Adolf Hitler is the best source for understanding his ideology. On 27 January 1932, he spoke before the Industry Club of Dusseldorf. Somehow (and it’s not fully understood how, even today) he managed to double his vote-percentage, from 18.3% in September 1930, to 37.3% in July 1932. The owner of Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the world’s largest steel and mining cartel, Fritz Thyssen, attended this speech, and, after the war, he wrote of it, “The speech made a deep impression on the assembled industrialists, and in consequence of this a number of large contributions flowed from the resources of heavy industry into the treasuries of the National Socialist party.” Other than that public statement, however, there is no surviving record that the Nazi Party received any immediate large infusion of cash as a result of the speech. The Nazi Party was broke at the time the speech was made. And yet, quite suddenly and mysteriously a year later, the Party received huge infusions of cash, and Hitler’s message to the tycoons had not changed, nor is there any indication that the deeply indebted Party was being bailed-out by its members.
Though there is no consensus regarding whom the main funders of the Nazi Party were, Hitler’s full address at that crucial presentation in Dusseldorf — to 700 principals and agents of the richest residents of Germany’s industrial center, Rhineland-Westphalia — was his most complete recorded statement about his economic philosophy, and it therefore is extremely important for understanding his ideology.
The text of that lengthy speech can be seen here.
The gist of it is that those men (they all were men) were the most superior of all Germans, and wouldn’t be the titans of German industry if they hadn’t been Germany’s best. Hitler explicitly condemned “democracy,” because it isn’t elitist. He said that “Political democracy … is equivalent to communism in the field of economics,” and that both violate nature. His message was ‘social Darwinism’ in the economic sphere (something that Darwin himself strongly did not believe in, but Hitler had no real scientific interests). “The greatest results are the great crowning achievement of individual geniuses endowed by God,” he told them. Consequently, he said that they should be the actual political leaders of the Volk, and not merely its economic leaders. The Nazi Party represented this view. He was praising the aristocracy as being successful on account of their genetically being “geniuses” — not merely heirs from Man’s laws, but instead a product of the laws of nature and of nature’s God — that it reflected the survival of the fittest, and should extend to the political sphere, and not merely to the economic one.
In every nation where an aristocracy exists, what really matters isn’t whether or not aristocrats possess official titles but whether they actually are the few individuals whom the government actually represents. If they are (and whomever they might happen to be), then the government is an aristocracy, no democracy (which is where there is rule by no few people, but actually by a government that authentically represents all of the nation’s residents). And those few individuals (the actual aristocracy, or “Deep State,” which rules that country) are typically the wealthiest in the land, who hire lobbyists and others to pay whomever needs to be paid in order to carry out their intention by means of the Government, via its legislature, chief executive, courts, police, and military. In other words: such a country is a dictatorship — and, by its very nature, is a corrupt one. Such dictatorship formerly used to be carried out as feudalism, during the Agrarian Age, but increasingly, in the Industrial Age, after 28 October 1922, it’s being carried out as fascism, which Benito Mussolini sometimes called “corporationism”. In either case, it’s rule by the richest.
Both of those systems — feudalism and fascism — are typically extended also internationally, by means of imperialism and conquest, and control over, and exploitation of, foreign countries, called colonies or vassal-nations.
The difference between fascism and nazism is simply that nazism is racist fascism, but both of those ideologies impose rule over a nation by its aristocracy (the owners of the controlling blocs of stock in that nation’s major corporations) and therefore are dictatorships, not democracies.
(Under feudalism, the aristocracy possessed control over land, instead of control over corporations. That’s the difference between feudalism and fascism.) The dictatorial government can never become a democracy unless conquered by their own public (in an authentic revolution, which can be either violent or non-violent) or else by a foreign democracy that seeks no empire. (If they’re defeated instead by yet another imperialistic regime, then the government will remain a dictatorship.)
During World War II, the United States and its allies were waging war against three imperialistic fascist regimes — Italy, Germany, and Japan — because those three fascist regimes were imperialistic: they were not only domestic dictatorships, but also international dictatorships, conquering other lands, distant from their own, and therefore posed severe threats against the national security of all other nations. America and its three main allies — Britain, USSR, and China (plus the nations that were allied with each one of those) — weren’t waging war against fascist Spain, because that fascist regime wasn’t trying to conquer any foreign country. Spain’s Government was a non-imperialist fascism, and therefore presented no threat to any of the Allies.
Consequently, the “isolationists” who, in the non-fascist countries, wished to avoid war against the three imperialistic fascist regimes, were supporting imperialism, not supporting peace, because the only way to support peace when there is an imperialistic regime is to prepare to defeat that imperialistic regime — to prepare for war against it, because that war will be coming, and the only real question is when it will come. (This is why lend-lease was done by Franklin Delano Roosevelt even before America overtly entered WWII.) Some of the pacifists in the 1930s were authentically naive, but others of them were pro-fascist.
WWII was not actually a war about fascism versus democracy (such as the propagandized myth says), but instead was a war about imperialism versus the sovereignty of each nation.
