Joseph Goebbels’s article on the German Revolution, the “most bloodless in world history” – i.e. the 1933 National Socialist seizure of power
An accusation commonly leveled against National Socialism (particularly by those on the Left, both during the inter-War era and today) is that it was a “reactionary” movement and ideology. Some of the critiques made in this regard – i.e that it sought a restoration of the Hohenzollerns – are rather silly. Others – such as it being in favor of the financial status quo, rather than being truly anti-capitalist – require a more nuanced examination and produce less clear-cut answers. Whatever the reality, the National Socialists in Germany certainly regarded themselves as a revolutionary movement and took this claim seriously. Hitler in 1923 had created dissension early on within the inter-state National Socialist movement through his insistence on armed revolution as the only legitimate means of achieving power. Even after he dropped this position following the failure of his subsequent Beer Hall Putsch, a revolutionary idealism remained within the NSDAP and increasingly came to dominate the older National Socialist parties across the border. Hitler’s newfound commitment to legality after 1923 was tactical, not ideological, borne partly from necessity and partly from a desire to build up popular support. Violence as an option was still maintained quietly in reserve, as he made clear in Mein Kampf: “…we will not shun illegal means if the oppressor also applies them.” Either way, legal or illegal, the result of the Party’s tactics was still also intended to be the same: the complete, revolutionary transformation of German society. In Hitler’s famous September 1930 speech at the ‘Ulm Reichswehr Trial’, he claimed that the NSDAP’s aim was the “spiritual revolutionizing of the German Volk” in order that the German people might “construct a completely new state” upon the Party’s attaining power. Very similar sentiments are expressed by Goebbels in a short June 1933 essay from the Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, translated below. He paints Hitler’s ascension to the Chancellorship and the formation of the ‘National Government’ as part of a revolutionary process – the culmination of years of struggle producing “the most bloodless [revolution] in world history” (a popular Nazi claim) and, consequently, a new state driven by a revolutionary Idea which will “conquer all areas of public life in order to integrate them with and subordinate them to its spirit.” Goebbels’s article was published in the same edition of the NS-Monatshefte as this piece on the German Revolution by Röhm. The two complement each other, although Röhm’s is in some ways even more explicitly radical.
The German Revolution
Joseph Goebbels, Reichsminister
for Public Enlightement and Propaganda
First published in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, vol. 4, no. 39, June 1933
The conditions of that world-historical January night,1 whose course of events seized the entirety of a suffering, tormented Volk down to their utmost depths and filled them with new faith and new hope, did not come about by coincidence. Within and behind them lies the great, dynamic principle of a political movement whose countenance bears revolutionary features. A movement which – like all truly creative forces in history – is gradually outgrowing the confinement of the smallest of anonymous beginnings, is rising to the daunting tasks which it seeks to fulfill, and, refined through hard years of persecution and the terror of its opponents, is organically, inexorably, and irrevocably interposing its influence in the great matters of public life. At the end of its path, the breadth and impact of which is determined by the revolutionary drive of its adherents, lies that time when it now seizes the heavy responsibility of state authorities, the time of new powers and new men who provide the structure of the political system with that form which corresponds to its own internal legitimacy.
Revolutions are spiritual acts. They take place initially within people themselves, and then within the manifestations of art, politics, and economy. The upheaval which we can witness today first occurred within the spirit of this movement. Out of its new stylistic sensibility, its creative power, grew the legitimacy of the German Revolution. With its victory it matured to the state principle.
Revolutions are waged by worldviews [Weltanschauungen], but worldviews are borne and driven forwards by men. Thus it is no coincidence that the reshaping of our German life everywhere and within everything is intrinsically National Socialist in nature. This movement has for 14 years been tenacious and dogged against all odds, bearing the huge burden of an unparalleled two-front war upon itself, unswervingly declaring war on the status-snobbery of the right and the class-spirit of the left. It was this movement’s propaganda which slowly began to loosen up the ossified forms and structures of German politics, which liberated people from the men of the stale, long-outmoded circles and poured them into the mighty crucible of a new political Idea. Ostracized and unpopular, it pushed aside everything that is minor and everything that divides; it put clearly and matter-of-factly at the center of things that which alone is able to unite a nation; it formed the spiritual foundations of a new state creed – and thus established the grounds on which an entire Volk came together, who had until then seemed eternally split and torn asunder.
