At the same time I posted this article I posted a companion article called ‘National Socialism versus Marxism’, which shows how National Socialism was Marxism’s nemesis in Germany and also discusses how Marxism manifests in our world today… You can read it here:
And if you still do not know the depths of the lies we have been fed on this planet regarding Hitler, WW2 and National Socialism then I recommend you read some of my previous articles, at this link:
This particular article below uses the same book as the Marxism article linked above, to provide more in-depth insights: ‘Hitler’s Revolution, by Richard Tedor‘. It is used to look at the National Socialist attitudes towards Liberalism, ‘Democracy’ and Capitalism. (All quotations below with a page number at the end are from this book) These three ideologies are often lauded, by the Western Mainstream Media and ‘politicians’, as some sort of pinnacle of civilisation. But they are not.
- Liberalism, ‘Democracy’ and Capitalism
- The Authoritarian State
For both sections I write an introduction and then information from ‘Hitler’s Revolution’ will go in to much more depth and show the German National Socialist attitudes and insights into these subjects, as well as their reasoning behind some of their National Socialist polices. You will learn some Truths about National Socialism from a variety of National Socialist minds and publications.
Liberalism, ‘Democracy’ and Capitalism
Freedom and Liberalism
Let’s start with this concept of Freedom.
What does it mean to be free?
Our Western Nations, which are programmed with liberalism and Cultural Marxism, talk of liberty and promote a ‘whatever makes you happy’ mindset. You can pretty much create any business you want, have any artistic expression you want, and you can even promote, and provide for, all sorts of sexual perversions.
What is not promoted is considering how your expressions, desires and activities impact on the health of the National Community and the Nations advancement. How does it impact the mental and economic health of the Nation and your Community? Does it help my people thrive and advance?
The National Socialists had, and have, a different concept of Freedom to many of the (((Western Liberal Governments))).
The periodical NS Briefe (NS Essays) summarized, “Freedom cannot be made identical to arbitrariness, lack of restraint and egoistic inconsideration.” p.16
NS Briefe, “By National Socialist definition, free is he who recognises the personal bond to his people…” p. 16
“Being free is not doing what you want, but becoming what you are supposed to be.” Der Schulungsbrief. P.19
Freedom is to be free of the hedonistic, ego-centric, ‘me first’ attitudes (which are incessantly promoted by our Western Mainstream Media). Freedom comes from having the consciousness and self discipline to be in total control of any primal instincts that hinder you and your people, to overcome the constant seeking of sense pleasure and materialistic goods. When you are in control of them, or free of them, then you can be free to be a part of that National Community, to benefit your people – your extended family… free to feel that wonderful feeling of comradery and a sense of belonging… freedom is to feel that connection. Freedom is to then bring your own unique talents out to benefit your National Community… and recognising what the National Community needs of you and embracing it. As you look after, and always take into consideration, the National Community, it then also naturally looks after you.
Freedom is not being a slave to every impulse, materialistic desire, and sense pleasure.
Some spiritual traditions also promote this self discipline… self discipline promotes higher levels of consciousness. National Socialism also promotes higher levels of consciousness. As you become introspective and observe if you are a being a beneficial member of the community – or if you are in anyway hindering your extended family / community – you can’t but help but become more self aware and raise your consciousness, and as you do, that connection to your people increases – the feelings of love and interconnectedness increase. Through that connection, when others reach higher levels of evolution it raises you up and inspires you. As you see others working for the greater good you are inspired. When you are working for something greater than yourself you find new levels of strength. This worked on a grand scale in National Socialist Germany as they had that psychological, spiritual and metaphysical connection via their shared DNA and ancestry.
The people are therefore freed… they are now free to experience what the vast majority of humans crave: belonging, connection, inspiration, love, comradery and safety. A racially based National Community like this enables a peoples health, happiness and survival.
Capitalism is also held up by our Western Liberal Nations as some wonderful liberating system. Once again, this is for people of a lower level of consciousness. Capitalism very clearly puts people within a Nation against their brothers and sisters, against their own people. It can only lead to huge economic and social disparities in society… and will allow the rich to gain much power and influence within the Nation. It is, in Truth, madness… which will eventually always lead to ruin. Capitalism, like Communism, is a tool of International Jewry.
