by submitting the child to an obligatory system of training, without paying attention to the approval or disapproval of the parents. In a similar way and to a higher degree the new People's State will one day make its authority prevail over the ignorance and incomprehension of individuals in problems appertaining to the safety of the nation.

    It must organize its educational work in such a way that the bodies of the young will be systematically trained from infancy onwards, so as to be tempered and hardened for the demands to be made on them in later years. Above all, the State must see to it that a generation of stay-at-homes is not developed.

    The work of education and hygiene has to begin with the young mother. The painstaking efforts carried on for several decades have succeeded in abolishing septic infection at childbirth and reducing puerperal fever to a relatively small number of cases. And so it ought to be possible by means of instructing sisters and mothers in an opportune way, to institute a system of training the child from early infancy onwards so that this may serve as an excellent basis for future development.


    The People's State ought to allow much more time for physical training in the school. It is nonsense to burden young brains with a load of material of which, as experience shows, they retain only a small part, and mostly not the essentials, but only the secondary and useless portion; because the young mind is incapable of sifting the right kind of learning out of all the stuff that is pumped into it.



    To-day, even in the curriculum of the high schools, only two short hours in the week are reserved for gymnastics; and worse still, it is left to the pupils to decide whether or not they want to take part. This shows a grave disproportion between this branch of education and purely intellectual instruction.

    Not a single day should be allowed to pass in which the young pupil does not have one hour of physical training in the morning and one in the evening; and every kind of sport and gymnastics should be included. There is one kind of sport which should be specially encouraged, although many people who call themselves völkisch consider it brutal and vulgar, and that is boxing.

    It is incredible how many false notions prevail among the 'cultivated' classes. The fact that the young man learns how to fence and then spends his time in duels is considered quite natural and respectable.

    Boxing – that is brutal. Why? There is no other sport which equals this in developing the militant spirit, none that demands such a power of rapid decision or which gives the body the flexibility of good steel. It is no more vulgar when two young people settle their differences with their fists than with sharp-pointed pieces of steel.

    One who is attacked and defends himself with his fists surely does not act less manly than one who runs off and yells for the assistance of a policeman. But, above all, a healthy youth has to learn to endure hard knocks. This principle may appear savage to our contemporary champions who fight only with the weapons of the intellect.

    It is not the purpose of the People's State to educate a colony of æsthetic pacifists and physical degenerates. This State does not consider that the human ideal is to be found in the honourable philistine or the maidenly spinster, but in a dareful personification of manly force and in women capable of bringing men into the world.

  4. Chapter 2 continued



    Generally speaking, the function of sport is not only to make the individual strong, alert and daring, but also to harden the body and train it to endure an adverse environment.

    If our superior class had not received such a distinguished education, and if, on the contrary, they had learned boxing, it would never have been possible for bullies and deserters and other such canaille to carry through a German revolution. For the success of this revolution was not due to the courageous, energetic and audacious activities of its authors but to the lamentable cowardice and irresolution of those who ruled the German State at that time and were responsible for it.

    Our educated leaders had received only an 'intellectual' training and thus found themselves defenceless when their adversaries used iron bars instead of intellectual weapons. All this could happen only because our superior scholastic system did not train men to be real men but merely to be civil servants, engineers, technicians, chemists, litterateurs, jurists and, finally, professors; so that intellectualism should not die out.

    Our leadership in the purely intellectual sphere has always been brilliant, but as regards will-power in practical affairs our leadership has been beneath criticism.

    Of course education cannot make a courageous man out of one who is temperamentally a coward. But a man who naturally possesses a certain degree of courage will not be able to develop that quality if his defective education has made him inferior to others from the very start as regards physical strength and prowess. The army offers the best example of the fact that the knowledge of one's physical ability develops a man's courage and militant spirit.

    Outstanding heroes are not the rule in the army, but the average represents men of high courage. The excellent schooling which the German soldiers received before the War imbued the members of the whole gigantic organism with a degree of confidence in their own superiority such as even our opponents never thought possible.

    All the immortal examples of dauntless courage and daring which the German armies gave during the late summer and autumn of 1914, as they advanced from triumph to triumph, were the result of that education which had been pursued systematically. During those long years of peace before the last War men who were almost physical weaklings were made capable of incredible deeds, and thus a self-confidence was developed which did not fail even in the most terrible battles.

    It is our German people, which broke down and were delivered over to be kicked by the rest of the world, that had need of the power that comes by suggestion from self-confidence, this confidence in one's self must be instilled into our children from their very early years. The whole system of education and training must be directed towards fostering in the child the conviction that he is unquestionably a match for any- and everybody.

    The individual has to regain his own physical strength and prowess in order to believe in the invincibility of the nation to which he belongs. What has formerly led the German armies to victory was the sum total of the confidence which each individual had in himself, and which all of them had in those who held the positions of command. What will restore the national strength of the German people is the conviction that they will be able to reconquer their libert, this conviction can only be the final product of an equal feeling in the millions of individuals. And here again we must have no illusions.


    The collapse of our people was overwhelming, and the efforts to put an end to so much misery must also be overwhelming. It would be a bitter and grave error to believe that our people could be made strong again simply by means of our present bourgeois training in good order and obedience.

    That will not suffice if we are to break up the present order of things, which now sanctions the acknowledgment of our defeat and cast the broken chains of our slavery in the face of our opponents. Only by a superabundance of national energy and a passionate thirst for liberty can we recover what has been lost.
    Also the manner of clothing the young should be such as harmonizes with this purpose.

    It is really lamentable to see how our young people have fallen victims to a fashion mania which perverts the meaning of the old adage that clothes make the man. Especially in regard to young people clothes should take their place in the service of education. The boy who walks about in summer-time wearing long baggy trousers and clad up to the neck is hampered even by his clothes in feeling any inclination towards strenuous physical exercise.

    Ambition and, to speak quite frankly, even vanity must be appealed to. I do not mean such vanity as leads people to want to wear fine clothes, which not everybody can afford, but rather the vanity which inclines a person towards developing a fine bodily physique. And this is something which everybody can help to do.
    This will come in useful also for later years.

    The young girl must become acquainted with her sweetheart. If the beauty of the body were not completely forced into the background today through our stupid manner of dressing, it would not be possible for thousands of our girls to be led astray by Jewish mongrels, with their repulsive crooked waddle. It is also in the interests of the nation that those who have a beautiful physique should be brought into the foreground, so that they might encourage the development of a beautiful bodily form among the people in general.

    Military training is excluded among us today, and therewith the only institution which in peace-times at least partly made up for the lack of physical training in our education. Therefore what I have suggested is all the more necessary in our time. The success of our old military training not only showed itself in the education of the individual but also in the influence which it exercised over the mutual relationship between the sexes.

    The young girl preferred the soldier to one who was not a soldier. The People's State must not confine its control of physical training to the official school period, but it must demand that, after leaving school and while the adolescent body is still developing, the boy continues this training. For on such proper physical development success in after-life largely depends. It is stupid to think that the right of the State to supervise the education of its young citizens suddenly comes to an end the moment they leave school and recommences only with military service. This right is a duty, and as such it must continue uninterruptedly.

    The present State, which does not interest itself in developing healthy men, has criminally neglected this duty. It leaves our contemporary youth to be corrupted on the streets and in the brothels, instead of keeping hold of the reins and continuing the physical training of these youths up to the time when they are grown into healthy young men and women.

    For the present it is a matter of indifference what form the State chooses for carrying on this training. The essential matter is that it should be developed and that the most suitable ways of doing so should be investigated. The People's State will have to consider the physical training of the youth after the school period just as much a public duty as their intellectual training; and this training will have to be carried out through public institutions.

    Its general lines can be a preparation for subsequent service in the army. And then it will no longer be the task of the army to teach the young recruit the most elementary drill regulations. In fact the army will no longer have to deal with recruits in the present sense of the word, but it will rather have to transform into a soldier the youth whose bodily prowess has been already fully trained.

    In the People's State the army will no longer be obliged to teach boys how to walk and stand erect, but it will be the final and supreme school of patriotic education. In the army the young recruit will learn the art of bearing arms, but at the same time he will be equipped for his other duties in later life. And the supreme aim of military education must always be to achieve that which was attributed to the old army as its highest merit: namely, that through his military schooling the boy must be transformed into a man, that he must not only learn to obey but also acquire the fundamentals that will enable him one day to command.

    He must learn to remain silent not only when he is rightly rebuked but also when he is wrongly rebuked.
    Furthermore, on the self-consciousness of his own strength and on the basis of that esprit de corps which inspires him and his comrades, he must become convinced that he belongs to a people who are invincible.

    After he has completed his military training two certificates shall be handed to the soldier. The one will be his diploma as a citizen of the State, a juridical document which will enable him to take part in public affairs. The second will be an attestation of his physical health, which guarantees his fitness for marriage.

    The People's State will have to direct the education of girls just as that of boys and according to the same fundamental principles. Here again special importance must be given to physical training, and only after that must the importance of spiritual and mental training be taken into account. In the education of the girl the final goal always to be kept in mind is that she is one day to be a mother.

    It is only in the second place that the People's State must busy itself with the training of character, using all the means adapted to that purpose.

    Of course the essential traits of the individual character are already there fundamentally before any education takes place. A person who is fundamentally egoistic will always remain fundamentally egoistic, and the idealist will always remain fundamentally an idealist. Besides those, however, who already possess a definite stamp of character there are millions of people with characters that are indefinite and vague.

    The born delinquent will always remain a delinquent, but numerous people who show only a certain tendency to commit criminal acts may become useful members of the community if rightly trained; whereas, on the other hand, weak and unstable characters may easily become evil elements if the system of education has been bad.

    During the War it was often lamented that our people could be so little reticent. This failing made it very difficult to keep even highly important secrets from the knowledge of the enemy, let us ask this question: What did the German educational system do in pre-War times to teach the Germans to be discreet?

    Did it not very often happen in schooldays that the little tell-tale was preferred to his companions who kept their mouths shut? Is it not true that then, as well as now, complaining about others was considered praiseworthy 'candour', while silent discretion was taken as obstinacy? Has any attempt ever been made to teach that discretion is a precious and manly virtue?

    No, for such matters are trifles in the eyes of our educators. But these trifles cost our State innumerable millions in legal expenses; for 90 per cent of all the processes for defamation and such like charges arise only from a lack of discretion. Remarks that are made without any sense of responsibility are thoughtlessly repeated from mouth to mouth; and our economic welfare is continually damaged because important methods of production are thus disclosed. Secret preparations for our national defence are rendered illusory because our people have never learned the duty of silence.

    They repeat everything they happen to hear. In times of war such talkative habits may even cause the loss of battles and therefore may contribute essentially to the unsuccessful outcome of a campaign. Here, as in other matters, we may rest assured that adults cannot do what they have not learnt to do in youth. A teacher must not try to discover the wild tricks of the boys by encouraging the evil practice of tale-bearing. Young people form a sort of State among themselves and face adults with a certain solidarity.

    That is quite natural. The ties which unite the ten-year boys to one another are stronger and more natural than their relationship to adults. A boy who tells on his comrades commits an act of treason and shows a bent of character which is, to speak bluntly, similar to that of a man who commits high treason. Such a boy must not be classed as 'good', 'reliable', and so on, but rather as one with undesirable traits of character.

    It may be rather convenient for the teacher to make use of such unworthy tendencies in order to help his own work, but by such an attitude the germ of a moral habit is sown in young hearts and may one day show fatal consequences. It has happened more often than once that a young informer developed into a big scoundrel.

    This is only one example among many. The deliberate training of fine and noble traits of character in our schools today is almost negative. In the future much more emphasis will have to be laid on this side of our educational work. Loyalty, self-sacrifice and discretion are virtues which a great nation must possess. And the teaching and development of these in the school is a more important matter than many others things now included in the curriculum. To make the children give up habits of complaining and whining and howling when they are hurt, etc., also belongs to this part of their training.

    If the educational system fails to teach the child at an early age to endure pain and injury without complaining we cannot be surprised if at a later age, when the boy has grown to be the man and is, for example, in the trenches, the postal service is used for nothing else than to send home letters of weeping and complaint.

    If our youths, during their years in the primary schools, had had their minds crammed with a little less knowledge, and if instead they had been better taught how to be masters of themselves, it would have served us well during the years 1914–1918.

    In its educational system the People's State will have to attach the highest importance to the development of character, hand-in-hand with physical training. Many more defects which our national organism shows at present could be at least ameliorated, if not completely eliminated, by education of the right kind.

    Extreme importance should be attached to the training of will-power and the habit of making firm decisions, also the habit of being always ready to accept responsibilities.

    In the training of our old army the principle was in vogue that any order is always better than no order. Applied to our youth this principle ought to take the form that any answer is better than no answer. The fear of replying, because one fears to be wrong, ought to be considered more humiliating than giving the wrong reply. On this simple and primitive basis our youth should be trained to have the courage to act.

    It has been often lamented that in November and December 1918 all the authorities lost their heads and that, from the monarch down to the last divisional commander, nobody had sufficient mettle to make a decision on his own responsibility.

    That terrible fact constitutes a grave rebuke to our educational system; because what was then revealed on a colossal scale at that moment of catastrophe was only what happens on a smaller scale everywhere among us. It is the lack of will-power, and not the lack of arms, which renders us incapable of offering any serious resistance today.

    This defect is found everywhere among our people and prevents decisive action wherever risks have to be taken, as if any great action can be taken without also taking the risk. Quite unsuspectingly, a German General found a formula for this lamentable lack of the will-to-act when he said: "I act only when I can count on a 51 per cent probability of success."

    In that '51 per cent probability' we find the very root of the German collapse. The man who demands from Fate a guarantee of his success deliberately denies the significance of an heroic act. For this significance consists in the very fact that, in the definite knowledge that the situation in question is fraught with mortal danger, an action is undertaken which may lead to success.

    A patient suffering from cancer and who knows that his death is certain if he does not undergo an operation, needs no 51 per cent probability of a cure before facing the operation. And if the operation promises only half of one per cent probability of success a man of courage will risk it and would not whine if it turned out unsuccessful.

    All in all, the cowardly lack of will-power and the incapacity for making decisions are chiefly results of the erroneous education given us in our youth. The disastrous effects of this are now widespread among us. The crowning examples of that tragic chain of consequences are shown in the lack of civil courage which our leading statesmen display.

    The cowardice which leads nowadays to the shirking of every kind of responsibility springs from the same roots. Here again it is the fault of the education given our young people. This drawback permeates all sections of public life and finds its immortal consummation in the institutions of government that function under the parliamentary regime.


    Already in the school, unfortunately, more value is placed on 'confession and full repentance' and 'contrite renouncement', on the part of little sinners, than on a simple and frank avowal.

    This latter seems today, in the eyes of many an educator, to savour of a spirit of utter incorrigibility and depravation. And, though it may seem incredible, many a boy is told that the gallows tree is waiting for him because he has shown certain traits which might be of inestimable value in the nation as a whole.


    Just as the People's State must one day give its attention to training the will-power and capacity for decision among the youth, so too it must inculcate in the hearts of the young generation from early childhood onwards a readiness to accept responsibilities, and the courage of open and frank avowal. If it recognizes the full significance of this necessity, finally – after a century of educative work – it will succeed in building up a nation which will no longer be subject to those defeats that have contributed so disastrously to bring about our present overthrow.

    The formal imparting of knowledge, which constitutes the chief work of our educational system today, will be taken over by the People's State with only few modifications. These modifications must be made in three branches.

    First of all, the brains of the young people must not generally be burdened with subjects of which ninety-five per cent are useless to them and are therefore forgotten again. The curriculum of the primary and secondary schools presents an odd mixture at the present time. In many branches of study the subject matter to be learned has become so enormous that only a very small fraction of it can be remembered later on, and indeed only a very small fraction of this whole mass of knowledge can be used.

    On the other hand, what is learned is insufficient for anybody who wishes to specialize in any certain branch for the purpose of earning his daily bread. Take, for example, the average civil servant who has passed through the Gymnasium or High School, and ask him at the age of thirty or forty how much he has retained of the knowledge that was crammed into him with so much pains.

    How much is retained from all that was stuffed into his brain? He will certainly answer: "Well, if a mass of stuff was then taught, it was not for the sole purpose of supplying the student with a great stock of knowledge from which he could draw in later years, but it served to develop the understanding, the memory, and above all it helped to strengthen the thinking powers of the brain."

    That is partly true. And yet it is somewhat dangerous to submerge a young brain in a flood of impressions which it can hardly master and the single elements of which it cannot discern or appreciate at their just value. It is mostly the essential part of this knowledge, and not the accidental, that is forgotten and sacrificed.

    Thus the principal purpose of this copious instruction is frustrated, for that purpose cannot be to make the brain capable of learning by simply offering it an enormous and varied amount of subjects for acquisition, but rather to furnish the individual with that stock of knowledge which he will need in later life and which he can use for the good of the community. This aim, however, is rendered illusory if, because of the superabundance of subjects that have been crammed into his head in childhood, a person is able to remember nothing, or at least not the essential portion, of all this in later life.

    There is no reason why millions of people should learn two or three languages during the school years, when only a very small fraction will have the opportunity to use these languages in later life and when most of them will therefore forget those languages completely.

    To take an instance: Out of 100,000 students who learn French there are probably not 2,000 who will be in a position to make use of this accomplishment in later life, while 98,000 will never have a chance to utilize in practice what they have learned in youth. They have spent thousands of hours on a subject which will afterward be without any value or importance to them. The argument that these matters form part of the general process of educating the mind is invalid.

    t would be sound if all these people were able to use this learning in after life. But, as the situation stands, 98,000 are tortured to no purpose and waste their valuable time, only for the sake of the 2,000 to whom the language will be of any use.
    In the case of that language which I have chosen as an example it cannot be said that the learning of it educates the student in logical thinking or sharpens his mental acumen, as the learning of Latin, for instance, might be said to do.

    It would therefore be much better to teach young students only the general outline, or, better, the inner structure of such a language: that is to say, to allow them to discern the characteristic features of the language, or perhaps to make them acquainted with the rudiments of its grammar, its pronunciation, its syntax, style, etc.

    That would be sufficient for average students, because it would provide a clearer view of the whole and could be more easily remembered. And it would be more practical than the present-day attempt to cram into their heads a detailed knowledge of the whole language, which they can never master and which they will readily forget.

    If this method were adopted, then we should avoid the danger that, out of the superabundance of matter taught, only some fragments will remain in the memory; for the youth would then have to learn what is worth while, and the selection between the useful and the useless would thus have been made beforehand.

    As regards the majority of students the knowledge and understanding of the rudiments of a language would be quite sufficient for the rest of their lives. And those who really do need this language subsequently would thus have a foundation on which to start, should they choose to make a more thorough study of it.

    By adopting such a curriculum the necessary amount of time would be gained for physical exercises as well as for a more intense training in the various educational fields that have already been mentioned.

    A reform of particular importance is that which ought to take place in the present methods of teaching history. Scarcely any other people are made to study as much of history as the Germans, and scarcely any other people make such a bad use of their historical knowledge. If politics means history in the making, then our way of teaching history stands condemned by the way we have conducted our politics.

    There would be no point in bewailing the lamentable results of our political conduct unless one is now determined to give our people a better political education. In 99 out of 100 cases the results of our present teaching of history are deplorable. Usually only a few dates, years of birth and names, remain in the memory, while a knowledge of the main and clearly defined lines of historical development is completely lacking.

    The essential features which are of real significance are not taught. It is left to the more or less bright intelligence of the individual to discover the inner motivating urge amid the mass of dates and chronological succession of events.

    You may object as strongly as you like to this unpleasant statement. But read with attention the speeches which our parliamentarians make during one session alone on political problems and on questions of foreign policy in particular. Remember that those gentlemen are, or claim to be, the elite of the German nation and that at least a great number of them have sat on the benches of our secondary schools and that many of them have passed through our universities. Then you will realize how defective the historical education of these people has been.

    If these gentlemen had never studied history at all but had possessed a sound instinct for public affairs, things would have gone better, and the nation would have benefited greatly thereby. The subject matter of our historical teaching must be curtailed. The chief value of that teaching is to make the principal lines of historical development understood.

    The more our historical teaching is limited to this task, the more we may hope that it will turn out subsequently to be of advantage to the individual and, through the individual, to the community as a whole. For history must not be studied merely with a view to knowing what happened in the past but as a guide for the future, and to teach us what policy would be the best to follow for the preservation of our own people.

    That is the real end; and the teaching of history is only a means to attain this end. But here again the means has superseded the end in our contemporary education. The goal is completely forgotten. Do not reply that a profound study of history demands a detailed knowledge of all these dates because otherwise we could not fix the great lines of development. That task belongs to the professional historians. But the average man is not a professor of history.



    For him history has only one mission and that is to provide him with such an amount of historical knowledge as is necessary in order to enable him to form an independent opinion on the political affairs of his own country. The man who wants to become a professor of history can devote himself to all the details later on.

    Naturally he will have to occupy himself even with the smallest details. Of course our present teaching of history is not adequate to all this. Its scope is too vast for the average student and too limited for the student who wishes to be an historical expert.Finally, it is the business of the People's State to arrange for the writing of a world history in which the race problem will occupy a dominant position.

    To sum up: The People's State must reconstruct our system of general instruction in such a way that it will embrace only what is essential. Beyond this it will have to make provision for a more advanced teaching in the various subjects for those who want to specialize in them.

    It will suffice for the average individual to be acquainted with the fundamentals of the various subjects to serve as the basis of what may be called an all-round education. He ought to study exhaustively and in detail only that subject in which he intends to work during the rest of his life. A general instruction in all subjects should be obligatory, and specialization should be left to the choice of the individual.

    In this way the scholastic programme would be shortened, and thus several school hours would be gained which could be utilized for physical training and character training, in will-power, the capacity for making practical judgments, decisions, etc.


    The little account taken by our school training today, especially in the secondary schools, of the callings that have to be followed in after life is demonstrated by the fact that men who are destined for the same calling in life are educated in three different kinds of schools. What is of decisive importance is general education only and not the special teaching. When special knowledge is needed it cannot be given in the curriculum of our secondary schools as they stand today.
    Therefore the People's State will one day have to abolish such half-measures.

    The second modification in the curriculum which the People's State will have to make is the following: It is a characteristic of our materialistic epoch that our scientific education shows a growing emphasis on what is real and practical: such subjects, for instance, as applied mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.

    Of course they are necessary in an age that is dominated by industrial technology and chemistry, and where everyday life shows at least the external manifestations of these. But it is a perilous thing to base the general culture of a nation on the knowledge of these subjects. On the contrary, that general culture ought always to be directed towards ideals.

    It ought to be founded on the humanist disciplines and should aim at giving only the ground work of further specialized instruction in the various practical sciences. Otherwise we should sacrifice those forces that are more important for the preservation of the nation than any technical knowledge. In the historical department the study of ancient history should not be omitted. Roman history, along general lines, is and will remain the best teacher, not only for our own time but also for the future. And the ideal of Hellenic culture should be preserved for us in all its marvellous beauty.

    The differences between the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as the German forms part of it.

    A clear-cut division must be made between general culture and the special branches. To-day the latter threaten more and more to devote themselves exclusively to the service of Mammon. To counterbalance this tendency, general culture should be preserved, at least in its ideal forms. The principle should be repeatedly emphasized, that industrial and technical progress, trade and commerce, can flourish only so long as a folk community exists whose general system of thought is inspired by ideals, since that is the preliminary condition for a flourishing development of the enterprises I have spoken of.

    That condition is not created by a spirit of materialist egotism but by a spirit of self-denial and the joy of giving one's self in the service of others. The system of education which prevails today sees its principal object in pumping into young people that knowledge which will help them to make their way in life. This principle is expressed in the following terms: "The young man must one day become a useful member of human society."

    By that phrase they mean the ability to gain an honest daily livelihood. The superficial training in the duties of good citizenship, which he acquires merely as an accidental thing, has very weak foundations. For in itself the State represents only a form, and therefore it is difficult to train people to look upon this form as the ideal which they will have to serve and towards which they must feel responsible. A form can be too easily broken.

    As we have seen, the idea which people have of the State today does not represent anything clearly defined. Therefore, there is nothing but the usual stereotyped 'patriotic' training. In the old Germany the greatest emphasis was placed on the divine right of the small and even the smallest potentates.

    The way in which this divine right was formulated and presented was never very clever and often very stupid. Because of the large numbers of those small potentates, it was impossible to give adequate biographical accounts of the really great personalities that shed their lustre on the history of the German people. The result was that the broad masses received a very inadequate knowledge of German history. Here, too, the great lines of development were missing.

    It is evident that in such a way no real national enthusiasm could be aroused. Our educational system proved incapable of selecting from the general mass of our historical personages the names of a few personalities which the German people could be proud to look upon as their own. Thus the whole nation might have been united by the ties of a common knowledge of this common heritage.



    The really important figures in German history were not presented to the present generation. The attention of the whole nation was not concentrated on them for the purpose of awakening a common national spirit. From the various subjects that were taught, those who had charge of our training seemed incapable of selecting what redounded most to the national honour and lifting that above the common objective level, in order to inflame the national pride in the light of such brilliant examples.

    At that time such a course would have been looked upon as rank chauvinism, which did not then have a very pleasant savour. Pettifogging dynastic patriotism was more acceptable and more easily tolerated than the glowing fire of a supreme national pride. The former could be always pressed into service, whereas the latter might one day become a dominating force. Monarchist patriotism terminated in Associations of Veterans, whereas passionate national patriotism might have opened a road which would be difficult to determine.

    This national passion is like a highly tempered thoroughbred who is discriminate about the sort of rider he will tolerate in the saddle. No wonder that most people preferred to shirk such a danger. Nobody seemed to think it possible that one day a war might come which would put the mettle of this kind of patriotism to the test,

    In artillery bombardment and waves of attacks with poison gas. But when it did come our lack of this patriotic passion was avenged in a terrible way. None were very enthusiastic about dying for their imperial and royal sovereigns; while on the other hand the 'Nation' was not recognized by the greater number of the soldiers.

    Since the revolution broke out in Germany and the monarchist patriotism was therefore extinguished, the purpose of teaching history was nothing more than to add to the stock of objective knowledge.

    The present State has no use for patriotic enthusiasm; but it will never obtain what it really desires. For if dynastic patriotism failed to produce a supreme power of resistance at a time when the principle of nationalism dominated, it will be still less possible to arouse republican enthusiasm. There can be no doubt that the German people would not have stood on the field of battle for four and a half years to fight under the battle slogan 'For the Republic,' and least of all those who created this grand institution.

    In reality this Republic has been allowed to exist undisturbed only by grace of its readiness and its promise to all and sundry, to pay tribute and reparations to the stranger and to put its signature to any kind of territorial renunciation. The rest of the world finds it sympathetic, just as a weakling is always more pleasing to those who want to bend him to their own uses than is a man who is made of harder metal.

    The fact that the enemy likes this form of government is the worst kind of condemnation. They love the German Republic and tolerate its existence because no better instrument could be found which would help them to keep our people in slavery. It is to this fact alone that this magnanimous institution owes its survival. And that is why it can renounce any real system of national education and can feel satisfied when the heroes of the Reich banner shout their hurrahs, but in reality these same heroes would scamper away like rabbits if called upon to defend that banner with their blood.


    The People's State will have to fight for its existence. It will not gain or secure this existence by signing documents like that of the Dawes Plan. But for its existence and defence it will need precisely those things which our present system believes can be repudiated. The more worthy its form and its inner national being. the greater will be the envy and opposition of its adversaries.

    The best defence will not be in the arms it possesses but in its citizens. Bastions of fortresses will not save it, but the living wall of its men and women, filled with an ardent love for their country and a passionate spirit of national patriotism.
    Therefore the third point which will have to be considered in relation to our educational system is the following:

    The People's State must realize that the sciences may also be made a means of promoting a spirit of pride in the nation. Not only the history of the world but the history of civilization as a whole must be taught in the light of this principle. An inventor must appear great not only as an inventor but also, and even more so, as a member of the nation.

    The admiration aroused by the contemplation of a great achievement must be transformed into a feeling of pride and satisfaction that a man of one's own race has been chosen to accomplish it. But out of the abundance of great names in German history the greatest will have to be selected and presented to our young generation in such a way as to become solid pillars of strength to support the national spirit.
    The subject matter ought to be systematically organized from the standpoint of this principle. And the teaching should be so orientated that the boy or girl, after leaving school, will not be a semi-pacifist, a democrat or of something else of that kind, but a whole-hearted German.

    So that this national feeling be sincere from the very beginning, and not a mere pretence, the following fundamental and inflexible principle should be impressed on the young brain while it is yet malleable: The man who loves his nation can prove the sincerity of this sentiment only by being ready to make sacrifices for the nation's welfare. There is no such thing as a national sentiment which is directed towards personal interests. And there is no such thing as a nationalism that embraces only certain classes.

    Hurrahing proves nothing and does not confer the right to call oneself national if behind that shout there is no sincere preoccupation for the conservation of the nation's well-being. One can be proud of one's people only if there is no class left of which one need to be ashamed. When one half of a nation is sunk in misery and worn out by hard distress, or even depraved or degenerate, that nation presents such an unattractive picture that nobody can feel proud to belong to it.

    It is only when a nation is sound in all its members, physically and morally, that the joy of belonging to it can properly be intensified to the supreme feeling which we call national pride. But this pride, in its highest form, can be felt only by those who know the greatness of their nation.

    The spirit of nationalism and a feeling for social justice must be fused into one sentiment in the hearts of the youth. Then a day will come when a nation of citizens will arise which will be welded together through a common love and a common pride that shall be invincible and indestructible for ever.

    The dread of chauvinism, which is a symptom of our time, is a sign of its impotence. Since our epoch not only lacks everything in the nature of exuberant energy but even finds such a manifestation disagreeable, fate will never elect it for the accomplishment of any great deeds. For the greatest changes that have taken place on this earth would have been inconceivable if they had not been inspired by ardent and even hysterical passions, but only by the bourgeois virtues of peacefulness and order.
    One thing is certain: our world is facing a great revolution. The only question is whether the outcome will be propitious for the Aryan portion of mankind or whether the everlasting Jew will profit by it.
    By educating the young generation along the right lines, the People's State will have to see to it that a generation of mankind is formed which will be adequate to this supreme combat that will decide the destinies of the world.
    That nation will conquer which will be the first to take this road.


    The whole organization of education and training which the People's State is to build up must take as its crowning task the work of instilling into the hearts and brains of the youth entrusted to it the racial instinct and understanding of the racial idea. No boy or girl must leave school without having attained a clear insight into the meaning of racial purity and the importance of maintaining the racial blood unadulterated.

    Thus the first indispensable condition for the preservation of our race will have been established and thus the future cultural progress of our people will be assured. For in the last analysis all physical and mental training would be in vain unless it served an entity which is ready and determined to carry on its own existence and maintain its own characteristic qualities.

    If it were otherwise, something would result which we Germans have cause to regret already, without perhaps having hitherto recognized the extent of the tragic calamity. We should be doomed to remain also in the future only manure for civilization. And that not in the banal sense of the contemporary bourgeois mind, which sees in a lost fellow member of our people only a lost citizen,



    In a sense which we should have painfully to recognize: namely, that our racial blood would be destined to disappear. By continually mixing with other races we might lift them from their former lower level of civilization to a higher grade; but we ourselves should descend for ever from the heights we had reached.

    Finally, from the racial standpoint this training also must find its culmination in the military service. The term of military service is to be a final stage of the normal training which the average German receives.

    While the People's State attaches the greatest importance to physical and mental training, it has also to consider, and no less importantly, the task of selecting men for the service of the State itself. This important matter is passed over lightly at the present time.

    Generally the children of parents who are for the time being in higher situations are in their turn considered worthy of a higher education. Here talent plays a subordinate part. But talent can be estimated only relatively. Though in general culture he may be inferior to the city child, a peasant boy may be more talented than the son of a family that has occupied high positions through many generations.

    The superior culture of the city child has in itself nothing to do with a greater or lesser degree of talent; for this culture has its roots in the more copious mass of impressions which arise from the more varied education and the surroundings among which this child lives.

    If the intelligent son of peasant parents were educated from childhood in similar surroundings his intellectual accomplishments would be quite otherwise. In our day there is only one sphere where the family in which a person has been born means less than his innate gifts.

    That is the sphere of art. Here, where a person cannot just 'learn,' but must have innate gifts that later on may undergo a more or less happy development (in the sense of a wise development of what is already there), money and parental property are of no account. This is a good proof that genius is not necessarily connected with the higher social strata or with wealth. Not rarely the greatest artists come from poor families. And many a boy from the country village has eventually become a celebrated master.

    It does not say much for the mental acumen of our time that advantage is not taken of this truth for the sake of our whole intellectual life. The opinion is advanced that this principle, though undoubtedly valid in the field of art, has not the same validity in regard to what are called the applied sciences. It is true that a man can be trained to a certain amount of mechanical dexterity, just as a poodle can be taught incredible tricks by a clever master. But such training does not bring the animal to use his intelligence in order to carry out those tricks.

    The same holds good in regard to man. It is possible to teach men, irrespective of talent or no talent, to go through certain scientific exercises, but in such cases the results are quite as inanimate and mechanical as in the case of the animal. It would even be possible to force a person of mediocre intelligence, by means of a severe course of intellectual drilling, to acquire more than the average amount of knowledge; but that knowledge would remain sterile.

    The result would be a man who might be a walking dictionary of knowledge but who will fail miserably on every critical occasion in life and at every juncture where vital decisions have to be taken. Such people need to be drilled specially for every new and even most insignificant task and will never be capable of contributing in the least to the general progress of mankind. Knowledge that is merely drilled into people can at best qualify them to fill government positions under our present regime.

    It goes without saying that, among the sum total of individuals who make up a nation, gifted people are always to be found in every sphere of life. It is also quite natural that the value of knowledge will be all the greater the more vitally the dead mass of learning is animated by the innate talent of the individual who possesses it. Creative work in this field can be done only through the marriage of knowledge and talent.

    One example will suffice to show how much our contemporary world is at fault in this matter. From time to time our illustrated papers publish, for the edification of the German philistine, the news that in some quarter or other of the globe, and for the first time in that locality, a Negro has become a lawyer, a teacher, a pastor, even a grand opera tenor or something else of that kind.

    While the bourgeois blockhead stares with amazed admiration at the notice that tells him how marvelous are the achievements of our modern educational technique, the more cunning Jew sees in this fact a new proof to be utilized for the theory with which he wants to infect the public, namely that all men are equal.

    It does not dawn on the murky bourgeois mind that the fact which is published for him is a sin against reason itself, that it is an act of criminal insanity to train a being who is only an anthropoid by birth until the pretense can be made that he has been turned into a lawyer; while, on the other hand, millions who belong to the most civilized races have to remain in positions which are unworthy of their cultural level.

    The bourgeois mind does not realize that it is a sin against the will of the eternal Creator to allow hundreds of thousands of highly gifted people to remain floundering in the swamp of proletarian misery while Hottentots and Zulus are drilled to fill positions in the intellectual professions.

    For here we have the product only of a drilling technique, just as in the case of the performing dog. If the same amount of care and effort were applied among intelligent races each individual would become a thousand times more capable in such matters.

    This state of affairs would become intolerable if a day should arrive when it no longer refers to exceptional cases. But the situation is already intolerable where talent and natural gifts are not taken as decisive factors in qualifying for the right to a higher education.

    It is indeed intolerable to think that year after year hundreds of thousands of young people without a single vestige of talent are deemed worthy of a higher education, while other hundreds of thousands who possess high natural gifts have to go without any sort of higher schooling at all.

    The practical loss thus caused to the nation is incalculable. If the number of important discoveries which have been made in America has grown considerably in recent years one of the reasons is that the number of gifted persons belonging to the lowest social classes who were given a higher education in that country is proportionately much larger than in Europe.
    A stock of knowledge packed into the brain will not suffice for the making of discoveries. What counts here is only that knowledge which is illuminated by natural talent. But with us at the present time no value is placed on such gifts. Only good school reports count.

    Here is another educative work that is waiting for the People's State to do. It will not be its task to assure a dominant influence to a certain social class already existing, but it will be its duty to attract the most competent brains in the total mass of the nation and promote them to place and honour.

    It is not merely the duty of the State to give to the average child a certain definite education in the primary school, but it is also its duty to open the road to talent in the proper direction. And above all, it must open the doors of the higher schools under the State to talent of every sort, no matter in what social class it may appear. This is an imperative necessity; for thus alone will it be possible to develop a talented body of public leaders from the class which represents learning that in itself is only a dead mass.

    There is still another reason why the State should provide for this situation. Our intellectual class, particularly in Germany, is so shut up in itself and fossilized that it lacks living contact with the classes beneath it. Two evil consequences result from this: First, the intellectual class neither understands nor sympathizes with the broad masses. It has been so long cut off from all connection with them that it cannot now have the necessary psychological ties that would enable it to understand them. It has become estranged from the people.

    Secondly, the intellectual class lacks the necessary will-power; for this faculty is always weaker in cultivated circles, which live in seclusion, than among the primitive masses of the people. God knows we Germans have never been lacking in abundant scientific culture, but we have always had a considerable lack of will-power and the capacity for making decisions.

    For example, the more 'intellectual' our statesmen have been the more lacking they have been, for the most part, in practical achievement. Our political preparation and our technical equipment for the world war were defective, certainly not because the brains governing the nation were too little educated, but because the men who directed our public affairs were over-educated, filled to over-flowing with knowledge and intelligence, yet without any sound instinct and simply without energy, or any spirit of daring.

    It was our nation's tragedy to have to fight for its existence under a Chancellor who was a dillydallying philosopher. If instead of a Bethmann von Hollweg we had had a rough man of the people as our leader the heroic blood of the common grenadier would not have been shed in vain.

    The exaggeratedly intellectual material out of which our leaders were made proved to be the best ally of the scoundrels who carried out the November revolution. These intellectuals safeguarded the national wealth in a miserly fashion, instead of launching it forth and risking it, and thus they set the conditions on which the others won success.

    Here the Catholic Church presents an instructive example. Clerical celibacy forces the Church to recruit its priests not from their own ranks but progressively from the masses of the people. Yet there are not many who recognize the significance of celibacy in this relation. But therein lies the cause of the inexhaustible vigour which characterizes that ancient institution.

    For by thus unceasingly recruiting the ecclesiastical dignitaries from the lower classes of the people, the Church is enabled not only to maintain the contact of instinctive understanding with the masses of the population but also to assure itself of always being able to draw upon that fund of energy which is present in this form only among the popular masses. Hence the surprising youthfulness of that gigantic organism, its mental flexibility and its iron will-power.

    It will be the task of the Peoples' State so to organize and administer its educational system that the existing intellectual class will be constantly furnished with a supply of fresh blood from beneath. From the bulk of the nation the State must sift out with careful scrutiny those persons who are endowed with natural talents and see that they are employed in the service of the community. For neither the State itself nor the various departments of State exist to furnish revenues for members of a special class, but to fulfil the tasks allotted to them.

    This will be possible, however, only if the State trains individuals specially for these offices. Such individuals must have the necessary fundamental capabilities and will-power. The principle does not hold true only in regard to the civil service but also in regard to all those who are to take part in the intellectual and moral leadership of the people, no matter in what sphere they may be employed.

    The greatness of a people is partly dependent on the condition that it must succeed in training the best brains for those branches of the public service for which they show a special natural aptitude and in placing them in the offices where they can do their best work for the good of the community.

    If two nations of equal strength and quality engage in a mutual conflict that nation will come out victorious which has entrusted its intellectual and moral leadership to its best talents and that nation will go under whose government represents only a common food trough for privileged groups or classes and where the inner talents of its individual members are not availed of.



    Of course such a reform seems impossible in the world as it is today. The objection will at once be raised, that it is too much to expect from the favourite son of a highly-placed civil servant, for instance, that he shall work with his hands simply because somebody else whose parents belong to the working-class seems more capable for a job in the civil service. That argument may be valid as long as manual work is looked upon in the same way as it is looked upon today.

    Hence the Peoples' State will have to take up an attitude towards the appreciation of manual labour which will be fundamentally different from that which now exists. If necessary, it will have to organize a persistent system of teaching which will aim at abolishing the present-day stupid habit of looking down on physical labour as an occupation to be ashamed of.

    The individual will have to be valued, not by the class of work he does but by the way in which he does it and by its usefulness to the community. This statement may sound monstrous in an epoch when the most brainless columnist on a newspaper staff is more esteemed than the most expert mechanic, merely because the former pushes a pen. But, as I have said, this false valuation does not correspond to the nature of things.

    It has been artificially introduced, and there was a time when it did not exist at all. The present unnatural state of affairs is one of those general morbid phenomena that have arisen from our materialistic epoch. Fundamentally every kind of work has a double value; the one material, the other ideal. The material value depends on the practical importance of the work to the life of the community. The greater the number of the population who benefit from the work, directly or indirectly, the higher will be its material value.

    This evaluation is expressed in the material recompense which the individual receives for his labour. In contradistinction to this purely material value there is the ideal value. Here the work performed is not judged by its material importance but by the degree to which it answers a necessity. Certainly the material utility of an invention may be greater than that of the service rendered by an everyday workman; but it is also certain that the community needs each of those small daily services just as much as the greater services.

    From the material point of view a distinction can be made in the evaluation of different kinds of work according to their utility to the community, and this distinction is expressed by the differentiation in the scale of recompense; but on the ideal or abstract plans all workmen become equal the moment each strives to do his best in his own field, no matter what that field may be. It is on this that a man's value must be estimated, and not on the amount of recompense received.

    In a reasonably directed State care must be taken that each individual is given the kind of work which corresponds to his capabilities. In other words, people will be trained for the positions indicated by their natural endowments; but these endowments or faculties are innate and cannot be acquired by any amount of training, being a gift from Nature and not merited by men.

    Therefore, the way in which men are generally esteemed by their fellow-citizens must not be according to the kind of work they do, because that has been more or less assigned to the individual.

    Seeing that the kind of work in which the individual is employed is to be accounted to his inborn gifts and the resultant training which he has received from the community, he will have to be judged by the way in which he performs this work entrusted to him by the community. For the work which the individual performs is not the purpose of his existence, but only a means.

    His real purpose in life is to better himself and raise himself to a higher level as a human being; but this he can only do in and through the community whose cultural life he shares. And this community must always exist on the foundations on which the State is based. He ought to contribute to the conservation of those foundations. Nature determines the form of this contribution.

    It is the duty of the individual to return to the community, zealously and honestly, what the community has given him. He who does this deserves the highest respect and esteem. Material remuneration may be given to him whose work has a corresponding utility for the community; but the ideal recompense must lie in the esteem to which everybody has a claim who serves his people with whatever powers.

    Nature has bestowed upon him and which have been developed by the training he has received from the national community. Then it will no longer be dishonourable to be an honest craftsman; but it will be a cause of disgrace to be an inefficient State official, wasting God's day and filching daily bread from an honest public.

    Then it will be looked upon as quite natural that positions should not be given to persons who of their very nature are incapable of filling them. Furthermore, this personal efficiency will be the sole criterion of the right to take part on an equal juridical footing in general civil affairs.

    The present epoch is working out its own ruin. It introduces universal suffrage, chatters about equal rights but can find no foundation for this equality. It considers the material wage as the expression of a man's value and thus destroys the basis of the noblest kind of equality that can exist.

    For equality cannot and does not depend on the work a man does, but only on the manner in which each one does the particular work allotted to him. Thus alone will mere natural chance be set aside in determining the work of a man and thus only does the individual become the artificer of his own social worth.

    At the present time, when whole groups of people estimate each other's value only by the size of the salaries which they respectively receive, there will be no understanding of all this. But that is no reason why we should cease to champion those ideas. Quite the opposite: in an epoch which is inwardly diseased and decaying anyone who would heal it must have the courage first to lay bare the real roots of the disease.

    The National Socialist Movement must take that duty on its shoulders. It will have to lift its voice above the heads of the small bourgeoisie and rally together and co-ordinate all those popular forces which are ready to become the protagonists of a new philosophy of life.

    Of course the objection will be made that in general it is difficult to differentiate between the material and ideal values of work and that the lower prestige which is attached to physical labour is due to the fact that smaller wages are paid for that kind of work.

    It will be said that the lower wage is in its turn the reason why the manual worker has less chance to participate in the culture of the nation; so that the ideal side of human culture is less open to him because it has nothing to do with his daily activities.

    It may be added that the reluctance to do physical work is justified by the fact that, on account of the small income, the cultural level of manual labourers must naturally be low, and that this in turn is a justification for the lower estimation in which manual labour is generally held.

    There is quite a good deal of truth in all this. But that is the very reason why we ought to see that in the future there should not be such a wide difference in the scale of remuneration. Don't say that under such conditions poorer work would be done. It would be the saddest symptom of decadence if finer intellectual work could be obtained only through the stimulus of higher payment.

    If that point of view had ruled the world up to now humanity would never have acquired its greatest scientific and cultural heritage. For all the greatest inventions, the greatest discoveries, the most profoundly revolutionary scientific work, and the most magnificent monuments of human culture, were never given to the world under the impulse or compulsion of money.

    Quite the contrary: not rarely was their origin associated with a renunciation of the worldly pleasures that wealth can purchase.
    It may be that money has become the one power that governs life today. Yet a time will come when men will again bow to higher gods. Much that we have today owes its existence to the desire for money and property; but there is very little among all this which would leave the world poorer by its lack.

    It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out the prospect of a time when the individual will be given what he needs for the purposes of his life and it will be a time in which, on the other hand, the principle will be upheld that man does not live for material enjoyment alone.

    This principle will find expression in a wiser scale of wages and salaries which will enable everyone, including the humblest workman who fulfils his duties conscientiously, to live an honourable and decent life both as a man and as a citizen. Let it not be said that this is merely a visionary ideal, that this world would never tolerate it in practice and that of itself it is impossible to attain.
    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. In any case the hard reality of the facts to be faced will always place only too many limits to our aspirations.

    That is precisely why man must strive again and again to serve the ultimate aim and no failures must induce him to renounce his intentions, just as we cannot spurn the sway of justice because mistakes creep into the administration of the law, and just as we cannot despise medical science because, in spite of it, there will always be diseases.




    Man should take care not to have too low an estimate of the power of an ideal. If there are some who may feel disheartened over the present conditions, and if they happen to have served as soldiers, I would remind them of the time when their heroism was the most convincing example of the power inherent in ideal motives.