The National Socialist movement, as the agent behind that historical act of 30th January, is now in the process of making its impact; because this revolution is its revolution. It evinces everywhere and within everything the great, clear features of the Idea. It does not stop anywhere or for anyone. It does not content itself with new flags and new emblems. Step by step it conquers all areas of public life in order to integrate them with and subordinate them to its spirit.
The meaning and essence of a revolutionary upheaval are never decided by the means which are employed during its course, but exclusively by the objective which is achieved. If one today rightly calls this revolution the most bloodless in world history, this just demonstrates how much things bear the stamp of our will. Revolutions are educational elements in history. They are instructive for the most profound and most fundamental reasons. Only the mob makes revolutions out of passion and chaos. The National Socialist, by comparison, only sees revolution as one stage in the construction of a new state. That is why he, as a rebel, maintains a cohesive stance. That attitude of discipline and responsibility, that commitment to the deeper forces of the future, the conscious dignity of an old culture – just so, exactly as we demonstrated to the world.
It is not people who make revolutions, but revolutionary conditions which drive people to revolt. It remains a great sign of our times that our revolution was not in actual fact the affair of an oppressed class. It has become the cause and subject matter of an entire great Volk. It is altogether a German Revolution. With and within it 65 million are rising up: women and men, youngsters and elders, Bürgers, peasants, workers, students and soldiers. 65 million, to whom a sophisticated lunacy denies the right to life and freedom. In misery and torment, despair and bitterness, they join their hands together and march under the leadership of Adolf Hitler and his movement towards becoming a new Volk and a new state; borne along by an Idea that surmounted all the symptoms of a moribund liberal epoch, an Idea which formed the ethos of the great “We” – the socialist, blood-related Volksgemeinschaft – and was driven by that passion which has been and still is the longing of all great Germans since the beginning: The Reich!
1. Goebbels is referring to January 30, 1933, the day when President Hindenberg appointed Hitler Chancellor of the German Reich. Hitler and his cabinet were sworn in about midday; by the early evening a massive parade of torch-bearing Stormtroopers had been organized to march through the center of Berlin, a spectacle which lasted much of the night. This huge procession marked the symbolic beginning of the ‘national uprising’, which is why Goebbels refers to it as a historic night and associates it with the ‘German Revolution’.
Translated from Joseph Goebbels’s Die deutsche Revolution, (June 1933), Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, vol. 4, no. 39
Goebbels was originally from the Strasserist faction in the NSDAP in northern Germany, not the Hitlerist faction from Munich during the Weimar-era. The impression most historians have towards Goebbels was that he was a Hitlerist through and through, implying that Goebbels was drawn to National Socialism because of Hitler and particularly his personality cult. I strongly agree with this assertion, even though Goebbels published “The German Revolution” in a Strasserist publication in 1933. Yet at the same time, I also have to disagree because he was not a Hitlerist, at least prior to joining the NSDAP.
Goebbels did have Socialistic tendencies in his earlier writings between 1920 and 1925, viewing the Soviet Union as a German ally in the Socialist sense. However, after Hitler began to reassert his control over the NSDAP under the policy of Führerprinzip, I did notice Goebbels’ writing taking on a more Hitlerist and increasingly Antisemitic tone from 1926-1927 onwards. Could this have been because of him joining the NSDAP while Hitler was in control of the party?
A couple years later, around 1933-1934, I remain unconvinced that Goebbels was still a Socialist, let alone a Strasserist in the National Socialist sense around this time. Given the fact that he was originally a Strasserist, could it have been that Goebbels had this article published in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte because of his previous Strasserist connections?
