"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

24 December 2012

Babes in Toyland: Good-Natured Whites faced with a Jewish Usurer, Shyster, and Subversive

Some of what I say here is off the mark because it was based on the reasonable but false assumption that the story in Hal Roach's Babes in Toyland was at least vaguely similar to the story in Glen MacDonough's 1903 libretto. (Despite bearing the same name, they are utterly different.) For a better article on the same matter, see my post of 25 December 2015.
Silas Barnaby asks Little Bo Peep to marry him and is rejected. 
In retaliation he determines to foreclose on her mother's mortgage.
The frustrated usurer foments an insurrection of subhumans.

This 1934 film starring Laurel and Hardy was based on the 1903 operetta Babes in Toyland by composer Victor Herbert and librettist Glen MacDonough, written in a period when Jewish socialist and anarchist agitators were notorious in the United States. President William McKinley had been murdered only two years earlier by Leon Czolgosz, whose action had been influenced by a speech given by Red Emma Goldman. The association of Jewish immigrants with anarchist disturbances was such an obvious fact in the first decade of the twentieth century that it was openly discussed. 

What makes it certain that the villain of Babes in Toyland, the bushy-browed  Silas Barnaby, represents a Jew, is that in addition to being a subversive agitator he is also a usurer. He resorts to fomenting insurrection of the apelike, "half-man and half-animal" Bogeymen, after his attempt to exert power as a money-lender is thwarted.

In addition to being a banker  and a revolutionist, Mr. Barnaby makes crooked use of the legal system, framing Tom Tom the Piper's son. That's three negative Jewish stereotypes in one character.

While it may not be possible to prove that Silas Barnaby was intended as a composite of Jewish stereotypes, the combination of usurer, shyster, and subversive is hard to mistake for anything else.

14 November 2012

Class Reconciliation: the Key to Racial Unity

from Mother Jones
Support for the Republican Party is based largely on the perception that it is the party of White people, yet the Republicans failed in the presidential election of 2012 to win most of the White working-class vote outside of the South. In this essay for The Occidental Observer I make a proposal as to how the Implicitly White party could broaden its appeal:   A Party of Plutocrats Has No Future

29 October 2012

On the origin of the word Racist

There is an urban legend that has been floating around for some years now, that the word racist was coined by Leon Trotsky, for the purpose of cowing and intimidating opponents of leftist ideology. In his History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky applied the word racist to Slavophiles, who opposed Communism. 

Just from the word's etymology (the word race with a suffix added) it is not immediately apparent why this word is supposed to be inherently derogatory. Words like anarchist, communist, and fascist have a negative connotation for many people, but that is because of their perspectives on anarchism, communism, and fascism, not because the words are inherently derogatory. The words anarchist, communist, and fascist have objective content toward which one may be positively or negatively disposed. Likewise the word racist. Objectively, it seems to denote somebody for whom race is a concern. 

Is it not possible that Trotsky's use of the word, regardless of what his feelings about racism may have been, was merely descriptive, insofar as the effort of Slavs to assert and preserve their Slavic identity inherently involves a concern with race? Are not racists, as Trotsky regarded them, essentially just a species of anti-Communist, rejecting submersion into nondescript humanity under alien personalities and interests?

Our so-called conservatives in the United States do not ask such questions. If the left uses a term with a negative feeling attached, our conservatives accept that what the term denotes is objectively negative. If leftists and Jew-controlled mass-media disapprove of racists and racism, our so-called conservatives will not dispute that value judgment; for the purpose of rhetoric they will even embrace it. Conservatives outwardly accept that racists and racism are bad, and will not challenge it.

What the conservatives like to do instead of debunking their enemies' assumptions, which are also supported by mass-media, is to try to find a way to throw an accusation back at them, even a ridiculous accusation based on a specious argument and a flimsy premise. (I believe that this preference for responding with accusations, rather than truth and reason, derives from the fact that staying on the attack means not having to clarify one's own position on touchy matters. For somebody trying to win a popularity contest in the short term, rather than inform and educate for the long term, it makes perfect sense to try to keep one's own positions obscure.) The legend that Leon Trotsky coined the word racist offers a basis for that kind of rhetoric. It seems a silly argument, but they will say something like, If you use the word racist then you are a bad person like Communist mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, because he invented that word!

Did Trotsky really invent that word? No, apparently not. The work in which Trotsky is supposed to have coined that word was written and published in Russian in 1930.  I found several examples of the French form, raciste, preceding Trotsky's use of the word by far.

Leftist Use of "Racism" before Trotsky

In Charles Malato's Philosophie de l'Anarchie (1897) we find both raciste and racisme:

Nul doute qu'avant d'arriver à l'internationalisme complet, il y aura une étape qui sera le racisme; mais il y a lieu d'esperer que la halte ne sera pas trop longue, que l'étape sera brûlée. Le communisme qui, au début de son fonctionnement, apparait devoir être fatalement réglementé, surtout au point de vue des échanges internationaux, entrainera la constitution de fédérations racistes (latine, slave, germaine, etc.) L'anarchie qu'on peut entrevoir au bout de deux ou trois générations, lorsque, par suite du développement de la production toute réglementation sera devenue superflue, amènera la fin du racisme et l'avénement d'une humanité sans frontiéres. (p.47)
Charles Malato
TRANSLATION: No doubt that before arriving at complete internationalism, there will be a stage which will be racism; but it must be hoped that the layover will not be too long, that it will be rapidly surpassed. Communism, which appears that it must inevitably be regulated at the beginning of its functioning, especially in regard to international trade, will bring about the establishment of racist federations (Latin, Slavic, Germanic, etc.). Anarchy -- which we can glimpse at the end of two or three generations when, as a result of the development of production, any regulations will have become superfluous -- will bring the end of racism and the advent of a humanity without borders. 

Although Malato was not in favor of racistes or racisme as such, regarding them as constituting an intermediate stage on the path from the destruction of the existing empires to his ideal of global anarchy, his use of those words back in the late 19th century was clearly not polemical but based on their objective content. Malato saw a tendency in Europe toward reorganizing political boundaries and allegiances along racial (or ethnic) lines, and he called this tendency racism. Note also that Malato refers to Pan-Slavism as a form of racism, thus anticipating Trotsky's specific application of the word.

First English Use

A piece for National Public Radio (Gene Demby, "The Ugly, Fascinating History of the Word 'Racism'," 6 January 2014) cites the Oxford English Dictionary to the effect that the first use of the word racism (in English) was by Richard Pratt in 1902, five years after Malato's use of raciste and racisme in French. 

In fact, Pratt had used the word even earlier, at least as early as 1899, in remarks at a conference of the Friends of the Indian.  On that occasion Pratt advocated an approach to destroying "racism and classism." (Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Lake Mohonk Conference of the Friends of the Indian, 1899, publ. 1900)

Pratt was a Baptist religious zealot who was particularly devoted to stamping out the identities of various North American tribes through assimilation. NPR's author for some reason finds it paradoxical that somebody who condemns racism would be trying to stamp out the racial as well as the specific ethnic identities of Cheyenne, Choctaw, or Muscogee, when in fact it is perfectly consistent. Racism in its proper meaning, as we see with Charles Malato and the Occitanian separatists a century ago (contemporary with Pratt), means concern for one's race (however that race is defined), and an impulse to preserve that race, and, in accord with that, organization along racial lines. To condemn racism as such is ultimately to condemn the preservation of any race, with the mongrelization of all mankind, explicitly hoped by some, being the predictable long-term result. Deliberate destruction of races through assimilation and mixture, as advanced -- although in a more direct and obvious manner than we usually see -- by Richard Henry Pratt with his Carlisle Indian Industrial School, is the ultimate implication of  anti-racism. It is remarkable that anyone pretends to be confused about this.