    It was not preoccupation about their daily bread that led men to sacrifice their lives, but the love of their country, the faith which they had in its greatness, and an all round feeling for the honour of the nation.

    Only after the German people had become estranged from these ideals, to follow the material promises offered by the Revolution, only after they threw away their arms to take up the rucksack, only then – instead of entering an earthly paradise – did they sink into the purgatory of universal contempt and at the same time universal want.
    That is why we must face the calculators of the materialist Republic with faith in an idealist Reich.

  5. #20
    Chapter III: Subjects and Citizens



    The institution that is now erroneously called the State generally classifies people only into two groups: citizens and aliens. Citizens are all those who possess full civic rights, either by reason of their birth or by an act of naturalization. Aliens are those who enjoy the same rights in some other State.

    Between these two categories there are certain beings who resemble a sort of meteoric phenomena. They are people who have no citizenship in any State and consequently no civic rights anywhere.

    In most cases nowadays a person acquires civic rights by being born within the frontiers of a State. The race or nationality to which he may belong plays no role whatsoever.



    The child of a Negro who once lived in one of the German protectorates and now takes up his residence in Germany automatically becomes a 'German Citizen' in the eyes of the world. In the same way the child of any Jew, Pole, African or Asian may automatically become a German Citizen.

    Besides naturalization that is acquired through the fact of having been born within the confines of a State there exists another kind of naturalization which can be acquired later. This process is subject to various preliminary requirements. For example one condition is that, if possible, the applicant must not be a burglar or a common street thug.

    It is required of him that his political attitude is not such as to give cause for uneasiness; in other words he must be a harmless simpleton in politics. It is required that he shall not be a burden to the State of which he wishes to become a citizen. In this realistic epoch of ours this last condition naturally only means that he must not be a financial burden.

    If the affairs of the candidate are such that it appears likely he will turn out to be a good taxpayer, that is a very important consideration and will help him to obtain civic rights all the more rapidly. The question of race plays no part at all. The whole process of acquiring civic rights is not very different from that of being admitted to membership of an automobile club, for instance. A person files his application.

    It is examined. It is sanctioned. And one day the man receives a card which informs him that he has become a citizen. The information is given in an amusing way. An applicant who has hitherto been a Zulu or Kaffir is told: "By these presents you are now become a German Citizen."

    The President of the State can perform this piece of magic. What God Himself could not do is achieved by some Theophrastus Paracelsus of a civil servant through a mere twirl of the hand. Nothing but a stroke of the pen, and a Mongolian slave is forthwith turned into a real German.

    Not only is no question asked regarding the race to which the new citizen belongs; even the matter of his physical health is not inquired into. His flesh may be corrupted with syphilis; but he will still be welcome in the State as it exists today so long as he may not become a financial burden or a political danger.

    In this way, year after year, those organisms which we call States take up poisonous matter which they can hardly ever overcome. Another point of distinction between a citizen and an alien is that the former is admitted to all public offices, that he may possibly have to do military service and that in return he is permitted to take a passive or active part at public elections. Those are his chief privileges.

    For in regard to personal rights and personal liberty the alien enjoys the same amount of protection as the citizen, and frequently even more. Anyhow that is how it happens in our present German Republic. I realize fully that nobody likes to hear these things. But it would be difficult to find anything more illogical or more insane than our contemporary laws in regard to State citizenship.

    At present there exists one State which manifests at least some modest attempts that show a better appreciation of how things ought to be done in this matter.

    It is not, however, in our model German Republic but in the U.S.A. that efforts are made to conform at least partly to the counsels of commonsense. By refusing immigrants to enter there if they are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the right to become naturalized as citizens, they have begun to introduce principles similar to those on which we wish to ground the People's State.

    The People's State will classify its population in three groups: Citizens, subjects of the State, and aliens. The principle is that birth within the confines of the State gives only the status of a subject. It does not carry with it the right to fill any position under the State or to participate in political life, such as taking an active or passive part in elections. Another principle is that the race and nationality of every subject of the State will have to be proved.

    A subject is at any time free to cease being a subject and to become a citizen of that country to which he belongs in virtue of his nationality. The only difference between an alien and a subject of the State is that the former is a citizen of another country. The young boy or girl who is of German nationality and is a subject of the German State is bound to complete the period of school education which is obligatory for every German.

    Thereby he submits to the system of training which will make him conscious of his race and a member of the folk-community. Then he has to fulfil all those requirements laid down by the State in regard to physical training after he has left school; and finally he enters the army. The training in the army is of a general kind.

    It must be given to each individual German and will render him competent to fulfil the physical and mental requirements of military service. The rights of citizenship shall be conferred on every young man whose health and character have been certified as good, after having completed his period of military service.

    This act of inauguration in citizenship shall be a solemn ceremony. And the diploma conferring the rights of citizenship will be preserved by the young man as the most precious testimonial of his whole life. It entitles him to exercise all the rights of a citizen and to enjoy all the privileges attached thereto.

    For the State must draw a sharp line of distinction between those who, as members of the nation, are the foundation and the support of its existence and greatness, and those who are domiciled in the State simply as earners of their livelihood there. On the occasion of conferring a diploma of citizenship the new citizen must take a solemn oath of loyalty to the national community and the State.

    This diploma must be a bond which unites together all the various classes and sections of the nation. It shall be a greater honour to be a citizen of this Reich, even as a street-sweeper, than to be the King of a foreign State. The citizen has privileges which are not accorded to the alien. He is the master in the Reich.

    This high honour has also its obligations. Those who show themselves without personal honour or character, or common criminals, or traitors to the fatherland, can at any time be deprived of the rights of citizenship. Therewith they become merely subjects of the State.


    The German girl is a subject of the State but will become a citizen when she marries. At the same time those women who earn their livelihood independently have the right to acquire citizenship if they are German subjects.


    Chapter IV: Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State




    The folkish National Socialist state sees its chief task in educating and preserving the bearer of the state. It is not sufficient to encourage the racial elements as such, to educate them and finally instruct them in the needs of practical life; the state must also adjust its own organization to this task.

    It would be lunacy to try to estimate the value of man according to his race, thus declaring war on the Marxist idea that men are equal, unless we are determined to draw the ultimate consequences. And the ultimate consequence of recognizing the importance of blood - that is, of the racial foundation in general - is the transference of this estimation to the individual person.

    In general, I must evaluate peoples differently on the basis of the race they belong to, and the same applies to the individual men within a national community. The realization that peoples are not equal transfers itself to the individual man within a national community, in the sense that men's minds cannot be equal, since here, too, the blood components, though equal in their broad outlines, are, in particular cases, subject to thousands of the finest differentiations.

    The first consequence of this realization might at the same time be called the cruder one: an attempt to promote in the most exemplary way those elements within the national community that have been recognized as especially valuable from the racial viewpoint and to provide for their special increase.



    This task is cruder because it can be recognized and solved almost mechanically. It is more difficult to recognize among the whole people the minds that are most valuable in the intellectual and ideal sense, and to gain for them that influence which not only is the due of these superior minds, but which above all is beneficial to the nation.

    This sifting according to capacity and ability cannot be undertaken mechanically; it is a task which the struggle of daily life unceasingly performs. A philosophy of life which endeavors to reject the democratic mass idea and give this earth to the best people - that is, the highest humanity - must logically obey the same aristocratic principle within this people and make sure that the leadership and the highest influence in this people fall to the best minds. Thus, it builds, not upon the idea of the majority but upon the idea of personality.

    Anyone who believes today that a folkish National Socialist state must distinguish itself from other states only in a purely mechanical sense, by a superior construction of its economic life - that is, by a better balance between rich and poor, or giving broad sections of the population more right to influence the economic process,

    Or by fairer wages by elimination of excessive wage differentials - has not gone beyond the most superficial aspect of the matter and has not the faintest idea of what we call a philosophy. All the things we have just mentioned offer not the slightest guaranty of continued existence, far less of any claim to greatness.

    A people which did not go beyond these really superficial reforms would not obtain the least guaranty of victory in the general struggle of nations.

    A movement which finds the content of its mission only in such a general leveling, assuredly just as it may be, will truly bring about no great and profound, hence real, reform of existing conditions, since its entire activity does not, in the last analysis, go beyond externals, and does not give the people that inner armament which enables it, with almost inevitable certainty I might say, to overcome in the end those weaknesses from which we suffer today.





    To understand this more easily, it may be expedient to cast one more glance at the real origins and causes of human cultural development.

    The first step which outwardly and visibly removed man from the animal was that of invention. Invention itself is originally based on the finding of stratagems and ruses, the use of which facilitates the life struggle with other beings, and is sometimes the actual prerequisite for its favorable course.

    These most primitive inventions do not yet cause the personality to appear with sufficient distinctness, because, of course, they enter the consciousness of the future, or rather the present, human observer only as a mass phenomenon. Certain dodges and crafty measures which man, for example, can observe in the animal catch his eye only as a summary fact, and he is no longer in a position to establish or investigate their origin, but must simply content himself with designating such phenomena as 'instinctive.'

    But in our case this last word means nothing at all. For anyone who believes in a higher development of living creatures must admit that every expression of their life urge and life struggle must have had a beginning; that one subject must have started it, and that subsequently such a phenomenon repeated itself more and more frequently and spread more and more, until at last it virtually entered the subconscious of all members of a given species, thus manifesting itself as an instinct.

    This will be understood and believed more readily in the case of man. His first intelligent measures in the struggle with other beasts assuredly originate in the actions of individual, particularly able subjects. Here, too, the personality was once unquestionably the cause of decisions and acts which later were taken over by all humanity and regarded as perfectly self-evident.

    Just as any obvious military principle, which today has become, as it were, the basis of all strategy, originally owed its appearance to one absolutely distinct mind, and only in the course of many perhaps even thousands of years, achieved universal validity and was taken entirely for granted.

    Man complements this first invention by a second: he learns to place other objects and also living creatures in the service of his own struggle for self-preservation; and thus begins man's real inventive activity which today is generally visible.

    These material inventions, starting with the use of stone as a weapon and leading to the domestication of beasts, giving man artificial fire, and so on up to the manifold and amazing inventions of our day, show the individual creator the more clearly, the closer the various inventions lie to the present day, or the more significant and incisive they are.

    At all events, we know that all the material inventions we see about us are the result of the creative power and ability of the individual personality. And all these inventions in the last analysis help to raise man more and more above the level of the animal world and finally to remove him from it. Thus, fundamentally, they serve the continuous process of higher human development.

    The very same thing which once, in the form of the simplest ruse, facilitated the struggle for existence of the man hunting in the primeval forest, again contributes, in the shape of the most brilliant scientific knowledge of the present era, to alleviate mankind's struggle for existence and to forge its weapons for the struggles of the future.

    All human thought and invention, in their ultimate effects, primarily serve man's struggle for existence on this planet, even when the so-called practical use of an invention or a discovery or a profound scientific insight into the essence of things is not visible at the moment. All these things together, by contributing to raise man above the living creatures surrounding him, strengthen him and secure his position, so that in every respect he develops into the dominant being on this earth.

    Thus, all inventions are the result of an individual's work. All these individuals, whether intentionally or unintentionally, are more or less great benefactors of all men. Their work subsequently gives millions, nay, billions of human creatures, instruments with which to facilitate and carry out their life struggle.

    If in the origin of our present material culture we always find individuals in the form of inventors, complementing one another and one building upon another, we find the same in the practice and execution of the things devised and discovered by the inventors.

    For all productive processes in turn must in their origin be considered equivalent to inventions, hence dependent on the individual. Even purely theoretical intellectual work, which in particular cases is not measurable, yet is the premise for all further material inventions, appears as the exclusive product of the individual person.



    It is not the mass that invents and not the majority that organizes or thinks, but in all things only and always the individual man, the person.

    A human community appears well organized only if it facilitates the labors of these creative forces in the most helpful way and applies them in a manner beneficial to all. The most valuable thing about the invention itself, whether it lie in the material field or in the world of ideas, is primarily the inventor as a personality.

    Therefore, to employ him in a way benefiting the totality is the first and highest task in the organization of a national community. Indeed, the organization itself must be a realization of this principle. Thus, also, it is redeemed from the curse of mechanism and becomes a living thing.

    It must itself be an embodiment of the endeavor to place thinking individuals above the masses, thus subordinating the latter to the former. Consequently, the organization must not only not prevent the emergence of thinking individuals from the mass; on the contrary, it must in the highest degree make this possible and easy by the nature of its own being.

    In this it must proceed from the principle that the salvation of mankind has never lain in the masses, but in its creative minds, which must therefore really be regarded as benefactors of the human race.

    To assure them of the most decisive influence and facilitate their work is in the interest of the totality. Assuredly this interest is not satisfied, and is not served by the domination of the unintelligent or incompetent, in any case uninspired masses, but solely by the leadership of those to whom Nature has given special gifts for this purpose.

    The selection of these minds, as said before, is primarily accomplished by the hard struggle for existence. Many break and perish, thus showing that they are not destined for the ultimate, and in the end only a few appear to be chosen. In the fields of thought, artistic creation, even, in fact, of economic life, this purpose. They injure collective achievement, and thus in reality injure individual achievement.

    For the satisfaction of the members of a national body does not in the long run occur exclusively through mere theoretical phrases, but by the goods of daily life that fall to the individual and the ultimate resultant conviction that a national community in the sum of its achievement guards the interests of individuals.

    It is of no importance whether Marxism, on the basis of its mass theory, seems capable of taking over and carrying on the economy existing at the moment. Criticism with regard to the soundness or unsoundness of this principle is not settled by the proof of its capacity to administer the existing order for the future, but exclusively by the proof that it can itself create a higher culture.

    Marxism might a thousand times take over the existing economy and make it continue to work under its leadership, but even success in this activity would prove nothing in the face of the fact that it would not be in a position, by applying its principle itself, to create the same thing which today it takes over in a finished state.

    Of this Marxism has furnished practical proof. Not only that it has nowhere been able to found and create a culture by itself; actually it has not been able to continue the existing ones in accordance with its principles, but after a brief time has been forced to return to the ideas embodied in the personality principle, in the form of concessions; - even in its own organization it cannot dispense with these principles.

    The folkish philosophy is basically distinguished from the Marxist philosophy by the fact that it not only recognizes the value of race, but with it the importance of the personality, which it therefore makes one of the pillars of its entire edifice. These are the factors which sustain its view of life.

    If the National Socialist movement did not understand the fundamental importance of this basic realization, but instead were merely to perform superficial patchwork on the present-day state, or even adopt the mass standpoint as its own - then it would really constitute nothing but a party in competition with the Marxists; in that case, it would not possess the right to call itself a philosophy of life.

    If the social program of the movement consisted only in pushing aside the personality and replacing it by the masses, National Socialism itself would be corroded by the poison of Marxism, as is the case with our bourgeois parties.

    The folkish state must care for the welfare of its citizens by recognizing in all and everything the importance of the value of personality, thus in all fields preparing the way for that highest measure of productive performance which grants to the individual the highest measure of participation.



    Accordingly, the folkish state must free all leadership and especially the highest - that is, the political leadership - entirely from the parliamentary principle of majority rule - in other words, mass rule - and instead absolutely guarantee the right of the personality. From this the following realization results: The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence

    But as, in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves, and just as here the endless schooling, ranging from the smallest business to the largest enterprise, occurs spontaneously, with life alone giving the examinations, obviously political minds cannot be 'discovered.' Extraordinary geniuses permit of no consideration for normal mankind.

    From the smallest community cell to the highest leadership of the entire Reich, the state must have the personality principle anchored in its organization. There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word ' council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.

    The principle which made the Prussian army in its time into the most wonderful instrument of the German people must some day, in a transferred sense, become the principle of the construction of our whole state conception: authority of every leader downward and responsibility upward.

    Even then it will not be possible to dispense with those corporations which today we designate as parliaments. But their councilors will then actually give counsel; responsibility, however? can and may be borne only by one man, and therefore only he alone may possess the authority and right to command.

    Parliaments as such are necessary, because in them, above all, personalities to which special responsible tasks can later be entrusted have an opportunity gradually to rise up.

    This gives the following picture: The folkish state, from the township up to the Reich leadership? has no representative body which decides anything by the majority, but only advisory bodies which stand at the side of the elected leader, receiving their share of work from him, and in turn if necessary assuming unlimited responsibility in certain fields, just as on a larger scale the leader or chairman of the various corporations himself possesses.

    As a matter of principle, the folkish state does not tolerate asking advice or opinions in special matters - say, of an economic nature - men who, on the basis of their education and activity, can understand nothing of the subject. It, therefore, divides its representative bodies from the start into political and professional chambers.

    In order to guarantee a profitable cooperation between the two a special senate of the elite always stands over them. In no chamber and in no senate does a vote ever take place. They are working institutions and not voting machines. The individual member has an advisory, but never a determining voice. The latter is the exclusive privilege of the responsible chairman.

    This principle - absolute responsibility unconditionally combined with absolute will gradually breed an elite of leaders such as today, in this era of irresponsible parliamentarianism, is utterly inconceivable. Thus, the political form of the nation will be brought into agreement with that law to which it owes its greatness in the cultural and economic field.

    As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I beg you not to forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic majority rule has by no means always dominated mankind, but on the contrary is to be found only in brief periods. of history, which are always epochs of the decay of peoples and: states.

    But it should not be believed that such a transformation can, be accomplished by purely theoretical measures from above, since logically it may not even stop at the state constitution, but must. permeate all other legislation, and indeed all civil life. Such a fundamental change can and will only take place through a movement which is itself constructed in the spirit of these ideas and hence bears the future state within itself.

    Hence the National Socialist movement should today adapt. itself entirely to these ideas and carry them to practical fruition within its own organization, so that some day it may not only show the state these same guiding principles, but can also place the completed body of its own state at its disposal.

  6. #21


    Mein Kampf Chapter V: Philosophy and Organization



    THE folkish state, a general picture of which I have attempted to draw in broad outlines, will not be realized by the mere knowledge of what is necessary to this state. It is not enough to know how a folkish state should look. Far more important is the program for its creation. We may not expect the present parties, which after all are primarily beneficiaries of the present state, to arrive of their own accord at a change of orientation and of their own free will to modify their present attitude.

    What makes this all the more impossible is that their real leading elements are always Jews and only Jews. And the development we are going through today, if continued unobstructed, would fulfill the Jewish prophecy - the Jew would really devour the peoples of the earth, would become their master.

    Thus, confronting the millions of German 'bourgeois' and 'proletarians,' who for the most part, from cowardice coupled with stupidity, trot toward their ruin, he pursues his way inexorably, in the highest consciousness of his future goal. A party which is led by him can, therefore, stand for no other interests beside his interests; and with the concerns of Aryan nations, these have nothing in common.

    And so, if we wish to transform the ideal image of a folkish state into practical reality, we must, independent of the powers that have thus far ruled public life, seek a new force that is willing and able to take up the struggle for such an idea. For it will take a struggle, in view of the fact that the first task is not creation of a folkish state conception, but above all elimination of the existing Jewish one.

    As so frequently in history, the main difficulty lies, not in the form of the new state of things, but in making place for it. Prejudices and interests unite in a solid phalanx and attempt with all possible means to prevent the victory of an idea that is displeasing to them or that menaces them.

    And so, unfortunately, the fighter for such a new idea, important as it may be to put positive emphasis on it, is forced to carry through first of all the negative part of the fight, that part which should lead to the elimination of the present state of affairs. A young doctrine of great and new fundamental significance will, displeasing as this may be to the individual, be forced to employ as its first weapon the probe of criticism in all its sharpness.



    It indicates a lack of deep insight into historical developments when today people who call themselves folkish make a great point of assuring us over and over that they do not plan to engage in negative criticism, but only in constructive work; this absurd childish stammering is 'folkish' in the worst sense and shows how little trace the history even of their own times has left in these minds.

    Marxism also had a goal, and it, too, has a constructive activity (even if it is only to erect a despotism of international world Jewish finance); but previously, nevertheless, it practiced criticism for seventy years, annihilating, disintegrating criticism, and again criticism, which continued until the old state was undermined by this persistent corrosive acid and brought to collapse. Only then did its actual 'construction' begin. And that was self-evident, correct and logical. An existing condition is not eliminated just by emphasizing and arguing for a future one.

    For it is not to be presumed that the adherents, let alone the beneficiaries of the condition now existing, could all be converted and won over to the new one merely by demonstrating its necessity. On the contrary, it is only too possible that in this case two conditions will remain in existence side by side, and that the so-called philosophy will become a party, unable to raise itself above its limitations.

    For the philosophy is intolerant; it cannot content itself with the role of one 'party beside others,' but imperiously demands, not only its own exclusive and unlimited recognition, but the complete transformation of all public life in accordance with its views. It can, therefore, not tolerate the simultaneous continuance of a body representing the former condition.

    This is equally true of religions. Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition.

    The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature. This may be a thousand times true; we may deeply regret this fact and establish with justifiable loathing that its appearance in the history of mankind is something that was previously alien to history - yet this does not alter the fact that this condition is with us today.

    The men who want to redeem our German people from its present condition have no need to worry their heads thinking how lovely it would be if this and that did not exist : they must try to ascertain how the given condition can be eliminated. A philosophy filled with infernal intolerance will only be broken by a new idea, driven forward by the same spirit, championed by the same mighty will, and at the same time pure and absolutely genuine in itself.

    The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the {act that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created.

    Political parties are inclined to compromises; philosophies never. Political parties even reckon with opponents; philosophies proclaim their infallibility.

    Political parties, too, almost always have the original purpose of attaining exclusive despotic domination; a slight impulse toward a philosophy is almost always inherent in them. Yet the very narrowness of their program robs them of the heroism which a philosophy demands. The conciliatory nature of their will attracts small and weakly spirits with which no crusades can be fought. And so, for the most part, they soon bog down in their own pitiful pettiness:

    They abandon the struggle for a philosophy and attempt instead, by so-called 'positive collaboration,' to conquer as quickly as possible a little place at the feeding trough of existing institutions and to keep it as long as possible. That is their entire endeavor.

    If they should be pushed away from the general feeding crib by a somewhat brutal competing boarder, their thoughts and actions are directed solely, whether by force or trickery, toward pushing their way back to the front of the hungry herd and finally, even at the cost of their holy conviction, toward refreshing themselves at the beloved swill pail. Jackals of politics!

    Since a philosophy of life is never willing to share with another, it cannot be willing either to collaborate in an existing regime which it condemns, but feels obligated to combat this regime and the whole hostile world of ideas with all possible means; that is, to prepare its downfall.

    This purely destructive fight - the danger of which is at once recognized by all others and which consequently encounters general resistance - as well as the positive struggle, attacking to make way for its own world of ideas, requires determined fighters. And so a philosophy will lead its idea to victory only if it unites the most courageous and energetic elements of its epoch and people in its ranks, and puts them into the solid forms of a fighting organization.

    For this, however, taking these elements into consideration, it must pick out certain ideas from its general world picture and clad them in a form which, in its precise, slogan-like brevity, seems suited to serve as a creed for a new community of men. While the program of a solely political party is the formula for a healthy outcome of the next elections, the program of a philosophy is the formulation of a declaration of war against the existing order against a definite state of affairs; in short, against an existing view of life in general.

    It is not necessary that every individual fighting for this philosophy should obtain a full insight and precise knowledge of the ultimate ideas and thought processes of the leaders of the movement. What is necessary is that some few, really great ideas be made clear to him, and that the essential fundamental lines be burned inextinguishably into him, so that he is entirely permeated by the necessity of the victory of his movement and its doctrine.

    The individual soldier is not initiated into the thought processes of higher strategy either. He is, on the contrary, trained in rigid discipline and fanatical faith in the justice and power of his cause, and taught to stake his life for it without reservation; the same must occur with the individual adherent of a movement of great scope, great future, and the greatest will.

    Useless as an army would be, whose individual soldiers were all generals, even if it were only by virtue of their education and their insight, equally useless is a political movement, fighting for a philosophy, if it is only a reservoir of 'bright' people. No, it also needs the primitive soldier, since otherwise an inner discipline is unobtainable.

    It lies in the nature of an organization that it can only exist if a broad mass, with a more emotional attitude, serves a high intellectual leadership. A company of two hundred men of equal intellectual ability would in the long run be harder to discipline than a company of a hundred and ninety intellectually less capable men and ten with higher education.

    Social Democracy in its day drew the greatest profit from this fact. It took members of the broad masses, discharged from military service where they had been trained in discipline! and drew them into its equally rigid party discipline. And its organization represented an army of officers and soldiers. The German manual worker became the soldier, the Jewish intellectual the officer; and the German trade-union officials can be regarded as the corps of noncommissioned officers.

    The thing which our bourgeoisie always viewed with headshaking, the fact that only the so-called uneducated masses belonged to the Marxist movement, was in reality the basis for its success. For while the bourgeois parties with their one-sided intellectualism constituted a worthless undisciplined band, the Marxists with their unintellectual human material formed an army of party soldiers, who obeyed their Jewish leader as blindly as formerly their German officer.

    The German bourgeoisie, which as a matter of principle never concerned itself with psychological problems because it stood so high above them, found it, here too, unnecessary to reflect, and recognize the deeper meaning, as well as the secret danger, of this fact. They thought, on the contrary, that a political movement, formed only from the circles of the 'intelligentsia,' is for this very reason more valuable and possesses a greater claim, in fact a greater likelihood, of taking over the government than the uneducated masses.

    They never understood that the strength of a political party lies by no means in the greatest possible independent intellect of the individual members, but rather in the disciplined obedience with which its members follow the intellectual leadership. The decisive factor is the leadership itself. If two bodies of troops battle each other, the one to conquer will not be the one in which every individual has received the highest strategic training, but that one which has the most superior leadership and at the same time the most disciplined, blindly obedient, best-drilled troop.

    This is the basic insight which we must constantly bear in mind in examining the possibility of transforming a philosophy into action.

    And so, if, in order to carry a philosophy to victory, we must transform it into a fighting movement, logically the program of the movement must take into consideration the human material that stands at its disposal. As immutable as the ultimate aims and the leading ideas must be, with equal wisdom and psychological soundness the recruiting program must be adapted to the minds of those without whose aid the most beautiful idea would remain eternally an idea.

    If the folkish idea wants to arrive at a clear from the unclear will of today, it must pick out from the broad world of its ideas certain guiding principles, suited in their essence and content to binding a broad mass of men, that mass which alone guarantees the struggle for this idea as laid down in our philosophy.

    Therefore, the program of the new movement was summed up in a few guiding principles, twenty-five in all. They were devised to give, primarily to the man of the people, a rough picture of the movement's aims. They are in a sense a political creed, which on the one hand recruits for the movement and on the other is suited to unite and weld together by a commonly recognized (obligation those who have been recruited.

    Here the following insight must never leave us: Since the so-called program of the movement is absolutely correct in its ultimate aims, but in its formulation had to take psychological forces into account, in the course of time the conviction may well arise that in individual instances certain of the guiding principles ought perhaps to be framed differently, given a better formulation.

    Every attempt to do this, however, usually works out catastrophically. For in this way something which should be unshakable is submitted to discussion, which, as soon as a single point is deprived of its dogmatic, creedlike formulation, will not automatically yield a new, better, and above all unified, formulation, but will far sooner lead to endless debates and a general confusion. In such a case, it always remains to be considered which is better: a new, happier formulation which causes an argument within the movement, or a form which at the moment may not be the very best, but which represents a solid, unshakable, inwardly unified organism.

    Any examination will show that the latter is preferable. For, since in changes it is always merely the outward formulation that is involved, such corrections will again and again seem possible or desirable.



    Finally, in view of the superficial character of men, there is the great danger that they will see the essential task of a movement in this purely outward formulation of a program. Then the will and the power to fight for an idea recede, and the activity which should turn outward will wear itself out in inner programmatic squabbles.

    With a doctrine that is really sound in its broad outlines, it is less harmful to retain a formulation, even if it should not entirely correspond to reality, than by improving it to expose what hitherto seemed a granite principle of the movement to general discussion with all its evil consequences. Above all, it is impossible as long as a movement is still fighting for victory. For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure?

    The truth is that the most essential substance must never be sought in the outward formulation, but only and always in the inner sense. This is immutable; and in the interest of this immutable inner sense, we can only wish that the movement preserve the necessary strength to fight for it by avoiding all actions that splinter and create uncertainty.

    Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. And so today it stands more firmly than ever. It can be prophesied that in exactly the same measure in which appearances evade us, it will gain more and more blind support as a static pole amid the flight of appearances.1

    1 Der ruhende Pol in der Erscheinungen Flucht' (the static pole in the flight of appearances). A familiar quotation. From Schiller's Der Spaziergang. line 134.

    And so, anyone who really and seriously desires the victory of a folkish philosophy must not only recognize that, for the achievement of such a success in the first place, only a movement capable of struggle is suitable, out that, in the second place, such a movement itself will stand firm only if based on unshakable certainty and firmness in its program. It must not run the risk of making concessions in its formulation to the momentary spirit of the times, but must retain forever a form that has once been found favorable, in any case until crowned by victory.

    Before that, any attempt to bring about arguments as to the expediency of this or that point in the program splinters the solidity and the fighting force of the movement, proportionately as its adherents participate in such an inner discussion. This does not mean that an 'improvement' carried out today might not tomorrow be subjected to renewed critical tests only to find a better substitute the day after tomorrow. Once you tear down barriers in this connection, you open a road, the beginning of which is known, but whose end is lost in the infinite.

    This important realization had to be applied in the young National Socialist movement. The National Socialist German Workers' Party obtained with its program of twenty-five theses a foundation which must remain unshakable. The task of the present and future members of our movement must not consist in a critical revision of these theses, but rather in being bound by them. For otherwise the next generation in turn could, with the same right, squander its strength on such purely formal work within the party, instead of recruiting new adherents and thereby new forces for the movement. For the great number of the adherents, the essence of our movement will consist less in the letter of our theses than in the meaning which we are able to give them.

    It was to these realizations that the young movement owed its name; the program was later framed according to them and, furthermore, the manner of their dissemination is based on them. In order to help the folkish ideas to victory, a party of the people had to be created, a party which consists not only of intellectual leaders, but also of manual workers!

    Any attempt to realize folkish ideas without such a militant organization would today, just as in the past and in the eternal future, remain without success. And so the movement has not only the right, but also the duty, of regarding itself as a pioneer and representative of these ideas. To the same degree as the basic ideas of the National Socialist movement are folkish, the folkish ideas are National Socialist. And if National Socialism wants to conquer, it must unconditionally and exclusively espouse this truth.

    Here, too, it has not only the right, but also the duty, of sharply emphasizing the fact that any attempt to put forward the folkish idea outside the framework of the National Socialist German Workers' Party is impossible, and in most cases based on a positive swindle. If today anyone reproaches the movement for acting as if the folkish idea were their monopoly, there is but one answer.

    Not only a monopoly, but a working monopoly. For what previously existed under this concept was not suited to influence the destiny of our people even in the slightest, since all these ideas lacked a clear and coherent formulation. For the most part there were single, disconnected ideas of greater or lesser soundness, not seldom standing in mutual contradiction, in no case having any inner tie between them.

    Even had such a tie been present, in its weakness it would never have sufficed to orientate and build a movement on. Only the National Socialist movement accomplished this.

    If today all sorts of clubs and clublets, groups and grouplets, and, if you will, 'big parties' lay claim to the word 'folkish,' this in itself is a consequence of the influence of the National Socialist movement. Without its work, it would never have occurred to all these organizations even to pronounce the word 'folkish.'

    This word would have meant nothing to them, and especially their leading minds would have stood in no relation of any sort to this concept. Only the work of the NSDAP for the first time made this concept a word full of content, which is now taken up by every conceivable kind of people; above all, in its own successful campaigning activity, it snowed and demonstrated the force of these folkish ideas, so that mere desire to get ahead forces the others, ostensibly at least, to desire similar ends.

    Just as hitherto they used everything for their petty election speculation, the folkish concept has today remained for them only an external empty slogan with which they attempt to counterbalance, among their own members, the attractive force of the National Socialist movement.

    For it is only concern for their own existence as well as fear of the rise of our new philosophy-borne movement, whose universal importance as well as its dangerous exclusiveness they sense, that puts into their mouth words which eight years ago they did not know, seven years ago ridiculed, six years ago branded as absurd, five years ago combated, four years ago hated, three years ago persecuted, only at length to annex them two years ago, and, combined with the rest of their vocabulary, to use them as a battle-cry in the fight.

    And even today we must point out again and again that all these parties lack the slightest idea of what the German people needs. The most striking proof of this is the superficiality with which they mouth the word 'folkish.'

    And no less dangerous are all those who horse around pretending to be folkish, forge fantastic plans, for the most part based on nothing but some idée fixe, which in itself might be sound, but in its isolation remains none the less without any importance for the formation of a great unified fighting community, and in no case is suited to building one.

    These people, who partly from their own thinking, partly from what they have read, brew up a program, are frequently more dangerous than the open enemies of the folkish idea. In the best case they are sterile theoreticians, but for the most part disastrous braggarts, and not seldom they believe that with flowing beards and primeval Teutonic gestures they can mask the intellectual and mental hollowness of their activities and abilities.

    In contrast to all these useless attempts, it is therefore good if we recall to mind the time in which the young National Socialist movement began its struggle.

  7. #22
    Chapter VI: The Struggle of the Early Period - the Significance of the Spoken Word 7 Months, 3 Weeks ago

    The first great meeting on February 24, 1920, in the Festival [Banquet Hall] of the Hofbräuhaus, had not died down in our ears when the preparations for the next were made. While up till then it had been considered risky to hold a little meeting once a month or even once every two weeks in a city like Munich, a large mass meeting was now to take place every seven days; in other words, once a week.

    I do not need to assure you that there was but one fear that constantly tormented us: would the people come and would they listen to us?-though I personally, even then, had the unshakable conviction that once they were there, the people would stay and follow the speech.

    In this period the Festsaal of the Munich Hofbräuhaus assumed an almost sacred significance for us National Socialists. Every week a meeting, almost always in this room, and each time the hall better filled and the people more devoted. Beginning with the 'War Guilt,' which at that time nobody bothered about, and the 'Peace Treaties,' nearly everything was taken up that seemed agitationally expedient or ideologically necessary.

    Especially to the peace treaties themselves the greatest attention was given. What prophecies the young movement kept making to the great masses! And nearly all of which have now been realized! Today it is easy to speak or write about these things. But in those days a public mass meeting, attended, not by bourgeois shopkeepers, but by incited proletarians, and dealing with the topic, 'The Peace Treaty of Versailles,' was taken as an attack on the Republic and a sign of a reactionary if not monarchistic attitude. At the very first sentence containing a criticism of Versailles, you had the stereotyped cry flung at you: 'What about Brest-Litovsk?' 'And Brest-Litovsk?'

    The masses roared this again and again, until gradually they grew hoarse or the speaker finally gave up his attempt to convince them. You felt like dashing your head against the wall in despair over such people! They did not want to hear or understand that Versailles was a shame and a disgrace, and not even that this dictated peace was an unprecedented pillaging of our people. The destructive work of the Marxists and the poison of enemy propaganda had deprived the people of any sense.

    Yet we had not even the right to complain! For how immeasurably great was the blame on another side! What had the bourgeoisie done to put a halt to this frightful disintegration, to oppose it and open the way to truth by a better and more thorough enlightenment? Nothing, and again nothing. In those days I saw them nowhere, all the great folkish apostles of today. Perhaps they spoke in little clubs, at tea tables, or in circles of like-minded people, but where they should have been, among the wolves, they did not venture ; except if there was a chance to howl with the pack.

    But to me it was clear in those days that for the small basic nucleus which for the present constituted the movement, the question of war guilt had to be cleared up, and cleared up in the sense of historic truth. That our movement should transmit to the broadest masses knowledge of the peace treaty was the premise for the future success of the movement. At that time, when they all still regarded this peace as a success of democracy, we had to form a front against it and engrave ourselves forever in the minds of men as an enemy of this treaty, so that later, when the harsh reality of this treacherous frippery would be revealed in its naked hate, the recollection of our position at that time would win us confidence.

    Even then I always came out in favor of taking a position in important questions of principle against all public opinion when it assumed a false attitude - disregarding all considerations of popularity, hatred, or struggle. The NSDAP should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!

    There exists, of course, and especially for every movement that is still weak, a great temptation, in moments when a more powerful enemy has succeeded in driving the people to a mad decision or to a false attitude through his arts of seduction, to go along and join the shouting, particularly when there are a few reasons - even if they are merely illusory - which, from the standpoint of the young movement itself, might argue for this course. Human cowardice will seek such reasons so vigorously that it almost always finds something which would give a semblance of justification, even from one's 'own standpoint,' for participating in such a crime.

    I have several times experienced such cases, in which supreme energy was necessary to keep the ship of the movement from drifting with the artificially aroused general current or rather from being driven by it. The last time was when our infernal press, to which the existence of the German people is Hecuba, succeeded in puffing up the South Tyrol question to an importance which will be catastrophic for the German people.

    Without considering whom they were serving thereby, many so-called ' national' men and parties and organizations, solely from cowardice in the face of Jew-incited public opinion, joined the general outcry and senselessly helped to support the fight against a system which we Germans, precisely in this present-day situation, must feel to be the sole ray of light in this degenerating world. While the international world Jew slowly but surely strangles us, our so-called patriots shouted against a man and a system which dared, in one corner of the earth at least, to free themselves from the Jewish-Masonic embrace and oppose a nationalistic resistance to this international world poisoning.

    It was, however, too alluring for weak characters simply to set their sails by the wind and capitulate to the clamor of public opinion. And a capitulation it was! Men are such base liars that they may not admit it, even to themselves, but it remains the truth that only cowardice and fear of the popular sentiment stirred up by the Jews impelled them to join in. All other explanations are miserable evasions devised by the petty sinner conscious of his guilt.

    And so it was necessary to shake the movement with an iron fist to preserve it from ruin by this tendency. To attempt such a shift at a moment when public opinion, fanned by every driving force, was burning only in one direction is indeed not very popular at the moment and sometimes puts the venturesome leader in almost mortal peril. But not a few men in history have at such moments been stoned for an action for which posterity, at a later date, had every cause to thank them on its knees.

    It is with this that a movement must reckon and not with the momentary approval of the present. It may be that in such hours the individual feels afraid; but he must not forget that after every such hour salvation comes at length, and that a movement that wants to renew a world must serve, not the moment, but the future.

    In this connection it can be established that the greatest and most enduring successes in history tend for the most part to be those which in their beginnings found the least understanding because they stood in the sharpest conflict with general public opinion, with its ideas and its will.

    Even then, on the first day of our public appearance, we had a chance to experience this. Truly we did not 'curry favor with the masses,' but everywhere opposed the lunacy of these people. Nearly always it came about that in these years I faced an assemblage of people who believed the opposite of what I wanted to say, and wanted the opposite of what I believed. Then it was the work of two hours to lift two or three thousand people out of a previous conviction, blow by blow to shatter the foundation of their previous opinions, and finally to lead them across to our convictions and our philosophy of life.

    In those days I learned something important in a short time, to strike the weapon of reply out of the enemy's hands myself. We soon noticed that our opponents, especially their discussion speakers, stepped forward with a definite 'repertory' in which constantly recurring objections to our assertions were raised, so that the uniformity of this procedure pointed to a conscious. unified schooling. And that was indeed the case. Here we had an opportunity to become acquainted with the incredible discipline of our adversaries' propaganda, and it is still my pride today to have found the means, not only to render this propaganda ineffective but in the end to strike its makers with their own weapon. Two years later I was a master of this art.

    In every single speech it was important to realize clearly in advance the presumable content and form of the objections to be expected in the discussion, and to pull every one of them apart in the speech itself. Here it was expedient to cite the possible objections ourselves at the outset and demonstrate their untenability; thus, the listener, even if he had come stuffed full of the objections he had been taught, but otherwise with an honest heart, was more easily won over when we disposed of the doubts that had been imprinted on his memory. The stuff that had been drummed into him was automatically refuted and his attention drawn more and more to the speech.

    This is the reason why, right after my first lecture on the 'Peace Treaty of Versailles,' which I had delivered to the troops while still a so-called 'educator,' I changed the lecture and now spoke of the 'Peace Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles.' For after a short time, in fact, in the course of the discussion about this first speech of mine, I was able to ascertain that the people really knew nothing at all about the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but that the adroit propaganda of their parties had succeeded in representing this very treaty as one of the most shameful acts of rape in the world.

    The persistence with which this lie was presented over and over to the great masses accounted for the fact that millions of Germans regarded the peace treaty of Versailles as nothing more than just retribution for the crime committed by us at Brest-Litovsk, thus viewing any real struggle against Versailles as an injustice and sometimes remaining in the sincerest moral indignation.

    This among other things was why the shameless and monstrous word 'reparations' was able to make itself at home in Germany. This vile hypocrisy really seemed to millions of our incited national comrades an accomplishment of higher justice. Dreadful, but it was so. The best proof of this was offered by the propaganda I initiated against the peace treaty of Versailles, which I introduced by some enlightenment regarding the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. I contrasted the two peace treaties, compared them point for point, showed the actual boundless humanity of the one treaty compared to the inhuman cruelty of the second, and the result was telling.

    At that time I spoke on this theme at meetings of two thousand people, and often I was struck by the glances of three thousand six hundred hostile eyes. And three hours later I had before me a surging mass full of the holiest indignation and boundless wrath. Again a great lie had been torn out of the hearts and brains of a crowd numbering thousands, and a truth implanted in its place.

    I considered these two lectures on 'The True Causes of the World War' and on 'The Peace Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles,' the most important of all, and so I repeated and repeated them dozens of times, always renewing the form, until, on this point at least, a certain clear and unified conception became current among the people from among whom the movement gathered its first members.

    For myself, moreover, the meetings had the advantage that I gradually transformed myself into a speaker for mass meetings, that I became practiced in the pathos and the gestures which a great hall, with its thousands of people, demands.

    At that time, except - as already emphasized - in small circles, I saw no enlightenment in this direction from the parties which today have their mouths so full of words and act as if they had brought about the change in public opinion. When a so-called 'national politician' somewhere delivered a speech along these lines, it was only to circles who for the most part already shared his conviction, and for whom his utterances represented at most. an intensification of their own opinions. This was not the important thing at that time; the important thing was to win by enlightenment and propaganda those people who, by virtue of their education and opinions, still stood on hostile ground.

    The leaflet, too, was put into the service of this enlightenment. While still in the army, I had written a leaflet comparing the peace treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles, and it was distributed in large editions. Later I took over stocks of it for the party, and here again the effect was good. The first meetings, in general, were distinguished by the fact that the tables were covered with all sorts of leaflets, newspapers, pamphlets, etc. But the chief emphasis was laid on the spoken word. And actually it alone - for general psychological reasons - is able to bring about really great changes.

    I have already stated in the first volume that all great, world-shaking events have been brought about, not by written matter, but by the spoken word. This led to a lengthy discussion in a part of the press, where, of course, such an assertion was sharply attacked, particularly by our bourgeois wiseacres. But the very reason why this occurred confutes the doubters.

    For the bourgeois intelligentsia protest against such a view only because they themselves obviously lack the power and ability to influence the masses by the spoken word, since they have thrown themselves more and more into purely literary activity and renounced the real agitational activity of the spoken word. Such habits necessarily lead in time to what distinguishes our bourgeoisie today; that is, to the loss of the psychological instinct for mass effect and mass influence.

    While the speaker gets a continuous correction of his speech from the crowd he is addressing, since he can always see in the faces of his listeners to what extent they can follow his arguments with understanding and whether the impression and the effect of his words lead to the desired goal - the writer does not know his readers at all.

    Therefore, to begin with, he will not aim at a definite mass before his eyes, but will keep his arguments entirely general. By this to a certain degree he loses psychological subtlety and in consequence suppleness. And so, by and large, a brilliant speaker will be able to write better than a brilliant writer can speak, unless he continuously practices this art. On top of this there is the fact that the mass of people as such is lazy; that they remain inertly in the spirit of their old habits and, left to themselves, will take up a piece of written matter only reluctantly if it is not in agreement with what they themselves believe and does not bring them what they had hoped for.

    Therefore, an article with a definite tendency is for the most part read only by people who can already be reckoned to this tendency. At most a leaflet or a poster can, by its brevity, count on getting a moment's attention from someone who thinks differently. The picture in all its forms up to the film has greater possibilities. Here a man needs to use his brains even less; it suffices to look, or at most to read extremely brief texts, and thus many will more readily accept a pictorial presentation than read an article of any length. The picture brings them in a much briefer time, I might almost say at one stroke, the enlightenment which they obtain from written matter only after arduous reading.

    The essential point, however, is that a piece of literature never knows into what hands it will fall, and yet must retain its definite form. In general the effect will be the greater, the more this form corresponds to the intellectual level and nature of those very people who will be its readers. A book that is destined for the broad masses must, therefore, attempt from the very beginning to have an effect, both in style and elevation, different from a work intended for higher intellectual classes.

    Only by this kind of adaptability does written matter approach the spoken word. To my mind, the speaker can treat the same theme as the book; he will, if he is a brilliant popular orator, not be likely to repeat the same reproach and the same substance twice in the same form. He will always let himself be borne by the great masses in such a way that instinctively the very words come to his lips that he needs to speak to the hearts of his audience.

    If he errs, even in the slightest, he has the living correction before him. As I have said, he can read from the facial expression of his audience whether, firstly, they understand what he is saying, whether, secondly, they can follow the speech as a whole, and to what extent, thirdly, he has convinced them of the soundness of what he has said. If - firstly - he sees that they do not understand him, he will become so primitive and clear in his explanations that even the last member of his audience has to understand him; if he feels - secondly - that they cannot follow him, he will construct his ideas so cautiously and slowly that even the weakest member of the audience is not left behind, and he will - thirdly - if he suspects that they do not seem convinced of the soundness of his argument, repeat it over and over in constantly new examples.

    He himself will utter their objections, which he senses though unspoken, and go on confuting them and exploding them, until at length even the last group of an opposition, by its very bearing and facial expression, enables him to recognize its capitulation to his arguments.

    Here again it is not seldom a question of overcoming prejudices which are not based on reason, but, for the most part unconsciously, are supported only by sentiment. To overcome this barrier of instinctive aversion, of emotional hatred, of prejudiced rejection, is a thousand times harder than to correct a faulty or erroneous scientific opinion. False concepts and poor knowledge can be eliminated by instruction, the resistance of the emotions never. Here only an appeal to these mysterious powers themselves can be effective; and the writer can hardly ever accomplish this, but almost exclusively the orator.

