In Hitler’s Germany if you were an unemployed man, you could join the Reichsarbeitsdienst.

This was originally a response to some comments hostile to National-Socialism, from a video by Jean-François Gariépy. I had not yet decided to repost it here when YouTube made the decision for me by shadow-censoring it after the first thumbs-up. I am not categorically shadow-banned on YouTube; they only made this particular comment invisible. Why? Maybe some of YouTube’s moderators are bigoted libertarians.

Gariépy has many interesting things to say about many things, but when questions arise about economy and how a society should be ordered, he falls into the convenient ruts of simplistic libertarian omniscience.

For one thing, he suffers from the half-baked libertarian belief that the free market is eugenic, which in turn is based on the blatantly false belief that a market is “nature.” The market is not nature.

Regarding the comment at 1:20:09 — 

It is not true that National-Socialism in Germany did not reward success. We are talking about a militaristic society surrounded with enemies. In that respect, National-Socialism was a continuation of the ancient German militaristic tradition. This is a tradition that rewards good performance of duties through promotion. You might notice that the job-creation programs in National-Socialist Germany had a quasi-military character, with the participants wearing uniforms. They did not pay people to sit around and do nothing. An army has its own evolutionary pressures, and Fascism and National-Socialism extended those pressures beyond the armed forces.

Add to this the sterilization of 400,000 genetic defectives and there is nothing to criticize about National-Socialist Germany from an evolutionary standpoint.

The libertarian faith in the eugenic effect of the free market is only somewhat valid. Economic competition weeds out the least intelligent, but it does not select for good character. The free market rewards those who aggressively seek their own advantage even at the expense of the society. Sociopaths prevail. Ultimately the nation loses its viability due to the parasites at the top. Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay is about this. 

At the intersection of Libertarianism and Darwinism, Jewish hedge-fund managers appear as “the fittest.”

“Nature has its own mechanism,” says J-F at 1:39:10 — but we do not live in a state of nature! The selective pressures of a market are not natural pressures. The selective pressures of a militaristic society struggling to survive against hostile neighboring states are more natural — insofar as the genepool is the unit of survival — than the pressures of a market, which reward sociopathy.

A militaristic society that systematically promotes the competently dutiful is much more eugenic, in terms of national survival, than a society that honors hucksters and speculators. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2019/01/30/national-socialism-vs-libertarian-darwinism-a-response-to-jean-francois-gariepy/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/12/08/frances-white-working-class-in-revolt-les-gilets-jaunes/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/12/08/frances-white-working-class-in-revolt-les-gilets-jaunes/#respond Sat, 08 Dec 2018 08:51:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/12/08/frances-white-working-class-in-revolt-les-gilets-jaunes/

The struggle of the French people against “Jewish France” is an old one.

On the surface, the Yellow Vest movement in France is about a fuel-tax, inadequate wages, and a cut in pensions. This kind of economic complaint is still allowed in France. 

Under the surface, it is a revolt against the destruction of France’s White working class by haughty (of course, largely Jewish) globalist plutocrats whose puppet is Emmanuel Macron. The racial importance of the movement is something that most French people are afraid to state openly. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/12/08/frances-white-working-class-in-revolt-les-gilets-jaunes/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/21/all-standards-of-intelligent-discussion-have-been-waived-to-accommodate-brown-skinned-immigrant-dinesh-dsouza/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/21/all-standards-of-intelligent-discussion-have-been-waived-to-accommodate-brown-skinned-immigrant-dinesh-dsouza/#respond Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:05:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/21/all-standards-of-intelligent-discussion-have-been-waived-to-accommodate-brown-skinned-immigrant-dinesh-dsouza/

The French Ministry of Biases and Sophisms issues Godwin Points like this one, to be awarded to the likes of Dinesh D’Souza,”for having capably brought the discussion to the ultimate comparison.”

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a ubiquitous feature of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent work. The past couple of days he has been garnering support — including more shilling from American Thinker — by attacking some poorly considered utterance from Web Hubbell’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton, about supposed economic benefits of abortion.

She did not explicitly say that abortion added wealth to the U.S. economy, but even Snopes admits that she seems to have implied that abortion added $3½ trillion of production by enabling women to work instead of raising children.

The Clinton girl’s utterance was originally reported by Craig Bannister of CNS. One week later, however, Dinesh D’Souza decided that he could make the story suitable for his readership by adding a completely untenable Hitler-comparison. 

As foolish as Chelsea’s utterance may have been, Dinesh D’Souza’s invocation of Godwin’s Law was even worse.

American Thinker however continues to shill for D’Souza.  American Thinker‘s article declares:

Score one for Dinesh D’Souza….

Hjalmar Schacht wrote after the war about his high regard for the economic policy of the first four years of Hitler’s rule, in which he had played a key role, when deficit spending was used to create jobs and increase production, without generating inflation.

Schacht was critical of the period from 1937 forward. The problem with Hitler’s deficit spending in that later period, according to Schacht, was that Germany had already reached full employment. The theory is that for as long as deficit spending corresponds to increases in employment and production, it is not inflationary. But once full employment has been achieved, further deficit spending cannot produce further employment, and therefore will be inflationary.

But accelerated rearmament, however it might be funded, had become indispensable because of the threat posed by growing Soviet military might and the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact.

In the program posted here there are about 20 minutes of lecture about Hjalmar Schacht’s relationship to Hitler’s agenda, followed by 20 minutes of discussion. 

The discussion seemed mostly to go in circles, orbiting around two questions: (1) whether an increase in the supply of money necessarily causes inflation and (2) whether inflation consists in an increase of the money-supply or (as Hitler says) in a rise in prices that might result therefrom.

By all accounts Hitler’s accelerated rearmament of Germany through deficit spending beginning in 1937 did not seem to produce inflation (as Schacht had predicted) while Hitler’s government still existed.

This avoidance of inflation was accomplished through what one foreign commentator called Hitler’s “bag of economic tricks” (Free Lance-Star, 29 April 1938). Among these “tricks” was deterrence of speculation, since hoarding of goods in anticipation of selling them at a higher price (on the black market) tends to force the prediction of a price-rise to come true. Another trick was mandatory loans to the government, which allowed the government formally to issue payments without actually having the money in circulation. Public loyalty and confidence in Hitler must have been a crucial factor in enabling all of this to work. In the late 1930s there was a demand that Germany’s overseas colonies be returned (which was, for example, included in Hitler’s peace-offer of  February 1940). This would have helped enormously with offsetting the deficit being generated at that time. By 1942 Hitler was intending to cover the deficit with minerals from conquered Soviet territory, but if Germany did not win the war, an unsound currency would be the least of her worries.