Positive Racism

I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906.  Here the word racist was used without a hint of negativity:

Je forme des voeux pour la réussité de vos projets, car je suis persuadé que, dans cette fédération des peuples de Langue d’Oc luttant pour leurs intérêts et l’émancipation de leur pensée raciste, le prestige de Toulouse trouvera son compte. (p. 101)
TRANSLATION: I express my best wishes for the success of your projects, because I am convinced that, in the federation of the peoples of Langue d’Oc fighting for their interests and the emancipation of their racist thought, the prestige of Toulouse will benefit.

Ce malheureux Midi! Il est victime, de toutes les façons! Ruiné, spolié, abruti, c’est un sort de pays vaincu qu’on lui réserve et tout ce qui serait de nature à caractériser son individualité raciste et dont la survivance ou le culte pourrait le faire reprendre conscience de lui-même pour l’arracher à sa torpeur et assurer la sauvegarde de ses intérêts matériels et moraux, est-il bon à autre chose qu’à être combattu et tourné en dérision? (p.68)
Occitanians were proudly racistes in 1906.
TRANSLATION: This unfortunate South! He is a victim in every way! Ruined, robbed, brutalized, it’s a fate of conquered countries that one reserves for him, and whatever would be likely to characterize his racist individuality and whatever’s survival or worship could make him regain consciousness of himself to snatch him from his torpor and safeguard his moral and material interests, is it good for anything except to be combated and ridiculed?

While racists were bad people for Leon Trotsky, some people in Occitania in 1906 did not share that value-judgment, because they had a different perspective and different interests. 

Finally there is the Théorie du Racisme (Theory of Racism) written by a former volunteer of the Légion de Charlemagne, René Binet. He wrote in 1950:

Several years ago, a flag was raised over the world. It is not the flag of a nation, nor that of a party, but the flag of a new breed of men armed with new knowledge and belonging to all the White nations: these men are racists.
The powers of the old world, the adherents of ancient philosophies, the servants of old divinities, have joined forces to combat this type of man and to tear down his emblem.
From now on, everyone anywhere on the globe who opposes the decay of his people, the decline of his race, and enslavement, will be accused of racism and fascism because he took up the flag. 
Thus the time has come for racists to declare openly their will to save those of our values​​ that still can be saved, and to proclaim before the obsolete world that makes an insult of the word racist, what it really means to be racist.

Why should I accept the value-judgments of my enemies? The label racist is only an effective attack if it is perceived as one, which means, only if the value-judgment attached to it is accepted. Don't accept that! If you can stop worrying about being called a racist, if you can refrain from  using a barrage of flaky counterattacks (the way "conservatives" do) to avoid talking about your own real views, then you can be sincere and really communicate with people. You might even have a chance to explain that almost everybody is racist and that it's normal -- which is a fundamental fact that every White person needs to know.

09 October 2012

The Hidden Influence of Historical Revisionism

Certain nationalists in recent years have taken the position that historical revisionism, specifically in regard to the so-called Holocaust, is unworthy of effort. They say that it has not accomplished much.

By what measurement does somebody claim that historical revisionism has not accomplished much when people in positions of authority would never admit being influenced by it? Whatever influence revisionism has had will be largely untraceable.

I think it has had a lot of influence. It seemed to me, when Kofi Annan said at the Durban anti-racist conference in 2001 that the State of Israel should stop using the Holocaust as an excuse, that the fact that the veracity of the Holocaust story had been disputed for many years, with some arguments that are unassailable, very likely lay somewhere behind that statement.

There is a dialectical process that has to be taken into account. When somebody takes the extreme position that there was no Holocaust, others are influenced by that, whether they wish to be influenced or not. Some of them will then say, I am not a Holocaust denier but it does seem to me that there has been some exaggeration, or alternately, I am not a Holocaust-denier but the Jewish exploitation of that story is over the top — which is what the Secretary-General of the United Nations effectively said.

Look at all the Google hits for “I am not a Holocaust-denier but”: 6620 hits for that exact combination of words in the English language.

These people are able to speak more freely because there are “Holocaust-deniers” that have taken the extreme position. That is a major part of the influence of revisionism.

Extreme positions, insofar as they carry any credibility at all, define the limits of discourse. Shocking and upsetting people is part of the dialectical process. This is why it’s wrong to try to cater to people’s sensitivities at the expense of facts and logic (the basis of credibility) as Greggy Johnson has recently advocated, and as Mark Weber has been practicing for some years now.

Rosenberg on Bismarck

The Iron Chancellor, the man who created modern Germany, acted imprudently where Jews were concerned.

Bismarck, the German Reich, and the Jews

Alfred Rosenberg
(Völkischer Beobachter, 22 May 1921)

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2012 

The birthday of the Iron Chancellor was reverently observed in all parts of Germany even in 1921. Now that his work lies in heaps of rubble, having been smashed by criminal hands, perhaps a light begins gradually to dawn, even for the most idiotic democrat of German blood, over the greatness of the still so recent German past. Not to mention the righteous individuals who from the very start were unable, thanks to Professor Preuss from Jerusalem[1], to regard the Republic as a German Reich.

But as we look up respectfully to the image of Bismarck, must we guard ourselves against making this image into an idol. We shall always need the advice of the great chancellor. Many of his principles will be standard even in the more distant future of Germany. At the same time however we shall retain in memory his dictum: “Politics is not an exact science. As the situation that one has before oneself changes, so does the way to make use of it.” Above all however we must often admit that the man who built the German house simultaneously allowed the woodworm to enter into the timbers of this house. This sad fact should not be concealed. Bismarck once entrusted German history to a Jewish banker, allowed him influence in Germany’s foreign policy, and brought his daughter to the Imperial Court, therewith taking a stand against old German tradition.

By sentiment Bismarck was an outspoken anti-Semite. He complained once to a delegation that almost the entire opposition press was in the hands of Jews. About Jewish profiteering he spoke powerful words in the Prussian parliament, and everyone knows his statement that it would be hard for him to fulfill his duties if he had a Jewish superior. It must be considered moreover that Bismarck was faced with a Prussian parliament whose members he fittingly described as “individually rational, collectively stupid,” that in the most important affairs of the nation he found himself alone, and that for the most pressing needs of the state[2] no credits were granted to him. Thus he went to the Jew Bleichroeder[3]. He went not in the manner of a Mediaeval king, who would have taken back from the Jews for state purposes the money profiteered from the people; rather, as the minister of a modern “constitutional government” he contracted a loan with the Jew – and even paid high interest for it. That was the beginning of the conversion of the state into a trust, which today, through the 500 Jewish banks in Germany, has grown into an enormous affair. In foreign policy Bismarck likewise not infrequently intervened for the benefit of the Jews. Emblematic of that were the development of the Jewish Question in Romania and the negotiations over Jewish enfranchisement in the Balkans at the Congress of Berlin (1878).