    The most striking proof of this is furnished by the fact that, despite a bourgeois press that is often very skillfully gotten up, flooding our people with editions running into millions, this press could not prevent the masses from becoming the sharpest enemy of its own bourgeois world. The whole newspaper flood and all the books that are turned out year after year by the intellectuals slide off the millions of the lower classes like water from oiled leather. This can prove only two things: either the unsoundness of the content of this whole literary production of our bourgeois world or the impossibility of reaching the heart of the broad masses solely by written matter. Especially, indeed, when this written matter demonstrates so unpsychological an attitude as is here the case.

    Let no one reply (as a big German national newspaper in Berlin tried to do) that Marxism itself, by its writings, especially by the effect of the great basic work of Karl Marx, provides proof counter to this assertion. Seldom has anyone made a more superficial attempt to support an erroneous view. What gave Marxism its astonishing power over the great masses is by no means the formal written work of the Jewish intellectual world, but rather the enormous oratorical propaganda wave which took possession of the great masses in the course of the years.

    Of a hundred thousand German workers, not a hundred on the average know this work, which has always been studied by a thousand times more intellectuals and especially Jews than by real adherents of this movement from the great lower classes. And this work was not written for the great masses, but exclusively for the intellectual leadership of that Jewish machine for world conquest; it was stoked subsequently with an entirely different fuel: the press.

    For that is what distinguishes the Marxist press from our bourgeois press. The Marxist press is written by agitators, and the bourgeois press would like to carry on agitation by means of writers. The Social Democratic yellow journalist, who almost always goes from the meeting hall to the newspaper office, knows his public like no one else. But the bourgeois scribbler who comes out of his study to confront the great masses is nauseated by their very fumes and faces them helplessly with the written word.

    What has won the millions of workers for Marxism is less the literary style of the Marxist church fathers than the indefatigable and truly enormous propaganda work of tens of thousands of untiring agitators, from the great agitator down to the small trade-union official and the shop steward and discussion speaker; this work consisted of the hundreds of thousands of meetings at which, standing on the table in smoky taverns, these people's orators hammered at the masses and thus were able to acquire a marvelous knowledge of this human material which really put them in a position to choose the best weapons for attacking the fortress of public opinion.

    It consisted, furthermore, in the gigantic mass demonstrations, these parades of hundreds of thousands of men, which burned into the small, wretched individual the proud conviction that, paltry worm as he was, he was nevertheless a part of a great dragon,1 beneath whose burning breath the hated bourgeois world would some day go up in fire and flame and the proletarian dictatorship would celebrate its ultimate final victory.

    Such propaganda produced the people who were ready and prepared to read a Social Democratic press, however, a press which itself in turn is not written, but which is spoken. For, while in the bourgeois camp professors and scholars, theoreticians and writers of all sorts, occasionally attempt to speak, in the Marxist movement the speakers occasionally try to write. And precisely the Jew, who is especially to be considered in this connection, will, in general, thanks to his lying dialectical skill and suppleness, even as a writer be more of an agitational orator than a literary creator.

    That is the reason why the bourgeois newspaper world (quite aside from the fact that it, too, is mostly Jewified and therefore has no interest in really instructing the great masses) cannot exert the slightest influence on the opinion of the broadest sections of our people.

    1 'Als kleiner Wurm dennoch Glied eines grosser Drachens za sein.'

    How hard it is to upset emotional prejudices, moods, sentiments, etc., and to replace them by others, on how many scarcely calculable influences and conditions success depends, the sensitive speaker can judge by the fact that even the time of day in which the lecture takes place can have a decisive influence on the effect.

    The same lecture, the same speaker, the same theme, have an entirely different effect at ten o'clock in the morning, at three o'clock in the afternoon, or at night. I myself as a beginner organized meetings for the morning, and especially remember a rally which we held in the Munich Kindl Keller as a protest 'against the oppression of German territories.' At that time it was Munich's largest hall and it seemed a very great venture. In order to make attendance particularly easy for the adherents of the movement and all the others who came, I set the meeting for a Sunday morning at ten o'clock.

    The result was depressing, yet at the same time extremely instructive: the hall was full, the impression really overpowering, but the mood ice cold; no one became warm, and I myself as a speaker felt profoundly unhappy at being unable to create any bond, not even the slightest contact, between myself and my audience. I thought I had not spoken worse than usual; but the effect seemed to be practically nil. Utterly dissatisfied, though richer by one experience, I left the meeting. Tests of the same sort that I later undertook led to the same result.

    This should surprise no one. Go to a theater performance and witness a play at three o'clock in the afternoon and the same play with the same actors at eight at night, and you will be amazed at the difference in effect and impression. A man with fine feelings and the power to achieve clarity with regard to this mood will be able to establish at once that the impression made by the performance at three in the afternoon is not as great as that: made in the evening. The same applies even to a movie.

    This is important because in the theater it might be said that perhaps the actor does not take as much pains in the afternoon as at night. But a film is no different in the afternoon than at nine in the evening. No, the time itself exerts a definite effect, just as the hall does on me. There are halls which leave people cold for reasons that are hard to discern, but which somehow oppose the most violent resistance to any creation of mood. Traditional memories and ideas that are present in a man can also decisively determine an impression.

    Thus, a performance of Parsifal in Bayreuth will always have a different effect than anywhere else in the world. The mysterious magic of the house on the Festspielhügel in the old city of the margraves cannot be replaced or even compensated for by externals.

    In all these cases we have to do with an encroachment upon man's freedom of will. This applies most, of course, to meetings attended by people with a contrary attitude of will, who must now be won over to a new will. In the morning and even during the day people's will power seems to struggle with the greatest energy against an attempt to force upon them a strange will and a strange opinion. At night, however, they succumb more easily to the dominating force of a stronger will.

    For, in truth, every such meeting represents a wrestling bout between two opposing forces. The superior oratorical art of a dominating preacher will succeed more easily in winning to the new will people who have themselves experienced a weakening of their force of resistance in the most natural way than those who are still in full possession of their mental tension and will.

    The same purpose, after all, is served by the artificially made and yet mysterious twilight in Catholic churches, the burning lamps, incense, censers, etc.

    In this wrestling bout of the speaker with the adversaries he wants to convert, he will gradually achieve that wonderful sensitivity to the psychological requirements of propaganda, which the writer almost always lacks. Hence the written word in its limited effect will in general serve more to retain, to reinforce, to deepen, a point of view or opinion that is already present. Really great historical changes are not induced by the written word, but at most accompanied by it.

    Let no one believe that the French Revolution would ever have come about through philosophical theories if it had not found an army of agitators led by demagogues in the grand style, who whipped up the passions of the people tormented to begin with, until at last there occurred that terrible volcanic eruption which held all Europe rigid with fear. And likewise the greatest revolutionary upheaval of the most recent period, the Bolshevist Revolution in Russia, was brought about, not by Lenin's writings, but by the hate-fomenting oratorical activity of countless of the greatest and the smallest apostles of agitation.

    The illiterate common people were not, forsooth, fired with enthusiasm for the Communist Revolution by the theoretical reading of Karl Marx, but solely by the glittering heaven which thousands of agitators, themselves, to be sure, all in the service of an idea, talked into the people.

    And that has always been so and will eternally remain so.

    It is entirely in keeping with the stubborn unworldliness of our German intelligentsia to believe that the writer must necessarily be mentally superior to the speaker. This conception is illustrated in the most precious way by a criticism appearing in the above-mentioned national newspaper, in which it is stated that one is so often disappointed to see the speech of a recognized great orator suddenly in print.

    This reminds me of another criticism which came into my hands in the course of the War; it painfully subjected the speeches of Lloyd George, who at that time was still munitions minister, to the magnifying glass, only to arrive at the brilliant discovery that these speeches were scientifically inferior products and hackneyed to boot. Later, in the form of a little volume, these speeches came into my own hands, and I had to laugh aloud that an average German knight of the ink-pot should possess no understanding for these psychological masterpieces in the art of mass propaganda.

    This man judged these speeches solely according to the impression they left on his own base nature, while the great English demagogue had set out solely to exert the greatest possible effect on the mass of his listeners, and in the broadest sense on the entire English lower class. Regarded from this standpoint, the speeches of this Englishman were the most wonderful performances, for they testified to a positively amazing knowledge of the soul of the broad masses of the people. And their effect was truly powerful.

    Compare to it the helpless stammering of a Bethmann-Hollweg. These speeches, to be sure, were apparently wittier, but in reality they only showed this man's inability to speak to his people, which he simply did not know. Nevertheless, the average sparrow brain of a German scribbler, equipped,

    It goes without saying, with a high scientific education, manages to judge the intelligence of the English minister by the impression which a speech aimed at mass effect makes on his own brain, calcified with sheer science, and to compare it with that of a German statesman whose brilliant chatter naturally finds more receptive soil in him.

    Lloyd George proved that he was not only the equal in genius of a Bethmann-Hollweg, but was a thousand times his superior, precisely by the fact that in his speeches he found that form and that expression which opened to him the heart of his people and in the end made this people serve his will completely. Precisely in the primitiveness of his language, the primordiality of its forms of expression, and the use of easily intelligible examples of the simplest sort lies the proof of the towering political ability of this Englishman.

    For I must not measure the speech of a statesman to his people by the impression which it leaves in a university professor, but by the effect it exerts on the people. And this alone gives the standard for the speaker's genius.

    The amazing development of our movement, which only a few years ago was founded out of the void and today is considered worthy to be sharply persecuted by all the inner and outer enemies of our people, must be attributed to the constant consideration and application of these realizations.

    Important as the movement's literature may be, it will in our present position be more important for the equal and uniform training of the upper and lower leaders than for the winning of the hostile masses. Only in the rarest cases will a convinced Social Democrat or a fanatical Communist condescend to acquire a National Socialist pamphlet, let alone a book, to read it and from it gain an insight into our conception of life or to study the critique of his own.

    Even a newspaper will be read but very seldom if it does not bear the party stamp. Besides, this would be of little use; for the general aspect of a single copy of a newspaper is so chopped up and so divided in its effect that looking at it once cannot be expected to have any influence on the reader We may and must expect no one, for whom pennies count, to subscribe steadily to an opposing newspaper merely from the urge for objective enlightenment. Scarcely one out of ten thousand will do this.

    Only a man who has already been won to the movement will steadily read the party organ, and he will read it as a running news service of his movement.

    The case is quite different with the 'spoken' leaflet! The man in the street will far sooner take it into his hands, especially if he gets it for nothing, and all the more if the headlines plastically treat a topic which at the moment is in everyone's mouth. By a more or less thorough perusal, it may be possible by such a leaflet to call his attention to new viewpoints and attitudes, even in fact to a new movement. But even this, in the most favorable case, will provide only a slight impetus, never an accomplished fact. For the leaflet, too, can only suggest or point to something, and its effect will only appear in combination with a subsequent more thoroughgoing instruction and enlightenment of its readers. And this is and remains the mass meeting.

    The mass meeting is also necessary for the reason that in it the individual, who at first while becoming a supporter of a young movement, feels lonely and easily succumbs to the fear of being alone, for the first time gets the picture of a larger community, which in most people has a strengthening, encouraging effect.. The same man, within a company or a battalion, surrounded by all his comrades, would set out on an attack with a lighter heart than if left entirely on his own. In the crowd he always feels somewhat sheltered, even if a thousand reasons actually argue against it.

    But the community of the great demonstration not only strengthens the individual, it also unites and helps to create an esprit de corps. The man who is exposed to grave tribulations, as the first advocate of a new doctrine in his factory or workshop, absolutely needs that strengthening which lies in the conviction of being a member and fighter in a great comprehensive body.

    He obtains an impression of this body for the first time in the mass demonstration. When from his little workshop or big factory, in which he feels very small, he steps for the first time into a mass meeting and has thousands and thousands of people of the same opinions around him, when, as a seeker,2 he is swept away by three or four thousand others into the mighty effect of suggestive intoxication and enthusiasm, when the visible success and agreement of thousands confirm to him the rightness of the new doctrine and for the first time arouse doubt in the truth of his previous conviction - then he himself has succumbed to the magic influence of what we designate as 'mass suggestion.' The will, the longing, and also the power of thousands are accumulated in every individual. The man who enters such a meeting doubting and wavering leaves it inwardly reinforced: he has become a link in the community.

    2 {Als Suchender.' A Wagnerian phrase, which Hitler was apparently determined to use at all costs.

    The National Socialist movement must never forget this and in particular it must never let itself be influenced by those bourgeois simpletons who know everything better, but who nevertheless have gambled away a great state including their own existence and the rule of their class. Oh, yes, they are very, very clever, they know everything, understand everything - only one thing they did not understand, how to prevent the German people from falling into the arms of Marxism. In this they miserably and wretchedly failed, so that their present conceit is only arrogance,3 which in the form of pride, as everyone knows, always thrives on the same tree as stupidity.

    If today these people attribute no special value to the spoken word, they do so, it must be added, only because, thank the Lord, they have become thoroughly convinced by now of the ineffectualness of their own speechmaking.

    3 'so dass ihre jetzige Eingebildetheit nur Dünkel ist.'

  8. #23
    Chapter VII: The Struggle with the Red Front



    In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I personally attended bourgeois meetings. They always made the same impression on me as in my youth the prescribed spoonful of cod-liver oil. You've got to take it, and it's supposed to be very good, but it tastes terrible. If the German people were tied together with cords and pulled forcibly into these bourgeois 'demonstrations,' and the doors were locked till the end of the performance and no one allowed to leave, it might lead to success in a few centuries.

    Of course, I must frankly admit that in this case I should probably lose all interest in life and would rather not be a German at all. But since, thank the Lord, this cannot be done, we have no need to be surprised that the healthy, unspoiled people avoid 'bourgeois mass meetings' as the devil holy water.

    I came to know them, these prophets of a bourgeois philosophy, and I am really not surprised I understand why they attribute no importance to the spoken word. In those days I attended meetings of the Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German People's Party, and also the Bavarian People's Party (Bavarian Center). What struck you at once was the homogeneous solidity of the audience. It was almost always solely party members that took part in one of these rallies. The whole thing was without any discipline. more like a yawning bridge club than a meeting of the people which had just been through their greatest revolution.

    The speakers did everything they could to preserve this peaceful mood. They spoke, or rather, as a rule, they read speeches in the style of a witty newspaper article or of a scientific treatise, avoided all strong words, and here and there threw in some feeble professorial joke, at which the honorable committee dutifully began to laugh; though not loudly, provocatively, but in a dignified, subdued, reserved fashion.

    And what a committee!

    Once I saw a meeting in the Wagner-Saal in Munich it was a demonstration on the occasion of the anniversary of the Battle of Nations at Leipzig. The speech was delivered or read by a dignified old gentleman, a professor at some university. On the platform sat the committee. To the left a monocle, to the right a monocle, and in between one without a monocle. All three in frock coats, so that you got the impression either of a court of justice planning an execution or of a solemn baptism, in any case more of a religious solemnity.

    The so-called speech, which might have cut a perfectly good figure in print, was simply terrible in its effect. After only three quarters of an hour the whole meeting was dozing along in a state of trance, which was interrupted only by the departure of individual men and women, the clattering of the waitresses, and the yawning of more and more numerous listeners.

    Three workers, who, either from curiosity or because they had been commissioned to attend, were present at the meeting, and behind whom I posted myself, looked at each other from time to time with ill-concealed grins, and finally nudged one another, whereupon they very quietly left the hall. You could see that they did not want to disturb the meeting at any price.

    In this company it was really not necessary. Finally the meeting seemed to be drawing to its end. After the professor, whose voice had meanwhile grown steadily softer and softer, had finished his lecture, the chairman of the meeting, sitting between the two monocle-bearers, arose and roared at the 'German sisters' and 'brothers' present how great his gratitude was and how great their feelings on this order must be for the unique lecture, as enjoyable as it was thorough and deeply penetrating, which Professor X had given them, and which in the truest sense of the word was an 'inner experience,' in fact, an 'achievement.'

    It would be a profanation of this solemn hour to add a discussion to these lucid remarks; therefore, speaking for all those present, he would dispense with any such discussion and instead bid them all rise from their seats and join in the cry: 'We are a united people of brothers,' etc. Finally, to conclude the meeting he asked us all to sing the Deutschland song.

    And then they sang, and it seemed to me that even at the second verse the voices were becoming somewhat fewer and only swelled mightily at the refrain, and at the third verse this impression grew stronger, and I believed that not all of them could have been quite sure of the text.

    But what does this matter if such a song rings to the heavens in all fervor from the heart of a German National soul. Thereupon the meeting scattered; that is, everyone rushed to get out quickly, some to their beer, others to a cafe, and still others into the fresh air.

    Yes, indeed, out into the fresh air, at all costs out. That was my own one feeling, too. And this was supposed to serve for the glorification of a heroic struggle on the part of hundreds of thousands of Prussians and Germans? Phooey, I say, and again phoney!

    The government, of course, may like this kind of thing. Naturally this is a 'peaceful' meeting. The minister for law and order really has no need to fear that the waves of enthusiasm will suddenly burst the legal measure of bourgeois propriety; that suddenly in a frenzy of enthusiasm, the people will pour forth from the hall, not to hurry to a cafe or tavern, but to march through the streets of the city in rows of four with measured tread, singing 'Deutschland hoch in Ehren,' thus creating unpleasantness for a police force in need of rest.

    No, with such citizens they can be well pleased. By contrast, it must be admitted, the National Socialist meetings were not ' 'peaceful.' There the waves of two outlooks dashed, and they did not end with the insipid rattling off of some patriotic song, but with a fanatical outburst of folkish and national passion.

    From the very beginning it was important to introduce blind discipline in our meetings and absolutely to guarantee the authority of the committee in charge. For what we said in our speeches was not the feeble bilge of a bourgeois 'speaker,' but in content and form was always suited to provoke a reply from our opponents. And opponents there were in our meetings! How often they came in dense crowds, individual agitators among them, and all their faces reflecting the conviction: Today we'll make an end of you!

    How often, indeed, they were led in, literally in columns, our Red friends, with exact orders, poured into them in advance, to smash up the whole show tonight and put an end to the whole business. And how often it was touch and go, and only the ruthless energy of our people in charge and the brutal activism of our guards was able again and again to thwart the enemy's purpose.

    And they had every reason to feel provoked. The red color of our posters in itself drew them to our meeting halls. The run-of-the-mill bourgeoisie were horrified that we had seized upon the red of the Bolsheviks, and they regarded this as all very ambiguous. The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism, perhaps Marxists, or rather, socialists in disguise. For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism.

    Especially when they discovered that, as a matter of principle, we greeted in our meetings no 'ladies and gentlemen' but only 'national comrades,' and among ourselves spoke only of party comrades, the Marxist spook seemed demonstrated for many of our enemies. How often we shook with laughter at these simple bourgeois scare-cats, at the sight of their ingenious witty guessing games about our origin, our intentions, and our goal.

    We chose the red color of our posters after careful and thorough reflection, in order to provoke the Left, to drive them to indignation and lead them to attend our meetings if only to break them up, in order to have some chance to speak to the people, it was really a treat in those years to follow the perplexity and helplessness of our adversaries in their perpetually vacillating tactics. First they called on their adherents to take no notice of us and to avoid our meetings.

    And on the whole this advice was followed, since in the course of time individuals came notwithstanding, and this number slowly but steadily increased and the impression made by our doctrine was obvious, the leaders gradually became nervous and uneasy and became obsessed with the conviction that they must not forever stand idly by and watch this development, but must put an end to it by terror.

    Thereupon came appeals to the 'class-conscious proletarians' to attend our meetings in masses and strike the representatives of 'monarchistic, reactionary agitation' with the fists of the proletariat.

    All at once our meetings were filled with workers, three quarters of an hour in advance. They were like a powder barrel that could blow up at any moment, with a burning fuse already under it. But it always turned out differently. The people came in as our enemies, and when they left, if they were not our supporters, at least they had grown thoughtful, indeed critical; they had begun to examine the soundness of their own doctrine.

    Gradually it transpired that after my speech lasting three hours adherents and adversaries fused into a single enthusiastic mass. Then any signal to smash up the meeting was in vain. Then the leaders really began to be afraid, and they turned back to those who had previously come out against this tactic and who now, with a certain semblance of justification, emphasized their opinion that the only correct method was to forbid the workers to attend our meeting on principle.

    Then they stopped coming, or at least there were fewer of them. But after a short while the whole game began again from the beginning. The prohibition was not observed; more and more of the comrades came, and again the adherents of the radical tactic were victorious. Our meetings must be broken up, they decided.

    Then, after two, three, or often eight and ten meetings it turned out that to break up the meetings was easier said than done; and the result of every single meeting was a crumbling away of the Red fighting troops. Suddenly the other watchword was back again: 'Proletarians, comrades! Avoid the meetings of the National Socialist agitators! '

    And the same, eternally vacillating tactic was found in the Red press. Sometimes they tried to kill us by silence, then becoming convinced of the uselessness of this effort and again trying the contrary. Every day we were 'mentioned' somewhere, usually with the intent of making the absolute absurdity of our whole existence clear to the workers. But after a certain time the gentlemen could not help but feel that not only did this do us no harm, but on the contrary benefited us, since naturally many individuals could not help but ask themselves why so many words were devoted to this phenomenon if it was absurd.

    The people became curious. Then there was a sudden shift, and they began for a time to treat us as humanity's biggest criminals. Article upon article, in which our criminality was explained and proved again and again, and scandalous stories, even if pulled out of the air from A to Z. were expected to do the rest. But after a short time they seem to have convinced themselves of the inefficacy of these attacks; essentially all this only helped really to concentrate the general attention upon us.

    At that time I adopted the standpoint: It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again, and that we gradually in the eyes of the workers themselves appear to be the only power that anyone reckons with at the moment.

    What we really are and what we really want, we will show the wolves of the Jewish press when the time comes. One more reason why, as a rule, our meetings were not directly broken up in those days was the absolutely incredible cowardice of the leaders of our adversaries. In all critical cases they sent little rank-and-filers ahead, at most waiting outside for the results of the disturbances.

    We were almost always very well informed with regard to the intentions of these gentry. Not only because, for reasons of expediency, we had left many party comrades within the Red formations, but because the Red wirepullers themselves were afflicted with a talkativeness which in this case was very useful to us, and which, unfortunately, is very frequently found among the German people in general.

    They couldn't keep it to themselves when they had hatched out such a plan, and as a rule they began to cackle even before the egg was laid. And so, many and many a time, we had made the most comprehensive preparations and the Red shock troops hadn't so much as a suspicion how close they were to being thrown out.

    The times compelled us to take the defense of our meetings into our own hands; one can never count on protection on the part of the authorities; on the contrary, experience shows that it always and exclusively benefits the disturbers. For the sole actual result of intervention by the authorities-that is, the police-was at best to dissolve, in other words, to close the meeting. And that was the sole aim and purpose of the hostile disturbers.

    In this connection the police has developed a practice which represents the most monstrous form of injustice that can be conceived of. If through some sort of threats it becomes known to the authorities that there is danger of a meeting being broken up, they do not arrest the threateners, but forbid the others, the innocent, to hold the meeting, and what is more, the run-of-the-mill police mind is mighty proud of such wisdom. They call this a 'precautionary measure for the prevention of an illegal act.'

    Thus, the determined gangster is always in a position to make political activity and efforts impossible for decent people. In the name of law and order, the state authority gives in to the gangster and requests the others please not to provoke him. And so if National Socialists wanted to hold meetings in certain places and the unions declared that this would lead to resistance on the part of their members, the police, you may rest assured, did not put these blackmailing scoundrels behind the bars, but forbade our meeting. Yes, these organs of the law even had the incredible shamelessness to inform us of this innumerable times in writing.

    If we wanted to defend ourselves against such eventualities, we had, therefore, to make sure that any attempt at a disturbance was forestalled 1 in the bud.

    In this connection the following had also to be considered: Any meeting which is protected exclusively by the police discredits its organizers in the eyes of the broad masses. Meetings which are guaranteed only by the presence of a large police force do not attract support, since the presupposition for winning the lower strata of a people is always a strength that is visibly present.

    Just as a courageous man can more easily conquer women's hearts than a coward, a heroic movement will sooner win the heart of a people than a cowardly one which is kept alive only by police protection.

    Especially for this last reason, the young party had to make sure of defending its own existence, of protecting itself and of breaking the enemy terror with its own hands. The protection of meetings was based:

    (1) On an energetic and psychologically sound conduct of the meeting.2

    If we National Socialists held a meeting in those days, we were its masters and no one else. And every minute, uninterruptedly, we sharply emphasized this master right. Our opponents knew perfectly well that anyone creating a provocation would be mercilessly thrown out, even if we were only a dozen among half a thousand.

    1 'schon in Keim unmöglich gemacht Garde.'

    2 In the first edition this series concludes abortively with No. 1. The second edition inserts: '(2) On an organized monlior troop.'

    In the meetings of those days, especially outside of Munich, there would be five, six, seven, and eight hundred adversaries to fifteen or sixteen National Socialists. But nevertheless we tolerated no provocation, and those who attended our meetings knew full well that we would rather have let ourselves be beaten to death than capitulate. And it happened more than once that a handful of party comrades heroically fought their way to victory against a roaring, flailing Red majority.

    In such cases these fifteen or twenty men would in the end have assuredly been overcome. But the others knew that previously at least twice or three times as many of them would have had their skulls bashed in, and this they did not gladly risk.

    Here we tried to learn from the study of Marxist and bourgeois meeting technique, and learn we did.

    The Marxists had always had a blind discipline, so that the idea of breaking up a Marxist meeting, by the bourgeoisie at least, could not even arise. But the Reds busied themselves all the more with such intentions. Gradually they had not only achieved a certain virtuosity in this field, but ultimately in large sections of the Reich they went so far as to designate a non-Marxist meeting as such as a provocation of the proletariat; especially when the wirepullers sensed that the meeting might draw up the catalogue of their own sins and unmask the treachery with which they deceived and lied to the people.

    Then, as soon as such a meeting was announced, the whole Red press raised a furious outcry, and these men who in principle despised the law were not seldom the first to turn to the authorities, with the urgent and threatening request that this 'provocation of the proletariat' be prohibited at once, 'in order to prevent worse things from happening.'

    They chose their language and achieved their success according to the dimensions of the official bonehead. But if, in an exceptional case, there was a real German official in such a post, not an official toady, and he rejected the shameless imposition, there followed the well-known summons not to suffer such a 'provocation of the proletariat,' but on such and such a date to attend the meeting en masse, and 'put a stop to the disgraceful activity of the bourgeois creatures, with the horny fist of the proletariat.'

    You need to have seen such a bourgeois meeting, you need to have seen its leaders in all their miserable fear! Often, upon such threats, a meeting was simply called off. And always the fear was so great that instead of eight o'clock the meeting was seldom opened before a quarter to nine or nine o'clock.

    The chairman then endeavored, with twenty-nine compliments, to make it clear to the 'gentlemen of the opposition' present, how pleased he and all the others present were at heart (a plain lie!) with the visit of men who did not yet stand on the same ground, because after all only mutual discussion (to which he thereby most solemnly consented in advance) could bring them closer, arouse mutual understanding, and throw a bridge between them. And in passing he gave assurance that it was by no means the purpose of the meeting to turn people away from their previous views.

    No, indeed, let each man be happy in his own fashion, but let him not interfere with the happiness of others; and so he requested the audience to let the speaker complete his remarks, which would not be very long anyway, so that this meeting should not present to the world the shameful spectacle of German brothers quarreling among themselves. . . Brrr!

    But the brethren on the Left usually had no understanding for this; no, before the speaker had even begun, he had to pack up his things amid the wildest abuse; and not seldom you got the impression that he was thankful to Fate for quickly cutting off the painful procedure. Amid a monstrous tumult such bourgeois meeting-hall toreadors left the arena, except when they flew down the steps with gashed heads, which was actually often the case.

    And so, you may be sure, it was something new to the Marxists when we National Socialists organized our first meetings, and especially how we organized them. They came in convinced that, of course, they would be able to repeat on us the little game they had so often played. 'Today we'll finish you off!' How many a one boastfully shouted this sentence to another on entering our meeting, only to find himself outside the hall in the twinkling of an eye, even before he could shout his second interruption In the first place, the committee in charge was different with us.

    No one begged the audience graciously to permit our speech, nor was everyone guaranteed unlimited time for discussion; it was simply stated that we were the masters of the meeting, that in consequence we had the privilege of the house, and that anyone who should dare to utter so much as a single cry of interruption would be mercilessly thrown out where he came from. Thai, furthermore, we must reject any responsibility for such a fellow; if there was time left and it suited us, we would permit a discussion to take place, if not, there would be none, and the speaker, Party Comrade So-and-So, had the floor.

    This in itself filled them with amazement. In the second place, we disposed of a rigidly organized house guard. In the bourgeois parties this house guard, or rather monitor service, usually consisted of gentlemen who believed that the dignity of their years gave them a certain claim to authority and respect. But since the Marxist-incited masses did not have the least regard for age, authority, and respect, the existence of this bourgeois house guard was for practical purposes nullified, so to speak.

    At the very beginning of our big meetings, I began the organization of a house guard in the form of a monitor service, which as a matter of principle included only young fellows. These were in part comrades whom I knew from military service; others were newly won party comrades who from the very outset were instructed and trained in the viewpoint that terror can only be broken by terror; that on this earth success has always gone to the courageous, determined man; that we are fighting for a mighty idea, so great and noble that it well deserves to be guarded and protected with the last drop of blood.

    They were imbued with the doctrine that, as long as reason was silent and violence had the last word, the best weapon of defense lay in attack; and that our monitor troop must be preceded by the reputation of not being a debating dub, but a combat group determined to go to any length.

    And how this youth had longed for such a slogan! How disillusioned and outraged was this front-line generation, how full of disgust and revulsion at bourgeois cowardice and shilly-shallying!

    Thus, it became fully clear that the revolution had been possible thanks only to the disastrous bourgeois leadership of our people. The fists to protect the German people would have been available even then, but the heads to play the game were lacking. How many a time the eyes of my lads glittered when I explained to them the necessity of their mission and assured them over and over again that all the wisdom on this earth remains without success if force does not enter into its service, guarding it and protecting it; that the gentle Goddess of Peace can walk only by the side of the God of War; and that every great deed of this peace requires the protection and aid of force.

    How muck more vividly the idea of military service now dawned on them! Not in the calcified sense of old, ossified officials serving the dead authority of a dead state, but in the living consciousness of the duty to fight for the existence of our people as a whole by sacrificing the life of the individual, always and forever, at all times and places.

    And how these lads did fight! Like a swarm of hornets they swooped down on the disturbers of our meetings, without regard for their superior power, no matter how great it might be, without regard for wounds and bloody victims, filled entirely with the one great thought of creating a free path for the holy mission of our movement.

    As early as midsummer, 1920 the organization of the monitor troop gradually assumed definite forms, and in the spring of 1921 little by little divided into hundreds, which themselves in turn were split up into groups.

    And this was urgency necessary, for in the meanwhile our public meeting activity had steadily increased. Even now, to be sure, we still often met in the Festsaal of the Munich Hofbräuhaus, but even more often in the larger halls of the city. The Festsaal of the Bürgerbräu and the Münchener Kindl-Keller saw mightier and mightier mass meetings in the fall and winter of 1920-21, and the picture was always the same: rallies of the NSDAP even then usually had to be closed by the police even before beginning, because of overcrowding.

    The organization of our monitor troop clarified a very important question. Up till then the movement possessed no party insignia and no party flag. The absence of such symbols not only had momentary disadvantages, but was intolerable for the future. The disadvantages consisted above all in the fact that the party comrades lacked any outward sign of their common bond, while it was unbearable for the future to dispense with a sign which possessed the character of a symbol of the movement and could as such be opposed to the International.

    What importance must be attributed to such a symbol from the psychological point of view I had even in my youth more than one occasion to recognize and also emotionally to understand. Then, after the War, I experienced a mass demonstration of the Marxists in front of the Royal Palace and the Lustgarten. A sea of red flags, red scarves, and red flowers gave to this demonstration, in which an estimated hundred and twenty thousand persons took part, an aspect that was gigantic from the purely external point of view. I myself could feel and understand how easily the man of the people succumbs to the suggestive magic of a spectacle so grandiose in effect.

    The bourgeoisie, which in its party politics neither represents nor advocates any outlook at all, had therefore no flag of its own. They consisted of 'patriots' and therefore ran around in the colors of the Reich. If these had been the symbol of a definite philosophy, it would have been understandable that the owners of the state viewed its flag as the representative of its philosophy, since the symbol of their philosophy had become the flag of the state and the Reich through their own activity.

    But this was not the case. The Reich had been formed without any move on the part of the German bourgeoisie, and the flag itself had been born from the womb of war. Hence it was really nothing but a state flag and possessed no meaning of any sort in the sense of a special philosophical mission.

    Only in one spot of the German language area was anything like a bourgeois party flag in existence - in German Austria. By choosing the colors of 1848, black, red, and gold, for its party symbol, a part of the national bourgeoisie in that country had created a symbol, which, though without any meaning in a philosophical sense, nevertheless had a revolutionary character, politically speaking.

    The sharpest enemies of this black, red, and gold flag were then - and today this should not be forgotten- the Social Democrats and the Christian Social Party, or Clericals. It was precisely they who in those days reviled, befouled, and soiled these colors, just as later, in 1918, they dragged the black, white, and red into the gutter. At all events, the black, red, and gold of the German parties of old Austria were the colors of 1848; that is, of a time which may have been fantastic, but which was represented by the most honorable individual German souls, though the Jew stood in the background as the invisible wirepuller.

    Therefore, it was high treason and the shameless selling-out of the German people and German treasure which made these flags so agreeable to the Marxists and the Center that today they honor them as their most sacred possession and create organizations of their own for the protection of the flag they once spat upon.

    And so, up to 1920, Marxism was actually confronted by no flag which philosophically would have represented its polar opposite. For even if the best parties of the German bourgeoisie after 1918 would no longer consent to take over the suddenly discovered black, red, and gold flag as their own symbol, they themselves had no program of their own for the future to oppose to the new development; at best they had the idea of a reconstruction of the past Reich.

    And it is to this idea that black, white, and red banner of the old Reich owes its resurrection as the flag of our so-called national bourgeois parties.

    It is obvious that the symbol of a state of affairs, which could be overcome by Marxism under conditions and attendant circumstances that were anything but glorious, is ill-suited for a symbol under which to annihilate this same Marxism. Sacred and beloved as these old and uniquely beautiful colors, in their fresh, youthful combination, must be to every decent German who has fought under them and beheld the sacrifice of so many, the flag is worthless as a symbol for a struggle for the future.

    Unlike the bourgeois politicians, I have, in our movement, always upheld the standpoint that it is a true good fortune for the German nation to have lost the old flag. What the Republic does beneath its flag, can remain indifferent to us. But from the bottom of our hearts we should thank Fate for having been gracious enough to preserve the most glorious war flag of all times from being used as a bedsheet for the most shameful prostitution. The present-day Reich, which sells itself and its citizens, must never be permitted to fly the black, white, and red flag of honor and heroes.

    As long as the November disgrace endures, let it bear its own outer covering and not try to steal this like everything else from a more honorable past. Let our bourgeois politicians remind their conscience that anyone who desires the black, white, and red flag for this state is burglarizing our past. Truly, the former flag was suited only to the former Reich, just as, God be praised and thanked, the Republic chose the one suited to it.

    This was also the reason why we National Socialists could have seen no expressive symbol of our own activity in hoisting the old Bag. For we do not desire to awaken from death the old Reich that perished through its own errors, but to build a new state.

    The movement which today fights Marxism with this aim must therefore bear the symbol of the new state in its very flag.

    The question of the new flag - that is, its appearance - occupied us intensely in those days. From all sides came suggestions, which for the most part it must be admitted were more well-intended than successful. For the new flag had to be equally a symbol of our own struggle, since on the other hand it was expected also to be highly effective as a poster. Anyone who has to concern himself much with the masses will recognize these apparent trifles to be very important matters. An effective insignia can in hundreds of thousands of cases give the first impetus toward interest in a movement.

    For this reason we had to reject all suggestions of identifying our movement through a white flag with the old state, or, more correctly, with those feeble parties whose sole political aim was the restoration of past conditions, as was proposed by many quarters. Besides, white is not a stirring color. It is suitable for chaste virgins' clubs, but not for world-changing movements in a revolutionary epoch.

    Black was also suggested: in itself suitable for the present period, it contained nothing, however, that could in any way be interpreted as a picture of the will of our movement. Finally, this color has not a stirring enough effect either.

    White and blue were out of the question despite their wonderful esthetic effect, for these were the colors of an individual German state, and of an orientation toward particularistic narrow-mindedness which unfortunately did not enjoy the best reputation. Here, too, moreover, it would have been hard to find any reference to our movement. The same applied to black and white.

    Black, red, and gold were in themselves out of the question. So were black, white, and red, for reasons already mentioned, at least in their previous composition. In effect, to be sure, this color combination stands high above all others. It is the most brilliant harmony in existence.

    I myself always came out for the retention of the old colors, not only because as a soldier they are to me the holiest thing I know, but because also in their esthetic effect they are by far the most compatible with my feeling. Nevertheless, I was obliged to reject without exception the numerous designs which poured in from the circles of the young movement, and which for the most part had drawn the swastika into the old flag I myself - as Leader - did not want to come out publicly at once with my own design, since after all it was possible that another should produce one just as good or perhaps even better.

    Actually, a dentist from Starnberg did deliver a design that was not bad at all, and, incidentally, was quite close to my own, having only the one fault that a swastika with curved legs was composed into a white disk.

    I myself, meanwhile, after innumerable attempts, had laid down a final form; a flag with a red background, a white disk, and a black swastika in the middle. After long trials I also found a definite proportion between the size of the flag and the size of the white disk, as well as the shape and thickness of the swastika.

    And this remained final. Along the same lines arm-bands were immediately ordered for the monitor detachments, a red band, likewise with the white disk and black swastika.

    The party insignia was also designed along the same lines: a white disk on a red field, with the swastika in the middle. A Munich goldsmith by the name of Füss furnished the first usable design, which was kept.

    In midsummer of 1920 the new flag came before the public for the first time. It was excellently suited to our new movement. It was young and new, like the movement itself. No one had seen it before; it had the effect of a burning torch. We ourselves experienced an almost childlike joy when a faithful woman party comrade for the first time executed the design and delivered the flag. Only a few months later we had half a dozen of them in Munich, and the monitor troop, which was growing bigger and bigger, especially contributed to spreading the new symbol of the movement.

    And a symbol it really is! Not only that the unique colors, which all of us so passionately love and which once won so much honor for the German people, attest our veneration for the past; they were also the best embodiment of the movement's will. As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic.

    Two years later, when the monitor troop had long since become a Sturrm-Abteilung (storm section), embracing many thousands of men, it seemed necessary to give this armed organization a special symbol of victory: the standard. This, too, I designed myself and then gave it to a loyal old party comrade, master goldsmith Gahr, for execution. Since then the standard is among the symbols and battle signs of the National Socialist struggle.

    Our public meeting activity, which increased more and more in 1920, finally led to the point where we held as many as two meetings in some weeks. People crowded in front of our posters, the largest halls of the city were always filled, and tens of thousands of misled Marxists found the way back to their national community to become warriors for a free German Reich to come. The Munich public had come to know us. People spoke of us, the word 'National Socialist' became familiar to many and already meant a program. The host of adherents, and even of members, began to grow uninterruptedly, so that in the winter of 1920-21 we could already be regarded as a strong party in Munich.

    Aside from the Marxist parties there was in those days no party, above all no national party, which could boast of such mass demonstrations as ours. The Münchener-Kindl-Keller, holding five thousand people, had more than once been filled to the bursting point, and there was only a single hall into which we had not yet ventured, and this was the Zirkus Krone.

    At the end of January, 1921, grave cares arose once more for Germany. The Paris Agreement, according to which Germany obligated herself to pay the insane sum of a hundred billion gold marks, was to be realized in the form of the London dictate.3 A working federation of so-called folkish leagues, long existing in Munich, wanted to call a large common protest meeting on this occasion. Time was pressing, and I myself was nervous in view of the eternal hesitation and delay in carrying out decisions that had been taken. First there was talk of a demonstration on the Königsplatz, but this was abandoned for fear of being broken up by the Reds and a protest demonstration in front of the Feldherrnhalle was projected.

    This too was abandoned and finally a common demonstration in the Münchener-Kindl-Keller was suggested. Meanwhile, day after day had passed, the big parties had taken no notice whatever of the great event, and the action committee could not make up its mind to set a definite date for the intended demonstration.

    On Tuesday, February 1, 1921, I most urgently demanded a final decision. I was put off till Wednesday. So on Wednesday I absolutely insisted on clear information when and whether the demonstration should take place. The answer was again indefinite and evasive; I was told that they 'intended' to call a demonstration for Wednesday a week.

    With this the cord of my patience snapped and I decided to carry through the protest demonstration alone. On Wednesday noon I dictated the poster into the typewriter in ten minutes and at the same time had the Zirkus Krone rented for the following day, Thursday, February 3.

    At that time this was a tremendous venture. Not only that it seemed questionable whether we could fill the gigantic hall, but we also ran the danger of being broken up.

    Our monitor troop was far from being adequate for this colossal hall. And I had no proper idea about the kind of procedure possible in case of an attempt to break the meeting up. At that time I thought this would be much harder for us in the Circus building than in a normal hall. Yet, as it later turned out, the truth was exactly the opposite. Actually, in this gigantic hall, it was easier to master a troop of disturbers than in small halls where you were penned in.

    3 The Supreme Allied Council met in Paris from January 24 to 30, and elaborated a plan of reparations payments. Annual payments were to begin at two billion gold marks a year and gradually increase to six billions at the end of eleven years.

    The London Conference on Reparations, held from April 29 to May 5 of the same year, sent an ultimatum to Germany demanding one billion gold marks on penalty of occupying the Ruhr. The Germans accepted the terms and paid the sum by borrowing in London.

    Only one thing was certain: any failure could throw us back for a long time to come. For if we were once successfully broken up, it would have destroyed our nimbus at one stroke and encouraged our opponents to attempt again what had once succeeded. This could have led to a sabotage of our whole further meeting activity, which would have taken many months and the hardest struggles to overcome.

    We had only one day's time to put up posters, that was Thursday itself. Unfortunately, it was raining in the morning, and the fear seemed founded that under such circumstances many people would prefer to stay home, instead of hurrying through the rain and snow to a meeting at which there might possibly be murder and homicide.

    Altogether, I suddenly became afraid on Thursday morning that the hall would not be filled after all (and in this case I would have been discredited in the eyes of the working federation), so now I hastily dictated a few leaflets and had them printed for circulation in the afternoon. They naturally contained an appeal to attend the meeting.

    Two trucks that I had hired were swathed in as much red as possible, a few of our Bags were planted on top of them and each one was manned with fifteen to twenty party comrades; they received the command to drive conscientiously through the streets of the city and throw off leaflets; in short, to make propaganda for the mass demonstration in the evening. It was the first time that trucks had driven through the city with banners and no Marxists on them.

    Consequently the bourgeoisie stared open-mouthed after the red car decked out with fluttering swastika flags, while in the outer sections numerous clenched fists arose whose owners seemed obviously burned up with rage at this newest 'provocation of the proletariat.' For only the Marxists had the right to hold meetings or to drive around in trucks.

    At seven that night the Circus was not yet well filled. Every ten minutes I was notified by phone, and even I was pretty worried for at seven or a quarter after, the other halls had usually been half, in fact, often almost entirely, full. This, however, was soon explained. I had not reckoned with the gigantic dimensions of the new hall: a thousand persons made the Hofbräuhaus seem very well filled, while they were simply swallowed up by the Zirkus Krone.

    You could hardly see them. A short time later, however, more favorable reports came in, and at a quarter to eight word came that the hall was three-quarters full and that large crowds were standing outside the box office windows. Thereupon I set out.

    At two minutes past eight I arrived in front of the Circus. There was still a crowd to be seen in front, partly just curious people, with many opponents among them who wanted to stay outside and see what would happen.

    As I entered the mighty hall, the same joy seized me as a year previous in the first meeting at the Munich Hofbräuhaus Festsaal. But only after I had pressed my way through the human walls and reached the lofty platform did I see the success in all its magnitude. Like a giant shell this hall lay before me, filled with thousands and thousands of people. Even the ring was black with people. Over five thousand six hundred tickets had been sold, and if we included the total number of unemployed, of poor students and our monitor detachments, there must have been six and a half thousand persons.

    'Future or Ruin' was the theme, and my heart rejoiced in the conviction that down there before me the future lay.

    I began to speak, and spoke about two and a half hours; and my feeling told me after the first half hour that the meeting would be a great success. Contact with all these thousands of individuals had been established. After the first hour the applause began to interrupt me in greater and greater spontaneous outbursts, ebbing off after two hours into that solemn stillness which I have later experienced so very often in this hall, and which will remain unforgettable to every single member of the audience.

    Then you could hardly hear more than the breathing of this gigantic multitude, and only when the last word had been spoken did the applause suddenly roar forth to find its release and conclusion in the Deutschland song, sung with the highest fervor.

    I stayed to watch as the giant hall slowly began to empty and for nearly twenty minutes an enormous sea of human beings forced its way through the mighty center exit. Only then did I myself, overjoyed, leave my place to go home.

    Photographs were made of this first meeting in the Zirkus Krone They show better than words the magnitude of the demonstration. Bourgeois papers ran pictures and notices, but they only mentioned that there had been a 'national' demonstration and with their usual modesty passed over the organizers in silence.

    With this we had for the first time far overstepped the bounds of an ordinary party of the day. We could no longer be ignored. And now, lest the impression arise that this successful meeting was nothing more than fly-by-night, I immediately fixed a second meeting in the Circus for the coming week, and the success was the same. Again the gigantic hall was full to the bursting point with human masses, so that I decided to hold a meeting in the coming week in the same style for the third time. And for the third time the giant Circus was packed full of people from top to bottom.

    After this introduction to the year 1921, I increased our public meeting activity in Munich even more. I now switched over to holding not only one meeting every week, but in some weeks two mass meetings; in fact, in midsummer and late fall, it was sometimes three. We still met in the Circus and to our satisfaction noted that all our evenings brought the same success.

    The result was a steadily increasing number of adherents to the movement and a great increase in members.

