National Socialism

From Metapedia
(Redirected from National socialism)
Jump to: navigation, search
Adolf Hitler in 1930
1932 NSDAP poster, "We workers have awakened, we vote for National Socialists"

National Socialism appeared first as the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) under the leadership of Adolf Hitler in Germany after World War I.

Since the postwar period a truthful and transparent approach to National Socialist ideology has always remained elusive. The most common approach is to pass off National Socialism as a movement without ideological substance, which merely reacted to events, took advantage of political upheavals and, in some mysterious way, hypnotised the masses with the hysterical rhapsody of anti-Semitism. Thus National Socialism has been stereotyped as a creed as baseless as it was incoherent. [...] Contrary to popular opinion, Hitler’s and the National Socialist ‘Worldview’ was not based on ‘anti-Semitism’ – the Jewish question was at best a minor irritant to the Third Reich – it had nothing to do with ‘mysticism’ or the ‘occult’, and it certainly did not promote the idea that the people of Germany were a ‘Master Race’. The National Socialist Worldview was based on far deeper and timeless principles which existed long before the creation of the Third Reich, and which will remain long after mankind has ceased to exist. Seventy years of lies and simplifications must be left behind in order to understand the principles that underpinned National Socialist ideology.[1]


The original 25 points was the party programme of the NSDAP. Later National Socialism became the state ideology of National Socialist Germany. Political parties in various other countries have described themselves as National Socialist; and the inter-war years notorious Czech party of Benes was the National Socialist Party. Such parties are prohibited in Germany itself after World War II.

The contents of the ideology are extensively disputed with National Socialists (and others) often stating that the politically correct description is grossly incorrect in various aspects. Also, as for other ideologies, there are also ideological disputes between National Socialists. By necessity later National Socialists must to some degree adapt the original ideology to new circumstances. For example, the 25 points program sometimes refers to specific German post-World War I circumstances either no longer existing or no longer practical.

Important aspects of the ideology of the NSDAP and National Socialist Germany that many supporters and critics would probably agree on include race realism/racialism, German nationalism, community solidarity building among Germans (Volksgemeinschaft), eugenics, an intermediary position between extreme socialism and extreme capitalism regarding economic policy, opposition to liberal democracy, anti-communism, and opposition to Jewry.

There has been considerable academic debate as to the National Socialists's position on the extreme socialism they first envisaged in 1919-20, and their later accommodation with capitalism, given their subsequent involvement with and support from industrialists[2] and the abandonment of the bulk of their nationalisation policies.[3] However, the British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir Horace Rumbold, seemed to think that Germany was very socialist already, writing on 28 June 1932:

The growth of anti-capitalist feeling in Germany is, of course, no new discovery, and it is not confined to the National Socialists. Under the old pre-war regime, contempt for finance, business and money was common to army officers and officials, and the old ideas survive amongst the crop of new ones. Now that the Government controls the banks and, in effect, steel and shipping interests, and foreign exchange, while the Prussian State owns huge forests and vast coal interests, the step to official State socialism is but a short one, and the change, if carried out by experienced and responsible people, might not be so noticeable.[4]


Much has been said about the National Socialists in parliament. Here is what the British Ambassador had to say:

I attended the opening of the Reichstag today. The prediction, which was shared, amongst others, by Dr.Meissner, Prussian Secretary of State, that there might be serious trouble, was not fulfilled. Nothing could have been more quiet than the proceedings. The 230 National Socialists, in full strength, looking smart and well-groomed, were in uniform and occupied more that one third of the seating accommodation of the House. Punctually at 3 o'clock the aged Communist Deputy, Klara Zetkin[5], supported by two Communists, was assisted to the Presidential Chair, to which, as the oldest Deputy, she was entitled by the rites of procedure to open parliament. After she had taken her seat the Communist Party deputies rose as a body and gave three 'Red Front' cheers for her without provoking the slightest reaction. In a silence so complete as to be almost uncanny, Zetkin, though ill and struggling for breath, made a speech of a propagandist nature, in which she referred to the collapse of capitalism, the coming revolution, and abused the von Papen government. Her speech was like hot air. The National Socialists displayed complete unconcern, and the House, except for the perfunctory applause of the Communists, listened to Zetkin's speech in absolute silence....That their discipline on this occasion was excellent must be admitted. They behaved, in fact, as if they meant themselves to be take seriously. For the post of President of the Chamber the National Socialist candidate Captain Hermann Goering, was elected with 367 votes over the Social Democratic candidate, Dr.Loebe, the former President, who obtained only 135 votes, and the Communist, Torgler, who obtained 80. Immediately the result was announced, Frau Zetkin gave up the presidential chair to Captain Goering. ~ Sir Horace Rumbold, British Ambassador in Berlin, 30 August 1932.[6]


Political Nationalism


This is a source text. Spelling and smaller errors in the content can be corrected. The source is given in the "Source" part.