In Romania, around the middle of the 19th century, the Jewish population had grown enormously. Usury, intermediary commerce, liquor-selling: all these essential symptoms of Jewish penetration through consecutive millennia became ever more palpable. All who loved their homeland and their folk demanded a remedy for this plague of spongers numbering 300,000 heads. Thirty-one delegates made an exemplary proposal to the parliament; disturbances occurred in Iaşi and other cities [in Romania]. The “Alliance israélite” naturally cried bloody murder about “massacres of Jews,” although not a single Hebrew had been killed; they wanted foreign intervention and sent outraged protests to all governments. Bismarck did not set himself against the financiers in Paris and London, but wrote to Mr. Crémieux, president of the Alliance and simultaneously Grand Master of Grand Orient Freemasonry in France: “I have the honor to report to you, as an answer to the letter that you sent me on the 4th of the current month, that the Kaiser’s government has advised its representative in Bucharest to exhaust all his influence to secure for your co-religionists in Romania the position that  belongs to them in a country that conducts itself according to the principles of humanity and civilization, etc. Berlin, 2 February 1868, v. Bismarck.”

As however the mood in Romania seemed to become such that the protection-laws against the Jews had a prospect of being enacted, the Berlin Jewish community got involved with a written petition to the Prussian minister-president. And to that came the following answer: “Berlin, 18 April 1868. The king has instructed me to respond to the petition of the Jewish community of the 6th of this month, so as to oppose the approval by one of the Romanian chambers of a law, which had been submitted against the will of Prince Carol, that affects the situation of the Israelites. It does not seem that it will be approved, nor that it will be sanctioned by the government of the prince even if that does happen…. Count v. Bismarck.”

In this document Bismarck did not deal with particular cases and express reservations in another passage just in case; instead he fundamentally acknowledged the principle of gray liberalism, “humanity and civilization,” which he had to battle domestically, as the basis for acknowledgment of Jewish “equal rights.”

Even more illustrative are the negotiations about the Jewish Question at the Berlin Congress. Here the symptoms of the rule of Jewish finance, allied with liberal rhetoric, manifested themselves tangibly.

The Alliance sent three of its members to Berlin: Netter, Kann, and Veneziani. All assembled ambassadors were sent a long memorandum, plus works of Jewish writers about the Jewish Question.

In his history of the Alliance the Jew Leven says: “Before the meeting of the Congress they (our delegates) secured the support of a significant man in Berlin: Bleichroeder, who through his social position had a bond with the plenipotentiaries and enjoyed great prestige with Bismarck.” (Narcisse Leven, Cinquante Ans d’Histoire, Paris 1911, p. 203.)

Netter sent reports about the activities of the Jewish representatives to Paris. Here are some of the most interesting. From 11 June: “If all think about our coreligionists as does Monsieur de Saint-Vallier (the French plenipotentiary) we have it made.” 12 June: “Lord Beaconsfield is in a splendid mood.” 13 June: “Bleichroeder yesterday saw Prince Bismarck; he has best wishes for the Israelites.” 18 June: “Today we visited the Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfuerst. He began his career with the defense of the Jews in Bavaria; he would like to crown it with the defense of them at the Congress.” 21 June: “Bleichroeder spoke with Bismarck yesterday and obtained certainty that the question will be laid before the congress…. He can rest assured.” The reports about a series of other visits with diplomats, representatives of the press, etc., read similarly. (Leven,  pp. 213-216).

All Balkan states and their internal constitutions came under discussion. The extent to which negotiations were conducted for the benefit of the Jews becomes obvious just from the fact that the term “Bulgarian subject” was unanimously replaced with “residents of the Bulgarian principate.” That was the theoretical surrender of the principle of patriotism in favor of a nomadic worldview! This change was proposed of course by the puppets of the Alliance, the French. Thus Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania were forced by liberal Europe into recognition of the “rights” of the Jews. To the honor of Russia, it must be said that her plenipotentiary, Prince Gorchakov, was the only opponent of this disastrous policy. It goes without saying that D’Israeli-Beaconsfield placed the whole weight of Great Britain on the balance for the Jews. He pushed forward Lord Russel and Lord Salisbury as his spokesmen, but he himself said that he considered the granting of equal rights to Jews as the fulfillment of a self-evident fact, without the sanction of which the Congress certainly should not dissolve. Herr von Bülow[4] said to Netter on 28 July that the demand of the Jews in Bulgaria would also be pleaded in regard to Serbia and Romania, and that it was “a question of principle.” Bismarck declared precisely the same. The Jews could be content. 

It would be well to note the words of the historian of the Alliance: “The result of the Berlin Congress was significant: it introduced into international law the principles which the French Revolution set down in its Declaration of the Rights of Man. United Europe approved it…. It is accomplished that these principles have become by the will of Europe the basis of public law and of the new states, and the condition of their independence. It was a benefit for all peoples, and for Jewry, an act unique in its history, the official charter of its liberation.” (Leven, p.290.)

The president of the Congress of Berlin was Prince Bismarck. 

Perhaps he felt that he was strong enough to keep Germany internally free. In foreign policy he aided Jewry in a disastrous manner instead of allying himself with Gorchakov, putting aside the fact that he and the Russian otherwise faced each other as enemies. But he must have seen that Bleichroeder and Mendelssohn, through the strengthening of Jewry abroad, significantly shored up their position within Germany, and thenceforth wielded more than twice as much monetary clout. When the great chancellor was gone and little men stepped into his place, the affairs having been commenced followed their necessary course: the political and economic guides of the “German” Reich became Bleichroeder, Mendelssohn, Friedländer, Ballin, Warburg, Rathenau, and so on. Thus went Germany from Versailles to … Versailles![5]

One of the most righteous men, Paul de Lagarde, wrote in 1881, still bitter: “There has never been a German state.” Unfortunately he was right. Even Bismarck's state was still not a German state.

Is it Bismarck’s fault? No one will dare to affirm it. He accomplished something superhuman. He was full of confidence in the strength of Germandom. Should one reproach this man, for whom all small minds made life unpleasant enough, with the fact that he overestimated German national consciousness? That the Germans – let it be plainly said – proved themselves unworthy? Furthermore that they themselves did not lift a hand to assist in building the German house, instead of bickering with slogans or surrendering to the god Mammon? No, certainly not! 

We ourselves have been guilty, who were not able to endure a great personality, and either cowered behind him or took pleasure in petty fault-finding. Thus the Jew was able to sow discord unhindered, preach class-struggle, and engage in profiteering. We do not wish to condemn Bismarck, but perhaps to highlight the place where the blueprint of the German Reich had an error in its floorplan. It is up to us to avoid it in the future.
1. Hugo Preuss, who wrote the constitution of the Weimar Republic, was not literally from Jerusalem, but he was a Jew. Rosenberg is saying that right-thinking people cannot regard the Republic as truly German because a Jew wrote its constitution.
2. The Prussian Parliament never approved a budget in the years 1862 to 1866 because of disagreement over military reforms. The Seven Weeks' War with Austria came in 1866.
3.  Gerson Bleichroeder was a Jewish banker of Berlin with connections to the Rothschilds. He was the second Jew elevated to the Prussian nobility, thus becoming "von Bleichroeder." The first Jew elevated to the Prussian nobility was also a banker.
4. Bernhard von Bülow was attaché to the German embassy in Paris and served as a secretary at the Congress of Berlin. Later, during the reign of Wilhelm II,  he served several years as foreign minister, then as chancellor.
5. This is a reference to the fact that the King Wilhelm I of Prussia was proclaimed Emperor of Germany in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles -- on French soil -- during the Franco-Prussian War, and to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles (called the Dictate of Versailles by German nationalists). Thus a period of German dominance on the European mainland began and ended at Versailles.