It seems legitimate to say that if the quantity of money only temporarily outstrips production without causing a change in the perception of that money’s value before the deficit is covered, then there was no inflation (which is to say, no devaluation). That is a justification of how Hitler used the word.

Schacht says that Hitler’s deficit spending caused inflation of the Reichsmark after the war, but really, how could he tell? The effects of Anglo-American bombing and postwar looting on Germany’s productive capacity surely overshadowed entirely any imbalance between currency and production caused by a few years of deficit spending. 

Hitler’s position was this:

“The thing has got to be done. No State has ever gone bankrupt for economic reasons — but only as the result of losing a war!”[Table Talk, 22 April 1942]

It turns out that Schacht’s opposition to this accelerated rearmament was not entirely a matter of fiscal scruples. Schacht, with his connections in England and the United States, was bent on hindering Germany’s rearmament because he was disloyal. He admitted this in his book, The Magic of Money (1967).

An American diplomat, Donald R. Heath, wrote to Schacht in 1959 to inform him of how he had vouched for his collaboration with the U.S. government during the war:

I told [American prosecutor Robert] Jackson not only should you never have been brought before that tribunal but that you had consistently been working for the downfall of the Nazi regime. I told him that I had been in touch with you consistently during the first part of the war and Under Secretary of State Wells through me, and that you had passed on to me information adverse to the Nazi cause…. [D. Heath quoted by H. Schacht, The Magic of Money (1967), p. 107]

In any case, for purposes of assessing National-Socialism as such, it ought not to be forgotten that Schacht, an economist who placed supreme value on maintaining the stability of a currency, found the economic reality of National-Socialism quite praiseworthy prior to the period of accelerated rearmament that commenced in 1937.

  ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/07/22/schacht-and-hitler/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/#respond Sat, 17 Jun 2017 05:09:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/

Tweet

I stated in this program that Ernst Thaelmann was shot at the end of the war. That is the prevalent story about Thaelmann’s death and I repeated it because I was unaware that there was a contradictory claim from the German authorities: that he died in an Allied bombing-raid. 

The German claim is more likely, because Thaelmann had been kept alive as a prisoner since 1933 and the date of Thaelmann’s death, August 1944, is months before the capture of Buchenwald. Paul Rassinier, who was in Buchenwald briefly, records that Thaelmann was a Kapo. In other words, he (ostensibly) helped the SS to maintain order in the camp. There is no evident reason why the Germans should have terminated Thaelmann in August 1944, but certainly there was a motive for the Allies to lie about having inadvertently killed him with their own bombs, as they also lied about such deaths at Nordhausen. Therefore I think that the death of Ernst Thaelmann by Allied bombing is the more likely story.

I am going to talk about the shooting of Congressman Stephen Scalise, and the Reichstag Fire.

This week we saw an attempted mass-shooting of Republican politicians by a man from Belleville, Illinois named James T. Hodgkinson. Instead of killing many Republicans he only critically wounded House Majority Whip Stephen Scalise and two policemen.

This shooting seems to be part of a pattern of violence that began long before Donald Trump was elected. Last summer we saw leftists attacking Trump-supporters, and we still see street-action between so-called antifa and Trump-supporters, as well as the Alt Right.

This is a wave of unrest that has been drummed up by mass-media.

There was a similar wave of unrest in Germany before and for some time after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. In fact there had been violence in varying degrees since the end of the First World War. There had been a Communist takeover of Bavaria that lasted about one month.

On the other side, there had been assassinations by a secret rightwing group called the Organisation Consul in the early 1920s.

There was violence when Hindenburg was elected president in 1925.

The leftists and Jews really threw a fit after Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933.

Then as now, the Jewish-controlled press played a big part in provoking violence.

During a torchlight procession on 31 January 1933, the day after Hitler was named Chancellor, an SA-man, a Brownshirt Hans Maikowski, and a policeman Josef Zauritz, were shot dead by Communists. Joseph Goebbels, in a speech of 10 February, warming up the crowd for Hitler, talked about how the Communist newspaper Die Rote Fahne, which he said was run by Jews, had the Chutzpah to claim that the National-Socialists themselves had shot Maikowski and Zauritz. This lie incidentally is also perpetuated today, for example by German Wikipedia.

Another act of leftist violence that been obscured with leftist propaganda is the Reichstag Fire.

Reichstag Fire happens on 27 February 1933. Marinus van der Lubbe, a Marxist organizer, is caught and arrested inside the building. Communists and Jews pretended that Marinus vander Lubbe could not possibly have been responsible for the Reichstag Fire. They made various excuses such as that he was retarded and couldn’t see well.

Mainstream historians long ago accepted that MvdL was involved in the Reichstag Fire, but the myth that the National-Socialists themselves had set the fire and then blamed it on a helpless retard was revived in the 1990s because of Jewish influence on the so-called patriot media, especially through William Cooper, who had Jewish backers and was imitated by Alex Jones – also notorious for his Jewish support – and these guys were imitated later by Abbie Martin and other poorly informed and irresponsible people who just repeat things that they heard.

If you look at the reports on the trial, it is clear that nobody was framed for the Reichstag Fire. Here is some of the transcript that was reported in the Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933:

Van der Lubbe … was asked if in a Communist tavern in Berlin Neukölln he had said he was a Communist, but did not agree with the Communist leaders, who were too “tame.”

“Yes,” said van der Lubbe.

“Did you say that the future of the workers all depended on Germany?”

“Maybe.”

“Did you say that extremely radical measures must be taken?”

“Yes.”

“While watching a National-Socialist procession on one occasion did you say in an excited voice, ‘Something must be done’?”

“Maybe.”

[…]

“Did you say that it was necessary for the workers to make counter-actions, and that that was the way the Russian Revolution had been carried out, and that it was not too late?”

“Maybe.”

“Did you say that it was necessary to [set] fire [to] public buildings so that the workers might recognize that the time had come?”

“Yes.”

“Did you say that it would be necessary to provoke the Storm Troops and to inflame the people?”

“Possibly.”

Marinus vander Lubbe admits that he set the fire but he denied that Communist leaders were involved., and he did not implicate any co-conspirators.