National Socialism is best viewed as the family structure applied to government. The family is connected by blood, by soil, and by love. Similarly, a National Socialist State is connected by blood (race), by soil (territory), and by love (comradeship, patriotism). Comparing the National Socialist folkish state with a family is a very basic way of looking at the way National Socialism is run politically. Like a family, the National Socialist state is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a value only if it preserves and safeguards the contents. The value of one is inferior to the value of the whole, and if need be, the lesser must be sacrificed to protect the the greater. In a National Socialism state, one has rights and a proportionate amount of responsibilities. He has freedom and liberty to do what he will, as long as it is not at the detriment of anyone else or the racial nation itself.
National Socialist Germany
Adolf Hitler
Allied psychological warfare
Book burning/censorship
and National Socialist Germany
Claimed mass killings of Germans
by the WWII Allies
Claimed mass killings of non-Jews
by National Socialist Germany
Clean Wehrmacht
Degenerate art
Foreign military volunteers
and National Socialist Germany
Master race
Munich Putsch
National Socialism and occultism
National Socialist Germany
and forced labor
National Socialist Germany
and partisans/resistance movements
National Socialist Germany revisionism
National Socialist Germany's
nuclear weapons program
Night of the Long Knives
Nuremberg trials
Pre-WWII anti-National
Socialist Germany boycott
Revisionist views on
the causes of the World Wars
Soviet offensive plans controversy
Superior orders
The Holocaust
The World Wars and mass starvation‎


There are no popular elections in a National Socialist State, just as there are none in a family. Elections rarely produce a strong leader, rather, they produce politicians, and the very politicians who are most adept at lying and deceiving the populace are the ones who usually win. In a democratic system, the votes of two idiots count for more than that of one well informed man. In a National Socialist system will, character, and ability are the three main tenets of leadership, and leadership, and leaders are appointed to office by their superiors rather than elected. By way of this appointment, the leaders of a National Socialist state have absolute power to make decisions over their particular field. Some say that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but society must front up to three facts before being so hasty to throw this type of catch phrase around.

First — Power must be given to somebody, else there is no more than anarchy.
Second — It is essential to have responsibility for power, lest it be misused. Where one man is making the decisions, he alone is responsible for the outcome of those decisions. Where votes are taken in a parliament or senate, responsibility is so divided that effectively no one held accountable.
Third — Given power’s tendency to corrupt, it makes more sense to entrust it to him who shows the best character, and is consequently more able to resist its corrupting influence.

If two men stand together, and one is to have power over the other, if it is natural that is should be the better man, the man with the stronger will, the better character, and the superior ability, that rules over his companion. This is the formula that has always stood throughout Man’s history, and is in fact the very basis of any structured and hierarchical society outside of human society. It is the strongest and most dominant lion who leads the pride — he is the one who is the most likely to make the best decisions most of the time. If he becomes too foolish or too old, there is always a younger and smarter lion waiting in the wings to take his place. The same is true in the Nationalist folkish state.


Under the democratic systems, responsibility is split up among numerous individuals, and ultimately lies with the general public that elects the electors. This leads to the undesirable situation of the electors or representatives having little to no responsibility for the way in which they use (or misuse) their power. The very worst that could happen is that they manage to fall out of favor with their electorate come the next elections and lose their seat in office. We can see, through the various hucksters and showboat politicans we have had leading our nations, that this little deterrent to wildly abusing political power.

In the national Socialist system however, ultimate responsibility lies in one man, the leader, to make ultimate decisions. Should those decisions turn out to be made in error, then he must accept responsibility for those errors and hand over his power to a more capable person.

Other leaders, subordinate to the leader, have dual responsibilities, not only to their decisions, but to carry out the decisions of their superiors. Should these duties be carried out to the satisfaction of their superiors, they are rewarded with more power; should they not, then their power is reduced or they are deposed.