19 September 2012

The National-Socialist Economic Program as of 1932

Instead of cancellation of all interest as Gottfried Feder advocated in his Manifesto of 1919, this document coauthored with Walther Funk in 1932 speaks of a universal lowering of interest, but still with the goal of generally freeing the people from debt and thus facilitating economic recovery. The intention of putting banking under the control of the government, originally advocated by Paul de Lagarde, and repeated by Feder in 1919, remains.

Certain aspects of this program, the general idea that reduction of burdens and limitations is the way to stimulate economic growth, the reduction or elimination of "production-inhibiting taxes," the simplification of the tax-code, and the intention to provide incentives to save money, were echoed in Reaganism.

The direct creation of jobs by the government is of course a major point of difference from Reaganism (and of course from the "quantitative easing" of the Obama years, which does not create jobs, because businesses do not normally borrow money to expand, and hire new employees, until the economy is already improving), as is the goal of protecting the small farm and small to middle-sized businesses, and the guarding of national self-sufficiency. These goals, along with staying out of debt, are all still cherished in Germany, but now discarded in the United States.

The proposal for "dynamic structuring of tax-rates in accord with the needs of a productive economic system" opposes post-Reagan American mainstream economic doctrine in two major respects. It refers to a strongly graduated schedule of tax-rates, and it contains the assumption that economic productivity is helped by thus countering the tendency for wealth to accumulate more and more in the hands of a few, a tendency that Reaganism seems to deny or consider unimportant. National-Socialist economic doctrine, while anticipating Reaganism's concern for the negative effect of taxation on production, disagrees with Reaganism insofar as it does not count progressive taxation as "production-inhibiting": rather the opposite.

In general, National-Socialism differs from current American economics by treating the economy as a means to support the entire nation (just as an army treats its resources as a basis for maintaining the entire army), rather than as a game of competition where the rights of the winning competitors completely overrule the needs and well-being of the people.

Walther Funk, Gottfried Feder

The NSDAP's Program of Economic Organization

Walther Funk and Gottfried Feder

(National-Socialist Yearbook, 1932)

Translation by Hadding Scott, 2012

The National-Socialist German Workers' Party strives for a new construction of the state and of the economy on a National-Socialist basis, which can only be achieved in a total solution through a profound reorganization of the political and economic system. The Papen government has limited itself to inadequate ad hoc measures that do not function as a whole and therefore cannot lead to success. We approach combating the economic crisis from the premise that this crisis is not only economic in nature but embodies a crisis of the state, indeed a crisis of the folk. We therefore distinguish ourselves fundamentally from the Papen government, both in the conception of the essence of the crisis and in the purpose of economic policy.

The Papen government believes that it can save the German economy while retaining the momentary structure of the economy, and undertakes no alterations of the current economic system.

We are convinced that the German economy must be subjected to a radical structural change, and that the German economic system in its current configuration cannot be maintained. Apart from that however we believe that every economic remedy is doomed to failure unless it embarks on an extensive change in the administration of the Reich and of the States, and of municipal and professional self-governments, and unless new forms and a new content are given to economic administration. This complete reconstruction of public administration, of the economy, and of social life must succeed on the basis of the National-Socialist worldview and be pervaded with National-Socialist spirit.

In the

new construction of the German national economy
the political and psychological prerequisites must first be created through the establishment of the stabilizing effect of a strong governmental power supported by the will of the people. Political leadership must first clear the path for economic leadership for a comprehensive renewal of economic and social life in Germany through elimination of outer and inner hindrances, through overcoming of social conflicts, and through a restructuring of the constitutional and legal foundations of administration in the German Reich.

The highest goal of economic policy must be the maintenance and strengthening of the national potentials of the people and the soil, so that every German again benefits from his labor, and indeed each according to his achievement. According to this fundamental principle German economic policy must be conducted holistically [einheitlich].

In order to achieve this, a profound rebuilding of both the structure of the German economy and particular economic arrangements is necessary. Thus economic policy will have to be conducted organically and dynamically, and maintain and cultivate what is viable.

The NSDAP's program of economic organization is founded in the following fundamental demands:

1. Direct creation of jobs for circa two million people on the basis of contract-awards for new state and private investments to the extent of 5 billion Reichsmarks. A special job-creation program will exist.

2. Productive creation of credit through the Reichsbank at the level of 3 billion Reichsmarks, which represents mainly bank-deposits, and circulating money only to the extent of 300-500 million Reichsmarks. These moneys flow automatically back into the Reichsbank again after a fertilization of the economy. Thus no inflation, but restoration of a sound currency, and a sound money- and credit-economy that stimulates production.

3. Nationalization of the entire money- and credit-structure including bank-deposits, and an expansion of the governmental accounting-transactions.

4. Financial restructuring of the entire German economy through centralization of all public and private contractual obligations in a general financial restructuring institution. Healing of the ills of inflation through a pensioner-maintenance law.

5. Universal lowering of interest consistent with our great main goal of the abolition of interest-slavery, with wide-ranging consideration of particular circumstances in the economy.

6. Alteration of the moratorium, and uniform regulation of foreign debts, with interest and amortization adapted to Germany's supply of foreign currency.

All exchange of foreign currency with foreign countries is place into the hands of a

7. foreign-trade office and a currency-center, which should constitute a department of the Reichsbank. There will not be a domestic currency and a separate foreign-trade currency, but only one German currency and one currency-bank, the Reichsbank that has been returned to the Reich.

8. New regulation of economic relations toward the rest of the world with priority given to the necessities of life in the domestic market, but with provision for exports, which are indispensable for Germany. The quota-system introduced by the government is in principle correct, but completely inadequate because in a paradoxical manner most-favored-nation status is included into this system, and for execution, both the power-factor in foreign policy and the will to live in domestic policy are lacking. In foreign policy we are completely isolated and in domestic policy without a unified popular will.

9. Tax-relief through mitigation or complete elimination of production-inhibiting taxes (which directly influence prices), simplification and unification of the tax-system, and dynamic structuring of tax-rates in accord with the needs of a productive economic system.

10. Restoration of German state credit:

a) Cleansing of public finances with inclusion of public guarantees, and with consideration of the fact that the spending of billions for the unemployed will end after successful creation of jobs.
b) Elimination of the current untenable methods of balancing budgets. Restoration of budgetary truth and clarity.

11. Governmental protection for agriculture (new organization of the distribution of agricultural products, and of the agricultural cooperative system, of the systems of storage, transport, dairy, processing, and preservation, and of the breeding of plants and animals. Grain-rationing.)