Ernst Torgler, the former leader of the Communists in the Reichstag, was also on trial. Torgler had turned himself in to stand trial, and pleaded his innocence. There were also some Bulgarians who were suspected of involvement in the arson. (Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933)

This is really where the proof that M vd L got a fair trial can be found, because these others, although suspected of involvement in the fire, were found innocent. They were not found guilty.

The National-Socialist government did not believe that MvdL acted alone. There had been some witnesses who said that they saw several arsonists, and it would have been convenient to demonstrate that the Communist Party was behind it, but they were not able to do that. But apparently there was some evidence that other Communists were involved, although not necessarily the Communist Party leadership.

This is from the United Press reported on 28 February 1933, the day after the fire:

Police revealed that a raid on Liebknecht House, Communist headquarters, last Friday uncovered “instructions” for the beginning of a widespread reign of Communist terrorism throughout Germany, with the hope of civil war to follow.

A communique said the plot disclosed in the Liebknecht House raid included plans for the destruction of all government buildings, museums, castles, and modern power plants throughout Germany.

A significant paragraph of the instructions was quoted as follows:

“For attacks on the police, women and children, preferably belonging to the families of police officers, should be used to march in front of the attacking rioters.”

You will notice that some of our “antifa” in the United States today also like to get behind women to do their attacks.

By the time the trial happened in September 1933 – eight months after the fire — the government had proceeded on the premise that this Communist conspiracy existed and that it involved the Communist Party per se.

The day after the Reichstag Fire, President Hindenburg issued an emergency decree giving police free rein to search houses, confiscate property, and detain people without trial. Then there was a ban on the Communist and Social-Democratic press. (UP, 28 February 1933)

An election was called in March 1933 that increased the National-Socialists’ seats in the Reichstag to pass an amendment to the Weimar constitution that would allow Hitler to legislate without the Reichstag. This was the so-called Enabling Act.

Hitler used the powers given under Hindenburg’s emergency decree to prevent the Communists from taking their seats in the Reichstag. This way Hitler was able to get the two-thirds majority that was needed.

After that the National-Socialists made sweeping changes in Germany during the following year. Communists, or former Communists, were treated according to how they adjusted to the New Order.

Ernst Torgler who had stood trial and pleaded his innocence, although acquitted of the Reichstag Fire, was kept in protective custody (Schutzhaft) until 1935. The Communist party meanwhile expelled Torgler since he had voluntarily submitted to trial. Torgler later worked for Joseph Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry, making anti-Soviet propaganda, which made him subject to some criticism after the war. But he did survive the war and after the war became a Social-Democrat.

A different Communist leader however, Ernst Thaelmann, the head of the Communist Party apparently was not so easy to reform. He was kept in a concentration camp until the end of the war, at which time he was killed to prevent his returning to society and organizing Communism again after the war.

The fact that different Communists had different fates under National-Socialism reflects the complexity of the National-Socialist view of the Communist problem.

Communism was a big concern for the Germans in the first half of the 20th century, and the Germans were concerned about how to avoid a Bolshevik takeover in Germany. There are two theories about what causes Communist or Socialist unrest and the decay of civilization that seem to have shaped the National-Socialist approach to the problem.

There is the view presented in Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay, from 1895. Brooks Adams’ theory is that ever increasing concentration of wealth impoverishes the nation’s working class and the peasantry, who are gradually replaced with foreigners. The resulting society of a small plutocratic elite presiding over an impoverished and racially mixed proletariat lacks internal cohesion and this kind of society is weak and easily fragmented. Adams uses the Roman Empire as the paradigmatic society where this happens, and in 1895 he saw the British Empire going the same way.

Adams’ theory sees plutocracy destroying the nation, and this implies that socialism is a justified reaction.

The other theory is presented by Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 book, The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Underman. This book explained the Bolshevik Revolution as a result of the proliferation of genetically inferior people. In Stoddard’s theory, there are in every population a certain number of misfits and throwbacks who do not function well in a complex society, and when these misfits and throwbacks reach some critical mass, civilization is in jeopardy and a Bolshevik-style revolution becomes possible. (It is incidentally from Stoddard’s use of the word Under-Man that the National-Socialist term Untermensch is derived. Note that it does not refer to any particular nationality but to the degenerate element that exists to varying degrees in every nation.)

Stoddard’s theory sees the poor as a threat to civilization (since poverty for him is a manifestation of genetic unfitness) and therefore Stoddard sees socialism as totally unjustified and destructive.

Now, the National-Socialists embraced both views: both, Brooks Adams’ and Lothrop Stoddard’s views. They accepted that there were people whose hereditary nature made them problematic for civilization, and they also saw extreme concentration of wealth as detrimental to the nation. Men who had done good service during the war were begging on the streets, so that it was really not credible to say that poverty was entirely a result of hereditary inferiority. Some people were victims of circumstance. The need to combat the concentration of wealth was the subject of Gottfried Feder’s 1918 Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery. At the same time, the racial idea had been well established in Germany before the war. It was Alfred Ploetz who discussed the proliferation of the unfit and coined the term racial hygiene in 1895. Plutocracy and the Under-Man thus were the twin evils that National-Socialism sought to suppress in order to preserve the nation.

So, there was a threat from above, and a threat from below.

In terms of the Menace of the Underman, another factor to consider, which Stoddard did not discuss very much but did not escape the National-Socialists’ attention, was the role of mass-media and a perverse intelligentsia in sowing subversion. This is a manifestation of an element that is hostile or contemptuous of the nation, but manages to be successful within it.

Jews, for example, are one of the wealthier ethnic groups in any Western state, which only makes them all the more dangerous, since they generally use their wealth and influence for hostile purposes.

Jews do not however constitute the entirety of the high-functioning subversive element. In Germany, the brothers Heinrich and Thomas Mann, who were not Jews but had some non-White ancestry, were enemies of the National-Socialist state. Thomas Mann even made broadcasts against Germany from the United States during the war.

If we look at James T. Hodgkinson, who nearly assassinated Congressman Stephen Scalise a few days ago, we might see some indications of untermenschlichkeit, – some indications that he might be an Underman – but not to the point that he was an outcast and a failure in our society, as Lothrop Stoddard would say that the Underman generally is. Hodgkinson apparently had his own business and he had a nice home in Belleville, Illinois.

