Jew World Order

National Socialism Now (1937)

CHAPTER I.

The meaning of National Socialism—The unity of the people—The menace of Class War and Snobbery—True values.

We deal with National Socialism for Britain; for we are British. Our League is entirely British; and to win the victory for National Socialism here, we must work hard enough to be excused the inspiring task of describing National Socialism elsewhere.

Of course, the name of Adolf Hitler will always be linked with National Socialism; and the name of Marconi will be linked with radio; the former is more necessary than the latter, which has established itself as a household fact, although it represents one of the few astounding inventions that did not arise from our soil and our people.

National Socialism, however, no matter who may use the term or feel the spirit first, must arise from soil and people or not at all. It springs from no temporary grievance, but from the revolutionary yearning of the people to cast off the chains of gross, sordid, democratic materialism without having to put on the shackles of Marxian Materialism, which would be identical with the chains cast off.

The matter touches our own British people, who cannot be debarred from sharing in a spirit of revolt which is confined to no one nation. Therefore, in true respect for the German Leader’s gallant achievement against international Jewish finance and its other self—international Jewish Communism, I would gladly say, “Heil Hitler!” and at once part company with him, realising what a pitiable insult it is to such a great man to try to flatter him with an imitation which he has always disdained. His way is for Germany, ours is for Britain; let us tread our paths with mutual respect, which is rarely increased by borrowing.

“Nationalism” and “Socialism” are two terms separately understood in our land. The words are now as English as any other. Separately, they will have to go; only in combination, standing for the one great reality, can they have meaning for the man who, beyond loving his country, loves the people of his own race who inhabit his land.

“Nationalism” has meant a devotion to the Crown, the flag, the abstract idea of Britain, and other values less glorious.

“Socialism” has, according to Mr. Brailsford, been given some hundreds of meanings; but it has meant a devotion to the masses of the working people, to better conditions of life for them, and to other values less glorious.

If we discard “in both cases” the “other values less glorious,” may Heaven forgive the euphemism, we have left before us certain principles which, so far from being opposed, are not only compatible but clearly and absolutely in agreement. The mystery is that Nationalism and Socialism should have remained separate for so long. That mystery is solved only when we realise that our “other values less glorious” have embraced useless butchery, foolish jealousy, inane snobbery, prostitution of patriotic fervour to Jewish interests, the hatreds of Class War, the sacrifice of the British Worker to the oppression of international finance and his asphyxia in the miasma of Marx. Of these two terms that we are considering, it is always the sinister connotations and never the decent that have caused disruption and suffering. The moral is to build on what is good and to leave less glorious values alone for a while. We shall then begin to understand how absurd it is to regard true Socialism as in any way dependent on internationalism; and we shall see how stupid it is to describe as true Nationalism any sentiment or doctrine which ignores or fails to cure the sufferings of our people in the mass.

Nationalism and Socialism must be either one blessing or twin curses.

Nationalism stands for the nation and Socialism for the people. Unless the people be identical with the nation, all politics and all statecraft are a waste of time. People without a nation are a helpless flock or, like the Jews, a perpetual nuisance; a nation without people is an abstract nothing or a historical ghost.

Nation and people must be one; there must be no division amongst the people themselves. Wars of class and party are calculated to make such division, and thus they are evil in themselves.

Hegel thought that a nation must have a soul of its own; many thinkers refuse to believe that the people who are so vital individually must be dead collectively. At any rate, it is true that human society, unless the victim of anarchy, tends to organise. A nation or people must be a living organism, no more to be divided than the human organism, in which division means disease or death. This principle may be described by some as totalitarian, and by others as organic; but the term “organic” will suit us very well. In an organism, no part can be considered without reference to the whole; otherwise it dies. Nor can the whole be considered without reference to its parts, whilst the whole itself expresses much more than the mere sum of its parts, because the life principle runs throughout.

May this discursion into philosophy be forgiven; but it is necessary to show why the National Socialist demands real thorough union of the people, to free them from class and party strife and the bitterest feelings of discord and hatred. Unless a man can say “My country stands for me,” it is hard to expect him to say for an indefinite period “I stand for my country.” This is the mistake that the Tory party has made for generations.

An unemployed victim, made wretched by the system, grinding a barrel organ in the gutter, piteously showing the faded and tattered remnants of his war-ribbons, does not see in each penny superciliously dropped the Land of Heroes promised to him in the throes of the struggle which ruined him. Nor is his patriotic fervour likely to rise if some majestic Lady Bountiful offers him twopence and the advice: “There you are. We shall soon have a war with Germany, and then you won’t be unemployed any more, my good man. “To curse the Communists is easy, virtuous, and needful; but it would be far more effective to destroy them not with bell, book and candle, but by giving every worthy citizen a reason to be thankful to his country. Let the real wounds of the people be healed, and the deportation of a few hundred Oriental criminals will suffice for ever to silence Communism in this country.