12. Reconstruction of the possession of house and land with consideration of the new arrangement of mortgage-credit (Reichshypothekenbank) and of the tax-system, with the aim of promoting the productivity and health of the folk.

13. Planned reorganization of production by industry and trades with regard to the enterprises controlled by the state, and the branches of industry especially important for national policy.

Preparation of means to generate jobs for the broadening of the German raw-materials base, and for readjustments to both manufacturing and technology for new national branches of trade and industry (trade-policy favoring the middle class).

14. National transport-economy. Federalization of the Reichsbahn, reorganization of tariffs in accord with national economic necessities, unified transport-policy (automobile traffic, shipping), and centralized energy-economy.


An undebting of the economy cannot be brought about by purging bank-balances and introducing subsidies for industry, and agriculture cannot be aided by lowering the interest for one part of the agricultural debt by about 2% and negotiating with the rest of the world for the reduced import  of a few thousand hundredweights or even tons of agricultural products. Also the enforcement of protection, having been arranged, will remain ineffective unless the soil upon which the farmer farms has been made healthy and fertile, and the future of the German farmer secured. None of that is achieved by the Papen government's measures.

It must be affirmed as a matter of principle that there can be no recovery of German agriculture unless the entire German economy recovers. And there can be no actual undebting of agriculture unless the entire German economy is liberated from the tension and oppression of debt, in which it has found itself for years. The structure of the German economy is unsound, and the system of the economy is wrong and outmoded, and therefore it is necessary to reach for much more thorough measures than what the Papen government has been doing, in order to bring about the necessary new construction of the economy, without which every attempt at an agricultural recovery is also condemned to failure.

We must also tackle the general cleanup of the economy alongside that of politics. This has to proceed from the principle that the highest goal of every economic policy must be the maintenance and strengthening of the national potentials of the people and of the soil. There can be no healthy export if the domestic market is ailing. We are not so foolish as not to recognize Germany's need to export. But for exports too a new, healthy basis must first be created, since the current export is overwhelmingly an export that impoverishes and dissipates. The backbone of the German economy is a healthy domestic market, and the backbone of the domestic market is a healthy German yeomanry.

In no way do we want to destroy economic structures that are viable; we want rather to maintain and cultivate these structures, but we believe that it cannot be responsible when economic undertakings are dragged along with state subsidies that are built on an outmoded economic system. That is true not only of some economic forms like vertically integrated enterprises, but also of particular branches of the economy that only require a harmful import and in whose products German work-potential constitutes an insignificant part of the total value of the merchandise.

If the Papen government directs its main gaze to the healing of the banks, we too are convinced that a healthy money- and credit-system must constitute the starting point for economic recovery. But we are of the view that the current private-capitalist banking system cannot be maintained; rather that all money-transactions must be subject to the sovereignty of the state, and the banking system placed under the state's supervision. Only with this prerequisite can a real undebting of the economy be brought about, which must extend over all debt-obligations. We shall not expect the state to spend billions for healing the banks while entrusting the accomplishment of this healing to a few private individuals, to whom all economic events are irresponsibly surrendered. The new construction of the German economy should be accomplished not by some bank-directors but by the government, which is supported by the confidence of the people and uses its power in accord with nationalist and socialist principles. We want no state-economy, nor any state-socialism in the sense of the Communist and Marxist doctrines, but we want a National-Socialist economy that protects the body of the folk from external and internal dangers and permits an orchestrated community-labor of all branches of trade and of all classes for the promotion of the common good.

From these general principles the new construction of the German economy will be accomplished, and these principles must also be applied in the measures for restoring health to agriculture. Therefore the rescheduling of debt will encompass the entire economy and be assigned to a general retraining fund anchored in the state's money- and credit-system, but in such a way that the execution in detail succeeds on the basis of occupational class and is not carried out by people and institutions that stand outside of the agricultural profession. For the purpose of a real undebting and rescheduling of debt, agencies of the state are appropriate, but the Papen government does not have them at its command, and a rescheduling of debt can yield no enduring success unless the lowering of interest is also accomplished centrally in a state money- and credit-system. Only with these prerequisites can the certainty of rights in transactions of money and capital be restored and a just settlement between creditors and debtors reached. Only a general rescheduling of debts accomplished by governmental monetary institutions gives the guarantee that this measure will not lead to a shaking of confidence, and to unjustified and unbearable losses or devaluations of capital. We shall on the contrary hereby attain a higher and more certain assessment of the possession of land and soil, of home-possession and of other capital-possession, than is the case today. Agriculture and the entire economy, whenever it is first redeemed from the stress of debts and liberated from unbearable interest-burdens, will again breathe a sigh of relief. Then the necessary further decrease of burdens, especially tax-reductions, and the protection of national production against unnecessary and harmful importation will for the first time come into full effect. At the same time however the creation of jobs will have to originate from the government on the basis of productive creation of credit (Federgeld), through which for the first time a healthy underpinning for our currency is created, which today does not exist at all. Illiquid financial notes [Finanzwechsel] that today lie in the Reichsbank as gold backing must be replaced by production-notes [Produktionswechsel] and government securities, which constitute a healthy blood-supply for the economy and lead the stream of gold back again in specified intervals to the Reichsbank, whereas it now lies sunken somewhere in the stressed, illiquid economy, whereby disturbances in transactions of money and credit and deficiencies of property and income arise through deflationary practices. Furthermore a complete new regulation of foreign debts will be necessary, which also can be brought about in a tolerable manner only through an alteration of the entire system of money and credit. Governmental regulation of gold-transactions with the rest of the world is in no way identical with a nationalization of foreign trade. In the economic system that we shall build, the individual will be able to develop his initiatives in a much greater breadth than is today the case. The new construction of the economy as we shall accomplish it, on the basis of a new economic structure and a new economic system, will have as a goal of highest priority the deproletarianization of the broadest masses of the laboring population, of the yeomanry, and of the middle class. Real income will increase to the extent that unsupportable burdens of interest and taxation cease to exist and unemployment decreases. It is obvious that through such measures production also receives a strong stimulus, whereupon care must be taken that the disproportion between the prices for agricultural produce and industrial manufactures be eliminated. In the current system the credit-economy undergoes a general increase in prices as a result, which is believed to be remediable only through a freeze on wages. In our economic system the commodity-market is liberated from burdens and limitations that are caused by bad public administration and economic mismanagement, and prices will undergo a readjustment without a loss of purchasing power and real income. And finally after complete reconstruction of our economy we shall reach the point that saving money will again make sense, and we will promote thrift also through state measures.