This reality is misrepresented by many ‘historians’, who simply — and falsely — presume that WWII was about dictatorship versus democracy. The reason why this myth is propagandized is that wherever the military-industrial complex control the government and the ‘news’-media (such as after FDR died), this myth is the way to get the public to support invasions such as against Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria during 2013-2019 (all of them sovereign countries, which posed no actual threat to America). That’s imperialistic fascism. It’s what an imperialistic fascist nation does, and what that nation’s propaganda lies about (because those target-nations had actually posed no threat to the invading nations).
In this context, a clarification is important: to assert (as many people do) that support for the sovereignty of each nation necessarily means opposition to the formation of a world government, is wrong — it is simply false to assert that. A global federal government could develop in which all of the existing governments are democratically represented in a global republic as constituting its federal districts (which was FDR’s goal with the U.N.). Doing this would support the sovereignty of each nation within each nation’s territory, and would assign to the global government the exclusive control over nuclear and other strategic weapons, so that only by means of a majority-vote, in that global legislature, could strategic weapons be mobilized for war. However, a fascist world government — a global corporate dictatorship such as U.S. President Barack Obama was trying to advance — would eliminate the sovereignty of nations and replace it by the sovereignty of international corporations. What would be supremely inconsistent with a global democracy of sovereign nations, is a global dictatorship — any type of dictatorial world government. There is strong evidence that Adolf Hitler (like Obama) aspired to establish a dictatorial world government, and that he (unlike Obama) even expected to achieve such global dictatorship within his own lifetime.
Hitler’s Nazism was fascist like Mussolini’s Fascism, but with a more pronounced residual feudalistic element of land and of race (and this feudalistic element includes the Old Testament’s zionism, of Israel being the land that God gave to “God’s People”; so, zionism is based upon that ancient feudal concept, which is concerned more with land than with any corporations).
Hitler hated Jews as a race. He didn’t consider them a religion, because in his private notes in 1919 at the time when he entered politics, he cited (see pages 283-287 of Werner Maser’s 1974 Hitler’s Letters and Notes) his authority, “The Bible — Monumental History of Mankind,” and this included both the Old Testament and the New Testament. He paraphrased from both Testaments in his subsequent speeches and writings, and did it often; and he always interpreted Old Testament passages as viewed in light of the New Testament. He thus had a fundamentalist, or literal, interpretation of that “Monumental History of Mankind.” Until 1937, he believed unquestioningly in its complete and literal truthfulness. But even till the end of his life, he remained basically a Biblical literalist. For example, in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on the night of 25-6 January 1942, when the “final solution” was already under way (and the Wannsee Conference had occurred just five days earlier, instructing his subordinates what their respective roles would be in the plan), Hitler asked, “Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been as he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.” Even that late, it all went back to Adam and Eve and the snake, and to original sin.
As a supremacist Christian, he despised Slavs as a nation of slaves to Jews, via the racially Jewish Karl Marx’s communism reigning over Slavic lands, which Hitler was convinced should therefore become controlled by his pureblooded Christian God’s People, or “Aryans.” For Hitler, race was thus supreme above nation, and this racial supremacy was what he referred to by emphasizing the “Volk,” or people, as being represented by his Nazi Party. To him, their race was “Aryan,” and this meant that they were pure-blooded Christians, the direct descendants of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, as that was being interpreted in light of the New Testament. In Hitler’s theology (roughly outlined in those 1919 notes, and subsequently developed in his speeches and Mein Kampf), the snake Satan from Genesis 3 had spawned the Jews, as Hitler interpreted Genesis 3 upon the basis of Matthew 23:33-38, John 8:44, and over a hundred other biblical passages that he paraphrased from in his notes, letters, speeches, and books. Thus, he said, “Jesus was not a Jew” — Jesus was descended from Adam and Eve, not from the snake. In his private notes during September 1919, at the time when his notes mentioned “The Bible — Monumental History of Mankind,” he was pondering the meaning of “original sin” and referred to the “blood poisoning” of “the Aryan” or “Children of God” by “the Jew” via “miscegenation,” violating “Racial purity the highest law” (as he interpreted the Old Testament) and so constituting “a terrible fact” that produces “misery forever.” He feared that he might be the illegitimate son of (“miscegenated” from) a Jew (though he actually was not, and he never got to know this). From September 1919 onwards, he was determined to atone for his “original sin” (the alleged Jewish bastardization) (and never to let the public know that this is what he was aiming to do). This was the basis of his racist fascism. Thus, in the May 2003 The Atlantic, Timothy Ryback headlined “Hitler’s Forgotten Library: You can tell a lot about a person from what he reads. The surviving — and largely ignored — remnants of Adolf Hitler’s personal library reveal a deep but erratic interest in religion and theology.”
Original: Eric Zuesse – Strategic Culture Foundation
Please note: These are just some excerpts from the full article. Please read the full article to find out more.
The views of Eric Zuesse do not necessarily represent those of ours.
Header: The fascist rhetoric in sport – Marco Ravasini