Rights are not given to the individual by some spook in the sky. For one to give rights he must have a way of enforcing them, and an imaginary spirit in the sky can not and does not. Rights are granted by the more powerful to the less powerful, and they come with responsibilities. If the rights-granters and enforcers are corrupt or tyrannical, then the inferior must earn the right to become granters and enforcers themselves by demonstrating their superior character through revolution.

Under National Socialism rights are directly proportionate to one’s responsibility to the folkish state. There are people (subjects) who have very little responsibility, and consequently have very few rights. There are others (citizens) who have a normal responsibility and enjoy the same rights as most everyone else. There are those (leaders) who bear the burden of tremendous responsibility and have not only personal rights, but guarantee the rights of others (in other words, they hold political power).


The structure of a National Socialist government is, as I said, like that of a family. It is ruled from the top down, in a pyramid fashion, rather than the other way around, as the democracies. Every leader has council and advisers, but that council is there to advise that particular leader on a certain things, not to make decisions. The advice travels upward, the decisions travel downward. Committees may be held, but again, the purpose of these bodies is to advise those making the decisions, rather than make the decisions themselves.

Democracy, at its heart, is mob rule. Whoever is in favor with the mob is “right”, and whoever is not is “wrong”. A small minority may actually be right about something, yet drowned out by the large majority and the many voices of their misinformed argument. With the advent of mass media this tendency is strengthened, as the folks behind the amplifiers can more or less create “public opinion”. Indeed, so strong are the mass media that public opinion can be shaped and manipulated in such a way that the majority of people, never well informed ever, are firmly convinced they’re in the driver’s seat by the media-masters who really do exert the control. At the end of the day you have a society governed by the will of the masses, yes, but a will manipulated-created by the media moguls (who tend to be Jewish). Under this democratic mob rule, with it’s glorification of the dunce’s opinion, a mob mentality quickly predominates, and its effects are vastly compounded by the media. The mob mentality by its very nature is an attempt to bring everyone into one line of thinking, with people trying to approximate the mean, and therefore become part of the majority. True aristocrats learn to dress, behave, live, down in an attempt to be men of the people. In a society where the majority is always right, who wants to be in the minority, which is by definition wrong? The standard that determines elections comes to determine quality and everything else. Racial and social destruction ensue, benefiting only the Jews of the mass media, operating behind the scenes like the man behind the screen in “Wizard of Oz.”

Economic National Socialism

Many Reactionaries make the error of closely comparing National Socialism to Communism in terms of economical policy, when in fact the two stand wide apart from each other. It is also interesting to note that the Communist claim National Socialism at all, and is in fact the purest form of Capitalism. In reality, however, National Socialism is neither Capitalism nor Bolshevik communism, but takes natural and healthy elements from each one to form a more “centrist” style of government. Neither laissez-faire Capitalism nor Bolshevik communism have ever worked in practice, and neither of them will work because they are both two sides of the same coin. What we need, rather than one unhealthy extreme or the other, is a healthy median, a balance, between the two. The National Socialist state allows capitalistic principles, but not at the expense of the collective folk.

Economic Individualism

In a National Socialist society, unlike Communism, there is certainly private ownership of property and land, and there is private ownership of possessions and capital. But unlike Capitalism, through, financial interests are curtailed and restricted at the point where they begin to have a negative effect on the folkish state. One example of this might be the charging of usurious interest rates on loans, which binds the working class into the slavery of an endless debt/ interest cycle. Interest rates for the public should never be raised past a fraction of a percent, and this should be set in place by the central nationalized bank and this rate controlled by the Minister of Finance through the President of the bank.

The charging of interest on loans by any organization or business or individual is strictly forbidden, for that is the acquisition of incoming for those not employed or making no effort which is also forbbidden.

Early campaign poster by Mjölnir (Hans Herbert Schweitzer): "National Socialism – The Organized Will of the Nation"

Labor unions nationalized

"Death to Marxism" (1926)

To promote better understanding between workers and employers, all labor unions are nationalized into one monolithic body. This organization is headed by one individual known as the work leader who is, in turn, responsible to the leader. Any conflicts or disputes that do arise between employers and workers are resolved through mediation between representatives and the employer, by an organization setup for that purpose.

This organization shall take the form of a commission consisting in an equal proportion of representatives of various industries and representatives, who are representative of the workers of various said industries, and chaired by a representative of Economics Ministry. This organization shall have power to appoint a mediator or make recommendations and suggestions to the representative of the Economics Ministry who alone has the power to force a solution.