The article was published prior to the Night of the Long Knives, back when the Strasserists were still part of the NSDAP. Also, it would be highly unusual for Goebbels to still be a Strasserist after the Night of the Long Knives and also be working with the Hitlerists as their “Minister of Propaganda and Enlightenment.” It would explain why he became increasingly associated with Hitler’s personality cult. Was Goebbels sincere about his Strasserist convictions before the Night of the Long Knives? Or, did he, as the consensus held by most historians and myself included, became increasingly absorbed into Hitler’s personality cult right up to his own suicide in 1945?
Last, and even more puzzling for historians and myself, is the fact that he was more than willing to overlook the Hitlerists planning to wage war against the Soviet Union, a decision that no doubt sealed the fate of the Third Reich and contributing to its condemnation even to this very day. How does someone like Joseph Goebbels go from writing favorably of the Soviet Union in the 1920s to speaking vehemently against it in the 1940s?
This 1933 article by Joseph Goebbels is enough to raise all kinds of serious intellectual questions, Bogumil. I do not think most people would bother asking these outside the context of this blog. Therefore, I am inclined to address them here because nobody else will.
You might be thinking of the Nationalsozialistische Briefe. The NS-Briefe was a Strasserist publication; the Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte was an official Party publication, the NSDAP’s theoretical journal. It was edited by Albert Rosenberg. The Black Front’s newspapers had been shut down on 4 February, 1933, and the organization officially banned on 28 February, the day after the Reichstag fire. Otto went into hiding and by March had disappeared into Austria. Any Strasserists who remained members of the NSDAP after that did so clandestinely, as a means of using the NSDAP to secretly push their own ideas.
It’s usually attributed to the consequences of the 1926 Bamberg Conference, which broke Goebbels away from his alliance and friendship to Gregor. I think he was pretty firmly anti-Semitic before then, though, as was everyone in the NSDAP, including Otto and Gregor. Goebbels remained a radical until 1933, just in a different way. The Berlin-Brandenberg Gau which he headed had the highest proportion of working-class and ex-communist members, for example, and his paper Der Angriff was violently anti-bourgeois in tone. Goebbels’s transition towards a somewhat more cautious position was probably a gradual one, borne partly out of his need for Hitler’s patronage and friendship and partly out of the inevitable maturity that comes with acquiring a wife, property, influential position, and children. It’s not that unusual.
He wasn’t ever really a ‘Strasserist’ in the way we think of Strasserists. Not a lot of people were. The idea that the NSDAP was broken into two factions of Hitlerists and Strasserists isn’t really accurate. Otto Strasser’s actual influence within the Party was tiny. Gregor Strasser had huge influence, but he and his brother were different men. By 1930 they had become totally estranged; Gregor was still loyal to Hitler and had started to embrace ideas closer to those of the conservative-revolutionary movement. By 1932 he was probably one of the more moderate leaders in the Party. The actual factional composition of the Party was more complex: three broad factions with a ton of interlocking, blurred-together sub-factions. As for the USSR thing, it’s a good question. I suspect that the idea of a Reich-USSR alliance was more a product of conditions in the ’20s and became gradually abandoned for a number of reasons, like the hostility of Communists in Germany and the fear of Jewish leadership in Russia. Gregor also moved away from this idea after 1926, and by the ’30s and ’40s Otto was writing of “the Russian menace”.
Yes, and that was what caught my attention, Bogumil. The fact Goebbels published his article in NS-Briefe is forcing me to ascertain whether or not Goebbels was being sincere about his alignments with the Strasserists in the first place. The reason why I also asked if Goebbels was a Strasserist to begin with is because the impression I had with his early writings is that he sounded like a Strasserist before later becoming a Hitlerist after the Night of the Long Knives as Minister of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Regardless, his Anti-Soviet stances later on is highly dubious because I find it difficult for one to go from praising the Soviets in the 1920s to later condemning them in the 1930s and then speaking about an Apocalyptic confrontation against them on the Eastern Front in the 1940s.