I am not sure that I have enough information to assess Hodgkinson. His proposal that steeply graduated income taxes should be reintroduced to deal with public spending frankly does not seem unreasonable to me as a National-Socialist.

We do however see prior examples of uncivilized behavior by Hodgkinson. He had a criminal record that included some examples of petty violence.

And if you look at the man, you see that he is not exactly a Nordic god. He had a wide, flat nose, that makes me wonder what is in his family tree.

At the same time though, his anti-Republican partisanism seems to reflect the effects of mass-propaganda. On Facebook, Hodgkinson had joined a group called Terminate the Republican Party, run by Howard Scott Pearlman, of Cherry Hill, N.J.

So, we can say that this was a man who had some violent tendencies, perhaps an Underman but a relatively high-functioning one, whose tendencies were pointed in a particular direction by the messages that he heard.

I wrote after Trump was elected last November that the Constitutional powers of the President of the United States were not adequate to deal with the problems – specifically demographic decline and the entrenched anti-White elite – that threaten to destroy our country.

Anybody who would fix what is wrong with the United States today would need the kinds of dictatorial powers that Adolf Hitler was able to acquire after the Reichstag Fire in 1933.

In the best possible scenario, he would one way or another acquire those powers and use them the way Adolf Hitler used them. It is not unprecedented for a US president to exercise extraordinary powers, when there is an emergency that seems to justify it, and if we see more incidents similar to this incident of the shooting of Congressman Scalise, perhaps some sort of state of emergency may be declared and the right result could come from it. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/11/07/roots-of-trumps-revolution/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/11/07/roots-of-trumps-revolution/#respond Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:21:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/11/07/roots-of-trumps-revolution/

I wrote this after the defeat of Mitt Romney in the presidential election of 2012, when the Uniparty Establishment of Plutocrats and Zionists was proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future could win elections only by abandoning all semblance of representing the interests of the White majority, and should instead pander to Hispanics by embracing illegal aliens. “Neoconservative” Jew Charles Krauthammer in particular advocated this, with Jew Dick Morris (who pretends to be an expert on how to win elections) seconding, and many weak-kneed Republicans followed their lead.

Rush Limbaugh was the most prominent dissenting voice. Limbaugh said that if the Republican Party tried to be like the Democrats it would cease to exist. 

Limbaugh however did not articulate a viable alternative for the Republicans. Although Limbaugh recommended rallying the party’s base, his conception of how to appeal to the base was circumscribed by his commitment to “conservatism,” while the really powerful appeal to the Republican base, and the way to expand that base, was in populism (which Limbaugh had explicitly opposed when Pat Buchanan represented it in 1996). 

Subsequently, in 2014, Limbaugh made a significant shift in the direction of populism, openly admitting, after decades of shilling for plutocracy, that what is good for the rich may not be good for ordinary Americans after all. In 2016 Limbaugh is still saying this.

Not being hobbled with Rush Limbaugh’s commitment to “conservatism,” I articulated a populist future for the Republican Party with this essay in 2012. Although Donald Trump has not gone as far as I proposed in terms of moving the GOP to the left economically, broadly speaking what I suggested is what he has done, notably proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future would be a workers’ party.

The key to Trump’s popularity is that he enables White working people to vote for their racial interest and their personal economic interest at the same time. In the past, the Republicans and the Democrats, as if by a deliberate plan to keep the White majority divided, consistently forced them to choose one or the other.

A Party of Plutocrats Has No Future

by Hadding Scott

Originally published on The Occidental Observer, 13 November 2012

The Ideal vs. the Possible

First I want to explain that White advocacy and electoral politics are two distinct matters. There is some relationship between the two, but they are different with their own guiding principles (especially in this winner-take-all electoral system, which rewards inscrutable blandness). To the extent that one is guided by the principles of the other, it is done less than optimally. Electoral politics must be approached with a readiness to accept some tolerable compromise rather than demanding the full realization of an ideal: “Politics is the art of the possible,” said Bismarck. But at the same time the ideal has to be maintained.

White advocacy and general political discussion must not be degraded to the level of rhetoric that is calculated to win an election. We must not internalize the limits of electoral politics as the limits of our own thinking and discussion. Those of us who might choose to engage in the grubby business of electoral politics must not become creatures of this corrupting system but remain White people with White interests, despite whatever compromises might be required by circumstances.

By maintaining consciousness of the difference between what is actual and what is ideal, our people should always realize that whatever they have gained is not all that they want, so that progress will not stop and will not be lost through a relaxation of efforts.

How the Republican Party has Failed and Succeeded and Failed Again

Many White people, especially in the South, support the Republican Party because they perceive it as the Implicitly White Party. This affiliation of racially conscious White people with the Republican Party was induced by the so-called Civil Rights movement, which had its main base of support in the Democratic Party. The South had always been solidly Democratic until the Truman Administration and its support for “Civil Rights.” This provoked a rift in the Democratic Party in the form of the short-lived States’ Rights Democratic Party, or “Dixiecrats.” A decisive shift occurred when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. That was when Senator Strom Thurmond became a Republican. Many other Southern segregationists, like future senator Jesse Helms, followed.

Before the Solid South turned Republican, the Republicans had been known as the party of big business. In other words, it was a plutocratic party. The Republicans were blamed for the Great Depression, and for not doing enough to meliorate its effects, such as unemployment. The fact that the Democrats were willing to address those effects of the Great Depression made them the dominant political party from 1933 until 1981. It was the fact that the Democratic establishment’s racial policies had offended White Southerners that enabled the Republican Party to become dominant again, beginning with Ronald Reagan.

The politics of the rejuvenated Republican Party therefore represented a synthesis of muted White racialism and plutocracy. The 19^th-century notion that dog-eat-dog capitalism was somehow eugenic became attractive as a meeting-point between the two motives. However, although budgets were cut, the effects on the underclass were far from drastic. (Nor did Ronald Reagan turn Iran into a glowing parking-lot.) There seemed to be a strong anti-social impulse in all this; not infrequently the supporters of the less-government ideology will express it in terms of owing nothing to the government or to society.

Unfortunately, as it turned out, the established plutocratic motive in the Republican Party forced the recently introduced racial motive to take a back seat. Instead of concentrating on pro-White politics (such as restricting immigration), which is the most fundamental form of conservatism, the Republicans, with an ideology of free trade, deregulation, and less government, concentrated on dismantling the economic and social adjustments that had become necessary by the time of the Great Depression.