The Papen government in recent days has certified for itself, from particular economic crises, that the measures enacted by it are approved by the economy, and especially by the Central Association of Banks. The Papen government should not let itself be deceived, but above all the German people should not be misled about the fact that the measures of the Papen government only convulsively maintain a situation that over the long term is surely untenable. The relapse and the disappointment will then be all the more grievous. The entire insufficiency of Papen's measures becomes especially obvious for the yeomanry. The farmer knows quite exactly that he cannot be saved from his frightening distress with such stingy assistance. He remains ultimately abandoned to the banks and to creditors who are strangers to the soil, and has no guarantee that he can again raise for himself on his own free land and soil a healthy and secure livelihood. But also all other economic circles that are sufficiently insightful as to recognize that something fundamentally new must first be created in order to be able to construct a healthy economy in Germany again, stand most skeptically opposed to the measures of the Papen government, insofar as they do not, out of some narrow and cold political affiliation, surrender to some dangerous self-deception. The fear of the ultimate decision is today in economics unfortunately still just as great as in politics. We shall not however avoid this ultimate decision unless we want to deliver the German economy into Bolshevist chaos or foreign enslavement. And it also belongs to this ultimate decision that we must abandon an outmoded economic system. The global economy, as it developed on the basis of a free economy of money and credit, and with emphasis of international interests in commerce among the nations, was destroyed by the World War and by the structural changes in the particular economic zones of the world in their essential component parts. This destruction has also gripped the individual national economies, least of course those that at the right time grasped the national necessities protected themselves through state measures. The German economy and above all German agriculture have almost defenselessly fallen victim to this destruction. Now it is necessary at first to set up once again a national economy. Only then can trade with the rest of the world be newly regulated, and indeed in a manner that is appropriate to the nation's political and economic needs. We have in Germany enough national capital. And we can create new capital through labor, so that our people live and can further develop. We can and must reject international capital, and beyond that we have the task of liberating the German economy from the fetters of international capital.

German agriculture and likewise the whole German economy can only be helped through the national state, and not through international interest-bearing banks. Since we do not have a national money and credit system, we must create it. The same is true of all economic structures that are subject to international influences. To set aright a national German economy upon the basis of an internationally linked system of money and credit, as the Papen government currently attempts, is an absurdity and an irresponsible shortsightedness. The first one to collapse entirely under this system will be the German farmer. But industry, trade, and commerce will follow. Only a new government can accomplish the necessary reorganization of the German economy, which, supported by the confidence of the German people, will implement with inexorable consistency the national and socialist principles that today only the National-Socialist movement of Adolf Hitler represents.

10 September 2012

Gottfried Feder explains how he arrived at the view that interest on debts must be abolished

The general purpose of this short essay is similar to that of the first half of Mein Kampf: to show how the author arrived at his views.

It is interesting to observe in Feder's account how he values instinct over expertise. This attitude shows up also later in Hitler's writing and meshes nicely with National-Socialism's friendliness toward hereditary psychology. The valuation of instinct over reason is something found much earlier in Schopenhauer, who regarded reason as a very flawed and unreliable faculty.

Inner History
 of the
Abolition of Interest-Slavery

Gottfried Feder

Völkischer Beobachter, 1920, No. 72
Translation by Hadding Scott, 2012

 Fortunate is he who recognizes the deep causes of things. 
- Vergil

“How did you really arrive at the abolition of interest-slavery?” is a question now often posed to me.  I know not whether Columbus too was often asked: How did you really arrive at the discovery of America?  The answer to such a question can and will turn out very differently, depending on the position that the questioner takes in regard to the matter and in regard to the person. In any case I want to try to give an answer that satisfies the questioner and – what I consider more important in such cases – satisfies in best conscience the one who was asked.

In recognizing utterly important, perhaps the most important connections in the world's great questions, it is probably always a matter of a lightning-like intuition, of creative insight into hitherto obscure relationships, illumined by exciting prospects for the future. This birth of an idea, this sudden, clear cognizance of a truth, stands at the intersection of the inner and outer history of the idea. 

The inner history is often obscure and hidden; it runs part of its course entirely in the subconscious. In all cases however evidence for the psychological development of an idea can be found by thorough investigation of inner experiences; concomitantly of course a certain mental orientation is the prerequisite for correctly evaluating the experiences of the soul.

This mental prerequisite however cannot be in any way based in the effect of specialized training, but lies much more generally in the correct instinct for certain relationships.

In my case a good sense of relative magnitude was perhaps the prerequisite for the final assembly of the, at first correctly sensed, and then scientifically verified, array of facts. And in my specialized work as an engineer this sure sense for the order of magnitude has always been for me more important and more dependable for results of calculations, or for the dimensioning of construction-components, than the results of the slide-rule and the table of logarithms, which of course produce numerically much more  precise results, but do not give the correct “decimal point.” It is upon the correct “decimal point” however, in other words upon the order of magnitude – whether ones, tens, hundreds, or thousands –  that solutions to the most significant questions of economic policy depend, not upon the second, third, or fourth position in the number-series. The key consideration is not whether the German fixed-interest debt-burden amounts to 275 or 320 billion, and not whether the total capital of all German joint-stock companies amounts to 13.8 or 14.6 billion; the key consideration rather is that fixed-interest certificates demand an interest-payment of about 15 billion, whereas the total dividends of German industry in the best year amounted to only about one billion; thus it is a matter of the order of magnitude of 1:15, in regard to the proportion of the two most familiar forms of value-papers, fixed-interest assets and dividend-papers.[1]

The impact of not-always-easy experiences in life and career upon the orientation of the soul -- unlike the comfortable life based on income from mere possession of money, from interest and dividends -- caused heightened attention to general economic and social affairs. As a young engineer and entrepreneur with too little capital for my wide-ranging entrepreneurial ambition, I soon became acquainted with the iron, pitiless grip of the impersonal Money-Power that first offers and gives the desired “credit,” but then in every economic crisis proceeds exclusively in accord with the self-serving interests of capital. I then saw outside of Germany how the need of smaller states for credit was carefully nurtured and then the credit was “generously" given, for example the Disconto-Gesellschaft's 600 million given to Bulgaria in 1913-1914;[2] but then what demoralizing conditions of dependence of every kind also resulted from that. This is how the bridge was created, from narrow personal experience to comprehensive awareness of international relations. The awareness of strong, indivisible financial and moral interrelations was indeed present in the subconscious, but still not at all clear.

The Great War with its enormous impressions in the first years probably muddled the tracing of these financial problems, until the time when the gigantic financing of the World War through our war-bonds, and my uneasiness about the increasing indebtedness of the folk, fortified my attentiveness so much that I repeatedly protested even before banking professionals against the form of our much vaunted “sound debt” compared to the “floating debts” of France and England. Of course at the time I was more or less condescendingly smiled at, although it had to be conceded to me even back then that “of course with continuously increasing” indebtedness there could no longer be talk of a genuine “soundness” of the war-debt.

I would have regarded the indebtedness of the Reich through the certificate-press as enough in itself, without the obligation of further burdening the entire folk with high interest-payments, which, just like the debt itself, given the enormous figures coming into consideration, could never again be regarded as covered by the actual assets of the Reich, but could only ever be covered by the tax-potential of the entire folk. But for as long as a victorious end to the war left open the possibility of a complete or partial unloading of war-burdens, a thorough investigation of these affairs was neglected. As fate then fulfilled itself upon our poor German folk in those dark November days, then all of that experience and knowledge, conscious and unconscious, intuitive and rational, again awakened -- and my now clearly recognized answer to the simple question, “What now?” was:

a b o l i t i o n    o f    i n t e r e s t – s l a v e r y !

In one night the first essay came into being, and already on 20 November 1918 I submitted to the government of the People's State of Bavaria [under Kurt Eisner] my basic principles and demands for the abolition of interest-slavery.