    Such successes naturally did not leave our enemies inactive. Always wavering in their tactics, they had alternated between a policy of terror and one of killing us by silence, and now, as they themselves were forced to recognize, they could in no way obstruct the development of the movement with either the one or the other. And so, with a last exertion, they decided upon an act of terror that would definitely bar any further public meeting activity on our part.

    As outward occasion for this action they used a highly mysterious attack upon a deputy in the Bavarian Diet by the name of Erhard Auer.4 The said Erhard Auer was said to have been shot at one night by someone. That is, he had not actually been shot, but an attempt had been made to shoot him. Amazing presence of mind, as well as the proverbial courage of the Social Democratic Party leader, had ostensibly not only frustrated the insidious attack, but put the infamous assailants to ignominious flight.

    They had fled so hastily and so far that even later the police could not catch the slightest trace 5 of them. This mysterious occurrence was now used by the organ of the Social Democratic Party in Munich to agitate against the movement in the most unrestrained fashion, and among other things to hint with their customary loose tongue at what must soon follow. Measures had been taken, they hinted, to keep us from getting out of hand, proletarian fists would intervene before it was too late.

    And a few days later the day of intervention was at hand.

    A meeting in the Munich Hofbränhaus Festsaal, at which I myself was to speak, had been chosen for the final reckoning.

    On November 4, 1921, between six and seven in the evening, I received the first positive news that the meeting would definitely be broken up, and that for this purpose they intended to send in great masses of workers, especially from a few Red factories.

    4 Erhard Auer was leader of the Munich Social Democrats and a member of the Bavarian Diet. Hitler's story is accurate to the extent that Auer himself reported the attempt to murder him and that nothing was ever learned of his assailants.

    5 'nicht die leiseste Spur erwischen.'

    It must be laid to an unfortunate accident that we did not get this information earlier. On the same day we had given up our venerable old business office in the Sterneckergasse in Munich and had moved to a new one; that is, we were out of the old one, but could not yet move into the new one because work was still going on inside. Since the telephone had already been taken out of the old one and not yet installed in the new one, a number of attempts to inform us by telephone of the intended invasion had been in vain.

    The consequence of this was that the meeting itself was protected only by extremely weak monitor groups. Only a numerically weak company, comprising about forty-six heads,6 was present, and the alarm apparatus was not yet sufficiently developed to bring ample reinforcement in the space of an hour in the evening. Added to this was the fact that such alarmist rumors had come to our ears innumerable times without anything special happening. The old saying that announced revolutions usually fail to take place had up to this time always proved correct in our experience.

    And so, for this reason, too, perhaps everything was not done which could have been done that day, to counter any attempt to break up the meeting with the most brutal determination.

    Finally, we regarded the Festsaal of the Munich Hofbräuhaus as most unsuited for an attempt to break up a meeting. We had been more afraid for the largest halls, especially the Circus. In this connection this day gave us a valuable lesson. Later we studied all these questions with a method which I should call truly scientific and came to results which in part were as incredible as they were interesting and in the ensuing period were of basic importance for the organizational and tactical leadership of our storm troops.

    6 The German word I have translated as 'company' is 'Hundertschaft,' literally a company of one hundred. The effect in German is somewhat ludicrous, but not impossible, as it would be in English to say 'a hundred, comprising about forty-six heads.'

    When I entered the vestibule of the Hofbränhaus at a quarter of eight, there could indeed be no doubt with regard to the existing intention. The room was overcrowded and had therefore been closed by the police. Our enemies who had appeared very early were for the most part in the hall, and our supporters for the most part outside.

    The small S. A. awaited me in the vestibule. I had the doors to the large hall closed and then ordered the forty-five or forty-six men to line up. I made it clear to the lads that today probably for the first time they would have to show themselves loyal to the movement through thick and thin, and that not a man of us must leave the hall unless we were carried out dead; I myself would remain in the hall, and I did not believe that a single one of them would desert me; but if I should see anyone playing the coward, I myself would personally tear off his arm-band and take away his insignia.

    Then I called upon them to advance immediately at the slightest attempt to break up the meeting, and to bear in mind that the best defense lies in your own offensive.

    The answer was a threefold Heil that sounded rougher and hoarser than usual.

    Then I went into the hall and surveyed the situation with my own eyes. They were sitting in there, tight-packed, and tried to stab me with their very eyes. Innumerable faces were turned toward me with sullen hatred, while again others, with mocking grimaces, let out cries capable of no two interpretations. Today they would 'make an end of us,' We should look out for our guts, they would stop our mouths for good, and all the rest of these lovely phrases. They were conscious of their superior power and felt accordingly.

    Nevertheless, the meeting could be opened and I began to speak. In the Festsaal of the Hofbräuhaus I always stood on one of the long sides of the hall and my platform was a beer table. And so I was actually in the midst of the people. Perhaps this circumstance contributed to creating in this hall a mood such as I have never found anywhere else.

    In front of me, especially to the left of me, only enemies were sitting and standing. They were all robust men and young fellows' in large part from the Maffei factory, from Kustermann's, from the Isaria Meter Works, etc. Along the left wall they had pushed ahead close to my table and were beginning to collect beer mugs; that is, they kept ordering beer and putting the empty mugs under the table. In this way, whole batteries grew up and it would have surprised me if all had ended well this time.

    After about an hour and a half - I was able to talk that long despite interruptions - it seemed almost as if I was going to be master of the situation. The leaders of the invading troops seemed to feel this themselves; for they were becoming more and more restless, they often went out, came in again, and talked to their men with visible nervousness.

    A small psychological mistake I committed in warding off an interruption, and which I myself realized no sooner had I let the word out of my mouth, gave the signal for them to start in.

    A few angry shouts and a man suddenly jumped on a chair and roared into the hall: 'Freiheit!'7 (Freedom.) At which signal the fighters for freedom began their work.

    In a few seconds the whole hall was filled with a roaring, screaming crowd, over which, like howitzer shells, flew innumerable beer mugs, and in between the cracking of chair-legs, the crashing of the mugs, bawling, howling, and screaming.

    It was an idiotic spectacle. I remained standing in my place and was able to observe how thoroughly my boys fulfilled their duty, I should have liked to see a bourgeois meeting under such circumstances.

    The dance had not yet begun when my storm troopers - for so they were called from this day on - attacked. Like wolves they flung themselves in packs of eight or ten again and again on their enemies, and little by little actually began to thrash them out of the hall. After only five minutes I hardly saw a one of them who was not covered with blood.

    7 Greeting and slogan of the German Social Democrats

    How many of them I only came really to know on that day; at the head my good Maurice,8 my present private secretary Hess, and many others, who even though gravely injured themselves, attacked again and again as long as their legs would hold them. For twenty minutes the hellish tumult lasted, but then our enemies, who must have numbered seven and eight hundred men, had for the most part been beaten out of the hall and chased down the stairs by my men numbering not even fifty.

    Only in the left rear corner of the hall a big group stood its ground and offered embittered resistance. Then suddenly two shots were fired from the hall entrance toward the platform, and wild shooting started. Your heart almost rejoiced at such a revival of old war experiences.

    Who was shooting could not be distinguished from that point on; only one thing could be definitely established, that from this point on the fury of my bleeding boys exceeded all bounds and finally the last disturbers were overcome and driven out of the hall.

    About twenty-five minutes had passed; the hall looked almost as if a shell had struck it. Many of my supporters were being bandaged; others had to be driven away, but we had remained masters of the situation. Hermann Esser, who had assumed the chair this evening, declared: 'The meeting goes on. The speaker has the floor.' And then I spoke again.

    After we ourselves had closed the meeting, an excited police lieutenant came dashing in, and, wildly swinging his arms, he cackled into the hall: 'The meeting is dismissed.' Involuntarily I had to laugh at this late-comer, real police pompousness. The smaller they are, the bigger they have to try and look at least.9

    That night we had really learned a good deal and our enemies never again forgot the lesson they for their part had received. After that the Münchener Post threatened us with no more fists o f the proletariat up to the autumn of 1923.

    8 Emil Maurice. By trade a watchmaker. An early associate of Hitler and first leader of the storm troops. He was in prison with Hitler in Landsberg after the Putsch, and Hitler first dictated Mein Kampf to him. After the National Socialists seized power, he became a municipal councilor in Munich. He was active in the blood purge killings of 1934.

    Nine persons residing in Munich at the time report that the Social Democrats were expelled from the meeting by the police.

    Chapter VIII: The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone




    IN THE ABOVE I have already mentioned the existence of a Working Federation of German Folkish Associations and in this place would like to discuss very briefly the problem of these working federations.

    1 [Reference to title, "The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone] Familiar quotation from Schiller's Wilhelm Tell Act I, Scene III.

    In general we understand by a working federation a group of associations which for the facilitation of their work enter into a certain mutual relationship, choose a common leadership of greater or lesser competence, and proceed to carry out common actions. From this alone it results that we must be dealing with clubs, associations, or parties whose aims and methods do not lie too far apart. It is claimed that this is always the case. For the usual average citizen it is equally pleasant and comforting to hear that such associations, by combining in such a 'working federation,' have discovered a 'common bond ' and 'set aside all dividing factors.'

    Here the general conviction prevails that such a unification brings an enormous increase in strength, and that the otherwise weak little groups have thereby suddenly become a power.

    This, however, is usually false. It is interesting and in my eyes important for the better understanding of this question to attain clarity as to how associations. clubs, and the like can arise which all claim to pursue the same goal. In the nature of things, it would after all be logical that one goal should be advocated by only one association, and teat, reasonably speaking, several associations should not pursue the same goal. Without doubt that goal had first been envisaged by one association. One man somewhere proclaims a truth and forms a movement which is intended to serve the realization of his purpose.

    Thus, an association or a party is founded which, according to its program, should either bring about the elimination of existing evils or the achievement of a particular state of affairs in the future.

    Once such a movement has been called to life, it possesses a certain practical right of priority. It should really be obvious that men who mean to fight for the same goal should join into such a movement and thereby add to its strength, thus better to serve the common purpose. Especially every active mind must feel that the premise for any real success in the common struggle lies in such a coordination. Therefore, reasonably, and presupposing a certain honesty (much depends on this, as I shall later demonstrate), there should be only one movement for one goal.

    That this is not the case can be attributed to two causes. One of these I might designate as almost tragic, while the second is miserable and to be sought in human weakness itself. But most fundamentally, I see in both only facts which are suited to enhancing the will as such, its energy and intensity, and, through this higher cultivation of human energy, ultimately to make possible a solution of the problem in question.

    The tragic reason why in the solution of a single task we usually do not content ourselves with a single association is the following: Every deed in the grand manner on this earth will in general be the fulfillment of a desire which had long since been present in millions of people, a longing silently harbored by many. Yes, it can come about that centuries wish and yearn for the solution of a certain question, because they are sighing beneath the intolerable burden of an existing condition and the fulfillment of this general longing does not materialize.

    Nations which no longer find any heroic solution for such distress can be designated as impotent, while we see the vitality of a people, and the predestination for life guaranteed by this vitality, most strikingly demonstrated when, for a people's liberation from a great oppression, or for the elimination of a bitter distress, or for the satisfaction of its soul, restless because it has grown insecure - Fate some day bestows upon it the man endowed for this purpose, who finally brings the long yearned-for fulfillment.

    Now it lies entirely in the essence of so-called great questions of the day that thousands are active in their solution, that many feel called, indeed, that Fate itself puts forward many for selection, and then ultimately, in the free play of forces, gives victory to the stronger and more competent, entrusting him with the solution of the problem.

    Thus, it may be that centuries, dissatisfied with the form of their religious life, yearn for a renewal, and that from this psychic urge dozens and more men arise who on the basis of their insight and their knowledge believe themselves chosen to solve this religious distress, to manifest themselves as prophets of a new doctrine, or at least as warriors against an existing one.

    Here, too, assuredly, by virtue of a natural order, the strongest man is destined to fulfill the great mission; yet the realization that this one is the exclusively elect usually comes to the others very late. On the contrary, they all see themselves as chosen and having equal rights for the solution of the task, and their fellow men are usually able least of all to distinguish which among them - being solely endowed with the highest ability - deserves their sole support.

    Thus, in the course of centuries, often indeed within the same period, different men appear and found movements to fight for goals which, allegedly at least, are the same or at least are felt to be the same by the great masses. The common people themselves harbor indefinite desires and have general convictions, but cannot obtain precise clarity regarding the actual nature of their aim or of their own desire, let alone the possibility of its fulfillment.

    The tragedy lies in the fact that these men strive for the same goal in entirely different ways, without knowing one another. and hence, with the highest faith in their own mission, consider themselves obligated to go their own ways without consideration for others.

    The fact that such movements, parties, religious groups, arise entirely independent of one another, solely from the general will of the times to act in the same direction, is what, at least at first sight, seems tragic, because people incline too much to the opinion that the forces scattered among the different ways, could, if concentrated upon a single one, lead more quickly and surely to success. This, however, is not the case. For Nature itself in its inexorable logic makes the decision, by causing the different groups to enter into competition with one another and struggle for the palm of victory, and leads that movement to the goal which has chosen the clearest, shortest, and surest way.

    But how should the correctness or incorrectness of a road be determined from outside unless free course is given to the play of forces, unless the ultimate decision is withdrawn from the doctrinaire opinion of human know-it-alls and entrusted to the infallible logic of visible success, which in the end will always render the ultimate confirmation of an action's correctness!

    And so if different groups march toward the same goal on separate paths, once they have become aware of the existence of similar efforts, they will more thoroughly examine the nature of their own way; where possible they will shorten it, and by stretching their energy to the utmost will strive to reach the goal more quickly.

    This competition helps to cultivate the individual fighter, and mankind often owes its successes in part to the doctrines that have been derived from the ill fate of previous unsuccessful efforts.

    And so, in the fact of an incipient scattering of forces, which arose through no conscious fault of individuals and at first sight seemed tragic, we can recognize the means through which in the end the best method was achieved.

    We see in history that in the opinion of most people the two roads which it was once possible to take for the solution of the German question and whose chief representatives and champions were Austria and Prussia, Habsburg and Hohenzollern, should have been joined together from the start; in their view, people should have entrusted themselves with united strength to the one or the other road. And then the road of the representative who in the end proved more significant would have been taken; the Austrian intention, however, would never have led to a German Reich.

    And then the Reich of strongest German unity arose from the very thing which millions of Germans with bleeding heart felt to be the ultimate and most terrible sign of our fratricidal quarrel: the German imperial throne was in truth won on the field of Koniggrätz and not in the battles outside Paris as people afterwards came to think.

    And thus the founding of the German Reich as such was not the result of any common will along common paths, but the result of a conscious and sometimes unconscious struggle for hegemony, from which struggle Prussia ultimately issued victorious. And anyone who is not blinded by party politics into renouncing the truth, will have to confirm that so-called human wisdom would never have made the same wise decision which the wisdom of life, that is, the free play of forces, finally turned into reality.

    For who in German territories two hundred years ago would seriously have believed that the Prussia of the Hohenzollerns would some day become the germ cell, founder, and mentor of the new German Reich, and not the Habsburgs? And who, on the other hand, would deny today that Destiny acted more wisely in this respect; in fact, who today could even conceive of a German Reich based on the principles of a rotten and degenerate dynasty?

    No, the natural development, though after a struggle enduring centuries, finally brought the best man to the place where he belonged. This will always be so and will eternally remain so, as it always has been so. Therefore, it must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor.

    Now there is a second reason why often in the life of nations movements of apparently the same nature nevertheless try to reach the same goal in different ways. This cause not only is not tragic, but is positively miserable. It lies in the sorry mixture of envy; jealousy, ambition, and thievish mentality which unfortunately we sometimes find combined in individual specimens of mankind.

    For as soon as a man appears who profoundly recognizes the distress of his people and then, after he has attained the ultimate clarity with regard to the nature of the disease, seriously tries to cure it, when he has set a goal and chosen the road that can lead to this goal - immediately small and petty minds take notice and begin to follow eagerly the activity of this man who has attracted the public eye. These people are just like sparrows who, apparently uninterested, but in reality most attentive, keep watching a more fortunate comrade who has found a piece of bread, in hopes of suddenly robbing him in an unguarded moment.

    A man need only embark upon a new road and all sorts of lazy loiterers prick up their ears and sniff some worth-while morsel which might lie at the end of this road. Then, as soon as they have found out where it may be, they eagerly start out in order to reach the goal by some other road, if possible a shorter one.

    So if a new movement has been founded and has received its definite program, those people come and claim to be fighting for the same goal; but, rest assured, not by honestly joining the ranks of such a movement and thus recognizing its priority; no, they steal the program and base a new party of their own upon it. With all this, they are shameless enough to assure their thoughtless fellow men that they had desired the same as the other movement long before, and not seldom they thus succeed in placing themselves in a favorable light, instead of winning universal contempt as they deserve.

    For is it not a tremendous gall to aspire to write on their own banner the task that another has written on his, to borrow his programmatical principles, and then, as though he had created all this, to go his own ways? And the gall is especial/y manifested in the fact that the same elements who have caused the split by founding their new movements do the most talking as experience shows, about the need of unification and unity as soon as they think they have observed that the opponent has too much of a headstart to be overtaken.

    The so-called 'folkish splintering' is due to such a process. To be sure, the foundation in 1918-19 of a considerable number of groups, parties, etc., designated as folkish, occurred through the natural development of things through no fault of the founders.

    From all these the NSDAP had slowly crystallized out as the victor by 1920. The basic honesty of those individual founders could be proved by nothing more splendidly than by the truly admirable decision taken by many to sacrifice their own obviously less successful movements to the stronger one; that is, to disband them or fuse them unconditionally.

    This applies especially to the chief fighter of the German-Socialist Party (Deutsch-Sozialistische Partei) of those days in Nuremberg, Julius Streicher.2 The NSDAP and the DSP had arisen with the same ultimate aims, yet absolutely independently of one another. The main fighter for the DSP, as I have said, was Julius Streicher, then a teacher in Nuremberg.

    At first he, too, had a holy conviction of the mission and the future of his movement. But as soon as he could recognize the greater power and superior growth of the NSDAP clearly and beyond all doubt, he ceased his activity for the DSP and the Working Federation, and called on his adherents to join the NSDAP, which had issued victoriously from the mutual struggle, and to fight on in its ranks for the common goal. A decision as grave from the personal point of view as it was profoundly decent.

    And no form of split has remained from this first period of the movement; the honorable intention of the men of those days led almost entirely to an honorable, straight, and correct conclusion.

    2 Julius Streicher, Gauleiter of Nuremberg and publisher of the anti-Semitic paper Der Stürmer, devoted chiefly to pornographic exposures of sexual relations between Jews and Aryans, retained until the Second War a local independence enjoyed by no other party leader. His fusion with Hitler was not as peaceable as Hitler makes it.

    In 1921, Streicher tried to wrest the party leadership from Hitler, but failed because of a revolt in the ranks of his own Nuremberg supporters.

    What we designate today as 'folkish splintering' owes its existence, as we have already emphasized, exclusively to the second of the two causes I have cited: ambitious men who previously had no ideas, much less goals of their own, felt themselves 'called' at the very moment in which they saw the success of the NSDAP undeniably maturing.

    Suddenly programs arose which from start to finish were copied from ours, ideas were put forward which had been borrowed from us, aims set up for which we had fought for years, roads chosen which the NSDAP had long traveled. By every possible means they sought to explain why they had been forced to found these movements despite the NSDAP which had long been in existence; but the nobler the alleged motives, the falser were their phrases.

    In truth a single reason had been determining: the personal ambition of the founders to play a role to which their own dwarfish figure really brought nothing except a great boldness in taking over the ideas of others, a boldness which elsewhere in civil life is ordinarily designated as crooked.

    There was no conception or idea belonging to other people, which one of these political kleptomaniacs did not rapidly collect for his own business. And those who did this were the same people who later with tears in their eyes profoundly bemoaned the 'folkish splintering' and spoke incessantly of the 'need for unity,' in the secret hope that in the end they would so outwit the others that, weary of the eternal accusing clamor, they would, in addition to the stolen ideas, toss the movements created for their execution to the thieves.

    But if this proved unsuccessful, and if, thanks to the small intellectual dimensions of their owners, the new enterprises did not prove as profitable as they had hoped, they usually reduced their prices and considered themselves happy if they could land in one of the so-called working federations.

    Everyone who at that time could not stand on his own feet joined in such working federations; no doubt proceeding from the belief that eight cripples joining arms are sure to produce one gladiator. And if there were really one healthy man among the cripples, he used up all his strength just to keep the others on their feet, and in this way was himself crippled.

    We have always regarded fusion in so-called working federations as a question of tactics; but in this we must never depart from the following basic realization:

    By the formation of a working federation weak organizations are never transformed into strong ones, but a strong organization can and will not seldom be weakened. The opinion that a power factor must result from an association of weak groups is incorrect, since the majority in any form whatsoever and under all presuppositions will, as experience shows, be the representative of stupidity and cowardice, and therefore any multiplicity of organizations, as soon as it is directed by a self-chosen multiple leadership, is sacrificed to cowardice and weakness.

    Also, by such a fusion, the free play of forces is thwarted, the struggle for the selection of the best is stopped, and hence the necessary and ultimate victory of the healthier and stronger prevented forever. Therefore, such fusions are enemies of natural development, for usually they hinder the solution of the problem being fought for, far more than they advance it.

    It can occur that from purely tactical considerations the top leadership of a movement which looks into the future nevertheless enters into an agreement with such associations for a short time as regards the treatment of definite questions and perhaps undertakes steps in common. But this must never lead to the perpetuation of such a state of affairs, unless the movement itself wants to renounce its redeeming mission. For once it has become definitely involved in such a union, it loses the possibility and also the right of letting its own strength work itself out to the full and thus overcome its rivals and victoriously achieve the goal it has set itself.

    It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions.

    And thus the folkish state above all will never be created by the compromising will of a folkish working federation, but solely by the iron will of a single movement that has fought its way to the top against all.

  9. #24
    Chapter IX: Basic Ideas Regarding the Meaning and Organization of the SA



    THE STRENGTH OF THE OLD STATE rested on three pillars: the monarchistic state form, the civil service, and the army. The revolution of 1918 eliminated the state form, disintegrated the army, and delivered the civil service to party corruption. Thus the most essential pillars of a so-called state authority were shattered. State authority as such rests almost always on the three elements which lie at the basis of all authority.

    The first foundation for the creation of authority is always provided by popularity. But an authority which rests solely on this foundation is still extremely weak, uncertain, and shaky. Every bearer of such an authority based purely on popularity must, therefore, endeavor to improve and secure the foundation of this authority by the creation of power. In power, therefore, in force, we see the second foundation of all authority.

    It is already considerably more stable and secure, but by no means always stronger than the first. If popularity and force are combined, and if in common they are able to survive for a certain time, an authority on an even firmer basis can arise, the authority of tradition. If finally, popularity, force, and tradition combine, an authority may be regarded as unshakable.

    Through the revolution this last case was completely excluded. Indeed, there is no longer even an authority of tradition. With the collapse of the old Reich, the elimination of the old state form, the destruction of the former sovereign emblems and symbols of the Reich, tradition was abruptly broken off. The consequence of this was the gravest shaking of state authority.

    Even the second pillar of state authority, force, was no longer present. In order to carry out the revolution in the first place, it was necessary to disintegrate the embodiment of the organized force and power of the state, the army; indeed, it was necessary to use the infected parts of the army itself as revolutionary fighting elements.

    Even though the front-line armies had not succumbed to this disintegration in a uniform degree, they, nevertheless, the more they felt the glorious sites of their four and a half years of heroic struggle behind them, were corroded more and more by the homeland's acid of disorganization, and, arrived in the demobilization organizations, likewise ended up in the confusion of so-called voluntary obedience belonging to the epoch of the soldiers' councils.

    Naturally no authority could be based on these mutinous bands of soldiers, who conceived of military service in terms of the eight-hour day. And thus the second element, the element which guarantees the firmness of authority, was also eliminated and the revolution now possessed only the original element, popularity, on which to build its authority. But this particular basis was extremely uncertain. To be sure, the revolution succeeded in shattering the old state structure with one mighty blow, but at bottom only because the normal balance within the structure of our people had already been eliminated by the war.

    Every national body can be divided into three great classes: into an extreme of the best humanity on the one hand, good in the sense of possessing all virtues, especially distinguished by courage and self-sacrifice; on the other hand, an extreme of the worst human scum, bad in the sense that all selfish urges and vices are present. Between the two extremes there lies a third class, the great, broad, middle stratum, in which neither brilliant heroism nor the basest criminal mentality is embodied.

    Times when a nation is rising are distinguished, in fact exist only, by the absolute leadership of the extreme best part. Times of a normal, development of a stable state of affairs are distinguished and exist by the obvious domination of the clements of the middle, in which the two extremes mutually balance one another, or cancel one another.

    Times when a nation is collapsing are determined by the dominant activity of the worst elements.

    In this connection it is noteworthy that the broad masses, the class of the middle as I shall designate them, only manifest themselves perceptibly when the two extremes are locked in mutual struggle, but that in case of the victory of one of the extremes. they complaisantly submit to the victor In case the best people dominate, the broad masses will follow them; in case the worst element rises up, they will at least offer them no resistance; for the masses of the middle themselves will never fight.

    Now the war, with its four and a half years of bloody events disturbed the inner balance of these three classes, in so far as - though recognizing all the sacrifices and victims of the middle - we must nevertheless recognize that it drained the extreme of the best humanity almost entirely of its blood. For the amount of irreplaceable German heroes' blood that was shed in these four and a half years was really enormous. Just sum up all the hundreds of thousands of individual cases in which again and again the watchword was:

    Volunteers to the front, volunteer patrols, 'volunteer dispatch carriers, volunteers for telephone squads, volunteers seers for bridge crossings, volunteers for U-boats, volunteers for airplanes, volunteers for storm battalions, etc. - again and again through four and a half years, on thousands of occasions, volunteers and more volunteers - and always you see the same result: the beardless youth or the mature man, both filled with fervent love of their fatherland, with great personal courage or the highest consciousness of duty, they stepped forward.

    Tens of thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands of such cases occurred, and gradually this human element became sparser and sparser. Those who did not fan were either shot to pieces and crippled, or they gradually crumbled away as a result of their small remaining number. Consider above all that the year 1914 set up whole armies of so-called volunteers who, thanks to the criminal unscrupulousness of our parliamentary good-for-nothings, had received no adequate peacetime training, and thus became helpless cannon fodder at the mercy of the enemy.

    The four hundred thousand who then fell or were maimed in the battles of Flanders could not be replaced. Their loss was more than the loss of a mere number. By their loss the scale, too lightly weighted on the good side, shot upward, and the elements of baseness, treachery, cowardice, in short, the mass of the bad extreme, weighed more heavily than before.

    For one more factor was added: Not only that the extreme of the best had been most frightfully thinned on the battlefields in the course of the four and a half years, but the bad extreme had meanwhile preserved itself in the most miraculous way. For every hero who had volunteered and mounted the steps of Valhalla after a heroic death, you can be sure there was a slacker who had cautiously turned his back on death, in order to engage in more or less useful activity at home.

    And so the end of the War gives us the following picture: The middle broad stratum of the nation has given its measure of blood sacrifices; the extreme of the best, with exemplary heroism, has sacrificed itself almost completely; the extreme of the bad, supported by the most senseless laws on the one hand and by the non-application of the Articles of War on the other hand, has unfortunately been preserved almost as completely.

    This well-preserved scum of our people then made the revolution and was able to make it only because no longer opposed by the extreme of the best elements: - they were no longer among the living. This, however, made the German revolution only a relatively popular affair from the start. It was not the German people as such that committed this act of Cain, but its deserters, pimps, and other rabble that shun the light.

    The man at the front welcomed the end of the bloody struggle; he was glad to return home again, to see his wife and children. But with the revolution itself he had at heart nothing in common; he did not love it, and even less did he love its instigators and organizers. In the four and a half years of hardest struggle he had forgotten the party hyenas, and all their quarrels had grown alien to him.

    Only with a small part of the German people had the revolution really been popular: among that class of its helpers who had chosen the knapsack as the badge of recognition of all honorable citizens of this new state. They did not love revolution for its own sake, as some people erroneously still believe today, but because of its consequences.

    In truth, these Marxist gangsters could hardly base an authority on popularity for any length of time. And yet precisely the young Republic needed authority at any price, if after a brief chaos it did not want to be suddenly devoured by a force of retribution gathering from the last elements of the good part of our people.

    There was nothing they more feared, those champions of the revolution, than to lose all foothold in the whirlpool of their own confusion, and suddenly to be seized by an iron fist, such as more than once in such periods has grown out of the life of peoples, and have the ground shifted under them. The Republic had to consolidate itself at any price.

    And so it was compelled almost instantaneously to create, by the side of the tottering pillar of its weak popularity, an organization of force, in order to base a firmer authority upon it.

    When the days of December, January, February of 1918-19 the matadors of the revolution felt the ground trembling beneath their feet, they looked around for men who would be ready to strengthen the weak position which the love of their people offered them, by the force of arms.

    The 'anti-militaristic' Republic needed soldiers. But since the first and sole support of their state authority - popularity - rooted only in the society of pimps, thieves, burglars, deserters, slackers, etc., in other words, in that part of the people which we must designate as the bad extreme- every effort to recruit men who were prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of the new ideal in these circles, was love's labor lost.

    The class supporting the revolutionary idea and carrying out the revolution was neither able nor willing to provide the soldiers for its protection. For this class by no means wanted the organization of a republican state body, but the disorganization of the existing state body for the better satisfaction of their instincts. Their watchword was not: order and building up of the German Republic, but: pillage it.

    And so the cry for help which the representatives of the people let out in their agony of fear inevitably went unheard; on the contrary, in fact, it aroused resistance and bitterness. For in such an undertaking people felt a breach of loyalty and faith; in the formation of an authority based no longer solely on their popularity but supported by force, they sensed the beginning of the struggle against the one aspect of the revolution that was essential for these elements: against the right to rob and the undisciplined rule of a horde of thieves and plunderers who had broken out of the prison walls and been freed of their chains, in short, of foul rabble.

    The representatives of the people could cry as much as they liked; no one stepped forward from their ranks, and only the answering cry, 'traitor,' informed them of the state of mind of those supporters of their popularity.

    Then for the first time numerous young Germans once again stood ready to button up their soldier's tunics, to shoulder carbine and rifle, and don their steel helmets in the service of 'law and order' as they thought, to oppose the destroyers of their homes. As volunteer soldiers they banded into free corps and began, though grimly hating the revolution, to protect, and thus for practical purposes to secure, this same revolution.

    This they did in the best good faith. The real organizer of the revolution and its actual wirepuller the international Jew, had correctly estimated the situation. The German people was not yet ripe for being forced into the bloody Bolshevistic morass, as had happened in Russia.

    This was due in large part to the greater racial unity that still existed between the German intelligentsia and the German manual worker. Further in the great permeation of even the broadest strata of the people with educated elements, such as prevailed only in the other countries of Western Europe, but was totally lacking in Russia. There the intelligentsia itself was in large part not of Russian nationality or at least was of non-Slavic racial character.

    The thin intellectual upper stratum of the Russia of that time could at any time be removed, due to the total lack of connecting intermediary ingredients with the mass of the great people. And the intellectual and moral level of these last was horribly low.

    Once it was possible in Russia to incite the uneducated hordes of the great masses, unable to read or write, against the thin intellectual upper crust that stood in no relation or connection to them, the fate of the country was decided, the revolution had succeeded; the Russian illiterate had thus become the defenseless slave of his Jewish dictators, who for their part, it must be admitted, were clever enough to let this dictatorship ride on the phrase of 'people's dictatorship.'

    In Germany there was the following additional factor: As certainly as the revolution could succeed only in consequence of the gradual disintegration of the army, just as certainly the real maker of the revolution and disintegrator of the army was not the soldier at the front, but the more or less light-shy rabble which either hung around the home garrisons or, supposedly 'indispensable,' were in the economic service somewhere.

    This army was strengthened by tens of thousands of deserters, who were able to turn their backs on the front without special risk. The real coward at all times naturally shuns nothing so much as death. And at the front, day after day, he faced death in thousands of different forms. If you want to hold weak, wavering or actually cowardly fellows to their duty, there has at all times been only one possibility: The deserter must know that his desertion brings with it the very thing that he wants to escape. At the front a man can die, as a deserter he must die. Only by such a Draconic threat against any attempt at desertion can a deterring effect be obtained, not only for the individual, but for the whole army.

    And here lay the meaning and purpose of the Articles of War.

    It was lovely to believe that the great fight for the existence of a people could be fought on the sole basis of voluntary loyalty born out of and preserved by the realization of necessity. Voluntary fulfillment of duty has always determined the best men in their actions; but not the average. Therefore, such laws are necessary, as for example those against theft, which were not made for those who are basically the most honest, but for the pusillanimous, weak elements.

    Such laws, by frightening the bad, are intended to prevent the development of a condition in which ultimately the honest man is regarded as the stupider, and consequently people come more and more to the view that it is more expedient likewise to participate in theft than to look on with empty hands, or even to let themselves be robbed.

    So it was false to believe that in a struggle, which by all human prognosis might rage for years to come, we could dispense with the instruments which the experience of many centuries, in fact millenniums, showed to be those which, in the gravest times and moments of the heaviest strain on the nerves, can compel weak and uncertain men to the fulfillment of their duty.

    For the volunteer hero we obviously needed no Articles of War, but we did for the cowardly egotist, who in the hour of his people's distress sets his own life higher than that of the totality. Such a spineless weakling can only be deterred from giving in to his cowardice by the application of the hardest penalty. When men struggle ceaselessly with death and have to hold out for weeks without rest in mud-filled shell holes, sometimes with the worst possible food, the vacillating soldier cannot be held in line by threatening him with prison or even the workhouse, but only by ruthless application of the death penalty.

    For experience shows that at such a time he regards prison as a thousand times more attractive a place than the battlefield, considering that in prison at least his invaluable life is not menaced. And the fact that in the War the death penalty was excluded, that in reality the Articles of War were thus suspended, had terrible consequences An army of deserters, especially in 1918, poured into the reserve posts and the home towns, and helped to form that great criminal organization which, after November 7, 1918, we suddenly beheld as the maker of the revolution.

    The front itself really had nothing to do with it. All its members felt only a longing for peace. But in this very fact lay tremendous danger for the revolution. For when after the armistice the German armies began to near home, the anxious question of the revolutionaries was again and again: What will the front-line troops do? Will the men in field gray stand for this?

    In these weeks the revolution in Germany had to appear at least outwardly moderate, if it did not want to run the risk of suddenly being smashed to bits by a few German divisions. For if at that time even a single divisional commander had taken the decision to pull down the red rags with the help of his loyal and devoted division and to stand the 'councils' up against the wall, to break possible resistance with mine-throwers and hand-grenades, the division in less than four weeks would have swollen to an army of sixty divisions. This made the Jewish wirepullers tremble more than anything else.

    Precisely to prevent this, they had to cover the revolution with a certain moderation; it could not take the form of Bolshevism, but, as things happened to stand, had to make a pretense of 'law and order.' Hence the innumerable great concessions, the appeal to the old civil service personnel, to the old army leaders. They were needed for a certain time at least, and only after the Moors had done their duty,1 could the wirepuller venture to give them the kicks they had coming to them and take the Republic out of the hands of the old state servants and surrender it into the claws of the revolutionary vultures.

    Only in this way could they hope to dupe old generals and old civil officials, to disarm in advance any possible resistance on their part by an apparent innocence and mildness in the new regime. And practice showed to what an extent this succeeded.

    1 This is a reference to Hitler's pet quotation from Schiller's Fiesko.

    However, the revolution had not been made by elements of law and order, but by elements of riot, theft, and plunder. And for them, the development of the revolution neither accorded with their will, nor for tactical reasons could the course of events be explained and made palatable to them.

    With the gradual growth of the Social Democracy, it had lost more and more the character of a brutal revolutionary party. Not that its thoughts had ever served any other goal than that of the revolution, or that its leaders had ever had other intentions; by no means. But what finally remained was only the purpose and a body no longer suited to its execution. With a party of ten millions it is no longer possible to make a revolution. In such a movement you no longer have an extreme of activity, but the great mass of the middle, that is, of inertia.

    Out of this realization, while the War was still going on, the famous split of the Social Democracy by the Jews took place; that is: while the Social Democratic Party, in keeping with the inertia of its mass, hung on national defense like a lead weight, the radical-activistic elements were drawn out of it and formed into forceful new assault columns. The Independent Party and the Spartacus League were the storm battalions of revolutionary Marxism.

    Their task was to create the accomplished fact, the groundwork of which could be taken over by the masses of the Social Democratic Party, which had been prepared for this over a period of decades. The cowardly bourgeoisie, however, was not rightly estimated by the Marxists, and were simply treated 'en canaille.' Of them no notice was taken whatever, for it was realized that the doglike submissiveness of the political formations of an old outlived generation would never be capable of serious resistance.

    As soon as the revolution had succeeded and the main pillars of the old state could be regarded as broken, but the front-line army, marching home, began to appear as a terrifying sphinx, a brake had to be applied to the natural development; the van of the Social Democratic army occupied the conquered position, and the Independent and Spartacist storm battalions were shoved aside.

    This, however, did not take place without a struggle.

    Not only that the activistic assault formations of the revolution were dissatisfied and felt cheated, and wanted to go on fighting on their own hook, but their unruly rowdyism was only too welcome to the wirepullers of the revolution. For no sooner was the revolution over than there rose within it two apparent camps: the party of law and order and the group of bloody terror. Now what was more natural than that our bourgeoisie should at once, with flying colors, move into the camp of law and order?

    Now, all at once, these wretched political organizations had an opportunity for an activity, in which, without being obliged to say so, they nevertheless quietly found some ground beneath their feet and came into a certain solidarity with the power which they hated but even more fervently feared. The political German bourgeoisie had received the high honor of being permitted to sit down at the table with the accursed Marxist leaders to combat the Bolshevists.

    Thus, as early as December, 1918, and January, 1919, the following condition took form:

    With a minority of the worst elements a revolution has been made, and immediately backed by all the Marxist parties. The revolution itself has an apparently moderate stamp, which nets it the hostility of the 'fanatical extremists. The latter begin to shoot off machine guns and hand grenades, to occupy public buildings, in short, to menace the moderate revolution. To suppress the terror of such a further development, an armistice is concluded between the supporters of the new state of affairs and the adherents of the old one, for the purpose of carrying on the struggle in common against the extremists.

    The result is that the enemies of the Republic have given up their fight against the Republic as such, and help to force down those who, though from totally different angles, are likewise enemies of this Republic. And the further result is that the danger of a struggle of the adherents of the old state against those of the new one seems definitely averted.

    We cannot consider this fact often and closely enough. Only those who understand it can realize how it was possible that a people, nine tenths of whom did not make a revolution, seven tenths of whom reject it, and six tenths of whom hated it, nevertheless could have this revolution forced on them by one tenth.

    Gradually the Spartacist barricade fighters on the one hand and the nationalist fanatics and idealists on the other were bled white, and in exact proportion as the two extremes wore each other out, as always, the mass of the middle was victorious. The bourgeoisie and Marxism met on a 'realistic basis,' and the Republic began to be 'consolidated.' Which for the present, to be sure, did not prevent the bourgeois parties, especially before elections, from citing the monarchist idea for a time, in order, by means of the spirits of the past, to be able to conjure the smaller spirits of their adherents and ensnare them once more.

    Honorable this was not. At heart they had all broken with the monarchy long since, and the filth of the new condition had begun to spread its seductive influences to the bourgeois party camp. The usual bourgeois politician feels more at home today in the muck of republican corruption than in the clean hardness which 'he still remembers from the past state.

    As already stated, the revolution, after the smashing of the old army, had been forced to create a new power factor for the reinforcement of its state authority. As things were, it could gain this only from supporters of an outlook that was really opposed to it. From them alone there could slowly arise a new army which, externally limited by the peace treaties, would, with regard to its mentality, have to be reshaped in the course of time into an instrument of the new state conception.

    If we put to ourselves the question how - aside from all the real mistakes of the old state, which were among its causes- the revolution as an action could succeed, we come to the conclusion:

    1. In consequence of the paralysis of our concepts of duty and obedience, and

    2. In consequence of the cowardly passivity of our so-called state-preserving parties.

    On these points the following may be said:

    The paralysis of our concepts of duty and obedience has its ultimate ground in our totally unnational education, oriented solely toward the state. Here again this gives rise to a confusion between means and end. Consciousness of duty, fulfillment of duty, and obedience are not ends in themselves, any more than the state is an end in itself; they should all be the means for making possible and safeguarding on this earth the existence of a community of spiritually and physically homogeneous beings.

    In an hour when a national body is visibly collapsing and to all appearances is exposed to the gravest oppression, thanks to the activity of a few scoundrels, obedience and fulfillment of duty toward them amount to doctrinaire formalism, in fact pure insanity, if the refusal of obedience and 'fulfillment of duty' would make possible the salvation of a people from its ruin. According to our present-day bourgeois state conception, the divisional commander who at that time received from above the command not to shoot, acted dutifully and hence rightly in not shooting, since to bourgeois society, thoughtless formal obedience is more valuable than the life of their own people.

    According to the National Socialist conception, however, it is not obedience toward weak superiors that goes into force at such moments, but obedience toward the national community. In such an hour, the duty of personal responsibility toward a whole nation manifests itself.

    The fact that a living conception of these terms had been lost in our people or rather in our governments, giving way to a purely doctrinaire and formal conception, was the cause of the revolution's success.

    On the second point, the following must be remarked:

    The deeper reason for the cowardice of the 'state-preserving' parties is above all the departure of the activistic, well-intentioned part of our people from their ranks - those who bled to death in the field. Aside from this, our bourgeois parties, which we can designate as the sole political formations which supported the old state, were convinced that they were entitled to defend their views exclusively in the spiritual way and with spiritual weapons, since the use of physical weapons was the sole prerogative of the state.

    Not only that in such a conception we must see a symptom of a gradually developing decadent weakness, but it was also senseless at a time when a political opponent had long since abandoned this standpoint and openly emphasized his intention of putting forward his political aims by force when possible. At the moment when Marxism appeared in the world of bourgeois democracy, as one of its results, the bourgeois-democratic appeal to carry on the struggle with 'spiritual weapons' was an absurdity, which would one day bring dire consequences.

    For the Marxists themselves from the very beginning came out for the conception that the use of a weapon must be considered only according to criteria of expediency, and that the right to use it resides solely in success.

    How correct this conception is was shown in the days of November 7 to 11, 1918. -In those days the Marxists did not concern themselves in the least about parliamentarianism and democracy, but gave both of them the death blow with yelling and shooting mobs of criminals. It goes without saying that in this same moment the bourgeois talking clubs were defenseless.

    After the revolution when the bourgeois parties suddenly reappeared, though with modified firm names, and their brave leaders crawled out of the concealment of dark cellars and airy storerooms, like all the representatives of such formations, they had not forgotten their mistakes and likewise they had learned nothing new. Their political program lay in the past, in so far as they had not reconciled themselves at heart with the new state of affairs; their aim, however, was to participate if possible in the new state of affairs, and their sole weapons remained, as they had always been, words.

    Even after the revolution, the bourgeois parties at all times "miserably capitulated to the streets.

    When the Law for the Protection of the Republic came up for consideration, there was at first no majority in favor of it. But in the face of the two hundred thousand demonstrating Marxists. the bourgeois 'statesmen' were seized with such a fear that contrary to their conviction they accepted the law. in the miserable rear that otherwise when they left the Reichstag they would be beaten to a pulp by the furious masses. Which unfortunately. in consequence of the law's acceptance, did not take place.

    And so the development of the new state went its ways, as though there had not been any national opposition at all.

    The sole organizations which at this time would have had the courage and strength to oppose the Marxists and their incited masses, were for the present the free corps; later the self-defense organizations, citizens' guards, etc., and finally the tradition leagues. 2

    2 Veterans' organizations based on glorification of the old army.

    But why their existence brought about no sort of shift that was in any way discernible was due to the following:

    Just as the so-called national parties could exert no sort of influence for lack of any threatening power on the streets, likewise the so-called defense organizations, in turn, could exert no sort of influence for lack of any political idea, and above all of any real political goal.

    What had given Marxism its success was its complete combination of political will and activistic brutality. What excluded national Germany from any practical activity in shaping the German development was the lack of a unified collaboration of brutal force with brilliant political will.

    Whatever the will of the 'national' parties might be, they had not the least power to fight for this will, least of all on the streets.

    The combat leagues had all the power, they were the masters of the streets and the state, and possessed no political idea and no political goal for which their strength was or even could be thrown in for the benefit of national Germany. In both cases it was the slyness of the Jew who, by clever persuasion and insistence, was able to bring about a positive perpetuation, in any case an increasing intensification, of this calamitous state of affairs.

    It was the Jew who through his press knew how to launch with infinite dexterity the idea of the 'unpolitical character' of the combat leagues, as, on the other hand, in political life he always praised and encouraged, with equal slyness, the 'purely spiritual nature' of the struggle. Millions of German blockheads babbled this nonsense after him, without having even the faintest idea that in this way they were for practical purposes disarming themselves and exposing themselves defenseless to the Jew.

    But for this, too, indeed, there is again a natural explanation. The lack of a great, creative, renewing idea means at all times a limitation of fighting force. Firm belief in the right to apply even the most brutal weapons is always bound up with the existence of a fanatical faith in the necessity of the victory of a revolutionary new order on this earth.

    A movement that is not fighting for such highest aims and ideals will, therefore, never seize upon the ultimate weapon.

    The fact of having a new great idea to show was the secret of the success of the French Revolution; the Russian Revolution owes its victory to the idea, and only through the idea did fascism achieve the power to subject a people in the most beneficial way to the most comprehensive creative renewal.

    Of this, bourgeois parties are not capable.

    But it was not only the bourgeois parties that saw their political goal in a restoration of the past, but also the combat leagues, in so far as they concerned themselves with any political aims at all. Old veterans' club and Kyffhäuser 3 tendencies were alive within them and contributed to politically blunting the sharpest weapon that national Germany had in those days and making it languish in the mercenary service of the Republic. The fact that in this they acted in the best conviction, and above all in the best good faith, changes nothing in the catastrophic madness of these occurrences.