The Bamberg Conference of 1926 also makes perfect sense in the context of this radicalization of Goebbels’ Antisemitism, for I am convinced that any Antisemitic views that he had prior to it was a consequence of his early upbringing and social environment than a genuine “hatred” of Jewish people. This one is important because I have my own hypothesis as to why the NSDAP became so Antisemitic throughout much of its existence, and there is plenty of other reliable historical evidence for me to argue that it was a more so a product of historical conditions that predated their own time period as opposed to simply being a product of their time or even an actual ideological viewpoint related to National Socialist ideology. I know this is a ‘controversial’ statement for me to make, but the evidence is just too explosive for me to ignore because almost nobody is willing to delve into the matter further.
There was once a very serious discussion among a study circle of European intellectuals discussing about this, in addition to other discussions about Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism and Decline of the West back in the 2000s. The crux of their argument was that if the Third Reich survived the Second World War, the NSDAP would curb back most of the worst impulses of Hitlerism and Strasserism, which will no doubt include their Antisemitism. The problem with this conclusion is that it was a part of a hypothetical thought experiment of which not even they know where the NSDAP would be heading in that scenario.
Granted, I do understand that this is a very complex and sensitive issue which requires an entire email with formal citations and references and footnotes. We really do not know how different National Socialism will look like if devoid of its notoriety as being Antisemitic, but between me spending almost an entire decade researching this matter and Paetel’s National Bolshevik Manifesto talking about “Reformed National Socialism,” it is worth investigating and articulating as a what-if scenario.
If you are interested, I could share a .txt document of their discussions from the 2000s along with my own findings on this matter someday. Just let me know and I will take some time off from my day to share with you what have on that particular matter.
Bogumil, I know it’s been almost a week since I last contacted you, but I am curious if you have been making any progress on those aforementioned projects that you were working on. I was wondering if I could be of any help. Let me know if you need any help on those projects of yours.
That’s a generous offer but I’m good for help, thanks.
I understand, Bogumil. I only wanted to ask because you seemed to be quite busy working on all of those aforementioned projects that you had mentioned to me two weeks ago in regards to this website.
If you ever need any help, just let me know. I have been studying this sort of material for years now, yet I have also had the impression that there was a lot more material out there which is not very well-known or is too obscure for most people.
Speaking of which, how are those projects of yours coming along?
Also, what is the best way of contacting for matters such as this?
Should I be sending you comments unrelated to the individual posts through the “Scuttlebutt” webpage? Since I don’t want the comments section to be filled with irrelevant topics, I believe it would be wiser if I get in touch with you directly over that.
Yeah, you can contact me directly via the ‘Scuttlebutt’ tab.
PS: My decision to offer you my help is because this blog has been helping me in broaden my horizons and understanding how the historical circumstances of the last century are contrary to the consensus among most historians. Since I felt that you might need some help in lightening the workload, I thought I may be able to return the favor by offering my help. Helping your blog would be far more productive and purposeful of my time since nobody I know is interested in researching materials like the kind on ARPLAN.
If not, what other politico-economic alternatives do I even have?
Would you consider sharing it? Intelligent discussions don’t happen that often, even across decades.
It has been my impression that German NatSocs were hopelessly entangled in their German nationalist past. From there, stemmed their reluctance to wage explicit revolutionary insurgence against Christian culture in the North and in the South. Ironically, it was precisely this frivolous attitude that made them blind to the real importance of cultural warfare – I share César Tort’s idea in that England and America betrayed Germany terribly by not siding with their racial brethren in the genocide of the Russians.
But anti-Semitism? I would love to learn more. First, Jews as a foreign race are indeed dangerous to the gene pool, but at the same time, I cannot remain oblivious of their small number – and of the disproportionate attention they received from the NSDAP. Is it part of traditional German nationalism?
Still, would you consider the German campaigns against the Slavs of the East irrational in the context of the NS ideology? Didn’t Germans require a Lebensraum? Weren’t they almost strong enough to take it all? Were they not to die out, surrounded by living corpses to the West and to the East? (I do consider peace a better option in retrospect, but only when viewing the matter through a hopeless, tragic lens – seeing post-Hitlerian Germany as a hypothetical springboard to attack Christianity after the inevitable ruin of the West in the alternate 21st century.)