The fact that the Republicans had become the party of unnecessary wars also did not help. Barack Obama was able to beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination because she had supported war in Iraq and he had not. This consideration also surely had some bearing on Obama’s victory over John McCain, who repelled people with talk of 100 years of Middle-East war.
The combination of dishonest wars and a wrecked economy caused the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Republican attempts to exploit some presumed amnesia on the part of the voting public, so as to blame Obama for the resumption of the Great Depression, had little success. Unemployment also became worse during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term than it had been under Herbert Hoover, but somehow that did not make people forget under which party the crisis had begun.

Why did three-million Republicans not turn out to vote for Mitt Romney?

Rush Limbaugh characterizes movers and shakers in the Republican Party as a bunch of elitist snobs who despise many of the ordinary people that vote Republican.

How many times have I told you this story? Early 90s, in the Hamptons. Dinner party, mostly establishment Republicans. And major figures, you’d know the names, big donors, fundraisers, come up to me, point their finger in my chest, actually jab my chest, “What are you going to do about the Christians?” “What do you mean, what am I going to do about the…?” “This abortion’s killing us! We’re never going to win a damned thing! They listen to you. You’ve got to get them to shut up about this!” I said, “They’re only 24 million votes. You can’t win anything without them.” “We don’t want them! It’s embarrassing!” Well, that’s 1992, 93. We’re now at 2012. That’s 20 years. That’s how long it’s been building. That is something that existed then; it existed during the 80s with Reagan. There was embarrassment over Reagan. (Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound)

While this anecdote gives a useful insight, Limbaugh seems to tell only part of the truth, probably the part that he can tell without getting into really serious hot water. Abortion is clearly only one, perhaps the least of the issues dear to some Republican voters that the bigwigs find abhorrent. Other such issues are control of legal and illegal immigration, opposition to free trade, and opposition to wars for Israel. The fact that Limbaugh managed to discuss the conflict over the rules-change at the Republican National Convention at length without mentioning Ron Paul, whose movement was at the center of the conflict, demonstrates that with Rush Limbaugh, while some things are revealed, much is suppressed.

A large part of the cause for three-million registered Republicans staying home on election day, no doubt, is the treatment given to Ron Paul’s genuine and enthusiastic (if ideologically wrongheaded) grassroots movement. The abuses include what seems to be rigging of results in some primaries, and a rules-change at the Republican National Convention that rankled not only Ron Paul’s supporters but Tea-Partiers and anybody that was not strictly with the plutocratic Republican establishment. The behavior of the Republican establishment during the primaries and at the convention represents the contempt of a plutocratic party for ordinary people who do not heed their supposed betters.

Limbaugh describes a key event at the 2012 Republican convention:

Essentially, the establishment Republicans, the RNC, the GOP, the Romney campaign, want to change the rules of delegate-selection. They want the presidential nominee in future years to be able to choose the actual delegates to the convention so that he owns them, so that they do what he wants.

And what it really is, is an effort to eliminate grassroots people from the Republican convention. That’s really what this is all about. And what that means is that the party has decided it doesn’t want to have to put up with a bunch of conservatives showing up, affecting the platform, and all other things that happen at the convention, including influencing the party. [Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound]

Limbaugh speaks cryptically about “conservatives” when it was mainly a matter of Ron Paul’s supporters. That was not the only offense against Ron Paul’s supporters at the convention:

Prior to the rules vote, there was also a contentious vote on the report from the committee’s credentials committee, which prevented half the delegates from Maine — many of them Paul supporters — from being seated after ruling that there were problems with their selections.

The credentials report also passed by voice vote, prompting chants of “Seat Maine now” from Paul supporters in the crowd. At one point, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus had to gavel them back into order as they chanted over the next speaker. [Aaron Blake, “Ron Paul supporters come up short in rules fight,” Washington Post, 28 August 2012]

Ron Paul’s opposition to war and foreign entanglements generally would have represented a real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and a change of direction that many people favor, one that would have attracted many who favored Obama in 2008 because of what appeared to be his disinclination for war.

The question for me is not why Obama was re-elected, but why anybody is surprised about it, given  what the Republican establishment really represents, and the contempt with which it treats the people whose support it seeks.

The Overemphasis on Demographic Change and Why they are Doing It

Fox News commentator Bill O’ Reilly made this dire assessment as exit polls suggested that the Republican Party’s White male challenger Mitt Romney would lose to the mulatto incumbent:

The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.

And whereby twenty years ago President Obama would be roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the White establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff.

You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming Black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way.

People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things.

O’Reilly tries to cast the problem in terms of the old saw about how democracy cannot last because the people will vote largesse for themselves until they ruin the state, but he ends up interpreting that largely in racial terms (which is probably what really concerns the average Fox News viewer anyway, so that we probably should not consider this a slip but intentional pandering).

Who is the “White establishment” that O’Reilly says is now the minority? He cannot mean all White people, because White people are not a minority yet, nor did all White people vote Republican. O’Reilly is implying that the Republican Party got as much of the White vote as it could possibly get, which is simply not the case. The thesis here is that a less plutocratic Republican Party would draw a larger share of the White vote and be able to win elections at the national level.

After O’Reilly made his statement, Jewish political pundit Dick Morris stated on Fox News, “If this candidate, in this economy, against this opponent, couldn’t win … nobody ever can.” Morris specifically mentioned immigration as a position where the Republican Party would have to change. Morris and certain others seem far too eager to embrace the conclusion that demographic change is the reason why the Republicans lost, and overly determined as to what should be done about it.

Neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer was one of the first notable voices after the election to call for the Republican Party to embrace amnesty for illegal aliens:

The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.

For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. [Charles Krauthammer, “The Way Forward,” National Review, 8 November 2012]

King-Neocon William Kristol expresses himself a bit more timidly. He advocates that the Republican Party should continue to be the enemy of “big government liberalism” but should exhibit “fresh thinking” in other regards. Then he cryptically suggests that a change of the party’s position on immigration might be in order: “If a senator or a representative has a good proposal on immigration or monetary policy or education or tax reform, he or she should introduce it” (William Kristol, “Losing Can be Liberating,” The Weekly Standard, 19 November 2012)

The Zionist owner of Fox News and funder of the Project for a New American Century, Rupert Murdoch, tweeted that the United States “must make sweeping, generous immigration reform.”