I emphasize that Socialist thought-processes in no way supported it.

Indeed, unlike the revolutionary slogan of liberty, equality, fraternity, the idea of the abolition of interest-slavery found very little understanding in the Marxist ministry. Not to mention that the capitalist-oriented press cloaked itself in icy silence.

With this emergence of the idea before the public, the idea begins its outer history, which then will answer the also frequently posed question: “What has happened thus far for the actualization of the idea?”
1. Feder here is pointing out that Marxists exaggerated the importance of corporate stock-dividends in benefiting the rich at the expense of workers. While Feder does not disagree with the criticism of stock-dividends, he finds that the amount of interest that had to be paid out to the owners of Germany's war-debt (and debts in general) was a much larger problem, and also affected workers insofar as they had to pay for it with taxes. He may also be reacting to nitpicking of his Manifesto, wherein he pronounced the ratio of debt-interest to industrial dividends as 20:1 when the figures that he gave indicated 17:1.
2. The Disconto-Gesellshaft was founded in 1851 by David Hansemann. While Hansemann was not a Jew, the bank that he founded became part of the Rothschild Syndicate in 1901. In 1929 it was subsumed into Deutsche Bank. Bulgaria was deeply in debt after the Balkan wars of 1912-1913 and needed to consolidate the debt. After banks in France and Britain refused to issue new loans, the Bulgarian government began inquiring to banks in Austria and Germany. The loan from the Diskonto-Gesellschaft was secured with tobacco taxes, import duties, and revenue from the Bulgarian state's monopoly on cigarette-paper. Feder was probably especially aware of the Bulgarian situation because he worked on the construction of some official buildings there.

01 May 2012

A Nobel Laureate praises Hitler, part II: Hitler compared to Bismarck

Otto von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler pursued similar goals under different circumstances.

Adolf Hitler's Goals and Personality (1930)

by Dr. Johannes Stark

translated by Hadding Scott, 2012

II. The Leader

All progress and all culture of humanity are not born from the majority, but rely exclusively upon the ingenuity and drive of the personality.

The cause for which we fight is the securing of the existence and the increase of our race and our people, the nourishing of our children and preservation of our blood, and the freedom and independence of the Fatherland, so that our people can mature for the fulfillment of the mission assigned also to it by the Creator of the Universe.


The following explanations are meant not to treat Hitler's goals and personality in their entirety as can be expected from a historiographer; mainly because the available space would not suffice for that. Rather there are in them only those aspects of Hitler's personality, and such particular goals elucidated by him, as are likely to interest a certain circle of readers.

In the last years I have spoken with many capable, generally academically educated men from all professions about Hitler and his movement: with government officials from ministers to inspectors in a foreign office, from a general director of an economic-group [Wirtschaftskonzern] to the manager of a factory, from a university-professor to a public school teacher. These were men of great, in some cases exceptional competence in their fields and professional circles, of nationalist outlook and nationalist desire. Almost all however rejected Hitler and his movement. It was quite disturbing for me to have to conclude that these German men based their opinion of Hitler not on an accurate knowledge of his previous work and his writings: instead for the most part they contented themselves with a slogan from the anti-Hitler press. And whenever I explained to them in no uncertain terms that they were in gross ignorance about Hitler and his goals, and that they should have at least read his book before so casually judging the greatest and most promising personality in the German nation, they would shake their heads and lament that they had no time for a matter that would surely soon die out.

Today, after Hitler's overwhelming electoral victory on September 14th, many Germans who until then judged Hitler wrongly will be inclined or have the wish to get to know his goals and personality more accurately than hitherto, and to heed the answers that can be given to the objections against Hitler that they might raise even today.

Bismarck's highest goals were: binding together the insular German states into a political unity in a German Reich, after that securing this Reich against its internal and external enemies.

Hitler's highest goals are: creation of a German national community in the consciousness of all German people that they have a shared national character; strengthening of the German people in body and soul; and cultural and economic development of its assets and strengths, unimpeded by foreign peoples.

Bismarck's next tasks for the attainment of his highest goals were:
abroad, exclusion of the Habsburg Empire from the community of German states, neutralization of the western enemy of German unity [France], the Triple Alliance policy, and the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia; for securing the Reich internally, suppression of the Social-Democrats and the Center Party within Germany.

Hitler's next tasks for the attainment of his highest goals were and are: organization of a great number of German-conscious and struggle-ready men into a party, enlightenment of the mass of the German people about its situation and its enemies through an extended hard-hitting propaganda, acquisition of a deciding influence in the Reichstag, takeover of governments and destruction of Marxism, and therewith destruction of the domestic political weapon of the international finance-Jews, this at home; abroad, overtures toward an alliance with England and Italy for the purpose of shaking off the coercion of the German people through the the international finance-Jews' external weapon, French militarism.

Bismarck's success and failure in the attainment of his goals were grounded in his personality. Bismarck had the gift of seeing reality and inferring from observation of particular manifestations the cause determining them; he was an idealist who placed himself at the service of his people; he was a great character who fearlessly and tenaciously struggled for his goals. From personal experience he gained a realistic knowledge of the significance of the Prussian government and army; he became familiar with the dynastic relationships in Germany, Austria, Russia, and France, and the leading diplomats in these countries. And in accord with this knowledge in his foreign policy he employed the available military forces and diplomatic influence in negotiations; thus he attained his first goal, the founding of the German Reich. But Bismarck misjudged the influence of the Center leaders that actually existed in the Catholic portion of the German people; he knew not the soul and the social needs of the German industrial worker; therefore he chose the wrong methods for securing the Reich internally; his struggle using the powers of the governmen against the Center and against burgeoning Marxism met with no success.

Hitler, like Bismarck, has the gift of seeing reality. But the territory of his experiences and observations is essentially different from Bismarck's. While Bismarck's eye saw preponderantly the organs of the state, namely the monarchs, ministers, parliaments, and armies, Hitler's eye sees preponderantly the bearer of the state, the folk itself. As a child of the folk he lives in the midst of it, stands next to the manual laborer as a manual laborer, stands next to the common soldier as a common soldier, observes and collects experiences throughout many years. In Vienna as a construction worker
he observes the economic and cultural misery of the folk's lower class, the Jew in his influence upon the working class and the press, the successes of Lueger's Christian-Social Party, the struggles of the nationalities in the parliament at Vienna, and the slavization-policy of the Habsburgs. As a soldier for four years on the Western Front he observes the soul of his comrades, the effect of enemy propaganda and propaganda from the homeland. In the homeland as a wounded soldier, he observes the effects of Jewish war-societies and the Jewish press upon the people. During the revolution he observes attentively the relationship of the revolutionaries, the bourgeoisie, civil servants, the army, and the army-associations. In the year 1923 he receives in Munich the opportunity also to become acquainted with leading politicians.

Like Bismarck, Hitler understands not merely how to see things and men as they really are; rather he is like that one thinker who recognizes the causes of the observed events and the motives of the people acting in them. But Hitler goes even deeper; he is equal to a great natural scientist who reveals the law-governed relationships of observed phenomena and penetrates into knowledge of their ultimate causes and forces. He sees well the immediate causes for the growth of the Marxist movement, for the success of subversive propaganda at the front and in the homeland, for the failure of the bourgeoisie, officers, and civil servants in the face of mutineers and revolutionaries, the causes for the establishment and tolerance until now of the disgraceful and murderous policy of compliance [with the Treaty of Versailles]. But he searches even deeper, after the ultimate root of the greatest achievements and of the ruin of a nation, and he finds it in the racial character of a people and in the ingenuity and energy of particular personalities in it.