And on the topic of degeneration – 1) if triumphant Germany had gone soft, that would have been a testament to their utter failure, and thus they would not have been worthy of study; 2) to the contrary, I think, Germany with the won Lebensraum would have completed its metamorphosis into a vicious beast, with the genocide of tens of millions of Jews and Russians strengthening their resolve, cutting the way back to the inverted values of their Christian past.
The belief that National Socialist ideology being “De-Hitlerized” or freed from Hitlerism is not something I came up with, but something that originated from serious intellectual discussions of Oswald Spengler and Francis Parker Yockey back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. If anyone is interested in reading about the unfathomable concept of “De-Hitlerized National Socialism,” please consider these links below:
My understandings of National Socialist ideology is based on a personal determination to understand it and try to ascertain how it would look if somebody freed the ideology from the historical baggage of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
My opposition to Hitlerism (not to be confused with the “Esoteric Hitlerism” of Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano because such a concept deserves to be called “Esoteric Jungian Psychology”; more on that later) is based on my belief that any sincere and honest understanding of National Socialism cannot and should never devolve into a series of biological and chemical functions in the Darwinian sense or else any short-sighted, misguided opposition against Christianity in general. To do so means perpetuating the very problems preventing this particular ideology from being taken seriously again post-1945.
Regarding Antisemitism, I am critical of Hitlerism’s views on the “Jews” and the “Aryans” because these terms can just as easily be rewritten as “Bourgeoisie” and “Proletariat” respectively, and the “Race War” reinterpreted as a “Class War.” I do think that National Socialist ideology’s reputation with Antisemitism should be seen as a consequence of the Secularization of the Jews in Europe dating back to the Enlightenment during the late 18th century. It was during the Enlightenment that the concept of being Jewish slowly began to lose its distinct religious identity and take on ethnic and nationalistic ones in the 19th and early 20th centuries. We can realistically argue that Zionism was a byproduct of this historical phenomenon, but it was only when we put the Enlightenment and the Secularization of the Jewish people into the discussion that we begin to understand that this association of National Socialism with Antisemitism should be scrutinized along with its alleged opposition to Christianity in general. From my understanding, I am convinced that part of it was in many respects Sectarian just as it was also misguided insofar as there was a genuine belief sought to break the Catholic-Protestant divide created by the Protestant Reformation that plagued the German Volksgemeinschaft since the 16th century. This accounts for why some National Socialists can have Paganist and Occult beliefs just as there are other National Socialists who were Roman Catholics and Protestants.
One can also argue that the Antisemitism that was rife in Germany, Austria, and Bohemia were also consequences of some Secular Jews adhering to Liberal Capitalist ideology and becoming the “German” Bourgeoisie, hence the mischaracterized stereotypes and the propaganda about all Jews being associated with finance capital. This view can be ascertained from the German language works of Werner Sombart, who is also credited for the recent Internet meme spread by Communists and non-NS Socialists known as “Late-Stage Capitalism.”
All of these considerations bring me to the latter, because any National Socialist opposition to Christianity should always remain on Theological grounds and never devolve into an attempt to oppose Judaism on grounds of race or ethnicity because the concept of a “Judeo-Christianity” is a heretical theological viewpoint originating from the British Empire in the 19th century. “British Israelism” was this discredited belief which argued that the Jews and the British people in particular shared a common ancestry and were therefore the Chosen Race. This belief cannot and should never be viewed along racial, ethnic, or national lines because the original interpretation was purely grounded in Protestant and Anglican theology (and very heretical ones, if I may add). While aspects of British Israelism continued to exist in Hitlerist-style Christian Identity (the “Dual Seedline” between Jews and Aryans espoused by the late Pastor Richard Butler and Aryan Nations being one example), its ideals continue to exist as propaganda for the purpose of perpetuating Anglo-American control over the Jewish people through the Israeli Knesset, with theology serving as the cover by which the US maintained its influence over the Holy Land (or Israel and Palestine, post-1945).