The dominant theme in Neoconservative propaganda at present is that the Republican Party must become even less the party of White people while remaining the plutocratic party.

The Neocon position was echoed by Sean Hannity, who has always seemed weak-kneed on matters of racial importance, claiming that he had “evolved.”

Among elected politicians, while Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner came out for amnesty, other Republicans, who depend on the support of White constituencies, disagreed.

Rush Limbaugh: Demographic Change is not the Immediate Problem

Limbaugh denies the premise of the Neocons’ rhetoric, that amnesty for illegal aliens would significantly win Hispanics over to the GOP. He points out that 75% of the Hispanic vote is more interested in the social safety-net and progressive taxation, than in immigration. (8 November 2012)
Rush Limbaugh says that that the Republicans did not lose because of demographics, but because the party had alienated the three million registered Republicans who stayed home on election-day.

It wasn’t an election lost because we didn’t get the women’s vote, the Hispanic vote. We didn’t turn our vote out. It’s just that simple. Could it be, ladies and gentlemen, three million Republicans sat at home because they didn’t see enough of a conservative campaign?

These are the things that have to be pondered, why all the party beats itself up over amnesty and single women and contraception. But I’m just going to tell you, if you think that the only reason why you’re not winning presidential races is because you’re not for amnesty, and because you’re not for abortion, if you change to that, if you moderate, modify your positions, you are going to cease to exist, because those who are with you are going to abandon you. (Rush Limbaugh, 8 November 2012: sound)

Beyond Limbaugh

Limbaugh says that if the Republican Party tries to cater to the Hispanic vote by embracing amnesty for illegal aliens, the party will cease to exist. That is very likely. However, it does not mean that the Republican Party will survive if it does not do that.

If the Republican Party is defined by opposition to the social safety-net and progressive taxation, then indeed it will cease to exist, whether it pursues non-White support or not, because these are adjustments that the conditions of late capitalism (where efficient production, exacerbated presently through offshoring of jobs, causes massive unemployment) make indispensable.

As with O’Reilly, Limbaugh’s rhetoric loosely ties plutocratic thinking with racial thinking by associating the desire for a social safety-net and progressive taxation with Blacks and Hispanics. The listener is given the hint that the Republican Party’s policies are a good way to give a relative advantage to Whites over and against non-Whites. The downside to this is that the White working class is put in the position of choosing between an impersonal racial interest and personal economic interest. Of course many choose the latter, especially outside of the South.

The Non-Southern White Working Class

A new report on the White working class by Elisabeth Jacobs of the Brookings Institution indicates that the White working class was the key to Obama’s victory in Ohio. White working-class voters everywhere tend to be more culturally conservative than other White people, but outside of the South White workers are more influenced by economic policy. A movement away from the plutocratic less-government ideology would bring the Republican Party closer to being the party of all White people. Here’s a chart from Mother Jones showing the White working class vote in various regions of the U.S.:

Since the Southern White working-class voters who now vote Republican were once solidly Democratic, and have adopted plutocratic rhetoric as a (perceived) sneaky approach to racial politics, we can say that these voters are not really wedded to the less-government ideology and, if they can remember why they started mouthing that rhetoric in the first place, will abandon it when they see that the racial interest is better served in some other way.

What about the Black vote?

It must be recognized that White people are not the only population in the United States that suffers from a false leadership that despises it. The Blacks also have their Judas goats, most notably Ben Jealous of the NAACP and Al Sharpton. The NAACP was created by Jews and is essentially controlled by Jews today, through funding. (When the NAACP started to take an independent course under Ben Chavis in the 1990s, it suddenly ran into funding problems.) Al Sharpton, who has a daily radio show and a television show on MSNBC, supports the cause of illegal immigrants, to the detriment of Black people in the United States.

Despite the effect of these Judas goats, about half of the Black population understands that illegal immigration adversely affects Black people, and they oppose amnesty.

Jealous and Sharpton together were prominent in stirring up irrational anti-White rage among Blacks regarding the Trayvon Martin case. This irrational hostility hinders understanding and cooperation for the common good of Black and White as natives of the United States, and helps the Neocons and others who want non-White immigration to continue.

While the false Black leaders try to maintain racial animosity, the false White leaders try to overcome that animosity using inducements that are transparently bogus.

The arguments that the Republicans have been using to try to get the Black vote are ridiculous. Those arguments are (1) that the Republican desire to take away the advantages that Blacks currently enjoy is really good for Blacks, and (2) that the Republican Party happily puts on display token successful Blacks and other non-Whites at its convention and even appoints some of them as figureheads in the party.

The reason why Blacks are not impressed with the Blacks who speak at a Republican convention or are made titular head of the RNC may be that they understand something that Whites should also understand. Those people speaking at Republican conventions do not represent any racial identity: they represent a cosmopolitan bourgeois identity. Bourgeois Republican Blacks no more represents the Black community than Mitt Romney represents the White community. They are simply money-people.

Here’s the real argument, which some Blacks should find convincing: if non-White immigration continues, if the United States of America cease to have a White majority, it will be very bad for Blacks. It’s a genuine argument, not an attempt at fooling them with empty symbolism and slick talk.
About half of Blacks are already hostile to immigration. What is needed is an effort to make Blacks think about immigration more and to treat it as a key issue in coming elections. This can be done through publicity that emphasizes the conflict between Black interests and immigration, and by getting Black preachers, who exercise considerable influence, to support that position. They need to understand that they are on a ship that will sink if they do not limit their demands and cooperate with others who want to prevent an incipient disaster.

Conclusion

The Democrats’ period of dominance from 1933–1981was based on addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, but they spoiled that with anti-White racial politics. The Republicans’ recent period of dominance has been based on being Implicitly White, which even now should be enough to win a presidential election, but they are ruining that by not addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, White and otherwise.

It is clear that the Republicans must change something to broaden their appeal. The Neoconservative answer is that the Republicans should try harder to appeal to Hispanics by embracing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and become in that respect a copy of the Democratic Party. There is a respect in which the Republicans should become more like the Democrats, and even go far beyond them, but immigration is not it.

Non-White immigration is the main threat to all of society in the United States today. There happens to be a ready constituency for curbing immigration, but to win it the Republicans must abandon plutocratic economic and social thinking. That constituency consists of White working-class people everywhere (many of whom have not been voting Republican), as well as about half of the Black population.