The German National Socialists sought this balance between free markets and state control… they created a free market with some state controls… monitoring the market, making sure the economy benefited and served the people as a whole… imposing some regulation, or increasing funding, where and when it was needed… monopolies and imbalances were regulated to benefit the National Community. The economy was there to serve the people and not the Bankers.
Democracy is also championed by our controlled Western Media – but is it really so wonderful?
What do our Western Democracies entail? Career politicians backed by financial institutions and rich business owners… widespread corruption, self interest, and a lack of interest in the welfare of the people. Politicians taking part in popularity contests superficially pandering to people to gain votes, which stifles any creativity of thought, advancement or conviction. Politicians not rising due to merit, but because of their business and family connections. No responsibility taken by the leaders… no real consequences for their failings. Wide disparities in wealth and well-being within the populations. In Truth, nowadays in the US, Australia, Canada and the Major European Nations both sides are totally owned and controlled by the Banking families (Republican or Democrat – Conservative or Labour – both sides always owned and run by the Banking Families / Jewry).
Now we have the German National Socialist attitudes, philosophies and insights into these concepts and how their own ideology differs from them:
National Socialism vs Liberalism, ‘Democracy’ and Capitalism – Hitler’s Revolution
Liberalism: The German National Socialists recognised the part played by liberalism in history and how it had been important for humanity’s transition into the modern age after Europe lost confidence in feudalism. But the Nationals Socialists still condemned Liberalism’s basic premise:
“Rehm nevertheless condemned the basic premise of liberalism: “The absolute freedom of liberalism will ultimately jeopardize the benefits of community life for people in a state. Attempting to place the individual ahead of the nation is wrong. . . . For the individual to live, the nation first must itself live; this requires that one cannot do what he wants, but must align himself with the common interests of the people and accordingly accept limitations and sacrifices.”7
Hitler advocated an organic state form. Like a biological organism, the government organizes society so that every component performs an individual function for the common good. No single stratum elevates itself to the detriment of the others. The organism prospers as an entity. In this way, so does each individual person or class. Society works in harmony, healthy and strongly unified against external influences or intrusion. As defined in the periodical Germanisches Leitheft (Germanic Guidelines), “Every individual element within the Reich preserves its independent character, yet nonetheless subordinates itself to its role in the community.”8 In Hitler’s words from a November 1930 speech, “Proper is what serves the entire community and not the individual. . . . The whole is paramount, is essential. Only through it does the individual receive his share in life, and when his share defies the laws of the entity, then human reason dictates that the interest of the whole must precede his interests.”9
To organize persons into a cooperative, functional society requires that its members renounce certain personal ambitions for the welfare of others. Mutual concessions signify a willingness to work together. The common goals of society, such as defense, trade, prosperity, companionship, and securing nourishment, people achieve through compromise for the good of all. Hitler believed that a nation disregarding this will not survive. He declared in an address in April 1937, “This state came into being, and all states come into being, through overcoming interests of pure personal will and individual selfishness. Democracy steers recklessly toward placing the individual in the center of everything. In the long run, it is impossible to escape the crisis such a conflict will produce.”10
In Die SA, Rehm warned that without controls, the free reign of personal ambition leads to abuse: “In as much as liberalism was once of service in promoting the value of individual initiative and qualities of leadership, its ideals of freedom and personality have degenerated into the concept of downright arbitrary conduct in personal life, but even more so in economic and commercial life.”
An article in the May 1937 Der Schulungsbrief (Instructional Essays), a monthly ideological journal, discussed liberalism’s naïve faith in “the natural goodness of the free personality.” The author, Eberhard Kaütter, explained the logic of how this applies to business life in a democracy: “Liberalism assumes that one must simply leave economic arrangements to the individual active in commerce as he pursues his interests undisturbed…. The liberal social principle is based on the expectation that the liberation of the individual, in harmony with the free play of forces, will lead to independently formed and fair economic conditions and social order.”