Philosophical National Socialism

Most every other philosophy, political nation, or religious belief stems from the absurd notion that human beings are somehow above nature, that for some strange reason, biological laws just don’t apply to humans. National Socialism is the only one that accepts the concrete fact that humans are indeed part of the Nature also.

It is National Socialism that is the ideology of Nature the living of one’s life based on Natural principles.

One can choose to live in a material fashion, pursuing wealth, short-term gratification, fornication, or other “feel good” goals. Or one can choose to live in a way that reflects accordance with Nature, in pursuit of an idealistic goal which may not be achieved for centuries, patiently waiting for love over simply fornication, and replacing the notion that money is king with that one that excellence is king.

There is more to life than material wealth.

National Socialist hold the premise that it is better for a society to be motivated toward a higher goal than simply “feeling good” in the present, and that in fact pursuing this short-term goal society is left worse off, just as the individual ends up feeling sorry for himself in the long term.

The basis for this “feel good” mentality is rather childish. A child does not plan for the future, he wants his gratification now, and that is all that matters to him.

Quality and quantity

National Socialism is any ideology of quality over quantity. National Scientists would rather have a better society than a large one; we would rather have fewer, better people than a great number of mediocre people.

The Individual and the collective

National Socialism recognizes the fact that men are born neither isolated individuals nor members of an ant colony.

We are born into the world as both an individual will and spirit and part of a family, the basic unity of society. We are also born into a race, which is merely an extension of the family — a larger family of distant relatives with whom we share a common bond. It is only sensible to recognize both of these realms rather than ignore one (as collectivist communism does) or the other (as individualist capitalism does).

Equality and inequality

I cover biological differences later on, but I am more concerned with the philosophical argument here.

One recurring argument of the egalitarians is that “we are all human,” “we are all self-conscious,” “we all bleed,” and therefore we are all the same. The same might be said of numerous animals, though. Degrees of differences are all important, and we see the fact reflected around us everywhere.


Morals are nothing but opinion, usually opinion, codified into a set of doctrines that are at their root, completely arbitrary. There is no universal morality. Opinions are neither right nor wrong, just facts, because only facts can be demonstrated so.

One man’s morality might be different from mine, and both may differ from Bobs next door. A hundred years ago homosexuality was immortal, but today the majority of the populace believes it’s perfectly moral (this however, does not mean over time, they are very fluid and plastic and can be influenced by factors.

Whose Superiority?

In the natural world, the strong dominate the weak. The higher evolved forms dominate and subjugate the lower evolved forms. In nature, might is the only right and extinction is the punishment for weakness.

This is true for humans when one looks at the way the higher races have dominated the lower for the last few millennia. There is nothing “wrong” with dominating those of an inferior kind; those who are not strong enough to preserve their independence are either absorbed or crushed.

Biological National Socialism

National Socialism has its roots in nature; it is merely natural principles (rule of one, natural selection, race as family, etc.) applied to the political and the general philosophical realms. In that sense it is Natural Socialism, it is neither extreme individualism nor extreme collectivism, for neither of these are natural and both of them assume men to be above nature. It is biology taken to its logical political and social conclusions.

Simple Biological Principles

Why is it that with the evidence in front of the eyes of every biologist in the world, only a minute percentage has the sense to advocate putting these solid evolutionary biological principles into social application? That they have not done so shows me that their cowardice overrides their intelligence.

The races are not equal. They did not evolve equally because the environments in which they evolved were different. It should be common sense, therefore, to conclude that the races cannot be considered equal in any way, shape, or form. They are distinct biological branches of the human species.

Socio-reproductive tends

Certainly they should evolve differently. In fact, if we are to accept evolution and modern biology at all they must evolve differently. One of the ways in which this difference is quite striking is in the socio-reproductive strategies of the races, and how they differ.

Of course, we cannot attibute all the racial differences to socio-reproductive behavior alone, as that itself is a racial trait, and the root of these always has and always will be Natural Selection. But we can observe that these same socio-reproductive tends that are evolved behavior can themselves influence the evolutionary development of a race, magnifying the effects of natural selection and increasing the difference races.


As we can see, the National Socialist Weltanschauung is considerably more than a political system like republicanism or democracy, or even an ideological economic system like communism or capitalism. It is something more, something else.