    3 Kyffhäuserbund der deutschen Landeskriegerverbände, a veterans' organization founded in 1898. Before the War of 1914 it had over two million members. It takes its name from the mountain in the Harz, within which, according to the legend, Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa lies sleeping, to awaken in the hour of Germany's greatest need.

    Gradually Marxism obtained the required power to support its authority in the Reichswehr that was being consolidated, and thereupon, consistently and logically, began to disband as superfluous the nationalist combat leagues, which seemed dangerous. Individual leaders of especial boldness, who were looker) on with distrust, were haled before the bars of justice and put behind Swedish curtains.4 But with all of them the destiny for which they themselves were responsible was fulfilled.

    4 Thieves' slang for prison bars.

    With the founding of the NSDAP, for the first time a movement had appeared whose goal did not, like that of the bourgeois parties, consist in a mechanical restoration of the past, but in the effort to erect an organic folkish state in place of the present senseless state mechanism.

    The young movement, from the first day, espoused the standpoint that its idea must be put forward spiritually, but that the defense of this spiritual platform trust if necessary be secured by strong-arm means. Faithful to its belief in the enormous significance of the new doctrine, it seems obvious to the movement that for the attainment of its goal no sacrifice can be too great.

    I have already pointed to the forces which obligate a movement, in so far as it wants to win the heart of a people, to assume from its own ranks its defense against the terrorist attempts of its adversaries. And it is an eternal experience of world history that a terror represented by a philosophy of life can never be broken by a formal state power, but at all times can be defeated only by another, new philosophy of life, proceeding with the same boldness and determination.

    This will at all times be displeasing to the sentiment of the official guardians of the state, but that will not banish the fact. State power can only guarantee law and order when the content of the state coincides with the philosophy dominant at that particular time, so that violent elements possess only the character of individual criminal natures, and are not regarded as proponents of an idea in extreme opposition to the state views. In such a case, the state can for centuries apply the greatest measures of violence against a terror oppressing it; in the end it will nevertheless be able to do nothing against it, but will go down in defeat.

    The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism. In its struggle of seventy years it has not been able to prevent the victory of this philosophy of life, but, despite a sum total of thousands of years in prison and jail sentences and the bloodiest measures which in innumerable cases it applied to the warriors of the menacing Marxist philosophy, has nevertheless been forced to almost total capitulation. (This, too, the run-of-the-mill bourgeois political leader will want to deny, though obviously he will be unable to convince anyone.)

    The state which on November 9, 1918, unconditionally crawled on its belly before Marxism will not suddenly arise tomorrow as its conqueror; on the contrary: even today feebleminded bourgeois in ministerial chairs are beginning to rave about the necessity of not governing against the workers, and what they have in mind under the concept 'worker' is Marxism. But by identifying the German worker with Marxism, they not only commit a falsification as cowardly as it is untrue, but attempt by this motivation to conceal their own collapse in the face of the Marxist idea and organization.

    But in view of this fact - that is, the complete subjection of the present state to Marxism - the National Socialist movement really acquires the duty, not only of preparing the victory of its idea, but of taking over its defense against the terror of an International drunk with victory.

    I have already described how in our movement a body for the protection of meetings gradually developed out of practical life, how it gradually assumed the character of a definite monitor troop, and strove for an organizational form.

    Much as this gradually arising body might outwardly resemble a so-called combat league, it was nevertheless not to be compared with one.

    As already mentioned, the German combat organizations had no definite political idea. They were really nothing but self-defense leagues of more or less competent training and organization, with the result that they actually represented an illegal complement to the state's momentary instruments of power. Their character of free corps was based only on the way in which they were formed and on the condition of the state at that time, but they were by no means deserving of such a title as free formations of the struggle for a free conviction of their own.

    This, despite all the opposition of individual leaders and whole leagues toward the Republic, they did not possess. For being convinced of the inferiority of an existing condition does not suffice to entitle one to speak of a conviction in the higher sense; no, the latter is rooted only in the knowledge of a new condition and in the inkier vision of a condition the achievement of which one feels as a necessity, and to stand up for whose realization one regards as one's highest life task.

    What distinguishes the monitor troop of the National Socialist organization of that time essentially from all combat leagues is that it was not and did not want to be in any way a servant of the conditions created by the revolution, but that it fought exclusively for a new Germany.

    In the beginning, it is true, this monitor troop possessed only the character of a meeting-hall guard. Its first task was a limited one: it consisted in making it possible to hold meetings which without it would have been simply prevented by the enemy.

    Even then, it had been trained to carry out an attack blindly, but not, as stupid German-folkish circles nonsensically claimed, because it honored the blackjack as the highest spirit, but because it understood that the greatest spirit can be eliminated when its bearer is struck down with a blackjack, as in actual fact the most significant heads in history have not seldom ended beneath the blows of the pettiest helots.5

    They did not want to set up violence as a goal, but to protect the prophets of the spiritual goal from being shoved aside by violence. And in this they understood that they were not obligated to undertake the protection of a state which offers the nation no protection, but that, on the contrary, they had to assume the protection of a nation against those who threatened to destroy the people and the state.

    5 'Heloten.' No change in second edition.

    After the meeting-hall battle in the Munich Hofbräuhaus the monitor troop, once and for all, in eternal memory of the heroic storm attacks of the small number they were then, received the name of Sturmabteilung (storm section). As this very designation indicates, it represents only a section of the movement. It is a link in it, just as propaganda, the press, the scientific institutes and so forth, constitute mere links in the party.

    How necessary its development was, we could see, not only by this memorable meeting, but also by our attempt gradually to spread our movement from Munich into the rest of Germany. Once we had appeared dangerous to the Marxists, they missed no opportunity to nip any attempt at a National Socialist meeting in the bud, or prevent it from being held by breaking it up.

    It was absolutely a matter of course that the party organizations of all shadings of Marxism blindly supported any such intentions and any such occurrences in the representative bodies. But what was one to say of bourgeois parties which themselves had been so thrashed by the Marxists that in many places they could no longer venture to have their speakers appear in public and which, nevertheless, followed any struggles against Marxism that in any way turned out unfavorably for us with an absolutely incomprehensible, idiotic satisfaction.

    They were happy that the enemy which could not be bested by them, which on the contrary bested them, could not be broken by us either. What should be said of state officials, police presidents, nay, even ministers, who with a really disreputable lack of principle liked to represent themselves publicly as 'national men,' but who in ail conflicts that we National Socialists had with the Marxists, acted as the most disgraceful stooges for them? What should be said of men who went so far in their self-abasement that for a pitiful word of praise in the Jewish newspapers they did not hesitate to persecute the men to whose heroism in risking their own lives they in part owed the fact that a few years previous they were not tattered corpses hung up on lamp-posts by the Red mob?

    These were such sad figures that they once moved the unforgettable late President Pöhner, who in his hard straightforwardness hated all crawlers as only a man with an honest heart can hate, to the harsh utterance: 'All my life I wanted to be nothing else than first a German and then an official, and I would never like to be confused with those creatures who prostitute themselves like official whores to everyone who can play the master at the moment.'

    And in all this it was especially sad that this kind of men gradually gained power over tens of thousands of the most honorable and best German civil servants, but even gradually infected them with their own disloyalty, and persecuted the honest ones with grim hatred and finally drove them out of their posts and positions, while they themselves, with lying hypocrisy, still represented themselves as 'national' men.

    From such men we could never hope for any support, and we obtained it only in the very rarest cases. Solely the development of our own defense organization could safeguard the activity of the movement and at the same time win for it that public attention and general respect which are accorded to the man who, when attacked, takes up his own defense.

    As the directing idea for the inner training of this storm section, the intention was always dominant, aside from all physical education, to teach it to be an unshakable, convinced defender of the National Socialist idea, and finally to strengthen its discipline in the highest degree. It should have nothing in common with a combat organization of bourgeois conception, but likewise nothing in common with a secret organization.

    The reason why, even at that time, I sharply opposed having the SA of the NSDAP organized as a so-called combat league, was based on the following consideration:

    From the purely practical point of view, the military training of a people cannot be carried out by private leagues, except with the help of the most enormous state means. Any other belief is based on great overestimation of their own ability. And so it is out of the question that organizations possessing military value can be built up beyond certain limits with so-called 'voluntary discipline.'

    The most important support of the power to command is lacking, to wit, the power to punish. To be sure, it was possible in the fall, or even better in the spring of 1919, to set up so-called 'free corps,' but not only did most of them possess front-line fighters who had gone through the school of the old army, but the type of obligation which they laid upon the individuals subjected them, for a limited time at least, just as unconditionally to military obedience.

  10. #25
    Chapter IX



    This is totally lacking in a voluntary 'combat organization' of today. The larger the league, the weaker its discipline will be, the smaller the demands made on the individual men, and the more the whole will take on the character of the old non-political soldiers' and veterans' clubs.

    It will never be possible to carry out a voluntary training for army service among the great masses without guaranteed unconditional power of command. Never will more than a few be willing to submit of their own accord to such forced obedience as was considered self-evident and natural in the army.

    Furthermore, real training cannot be given in consequence of the absurdly small means at the disposal of a so-called combat league for such a purpose. But the best, most reliable training should be precisely the main task of such an institution. Since the War, eight years have gone by, and since that time not a single age class among our German youth has been systematically trained.

    It cannot be the function of a combat league to include the old classes that have already been trained, since otherwise it can at once be reckoned mathematically when the last member will leave this corporation. Even the youngest soldier of 1918 will in twenty years be incapable of fighting, and we are approaching this moment with a disquieting speed.

    Thus every so-called combat league must necessarily assume more and more the character of an old soldiers' association. This. however, cannot be the purpose of an organization that designates itself not as an old soldiers' league, but as a Wehrverband (combat league), and which by its very name endeavors to express the fact that it sees its mission, not only in the preservation of the tradition and common bond of former soldiers, but in the development of the military (wehr) and in the practical advocacy of this idea, that is, in the creation of a military body.

    This task, however, absolutely demands the training of elements which had previously received no military drill, and this in practice is actually impossible. With one or two hours training a week, you really cannot make a soldier. With the present-day enormously increased demands that warfare makes on the individual, a two-year period service is perhaps just adequate to transform an untrained young man into an expert soldier. We have all of us in the field seen the terrible consequences that resulted for young soldiers not thoroughly trained in their trade.

    Volunteer formations, which for fifteen or twenty weeks had been drilled with iron determination and boundless devotion, nevertheless represented nothing but cannon fodder at the front. Only distributed among the ranks of experienced old soldiers could younger recruits, trained for from four to six months, furnish useful members of a regiment; even then they were directed by the 'old men' and thus gradually grew into their functions.

    How thoughtless in contrast seems an attempt to try to create troops with a so-called training period of one or two hours a week, without clear power of command and without extensive means! It might be possible to freshen up old soldiers in this way, but never to turn young men into soldiers.

    How indifferent and totally worthless such a procedure would be in its results can be demonstrated especially by the fact that, while a so-called volunteer league, with puffing and blowing, with trouble and grief, trains or tries to train a few thousand essentially well-intentioned men (it does not get to any others) in the military idea, the state itself, by the pacifistic-democratic nature of its education, consistently robs millions and millions of young people of their natural instincts, poisons their logical patriotic thinking, and thus gradually transforms them into a herd of sheep, patiently accepting every arbitrary tyranny.

    How absurd, in comparison with this, are all the exertions of the combat leagues to transmit their ideas to the German youth.

    But almost more important is the following consideration, which had always made me take a position counter to any attempt at a so-called military rearming on the basis of volunteer leagues.

    Assuming that despite the above-mentioned difficulties a league nevertheless succeeded in training a definite number of Germans year after year into arms-bearing men - equally with respect to their convictions as with respect to their physical fitness and schooling in the use of arms - the result would nevertheless be practically nil in a state which, by its whole tendency, absolutely does not desire such military education, in fact positively hates it, since it stands in complete contradiction to the aim of its leaders - the destroyers of this state.

    In any case such a result would be worthless under governments which have not only demonstrated by their deeds that they care nothing about the military strength of the nation, but which above all would never be willing to issue an appeal to this strength, except at best for the support of their own ruinous existence.

    And today this is the case. Or is it not absurd to try to train some tens of thousands of men for a government in the dim light or dawn and evening, when the state a few years previous disgracefully sacrificed eight and a half millions of the best-trained soldiers, not only ceasing to use them, but as thanks for their sacrifices actually exposing them to general vilification;

    So they want to train soldiers for a state regime which befouled and spat upon the most glorious soldiers of former days, tore their decorations from their chest, took away their cockades, trampled their banners and degraded their achievements? Or has this present state regime ever undertaken a single step to restore the honor of the old army, to call to account those who have corrupted and reviled it? Not in the slightest.

    On the contrary; we can see these creatures enthroned in the highest state posts.- Remember the words spoken at Leipzig: 'Right goes with power.' But since today in our Republic the power lies in the hands of the same men who engineered the revolution, and this revolution represents the vilest high treason, nay, the most wretched piece of villainy in all German history, really no reason can be found for enhancing the power of these very characters by the formation of a new young army. In any event, all the arguments of reason speak against it.

    But what importance this state, even after the revolution of 1918, attributed to the military strengthening of its position could be seen clearly and unmistakably by its attitude toward the large self-defense organizations that then existed. As long as they had to intervene for the protection of personally cowardly creatures of the revolution, they were not unwelcome. But as soon as, thanks to the gradually increasing depravity of our people, the danger to these creatures seemed eliminated and the existence of the leagues meant a strengthening of the national-political forces, they were superfluous, and everything was done to disarm them, in fact, if possible to break them up.

    Only in the rarest examples does history show gratitude in princes. But to count on the gratitude of revolutionary pyromaniac murderers, plunderers of the people and traitors to the nation, is something that only a neo-bourgeois patriot can manage. In any case, I, in examining the question of whether volunteer combat leagues should be created, could never refrain from the question: for whom am I training the young people? For what purpose are they used and when are they to be called up? The answer to this question provides at the same time the best directives for our own attitude.

    If the present state were ever to train forces of this sort, it would never be for the defense of national interests against the outside world, but only for the protection of the rapers of the nation at home against the general rage that some day perhaps will flare up in the swindled, betrayed, and sold-out people.

    For this reason alone, the SA of the NSDAP could have nothing in common with a military organization. It was an instrument for defense and education in the National Socialist movement, and its tasks lay in an entirely different province from that of the so-called combat leagues.

    But it could also constitute no secret organization. The aim of secret organizations can only be illegal. In this way the scope of such an organization is automatically limited. It is not possible, especially in view of the talkativeness of the German people, to build up an organization of any size and at the same time to keep it outwardly secret or even to veil its aims. Any such intention will be thwarted a thousand times.

    Not only that our police authorities today have a staff of pimps and similar rabble at their disposal who will betray anything they can find for thirty pieces of silver, and even invent things to betray, but the supporters themselves can never be brought to the silence that is necessary in such a case. Only very small groups, by years of sifting, can assume the character of real secret organizations. But the very smallness of such organizations would remove their value for the National Socialist movement.

    What we needed and still need were and are not a hundred or two hundred reckless conspirators, but a hundred thousand and a second hundred thousand fighters for our philosophy of life. We should not work in secret conventicles, but in mighty mass demonstrations, and it is not by dagger and poison or pistol that the road can be cleared for the movement, but by the conquest of the streets. We must teach the Marxists that the future master of the streets is National Socialism, just as it will some day be the master of the state.

    The danger of secret organizations today lies, furthermore, in the fact that the members often totally misunderstand the magnitude of the task, and the opinion arises that the fate of a people really might be suddenly decided in a favorable sense by a single act of murder. Such an opinion can have its historical justification especially when a people languishes under the tyranny of some oppressor genius, of whom it is known that his outstanding personality alone guarantees the inner solidity and frightfulness of the hostile pressure.

    In such a case, a self-sacrificing man may suddenly spring forth from a people, to plunge the steel of death into the breast of the hated individual. And only the republican sentiment of petty scoundrels with a bad conscience will regard such a deed as horrible, while our people's greatest poet of freedom has dared to give a glorification of such an action in his Tell.

    In the years 1919 and 1920 there existed a danger that the member of secret organizations, filled with enthusiasm by the great models of history and horrified by the boundless misfortune of his fatherland, should attempt to avenge himself against the destroyers of his homeland, in the belief that in this way he could put an end to the distress of his people.

    Any such attempt, however, was an absurdity, because Marxism had not been victorious thanks to the superior genius and personal significance of an individual, but by the boundless contemptibleness, the cowardly failure of the bourgeois world. The most cruel criticism that can be made of our bourgeoisie lies in the fact that the revolution itself did not produce a single leader of any greatness and nevertheless subjected it. It is understandable to capitulate to a Robespierre, a Danton or a Marat, but it is devastating to have crawled before the scrawny Scheidemann, the fat Herr Erzberger 6 and a Friedrich Ebert and all the other innumerable political midgets.

    In reality there was not one leader who might have been regarded as the genius of the revolution and hence the misfortune of the fatherland; they were all revolutionary bedbugs, knapsack Spartacists, wholesale and retail. To put any one of these out of the way was completely irrelevant and the chief result was that a few other bloodsuckers, just as big and just as threadbare, came into a job that much sooner.

    6 Mattias Erzberger was vice-chancellor in the cabinet of Gustav Bauer which accepted the peace treaty on June 23, 1919. He was murdered on August 26, 1921, by two young soldiers of the Ehrhardt Brigade, a Rightist military organization.

    In those years it was not possible to attack sharply enough a conception which had its cause and explanation in the really great figures of history, but was not in the least suited to the present era of dwarfs.

    Likewise, in the question of eliminating so-called traitors against the nation the same consideration is in order. It is absurdly illogical to kill a scamp who has informed about a cannon,7 while next door in the highest posts and dignities sit scoundrels who have sold a whole Reich, who have the vain sacrifice of two millions on their consciences, who bear the responsibility for millions of cripples, and with all this calmly carry on their republican business deals.

    It is senseless to eliminate petty traitors in a country whose government itself frees these traitors against the nation from any punishment. For then it is possible that some day the honest idealist, who puts a scoundrelly armaments stoolpigeon out of the way, for his people, is called to account by capital traitors against the nation. Therefore, it is an important question: Should we have such a traitorous petty creature eliminated by another creature or by an idealist? In one case the success is doubtful and the treason for later almost certain; in the other case, a small scoundrel is eliminated and the life of a perhaps unreplaceable idealist is risked.

    Further, in this question, my position is that there is no use in hanging petty thieves in order to let big ones go free; but that some day a German national court must judge and execute some ten thousand of the organizing and hence responsible criminals of the November betrayal and everything that goes with it. Such an example will provide the small armaments stool-pigeon with the necessary lesson for all time.

    7 At this time there were various nationalist military leagues with unofficial Reichswehr connections, specializing in the illegal concealment of arms. Numerous murders occurred of persons believed to have reported secret arms caches to the Allied Control Commission.

    All these are considerations which caused me again and again to forbid participation in secret organizations and to preserve the SA itself from the character of such organizations. In those years I kept the National Socialist movement away from experiments, whose performers for the most part were glorious, idealistic-minded young Germans, whose acts, however, only made victims of themselves, but were powerless to improve the lot of the fatherland even in the slightest.

    Now if the SA could be neither a military combat organization nor a secret league, the following consequences inevitably resulted

    1. Its training must not proceed from military criteria, but from criteria of expediency for the party.

    In so far as the members require physical training, the main emphasis must be laid, not on military drilling, but on athletic activity. Boxing and jiu-jitsu have always seemed to me more important than any inferior, because incomplete, training in marksmanship. Give the German nation six million bodies with flawless athletic training, all glowing with fanatical love of their country and inculcated with the highest offensive spirit, and a national state will, in less than two years if necessary, have created an army, at least in so far as a certain basic core is present.

    This, as things are today, can rest only in the Reichswehr and not in any combat league that has always done things by halves. Physical culture must inoculate the individual with the conviction of his superiority and give him that self-confidence which lies forever and alone in the consciousness of his own strength; in addition, it must give him those athletic skills which serve as a weapon for the defense of the movement.

    2. In order, at the outset, to prevent the SA from assuming any secret character, in addition to its uniform immediately recognizable to all, the very size of its membership must point the way which benefits the movement and is known to the whole public. It must not hold sessions in secret, but must march beneath the open sky, thus being put unmistakably into a type of activity which destroys all legends of 'secret organization' once and for all.

    In order to remove it, spiritually as well, from all attempts to satisfy its activism by petty conspiracies, it had from the very beginning to be initiated completely into the great idea of the movement and to be educated so thoroughly in the task of fighting for this idea that its horizon broadened from the outset, and the individual man saw his mission, not in the elimination of any greater or lesser scoundrel, but in fighting for the erection of a new National Socialist folkish state.

    Thereby the struggle against the present-day state was removed from the atmosphere of petty actions of revenge and conspiracy, to the greatness of a philosophical war of annihilation against Marxism and its organization.

    3. The organizational formation of the SA, as well as its uniform and equipment, can therefore not reasonably emulate the models of the old army, but must pursue an expediency determined by its function.

    These views, which directed me in 1920 and 1921 and which I gradually endeavored to inject into the young organization, had the result that, as early as midsummer, 1922, we disposed of an imposing number of companies, which in late autumn, 1922, little by little received their special distinguishing uniforms. Three events were of infinite importance for the further shaping of the SA.

    1. The great general demonstration of all patriotic leagues against the Law for the Protection of the Republic in late summer 1922 on the Königsplatz in Munich.

    The patriotic leagues of Munich had issued an appeal summoning a gigantic demonstration as a protest against the introduction of the Law for the Protection of the Republic. The National Socialist movement was also expected to participate in it. The solid procession of the party was headed by six Munich companies, followed by the sections of the political party. In the column itself marched two brass bands, and about fifteen flags were carried along. The arrival of the National Socialists in the half-filled square, which was otherwise void of flags, aroused immeasurable enthusiasm. I myself had the honor of being privileged to address the crowd, now numbering sixty thousand heads, as one of the orators.

    The success of the rally was overpowering, particularly because, in defiance of all Red threats, it was proved for the first time that national Munich, too, could march in streets. Red republican defense corps (Schutzbund), who attempted to proceed with terror against the approaching columns, were within a few minutes scattered with bloody skulls by SA detachments. The National Socialist movement then for the first time showed its determination to claim for itself the right to the streets in the future, thus wresting this monopoly from the hands of the international traitors to the people and enemies of the fatherland.

    The result of this day was an incontestable proof of the psychological and also organizational soundness of our conceptions with regard to the structure of the SA. On the foundation which had been so successfully proven, it was energetically broadened, so that only a few weeks later double the number of companies had been set up.

    2. The march to Coburg in October, 1922.

    'Folkish' associations planned to hold a so-called 'German Day' in Coburg. I myself received an invitation to it, remarking that it would be desirable for me to bring an escort. This request, which I received at eleven o'clock in the morning, came very opportunely. An hour later the arrangements for attending this 'German Day' had been issued. As an 'escort' I appointed eight hundred men of the SA; we arranged to transport them in approximately fourteen companies by special train to the little city that had become Bavarian.8 Similar orders went out to National Socialist SA groups which had meanwhile been formed in other places.

    It was the first time that such a special train was used in Germany. At all towns where new SA men got in, the transport aroused much attention. Many people had never seen our flags before; the impression they made was very great.

    8 Coburg, former co-capital of the Duchy of Saxony-Coburg-Gotha, was a separate administrative entity up to 1920 when it became part of Bavaria.

    When we arrived at the Coburg station, we were received by a deputation of the organizers of the 'German Day,' which conveyed to us an order from the local trade unions - in other words. from the Independent and Communist Party - to the effect that we were forbidden to enter the town with flags unfurled, or with music (we had taken along a forty-two-piece band of our own), or to march in a solid column.

    I at once flatly rejected these disgraceful conditions, and did not fail to express to the gentlemen present, the organizers of this congress, my surprise that they had carried on negotiations with these people and entered into agreements; I declared that the SA would immediately line up in companies and march into the city with resounding music and flags flying.

    And that is just what happened. On the square in front of the railroad station we were received by a howling, shrieking mob numbering thousands. 'Murderers,' 'bandits,' 'robbers,' 'criminals,' were the pet names which the model founders of the German Republic affectionately showered on us.

    The young SA kept exemplary order, the companies formed on the square in front of the station, and at first took no notice of the vulgar abuse. In the city that was strange to all of us, frightened police officials led the marching column, not, as arranged, to our quarters, a shooting gallery situated on the periphery of Coburg but to the Hofbräuhauskeller, near the center of the city.

    To left and right of the procession, the uproar of the masses of people accompanying us increased more and more. Hardly had the last company turned into the courtyard of the Keller than great masses, amid deafening cries, tried to crowd in after us. To prevent this, the police locked the Keller. Since this state of affairs was intolerable, I had the SA line up once again, gave them a brief speech of admonition, and demanded that the police open the gates immediately. After a long hesitation, they yielded.

    To get to our quarters, we marched back the way we had come, and now at last a stand had to be taken. After they had been unable to disturb the poise of our companies by cries and insulting shouts, the representatives of true socialism, equality, and fraternity had recourse to stones. At this our patience was at an end, and so for ten whole minutes a devastating hail fell from left and right, and a quarter of an hour later, there was nothing red to be seen in the streets.

    In the evening there were serious dashes again. Some National Socialists had been assaulted singly, and patrols of the SA found them in a terrible condition. Thereupon we made short shrift of our foes. By next morning the Red terror, under which Coburg had suffered for years, had been broken.

    With real Marxist-Jewish lies they now attempted to harry the 'comrades of the international proletariat' back into the streets, by totally twisting the facts and maintaining that our 'bands of murderers' had begun a 'war of extermination against peaceful workers' in Coburg. The great 'demonstration of the people,' which, it was hoped, tens of thousands of workers from the whole vicinity would attend, was set for half-past one.

    Therefore, firmly resolved to dispose of the Red terror for good, I ordered the SA, which had meanwhile swollen to nearly one and a half thousand men, to line up, and set out with them on the march for the Fortress of Coburg, by way of the great square on which the Red demonstration was to take place. I wanted to see whether they would dare to molest us again. When we entered the square, only a few hundred were present instead of the announced ten thousand, and at our approach they kept generally quiet, and some ran away.

    Only at a few points did Red troops, who had meanwhile come from the outside and who did not yet know us, try to pester us again; but in the twinkling of an eye, all their enthusiasm was spoiled. And now it could be seen how the frightened and intimidated population slowly woke up and took courage, and ventured to shout greetings at us, and in the evening as we were marching off broke into spontaneous cheering in many places.

    At the station the railroad men suddenly informed us that they would not run the train. Thereupon I notified a few of the ringleaders that in that case I planned to round up whatever Red bosses fell into my hands, and that we would run the train ourselves; however, we would take along a few dozen of the brothers of international solidarity on the locomotive and the tender and in every car.

    Nor did I fail to call it to the gentlemen's attention that the trip with our own forces would, of course, be an extremely risky undertaking and that it was not excluded that the whole lot of us should break our necks and bones. But, anyway, in that case, we should be delighted to leave for the Hereafter, not alone but in equality and fraternity with the Red gentlemen.

    Thereupon the train departed with the utmost punctuality, and we were back in Munich safe and sound the following morning.

    Thus, for the first time since 1914 the equality of citizens before the law was re-established in Coburg. For if today some simpleton of a higher official ventures the assertion that the state protects the lives of its citizens, this was certainly not the case at that time; for at that time the citizens had to defend themselves against the representatives of the present-day state.

    At first the importance of this day could not be fully evaluated by its consequences. Not only that the victorious SA had been enormously enhanced in its self-confidence and its faith in the soundness of its leadership, but the outside world also began to follow our doings more closely, and many for the first time recognized in the National Socialist movement the institution which in all probability would some day be called upon to put a suitable end to the Marxist madness.

    Only the democrats groaned that anyone could dare not peacefully to let his skull be bashed in, and that under a democratic republic we had had the audacity to oppose a brutal attack with fists and cudgels instead of pacifistic songs.

    On the whole, the bourgeois press, as usual, was partly pitiful and partly contemptible, and only a few honest newspapers greeted the fact that in one place at least someone had dared to call a halt to the activity of the Marxist highwaymen.

    In Coburg itself, at least a part of the Marxist working class, which incidentally could be regarded only as misled, had learned a lesson from the fists of National Socialist labor and been taught to realize that these workers also fight for ideals, since, as experience shows, men fight only for something that they believe in and love.

    The greatest benefit, however, was derived by the SA itself. It now grew with great rapidity, and at the Party Day held on January 27, 1923, approximately six thousand men could take part in the dedication of the flag, and the first companies were fully equipped with their new uniforms.

    For the experience in Coburg had shown how necessary it is, and not only in order to strengthen the esprit de corps, but also to avoid confusion and forestall mutual non-recognition, to introduce uniform dress among the SA. Until then it wore only the armband; now the canvas jacket and the well-known cap were added.

    And, furthermore, the experience of Coburg had the significance that we now began systematically, in all places where for many years the Red terror had prevented any meeting of people with different ideas, to break this terror and restore freedom of assembly. From now on, National Socialist battalions were assembled again and again in such localities, and in Bavaria gradually one Red citadel after another fell a victim to National Socialist propaganda. The SA had grown more and more into its task, and so had moved further and further away from the character of a senseless and unimportant defense movement and risen to the level of a living organization of struggle for the erection of a new German state.

    This logical development lasted until March, 1923. Then there occurred an event which compelled me to shift the movement from its previous course and subject it to a modification.

    3. The occupation of the Ruhr by the French in the first months of 1923 had in the following period a great significance for the development of the SA.

    Even today it is not yet possible, and particularly in the national interest not expedient, to speak or write of this with full publicity. I can only express myself in so far as this theme has already been touched upon in public proceedings and thus brought to the knowledge of the public.

    The occupation of the Ruhr, which came as no surprise to us, gave rise to the justified hope that now at length there would be an end to the cowardly policy of retreat, and that with this a definite task would fall to the combat leagues. And the SA, which then embraced many thousands of young powerful men, could not fittingly be excluded from this national service. In the spring and midsummer of 1923 it was reshaped into a military fighting organization. To it the later development of 1923, in so far as it concerned our movement, was attributable.

    Since I treat the development of 1923 in broad outlines elsewhere, I shall only state here that the reorientation of the SA was a harmful one from the viewpoint of the movement, if the presuppositions that had led to its reorientation - that is, the resumption of active resistance against France - did not materialize.

    The close of the year 1923, terrible as it may seem at first sight, may, if viewed from a higher standpoint, be regarded as positively necessary, in so far as with one stroke it ended the reorientation of the SA, made pointless by the attitude of the German Reich government and hence harmful for the movement, and thus created the possibility of building some day at the point where we had once been forced to relinquish the correct road.

    The MISHAP, newly founded in 1925, must again set up, brain, and organize its SA according to the aforementioned principles. It must thus return to the original healthy views, and must now once more find its highest task in creating, in its SA, an instrument for the conduct and reinforcement of the movement's struggle for its philosophy of life.

    It must neither suffer the SA to degenerate into a kind of combat league nor into a secret organization; it must, on the contrary, endeavor to train it as a guard, numbering hundreds of thousands of men, for the National Socialist and hence profoundly folkish idea.

  11. #26
    Chapter X: Federalism as a Mask



    IN THE WINTER of 1919 and even more in the spring and summer of 1920, the young party was forced to take a position on a question which even during the War rose to an immense importance. In the first volume, in my brief account of the symptoms of the threatening German collapse that were visible to me personally, I have pointed to the special type of propaganda which was carried on by the English as well as the French for the purpose of tearing open the old deft between North and South.

    In spring, 1915, there appeared the first systematic agitational leaflets attacking Prussia, as solely responsible for the War. By 1916, this system had been brought to full perfection as adroit as it was treacherous.

    After a short time the agitation of the South German against the North German, calculated on the lowest instincts, began to bear fruit. It is a reproach that must be raised against the authorities of that time, in the government as well as the army command - or rather the Bavarian staff offices - a reproach which these last cannot shake off, that in their damnable blindness and disregard of duty they did not proceed against this with the necessary determination.

    Nothing was done! On the contrary, various quarters did not seem to take it so much amiss, and they were small-minded enough to believe that such a propaganda would not only put a bar in the path of the development of the German people toward unity, but that it would inevitably and automatically bring a strengthening of the federative forces. Scarcely ever in history has a malicious omission brought more evil consequences.

    The weakening these men thought they were administering to Prussia struck the whole of Germany. And its consequence was the acceleration of the collapse, which, however, not only shattered Germany herself, but primarily, in point of fact, the individual states themselves.

    In the city where the artificially fanned hatred against Prussia raged most violently, the revolution was first to break out against the hereditary royal house.

    Yet it would be false to believe that the manufacture of this anti-Prussian mood is attributable solely to hostile war propaganda and that the people affected by it had no grounds of justification. The incredible way in which our war economy was organized, a positively insane centralization that held the whole German Reich territory in tutelage and pillaged it to the limit, was one of the main reasons for the rise of this anti-Prussian sentiment.

    For the average little man, the war societies,1 which happened to have their central offices in Berlin, and Berlin. itself, were synonymous with Prussia. It scarcely dawned on the individual at that time that the organizers of this institute of robbery, known as 'war societies,' were neither Berliners nor Prussians, in fact, were not Germans at all. He saw only the great faults and the constant encroachments of this hated institution in the capital and then naturally transferred his whole hatred to the capital and Prussia simultaneously, all the more so since in certain quarters not only nothing was done about this, but such an interpretation was even secretly and smirkingly welcomed.

    1 Kriegsgesellschaften. These were the corporations, with state participation and control, established in 1914 to carry on war production. For some months at the beginning of the War, Walter Rathenau, a Jew, headed the raw material department of the Prussian war ministry.

    The Jew was far too shrewd not to realize in those days that the infamous campaign of pillage that he was then organizing against the German people, under the cloak of the war societies, would, nay, must, arouse resistance. But as long as it did not spring at his throat, he had no need to fear it. But in order to prevent an explosion of the masses driven to despair and indignation in this direction, there could be no better prescription than to cause their rage to flare up elsewhere, thus using it up.

    Let Bavaria fight against Prussia and Prussia against Bavaria as much as they wanted, the more the better! The hottest struggle between the two meant the securest peace for the Jew. In this way, the general attention was entirely diverted from the international maggot of nations.

    If the danger seemed to arise that thoughtful elements, of which there were many in Bavaria, as elsewhere, called for understanding, reflection, and restraint and so the embittered struggle threatened to die down, the Jew in Berlin needed only to stage a new provocation and wait for the result. Instantly all the beneficiaries of the conflict between North and South flung themselves on every such occurrence, and kept on blowing until the flame of indignation had again burst into a roaring blaze.

    It was an adroit, subtle game that the Jew then played, constantly occupying and distracting the individual German tribes and meanwhile pillaging them the more thoroughly.

    Then came the revolution. If up to the year 1918, or rather up to November of this year, the average man, and especially the little-educated petit bourgeois and worker, especially in Bavaria, could not yet correctly estimate the real course and the inevitable consequences of the quarrel of German tribes among themselves, the section calling themselves 'national' should at least have had to recognize it on the day of the outbreak of the revolution.

    For no sooner had the action succeeded than in Bavaria the leader and organizer of the revolution became the defender of 'Bavarian' interests. The international Jew Kurt Eisner began to play Bavaria against Prussia.

    It goes without saying, however, that this Oriental who spent his time as a newspaper journaille 2 running all over Germany, was unquestionably the last man fitted to defend Bavarian interests, and that to him, in particular, Bavaria was a matter of the utmost indifference possible on God's earth.

    2 Journaille is a brunch word composed of 'journal ' and 'canaille,' attributed to Karl Kraus, editor and writer of the Viennese magazine 'Die Fackel.' Zeitungsjournaille is a typical Hitlerian redundancy.

    In giving the revolutionary uprising in Bavaria a thoroughly conscious edge against the rest of the Reich, Kurt Eisner did not in the least act from Bavarian motives, out solely as the servant of the Jews. He used the existing instincts and dislikes of the Bavarian people, to help him break up Germany the more easily. The shattered Reich would have easily fallen a prey to Bolshevism.

    After his death the tactics applied by him were at first continued. The Marxists, who had always covered the individual states and their princes in Germany with the bloodiest scorn, now came out as an 'Independent Party' and suddenly appealed to those feelings and instincts which had their strongest roots in princely houses and individual states.

    The fight of the Bavarian Republic of Councils 3 against the approaching contingents of liberation was dressed up by propaganda as mainly a 'struggle of the Bavarian workers' against 'Prussian militarism.' Only from this can it be understood why in Munich, quite unlike the other German territories, the overthrow of the Republic of Councils did not bring the great masses to their senses, but rather led to an even greater bitterness and rancor against Prussia.

    The skill with which the Bolshevistic agitators were able to represent the elimination of the Republic of Councils as a 'Prussian militaristic' victory against the 'anti-militaristic' and 'anti-Prussian' Bavarian people, bore rich fruit. While Kurt Eisner, on the occasion of the elections to the legislative Bavarian Provincial Diet in Munich, still could summon not even ten thousand supporters, and the Communist Party actually remained under three thousand, after the collapse of the Republic both parties together had risen to nearly a hundred thousand voters.

    3 After the murder of Kurt Eisner there was at first a Majority Socialist government under Hoffmann. On April 7, the Workers' Councils proclaimed the Republic of Councils. A temporary council was formed of Independents and the Bavarian Peasant League (bauernbund). On April 10, this was overthrown by the Communists, partly under Russian leadership. Free corps from surrounding states marched on Munich and occupied it on May 1, 1919.

    As early as this period my personal fight against the insane incitement of German tribes against each other began.

    I believe that in all my life I have undertaken no more unpopular cause than my resistance at that time to the anti-Prussian agitation. In Munich, even during the Soviet period, the first mass meetings had taken place, in which hatred against the rest of Germany and in particular against Prussia was lashed to such a white heat that it not only involved a risk of his life for a North German to attend such a meeting, but the conclusion of such rallies as a rule ended quite openly with mad cries of: 'Away from Prussia!'-'Down with Prussia! '-'War against Prussia! ' a mood which a particularly brilliant representative of Bavarian sovereign interests in the German Reichstag summed up in the battle-cry: 'Rather die Bavarian than rot Prussian!'

    You need to have lived through the meetings of that time to understand what it meant for me when, surrounded by a handful of friends, I for the first time, at a meeting in the Löwenbräukeller in Munich; offered resistance against this madness. It was war comrades who then supported me, and perhaps you can imagine how we felt when a mob - by far the greatest part of which had been deserters and slackers, hanging around the reserve posts or at home while we were defending the fatherland - lost all reason and bellowed at us and threatened to strike us down. For me, to be sure, these incidents had the virtue that the squad of my loyal followers came to feel really attached to me, and was soon sworn to live or die by my side.

    These struggles, which were repeated again and again and dragged out through the entire year of 1919, seemed to become even sharper right at the beginning of 1920. There were meetings -I particularly remember one in the Wagner-Saal in the SonnenStrasse in Munich - in which my group, which had meanwhile grown stronger, had to withstand grave clashes, which not seldom ended in dozens of my supporters being mishandled, struck down, trampled under foot, and finally, more dead than alive, thrown out of the halls.

    The struggle which I had first taken up as an individual, supported only by my war comrades, was now continued by the young movement as, I might also say, a sacred mission.

    Today I am still proud to be able to say that in those days- dependent almost entirely on our Bavarian adherents - we nevertheless slowly but surely put an end to this mixture of stupidity and treason. I say stupidity and treason because, though fully convinced that the mass of followers were really nothing but good-natured fools, such simplicity cannot be attributed to the organizers and instigators. I regarded them, and today still regard them, as traitors bought and paid for by France. In one case, the Dorten case,4 history has already given its verdict.

    4 Dorten was state's attorney in Wiesbaden after the World War. In 1919 he tried to establish a Rhenish Republic in collaboration with the French. He was associated with Bavarian Right Wing Catholic politicians.

    What made the affair especially dangerous at that time was the skill with which the true tendencies were concealed, by shoving federalistic intentions into the foreground as the sole motive for this activity. But it is obvious that stirring up hatred against Prussia has nothing to do with federalism. And a 'federative activity' which attempts to dissolve or split up another federal state makes a weird impression.

    An honorable federalist, for whom quotations of Bismarck's conception of the Reich are more than lying phrases, would hardly in the same breath want to separate portions from the Prussian state created or rather completed by Bismarck, let alone publicly support such separatist endeavors.

    How they would have yelled in Munich if a conservative Prussian party had favored the separation of Franconia from Bavaria, or actually demanded and promoted it by public action. In all this one could only feel sorry for the honest, federalist-minded souls who had not seen through this foul swindle; for they, first and foremost, were the cheated parties. By thus compromising the federative idea, its own supporters were digging its grave.

    It is impossible to preach a federalistic form for the Reich, at the same time deprecating, reviling, and befouling the most essential section of such a state structure, namely, Prussia, and in short, making it, if possible, impossible as a federal state.5 What made this all the more incredible was that the fight of these so-called federalists was directed precisely against that Prussia which can least be brought into connection with the November democracy.

    For it was not against the fathers of the Weimar Constitution, who themselves incidentally were for the most part South Germans or Jews, that the vilifications and attacks of these so-called 'federalists' were directed, but against the representatives of the old conservative Prussia, hence the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution. It must not surprise us that they took special care not to attack the Jew, and perhaps this furnishes the key to the solution of the whole riddle.

    5... kurz als Bundesstaat wean möglich, unmöglich macht.'

    Just as before the revolution the Jew knew how to divert attention from his war societies, or rather from himself, and was able to turn the masses, especially of the Bavarian people, against Prussia, after the revolution he had somehow to cover his new and ten times bigger campaign of pillage. And again he succeeded, in this case in inciting the so-called 'national elements' of Germany against one another: conservative-minded Bavaria against equally conservative-thinking Prussia.

    Again he managed it in the shrewdest way; he, who alone held the strings of the Reich's destinies, provoked such brutal and tactless excesses that the blood of those affected could not but be brought to the boiling point each time anew. Yet never against the Jew, but always against the German brother. It was not the Berlin of four million hard-working, producing people that the Bavarian saw, but the rotten decaying Berlin of the foulest West End! But it was not against this West End that his hatred turned, but against the 'Prussian' city.

    Often it could really drive you to despair. This aptitude of the Jew for diverting public attention from himself and occupying it elsewhere, can be studied again today.

    In 1918 there could be no question of a systematic anti-Semitism. I still remember the difficulties one encountered if one so much as uttered the word Jew. Either one was stupidly gaped at, or one experienced the most violent resistance. Our first attempts to show the public the real enemy then seemed almost hopeless, and only very slowly did things begin to take a better turn.

    Bad as the organizational set-up of the Watch and Ward League (Schulz- and Trutzbund) 6 was, it nonetheless had great merit in having reopened the Jewish question as such. At all events, in the winter of 1918-19, something like anti-Semitism began slowly to take root. Later, to be sure, the National Socialist movement drove the Jewish question to the fore in quite a different way.7 Above all, it succeeded in lifting this problem out of the narrow, limited circle of bourgeois and petit bourgeois strata and transforming it into the driving impulse of a great people's movement. But scarcely had it succeeded in giving the German people its great, unifying idea of struggle in this question than the Jew commenced to counter-attack.

    He seized upon his old weapon. With miraculous speed he threw the torch of discord into the folkish movement and sowed dissension. As things then stood, the only possibility of occupying the public attention with other questions and withholding a concentrated attack from the Jews lay in raising the Ultramontane question, and in the resulting clash between Catholicism and Protestantism. These men can never atone for the wrong they did our people in hurling this question into their midst. In any case the Jew reached his desired goal: Catholics and Protestants wage a merry war with one another, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom laughs up his sleeve.

    6 DeutschVölkischer Schulz- and Trutsburd, a supposedly non-political anti-Semitic organization, founded in 1919, ostensibly to protect German culture against Jewish influence, though anti-Semitism was not officially mentioned in its program. Its propaganda was first directed against the Jewish immigrants from Russia and Poland after the war. It petered out in 1922, its members merging with the National Socialists It introduced the swastika ec German political life.

    7 '. . . die Judenfrage ganz anders vorwärtsgetrieben!'

    Just as formerly they were able to busy public opinion for years with the struggle between federalism and centralization, thus wearing it down with exhaustion, while the Jew sold the freedom of the nation and betrayed our fatherland to international high finance, now again he succeeds in causing the two German denominations to assail one another, while the foundations of both are corroded and undermined by the poison of the international world Jew.

    Bear in mind the devastations which Jewish bastardization visits on our nation each day, and consider that this blood poisoning can be removed from our national body only after centuries, if at all; consider further how racial disintegration drags down and often destroys the last Aryan values of our German people, so that our strength as a culture-bearing nation is visibly more and more involved in a regression and we run the risk, in our big cities at least, of reaching the point where southern Italy is today.

    This contamination of our blood, blindly ignored by hundreds of thousands of our people, is carried on systematically by the Jew today. Systematically these black parasites of the nation defile our inexperienced young blond girls and thereby destroy something which can no longer be replaced in this world. Both, yes, both Christian denominations look on indifferently at this desecration and destruction of a noble and unique living creature, given to the earth by God's grace. The significance of this for the future of the earth does not lie in whether the Protestants defeat the Catholics or the Catholics the Protestants, but in whether the Aryan man is preserved for the earth or dies out.

    Nevertheless, the two denominations do not fight today against the destroyer of this man, but strive mutually to annihilate one another. The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated.

    For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other. For in Germany to attack the special characteristics of a denomination, within the religious schism we already have with us, necessarily leads to a war of annihilation between the two denominations.

    Our conditions permit here of no comparison say with France or Spain, let alone Italy. In all three countries, for example, a fight can be preached against clericalism or Ultramontanism, without running the risk that in this endeavor the French, Spanish, or Italian people as such will fall apart. In Germany, however, this may not be done, for here it is certain that the Protestants would also participate in such a movement. And thus the resistance, which would elsewhere be carried on only by Catholics against encroachments of a political nature by their own high clergy, immediately assumes the character of an attack of Protestantism against Catholicism.

    What is tolerated from members of the same denomination, even when it is unjust, is at once sharply rejected at the outset, as soon as the assailant belongs to another creed. This goes so far that even men, who themselves would be perfectly willing to correct a visible abuse within their own religious community, at once change their minds and turn their resistance outward as soon as such a correction is recommended, let alone demanded, by a source not belonging to their community.