I do think that the Hitlerists waging Operation Barbarossa against the Soviets in 1941 was a deliberate example of the US trying to manipulate the Hitlerists into digging their own graves, while simultaneously believing that the US and British Empire had theirs and the German Volk’s best interests at heart. How else does one explain the US arming the Soviets and the British through the Lend Lease Act or FDR and Hitler battling each other in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor between 1940 and 1941? Or the very obscure historical fact that the Nuremberg Trials were allegedly prosecuted by the US on the basis of trying to prove to the German people that the National Socialist regime under Hitler was under the legal framework of the Weimar Republic, thus verifying the suspicion that the present-day Federal Republic of Germany is really just a continuation of Weimar Germany from the realm of legal jurisprudence?
As for “Esoteric Hitlerism,” I am fully convinced that the various philosophical ideas formulated in the works of Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano should be viewed in terms of Jungian Psychology as opposed to Darwinism, Occultism, or even Marxism (whether deliberate or not, Savitri’s The Lightning and the Sun had a number of Marxist symbols specifically in relation to her conceptualizations of the “Man In Time,” the “Man Above Time,” and the “Man Against Time”). I have been researching their ideas for a while now and had been arriving at the conclusion that Mukherji and Serrano’s works should be reinterpreted according to Jungian Psychology. This is an area which should be considered, if anyone is interested.
Thanks for a lengthy and thoughtful reply! I wouldn’t want to offend you, but it is my impression that you are a Judaeo-Christian. Otherwise, I have a hard time understanding many of your points.
> “If anyone is interested in reading about the unfathomable concept of “De-Hitlerized National Socialism,” please consider these links below:”
I will read those for sure! I have two ideas beforehand, however. 1. National Socialism is defined not by its etymology but by its use – namely, its use as a buzzword for Hitlerianism. 2. Why would you wish to de-Hitlerianise Hitlerianism?
> “…try to ascertain how it would look if somebody freed the ideology from the historical baggage of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. ”
And why would anyone do that? Because it was not extremist enough? Too weighed down by its Christian demons? If so, then I concur.
> “…Hitlerism (not to be confused with the “Esoteric Hitlerism” of Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano because such a concept deserves to be called “Esoteric Jungian Psychology”; more on that later)…”
Do Savitri and Serrano have anything in common? From what little I know, Serrano believed in ancient aliens. But Savitri was nothing like that. I think, she had little faith in evolution? And she had a psychic episode once, when Goering died. But other than that, she was just a hardcore traditionalist that did not see merit in literacy, nothing particularly delusionally idealist.
> “…my belief that any sincere and honest understanding of National Socialism cannot and should never devolve into a series of biological and chemical functions in the Darwinian sense or else any short-sighted, misguided opposition against Christianity in general.”
Ah! But here, I disagree. I think, biological racism is the cleanest divorce from Christianity imaginable! Because in essence, Christianity is a vehicle of collective suicide – collective survival in the material world is the most natural denial of that self-abasement.
> “To do so means perpetuating the very problems preventing this particular ideology from being taken seriously again post-1945. ”
This makes no sense at all. The White race committed suicide in 1945; obviously, that is the reason why National Socialism is not taken seriously. How can traitors and enemies be reasoned with? And 99% of Whites are traitors. Yes, this is a grim picture, but it is true, and thus from it I don’t believe in my population’s survival.
> “Regarding Antisemitism, I am critical of Hitlerism’s views on the “Jews” and the “Aryans” because these terms can just as easily be rewritten as “Bourgeoisie” and “Proletariat” respectively, and the “Race War” reinterpreted as a “Class War.””
Are you hinting at that fact that Marxism believed in class war as a concept derived from pure science? And that it is not? And that National Socialism is likewise wrong because… Why? Because races don’t exist? Then you are sorely mistaken.
> “t was during the Enlightenment that the concept of being Jewish slowly began to lose its distinct religious identity and take on ethnic and nationalistic ones in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”
Obviously! Because in ancient times, religion was synonymous with race! And this Enlightenment process you speak of was the re-awakening of the Aryan soul after the millennia of Christian indoctrination! It boggles my mind as to how it happened so late!