It is not a religion or something that is expected to be taken on grounds of faith, the principles I have outlined here are solidly rooted in fact and logic. There are no spooks in the sky here, or Utopian promises of universal equality. The very concept of National Socialism means simply a racial state -an extension of the family, the folk, the people.
Source: Ryan Mcgregor: Political Nationalism, 11 December 2017 (archive)


Today, any form of support of White European interests combined with any criticisms of anything Jewish or non-politically correct is likely to be labelled "Nazism", "Neo-Nazism" or Nazi sympathising. However, individuals or organizations may reject this label for reasons such as disagreeing with National Socialist Germany's treatment of Jews (even if they are Holocaust revisionists), treatment of other groups, the economic system of National Socialist Germany, the political system of National Socialist Germany, alleged anti-Slavism of National Socialist Germany (which in fact long pre-dates the National Socialists), alleged imperialism and colonialism objectives of National Socialist Germany, and other reasons.

Also individuals or organizations describing themselves as National Socialists may be critical of some aspects of National Socialist Germany and/or some aspects of the ideology of the NSDAP.

See also

Further reading

  • Hitler, Adolf: Mein Kampf (1925, various editions and reprints)
  • Videla, Carlos: National Socialism – Its Principles and Philosophy[7] Sanctuary Press Ltd, 2020, ISBN-13‎ 978-1912887651
  • Zakal, Daniel: National Socialism – Our Struggle,[8] Zakal Publishing, 2020, ISBN 978-0578790411

External links

See the article on National Socialist Germany regarding external links specifically on this topic

References and footnotes

  1. Carlos Videla, in: National Socialism - Its Principles and Philosophy, Sanctuary Press Ltd, 2020
  2. Thyssen, Fritz, I Paid Hitler, Hodder & Stourton, London, Nov.1941.
  3. Tooze, Adam, The Wages of Destruction - The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, Allen Lane, London, 2006, ISBN: 0-713-99566-1
  4. Woodward, Prof. E.L, & Butler, Rohan, editors, Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, Second series, vol.iii, HMSO, London, p.5.
  5. Clara Zetkin was a German Marxist theorist. Until 1917, she was active in the Social Democratic Party of Germany. She then joined the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD) and its Far-left wing, the Spartacist League. This later became the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), which she represented in the Reichstag during the Weimar Republic from 1920 until her death in 1933.
  6. Woodward, Butler & Lambert, Second series, vol.iv, 1950, p.45-7.
  7. Since the postwar period a truthful and transparent approach to National Socialist ideology has always remained elusive. The most common approach is to pass off National Socialism as a movement without ideological substance, which merely reacted to events, took advantage of political upheavals and, in some mysterious way, hypnotised the masses with the hysterical rhapsody of anti-Semitism. Thus National Socialism has been stereotyped as a creed as baseless as it was incoherent. This book seeks to shed light on the principles and philosophy of National Socialism, and what it meant to the millions of Europeans who gave their lives to its ideals and creed. Contrary to popular opinion, Hitler’s and the National Socialist ‘Worldview’ was not based on ‘anti-Semitism’ – the Jewish question was at best a minor irritant to the Third Reich – it had nothing to do with ‘mysticism’ or the ‘occult’, and it certainly did not promote the idea that the people of Germany were a ‘Master Race’. The National Socialist Worldview was based on far deeper and timeless principles which existed long before the creation of the Third Reich, and which will remain long after mankind has ceased to exist. Seventy years of lies and simplifications must be left behind in order to understand the principles that underpinned National Socialist ideology. This book is an invitation to those adventurous and nonconformist spirits who dare to examine pages censured by official historiography. Uncovering the ideological foundations of National Socialism, with a free spirit and an open mind, will be an enlightening and rewarding adventure.
  8. "Dive deep into the Ideology, philosophy, and worldview that changed the world in 1933 and still does to this day! Ask yourself this: Can you really trust the information that you are receiving from your Governments, Universities, or Influencers? Can you believe everything that your teacher or professors say is correct? Do you honestly trust your national news networks to tell the honest truth and even the brutal truth? If you said "No" or "Maybe" or even "I don't really know". How can you trust what you've been told in your History class? This book is a must-read for those wanting to gain a more thorough understanding of German National Socialism and the creator, leaders, and followers. This book is for everyone and anyone even those who hate us without having the real truth about us from us. Delve into the key people who forged National Socialist German Policy and understand the foundations of National Socialism and its ultimate understanding of the universe. Find the answers to many questions and myths people have about National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. You do not want to miss this opportunity to read our side of the story and have no distortion of the facts. The real truth about us and what we believe. The victors write the history books and you have been fooled."