    They regard this as an unjustified and impermissible, nay, indecent attempt to mix in matters which do not concern the party in question. Such attempts are not pardoned even if they are justified by the higher right of the interests of the national community, since today religious sentiments still go deeper than all considerations of national and political expediency. And this is in no way changed by driving the two denominations into an embittered mutual war, but could only change if, through compatibility on both sides, the nation is given a future which by its greatness would gradually have a conciliatory effect in this province as elsewhere.

    I do not hesitate to declare that I regard the men who today draw the folkish movement into the crisis of religious quarrels as worse enemies of my people than any international Communist. For to convert the latter is the mission of the National Socialist movement. But anyone in its own ranks who leads it away from its true mission is acting damnably. Whether consciously or unconsciously is immaterial, he is a fighter for Jewish interests. For it is to the Jewish interest today to make the folkish movement bleed to death in a religious struggle at the moment when it is beginning to become a danger for the Jew.

    I expressly emphasize the words bleed to death; for only a man without historical education can imagine that with this movement today a problem can be solved which has defied centuries and great statesmen.

    For the rest, the facts speak for themselves. The gentlemen who in 1924 suddenly discovered that the highest mission of the folkish movement was the struggle against ' Ultramontanism' did not break IJltramontanism, but tore apart the folkish movement.8 I must also lodge protest against any immature mind in the ranks of the folkish movement imagining that he can do what even a Bismarck could not do. It will always be the highest duty of the top leadership of the National Socialist movement to offer the sharpest opposition to any attempt to drive the National Socialist movement into such struggles, and immediately to remove the propagandists of such an intention from the ranks of the movement.

    Actually, by autumn, 1923, we succeeded entirely in this. In the ranks of the movement, the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another. And yet, in these very years, the movement carried on the bitterest fight against the Center, though never on religious, but exclusively on national, racial, and economic-political grounds. The results spoke in our favor, just as today they testify against the know-it-alls.

    8 An attack on the bitterly anti-Catholic Ludendorf, who broke with National Socialism after the putsch of November, 1923.

    In recent years things have sometimes gone so far that folkish circles in the God-forsaken blindness of their denominational squabbles did not even recognize the madness of their actions from the fact that atheistic Marxist newspapers suddenly, when convenient, became advocates of religious communities, and tried to compromise one or the other by bandying back and forth remarks that were sometimes really too stupid, and thus stir up the fire to the extreme.

    Especially with a people like the Germans, who have so often demonstrated in their history that they were capable of waging wars down to the last drop of blood for phantoms, any such battle cry will be mortally dangerous. In this way our people has always been diverted from the real practical questions of its existence. While we devoured each other in religious squabbles, the rest of the world was distributed. And while-the folkish movement considers whether the Ultramontane peril is greater than the Jewish peril or vice versa, the Jew destroys the racial foundations of our existence and thus destroys our people for all time.

    As far as this variety of 'folkish' warriors are concerned, I can only wish the National Socialist movement and the German people with all my heart: Lord, protect them from such friends and they will settle with their enemies by themselves.

    The struggle between federalism and centralization so shrewdly propagated by the Jews in 1919-20-21 and afterward, forced the National Socialist movement, though absolutely rejecting it, to take a position on its essential problems.

    Should Germany be a federated or a unified state, and what for practical purposes must be understood by the two? To me the second seems the more important question, because it is not only fundamental to the understanding of the whole problem, but also because it is clarifying and possesses a conciliatory character.

    What is a federated state? By a federated state we understand a league of sovereign states which band together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty; ceding to the totality that share of their particular sovereign rights which makes possible and guarantees the existence of the common federation.

    In practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own.

    For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.

    The above formulation is not fully and entirely applicable to Germany either. Although in Germany without doubt the individual states did exist first and in the form of states, and the Reich was formed out of them. But the very formation of the Reich did not take place on the basis of the free will or equal participation of the single states, but through the workings of the hegemony of one state among them, Prussia.

    The great difference between the German states, from the purely territorial standpoint, permits no comparison with the formation of the American Union, for instance. The difference in size between the smallest of the former federated states and the larger ones. let alone the largest, shows the non-similarity of their achievements, and else the inequality of their share in the founding of the Reich, the forming of the federated state.

    Actually, in most of these states there could be no question of a real sovereignty, except if state sovereignty was taken only as an official phrase. In reality, not only the past, but the present as well, had put an end to any number of these so-called 'sovereign states' and thus clearly demonstrated the weakness of these 'sovereign' formations.

    I shall not state here how each of these states was historically formed, but I do want to say that in practically no case do they coincide with tribal boundaries. They are purely political phenomena, and their roots for the most part go back to the gloomiest epoch of the German Reich's impotence and of the national fragmentation which conditioned it and itself in turn was conditioned by it.

    All this, in part at least, was taken into account by the constitution of the old Reich, in so far as it did not grant the individual states the same representation in the Bundesrat,9 but set up gradations corresponding to size and actual importance, as well as the achievement of the individual states in the formation of the Reich.

    9 The Bundesrat was the federal council of the North German Confederation formed in 1867, and later of the German Empire. Made up of delegates of the various member states, it had equal powers with the Reichstag an' was a sort of upper house.

    The sovereign rights waived by the single states to make possible the formation of the Reich were only in the smallest part surrendered of their own free will; in the greatest part they were either practically non-existent to begin with or were simply taken away under the pressure of superior Prussian power.

    At the same time, Bismarck did not act on the principle of giving to the Reich everything that could in any way be taken away from the individual states; his principle was to demand of the individual states only what the Reich absolutely needed.

    A principle as moderate as it was wise, which on the one hand took the highest consideration of custom and tradition, and on the other hand thereby assured the new Reich a great measure of love and joyful collaboration at the very outset. It is absolutely wrong, however, to attribute this decision of Bismarck to his conviction that the Reich thus possessed sufficient sovereign rights for all time. Bismarck had no such conviction; on the contrary, he only wanted to put off till the future what at the moment would have been hard to accomplish and to endure.

    He put his hope in the gradual compromises brought about by time and the pressure of development as such, which in the long run he credited with more strength than any attempt to break the momentary resistance of the individual states at once. Thus, he best demonstrated and proved the greatness of his statesmanship. For in reality the sovereignty of the Reich steadily grew at the expense of the sovereignty of the individual states. Time fulfilled Bismarck's expectations.

    With the German collapse and the destruction of the German state form, this development was necessarily accelerated. For since the existence of the individual German states was attributable less to tribal foundations than to purely political causes, the significance of these individual states inevitably shriveled into nothing once the most essential embodiment of the political development of these states, the monarchic state form and their dynasties, had been excluded.

    A considerable number of these 'state formations' lost all internal stability, to such an extent that they voluntarily renounced any further existence and for reasons of pure expediency fused with others or merged with larger ones of their own free will: the most striking proof of the extraordinary weakness of these little formations and the small respect they enjoyed even among their own citizens.

    And so, if the elimination of the monarchic state form and its representatives in itself administered a strong blow to the Reich's character as a federated state, this was even more true of the assumption of the obligations resulting from the 'peace' treaty.

    It was natural and self-evident that the financial sovereignty previously vested in the provinces should be lost to the Reich at the moment when the Reich due to the lost War was subjected to a financial obligation which would never have been met by individual contributions of the provinces. Also the further steps, which led to the taking over of the postal service and railroads by the Reich, were necessary effects of the enslavement of our people, gradually initiated by the peace treaties. The Reich was forced to take firm possession of more and more capital, in order to be able to meet the obligations which arose in consequence of further extortions.

    Insane as the forms frequently were, in which the centralization was accomplished, the process in itself was logical and natural. Those to blame were the parties and the men who had not done everything in their power to end the War victoriously. Those to blame, especially in Bavaria, were the parties which in pursuit of selfish aims of their own, had during the War wrung from the principle of the Reich concessions which after its loss they had to restore ten times over.

    Avenging history! Seldom, however, has the punishment of Heaven come so swiftly after the crime as in this case. The same parties, which only a few years previous had placed the interests of their individual states - and this especially in Bavaria - above the interest of the Reich, were now compelled to look on as, beneath the pressure of events, the interest of the Reich throttled the existence of the individual states. All through their own complicity.

    It is an unequaled hypocrisy to bemoan to the masses of voters (for only toward them is the agitation of our present-day parties directed) the loss of the sovereign rights of the individual provinces, while all these parties without exception outbid one another in a policy of fulfillment which in its ultimate consequences could not but lead to deep-seated changes inside Germany. Bismarck's Germany was free and unbound on the outside.

    This Reich did not possess financial obligations of so burdensome, and at the same time unproductive, a nature as the present Dawes-Germany has to bear. But internally as well, its competence was limited to a few matters and those absolutely necessary. Thus it could very well dispense with a financial sovereignty of its own, and live from the contributions of the provinces; and it goes without saying that, on the one hand, the continued possession of their own sovereign rights, and, on the other hand, comparatively small financial contributions to the Reich, were very conducive to satisfaction with the Reich 10 in the provinces. However, it is incorrect, dishonest in fact, to make propaganda today with the assertion that the present lack of satisfaction with the Reich can be attributed solely to the financial bondage of the provinces to the Reich.

    No, that is not the real state of affairs. The diminished satisfaction with the Reich idea is not attributable to the loss of sovereign rights on the part of the provinces, but is rather the result of the deplorable way in which the German people is at present represented by its state. Despite all the Reichsbanner rallies and celebrations in honor of the constitution, the present Reich has remained alien to the heart of the people in all strata, and republican protective laws may deter people from transgressing against republican institutions, but can never win the love of so much as a single German. In this excessive concern with protecting the Republic against its own citizens by means of penal laws and imprisonment lies the most annihilating criticism and disparagement of the whole institution itself.

    10 'Reichsfreudigheit.' Literally: joy in the Reich.

    But for another reason as well, the assertion, made by certain parties today, that the disappearance of satisfaction in the Reich is attributable to the encroachments of the Reich against certain sovereign rights of the provinces, is untrue. Assuming that the Reich had not undertaken the extension of its competencies, let no one suppose that the love of the individual provinces for the Reich would be any greater, if nonetheless their total contributions had to be the same as now.

    On the contrary: If the individual provinces today had to bear taxes to the amount which the Reich requires for the fulfillment of the slave dictates, hostility toward the Reich would be infinitely greater. Not only would the contributions of the provinces to the Reich be very hard to bring in, but they would have to be raised by means of downright coercion For since the Republic stands on the basis of the peace treaties, and possesses neither the courage nor any intention whatever of breaking them, it must reckon with its obligations.

    Solely to blame for this are again the parties which incessantly harangue the patient mass of the voters about the necessary independence of the provinces, but at the same time promote and support a Reich policy which must lead inevitably to the elimination of the very last of these so-called 'sovereign rights.'

    I say inevitably because the present Reich retains no other possibility of meeting the burdens imposed by its notorious domestic and foreign policy. Here again one wedge drives the next, and every new debt that the Reich heaps upon itself by its criminal handling of German interests abroad, must be balanced at home by a stronger downward pressure which in turn requires the gradual elimination of all sovereign rights of the individual states, in order to prevent germ cells of resistance from arising or merely persisting in them.

    Altogether, a characteristic difference must be noted between the present Reich policy and that of former days: The old Reich gave internal freedom and demonstrated strength on the outside, while the Republic shows weakness outside and represses its citizens internally. In both cases one conditions the other:

    The powerful national state needs fewer laws within in consequence of the greater love and attachment of its citizens; the international slave state can only hold its subjects to their slave labor by force. For it is one of the present regime's most shameless impertinences to speak of 'free citizens.' Only the old Germany possessed such citizens.

    The Republic is a slave colony of foreign countries and has no citizens, but at best subjects. It therefore possesses no national flag but only a trade-mark, introduced and protected by official decrees and legal measures. This symbol, regarded by everyone as the Gessler's hat of German democracy, will therefore always remain inwardly alien to our people.

    The Republic which, without any feeling for tradition and without much respect for the greatness of the past, trod its symbols in the mire, will some day be amazed how superficially its subjects are attached to its own symbols. It has given to itself the character of an intermezzo in German history. And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations, but from ideal considerations as well.

    For in draining its citizens of their last drop of blood by its policy of financial extortion, it must inevitably withdraw their last rights if it does not want the general discontent to break out into open rebellion some day.

    By inverting the above proposition, the following rule, basic for us National Socialists, is derived. A powerful national Reich, which takes into account and protects the outward interests of its citizens to the highest extent, can offer freedom within, without having to fear for the stability of the state. On the other hand, a powerful national government can undertake and accept responsibility for great limitations on the freedom of the individual as well as the provinces, without damage to the Reich idea if in such measures the individual citizen recognizes a means toward the greatness of his nation.

    Certainly all the states in the world are moving toward a certain unification in their inner organization. And in this Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak of a 'state sovereignty' of individual provinces, which in reality the absurd size of these formations in itself fails to provide. The techniques of communication as well as administration steadily diminish the importance of the individual states.

    Modern communications, modern technology, make distance and space shrink more and more. A state of former days today represents only a province' and the states of the present formerly seemed like continents. The difficulty, from the purely technical point of view, of administering a state like Germany is no greater than the difficulty in directing a province like Brandenburg a hundred and twenty years ago. It is today easier to span the distance from Munich to Berlin than that from Munich to Starnberg a hundred years ago. And the whole Reich territory of today is smaller in relation to current communications technique than any medium German federated state at the time of the Napoleonic Wars.

    Anyone who disregards consequences resulting from undeniable facts cannot help but remain behind the times. At all times there have been men who do this, and in the future there will be too. But they can scarcely impede the wheel of history, and never bring it to a standstill.

    We National Socialists must never blindly disregard the consequences of these truths. Here again we must not let ourselves be taken in by the phrases of our so-called national bourgeois parties. I use the term phrases because these parties themselves do not believe seriously in the possibility of carrying out their intentions, and because in the second place they themselves are the accomplices mainly responsible for the present development.

    Especially in Bavaria, the cry for the elimination of centralization is really nothing more than a party machination without any serious thought behind it. Every time that these parties should really have made something serious out of their phrases, they all of them fell down miserably.

    Every so-called 'theft of sovereign rights' from the Bavarian state by the Reich was accepted practically without resistance except for a repulsive yelping. Indeed, if anyone really dared to put up serious opposition to this insane system, he was outlawed and damned and persecuted for 'contempt of the existing state' by these very parties, and in the end was silenced either by imprisonment or illegally forbidden to speak.

    This more than anything should show our supporters the inner hypocrisy of these so-called federalistic circles. The federative state idea, like religion in part, is only an instrument for their often unclean party interests

    Natural as a certain unification may seem, particularly in the field of communications, for us National Socialists there nevertheless remains an obligation to take an energetic position against such a development in the present-day state, at times when the measures only serve the purpose of masking and making possible a catastrophic foreign policy. Precisely because the present Reich did not undertake the nationalization of the railroads, postal service, finances, etc., out of higher considerations of national policy,

    Only in order to lay hands on the financial means and securities for such a policy of unlimited fulfillment.11 National Socialists must do everything that seems in any way calculated to impede and if possible prevent the execution of such a policy. And to this belongs the struggle against the present centralization of vitally important institutions of our people, which is undertaken only in order to raise the billions of marks and the collateral for our post-War foreign policy.

    11 Fulfillment of the peace treaties, here the reparations provisions.

    And for this reason the National Socialist movement has taken a position against such attempts.

    The second reason which can induce us to offer resistance to such a centralization is that it might stabilize the power of a system of internal government which in all its effects has brought the gravest disaster upon the German people. The present Jewish-Democratic Reich, which has become a true curse for the German nation, seeks to make the criticism of the individual states, all of which are not yet imbued with this new spirit, ineffectual, by reducing them to total insignificance.

    In the face of this, we National Socialists have every reason to attempt to give to the opposition of these individual states, not only the foundation of a state power promising success, but in general to make their struggle against centralization into an expression of a higher, national and universal German interest. And so, while the Bavarian People's Party endeavors to preserve special rights for the Bavarian State out of small-hearted, particularistic motives, we must use this special position in the service of a higher national interest in opposition to the present November democracy.

    The third reason that can also determine us to fight against the current centralization is the conviction that a great part of the so-called nationalization is in reality no unification, and in no event a simplification, but that in many cases it is only a matter of removing institutions from the sovereign rights of the provinces, in order to open their gates to the interests of the revolutionary parties. Never in German history has there been a more shameless policy of favoritism than under the democratic Republic.

    A large part of the present frenzy for centralization falls to the account of those parties which once promised to clear the road to ability, but when it came to filling offices and posts solely considered party membership. Since the founding of the Republic, particularly Jews in incredible numbers poured into the economic concerns and administrative apparatuses snatched up by the Reich, so that today both have become a domain of Jewish activity.

    This third consideration above all must obligate us on tactical grounds to examine sharply any further measure on the road to centralization and if necessary to take a position against it. But in this our motives must always be higher motives of national policy and never petty particularistic ones.

    This last remark is necessary lest the opinion arise among our supporters that we National Socialists would not grant the Reich as such the right to embody a higher sovereignty than that of the individual states. Concerning this right, there must and can be no doubt among us. Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power.

    The mischief of individual federated states maintaining so-called missions abroad and among each other must cease and will some day cease. As long as such things are possible, we must not be surprised if foreign countries still doubt the stability of our Reich structure and act accordingly. The mischief of these missions is all the greater as not the least benefit can be attributed to them along with the harm. The interests of a German abroad, which cannot be protected by the ambassador of the Reich, can much less be looked after by the envoy of a petty state that looks ridiculous in the setting of the present world order.

    In these petty federated states we can really see nothing but points of attack for separatist endeavors inside and outside of the German Reich, endeavors such as one state still particularly welcomes. And we National Socialists can have no sympathy with some noble family, grown feeble with age, providing new soil for a withered scion by clothing him in an ambassadorial post. Our diplomatic missions abroad were so miserable even at the time of the old Reich that further additions to the experience then gained are highly superfluous.

    In future the significance of the individual provinces will unquestionably be shifted more to the field of cultural policy. The monarch who did the most for the importance of Bavaria was not some stubborn anti-German particularist, but Ludwig I, a man of pan-German mind and artistic sensibilities. By using the forces of the state primarily for the development of Bavaria's cultural position and not for the strengthening of her political power, he built better and more enduringly than would otherwise have been possible.

    By pushing Munich from the level of an insignificant provincial capital into the format of a great German art metropolis,12 he created a spiritual center which even today is strong enough to bind the essentially different Franks to this state. Supposing that Munich had remained what it formerly was, the same process that took place in Saxony would have been repeated in Bavaria, only with the difference that Nuremberg, the Bavarian Leipzig, would have become not a Bavarian but a Frankish city It was not the 'Down with Prussia' shouters that made Munich great; this city was given its importance by the King who in it wished to bestow upon the German nation an art treasure which would have to be seen and respected, and which was seen and respected.

    Therein lies a lesson for the future. The importance of the individual states will in the future no longer lie in the fields of state power and policy; I see it either in the tribal field or the field of cultural policy. But even here time will have a leveling effect. The ease of modern transportation so scatters people around that slowly and steadily the tribal boundaries are effaced and thus even the cultural picture gradually begins to even out.

    12 indem er München damals aus dem Rahmen einer wenig bedeutenden provinziellen Residenz in das Format einer grosser deutschen Kunstmetropole hineinschob . . . '

    The army in particular must be sharply removed from all influence of the individual states. The coming National Socialist state must not fall into the error of the past and attribute to the army a function which it has not and must not have. The German army does not exist to be a school for the preservation of tribal peculiarities, but should rather be a school for the mutual understanding and adaptation of all Germans. Whatever source of division there may be in the life of the nation must be given a unifying effect by the army.

    Furthermore, it must raise the individual young man from the narrow horizon of his little province and put him into the German nation. He must learn to see, not the boundaries of his home province, but those of his fatherland; for it is these that he will one day have to protect. It is, therefore, senseless to leave the young German at home; the expedient thing is to show him Germany during his period of military service. Today this is all the more necessary, as the young German no longer has his years of wandering apprenticeship with their broadening effect on his horizon.

    In view of this, is it not preposterous to leave, when possible, the young Bavarian in Munich, the Frank in Nuremberg, the Badener in Karlsruhe, the Württemberger in Stuttgart, etc., and is it not more sensible to show the young Bavarian the Rhine and the North Sea, the Hamburger the Alps, the East Prussian the mountains of Central Germany, and so on? Regional character should remain in the detachment, but not in the garrison.

    Every attempt at centralization may encounter our disapproval, but that of the army never! On the contrary, even if we welcomed no such endeavor, we should have to take pleasure in this one. Quite aside from the fact that, in view of the size of the present Reich army, the preservation of individual state troop formations would be absurd, we regard the unification of the Reich army that has taken place as a step which, in the future, when a national army has been introduced, we must never again abandon.

    Moreover, a young victorious idea will have to reject any fetter which might paralyze its activity in pushing forward its conceptions. National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate it in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland.

    The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall someday become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected. The more complete the victory of its idea will be, the greater may be the particular liberties it offers internally.

  12. #27
    Chapter XI: Propaganda and Organization



    IN SEVERAL RESPECTS THE YEAR 1921 has assumed a special significance for me and the movement.

    After my entrance into the German Workers' Party, I at once took over the management of propaganda. I regarded this department as by far the most important. For the present, it was less important to rack one's brains over organizational questions than to transmit the idea itself to a larger number of people. Propaganda had to run far in advance of organization and provide it with the human material to be worked on.

    Moreover, I am an enemy of too rapid and too pedantic organizing. It usually produces nothing but a dead mechanism, seldom a living organization. For organization is a thing that owes its existence to organic life, organic development. Ideas which have gripped a certain number of people will always strive for a greater order, and a great value must attributed to this inner molding.

    Here, too, we must reckon with the weakness of men, which leads the individual, at first at least, instinctively to resist a superior mind. If an organization is mechanically ordered from above, there exists a great danger that a once appointed leader, not yet accurately evaluated and perhaps none too capable, will from jealousy strive to prevent the rise of abler elements within the movement. The harm that arises in such a case can, especially in a young movement, be of catastrophic significance..

    For this reason it is more expedient for a time to disseminate an idea by propaganda from a central point and then carefully to search and examine the gradually gathering human material for leading minds. Sometimes it will turn out that men inconspicuous in themselves must nevertheless be regarded as born leaders.

    But it would be absolutely mistaken to regard a wealth of theoretical knowledge as characteristic proof for the qualities and abilities of a leader.

    The opposite is often the case.

    The great theoreticians are only in the rarest cases great organizers, since the greatness of the theoretician and program-maker lies primarily in the recognition and establishment of abstractly correct laws, while the organizer must primarily be a psychologist. He must take people as they are and must therefore know them. He must not overestimate them, any more than he must underestimate them in the mass. On the contrary, he must endeavor to take weakness and bestiality equally into account, in order, considering all factors, to create a formation which will be a living organism, imbued with strong and stable power, and thus suited to upholding an idea and paving the way for its success.

    Even more seldom, however, is a great theoretician a great leader. Much more readily will an agitator be one, something which many who only work scientifically on the question do not want to hear. And yet that is understandable. An agitator who demonstrates the ability to transmit an idea to the broad masses must always be a psychologist, even if he were only a demagogue.

    Then he will still be more suited for leadership than the unworldly theoretician, who is ignorant of people. For leading means: being able to move masses. The gift of shaping ideas has nothing to do with ability as a leader. And it is quite useless to argue which is of greater importance, to set up ideals and aims for mankind, or to realize them. Here, as so often in life: one would be utterly meaningless without the other. The finest theoretical insight remains without purpose and value if the leader does not set the masses in motion toward it.

    Conversely, of what avail would be all the genius and energy of a leader, if the brilliant theoretician did not set up aims for the human struggle? However, the combination of theoretician, organizer, and leader in one person is the rarest thing that can be found on this earth; this combination makes the great man.

    As I have already remarked, I devoted myself to propaganda in the first period of my activity in the movement. What it had to do was gradually to fill a small nucleus of men with the new doctrine, and so prepare the material which could later furnish the first elements of an organization.

    When a movement harbors the purpose of tearing down a world and building another in its place, complete clarity must reign in the ranks of its own leadership with regard to the following principles:

    Every movement will first have to sift the human material it wins into two large groups: supporters and members. The function of propaganda is to attract supporters, the function of organization to win members. A supporter of a movement is one who declares himself to be in agreement with its aims, a member is one who fights for them.

    The supporter is made amenable to the movement by propaganda. The member is induced by the organization to participate personally in the recruiting of new supporters, from whom in turn members can be developed.

    Since being a supporter requires only a passive recognition of an idea, while membership demands active advocacy and defense, to ten supporters there will at most be one or two members. Being a supporter is rooted only in understanding, membership in the courage personally to advocate and disseminate what has been understood.

    Understanding in its passive form corresponds to the majority of mankind which is lazy and cowardly. Membership requires an activistic frame of mind and thus corresponds only to the minority of men.

    Propaganda will consequently have to see that an idea wins supporters, while the organization must take the greatest care only to make the most valuable elements among the supporters into members. Propaganda does not, therefore, need to rack its brains with regard to the importance of every individual instructed by it, with regard to his agility, capacity, and understanding, or character, while the organization must carefully gather from the mass of these elements those which really make possible the victory of the movement.

    Propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people; the organization embraces within its scope only those who do not threaten on psychological grounds to become a brake on the further dissemination of the idea. Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea, while the organization achieves victory by the persistent, organic, and militant union of those supporters who seem willing and able to carry on the fight for victory.

    The victory of an idea will be possible the sooner, the more comprehensively propaganda has prepared people as a whole and the more exclusive, rigid, and firm the organization which carries out the fight in practice. From this it results that the number of supporters cannot be too large, out that the number of members can more readily be too large than too small.

    If propaganda has imbued a whole people with an idea, the organization can draw the consequences with a handful of men. Propaganda and organization, in other words, supporters and members, thus stand in a certain mutual relation. The better the propaganda has worked, the smaller the organization can be; and the larger the number of supporters, the more modest the number of members can be; and vice versa: the poorer the propaganda is, the larger the organization must be, and the smaller the host of followers of a movement remains, the more extensive the number of its members must be, if it still hopes to count on any success at all.

    The first task of propaganda is to win people for subsequent organization; the first task of organization is to win men for the continuation of propaganda. The second task of propaganda is the disruption of the existing state of affairs and the permeation of this state of affairs with the new doctrine, while the second task of organization must be the struggle for power, thus to achieve the final success of the doctrine.

    The most striking success of a revolution based on a philosophy of life will always have been achieved when the new philosophy of life as far as possible has been taught to all men, and, if necessary, later forced upon them, while the organization of the idea, in other words, the movement, should embrace only as many as are absolutely required for occupying the nerve centers of the state in question.

    This, in other words, means the following: In every really great world-shaking movement, propaganda will first have to spread the idea of this movement. Thus, it will indefatigably attempt to make the new thought processes clear to the others, and therefore to draw them over to their own ground, or to make them uncertain of their previous conviction. Now, since the dissemination of an idea, that is, propaganda, must have a firm backbone, the doctrine will have to give itself a solid organization.

    The organization obtains its members from the general body of supporters won by propaganda. The latter will grow the more rapidly, the more intensively the propaganda is carried on, and the latter in turn can work better, the stronger and more powerful the organization is that stands behind it.

    Hence it is the highest task of the organization to make sure that no inner disunities within the membership of the movement lead to a split and hence a weakening of the movement's work, further, that the spirit of determined attack does not die out, but is continuously renewed and reinforced. The number of members need not grow infinitely; on the contrary: since only a small fraction of mankind is by nature energetic and bold, a movement which endlessly enlarges its organization would inevitably be weakened some day as a result.

    Organizations, in other words, membership figures, which grow beyond a certain level gradually lose their fighting power and are no longer capable of supporting or utilizing the propaganda of an idea resolutely and aggressively.

    The greater and more essentially revolutionary an idea is, the more activistic its membership will become, since the revolutionary force of a doctrine involves a danger for its supporters, which seems calculated to keep cowardly little shopkeepers away from it. They will privately regard themselves as supporters, but decline to make a public avowal of this by membership. By virtue of this fact, the organization of a really revolutionary idea obtains as members only the most active among the supporters won over by propaganda.

    Precisely in this activity of a movement's membership, guaranteed by natural selection, lies the premise for equally active future propaganda as well as a successful struggle for the realization of the idea.

    The greatest danger that can threaten a movement is a membership which has grown abnormally as a result of too rapid successes. For, just as a movement is shunned by all cowardly and egotistic individuals, as long as it has to fight bitterly, these same people rush with equal alacrity to acquire membership when a success of the party has been made probable or already realized by developments

    To this it must be ascribed why 1 many victorious movements, on the point of success, or, rather, the ultimate completion of their will, suddenly from inexplicable inner weakness, flag, stop fighting, and finally die out. In consequence of their first victory, so many inferior, unworthy, and worst of all cowardly, elements have entered their organization that these inferior people finally achieve predominance over the militants and then force the movement into the service of their own interests, lower it to the level of their own scanty heroism, and do nothing to complete the victory of the original idea.

    The fanatical zeal has been blurred, the fighting force paralyzed, or, as the bourgeois world correctly puts it in such cases: 'Water has been mixed with the wine.' And when that happens, the trees can no longer grow skyward.

    It is, therefore, most necessary that a movement, for pure reasons of self-preservation, should, once it has begun to achieve success, immediately block enrollments and henceforth increase its organization only with extreme caution and after the most thorough scrutiny. Only in this way will it be able to preserve the core of the movement in unvitiated freshness and health.

    It must see to it that, from this point on, this core alone shall exclusively lead the movement, that is, determine the propaganda which should lead to its universal recognition, and, in full possession of the power, undertake the actions which are necessary for the practical realization of its ideas.

    It must not only occupy all the important positions of the conquered territory with the basic core of the old movement, but also constitute the entire leadership. And this until the principles and doctrines of the party have become the foundation and content of the new state. Only then can the reins gradually be handed over to the special government of this state, born of its spirit. This, however, in turn occurs for the most part only in mutual struggle since it is less a question of human insight than of the play and workings of forces which can perhaps be recognized from the first, but cannot forever be guided.

    1 'Dem ist es zuzuschreiben warum. . .'

    All great movements, whether of a religious or a political nature, must attribute their mighty successes only to the recognition and application of these principles, and all lasting successes in particular are not even thinkable without consideration of these laws.

    As director of the party's propaganda I took much pains, not only to prepare the soil for the future greatness of the movement, but by an extremely radical conception in this work I also strove to bring it about that the party should obtain only the best material. For the more radical and inflammatory my propaganda was, the more this frightened weaklings and hesitant characters, and prevented them from penetrating the primary core of our organization. They might continue as supporters, but certainly not with loud emphasis; they timidly concealed the fact.

    How many thousands assured me at that time that they were essentially in agreement with everything we said, but that under no circumstances could they become members. The movement, they said, was so radical that membership in it would expose the individual to the gravest difficulties, nay, dangers, and we shouldn't take it amiss if the honest, peaceable citizen should stand aside for the present at least, even if at heart he was entirely with the cause.

    And this was good.

    If these men, who at heart were not for the revolution, had all come into our party at that time, and as members, we could regard ourselves today as a pious fraternal organization, but no longer as a young militant movement.

    The live and aggressive form that I then gave to our propaganda reinforced and guaranteed the radical tendency of our movement, since now only radical people - with some exceptions -were ready for membership.

    At the same time, this propaganda had the effect that after a short while hundreds of thousands not only believed us to be right lout desired our victory, even if personally they were too cowardly to make sacrifices for it, let alone fight for it.

    Up to the middle of 1921 this purely propagandist activity could still suffice and benefit the movement. But special events in the midsummer of this year made it seem indicated that now after the slowly visible success of our propaganda, the organization should be adapted to it and put on a par with it.

    The attempt of a group of folkish lunatics to obtain the leadership of the party, with the aid and support of the party chairman of the time, led to the collapse of this little intrigue and, at a general membership meeting, unanimously gave me the leadership over the whole movement. Immediately, a new by-law was passed, transferring full responsibility to the first chairman of the party, eliminating committee decisions as a matter of principle, and introducing instead a system of division of labor which has since proved its worth in the most beneficial way.

    Beginning on August 1, 1921, I took over this inner reorganization of the movement and in so doing found the support of a number of excellent people whom I consider it necessary to mention in a special appendix.

    In the attempt to organizationally exploit the results of propaganda and thereby establish them for all time, I had to do away with a number of previous habits and introduce principles which none of the existing parties possessed or would even have recognized.

    In the years from 1919 to 1920 the movement had for leadership a committee which was chosen by membership meetings, which themselves in turn were prescribed by rule. The committee consisted of a first and second treasurer, a first and second secretary, and at the head, a first and second chairman. Added to these was a membership secretary, the propaganda chief, and various assisting committeemen.

    Strange as it may seem, this committee actually embodied exactly what the party most wanted to combat, namely, parliamentarianism. For it was obvious that we were involved with a principle which from the smallest local group, through the later districts, counties, and provinces, up to the Reich leadership, embodied the very same system under which we all suffered and today still suffer.

    It was urgently necessary to bring about a change in this some day, unless the movement, in consequence of the poor foundation of its inner organization, were to be forever ruined and hence incapable of ever fulfilling its high mission.

    The committee sessions, of which minutes were kept, and in which votes were taken and decisions made by a majority, represented in reality a parliament on a small scale. Here, too, all personal responsibility was lacking. Here, too, the same irrationality and the same unreasonableness reigned as in our great state representative bodies. For this committee, secretaries; treasurers, membership secretaries, propaganda chiefs, and God knows what else were appointed, and then all of them together were made to deliberate on every single question and decide by vote.

    So the man who was there for propaganda voted on a matter that regarded the finance man, and he in turn voted on a matter regarding organization, and the latter in turn on a matter which should only have concerned the secretary, etc.

    Why they bothered to appoint a special man for propaganda, when treasurers, secretaries, membership secretaries, etc., had to decide on questions regarding it, seems just as incomprehensible to a healthy mind as it would be incomprehensible if in a big industrial enterprise the directors or engineers of other departments and other branches had to decide on questions having nothing to do with their affairs.

    I did not submit to this lunacy, but after a short time stayed away from the sessions. I did my propaganda work and let it go at that, and I did not stand for any incompetent trying to tell me what to do in this field. Just as, conversely, I did not interfere in the business of the others.

    When the acceptance of the new statutes and my appointment to the position of first chairman had meanwhile given me the necessary authority and the rights that went with it, this nonsense immediately stopped. In the place of committee decisions, the principle of absolute responsibility was introduced.

    The first chairman is responsible for the total leadership of the movement. He apportions the work to be performed among the committeemen subordinated to him and among whatever other collaborators are needed. And each one of these gentlemen is absolutely responsible for the tasks transferred to him. He is subordinated only to the first chairman, who must procure the cooperation of all, or else must bring about this cooperation by the choice of persons and the issuance of general directives.

    This law of fundamental responsibility was gradually taken for granted within the movement, at least in so far as the party leadership was concerned. In the little local groups and perhaps even in the counties and districts, it will take years before these principles will be forced through, since scare-cats and incompetents will of course always fight against it; to them sole responsibility for an undertaking will always be unpleasant; they always felt freer and better when in every grave decision they were covered by the majority of a so-called committee.

    To me it seems necessary to express myself with the greatest sharpness against such an attitude, to make no concession to cowardice in the face of responsibility, and thereby, even if it takes a long time, to achieve a conception of leader's duty and leader's ability, which will bring to leadership exclusively those who are really called and chosen for it.

    In any case a movement that wants to combat the parliamentary madness must itself be free of it. Only on such a basis can it win the strength for its struggle.

    A movement which in a time of majority rule orients itself in all things on the principle of the leader idea and the responsibility conditioned by it will some day with mathematical certainty overcome the existing state of affairs and emerge victorious.

    This idea led to a complete reorganization within the movement. And in its logical effects also to an extremely sharp division between the business activities of the movement and the general political leadership. As a matter of principle, the idea of responsibility was extended to all the party activities and led inevitably to their recovery, in exact proportion as they were freed from political influences and adjusted to purely economic considerations.

    When in the fall of 1919, I joined the handful of men who then constituted the party, it had neither a business office nor a clerk, not even forms or rubber stamps; and no printed matter existed. The committee room was first a tavern in the Herrengasse, and later a cafe on the Gasteig. That was an impossible state of affairs.

    Soon afterward I started out and visited a number of Munich restaurants and taverns with the intention of renting a back room or some other space for the party. In the former Sterneckerbräu in the Tal, there was a small vault-like room which had once served the imperial councilors 2 of Bavaria as a sort of taproom. It was dark and gloomy and thus was just as well suited for its former purpose as it was ill-suited for its projected new use.

    he alley on which its single window opened was so narrow that even on the brightest summer day the room remained gloomy and dark. This became our first business office. But since the monthly rent was only fifty marks (then an exorbitant sum for us!), we could make no greater demands and were not even in a position to complain when, before we moved in, the wall paneling, formerly intended for the imperial councilors, was quickly torn out, so that now the room really gave more the impression of a funeral vault than of an office.

    And yet this was an immense step forward. Slowly we obtained electric light, even more slowly a telephone; a table and a few borrowed chairs were brought in, finally an open book-stand, still somewhat later a cupboard; two sideboards belonging to the landlord served for keeping pamphlets, posters, etc.

    The previous system - that is, having the movement run by a committee session taking place once a week - was impossible in the long run. Only an official paid by the movement could guarantee the day-to-day business organization.

    At the time that was very difficult. The movement still had so few members that it took great skill to find among them a suitable man who, making the smallest demands for his own person, could satisfy the innumerable demands of the movement.

    2 'die Reichsräte von Bayern.' Until 1918 the upper house of the Bavarian Diet, consisting of nobility, high clergy, and other notables.

    In the person of a soldier, named Schüssler, one of my former comrades, the first business manager of the party was found. At first he came to our new office only daily from six to eight o'clock, later from five to eight, finally every afternoon, and shortly afterward he was taken on full time and served from morning until late into the night.

    He was a man as conscientious as he was upright and absolutely honest, who personally took the greatest pains and was devoted with especial loyalty to the movement itself. Schüssler brought with him a small Adler typewriter that belonged to him. It was the first such instrument in the service of our movement.

    Later the party acquired it by installment payments. A small safe seemed necessary to safeguard the card index and the membership books from thieves. We did not acquire it in order to deposit any large sums of money we might have had at the time. On the contrary, everything was extremely threadbare, and often I contributed from my own small savings.

    A year and a half later, the business office was too small, and we moved into a new place in the Corneliusstrasse. Again it was a tavern we moved to, but now we no longer possessed only a single room, but three rooms and one large additional room with a wicket-window. At the time that seemed to us like a good deal. Here we remained until November, 1923.

    In December, 1920, we acquired the Völkischer Beobachter. This paper, which, as its name indicates, stood on the whole for folkish interests even then, was now to be transformed into the organ of the NSDAP. At first it appeared twice a week, at the beginning of 1923 became a daily, and at the end of August, 1923, it received its large format which later became well known.

    As a total novice in the field of journalism, I sometimes had to pay dearly for my experience in those days.

    The mere fact that in comparison with the enormous Jewish press there was hardly a single really significant folkish paper gave food for thought. This, as I later ascertained any number of times in practice, was in large part due to the un-businesslike management of so-called folkish enterprises in general.

    They were too much conducted from the angle that loyalty takes precedence over achievement. An absolutely false standpoint, in so far as loyalty must not be an outward thing, but find its most eminent expression in achievement. Anyone who creates something really valuable for his people thus gives evidence of an equally valuable loyalty, while another, who merely displays hypocritical loyalty, but in reality performs no useful services for his people, is an enemy to any true loyalty. And his loyalty is a burden to the community.

    The Völkischer Beobachter, as its very name indicates, was also a folkish organ, with all the advantages, and even more faults and weaknesses, that were characteristic of folkish institutions. Honest as its content was, the management of the enterprise was impossible from the commercial viewpoint. It, too, was run on the assumption that folkish newspapers must be supported by folkish contributions, instead of the principle that they must make their way in competition with other papers and that it is indecent to cover the negligence or mistakes of their business management by the donations of well-situated patriots.

    In any case I attempted to eliminate this state of affairs, the objectionableness of which I had soon recognized, and luck favored me by making me acquainted with the man who since then, not only as business manager of the paper, but also of the party, has performed services of the greatest value for the movement. In 1914 - at the front, that is - I met Max Amann, the present general business manager of the party (then still my superior in rank). During the four years of the War, I had an almost continuous opportunity to observe the extraordinary ability, the industry and scrupulous conscientiousness of my future collaborator.

    In midsummer of 1921, when the movement was in a grave crisis and I could no longer be satisfied with a number of employees, and with one in fact had had the bitterest experience, I turned to my former regimental comrade, whom chance brought to me one day, with the request that he become business manager of the movement. After long hesitation - Amann was holding a position with good prospects - he finally consented, though on condition that he would never serve as a stooge for any incompetent committees, but would exclusively recognize a single master.

    It is the inextinguishable merit of this first business manager of the movement, a man of really comprehensive business training, to have brought order and neatness into the party's business affairs. Since that time they have remained exemplary and could be equaled, let alone surpassed, by none of the subdivisions of the movement, but, as always in life, outstanding ability is not seldom the cause of envy and disfavor. This, of course, had to be expected in this case and to be taken patiently into account.

    By 1922 there existed, by and large, firm directives for the business as well as the purely organizational development of the movement. There was already a complete central card index which embraced all members belonging to the movement. Likewise the financing of the movement had been brought into healthy channels. Current expenses had to be covered by current receipts; extraordinary receipts were used only for extraordinary expenses.

    Despite the hard times, the movement thereby remained, apart from small running accounts, almost free of debt, and even succeeded in steadily increasing its resources. We worked as in a private business: the employed personnel had to distinguish itself by achievement, and could not get by on the strength of any of your famous 'loyalty.' The loyalty of every National Socialist is demonstrated primarily by his readiness to work, his industry and ability in accomplishing the work entrusted to him by the community. Anyone who does not fulfill his duty in this should not boast of his loyalty, against which he is actually committing an offense.

    With the utmost energy the new business manager, in opposition to all possible influences, upheld the standpoint that party enterprises must not be a sinecure for supporters or members with no great enthusiasm for work. A movement which fights in so sharp a form against the party corruption of our present administrative apparatus must keep its own apparatus pure of such vices.

    There were cases where employees were taken into the administration of the newspaper, who in their previous allegiance belonged to the Bavarian People's Party, but, measured by their achievements, showed themselves excellently qualified. The result of this attempt was in general outstanding. By this honest and frank recognition of the individual's real achievement, the movement more quickly and more thoroughly won the hearts of its employees than would otherwise have been the case.

    They later became good National Socialists and remained so, and not only in words; they also demonstrated it by the conscientious, regular, and honest work which they performed in the service of the new movement. It goes without saying that the well-qualified party comrade was given preference over the equally qualified non-party member. But no one obtained a position on the basis of his party membership alone.

    The firmness with which the new business manager upheld these principles, and gradually enforced them despite all opposition, was later of the greatest benefit to the movement. Through this alone was it possible, in the difficult inflation period, when tens of thousands of businesses collapsed and thousands of newspapers had to close, for the business leadership of the movement, not only to remain above water and fulfill its tasks, but for the Völkischer Beobachter to be expanded more and more. It had entered the ranks of the great newspapers.

    The year 1921 had, furthermore, the significance that I gradually succeeded, through my position as chairman of the party, in withdrawing the various party services from the criticism and interference of dozens of committee members. This was important, because it was impossible to obtain a really capable mind for a job if incompetents kept on babbling and interfering, knowing everything better than anyone else and actually creating a hopeless muddle.

    Whereupon, to be sure, these know-it-alls usually withdrew quite modestly, to seek a new field for their inspiring supervisory activity. There were men who were possessed by a positive disease for finding something behind anything and everything, and who were in a kind of continuous pregnancy with excellent plans, ideas, projects, methods.

    Their highest and most ideal aim was usually the formation of a committee or controlling organ to put its expert nose into other people's serious work. It never dawned on many of these committee people how insulting and how un-National Socialist it is, when men who do not understand a thing keep interfering with real specialists. In any case, I regarded it as my duty in these years, to take all real workers, charged with responsibility in the movement, under my protection against such elements, to cover them in the rear, as it were, so as to leave them free to work forward.

    The best means for making harmless such committees, who did nothing and only cooked up decisions that could not be practically carried out, was to assign them to some real work. It was laughable how silently one of these clubs would then disappear, and suddenly was impossible to locate. It made me think of our greatest institution of the sort, the Reichstag. How all its members would suddenly evaporate if, instead of talk, some real work were assigned to them; and particularly a task which every single one of these braggarts would have to perform with personal responsibility.

    Even then I always raised the demand that, in the movement as everywhere in private life, we keep looking until the obviously capable official, administrator, or director for the various business sections had been found. And this man was then to receive unconditional authority and freedom of action downward, but to be charged with unlimited responsibility upward, and no one obtains authority toward subordinates who does not know the work involved better than they. In the course of two years, I enforced my opinion more and more, and today it is taken for granted in the movement, at least in so far as the top leadership is concerned.

    The visible success of this attitude was shown on November 9, 1923: when I came to the movement four years previous, not even a rubber stamp was available. On November 9, the party was dissolved, its property confiscated. This, including all properties and the newspaper, already amounted to over a hundred and seventy thousand gold marks.

  13. #28
    Chapter XI: Propaganda and Organization

    IN SEVERAL RESPECTS THE YEAR 1921 has assumed a special significance for me and the movement.

    After my entrance into the German Workers' Party, I at once took over the management of propaganda. I regarded this department as by far the most important. For the present, it was less important to rack one's brains over organizational questions than to transmit the idea itself to a larger number of people. Propaganda had to run far in advance of organization and provide it with the human material to be worked on.

    Moreover, I am an enemy of too rapid and too pedantic organizing. It usually produces nothing but a dead mechanism, seldom a living organization. For organization is a thing that owes its existence to organic life, organic development. Ideas which have gripped a certain number of people will always strive for a greater order, and a great value must attributed to this inner molding.

    Here, too, we must reckon with the weakness of men, which leads the individual, at first at least, instinctively to resist a superior mind. If an organization is mechanically ordered from above, there exists a great danger that a once appointed leader, not yet accurately evaluated and perhaps none too capable, will from jealousy strive to prevent the rise of abler elements within the movement. The harm that arises in such a case can, especially in a young movement, be of catastrophic significance..