Moreover, as any organism requires both sense and means of direction, so a people requires leadership and government. The purpose of leadership is to give direction, and that of government is above all to prevent the liberty of some from becoming the enslavement of others.

A people without good leaders is a poor thing without purpose, direction, or desirable goal. Authority is necessary in all human affairs. But any man who aspires to be a leader must always remember the essential truth that a leader never in the end gets more loyalty than he gives. The whole being of loyalty is mutual good faith. Hence there is one and the same obligation on the leaders and the led. The led must think always of the nation; and the leaders must think always of the people. Whilst this bond holds there will be firm accord.

This conception of national unity utterly renounces the practice of snobbery and the enjoyment of riches without service. It has no place for the ludicrous notion that nobility can be by patent conferred on a Prime Minister’s cronies. If they must be rewarded for hours of faithful entertainment, let them be paid in cash at the patron’s expense; but to inscribe their names in Debrett is to make a laughing stock of the whole peerage. Some fellow of little mark undertakes to eulogize a Premier in a periodical journal; in the course of time, his conscientious objections being forgotten, he emerges as Lord Somebody of Hurtwood. Fit he may be to join a throng of profiteers and newsvendors, though not the decent newsvendors in the streets.

The trouble is that all these spoilt children of fortune have to be treated as eminently superior persons, when every man with a molecule of self-respect knows they are not superior at all. Thus a very distorted notion of merit spreads through the whole body of the people. Without reference to any particular example, it will be agreed that cringing and cunning have been known in many cases to produce wondrous success. Many persons have come to enjoy their mead of bowing and scraping by simply doing nothing, or by giving themselves the trouble to be born.

Clearly it is impossible to end class war if every species of social injustice is to be dressed up in the cloak of nobility, if social superiority is to be divorced from honour and even intelligence. There is, in fact, no basis for the organic harmonised state other than the rule that reward is due to merit and to that alone.

Where every man knows that service and merit will not pass unrewarded, and what is even more important, that responsibility will be granted only to ability and high character, the chief cause of class hatred is eradicated without any violence to morality.

Thus we National Socialists have but one question to ask concerning any man’s class. It is this: “Does he love and serve his country and people?” If the answer is in the affirmative, the man belongs to one class, if in the negative, he belongs to another. There are the two classes that National Socialism recognises. There is no question here of equality; men were not born equal, and could not remain equal, if they were so in the beginning; but any man who loves and serves his country should be proud to be in the same class with the rest who do so. To distinguished service, distinction is due. Let this principle be observed, and even the least fortunate of men need not consider his misfortune permanent.

If the possession of wealth is to be dependent on merit and service, you may well ask “What is to become of hereditary wealth or fortune?” Here the right principle is not to forbid a man to make provision for his family, but to see that the family justifies the provision which has been made. To benefit one’s offspring is a natural and providential tendency which supplies a great incentive to effort. The inheritance of wealth by individuals may be a national advantage. A long line of good tilling yeoman, for example, can profit not only the soil but the nation by the vigour and cleanliness of its stamina. Nor can it be denied that Death Duties on land have broken up agricultural estates and put nothing serviceable in their place. On the other hand, absentee landlords who care nothing for their tenants are a wicked anomaly. Mayfair night clubs and Left Book Clubs provide unearned and unprofitable recreation for many spoilt darlings who can show no moral claim to the wealth that they hold.

Thus we return to the law that inheritance must be justified by service, which may take many forms beyond the economic. One who does not live on his estate and carefully tend it can serve the people in administration or culture. If it be said that discrimination is hard to apply, the answer is that a state which cannot value the work of its citizens is an incompetent and silly state. A Government armed with the full authority of the people can soon find the means of discrimination against heirs who think that society was made for their convenience and act accordingly. There must be, of course, an honest tribunal; but such a thing is surely not beyond the capacity of a great people like ours to produce. If it is, we might as well abandon the struggle now.

In short, we attack neither the principle nor the stability of the family but that degeneracy which enables some to live entirely on the deeds of their forbears. The National Socialist state will give abundant opportunities to serve; they must be taken.

You have now some idea as to how the irritants of class struggle may be removed. The removal of the great cause depends on the provision of a plenty which can be produced. It is always wrong to teach that general benefit can come from internal warfare; but once the cause and the irritants have gone, it should be a felony to teach disunity as a political creed.

A people thoroughly united as an organic being has its own charter of freedom from the insolence of the snob, from the impudence of the Jewish pedlar of class war, and from the immorality of the few who would selfishly exploit the many. Such a charter of freedom is well worth having.