In accord with this fundamental knowledge Hitler chooses the highest goals for the German people; from the same knowledge and in regard to these goals he also formulates the fundamental tasks for the attainment of them: the state is there for the folk; its organization has to serve the wellbeing and development [
Entwicklung] of the folk; its government belongs not in the hands of the makers of a parliamentary majority but in the hands of a responsible leader; the upbringing of the youth must have as its goal the development of national consciousness and the feeling of honor and responsibility toward the folk-community, and the cultivation of a healthy soul in a healthy body. The economy of the folk is to be secured in itself through the promotion of agriculture and through the acquisition of new permanent settlement-area.

*  *  *

The statesman contents himself not with the knowledge of the driving forces in the life of peoples, not with the establishment of goals for the political and economic development of his people, but instead he strides into action, into the practical solution of the set tasks. The success that he may have is based again in his personality, above all in three qualities, in his courage [Mut], which recoils neither before personal danger nor before the greatest oppositions, in his cleverness [Geschicklichkeit], with which he chooses his methods under the given circumstances, in his perseverance [Ausdauer], with which he pursues his goals and even overcomes defeats.

Bismarck had personal courage compared to the mass of the people and compared to his king; he had courage for the war with France; he was a master of diplomatic technique; he was an unbending fighter until his dismissal, even until his death. Of course at the beginning of his political activity great helps were available to him: a wise, trustworthy monarch, a crack army, an efficient government.

Hitler sees himself at the beginning of his political activity faced with incomparably greater difficulties than Bismarck: dissolution of the army, corruption of the government,
overpowering Jewish-led internal foes, a front of militarily overpowering external foes of the German folk. No financial means and no political organizations are at his disposal. Truly, Hitler's courage, to begin the deed of realizing his political goals under such circumstances, was even greater than the courage with which he exposed himself in his gatherings to the danger of being beaten to death by the incited mob.

Hitler's cleverness in the choice of the practical means for the solution of great and small tasks is astonishing: he is the born organizer. He chooses and creates his means
for himself according to the lay of the existing circumstances in such a way as to attain the set goal. Thus he adapted the nature of his propaganda to capture the mass of the people, above all the Marxist-led working class; he secured his party and its gatherings against the terror of his Marxist opponents through the organization of battle-loving, fearless men in a detachment of his movement, the Sturm-Abteilung (S.A.); he gave to his party a firm program and set it financially upon the secure basis of contributions from the members; he convinced all Germany with a network of local groups and bound them together tightly controlled [in einer straffen Leitung] by his hand. A crowning achievement of unification, showing deep insight with clever calculation, was his creation of a special banner for his movement, the hooked-cross flag, along with the motto: freedom and bread.

Hitler's perseverance and unbending will in the pursuit of his goals has already proven itself in a quite dramatic form. In November 1923 the van of the procession of his fellow strugglers and supporters is gunned down by the rifles of German soldiers
in front of the Feldherrnhalle in Munich: instead of the guilty and responsible Bavarian general state commissar, Hitler is put on trial; he is confined in a fortress; the Jewish press make him and his movement disreputable in the bourgeoisie and among the workers with the word putsch. But Hitler refuses to bend. Even during his imprisonment in Landsberg he writes the first volume of his book, which bears the title My Struggle. Nowhere in this book is even a whiff of flagging courage to be detected: instead, everywhere the conviction of the correctness of his goals and the certainty of the final victory of the movement that he had called to life. And no sooner is Hitler free again than he begins rebuilding his party, labors without rest and perseveres against the blackout [Totschweigetaktik] now being employed by the Jewish and Jewish-influenced press.

The statesman proves himself in the success of his political activity. Bismarck's work lies hidden from our eyes. Hitler yet stands at the beginning of his activity. But his successes toward his highest goals are already so great that all eyes of statesmen in Germany and abroad see them. From a group of seven men Hitler has in a few years developed a party of millions. In this party Germans of all classes and denominations feel that they are a national community [völkische Gemeinschaft]; more than a hundred-thousand strong men stand ready to fend off the violation of their national community with the fist. In the Reichstag Hitler's parliamentary fighting-force of 107 men stands as the second-strongest party. Marxism and the Jewish-led bourgeoisie have been put on the defensive by Hitler and his movement. The entire domestic policy of the government of the Reich and of the governments of the lands must reckon with the party led by Hitler; foreign policy must follow. The whole rest of the world watches Hitler and begins to reckon seriously with the present and still-increasing strength of his movement: from Italy the leader of the Italian nation greets Hitler; in England one of the most influential newspaper-owners acknowledges the significance of Hitler's movement and the need for revision of the treaties forced on Germany;
the fear of Hitler's awakening Germany talks in the speeches of French politicians. Shortly before Hitler's victory the Dictate of Versailles still seemed both to the French, and to the German Marxists and to the compliance-politicians, as an unassailable fundamental law for the political order of Europe and for the suppression of the German people. A few weeks after Hitler's victory, not only is revision of the dictate of enslavement pleaded as an unquestionable necessity in America, England, and Italy, but in France itself a known German-hater gives his fellow countrymen the good advice to revise the so-called peace-treaty for Germany's benefit as soon as possible. And in Germany the Marxist chief-comrade [Obergenosse] Braun must force himself to act as if even he supported a revision.

One measures the greatness of Hitler's personality and his successes hitherto by comparing him with the political figures of the new Germany, with the inept party-leaders
in ministers' chairs that were washed with the flood of ballots, with erstwhile imperial civil servants and officers that, operating mindlessly within a schematic conception of their duties, allowed themselves to be abused by Marxist governments contrary to the interests of the German people, and have even acquiesced in the disgraceful and intolerable slavery of the Young Plan.

Because of his successes and the growing strength of his movement, Hitler today is, even in the eyes of his opponents, a statesman who already influences, and in the not-distant future will decisively change, the development of the internal and external situation of the German people. For the millions of his supporters however he is already today more than a statesman: he is to them the leader that they follow enthusiastically in the struggle for the freedom and future of the German people. They have the conviction that the National-Socialist movement will absorb or destroy all other parties, and will finally unify in itself the entire German people. They have the conviction that Hitler will construct a new German Reich that will be internally more stable and outwardly stronger and more secure, and will last longer than the Reich of Bismarck. Hitler will give to the German people a new political worldview: through him and his movement the Germanic leadership will vanquish Judeo-Western parliamentarism; Nordic idealism will overcome Jewish Mammonism.


Johannes Stark (1874-1957) was a physicist who discovered in 1913 what came to be known as the Stark effect (the splitting of spectral lines in electric fields). This was foundational to the development of quantum theory. For the Stark effect and for the discovery of the Doppler effect in canal rays, Stark was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1919.

Stark joined the NSDAP in April 1930, three years before Adolf Hitler became Chancellor.

In 1947 a denazification court sentenced this Nobel laureate to a prison-term of four years.