    For this reason it is more expedient for a time to disseminate an idea by propaganda from a central point and then carefully to search and examine the gradually gathering human material for leading minds. Sometimes it will turn out that men inconspicuous in themselves must nevertheless be regarded as born leaders.

    But it would be absolutely mistaken to regard a wealth of theoretical knowledge as characteristic proof for the qualities and abilities of a leader.

    The opposite is often the case.

    The great theoreticians are only in the rarest cases great organizers, since the greatness of the theoretician and program-maker lies primarily in the recognition and establishment of abstractly correct laws, while the organizer must primarily be a psychologist. He must take people as they are and must therefore know them. He must not overestimate them, any more than he must underestimate them in the mass. On the contrary, he must endeavor to take weakness and bestiality equally into account, in order, considering all factors, to create a formation which will be a living organism, imbued with strong and stable power, and thus suited to upholding an idea and paving the way for its success.

    Even more seldom, however, is a great theoretician a great leader. Much more readily will an agitator be one, something which many who only work scientifically on the question do not want to hear. And yet that is understandable. An agitator who demonstrates the ability to transmit an idea to the broad masses must always be a psychologist, even if he were only a demagogue.

    Then he will still be more suited for leadership than the unworldly theoretician, who is ignorant of people. For leading means: being able to move masses. The gift of shaping ideas has nothing to do with ability as a leader. And it is quite useless to argue which is of greater importance, to set up ideals and aims for mankind, or to realize them. Here, as so often in life: one would be utterly meaningless without the other. The finest theoretical insight remains without purpose and value if the leader does not set the masses in motion toward it.

    Conversely, of what avail would be all the genius and energy of a leader, if the brilliant theoretician did not set up aims for the human struggle? However, the combination of theoretician, organizer, and leader in one person is the rarest thing that can be found on this earth; this combination makes the great man.

    As I have already remarked, I devoted myself to propaganda in the first period of my activity in the movement. What it had to do was gradually to fill a small nucleus of men with the new doctrine, and so prepare the material which could later furnish the first elements of an organization.

    When a movement harbors the purpose of tearing down a world and building another in its place, complete clarity must reign in the ranks of its own leadership with regard to the following principles:

    Every movement will first have to sift the human material it wins into two large groups: supporters and members. The function of propaganda is to attract supporters, the function of organization to win members. A supporter of a movement is one who declares himself to be in agreement with its aims, a member is one who fights for them.

    The supporter is made amenable to the movement by propaganda. The member is induced by the organization to participate personally in the recruiting of new supporters, from whom in turn members can be developed.

    Since being a supporter requires only a passive recognition of an idea, while membership demands active advocacy and defense, to ten supporters there will at most be one or two members. Being a supporter is rooted only in understanding, membership in the courage personally to advocate and disseminate what has been understood.

    Understanding in its passive form corresponds to the majority of mankind which is lazy and cowardly. Membership requires an activistic frame of mind and thus corresponds only to the minority of men.

    Propaganda will consequently have to see that an idea wins supporters, while the organization must take the greatest care only to make the most valuable elements among the supporters into members. Propaganda does not, therefore, need to rack its brains with regard to the importance of every individual instructed by it, with regard to his agility, capacity, and understanding, or character, while the organization must carefully gather from the mass of these elements those which really make possible the victory of the movement.

    Propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people; the organization embraces within its scope only those who do not threaten on psychological grounds to become a brake on the further dissemination of the idea. Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea, while the organization achieves victory by the persistent, organic, and militant union of those supporters who seem willing and able to carry on the fight for victory.

    The victory of an idea will be possible the sooner, the more comprehensively propaganda has prepared people as a whole and the more exclusive, rigid, and firm the organization which carries out the fight in practice. From this it results that the number of supporters cannot be too large, out that the number of members can more readily be too large than too small.

    If propaganda has imbued a whole people with an idea, the organization can draw the consequences with a handful of men. Propaganda and organization, in other words, supporters and members, thus stand in a certain mutual relation. The better the propaganda has worked, the smaller the organization can be; and the larger the number of supporters, the more modest the number of members can be; and vice versa: the poorer the propaganda is, the larger the organization must be, and the smaller the host of followers of a movement remains, the more extensive the number of its members must be, if it still hopes to count on any success at all.

    The first task of propaganda is to win people for subsequent organization; the first task of organization is to win men for the continuation of propaganda. The second task of propaganda is the disruption of the existing state of affairs and the permeation of this state of affairs with the new doctrine, while the second task of organization must be the struggle for power, thus to achieve the final success of the doctrine.

    The most striking success of a revolution based on a philosophy of life will always have been achieved when the new philosophy of life as far as possible has been taught to all men, and, if necessary, later forced upon them, while the organization of the idea, in other words, the movement, should embrace only as many as are absolutely required for occupying the nerve centers of the state in question.

    This, in other words, means the following: In every really great world-shaking movement, propaganda will first have to spread the idea of this movement. Thus, it will indefatigably attempt to make the new thought processes clear to the others, and therefore to draw them over to their own ground, or to make them uncertain of their previous conviction. Now, since the dissemination of an idea, that is, propaganda, must have a firm backbone, the doctrine will have to give itself a solid organization.

    The organization obtains its members from the general body of supporters won by propaganda. The latter will grow the more rapidly, the more intensively the propaganda is carried on, and the latter in turn can work better, the stronger and more powerful the organization is that stands behind it.

    Hence it is the highest task of the organization to make sure that no inner disunities within the membership of the movement lead to a split and hence a weakening of the movement's work, further, that the spirit of determined attack does not die out, but is continuously renewed and reinforced. The number of members need not grow infinitely; on the contrary: since only a small fraction of mankind is by nature energetic and bold, a movement which endlessly enlarges its organization would inevitably be weakened some day as a result.

    Organizations, in other words, membership figures, which grow beyond a certain level gradually lose their fighting power and are no longer capable of supporting or utilizing the propaganda of an idea resolutely and aggressively.

    The greater and more essentially revolutionary an idea is, the more activistic its membership will become, since the revolutionary force of a doctrine involves a danger for its supporters, which seems calculated to keep cowardly little shopkeepers away from it. They will privately regard themselves as supporters, but decline to make a public avowal of this by membership. By virtue of this fact, the organization of a really revolutionary idea obtains as members only the most active among the supporters won over by propaganda.

    Precisely in this activity of a movement's membership, guaranteed by natural selection, lies the premise for equally active future propaganda as well as a successful struggle for the realization of the idea.

    The greatest danger that can threaten a movement is a membership which has grown abnormally as a result of too rapid successes. For, just as a movement is shunned by all cowardly and egotistic individuals, as long as it has to fight bitterly, these same people rush with equal alacrity to acquire membership when a success of the party has been made probable or already realized by developments

    To this it must be ascribed why 1 many victorious movements, on the point of success, or, rather, the ultimate completion of their will, suddenly from inexplicable inner weakness, flag, stop fighting, and finally die out. In consequence of their first victory, so many inferior, unworthy, and worst of all cowardly, elements have entered their organization that these inferior people finally achieve predominance over the militants and then force the movement into the service of their own interests, lower it to the level of their own scanty heroism, and do nothing to complete the victory of the original idea.

    The fanatical zeal has been blurred, the fighting force paralyzed, or, as the bourgeois world correctly puts it in such cases: 'Water has been mixed with the wine.' And when that happens, the trees can no longer grow skyward.

    It is, therefore, most necessary that a movement, for pure reasons of self-preservation, should, once it has begun to achieve success, immediately block enrollments and henceforth increase its organization only with extreme caution and after the most thorough scrutiny. Only in this way will it be able to preserve the core of the movement in unvitiated freshness and health.

    It must see to it that, from this point on, this core alone shall exclusively lead the movement, that is, determine the propaganda which should lead to its universal recognition, and, in full possession of the power, undertake the actions which are necessary for the practical realization of its ideas.

    It must not only occupy all the important positions of the conquered territory with the basic core of the old movement, but also constitute the entire leadership. And this until the principles and doctrines of the party have become the foundation and content of the new state. Only then can the reins gradually be handed over to the special government of this state, born of its spirit. This, however, in turn occurs for the most part only in mutual struggle since it is less a question of human insight than of the play and workings of forces which can perhaps be recognized from the first, but cannot forever be guided.

    1 'Dem ist es zuzuschreiben warum. . .'

    All great movements, whether of a religious or a political nature, must attribute their mighty successes only to the recognition and application of these principles, and all lasting successes in particular are not even thinkable without consideration of these laws.

    As director of the party's propaganda I took much pains, not only to prepare the soil for the future greatness of the movement, but by an extremely radical conception in this work I also strove to bring it about that the party should obtain only the best material. For the more radical and inflammatory my propaganda was, the more this frightened weaklings and hesitant characters, and prevented them from penetrating the primary core of our organization. They might continue as supporters, but certainly not with loud emphasis; they timidly concealed the fact.

    How many thousands assured me at that time that they were essentially in agreement with everything we said, but that under no circumstances could they become members. The movement, they said, was so radical that membership in it would expose the individual to the gravest difficulties, nay, dangers, and we shouldn't take it amiss if the honest, peaceable citizen should stand aside for the present at least, even if at heart he was entirely with the cause.

    And this was good.

    If these men, who at heart were not for the revolution, had all come into our party at that time, and as members, we could regard ourselves today as a pious fraternal organization, but no longer as a young militant movement.

    The live and aggressive form that I then gave to our propaganda reinforced and guaranteed the radical tendency of our movement, since now only radical people - with some exceptions -were ready for membership.

    At the same time, this propaganda had the effect that after a short while hundreds of thousands not only believed us to be right lout desired our victory, even if personally they were too cowardly to make sacrifices for it, let alone fight for it.

    Up to the middle of 1921 this purely propagandist activity could still suffice and benefit the movement. But special events in the midsummer of this year made it seem indicated that now after the slowly visible success of our propaganda, the organization should be adapted to it and put on a par with it.

    The attempt of a group of folkish lunatics to obtain the leadership of the party, with the aid and support of the party chairman of the time, led to the collapse of this little intrigue and, at a general membership meeting, unanimously gave me the leadership over the whole movement. Immediately, a new by-law was passed, transferring full responsibility to the first chairman of the party, eliminating committee decisions as a matter of principle, and introducing instead a system of division of labor which has since proved its worth in the most beneficial way.

    Beginning on August 1, 1921, I took over this inner reorganization of the movement and in so doing found the support of a number of excellent people whom I consider it necessary to mention in a special appendix.

    In the attempt to organizationally exploit the results of propaganda and thereby establish them for all time, I had to do away with a number of previous habits and introduce principles which none of the existing parties possessed or would even have recognized.

    In the years from 1919 to 1920 the movement had for leadership a committee which was chosen by membership meetings, which themselves in turn were prescribed by rule. The committee consisted of a first and second treasurer, a first and second secretary, and at the head, a first and second chairman. Added to these was a membership secretary, the propaganda chief, and various assisting committeemen.

    Strange as it may seem, this committee actually embodied exactly what the party most wanted to combat, namely, parliamentarianism. For it was obvious that we were involved with a principle which from the smallest local group, through the later districts, counties, and provinces, up to the Reich leadership, embodied the very same system under which we all suffered and today still suffer.

    It was urgently necessary to bring about a change in this some day, unless the movement, in consequence of the poor foundation of its inner organization, were to be forever ruined and hence incapable of ever fulfilling its high mission.

    The committee sessions, of which minutes were kept, and in which votes were taken and decisions made by a majority, represented in reality a parliament on a small scale. Here, too, all personal responsibility was lacking. Here, too, the same irrationality and the same unreasonableness reigned as in our great state representative bodies. For this committee, secretaries; treasurers, membership secretaries, propaganda chiefs, and God knows what else were appointed, and then all of them together were made to deliberate on every single question and decide by vote.

    So the man who was there for propaganda voted on a matter that regarded the finance man, and he in turn voted on a matter regarding organization, and the latter in turn on a matter which should only have concerned the secretary, etc.

    Why they bothered to appoint a special man for propaganda, when treasurers, secretaries, membership secretaries, etc., had to decide on questions regarding it, seems just as incomprehensible to a healthy mind as it would be incomprehensible if in a big industrial enterprise the directors or engineers of other departments and other branches had to decide on questions having nothing to do with their affairs.

    I did not submit to this lunacy, but after a short time stayed away from the sessions. I did my propaganda work and let it go at that, and I did not stand for any incompetent trying to tell me what to do in this field. Just as, conversely, I did not interfere in the business of the others.

    When the acceptance of the new statutes and my appointment to the position of first chairman had meanwhile given me the necessary authority and the rights that went with it, this nonsense immediately stopped. In the place of committee decisions, the principle of absolute responsibility was introduced.

    The first chairman is responsible for the total leadership of the movement. He apportions the work to be performed among the committeemen subordinated to him and among whatever other collaborators are needed. And each one of these gentlemen is absolutely responsible for the tasks transferred to him. He is subordinated only to the first chairman, who must procure the cooperation of all, or else must bring about this cooperation by the choice of persons and the issuance of general directives.

    This law of fundamental responsibility was gradually taken for granted within the movement, at least in so far as the party leadership was concerned. In the little local groups and perhaps even in the counties and districts, it will take years before these principles will be forced through, since scare-cats and incompetents will of course always fight against it; to them sole responsibility for an undertaking will always be unpleasant; they always felt freer and better when in every grave decision they were covered by the majority of a so-called committee.

    To me it seems necessary to express myself with the greatest sharpness against such an attitude, to make no concession to cowardice in the face of responsibility, and thereby, even if it takes a long time, to achieve a conception of leader's duty and leader's ability, which will bring to leadership exclusively those who are really called and chosen for it.

    In any case a movement that wants to combat the parliamentary madness must itself be free of it. Only on such a basis can it win the strength for its struggle.

    A movement which in a time of majority rule orients itself in all things on the principle of the leader idea and the responsibility conditioned by it will some day with mathematical certainty overcome the existing state of affairs and emerge victorious.

    This idea led to a complete reorganization within the movement. And in its logical effects also to an extremely sharp division between the business activities of the movement and the general political leadership. As a matter of principle, the idea of responsibility was extended to all the party activities and led inevitably to their recovery, in exact proportion as they were freed from political influences and adjusted to purely economic considerations.

    When in the fall of 1919, I joined the handful of men who then constituted the party, it had neither a business office nor a clerk, not even forms or rubber stamps; and no printed matter existed. The committee room was first a tavern in the Herrengasse, and later a cafe on the Gasteig. That was an impossible state of affairs.

    Soon afterward I started out and visited a number of Munich restaurants and taverns with the intention of renting a back room or some other space for the party. In the former Sterneckerbräu in the Tal, there was a small vault-like room which had once served the imperial councilors 2 of Bavaria as a sort of taproom. It was dark and gloomy and thus was just as well suited for its former purpose as it was ill-suited for its projected new use.

    he alley on which its single window opened was so narrow that even on the brightest summer day the room remained gloomy and dark. This became our first business office. But since the monthly rent was only fifty marks (then an exorbitant sum for us!), we could make no greater demands and were not even in a position to complain when, before we moved in, the wall paneling, formerly intended for the imperial councilors, was quickly torn out, so that now the room really gave more the impression of a funeral vault than of an office.

    And yet this was an immense step forward. Slowly we obtained electric light, even more slowly a telephone; a table and a few borrowed chairs were brought in, finally an open book-stand, still somewhat later a cupboard; two sideboards belonging to the landlord served for keeping pamphlets, posters, etc.

    The previous system - that is, having the movement run by a committee session taking place once a week - was impossible in the long run. Only an official paid by the movement could guarantee the day-to-day business organization.

    At the time that was very difficult. The movement still had so few members that it took great skill to find among them a suitable man who, making the smallest demands for his own person, could satisfy the innumerable demands of the movement.

    2 'die Reichsräte von Bayern.' Until 1918 the upper house of the Bavarian Diet, consisting of nobility, high clergy, and other notables.

    In the person of a soldier, named Schüssler, one of my former comrades, the first business manager of the party was found. At first he came to our new office only daily from six to eight o'clock, later from five to eight, finally every afternoon, and shortly afterward he was taken on full time and served from morning until late into the night.

    He was a man as conscientious as he was upright and absolutely honest, who personally took the greatest pains and was devoted with especial loyalty to the movement itself. Schüssler brought with him a small Adler typewriter that belonged to him. It was the first such instrument in the service of our movement.

    Later the party acquired it by installment payments. A small safe seemed necessary to safeguard the card index and the membership books from thieves. We did not acquire it in order to deposit any large sums of money we might have had at the time. On the contrary, everything was extremely threadbare, and often I contributed from my own small savings.

    A year and a half later, the business office was too small, and we moved into a new place in the Corneliusstrasse. Again it was a tavern we moved to, but now we no longer possessed only a single room, but three rooms and one large additional room with a wicket-window. At the time that seemed to us like a good deal. Here we remained until November, 1923.

    In December, 1920, we acquired the Völkischer Beobachter. This paper, which, as its name indicates, stood on the whole for folkish interests even then, was now to be transformed into the organ of the NSDAP. At first it appeared twice a week, at the beginning of 1923 became a daily, and at the end of August, 1923, it received its large format which later became well known.

    As a total novice in the field of journalism, I sometimes had to pay dearly for my experience in those days.

    The mere fact that in comparison with the enormous Jewish press there was hardly a single really significant folkish paper gave food for thought. This, as I later ascertained any number of times in practice, was in large part due to the un-businesslike management of so-called folkish enterprises in general.

    They were too much conducted from the angle that loyalty takes precedence over achievement. An absolutely false standpoint, in so far as loyalty must not be an outward thing, but find its most eminent expression in achievement. Anyone who creates something really valuable for his people thus gives evidence of an equally valuable loyalty, while another, who merely displays hypocritical loyalty, but in reality performs no useful services for his people, is an enemy to any true loyalty. And his loyalty is a burden to the community.

    The Völkischer Beobachter, as its very name indicates, was also a folkish organ, with all the advantages, and even more faults and weaknesses, that were characteristic of folkish institutions. Honest as its content was, the management of the enterprise was impossible from the commercial viewpoint. It, too, was run on the assumption that folkish newspapers must be supported by folkish contributions, instead of the principle that they must make their way in competition with other papers and that it is indecent to cover the negligence or mistakes of their business management by the donations of well-situated patriots.

    In any case I attempted to eliminate this state of affairs, the objectionableness of which I had soon recognized, and luck favored me by making me acquainted with the man who since then, not only as business manager of the paper, but also of the party, has performed services of the greatest value for the movement. In 1914 - at the front, that is - I met Max Amann, the present general business manager of the party (then still my superior in rank). During the four years of the War, I had an almost continuous opportunity to observe the extraordinary ability, the industry and scrupulous conscientiousness of my future collaborator.

    In midsummer of 1921, when the movement was in a grave crisis and I could no longer be satisfied with a number of employees, and with one in fact had had the bitterest experience, I turned to my former regimental comrade, whom chance brought to me one day, with the request that he become business manager of the movement. After long hesitation - Amann was holding a position with good prospects - he finally consented, though on condition that he would never serve as a stooge for any incompetent committees, but would exclusively recognize a single master.

    It is the inextinguishable merit of this first business manager of the movement, a man of really comprehensive business training, to have brought order and neatness into the party's business affairs. Since that time they have remained exemplary and could be equaled, let alone surpassed, by none of the subdivisions of the movement, but, as always in life, outstanding ability is not seldom the cause of envy and disfavor. This, of course, had to be expected in this case and to be taken patiently into account.

    By 1922 there existed, by and large, firm directives for the business as well as the purely organizational development of the movement. There was already a complete central card index which embraced all members belonging to the movement. Likewise the financing of the movement had been brought into healthy channels. Current expenses had to be covered by current receipts; extraordinary receipts were used only for extraordinary expenses.

    Despite the hard times, the movement thereby remained, apart from small running accounts, almost free of debt, and even succeeded in steadily increasing its resources. We worked as in a private business: the employed personnel had to distinguish itself by achievement, and could not get by on the strength of any of your famous 'loyalty.' The loyalty of every National Socialist is demonstrated primarily by his readiness to work, his industry and ability in accomplishing the work entrusted to him by the community. Anyone who does not fulfill his duty in this should not boast of his loyalty, against which he is actually committing an offense.

    With the utmost energy the new business manager, in opposition to all possible influences, upheld the standpoint that party enterprises must not be a sinecure for supporters or members with no great enthusiasm for work. A movement which fights in so sharp a form against the party corruption of our present administrative apparatus must keep its own apparatus pure of such vices.

    There were cases where employees were taken into the administration of the newspaper, who in their previous allegiance belonged to the Bavarian People's Party, but, measured by their achievements, showed themselves excellently qualified. The result of this attempt was in general outstanding. By this honest and frank recognition of the individual's real achievement, the movement more quickly and more thoroughly won the hearts of its employees than would otherwise have been the case.

    They later became good National Socialists and remained so, and not only in words; they also demonstrated it by the conscientious, regular, and honest work which they performed in the service of the new movement. It goes without saying that the well-qualified party comrade was given preference over the equally qualified non-party member. But no one obtained a position on the basis of his party membership alone.

    The firmness with which the new business manager upheld these principles, and gradually enforced them despite all opposition, was later of the greatest benefit to the movement. Through this alone was it possible, in the difficult inflation period, when tens of thousands of businesses collapsed and thousands of newspapers had to close, for the business leadership of the movement, not only to remain above water and fulfill its tasks, but for the Völkischer Beobachter to be expanded more and more. It had entered the ranks of the great newspapers.

    The year 1921 had, furthermore, the significance that I gradually succeeded, through my position as chairman of the party, in withdrawing the various party services from the criticism and interference of dozens of committee members. This was important, because it was impossible to obtain a really capable mind for a job if incompetents kept on babbling and interfering, knowing everything better than anyone else and actually creating a hopeless muddle.

    Whereupon, to be sure, these know-it-alls usually withdrew quite modestly, to seek a new field for their inspiring supervisory activity. There were men who were possessed by a positive disease for finding something behind anything and everything, and who were in a kind of continuous pregnancy with excellent plans, ideas, projects, methods.

    Their highest and most ideal aim was usually the formation of a committee or controlling organ to put its expert nose into other people's serious work. It never dawned on many of these committee people how insulting and how un-National Socialist it is, when men who do not understand a thing keep interfering with real specialists. In any case, I regarded it as my duty in these years, to take all real workers, charged with responsibility in the movement, under my protection against such elements, to cover them in the rear, as it were, so as to leave them free to work forward.

    The best means for making harmless such committees, who did nothing and only cooked up decisions that could not be practically carried out, was to assign them to some real work. It was laughable how silently one of these clubs would then disappear, and suddenly was impossible to locate. It made me think of our greatest institution of the sort, the Reichstag. How all its members would suddenly evaporate if, instead of talk, some real work were assigned to them; and particularly a task which every single one of these braggarts would have to perform with personal responsibility.

    Even then I always raised the demand that, in the movement as everywhere in private life, we keep looking until the obviously capable official, administrator, or director for the various business sections had been found. And this man was then to receive unconditional authority and freedom of action downward, but to be charged with unlimited responsibility upward, and no one obtains authority toward subordinates who does not know the work involved better than they. In the course of two years, I enforced my opinion more and more, and today it is taken for granted in the movement, at least in so far as the top leadership is concerned.

    The visible success of this attitude was shown on November 9, 1923: when I came to the movement four years previous, not even a rubber stamp was available. On November 9, the party was dissolved, its property confiscated. This, including all properties and the newspaper, already amounted to over a hundred and seventy thousand gold marks.

    Mein Kampf Chapter XII: The Trade Union Question



    THE RAPID GROWTH OF THE MOVEMENT compelled us in 1922 to take a position on a question which even today is not entirely solved.

    In our attempts to study those methods which could most easily open up to the movement the way to the hearts of the masses, we always encountered the objection that the worker could never be entirely with us because the defense of his interests in the purely occupational and economic field lay in the hands of our enemies and their organizations.

    This objection, of course, had much to be said for it. It was a matter of general belief that the worker who was active in a factory could not even exist unless he became a member of a union. Not only that his occupational interests seemed protected by this alone, but his position in the factory for any length of time was conceivable only as a union member. The majority of the workers were organized in trade unions.

    These, on the whole, had fought out the wage struggles and concluded the agreements which assured the worker of a certain income. Without doubt the results of these struggles benefited all the workers in the factory, and inevitably conflicts of conscience arose, especially for the decent man, if he pocketed the wage which the unions had won him, but remained aloof from the struggle.

    It was hard to speak of these problems with the average bourgeois employer. They neither had (or perhaps wanted to have) any understanding for the material side of the question nor for the moral side. Finally, their own supposed economic interests argue from the start against any organizational grouping of the workers under them, and for this reason alone most of them can hardly form an unprejudiced judgment. Here, as so often, it is therefore necessary to turn to outsiders who do not succumb to the temptation of not seeing the forest for the trees.

    These, with good will, will much more easily achieve understanding for a matter which in any event is among the most important of our present and future life.

    In the first volume I have expressed myself with regard to the nature and purpose, and the necessity, of trade unions. There I espoused the viewpoint that, as long as no change in the attitude of employer to worker is brought about either by state measures (which for the most part, however, are fruitless) or by a universal new education, there remains nothing for the worker to do but stand on his rights as an equal contracting party and defend his own interests in economic life.

    I further emphasized that safeguarding his interests in this way was entirely compatible with a whole national community if it can prevent social injustices which must subsequently bring about excessive damage to the entire community of a people. I further declared that this necessity must be considered to prevail as long as there exist among employers men who, left to themselves, not only have no feeling for social duties, but not even for the most primitive human rights; and from this I drew the inference that, once such a self-defense is regarded as necessary, its form can reasonably exist only in a grouping of workers on a trade-union basis.

    And in the year 1922 nothing changed in this general conception of mine. But now it was necessary to seek a clear and definite formulation of our attitude toward these problems. It was not acceptable to content ourselves in future with mere knowledge; it was necessary to draw practical inferences from it.

    We required the answer to the following questions:

    1. Are trade unions necessary?

    2. Should the NSDAP itself engage in trade-union activitv or direct its members to such activity in any form?

    3. What must be the nature of a National Socialist trade union! What are our tasks and aims?

    4. How shall we arrive at such unions?

    I believe that I have adequately answered the first question. As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence.

    Above all, the trade unions are necessary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers of estates.

    The second question, too, is easy to answer. If the trade-union movement is important, it is clear that National Socialism must take a position on it, not only from the purely theoretical, but from the practical viewpoint as well. Yet, to be sure, the how of it is harder to clarify.

    The National Socialist movement, which envisions the National Socialist folkish state as the aim of its activity, cannot doubt that all future institutions of this state some day to be must grow out of the movement itself. It is the greatest error to believe that suddenly, once we have power, we can undertake a definite reorganization out of the void, unless we previously possess a certain basic stock of men who above all have been educated with regard to loyalty.

    Here, too, the principle applies that more important than the outward form, which can be created mechanically and very quickly, remains the spirit which fills such a form. For instance, it is quite possible dictatorially to graft the leader principle on a state organism by command. But it will only be alive if it has gradually taken shape from smallest beginnings in a development of its own, and, by the constant selection which life's hard reality incessantly performs, has obtained in the course of many years the leader material necessary for the execution of this principle.

    And so we must not imagine that we can suddenly pull the plans for a new state form out of a briefcase into the light of day and 'introduce' them by decree from above. Such a thing can be attempted, but the result will surely be incapable of survival, in most cases a stillborn child. This reminds me of the beginning of the Weimar regime and the attempt to present the German people with not only a new regime, but a new flag which had no inner bond with the experience of our people in the last half century.

    The National Socialist state must beware of such experiments. It can, when the time comes, only grow out of an organization that has long existed. This organization must possess National Socialist life innate within itself, in order to finally create a living National Socialist state.

    As already emphasized, the germ cells for the economic chambers will have to reside in bodies representing the most varied occupations, hence above all in the trade unions. And if this future body representing the estates and the central economic parliament are to constitute a National Socialist institution, these important germ cells must also embody a National Socialist attitude and conception. The institutions of the movement are to be transferred to the state, but the state cannot suddenly conjure up the required institutions from the void, unless they are to remain utterly lifeless structures.

    From this highest standpoint alone, the National Socialist movement must recognize the necessity of a trade-union activity of its own.

    It must, furthermore, do so because a truly National Socialist education of employers as well as workers, in the sense of an integration of both into the common framework of the national community, does not come about through theoretical instruction, proclamations, or remonstrances, but through the struggle of daily life. In it and through it the movement must educate the various great economic groups and bring them closer to one another on the main issues. Without such preliminary work, all hope that a true national community will some day arise remains pure illusion. Only the great philosophical ideal for which the movement fights can slowly form that universal style which will some day make the new era seem really solidly founded within, and not just outwardly manufactured.

    And so the movement must not only take an affirmative attitude toward the idea of the trade union as such, but it must by practical participation impart to the multitudes of its 1 members and supporters the necessary education for the coming National Socialist state.

    The answer to the third question follows from what has previously been said.

    The National Socialist trade union is no organ of class struggle, but an organ for representing occupational interests. The National Socialist state knows no 'classes,' but politically speaking only citizens with absolutely equal rights and accordingly equal general duties, and, alongside of these, state subjects who in the political sense are absolutely without rights.

    The trade union in the National Socialist sense does not have the function of grouping certain people within a national body and thus gradually transforming them into a class, to take up the fight against other similarly organized formations. We can absolutely not impute this function to the trade union as such; it became so only in the moment when the trade union became the instrument of Marxist struggle. Not the trade union is characterized by class struggle; Marxism has made it an instrument for the Marxist class struggle. Marxism created the economic weapon which the international world Jew uses for shattering the economic base of the free, independent national states, for the destruction of their national industry and their national commerce and, accordingly, the enslavement of free peoples in the service of supra-state world finance Jewry.

    1 This confusion of pronouns exists in the German. 'Its' refers, of course, to the trade unions.

    In the face of this, the National Socialist trade union must, by organizationally embracing certain groups of participants in the national economic process, increase the security of the national economy itself and intensify its strength by the corrective elimination of all those abuses which in their ultimate consequences have a destructive effect on the national body, injure the vital force of the national community, and hence also of the state, and last but not least redound to the wrack and ruin of the economy itself.

    Hence, for the National Socialist union the strike is not a means for shattering and shaking national production, but for enhancing it and making it run smoothly by combating all those abuses which, due to their unsocial character, interfere with the efficiency of the economy and hence the existence of the totality. For the efficiency of the individual always stands in a casual connection with the general legal and social position that he occupies in the economic process and with his understanding, resulting from this alone, of the necessity that this process thrive for his own advantage.

    The National Socialist worker must know that the prosperity of the national economy means his own material happiness.

    The National Socialist employer must know that the happiness and contentment of his workers is the premise for the existence and development of his own economic greatness.

    National Socialist workers and National Socialist employers are both servants and guardians of the national community as a whole. The high degree of personal freedom that is granted them in their activity can be explained by the fact that, as experience shows, the efficiency of the individual is increased much more by farreaching freedom than by compulsion from above, and, furthermore, it is calculated to prevent the natural process of selection, which advances the most efficient, capable, and industrious from being thwarted.

    For the National Socialist union, therefore, the strike is an instrument which may and actually must be applied only so long as a National Socialist folkish state does not exist. This state, to be sure must, in place of the mass struggle of the two great groups - employers and workers - (which in its consequences always injures the national community as a whole by diminishing production) assume the legal care and the legal protection of all. Upon the economic chambers themselves it will be incumbent to keep the national economy functioning and eliminate the deficiencies and errors which damage it.

    The things for which millions fight and struggle today must in time be settled in the chambers of estates and the central economic parliament. Then employers and workers will not rage against one another in struggles over pay and wage scales, damaging the economic existence of both, but solve these problems jointly in a higher instance, which must above all constantly envision the welfare of the people as a whole and of the state, in gleaming letters.

    Here, too, as everywhere, the iron principle must prevail that first comes the fatherland and then the party.

    The function of the National Socialist union is the education and preparation for this aim itself, which is: All working together for the preservation and safeguarding of our people and our state, in accordance with the abilities and strength innate in the individual and trained by the national community.

    The fourth question: How do we arrive at such unions? seemed at the time by far the hardest to answer.

    It is in general easier to found an institution on new soil than in an old territory that already possesses a similar institution. In a town where no store of a certain type is present, it is easy to establish such a store. It is harder when a similar enterprise already is present, and hardest of all when the conditions are such that only one alone can prosper. For here the founders face the task of not only introducing their own business, but they must, in order to exist, destroy the one that has previously existed in the town.

    A National Socialist union side by side with other unions is senseless. For it, too, must feel itself permeated by its philosophical task and the resultant obligation to be intolerant of other similar, let alone hostile, formations and to emphasize the exclusive necessity of its own ego. Here, too, there is no understanding and no compromise with related efforts, but only the maintenance of our absolute sole right.

    There were two ways of arriving at such a development:

    (1) We could found a trade union and then gradually take up the struggle against the international Marxist unions; or we could

    (2) penetrate the Marxist unions and try to fill them with the new spirit; in other words, transform them into instruments of the new ideology.

    To the first method there were the following objections: Our financial difficulties at that time were still very considerable, the means that stood at our disposal were quite insignificant. The gradually and increasingly spreading inflation made the situation even more difficult, since in those years one could hardly have spoken of any tangible benefit to the member from the trade union.

    The individual worker, viewed from his own standpoint, had no ground at that time to pay dues to the union. Even the already existing Marxist unions were on the point of collapse until suddenly, through Herr Cuno's brilliant Ruhr action, the millions fell into their lap. This so-called 'national' chancellor may be designated as the savior of the Marxist unions.

    At that time we could not count on such financial possibilities; and it could allure no one to enter a new union which, owing to its financial impotence, could not have offered him the least benefit. On the other hand, I must sharply oppose creating such an organization as a soft spot for more or less great minds to take refuge in.

    All in all, the question of personalities played one of the most important parts. At that time I had not a single personality whom I would have held capable of solving this gigantic task. Anyone who at that time would really have shattered the Marxist unions, and in place of this institution of destructive class struggle, helped the National Socialist trade-union idea to victory, was among the very great men of our people, and his bust would some day have had to be dedicated to posterity in the Valhalla at Regensburg.

    But I did not know of any head that would have fitted such a pedestal.

    It is absolutely wrong to be diverted from this view by the fact that the international trade unions themselves have only average minds at their disposal. This in reality means nothing at all; for at the time when they were founded, there was nothing else. Today the National Socialist movement must combat a colossal gigantic organization which has long been in existence, and which is developed down to the slightest detail.

    The conqueror must always be more astute than the defender if he wants to subdue him. The Marxist trade-union fortress can today be administered by ordinary bosses; but it will only be stormed by the wild energy and shining ability of an outstanding great man on the other side. If such a man is not found, it is useless to argue with Fate and even more useless to attempt forcing the matter with inadequate substitutes.

    Here we must apply the maxim that in life it is sometimes better to let a thing lie for the present than to begin it badly or by halves for want of suitable forces.

    There was also another consideration which should not be designated as demagogic. I had at that time and still possess today the unshakable conviction that it is dangerous to tie up a great politico-philosophical struggle with economic matters at too early a time. This is particularly true with our German people. For here, in such a case, the economic struggle will at once withdraw the energy from the political struggle.

    Once people have won the conviction that by thrift they can acquire a little house, they will dedicate themselves only to this task and will have no more time to spare for the political struggle against those who are planning to take away their saved-up pennies some day in one way or another. Instead of fighting in the political struggle for the insight and conviction they have won, they give themselves up entirely to their idea of 'settlement,' and in the end as a rule find themselves holding the bag.

    The National Socialist movement today stands at the beginning of its struggle. In large part it has still to form and complete its philosophical picture. It must fight with all the fiber of its energy for the accomplishment of its great ideas, and success is thinkable only if all its strength goes completely into the service of this fight.

    To what an extent concern with purely economic problems can paralyze active fighting strength, we can see at this very moment in a classical example:

    The revolution of November, 1918, was not made by trade unions, but was accomplished against them. And the German bourgeoisie is carrying on no political struggle for the German future because it believes this future to be sufficiently guaranteed by the constructive work in the economic sphere.

    We should learn from such experiences; for it would be no different with us. The more we muster the entire strength of our movement for the political struggle, the sooner may we count on success all along the line; but the more we prematurely burden ourselves with trade-union, settlement, and similar problems, the smaller will be the benefit for our cause taken as a whole.

    For important as these matters may be, their fulfillment will only occur on a large scale, when we are in a position to put the state power into the service of these ideas. Until then, these problems would paralyze the movement all the more, the sooner it concerned itself with them and the more its philosophical will was limited by them. Then it might easily come about that trade-union motives would guide the movement instead of the philosophy forcing the trade union into its channels.

    Real benefit for the movement as well as our people can only arise from a trade-union movement, if philosophically this movement is already so strongly filled with our National Socialist ideas that it no longer runs the risk of falling into Marxist tracks. For a trade-union movement which sees its mission only in competition with the Marxist unions would be worse than none at all. It must declare war on the Marxist union, not only as an organization, but above all as an idea. In the Marxist union it must strike down the herald of the class struggle and the class idea and in its stead must become the protector of the occupational interests of German citizens.

    All these criteria then argued and still argue against the foundation of our own trade unions, unless suddenly a man should appear who is obviously chosen by Fate for the solution of this very question.

    And so there were only two other possibilities: either to recommend that our own party comrades leave the unions, or that they remain in them and work as destructively as possible.

    In general I recommended this latter way.

    Especially in the year 1922-23 this could be done without difficulty; for the financial benefit which during the inflation period accrued to the trade union from our members in their ranks, who due to the youth of our movement were not yet very numerous, was practically nil. But the damage to it was very great, for the National Socialist supporters were its sharpest critics and thus its inner disrupters.

    At that time I totally rejected all experiments which contained the seeds of failure to begin with. I would have viewed it as a crime to take so and so much of a worker's meager earnings for an institution of whose benefit to its members I was at heart not convinced.

    If one fine day a new political party disappears, it is scarcely ever a loss but almost always a benefit, and no one has any right to moan about it; for what the individual gives to a political movement, he gives à fonds perdu. But anyone who pays money into a union has a right to the fulfillment of the promised return services. If this is not taken into account, the leaders of such a union are swindlers, or at least frivolous characters who must be called to account.

    And in 1922 we acted according to this view. Others thought they knew better and founded trade unions. They attacked our lack of unions as the most visible sign of our mistaken and limited views. But it was not long before these organizations themselves vanished, so that the final result was the same as with us. Only with the one difference, that we had deceived neither ourselves nor others.

  14. #29
    Chapter XIII: The German Post-War Policy of Alliances



    The erratic manner in which the foreign affairs of the Reich were conducted was due to a lack of sound guiding principles for the formation of practical and useful alliances. Not only was this state of affairs continued after the Revolution, but it became even worse.

    For the confused state of our political ideas in general before the War may be looked upon as the chief cause of our defective statesmanship; but in the post-War period this cause must be attributed to a lack of honest intentions. It was natural that those parties who had fully achieved their destructive purpose by means of the Revolution should feel that it would not serve their interests if a policy of alliances were adopted which must ultimately result in the restoration of a free German State. A development in this direction would not be in conformity with the purposes of the November crime.

    It would have interrupted and indeed put an end to the internationalization of German national economy and German Labour. But what was feared most of all was that a successful effort to make the Reich independent of foreign countries might have an influence in domestic politics which one day would turn out disastrous for those who now hold supreme power in the government of the Reich. One cannot imagine the revival of a nation unless that revival be preceded by a process of nationalization.

    Conversely, every important success in the field of foreign politics must call forth a favourable reaction at home. Experience proves that every struggle for liberty increases the national sentiment and national self-consciousness and therewith gives rise to a keener sensibility towards anti-national elements and tendencies. A state of things, and persons also, that may be tolerated and even pass unnoticed in times of peace will not only become the object of aversion when national enthusiasm is aroused but will even provoke positive opposition, which frequently turns out disastrous for them.

    In this connection we may recall the spy-scare that became prevalent when the war broke out, when human passion suddenly manifested itself to such a heightened degree as to lead to the most brutal persecutions, often without any justifiable grounds, although everybody knew that the danger resulting from spies is greater during the long periods of peace; but, for obvious reasons, they do not then attract a similar amount of public attention. For this reason the subtle instinct of the State parasites who came to the surface of the national body through the November happenings makes them feel at once that a policy of alliances which would restore the freedom of our people and awaken national sentiment might possibly ruin their own criminal existence.

    Thus we may explain the fact that since 1918 the men who have held the reins of government adopted an entirely negative attitude towards foreign affairs and that the business of the State has been almost constantly conducted in a systematic way against the interests of the German nation. For that which at first sight seemed a matter of chance proved, on closer examination, to be a logical advance along the road which was first publicly entered upon by the November Revolution of 1918.

    Undoubtedly a distinction ought to be made between (1) the responsible administrators of our affairs of State, or rather those who ought to be responsible; (2) the average run of our parliamentary politicasters, and (3) the masses of our people, whose sheepish docility corresponds to their want of intelligence.

    The first know what they want. The second fall into line with them, either because they have been already schooled in what is afoot or because they have not the courage to take an uncompromising stand against a course which they know and feel to be detrimental. The third just submit to it because they are too stupid to understand.

    While the German National Socialist Labour Party was only a small and practically unknown society, problems of foreign policy could have only a secondary importance in the eyes of many of its members. This was the case especially because our movement has always proclaimed the principle, and must proclaim it, that the freedom of the country in its foreign relations is not a gift that will be bestowed upon us by Heaven or by any earthly Powers, but can only be the fruit of a development of our inner forces. We must first root out the causes which led to our collapse and we must eliminate all those who are profiting by that collapse. Then we shall be in a position to take up the fight for the restoration of our freedom in the management of our foreign relations.

    It will be easily understood therefore why we did not attach so much importance to foreign affairs during the early stages of our young movement, but preferred to concentrate on the problem of internal reform.

    But when the small and insignificant society expanded and finally grew too large for its first framework, the young organization assumed the importance of a great association and we then felt it incumbent on us to take a definite stand on problems regarding the development of a foreign policy. It was necessary to lay down the main lines of action which would not only be in accord with the fundamental ideas of our Weltanschhauung but would actually be an expansion of it in the practical world of foreign affairs.

    Just because our people have had no political education in matters concerning our relations abroad, it was necessary to teach the leaders in the various sections of our movement, and also the masses of the people, the chief principles which ought to guide the development of our foreign relations. That was one of the first tasks to be accomplished in order to prepare the ground for the practical carrying out of a foreign policy which would win back the independence of the nation in managing its external affairs and thus restore the real sovereignty of the Reich.

    The fundamental and guiding principles which we must always bear in mind when studying this question is that foreign policy is only a means to an end and that the sole end to be pursued is the welfare of our own people. Every problem in foreign politics must be considered from this point of view, and this point of view alone. Shall such and such a solution prove advantageous to our people now or in the future, or will it injure their interests? That is the question.

    This is the sole preoccupation that must occupy our minds in dealing with a question. Party politics, religious considerations, humanitarian ideals – all such and all other preoccupations must absolutely give way to this.

    Before the War the purpose to which German foreign policy should have been devoted was to assure the supply of material necessities for the maintenance of our people and their children. And the way should have been prepared which would lead to this goal. Alliances should have been established which would have proved beneficial to us from this point of view and would have brought us the necessary auxiliary support.

    The task to be accomplished is the same to-day, but with this difference: In pre-War times it was a question of caring for the maintenance of the German people, backed up by the power which a strong and independent State then possessed, but our task to-day is to make our nation powerful once again by re-establishing a strong and independent State.

    The re-establishment of such a State is the prerequisite and necessary condition which must be fulfilled in order that we may be able subsequently to put into practice a foreign policy which will serve to guarantee the existence of our people in the future, fulfilling their needs and furnishing them with those necessities of life which they lack. In other words, the aim which Germany ought to pursue to-day in her foreign policy is to prepare the way for the recovery of her liberty to-morrow. In this connection there is a fundamental principle which we must keep steadily before our minds.

    It is this: The possibility of winning back the independence of a nation is not absolutely bound up with the question of territorial reintegration but it will suffice if a small remnant, no matter how small, of this nation and State will exist, provided it possesses the necessary independence to become not only the vehicle of’ the common spirit of the whole people but also to prepare the way for the military fight to reconquer the nation’s liberty.

    When a people who amount to a hundred million souls tolerate the yoke of common slavery in order to prevent the territory belonging to their State from being broken up and divided, that is worse than if such a State and such a people were dismembered while one fragment still retained its complete independence. Of course, the natural proviso here is that this fragment must be inspired with a consciousness of the solemn duty that devolves upon it, not only to proclaim persistently the inviolable unity of its spiritual and cultural life with that of its detached members but also to prepare the means that are necessary for the military conflict which will finally liberate and re-unite the fragments that are suffering under oppression.

    One must also bear in mind the fact that the restoration of lost districts which were formerly parts of the State, both ethnically and politically, must in the first instance be a question of winning back political power and independence for the motherland itself, and that in such cases the special interests of the lost districts must be uncompromisingly regarded as a matter of secondary importance in the face of the one main task, which is to win back the freedom of the central territory.

    For the detached and oppressed fragments of a nation or an imperial province cannot achieve their liberation through the expression of yearnings and protests on the part of the oppressed and abandoned, but only when the portion which has more or less retained its sovereign independence can resort to the use of force for the purpose of reconquering those territories that once belonged to the common fatherland.

    Therefore, in order to reconquer lost territories the first condition to be fulfilled is to work energetically for the increased welfare and reinforcement of the strength of that portion of the State which has remained over after the partition. Thus the unquenchable yearning which slumbers in the hearts of the people must be awakened and restrengthened by bringing new forces to its aid, so that when the hour comes all will be devoted to the one purpose of liberating and uniting the whole people.

    Therefore, the interests of the separated territories must be subordinated to the one purpose. That one purpose must aim at obtaining for the central remaining portion such a measure of power and might that will enable it to enforce its will on the hostile will of the victor and thus redress the wrong. For flaming protests will not restore the oppressed territories to the bosom of a common Reich. That can be done only through the might of the sword.

    The forging of this sword is a work that has to be done through the domestic policy which must be adopted by a national government. To see that the work of forging these arms is assured, and to recruit the men who will bear them, that is the task of the foreign policy.