The German Institute for the Science of Labor concluded in its 1940/41 yearbook that liberal economic policies bring about “the destruction of any orderly society,” since persons in commerce “are released from every political and social responsibility.”13 Germanisches Leitheft saw in the free play of forces an unbridled pursuit of personal wealth that contradicts the spirit of an organized society: “There is no longer a sacred moral bonding of the individual person to a community, and no bond of person to person through honor or personal trust. There is no mutual connection or relationship among them beyond purely material, self-seeking interests; that is, acquiring money.”“14
Adolf Hitler and the Nationals Socialists recognised that our ‘Democracies’ were a sham, all the way back then. They were warning people of what many are only just waking up to:
The journalist Giselher Wirsing cited the United States, the paragon of capitalist free enterprise, as an example of how liberal economic policies gradually create social imbalance with crass discrepancies between want and abundance: “Even in America herself, Americanism no longer spreads prosperity and improves the standard of living of the broad masses, but only maintains the lifestyle of the privileged upper class.”15A German study on the depression-era United States, Was will Roosevelt? (What Does Roosevelt Want?), added this: “So in the USA, one finds along with dazzling displays of wealth in extravagant, parvenu luxury, unimaginable poverty and social depravity. … In the richest country in the world, the vaunted paradise of democracy, tens of thousands of American families endure the most meager existence. Millions of children and other citizens are underfed.”
Hitler’s own voice on the subject from a July, 1930 speech reaffirmed his contention that a community stands or falls as one: “Our nation cannot continue to exist as a nation unless every part is healthy. I cannot imagine a future for our people, when on one side I see well-fed citizens walking around, while on the other wander emaciated laborers.”17 His interpretation of an organically regulated state, and liberal democracy’s emphasis on individual liberty, naturally require different perceptions as to the role of government. The June 1937 edition of Der Schulungsbrief offered this analysis: “Since liberalism believes in the sanctity and limitless reasoning power of the individual, it denies the state’s right to rule and its duty to direct society. To liberalism, the state is nothing more than the personification of every unjust use of force. It therefore seeks to reduce the authority of the state in every way.”18 Die SA summarized that “according to liberal perception, the state has no other task than that of a night watchman, namely to protect the life and property of the individual.”19
As for the parliamentary system of representative government, the same publication condemned it as follows: “The demand of the people to participate in government was justifiable and understandable in the new age, when politics was no longer purely an affair of the ruling dynasties. The damaging influence and weakness of the parliamentary form of government soon became apparent. . . . The participation of the people exists only on paper. In reality, career politicians get regularly elected to parliament though various parties they founded. They have made a novel occupation out of this activity. They focus not on the welfare of the people and of the state, but on their personal interests or certain financial circles standing behind them.”20
Hitler argued that the absence of sufficient state controls in a democracy enables the wealthy class to manipulate the economy, the press and elected representatives for its own gain. A widening gulf between poverty and affluence develops, gradually dragging the working class to ruin. Addressing Berlin armaments workers in December 1940, he claimed that the public’s voice in democratic systems is an illusion: “In these countries, money in fact rules. That ultimately means a group of a few hundred persons who possess enormous fortunes. As a result of the singular construction of the state, this group is more or less totally independent and free. . . . Free enterprise this group understands as the freedom not only to amass capital, but especially to use it freely; that is, free from state or national supervision. So one might imagine that in these countries of freedom and wealth, unheard-of public prosperity exists. … On the contrary, in those countries class distinctions are the most crass one could think of: unimaginable poverty on one hand and equally unimaginable riches on the other. These are the lands that control the treasures of the earth, and their workers live in miserable dumps. … In these lands of so-called democracy, the people are never the primary consideration. Paramount is the existence of those few who pull the strings in a democracy, the several hundred major capitalists. The broad masses don’t interest them in the least, except during elections.”21
Here is a link to a video containing a longer extract of this Adolf Hitler Speech, where he exposes the liberal capitalist ‘democracies’ of the British, French and Americans (the link will open in a new tab):
Die SA discussed another fault of parliamentary systems particularly irksome to Hitler: “There is practically no responsibility in a democracy. The anonymity of the majority of the moment decides. Government ministers are subject to it, but there is no opportunity to hold this majority responsible. As a result, the door is open to political carelessness and negligence, to corruption and fiscal mismanagement. The history of democracies mostly represents a history of scandals.”22 According to ‘Was will Roosevelt?‘, “Corruption has spread so much that…no American citizen gets upset anymore over incidents of shameless corruption in civil service, because mismanagement is regarded as a natural phenomenon of government.”23 Hitler once recalled how a visit in his youth to the Austrian parliament revealed “the obvious lack of responsibility in a single person.”24 Germanisches Leitheft stated, “Absence of responsibility is the most striking indication of a lack of morality.”25