What I propose is that the Republican Party should continue being Implicitly White and culturally conservative but take away from the Democrats their main source of appeal, the social state. Given the economic conditions of late capitalism and the post-colonial period, it is in any case inevitable that the party that makes this adjustment will in the long run defeat the one that refuses it.

Cover-illustration, La Libre Parole, 28 October 1893

Capitalist Barbarism

René Binet

From Théorie du Racisme, 1950, 

Translation by M.M. & Hadding Scott, 2016

Individualism and the thirst for loot, which is to say the desire for profits obtained without labor, are the only motive forces of capitalist society. The ethical values ​​of capitalism are founded upon the ​instinctive values of the inferior races that created it, who govern it, and who use it as their instrument of domination. Capitalism is therefore obliged to seek throughout the world ever new markets, cheap raw materials, and a more numerous workforce at lower wages. Capitalist society’s absolute contempt for human values, a contempt based on its ignorance of inherited values, traditions, and racial hierarchies to which it does not adhere, leads it to destroy the peoples’ traditions to the degree that these traditions oppose its stranglehold on the land, the wealth, and the workforce of the conquered land.

Proclaiming once again its basic principles of “equality” that allow it to obtain at a low price an army of obedient workers, capitalism promoted the transplanting of populations and the mixing of races. It thus thought to obtain by mixture an ever more numerous mass of undermen without traditions, without political ties, and thereby without means of defense, who would not question the principles of domination that this society has established contrary to nature.

In the name of civilization, capitalism endeavors to develop everywhere a uniform barbarity, and in the name of equality, it prepares the leveling of all human civilization to the level of undermen.

But in this manner, capitalism induces the healthiest elements of each people in every country to see in it the gravest danger and an irreconcilable enemy. The individuals who have remained faithful to the fundamental traditions of their race not only fight capitalism as an economic and political instrument of world-domination, but discover its racial essence. Capitalism is nothing but the means for inferior races to dominate the world. It prepares the twilight of all human society and all civilization.

Capitalist society was thus able to distort a limited area of the world but, during a short period of time, it could not abolish the regular process of the struggle of races. Defectors from superior races could adopt its modes of being, and a significant portion of each race could be reduced to the state of servitude by the monstrous association of these defectors with the masters of capital. In response, however, the purest part of each people looked up and began to coalesce for its own safety and for the salvation of the race.

Capitalism itself has created the means for its own demise: individualistic and competitive, it develops the anarchy of production that brings increasingly violent crises and unleashes social struggles for bread.

It seizes ever greater hoards of wealth, wherewith it is unable to guarantee full employment, and can neither prevent economic crises nor stop them.

It subjugates ever more peoples that it uproots and causes to dwindle, whose decadence it assures, but in each of them it obliges racial elites to rise up, defending their people and striving to slaughter capitalism, its doctrine, and its causes, ultimately reestablishing a truly human scale of values.

It has created a growing number of mongrels and antisocial or unsocial elements that are less and less manageable and governable in accord with the political processes of liberalism and capitalism. Thus arises an army of undermen who will boost progress in the wrong direction by the ascent to power of an increasingly large number of them.

Finally, the reflexive cosmopolitanism that is the basis of capitalism’s organization led to the formation of sprawling states tending toward global domination, which is to say toward the proletarianization of nations and of entire continents, thereby increasing the general opposition to its methods.

In all fields, the forces assemble that will bring justice out of the current chaos that is born from the rise to power of the undermen.

Finally, the races that constitute the capitalist state, unfit for the profession of arms and for all creative activity, are obliged to entrust the laboratories, the weapons, and technical means of war to men who, when they will take cognizance of their present subjugation, will redirect those instruments against the capitalist races.

In summary, labor, instead of being an honor and a social duty, the source of all income, has become  servitude for the majority of the people. It is found that these were the strata most fit for the creative activity that the inversion of economic and social values subjected to the arbitrary power of the undermen who have become masters of production through capital and the appropriation of gold. 

The Lie of Equality

The assertion “all men are equal” offered a justification for this taking power, on the one hand, and for the looting of the world on the other. The possession of capital, then the appropriation therewith of the creation and the discoveries of the men of our race by the men of inferior strata, led to the entry of these undermen^[*^] into politics. Bringing along moral values appropriate for justifying their new power, they prepared the total decline of the racially superior men.

With what is called the bourgeois revolution, or capitalist society, a new scale of political and ethical values was created ​​that would lead to the establishment of the bourgeois republic, in the place of the hierarchy of the people based on the unequal merits of the men who were members of it. To each stage of the historical process corresponds a specific political development: first races are subjugated by the lord conqueror who makes serfs of them; then associations of freedmen engage in commerce, buying franchises and the right to bear arms; then independent republics of emancipated merchants begin to assess individuals based on wealth and not on race. Such are the different steps in the rise of some, and the decline of the others.

At the same time as the prerogatives of race weaken, the demands of the inferior social-racial strata become more arrogant, until the instant when the balance has been destroyed and wealth makes possible the political imposition of race-mixture, and the social and political decline of yesterday’s rulers.

Modern government is nothing more than the representative of those who have been enriched and empowered by looting. All laws issuing from these governments are initiated only as a means of racial struggle, and trample underfoot all values that had been those of earlier states.

The reciprocal duties that primordially united one man to another have been broken: the “baron” is not protecting his “retinue” anymore; his subordinates no longer owe him “services.” Capitalism exposed man without defense to arbitrariness and the curse of gold; all human solidarity was negated. Henceforth, only capitalism‘s  law and possession are affirmed. Man becomes nothing but a number, a book-value subjected to  brutal and unscrupulous exploitation: his honor and his dignity could not be figured into the accounting of cash-flows.

Even family–relationships have ceased to be human connections, becoming no more than subjects for  the calculation of interest. At the same time as society was losing its natural foundation, race, it was abandoning all its human-based connections. A biological order that is contrary to nature, a political order that is contrary to nature: such is capitalist society. Turning its back on nature’s relationships and biological equilibrium, this society is designed to supply profit for the few parasites who founded it and live off it. It opens the door to chaotic and sterile competition, to the total anarchy of production, and to political invasion by lower races.