> “We can realistically argue that Zionism was a byproduct of this historical phenomenon…”
What is Zionism to you? Because so many delusional right-wingers misuse the term. Wikipedia says it is the movement for the Jews to have an ethnostate. Hitler himself was not opposed to the idea. Hitler was a Zionist.
> “…just as there are other National Socialists who were Roman Catholics and Protestants. ”
No. I would prefer to call any non-traitorous “Catholic” or “Protest” Jew-worshipper an honourary National Socialist. The same way as the modern science-denying Mujahideen are closer to the spirit of Darwin that the so-called “atheists” of America.
> “…some Secular Jews adhering to Liberal Capitalist ideology and becoming the “German” Bourgeoisie, hence the mischaracterized stereotypes and the propaganda about all Jews being associated with finance capital.”
Factually incorrect. It is the common truth that Jews had been connected to money operations for many long centuries. Including the lands outside Germany. Take a look at the 19th-ct. Russia (cf. the fiction by Gogol, Taras Shevchenko).
> “All of these considerations bring me to the latter, because any National Socialist opposition to Christianity should always remain on Theological grounds and never devolve into an attempt to oppose Judaism on grounds of race or ethnicity…”
I am terribly sorry, but this is spoken like a true Jew and/or Christian. Theology is meaningless; axiology is destiny. The cleanest opposition to Christianity is biological racism. The denial of idealism is materialism. The rejection of money is blood. The death of the individual is the life of the collective.
> ““British Israelism” was this discredited belief which argued that the Jews and the British people in particular shared a common ancestry and were therefore the Chosen Race.”
This is because Aryans could not take pride in their race, and were led to mingling their history with that of the Jews. It is a tragic psychological disorder. But believing in the chosenness of your race is natural and fine and admirable.
> “…its ideals continue to exist as propaganda for the purpose of perpetuating Anglo-American control over the Jewish people through the Israeli Knesset, with theology serving as the cover by which the US maintained its influence over the Holy Land…”
Is this even factually correct? Neither BI nor CI have ever had any significant traction. And talking about the American control of Palestine? This is delusional. Yes, I will grant you that the geopolitical position of Israel is hopeless without the golem of America, but then you should blame the Jewish hubris for not having accepted the Madagascar offer. Or even the Amur project of Stalin. Or carving out a state for themselves in North America.
> “…while simultaneously believing that the US and British Empire had theirs and the German Volk’s best interests at heart.”
How so? Nothing in the West was any good for the Aryans inhabiting there. Their vector was unmistakingly pointing to death and ruin. Did Americans believe they had the Germans’ best interests in mind and at heart? Oh yes, they did – the interests of the souls of the Germans, but not of their posterity or even possessions. Idealism over materialism!
> “How else does one explain the US arming the Soviets and the British through the Lend Lease Act or FDR and Hitler battling each other in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor between 1940 and 1941”
I have totally lost you here. How did Americans drive Hitler into attacking Russia? And how are you explaining the American aggression against Germany? They fought Germany because Hitler was anti-Christian, end of story.
> “Or the very obscure historical fact that the Nuremberg Trials were allegedly prosecuted by the US on the basis of trying to prove to the German people that the National Socialist regime under Hitler was under the legal framework of the Weimar Republic…”
You know what is not obscure? The idea of universal justice according to eternal principles. Not those of Nature, oh no. Those written by the Great Jew Jesus. This is what every Aryan understands in his rotten soul. Nothing may be allowed to exist beyond the grasp of the god of the Jews.
> “…(whether deliberate or not, Savitri’s The Lightning and the Sun had a number of Marxist symbols specifically in relation to her conceptualizations of the “Man In Time,” the “Man Above Time,” and the “Man Against Time”).”
Isn’t it well-known that Engels himself proposed the evolution of matter from physics through chemistry and biology towards psychology? And isn’t it an elegant way to view the world? Too bad some human populations are stricken by malicious memes and are doomed to die in short order. Hint – they are not the Afghani Mujahideen, and they are not the sons of Juche Korea. Hint – they worship the crucified prophet. And they will sell out their race’s destiny for their idealist delusions.