Democracy failed because it was a product of liberalism. Focus on the individual led to “self-idolatry and renunciation of the community, the unraveling of healthy, orderly natural life,” according to the German army brochure Wofür kämpfen wir? (What do we fight for?): “The inordinate value placed on material possessions from the economic standpoint formed social classes and fractured the community. Not those of good character enjoyed greater respect, but the rich. . . . Labor no longer served as a means to elevate the worth of the community, but purely one’s own interests. Commerce developed independently of the people and the state, into an entity whose only purpose was to pile up fortunes.”26 The periodical NS Briefe (NS Essays) summarized, “Freedom cannot be made identical to arbitrariness, lack of restraint and egoistic inconsideration.”27
Hitler regarded liberalism’s de-emphasis on communal responsibility as an obstacle to national unity. He endorsed the words of the statesman Niccolò Machiavelli: “It is not the well-being of the individual, but the well-being of all that makes us great.”28 Hitler took the reign of government in hand in a liberal political climate. To overcome the liberal ideal, which for many was freedom personified, he introduced an alternative state form. It created opportunities for self-development, but also instructed Germans in obedience. In so doing, Hitler eventually achieved the parity between individual liberty and state authority long contemplated by the German intellectual movement of the previous century.” P. 12-16
The National Socialists believed that the exaltation of the individual in the liberal-democratic sense would “dissolve the healthy social order and lead to ruin.”129 They nonetheless sanctioned the free play of forces, opportunity for personal development and free enterprise. The task of their authoritarian government was to promote these practices, simultaneously insuring that the collective interests of the population remain decisive. As the individual advanced in National Socialist Germany, so did the nation. Hitler harnessed yet stimulated the forces of human creativity reanimated by the Enlightenment, giving them a form, purpose, and direction not envisioned by the pioneers of liberalism and democracy. P. 39
This is a link to a short video clip with a few insights into democracy in National Socialist Germany. The image or link will open in an new tab:
I typed out two extracts from the video:
“In National Socialist Germany there was a system that the Americans and the Europeans would eat their hearts out [for]. This is called plebiscite, or if you like another name is referendum – for instance, any major factors affecting the Nation were referred to the people and they were invited to vote on the issue. For instance, when on 3 different occasions the Austrians and the people of the Sudetenland and the Saar wished to become a part of the Reich, the German people were asked if they wanted these Nations to be part of the Reich community, they did of course. Were we ever asked, invited to vote, whether we wanted immigration or any of the other things that vex us in the West? No. We don’t get plebiscites, we don’t get referendums. But they got them, and they were quite used to them in Hitler’s Germany.” – Mike Walsh
“…Crime where you are is on the rise. You’re worried about uncontrolled immigration, the price of healthcare is rocketing. Your German visitor from the 1930’s National Socialist Germany really does at this point have to sit down, as this is all quite new to him. He prefers the National Socialist way of going about things… You can’t figure out why Hans is not comfortable with your version of democracy, after all living in one you get the chance to vote every 5 years, Hans asks why wait 5 years? In National Socialist Germany we rate the performance of our political leaders every 12 months. Your guest is deep in thought – he concludes that your political parties are like 2 football teams. You support one or the other of these two teams – while you’re distracted, those who buy and control these sports teams and their players stay in the background. Your puzzled German visitor thinks Republican and Democratic, Conservative and Labour – Punch and Judy – it’s a pretend fight but you the audience can’t see who is controlling the puppets.” – Mike Walsh
The Authoritarian State
We can see the propaganda in the media: An authoritarian leader is nearly always portrayed as an evil, corrupt, egocentric, power hungry, megalomaniac. They very rarely portray the authoritarian leaders as intelligent, considerate, insightful, honourable and the best of his people… and there have been many of these honourable intelligent authoritarian leaders throughout history.
This is when a country can thrive, when the very best of their people – in both intelligence and character – rise to the leadership positions. There has been a concerted effort to make people scared of authoritarian leadership. When the best of the people, especially in a European Nation, rises to the top, and has the power to make decisions, then beneficial change can be swift and drastically transform the Nation for the better. Jewry and The Banking Cartels are terrified of this and do all the can to stop it happening. It is great individuals that transform Nations.
Adolf Hitler recognised this himself and looked to the future, creating schools for the gifted and talented, which encouraged critical thinking, leadership and assertiveness. The children that went to these schools were from all demographics, all backgrounds. It did not matter who you were and where you were from, only that you had talent. A system in place to make sure that most talented and honourable men rise to the top and become the Leader of the Nation is crucial for an Authoritarian State. This is a Meritocracy.
An authoritarian state is not a dictatorship.
The leader in the authoritarian state is the servant of the people… the first servant of the state.
In some ways, in this day and age, it is almost like people have forgotten what a real, talented and honourable leader looks like. They have forgotten how they behave – how they hold themselves, how they talk and interact. The respect they command and how they interacted with the people – a genuine heart felt connection. As most people simply have not seen one in their lifetime, and historical figures of this ilk are lied about by our controlled education and media.
Look at our so-called political leaders today. They are without passion, without conviction, without honour, do not command any respect, have no connection with the people, and take no responsibility… and it is easy to find out about their tainted backgrounds and their connections to finance. They just read their script and play a role. Boris Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Trump, Trudeau… how have people sunk so low to accept these people as leaders?
Authoritarian figures / leaders are still seen in this world, just very rarely in a countries governance – but mainly they are still used extensively in sports teams, businesses and organisations around the world. In sports teams we know who is responsible – the manager, or coach, depending on the sport… similar things can be said for corporations and business, with their power structures… and they usually accept responsibility and have visible repercussions for failings. Because it works and is a successful system – the most knowledgeable, wise and gifted runs the organisation and makes the key decisions.
Authoritarian regimes have always been popular in Europe… but since International Jewry and their Banking Cartels gained more and more control over our Nations they have disappeared from the European continent:
“… after the victorious Allies established democratic governments throughout Europe in 1919, this state form became practically extinct there in 20 years. Russia, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Austria, Germany, Greece, Spain, Slovakia, and soon thereafter France adopted authoritarian regimes. Several of these countries closed ranks with Germany. Hitler gave viable, popular political form to a growing anti-liberal tendency on the continent. Volunteers from over 30 nations enlisted to fight in the German armed forces during World War II. Only by the sword did the Western democracies and their Soviet ally bring them to heel.” P.7
The Authoritarian State – Hitler’s Revolution
The National Socialists described their government as an authoritarian state. This was roughly a compromise between the liberal concept that administrations exist to serve the public, and absolutism’s doctrine granting the head of state supreme authority to make political decisions. It disallowed the majority’s voice in government, but promoted the welfare of diverse social and economic groups evenly. Die SA offered this definition of the authoritarian state: “It rests in the hands of the leader alone. He forms and directs his cabinet which makes policy decisions. But he also bears sole accountability to the nation for his actions. The diverse interests of individual strata of society he brings into harmony and balances in conformity with the general interests of the people. This is accomplished through the endeavors of representatives who work within their group’s respective occupations, but possess no political authority. In this way, conflicts of interest and class struggle are eliminated, as is unilateral control by any commercial or political special interest group.”29
In 1936, Hitler stressed that “a regime must be independent of such special interests. It must keep focused on the interests of everyone before the interests of one.”30 With respect to commerce, he announced that he intended “to crush the illusion that the economy in a state can conduct an unbridled, uncontrollable, and unsupervised life of its own.”31 As Führer, or leader of the nation, he reserved the right to take whatever action he considered appropriate. During a wartime speech he told military personnel, “When I recognize a concept as correct, I not only have the duty to convey this to my fellow citizens, but moreover the duty to eliminate contrary interpretations.”32
Under National Socialism, the head of state wielded supreme power. This was with the understanding that there would be no favoritism directing public affairs, and that “along with the loftiest unlimited authority, the leader bears the final, heaviest responsibility,” as stated in NS Briefe.33 Rehm offered this explanation in Die SA: “This system differs from dictatorship in that the appointed leader accepts responsibility before the people and is sustained by the confidence of the nation. . . . His actions insure that the leadership of the state is in harmony with the overall interests of the nation and its views. The essence of this system is overcoming party differences, formation of a genuine national community, and the unsurpassed greatness of the leadership as prerequisites. The leader of the authoritarian state personifies the principle of Friedrich the Great: I am the first servant of the state.”34
Dr. Joseph Goebbels, in charge of propaganda in Hitler’s cabinet, contrasted democracy with the authoritarian state in a speech to foreign journalists in Geneva in September 1933: “The people and the government in Germany are one. The will of the people is the will of the government and vice versa. The modern state form in Germany is a refined type of democracy, governed by authoritarian principles through the power of the people’s mandate. There is no possibility that through parliamentary fluctuations, the will of the people can somehow be swept aside or rendered unproductive. . . . The principle of democracy is completely misunderstood if one concludes from it that nations want to govern themselves. They can’t do it nor do they want to. Their only wish is that the regime governs well.”35
The authoritarian state form required that only persons exhibiting natural leadership ability assume positions of responsibility. Hitler spoke of the importance of finding such individuals during a speech in Berlin in February 1933: “We want to re-establish the value of personality as an eternal priority; that is, the creative genius of the individual. In this way, we want to sever ties with any appearance of a listless democracy. We want to replace it with the timeless awareness that everything great can only spring from the force of the individual personality, and that everything destined to last must again be entrusted to the abilities of the individual personality.”36
National Socialism adopted liberalism’s practice of creating opportunities for advancement for persons in the community. It disputed however, the population’s right and ability to select leaders. Democracy allows the voters to choose their representatives. As a safeguard against tyrants, the parliamentary system favors moderation. It supposedly frowns on assertive persons accustomed to independent initiative. Hitler argued that this practice “thwarts the freedom of action and creative possibilities of the personality and shackles any talent for leadership.”37 He later wrote that the “true leader will distance himself from political activity that does not consist for the most part of creative achievement and industriousness.” Conversely, “timid do-nothings and blabbermouths,” especially those fearing decision-making and accountability, will seek office. 38 “Democracy is the mortal enemy of all talent.”39
When Goebbels announced at the 1933 Berlin radio exhibition that Hitler’s revolution has “dethroned unbridled individualism,” this did not imply curtailing freedom for personal development.40 Hitler clarified his party’s position in a January 1941 address: “Our ideal is the nation. In it we behold a mental and physical community which providence created and therefore wanted, which we belong to. Through it alone we can control our existence. … It represents a triumph over individualism, but not in the sense that individual aptitude is stifled or the initiative of the individual is paralyzed; only in the sense that common interests stand above individual freedom and all individual initiative.”41
The National Socialist government assigned German schools to train the country’s cadre of future leaders. Der Schulungsbrief defined it in this way: “Education receives the twofold task of molding strong personalities and committing them to community thinking. The primary objective of ideological instruction is formation of a solid, community-oriented viewpoint. Building assertive personalities demands steady competitive performance, selecting the most accomplished, and setting standards of achievement according to questions of character, will and ability. Only achievement justifies advancement.”42 Opportunities for self-development in the authoritarian state conformed to the National Socialist concept of individual freedom: “Being free is not doing what you want, but becoming what you are supposed to be.“” P. 16-19
You may or may not have read the companion article to this one: ‘National Socialism vs Marxism‘. From these two articles you can see the excellent insights that the National Socialists had. They were pointing things out back then that many are only just realising today.
Adolf Hitler managed to gather together many insightful, intelligent minds. People were moved into positions for their intelligence, character and expertise in a particular area. They were exploring every avenue to assist their people, to help them to thrive and to inform them. People today will struggle to really imagine this, as there is corruption everywhere, with unusual, shady characters in positions of authority in all areas of our societies / Nations.
I remember reading a National Socialist booklet (I cannot remember exactly which one) and in it there was a section about family. They were giving advice on raising children. As someone who has studied psychology, and used to teach children, I could appreciate it. It was talking about finding a balance between authority / discipline and also having a warm emotional connection with your child – they also wrote about parents fostering a connection / relationship with the children’s schools and teachers. This is just a small example, but I remember it as a thoughtful piece of writing and advice. They really tried to assist the German people. They researched into so many different areas and, as best they could, made sure the best minds and people were in the correct leadership, research and educational positions.
Not only did the National Socialist Germans come up with the worldview and system of National Socialism, which created, happiness, unity, abundance and high standards of living for all (As well as independence from the International Bankers). They also deconstructed and exposed Marxism / Communism and Capitalism / Liberalism / Democracy – which are the tools used by International Jewry for their domination of the planet. They informed the German people and educated them on these matters.
You should be able to see by now why National Socialism has been so incessantly demonised by (((those))) who control all our media, education institutions and leading politicians… and why they destroyed Germany via WW2.
Hitler’s Revolution, by Richard Tedor. I highly recommend this book:
Some more useful articles on National Socialism: http://www.renegadetribune.com/?s=national+socialism+the+fundamentals
This link takes you to a series of articles called ‘National Socialism the Fundamentals’ (Parts 1 -14)