Production ceases to correspond to the real needs of the community so as to represent henceforth only surplus value for the usurpers of the means of production. At the same time as production loses its natural political organization, it also loses its basis within the nation. Capitalism is cosmopolitan in its social and political doctrine because it has severed all ties to the biological foundations of human societies.
____________________________
*Binet uses the word sous-homme. Obviously this is to represent the German word Untermensch. Prior to the 20th century, the adjective untermenschlich, which meant immoral, was common, but the noun  Untermensch practically did not exist. Nietzsche (who had the habit of inventing words) used it once with a very different meaning from how the National-Socialists later used the word: Nietzsche said that Doestoyevsky’s Untermensch  was the same as his Übermensch. The National-Socialist use of the word Untermensch seems to have had nothing to do with Nietzsche, but was inspired by Lothrop Stoddard’s 1922 book The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man. In this context, the Untermensch is not a “subhuman” but rather a human of bad hereditary character. As Stoddard uses the word it is a catch-all term for human types that, if they become too numerous, bring civilization to ruin. That is what Binet means by sous-homme.

The Tyranny of Gold
René Binet

In the most recent historical period the appearance of capitalism, as a medium of social differentiation and as the basis for a new social structure, has momentarily distorted the whole development of the traditional struggle of races. Inequality of men — instead of being based on the unequal physical, intellectual and moral value of persons, on the inequality of their aptitudes, and on the inequality of their race — has  been based on inequality of wealth. But, from the study of races and their specific tendencies, it emerges that the conception of the world that uses wealth and not personal merit as the criterion for assessing human value is the specific property of a certain ethnic group. Consequently, [this new social structure] can last only as long as the dominance of the race that bases its conception of the world upon [wealth]. This race is not Aryan.

Capitalism, as a means of expressing [that race’s] aspirations and as a social structure corresponding to [that race’s] conception of the universe, is therefore only an accident in the history of the Aryan world. It is the expression of the temporary dominance over the Aryan world of a foreign ethnic stratum, a dominance that can last only for as long as the Aryan world will tolerate it.

It is nevertheless useful to summarize in a few sentences the mechanism of the transition from the Aryan society of the feudal type to capitalist society, the modern form of the oppression of Aryans, which has been placed in power only because of the Aryans themselves.

During the decline of the Roman empire, ever larger groups of Germans were gaining entry into the Empire. The conquest itself, known as the “great barbarian invasions” was only the coronation and finale of a long established state of affairs. The Germans had occupied the Empire before invading it militarily and seizing power.

In accord with the usual mechanism of racial struggles, the old autochthonous races were relegated to economic and political second-class status in a mostly Germanic society.

If [the German conquerors] participated in Latin culture to the extent that it was valid for them, they imposed the social structure of the Nordic peoples. In particular, they affirmed, first, the contempt that one finds among all peoples of the north from the earliest periods of their civilization: contempt for gold and for the power that it could confer. Refusing to become merchants of silver, which they considered degrading, they left it to the members of foreign races in Europe regarded as less noble. Socially they left the management of fortunes and dealing in gold to lower races — Jews and others — just as at the present time one entrusts to an accountant the custody of a coffer or till.

On the other hand they devoted themselves traditionally to all creative efforts. The discoveries and conquests of lands, as well as great inventions, are uniquely their work.

In the epoch corresponding historically to the Renaissance in the European West, they simultaneously discovered new lands and new means of production.

The discoveries of lands caused enormous fortunes to flow into the coffers of the dealers in gold.

The scientific and technical inventions immediately conferred a new importance onto the fortunes that they had conquered. It is at this moment and only at this moment that the development of the means of production began to depend entirely on hoards of wealth, and not on labor alone as in preceding ages.

The products of human labor, instead of remaining individual values​​, became social values. Industrialization, to the degree that it was obliged to make an appeal to the gold-dealers in order to develop, passed into their control and escaped that of its creators.

Gold no longer served to meet individual needs but likewise became a social value, to the degree necessary for acquiring the means of production and raw materials.

The situation was as follows: Aryan man conquered fortunes that he entrusted to be managed by the men of lower races who were relegated to this servile vocation. Then he invents new means of production. He makes an appeal to utilize and to build on the fortunes that he has conquered. The dishonest treasurers and rebellious servants who keep those fortunes exert demands before returning them to their rightful owners.

They first demand economic rights, then political rights. The “bank” imposes its conditions on the Aryan men who allowed it to be born in the preceding epoch.

The bank even begins to deny the facts (1) of the Aryan origin of capital, (2) of the social rather than personal value of this capital, and (3) of the exclusive right of the Aryan to control and to own capital.

In that era, as in the preceding period, and as in all epochs of history, we witness the gradual ascent of an ethnic stratum that first seizes the economic wealth and the means of production and then attains political power:

At the time of the Roman Empire’s decline, the Germans had little by little taken possession of the means of production, land, and the means to keep it, weapons. Finally they had seized political power.

At the time of the advent of technical progress, a different racial stratum, of inferior race, little by little seizes the means of production through the agency of the bank. It then arrives at political power and general dominance.

But, there are fundamental contradictions : (1) it possesses the wealth without the genuine entitlement that comes from superior merit, and (2) it has no control over the means to keep it: weapons remain in the hands of the only men of merit and courage, Aryan men.

Capitalism is thus a mere historical accident and a growing-pain of Aryan society. This [system] will last only as long as the Aryans will accept it.

In any case a state of affairs was created at the moment of transition from feudal society to capitalist society:

The first inventions, the construction of the first machines, then the possession of these new means of production, became the privilege, not of those who were the most capable of creating them and who in fact did create them, but of those enabled by gold to acquire ownership.

The means of production escaped their true owners. The master became not the one who ranked race before all, but the one that gold made master over the labor of others. Selection was inverted. Lacking control of the gold that had been originally only a convenient medium of exchange, the man of good race lost his independence in relation to the serf and the usurer of the ghetto.

In certain cases, and especially in the new countries, men of good race undoubtedly were able to achieve prominence, but they could do it thanks only to the gold that they had acquired, and not to the superiority of their abilities. They had to accept the rules of a game of which they were not the masters, and to respect standards imposed by the inferior races that possessed wealth.

Thus, with the advent of capitalism, the divisions of class appeared in new forms, not as an effect only of the inequality of races, but as a consequence of the inequality of fortunes. Possession resulted not from more or less profuse creativity, but from more or less aptitude for stealing the fortunes or the labor of others.

The promotion of the inferior social-racial strata, their accession to power, simultaneously compelled society to change its conception of the world and its political structure. On the way to usurping power, the inferior races were obliged to seek and to find a principle that could justify this usurpation.