    In the first volume of this book I discussed the inadequacy of our policy of alliances before the War. There were four possible ways to secure the necessary foodstuffs for the maintenance of our people. Of these ways the fourth, which was the most unfavourable, was chosen. Instead of a sound policy of territorial expansion in Europe, our rulers embarked on a policy of colonial and trade expansion. That policy was all the more mistaken inasmuch as they presumed that in this way the danger of an armed conflict would be averted. The result of the attempt to sit on many stools at the same time might have been foreseen. It let us fall to the ground in the midst of them all. And the World War was only the last reckoning presented to the Reich to pay for the failure of its foreign policy.

    The right way that should have been taken in those days was the third way I indicated: namely, to increase the strength of the Reich as a Continental Power by the acquisition of new territory in Europe.

    At the same time a further expansion, through the subsequent acquisition of colonial territory, might thus be brought within the range of practical politics. Of course, this policy could not have been carried through except in alliance with England, or by devoting such abnormal efforts to the increase of military force and armament that, for forty or fifty years, all cultural undertakings would have to be completely relegated to the background. This responsibility might very well have been undertaken.

    The cultural importance of a nation is almost always dependent on its political freedom and independence. Political freedom is a prerequisite condition for the existence, or rather the creation, of great cultural undertakings. Accordingly no sacrifice can be too great when there is question of securing the political freedom of a nation. What might have to be deducted from the budget expenses for cultural purposes,

    In order to meet abnormal demands for increasing the military power of the State, can be generously paid back later on. Indeed, it may be said that after a State has concentrated all its resources in one effort for the purpose of securing its political independence a certain period of ease and renewed equilibrium sets in. And it often happens that the cultural spirit of the nation, which had been heretofore cramped and confined, now suddenly blooms forth.

    Thus Greece experienced the great Periclean era after the miseries it had suffered during the Persian Wars. And the Roman Republic turned its energies to the cultivation of a higher civilization when it was freed from the stress and worry of the Punic Wars.

    Of course, it could not be expected that a parliamentary majority of feckless and stupid people would be capable of deciding on such a resolute policy for the absolute subordination of all other national interests to the one sole task of preparing for a future conflict of arms which would result in establishing the security of the State. The father of Frederick the Great sacrificed everything in order to be ready for that conflict; but the fathers of our absurd parliamentarian democracy, with the Jewish hall-mark, could not do it.

    That is why, in pre-War times, the military preparation necessary to enable us to conquer new territory in Europe was only very mediocre, so that it was difficult to obtain the support of really helpful allies.

    Those who directed our foreign affairs would not entertain even the idea of systematically preparing for war. They rejected every plan for the acquisition of territory in Europe. And by preferring a policy of colonial and trade expansion, they sacrificed the alliance with England, which was then possible. At the same time they neglected to seek the support of Russia, which would have been a logical proceeding. Finally they stumbled into the World War, abandoned by all except the ill-starred Habsburgs.

    The characteristic of our present foreign policy is that it follows no discernible or even intelligible lines of action. Whereas before the War a mistake was made in taking the fourth way that I have mentioned, and this was pursued only in a halfhearted manner, since the Revolution not even the sharpest eye can detect any way that is being followed. Even more than before the War, there is absolutely no such thing as a systematic plan, except the systematic attempts that are made to destroy the last possibility of a national revival.

    If we make an impartial examination of the situation existing in Europe to-day as far as concerns the relation of the various Powers to one another, we shall arrive at the following results:

    For the past three hundred years the history of our Continent has been definitely determined by England’s efforts to keep the European States opposed to one another in an equilibrium of forces, thus assuring the necessary protection of her own rear while she pursued the great aims of British world-policy.

    The traditional tendency of British diplomacy ever since the reign of Queen Elizabeth has been to employ systematically every possible means to prevent any one Power from attaining a preponderant position over the other European Powers and, if necessary, to break that preponderance by means of armed intervention.

    The only parallel to this has been the tradition of the Prussian Army. England has made use of various forces to carry out its purpose, choosing them according to the actual situation or the task to be faced; but the will and determination to use them has always been the same.

    The more difficult England’s position became in the course of history the more the British Imperial Government considered it necessary to maintain a condition of political paralysis among the various European States, as a result of their mutual rivalries. When the North American colonies obtained their political independence it became still more necessary for England to use every effort to establish and maintain the defence of her flank in Europe. In accordance with this policy she reduced Spain and the Netherlands to the position of inferior naval Powers.

    Having accomplished this, England concentrated all her forces against the increasing strength of France, until she brought about the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte and therewith destroyed the military hegemony of France, which was the most dangerous rival that England had to fear.

    The change of attitude in British statesmanship towards Germany took place only very slowly, not only because the German nation did not represent an obvious danger for England as long as it lacked national unification, but also because public opinion in England, which had been directed to other quarters by a system of propaganda that had been carried out for a long time, could be turned to a new direction only by slow degrees.

    In order to reach the proposed ends the calmly reflecting statesman had to bow to popular sentiment, which is the most powerful motive-force and is at the same time the most lasting in its energy. When the statesman has attained one of his ends, he must immediately turn his thoughts to others; but only by degrees and the slow work of propaganda can the sentiment of the masses be shaped into an instrument for the attainment of the new aims which their leaders have decided on.

    As early as 1870–71 England had decided on the new stand it would take. On certain occasions minor oscillations in that policy were caused by the growing influence of America in the commercial markets of the world and also by the increasing political power of Russia; but, unfortunately, Germany did not take advantage of these and, therefore, the original tendency of British diplomacy was only reinforced.

    England looked upon Germany as a Power which was of world importance commercially and politically and which, partly because of its enormous industrial development, assumed such threatening proportions that the two countries already contended against one another in the same sphere and with equal energy.

    The so-called peaceful conquest of the world by commercial enterprise, which, in the eyes of those who governed our public affairs at that time, represented the highest peak of human wisdom, was just the thing that led English statesmen to adopt a policy of resistance. That this resistance assumed the form of an organized aggression on a vast scale was in full conformity with a type of statesmanship which did not aim at the maintenance of a dubious world peace but aimed at the consolidation of British world-hegemony. In carrying out this policy, England allied herself with those countries which had a definite military importance.

    That was in keeping with her traditional caution in estimating the power of her adversary and also in recognizing her own temporary weakness. That line of conduct cannot be called unscrupulous; because such a comprehensive organization for war purposes must not be judged from the heroic point of view but from that of expediency. The object of a diplomatic policy must not be to see that a nation goes down heroically but rather that it survives in a practical way. Hence every road that leads to this goal is opportune and the failure to take it must be looked upon as a criminal neglect of duty.

    When the German Revolution took place England’s fears of a German world hegemony came to a satisfactory end.

    From that time it was not an English interest to see Germany totally cancelled from the geographic map of Europe. On the contrary, the astounding collapse which took place in November 1918 found British diplomacy confronted with a situation which at first appeared untenable.

    For four-and-a-half years the British Empire had fought to break the presumed preponderance of a Continental Power. A sudden collapse now happened which removed this Power from the foreground of European affairs. That collapse disclosed itself finally in the lack of even the primordial instinct of self-preservation, so that European equilibrium was destroyed within forty-eight hours. Germany was annihilated and France became the first political Power on the Continent of Europe.

    The tremendous propaganda which was carried on during this war for the purpose of encouraging the British public to stick it out to the end aroused all the primitive instincts and passions of the populace and was bound eventually to hang as a leaden weight on the decisions of British statesmen. With the colonial, economical and commercial destruction of Germany, England’s war aims were attained. Whatever went beyond those aims was an obstacle to the furtherance of British interests.

    Only the enemies of England could profit by the disappearance of Germany as a Great Continental Power in Europe. In November 1918, however, and up to the summer of 1919, it was not possible for England to change its diplomatic attitude; because during the long war it had appealed, more than it had ever done before, to the feelings of the populace.

    In view of the feeling prevalent among its own people, England could not change its foreign policy; and another reason which made that impossible was the military strength to which other European Powers had now attained. France had taken the direction of peace negotiations into her own hands and could impose her law upon the others.

    During those months of negotiations and bargaining the only Power that could have altered the course which things were taking was Germany herself; but Germany was torn asunder by a civil war, and her so-called statesmen had declared themselves ready to accept any and every dictate imposed on them.

    Now, in the comity of nations, when one nation loses its instinct for self-preservation and ceases to be an active member it sinks to the level of an enslaved nation and its territory will have to suffer the fate of a colony.

    To prevent the power of France from becoming too great, the only form which English negotiations could take was that of participating in France’s lust for aggrandizement.

    As a matter of fact, England did not attain the ends for which she went to war. Not only did it turn out impossible to prevent a Continental Power from obtaining a preponderance over the ratio of strength in the Continental State system of Europe, but a large measure of preponderance had been obtained and firmly established.

    In 1914 Germany, considered as a military State, was wedged in between two countries, one of which had equal military forces at its disposal and the other had greater military resources. Then there was England’s overwhelming supremacy at sea. France and Russia alone hindered and opposed the excessive aggrandizement of Germany. The unfavourable geographical situation of the Reich, from the military point of view, might be looked upon as another coefficient of security against an exaggerated increase of German power.

    From the naval point of view, the configuration of the coast-line was unfavourable in case of a conflict with England. And though the maritime frontier was short and cramped, the land frontier was widely extended and open.

    France’s position is different to-day. It is the first military Power without a serious rival on the Continent. It is almost entirely protected by its southern frontier against Spain and Italy. Against Germany it is safeguarded by the prostrate condition of our country. A long stretch of its coast-line faces the vital nervous system of the British Empire. Not only could French aeroplanes and long-range batteries attack the vital centres of the British system, but submarines can threaten the great British commercial routes.

    A submarine campaign based on France’s long Atlantic coast and on the European and North African coasts of the Mediterranean would have disastrous consequences for England.

    Thus the political results of the war to prevent the development of German power was the creation of a French hegemony on the Continent. The military result was the consolidation of France as the first Continental Power and the recognition of American equality on the sea. The economic result was the cession of great spheres of British interests to her former allies and associates.

    The Balkanization of Europe, up to a certain degree, was desirable and indeed necessary in the light of the traditional policy of Great Britain, just as France desired the Balkanization of Germany.

    What England has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to prevent any one Continental Power in Europe from attaining a position of world importance. Therefore England wishes to maintain a definite equilibrium of forces among the European States – for this equilibrium seems a necessary condition of England’s world-hegemony.

    What France has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to prevent Germany from becoming a homogeneous Power. Therefore France wants to maintain a system of small German States whose forces would balance one another and over which there should be no central government. Then, by acquiring possession of the left bank of the Rhine, she would have fulfilled the pre-requisite conditions for the establishment and security of her hegemony in Europe.

    The final aims of French diplomacy must be in perpetual opposition to the final tendencies of British statesmanship.

    Taking these considerations as a starting-point, anyone who investigates the possibilities that exist for Germany to find allies must come to the conclusion that there remains no other way of forming an alliance except to approach England. The consequences of England’s war policy were and are disastrous for Germany. However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that, as things stand to-day, the necessary interests of England no longer demand the destruction of Germany.

    On the contrary, British diplomacy must tend more and more, from year to year, towards curbing France’s unbridled lust after hegemony. Now, a policy of alliances cannot be pursued by bearing past grievances in mind, but it can be rendered fruitful by taking account of past experiences. Experience should have taught us that alliances formed for negative purposes suffer from intrinsic weakness.

    The destinies of nations can be welded together only under the prospect of a common success, of common gain and conquest, in short, a common extension of power for both contracting parties.

    The ignorance of our people on questions of foreign politics is clearly demonstrated by the reports in the daily Press which talk about "friendship towards Germany" on the part of one or the other foreign statesman, whereby this professed friendship is taken as a special guarantee that such persons will champion a policy that will be advantageous to our people.

    That kind of talk is absurd to an incredible degree. It means speculating on the unparalleled simplicity of the average German philistine when he comes to talking politics. There is not any British, American, or Italian statesman who could ever be described as ‘pro-German’. Every Englishman must naturally be British first of all. The same is true of every American. And no Italian statesman would be prepared to adopt a policy that was not pro-Italian. Therefore, anyone who expects to form alliances with foreign nations on the basis of a pro-German feeling among the statesmen of other countries is either an ass or a deceiver.

    The necessary condition for linking together the destinies of nations is never mutual esteem or mutual sympathy, but rather the prospect of advantages accruing to the contracting parties. It is true that a British statesman will always follow a pro-British and not a pro-German policy; but it is also true that certain definite interests involved in this pro-British policy may coincide on various grounds with German interests. Naturally that can be so only to a certain degree and the situation may one day be completely reversed.

    The art of statesmanship is shown when at certain periods there is question of reaching a certain end and when allies are found who must take the same road in order to defend their own interests.

    The practical application of these principles at the present time must depend on the answer given to the following questions: What States are not vitally interested in the fact that, by the complete abolition of a German Central Europe, the economic and military power of France has reached a position of absolute hegemony? Which are the States that, in consideration of the conditions which are essential to their own existence and in view of the tradition that has hitherto been followed in conducting their foreign policy, envisage such a development as a menace to their own future?

    Finally, we must be quite clear on the following point: France is and will remain the implacable enemy of Germany. It does not matter what Governments have ruled or will rule in France, whether Bourbon or Jacobin, Napoleonic or Bourgeois-Democratic, Clerical Republican or Red Bolshevik, their foreign policy will always be directed towards acquiring possession of the Rhine frontier and consolidating France’s position on this river by disuniting and dismembering Germany.

    England did not want Germany to be a world Power. France desired that there should be no Power called Germany. Therefore there was a very essential difference. To-day we are not fighting for our position as a World-Power but only for the existence of our country, for national unity and the daily bread of our children. Taking this point of view into consideration, only two States remain to us as possible allies in Europe – England and Italy.

    England is not pleased to see a France on whose military power there is no check in Europe, so that one day she might undertake the support of a policy which in some way or other might come into conflict with British interests.

    Nor can England be pleased to see France in possession of such enormous coal and iron mines in Western Europe as would make it possible for her one day to play a role in world-commerce which might threaten danger to British interests. Moreover, England can never be pleased to see a France whose political position on the Continent, owing to the dismemberment of the rest of Europe, seems so absolutely assured that she is not only able to resume a French world-policy on great lines but would even find herself compelled to do so.

    The bombs which were once dropped by the Zeppelins might be multiplied by the thousand every night. The military predominance of France is a weight that presses heavily on the hearts of the World Empire over which Great Britain rules.

    Nor can Italy desire, nor will she desire, any further strengthening of France’s power in Europe. The future of Italy will be conditioned by the development of events in the Mediterranean and by the political situation in the area surrounding that sea.

    The reason that led Italy into the War was not a desire to contribute towards the aggrandizement of France but rather to deal her hated Adriatic rival a mortal blow. Any further increase of France’s power on the Continent would hamper the development of Italy’s future, and Italy does not deceive herself by thinking that racial kindred between the nations will in any way eliminate rivalries.

    Serious and impartial consideration proves that it is these two States, Great Britain and Italy, whose natural interests not only do not contrast with the conditions essential to the existence of the German nation but are identical with them, to a certain extent.

    But when we consider the possibilities of alliances we must be careful not to lose sight of three factors. The first factor concerns ourselves; the other two concern the two States I have mentioned.

    Is it at all possible to conclude an alliance with Germany as it is to-day? Can a Power which would enter into an alliance for the purpose of securing assistance in an effort to carry out its own offensive aims – can such a Power form an alliance with a State whose rulers have for years long presented a spectacle of deplorable incompetence and pacifist cowardice and where the majority of the people, blinded by democratic and Marxist teachings, betray the interests of their own people and country in a manner that cries to Heaven for vengeance?

    As things stand to-day, can any Power hope to establish useful relations and hope to fight together for the furtherance of their common interests with this State which manifestly has neither the will nor the courage to move a finger even in the defence of its bare existence? Take the case of a Power for which an alliance must be much more than a pact to guarantee a state of slow decomposition, such as happened with the old and disastrous Triple Alliance.

    Can such a Power associate itself for life or death with a State whose most characteristic signs of activity consist of a rampant servility in external relations and a scandalous repression of the national spirit at home? Can such a Power be associated with a State in which there is nothing of greatness, because its whole policy does not deserve it? Or can alliances be made with Governments which are in the hands of men who are despised by their own fellow-citizens and consequently are not respected abroad?

    No. A self-respecting Power which expects something more from alliances than commissions for greedy Parliamentarians will not and cannot enter into an alliance with our present-day Germany. Our present inability to form alliances furnishes the principle and most solid basis for the combined action of the enemies who are robbing us. Because Germany does not defend itself in any other way except by the flamboyant protests of our parliamentarian elect, there is no reason why the rest of the world should take up the fight in our defence.

    God does not follow the principle of granting freedom to a nation of cowards, despite all the implications of our ‘patriotic’ associations. Therefore, for those States which have not a direct interest in our annihilation no other course remains open except to participate in France’s campaign of plunder, at least to make it impossible for the strength of France to be exclusively aggrandized thereby.

    In the second place, we must not forget that among the nations which were formerly our enemies mass-propaganda has turned the opinions and feelings of large sections of the population in a fixed direction. When for years long a foreign nation has been presented to the public as a horde of ‘Huns’, ‘Robbers’, ‘Vandals’, etc., they cannot suddenly be presented as something different, and the enemy of yesterday cannot be recommended as the ally of tomorrow.

    But the third factor deserves greater attention, since it is of essential importance for establishing future alliances in Europe.

    From the political point of view it is not in the interests of Great Britain that Germany should be ruined even still more, but such a proceeding would be very much in the interests of the international money-markets manipulated by the Jew. The cleavage between the official, or rather traditional, British statesmanship and the controlling influence of the Jew on the money-markets is nowhere so clearly manifested as in the various attitudes taken towards problems of British foreign policy. Contrary to the interests and welfare of the British State, Jewish finance demands not only the absolute economic destruction of Germany but its complete political enslavement.

    The internationalization of our German economic system, that is to say, the transference of our productive forces to the control of Jewish international finance, can be completely carried out only in a State that has been politically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting forces, commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot finally smash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help from outside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance.

    Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against Germany taking place in any part of the world the Jew is always the instigator. In peace-time, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist stock-exchange Press systematically stirred up hatred against Germany, until one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself at the service of the world coalition, even against the real interests of its own people.

    The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. The Bolshevization of Germany, that is to say, the extermination of the patriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German Labour to bear the yoke of international Jewish finance – that is only the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally subjugating the world to its rule. As has so often happened in history, Germany is the chief pivot of this formidable struggle. If our people and our State should fall victims to these oppressors of the nations, lusting after blood and money, the whole earth would become the prey of that hydra. Should Germany be freed from its grip, a great menace for the nations of the world would thereby be eliminated.

    It is certain that Jewry uses all its subterranean activities not only for the purpose of keeping alive old national enmities against Germany but even to spread them farther and render them more acute wherever possible. It is no less certain that these activities are only very partially in keeping with the true interests of the nations among whose people the poison is spread.

    As a general principle, Jewry carries on its campaign in the various countries by the use of arguments that are best calculated to appeal to the mentality of the respective nations and are most likely to produce the desired results; for Jewry knows what the public feeling is in each country.

    Our national stock has been so much adulterated by the mixture of alien elements that, in its fight for power, Jewry can make use of the more or less ‘cosmopolitan’ circles which exist among us, inspired by the pacifist and international ideologies. In France they exploit the well-known and accurately estimated chauvinistic spirit. In England they exploit the commercial and world-political outlook. In short, they always work upon the essential characteristics that belong to the mentality of each nation.

    When they have in this way achieved a decisive influence in the political and economic spheres they can drop the limitations which their former tactics necessitated, now disclosing their real intentions and the ends for which they are fighting. Their work of destruction now goes ahead more quickly, reducing one State after another to a mass of ruins on which they will erect the everlasting and sovereign Jewish Empire.

    In England, and in Italy, the contrast between the better kind of solid statesmanship and the policy of the Jewish stock-exchange often becomes strikingly evident.

    Only in France there exists to-day more than ever before a profound accord between the views of the stock-exchange, controlled by the Jews, and the chauvinistic policy pursued by French statesmen. This identity of views constitutes an immense, danger for Germany. And it is just for this reason that France is and will remain by far the most dangerous enemy. The French people, who are becoming more and more obsessed by negroid ideas, represent a threatening menace to the existence of the white race in Europe, because they are bound up with the Jewish campaign for world-domination.

    For the contamination caused by the influx of negroid blood on the Rhine, in the very heart of Europe, is in accord with the sadist and perverse lust for vengeance on the part of the hereditary enemy of our people, just as it suits the purpose of the cool calculating Jew who would use this means of introducing a process of bastardization in the very centre of the European Continent and, by infecting the white race with the blood of an inferior stock, would destroy the foundations of its independent existence.

  15. #30


    France’s activities in Europe to-day, spurred on by the French lust for vengeance and systematically directed by the Jew, are a criminal attack against the life of the white race and will one day arouse against the French people a spirit of vengeance among a generation which will have recognized the original sin of mankind in this racial pollution.

    As far as concerns Germany, the danger which France represents involves the duty of relegating all sentiment to a subordinate place and extending the hand to those who are threatened with the same menace and who are not willing to suffer or tolerate France’s lust for hegemony.

    For a long time yet to come there will be only two Powers in Europe with which it may be possible for Germany to conclude an alliance. These Powers are Great Britain and Italy.

    If we take the trouble to cast a glance backwards on the way in which German foreign policy has been conducted since the Revolution we must, in view of the constant and incomprehensible acts of submission on the part. of our governments, either lose heart or become fired with rage and take up the cudgels against such a regime.

    Their way of acting cannot be attributed to a want of understanding, because what seemed to every thinking man to be inconceivable was accomplished by the leaders of the November parties with their Cyclopean intellects. They bowed to France and begged her favour. Yes, during all these recent years, with the touching simplicity of incorrigible visionaries, they went on their knees to France again and again.

    They perpetuaily wagged their tails before the Grande Nation. And in each trick-o’-the-loop which the French hangmen performed with his rope they recognized a visible change of feeling. Our real political wire-pullers never shared in this absurd credulity. The idea of establishing a friendship with France was for them only a means of thwarting every attempt on Germany’s part to adopt a practical policy of alliances. They had no illusions about French aims or those of the men behind the scenes in France.

    What induced them to take up such an attitude and to act as if they honestly believed that the fate of Germany could possibly be changed in this way was the cool calculation that if this did not happen our people might take the reins into their own hands and choose another road.

    Of course it is difficult for us to propose England as our possible ally in the future. Our Jewish Press has always been adept in concentrating hatred against England particularly. And many of our good German simpletons perch on these branches which the Jews have limed to capture them.

    They babble about a restoration of German sea power and protest against the robbery of our colonies. Thus they furnish material which the contriving Jew transmits to his clansmen in England, so that it can be used there for purposes of practical propaganda.

    For our simple-minded bourgeoisie who indulge in politics can take in only little by little the idea that to-day we have not to fight for ‘sea-power’ and such things. Even before the War it was absurd to direct the national energies of Germany towards this end without first having secured our position in Europe. Such a hope to-day reaches that peak of absurdity which may be called criminal in the domain of politics.

    Often one becomes really desperate on seeing how the Jewish wire-pullers succeeded in concentrating the attention of the people on things which are only of secondary importance to-day, They incited the people to demonstrations and protests while at the same time France was tearing our nation asunder bit by bit and systematically removing the very foundations of our national independence.

    In this connection I have to think of the Wooden Horse in the riding of which the Jew showed extraordinary skill during these years. I mean South Tyrol.

    Yes, South Tyrol. The reason why I take up this question here is just because I want to call to account that shameful canaille who relied on the ignorance and short memories of large sections of our people and stimulated a national indignation which is as foreign to the real character of our parliamentary impostors as the idea of respect for private property is to a magpie.

    I should like to state here that I was one of those who, at the time when the fate of South Tyrol was being decided – that is to say, from August 1914 to November 1918 – took my place where that country also could have been effectively defended, namely, in the Army. I did my share in the fighting during those years, not merely to save South Tyrol from being lost but also to save every other German province for the Fatherland.

    The parliamentary sharpers did not take part in that combat. The whole canaille played party politics. On the other hand, we carried on the fight in the belief that a victorious issue of the War would enable the German nation to keep South Tyrol also; but the loud-mouthed traitor carried on a seditious agitation against such a victorious issue, until the fighting Siegfried succumbed to the dagger plunged in his back.

    It was only natural that the inflammatory and hypocritical speeches of the elegantly dressed parliamentarians on the Vienna Rathaus Platz or in front of the Feldherrnhalle in Munich could not save South Tyrol for Germany. That could be done only by the fighting battalions at the Front. Those who broke up that fighting front betrayed South Tyrol, as well as the other districts of Germany.

    Anyone who thinks that the South Tyrol question can be solved to-day by protests and manifestations and processions organized by various associations is either a humbug or merely a German philistine.

    In this regard it must be quite clearly understood that we cannot get back the territories we have lost if we depend on solemn imprecations before the throne of the Almighty God or on pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by the force of arms. Therefore the only remaining question is: Who is ready to take up arms for the restoration of the lost territories?

    As far as concerns myself personally, I can state with a good conscience that I would have courage enough to take part in a campaign for the reconquest of South Tyrol, at the head of parliamentarian storm battalions consisting of parliamentarian gasconaders and all the party leaders, also the various Councillors of State. Only the Devil knows whether I might have the luck of seeing a few shells suddenly burst over this ‘burning’ demonstration of protest. I think that if a fox were to break into a poultry yard his presence would not provoke such a helter-skelter and rush to cover as we should witness in the band of ‘protesters’.

    The vilest part of it all is that these talkers themselves do not believe that anything can be achieved in this way. Each one of them knows very well how harmless and ineffective their whole pretence is. They do it only because it is easier now to babble about the restoration of South Tyrol than to fight for its preservation in days gone by.

    Each one plays the part that he is best capable of playing in life. In those days we offered our blood. To-day these people are engaged in whetting their tusks.

    It is particularly interesting to note to-day how legitimist circles in Vienna preen themselves on their work for the restoration of South Tyrol. Seven years ago their august and illustrious Dynasty helped, by an act of perjury and treason, to make it possible for the victorious world-coalition to take away South Tyrol. At that time these circles supported the perfidious policy adopted by their Dynasty and did not trouble themselves in the least about the fate of South Tyrol or any other province.

    Naturally it is easier to-day to take up the fight for this territory, since the present struggle is waged with ‘the weapons of the mind’. Anyhow, it is easier to join in a ‘meeting of protestation’ and talk yourself hoarse in giving vent to the noble indignation that fills your breast, or stain your finger with the writing of a newspaper article, than to blow up a bridge, for instance, during the occupation of the Ruhr.

    The reason why certain circles have made the question of South Tyrol the pivot of German-Italian relations during the past few years is quite evident. Jews and Habsburg legitimists are greatly interested in preventing Germany from pursuing a policy of alliance which might lead one day to the resurgence of a free German fatherland. It is not out of love for South Tyrol that they play this role to-day – for their policy would turn out detrimental rather than helpful to the interests of that province – but through fear of an agreement being established between Germany and Italy.

    A tendency towards lying and calumny lies in the nature of these people, and that explains how they can calmly and brazenly attempt to twist things in such a way as to make it appear that we have ‘betrayed’ South Tyrol.

    There is one clear answer that must be given to these gentlemen. It is this: Tyrol has been betrayed, in the first place, by every German who was sound in limb and body and did not offer himself for service at the Front during 1914–1918 to do his duty towards his country.

    In the second place, Tyrol was betrayed by every man who, during those years did not help to reinforce the national spirit and the national powers of resistance, so as to enable the country to carry through the War and keep up the fight to the very end.

    In the third place, South Tyrol was betrayed by everyone who took part in the November Revolution, either directly by his act or indirectly by a cowardly toleration of it, and thus broke the sole weapon that could have saved South Tyrol.

    In the fourth place, South Tyrol was betrayed by those parties and their adherents who put their signatures to the disgraceful treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

    And so the matter stands, my brave gentlemen, who make your protests only with words.

    To-day I am guided by a calm and cool recognition of the fact that the lost territories cannot be won back by the whetted tongues of parliamentary spouters but only by the whetted sword; in other words, through a fight where blood will have to be shed.

    Now, I have no hesitations in saying that to-day, once the die has been cast, it is not only impossible to win back South Tyrol through a war but I should definitely take my stand against such a movement, because I am convinced that it would not be possible to arouse the national enthusiasm of the German people and maintain it in such a way as would be necessary in order to carry through such a war to a successful issue.

    On the contrary, I believe that if we have to shed German blood once again it would be criminal to do so for the sake of liberating 200,000 Germans, when more than seven million neighbouring Germans are suffering under foreign domination and a vital artery of the German nation has become a playground for hordes of African niggers.

    If the German nation is to put an end to a state of things which threatens to wipe it off the map of Europe it must not fall into the errors of the pre-War period and make the whole world its enemy. But it must ascertain who is its most dangerous enemy so that it can concentrate all its forces in a struggle to beat him. And if, in order to carry through this struggle to victory, sacrifices should be made in other quarters, future generations will not condemn us for that.

    They will take account of the miseries and anxieties which led us to make such a bitter decision, and in the light of that consideration they will more clearly recognize the brilliancy of our success.

    Again I must say here that we must always be guided by the fundamental principle that, as a preliminary to winning back lost provinces, the political independence and strength of the motherland must first be restored.

    The first task which has to be accomplished is to make that independence possible and to secure it by a wise policy of alliances, which presupposes an energetic management of our public affairs.

    But it is just on this point that we, National Socialists, have to guard against being dragged into the tow of our ranting bourgeois patriots who take their cue from the Jew. It would be a disaster if, instead of preparing for the coming struggle, our Movement also were to busy itself with mere protests by word of mouth.

    It was the fantastic idea of a Nibelungen alliance with the decomposed body of the Habsburg State that brought about Germany’s ruin. Fantastic sentimentality in dealing with the possibilities of foreign policy to-day would be the best means of preventing our revival for innumerable years to come.

    Here I must briefly answer the objections which may be raised in regard to the three questions I have put.

    1. Is it possible at all to form an alliance with the present Germany, whose weakness is so visible to all eyes?

    2. Can the ex-enemy nations change their attitude towards Germany?

    3. In other nations is not the influence of Jewry stronger than the recognition of their own interests, and does not this influence thwart all their good intentions and render all their plans futile?

    I think that I have already dealt adequately with one of the two aspects of the first point. Of course nobody will enter into an alliance with the present Germany. No Power in the world would link its fortunes with a State whose government does not afford grounds for the slightest confidence. As regards the attempt which has been made by many of our compatriots to explain the conduct of the Government by referring to the woeful state of public feeling and thus excuse such conduct, I must strongly object to that way of looking at things.

    The lack of character which our people have shown during the last six years is deeply distressing. The indifference with which they have treated the most urgent necessities of our nation might veritably lead one to despair. Their cowardice is such that it often cries to heaven for vengeance. But one must never forget that we are dealing with a people who gave to the world, a few years previously, an admirable example of the highest human qualities.

    From the first days of August 1914 to the end of the tremendous struggle between the nations, no people in the world gave a better proof of manly courage, tenacity and patient endurance, than this people gave who are so cast down and dispirited to-day. Nobody will dare to assert that the lack of character among our people to-day is typical of them. What we have to endure to-day, among us and around us, is due only to the influence of the sad and distressing effects that followed the high treason committed on November 9th, 1918.

    More than ever before the word of the poet is true: that evil can only give rise to evil. But even in this epoch those qualities among our people which are fundamentally sound are not entirely lost. They slumber in the depths of the national conscience, and sometimes in the clouded firmament we see certain qualities like shining lights which Germany will one day remember as the first symptoms of a revival. We often see young Germans assembling and forming determined resolutions, as they did in 1914, freely and willingly to offer themselves as a sacrifice on the altar of their beloved Fatherland.

    Millions of men have resumed work, whole-heartedly and zealously, as if no revolution had ever affected them. The smith is at his anvil once again. And the farmer drives his plough. The scientist is in his laboratory. And everybody is once again attending to his duty with the same zeal and devotion as formerly.

    The oppression which we suffer from at the hands of our enemies is no longer taken, as it formerly was, as a matter for laughter; but it is resented with bitterness and anger. There can be no doubt that a great change of attitude has taken place.

    This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation; but the blame for this must be attributed to those utterly incompetent people who have no natural endowments to qualify them for statesmanship and yet have been governing our nation since 1918 and leading it to ruin.

    Yes. If anybody accuses our people to-day he ought to be asked: What is being done to help them? What are we to say of the poor support which the people give to any measures introduced by the Government? Is it not true that such a thing as a Government hardly exists at all? And must we consider the poor support which it receives as a sign of a lack of vitality in the nation itself; or is it not rather a proof of the complete failure of the methods employed in the management of this valuable trust?

    What have our Governments done to re-awaken in the nation a proud spirit of self-assertion, up-standing manliness, and a spirit of righteous defiance towards its enemies?

    In 1919, when the Peace Treaty was imposed on the German nation, there were grounds for hoping that this instrument of unrestricted oppression would help to reinforce the outcry for the freedom of Germany. Peace treaties which make demands that fall like a whip-lash on the people turn out not infrequently to be the signal of a future revival.

    To what purpose could the Treaty of Versailles have been exploited?

    In the hands of a willing Government, how could this instrument of unlimited blackmail and shameful humiliation have been applied for the purpose of arousing national sentiment to its highest pitch? How could a well-directed system of propaganda have utilized the sadist cruelty of that treaty so as to change the indifference of the people to a feeling of indignation and transform that indignation into a spirit of dauntless resistance?

    Each point of that Treaty could have been engraved on the minds and hearts of the German people and burned into them until sixty million men and women would find their souls aflame with a feeling of rage and shame; and a torrent of fire would burst forth as from a furnace, and one common will would be forged from it, like a sword of steel. Then the people would join in the common cry: "To arms again!"

    Yes. A treaty of that kind can be used for such a purpose. Its unbounded oppression and its impudent demands were an excellent propaganda weapon to arouse the sluggish spirit of the nation and restore its vitality.

    Then, from the child’s story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: "Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle."

    All opportunities were neglected and nothing was done.

    Who will be surprised now if our people are not such as they should be or might be? The rest of the world looks upon us only as its valet, or as a kindly dog that will lick its master’s hand after he has been whipped.

    Of course the possibilities of forming alliances with other nations are hampered by the indifference of our own people, but much more by our Governments. They have been and are so corrupt that now, after eight years of indescribable oppression, there exists only a faint desire for liberty.

    In order that our nation may undertake a policy of alliances, it must restore its prestige among other nations, and it must have an authoritative Government that is not a drudge in the service of foreign States and the taskmaster of its own people, but rather the herald of the national will.

    If our people had a government which would look upon this as its mission, six years would not have passed before a courageous foreign policy on the part of the Reich would find a corresponding support among the people, whose desire for freedom would be encouraged and intensified thereby.

    The third objection referred to the difficulty of changing the ex-enemy nations into friendly allies. That objection may be answered as follows:

    The general anti-German psychosis which has developed in other countries through the war propaganda must of necessity continue to exist as long as there is not a renaissance of the national conscience among the German people, so that the German Reich may once again become a State which is able to play its part on the chess-board of European politics and with whom the others feel that they can play.

    Only when the Government and the people feel absolutely certain of being able to undertake a policy of alliances can one Power or another, whose interests coincide with ours, think of instituting a system of propaganda for the purpose of changing public opinion among its own people. Naturally it will take several years of persevering and ably directed work to reach such a result. Just because a long period is needed in order to change the public opinion of a country, it is necessary to reflect calmly before such an enterprise be undertaken.

    This means that one must not enter upon this kind of work unless one is absolutely convinced that it is worth the trouble and that it will bring results which will be valuable in the future. One must not try to change the opinions and feelings of a people by basing one’s actions on the vain cajolery of a more or less brilliant Foreign Minister, but only if there be a tangible guarantee that the new orientation will be really useful.

    Otherwise public opinion in the country dealt with may be just thrown into a state of complete confusion. The most reliable guarantee that can be given for the possibility of subsequently entering into an alliance with a certain State cannot be found in the loquacious suavity of some individual member of the Government, but in the manifest stability of a definite and practical policy on the part of the Government as a whole, and in the support which is given to that policy by the public opinion of the country.

    The faith of the public in this policy will be strengthened all the more if the Government organize one active propaganda to explain its efforts and secure public support for them, and if public opinion favourably responds to the Government’s policy.

    Therefore a nation in such a position as ours will be looked upon as a possible ally if public opinion supports the Government’s policy and if both are united in the same enthusiastic determination to carry through the fight for national freedom.

    That condition of affairs must be firmly established before any attempt can be made to change public opinion in other countries which, for the sake of defending their most elementary interests, are disposed to take the road shoulder-to-shoulder with a companion who seems able to play his part in defending those interests. In other words, this means that they will be ready to establish an alliance.

    For this purpose, however, one thing is necessary. Seeing that the task of bringing about a radical change in the public opinion of a country calls for hard work, and many do not at first understand what it means, it would be both foolish and criminal to commit mistakes which could be used as weapons in the hands of those who are opposed to such a change.

    One must recognize the fact that it takes a long time for a people to understand completely the inner purposes which a Government has in view, because it is not possible to explain the ultimate aims of the preparations that are being made to carry through a certain policy. In such cases the Government has to count on the blind faith of the masses or the intuitive instinct of the ruling caste that is more developed intellectually.

    Since many people lack this insight, this political acumen and faculty for seeing into the trend of affairs, and since political considerations forbid a public explanation of why such and such a course is being followed, a certain number of leaders in intellectual circles will always oppose new tendencies which, because they are not easily grasped, can be pointed to as mere experiments. And that attitude arouses opposition among conservative circles regarding the measures in question.

    For this reason a strict duty devolves upon everybody not to allow any weapon to fall into the hands of those who would interfere with the work of bringing about a mutual understanding with other nations. This is specially so in our case, where we have to deal with the pretentions and fantastic talk of our patriotic associations and our small bourgeoisie who talk politics in the cafes.

    That the cry for a new war fleet, the restoration of our colonies, etc., has no chance of ever being carried out in practice will not be denied by anyone who thinks over the matter calmly and seriously. These harmless and sometimes half-crazy spouters in the war of protests are serving the interests of our mortal enemy, while the manner in which their vapourings are exploited for political purposes in England cannot be considered as advantageous to Germany.

    They squander their energies in futile demonstrations against the whole world. These demonstrations are harmful to our interests and those who indulge in them forget the fundamental principle which is a preliminary condition of all success. What thou doest, do it thoroughly. Because we keep on howling against five or ten States we fail to concentrate all the forces of our national will and our physical strength for a blow at the heart of our bitterest enemy. And in this way we sacrifice the possibility of securing an alliance which would reinforce our strength for that decisive conflict.

    Here, too, there is a mission for National Socialism to fulfil. It must teach our people not to fix their attention on the little things but rather on the great things, not to exhaust their energies on secondary objects, and not to forget that the object we shall have to fight for one day is the bare existence of our people and that the sole enemy we shall have to strike at is that Power which is robbing us of this existence.

    It may be that we shall have many a heavy burden to bear. But this is by no means an excuse for refusing to listen to reason and raise nonsensical outcries against the rest of the world, instead of concentrating all our forces against the most deadly enemy.

    Moreover, the German people will have no moral right to complain of the manner in which the rest of the world acts towards them, as long as they themselves have not called to account those criminals who sold and betrayed their own country. We cannot hope to be taken very seriously if we indulge in long-range abuse and protests against England and Italy and then allow those scoundrels to circulate undisturbed in our own country who were in the pay of the enemy war propaganda, took the weapons out of our hands, broke the backbone of our resistance and bartered away the Reich for thirty pieces of silver.

    The enemy did only what was expected. And we ought to learn from the stand he took and the way he acted.

    Anyone who cannot rise to the level of this outlook must reflect that otherwise there would remain nothing else than to renounce the idea of adopting any policy of alliances for the future. For if we cannot form an alliance with England because she has robbed us of our colonies, or with Italy because she has taken possession of South Tyrol, or with Poland or Czechoslovakia, then there remains no other possibility of an alliance in Europe except with France which, inter alia, has robbed us of Alsace and Lorraine.

    There can scarcely be any doubt as to whether this last alternative would be advantageous to the interests of the German people. But if it be defended by somebody one is always doubtful whether that person be merely a simpleton or an astute rogue.

    As far as concerns the leaders in these activities, I think the latter hypothesis is true.

    A change in public feeling among those nations which have hitherto been enemies and whose true interests will correspond in the future with ours could be effected, as far as human calculation goes, if the internal strength of our State and our manifest determination to secure our own existence made it clear that we should be valuable allies. Moreover, it is necessary that our incompetent way of doing things and our criminal conduct in some matters should not furnish grounds which may be utilized for purposes of propaganda by those who would oppose our projects of establishing an alliance with one or other of our former enemies.

    The answer to the third question is still more difficult: Is it conceivable that they who represent the true interests of those nations which may possibly form an alliance with us could put their views into practice against the will of the Jew, who is the mortal enemy of national and independent popular States?

    For instance, could the motive-forces of Great Britain’s traditional statesmanship smash the disastrous influence of the Jew, or could they not?

    This question, as I have already said, is very difficult to answer. The answer depends on so many factors that it is impossible to form a conclusive judgment. Anyhow, one thing is certain: The power of the Government in a given State and at a definite period may be so firmly established in the public estimation and so absolutely at the service of the country’s interests that the forces of international Jewry could not possibly organize a real and effective obstruction against measures considered to be politically necessary.

    The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry’s three principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have been consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.

    The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression of the supernational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism, together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the State – all this will enable the Italian Government, in the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.

    The English situation is not so favourable. In that country which has ‘the freest democracy’ the Jew dictates his will, almost unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion. And yet there is a perpetual struggle in England between those who are entrusted with the defence of State interests and the protagonists of Jewish world-dictatorship.

    After the War it became clear for the first time how sharp this contrast is, when British statesmanship took one stand on the Japanese problem and the Press took a different stand.

    Just after the War had ceased the old mutual antipathy between America and Japan began to reappear. Naturally the great European Powers could not remain indifferent to this new war menace. In England, despite the ties of kinship, there was a certain amount of jealousy and anxiety over the growing importance of the United States in all spheres of international economics and politics.

    What was formerly a colonial territory, the daughter of a great mother, seemed about to become the new mistress of the world. It is quite understandable that to-day England should re-examine her old alliances and that British statesmanship should look anxiously to the danger of a coming moment when the cry would no longer be: "Britain rules the waves", but rather: "The Seas belong to the United States".

    The gigantic North American State, with the enormous resources of its virgin soil, is much more invulnerable than the encircled German Reich. Should a day come when the die which will finally decide the destinies of the nations will have to be cast in that country, England would be doomed if she stood alone.

    Therefore she eagerly reaches out her hand to a member of the yellow race and enters an alliance which, from the racial point of view is perhaps unpardonable; but from the political viewpoint it represents the sole possibility of reinforcing Britain’s world position in face of the strenuous developments taking place on the American continent.

    Despite the fact that they fought side by side on the European battlefields, the British Government did not decide to conclude an alliance with the Asiatic partner, yet the whole Jewish Press opposed the idea of a Japanese alliance.

    How can we explain the fact that up to 1918 the Jewish Press championed the policy of the British Government against the German Reich and then suddenly began to take its own way and showed itself disloyal to the Government?

    It was not in the interests of Great Britain to have Germany annihilated, but primarily a Jewish interest. And to-day the destruction of Japan would serve British political interests less than it would serve the far-reaching intentions of those who are leading the movement that hopes to establish a Jewish world-empire. While England is using all her endeavours to maintain her position in the world, the Jew is organizing his aggressive plans for the conquest of it.

    He already sees the present European States as pliant instruments in his hands, whether indirectly through the power of so-called Western Democracy or in the form of a direct domination through Russian Bolshevism. But it is not only the old world that he holds in his snare; for a like fate threatens the new world. Jews control the financial forces of America on the stock exchange. Year after year the Jew increases his hold on Labour in a nation of 120 million souls. But a very small section still remains quite independent and is thus the cause of chagrin to the Jew.

    The Jews show consummate skill in manipulating public opinion and using it as an instrument in fighting for their own future.

    The great leaders of Jewry are confident that the day is near at hand when the command given in the Old Testament will be carried out and the Jews will devour the other nations of the earth.

    Among this great mass of denationalized countries which have become Jewish colonies one independent State could bring about the ruin of the whole structure at the last moment. The reason for doing this would be that Bolshevism as a world-system cannot continue to exist unless it encompasses the whole earth. Should one State preserve its national strength and its national greatness the empire of the Jewish satrapy, like every other tyranny, would have to succumb to the force of the national idea.

    As a result of his millennial experience in accommodating himself to surrounding circumstances, the Jew knows very well that he can undermine the existence of European nations by a process of racial bastardization, but that he could hardly do the same to a national Asiatic State like Japan.

    To-day he can ape the ways of the German and the Englishman, the American and the Frenchman, but he has no means of approach to the yellow Asiatic. Therefore he seeks to destroy the Japanese national State by using other national States as his instruments, so that he may rid himself of a dangerous opponent before he takes over supreme control of the last national State and transforms that control into a tyranny for the oppression of the defenceless.

    He does not want to see a national Japanese State in existence when he founds his millennial empire of the future, and therefore he wants to destroy it before establishing his own dictatorship.

    And so he is busy to-day in stirring up antipathy towards Japan among the other nations, as he stirred it up against Germany. Thus it may happen that while British statesmanship is still endeavouring to ground its policy in the alliance with Japan, the Jewish Press in Great Britain may be at the same time leading a hostile movement against that ally and preparing for a war of destruction by pretending that it is for the triumph of democracy and at the same time raising the war-cry: Down with Japanese militarism and imperialism.

    Thus in England to-day the Jew opposes the policy of the State. And for this reason the struggle against the Jewish world-danger will one day begin also in that country.

    And here again the National Socialist Movement has a tremendous task before it.

    It must open the eyes of our people in regard to foreign nations and it must continually remind them of the real enemy who menaces the world to-day. In place of preaching hatred against Aryans from whom we may be separated on almost every other ground but with whom the bond of kindred blood and the main features of a common civilization unite us, we must devote ourselves to arousing general indignation against the maleficent enemy of humanity and the real author of all our sufferings.

    The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in our own country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight against him may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period for other nations as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan humanity in the struggle for its existence.

    Finally, may reason be our guide and will-power our strength. And may the sacred duty of directing our conduct as I have pointed out give us perseverance and tenacity; and may our faith be our supreme protection.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •