Marxism vs. National Socialism:
The Struggle Between Race & Internationalism
“The conflict which is going on regarding the true view of man and the world will be brought to an issue rather by men of the prophetic type than by dogmatists and philosophers.”
–Heinrich Weinel, 1903
Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler describes what he calls a world-concept, or Weltanschauung. In its usual sense, the word basically means worldview, but when Hitler uses the term it means an all-encompassing social, philosophical, and political idea that has become politically organized. It contains ideas about economics, history, and the nature and destiny of man. There are two fundamental world-concepts according to Mein Kampf: one that was dominant in the 1920s, namely Marxism, which he also refers to as the international world-concept and social democracy, and the other is the one he sought to replace it with, that is National Socialism, also referred to as the race-based world-concept. These concepts are mostly dealt with in chapters one and five of the second volume of Mein Kampf. This essay is primarily, but not exclusively, a commentary on those two chapters, and how the two world-concepts are presented.
The situation in which Hitler found himself in the 1920s was in some respects better than the current situation the Right finds itself in, and in other respects worse. What was worse was the immediate threat of the Communists, their organized violence and the tremendous power they wielded over German society (not to mention others). The political instability and the specter of a revolution directed from Soviet Russia made life in Europe precarious. However, ethnocentrism was much more prevalent then, and nationalist ideas had much popular support. Today, the specter of Marxism has lost it edge. There is no organized Marxist party about to seize power. The powerful world-concept that Hitler describes is gone. However, Marxism has become subtler and has permeated everything in our culture. This we rightly call Cultural Marxism. The seed of the old world-concept is still there, doing what it does best: dissolving European culture, while waiting for its chance to get organized, waiting for a new black magician.
We can call ourselves lucky, in that what remains of the old world-concept is mostly manifested in terms of negative criticism. A world-concept cannot be led to victory by degenerate, walking-dead intellectuals, and this gives us pause. While the general state of the Right today is abysmal and incoherent, apart from the ethnonationalist Right, the Left is similarly disorganized.
Of course, behind Cultural Marxism, just like the Marxism of yore, are Jews in great numbers. But, what happened after the creation of Israel in 1948 and heightened anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union in the 1950s was that many Jews defected from the internationalist Marxist movement and joined the anti-Communist movement, or became neoconservatives. Having a country seems to reduce one’s enthusiasm for internationalism. This division within organized Jewry would have been such a blessing, had not the Right become even more crazy and corrupt!
But “the hour is ripe and yonder lies the way,” said Virgil. We cannot let the crazy, cucked Right distract us. We must simply write them off unless they come over to our side. The identitarian-ethnonationalist right represents a great new awakening. A new world concept for the twenty-first century is coming into being.
We must continue our work. We owe it to posterity. It is our sacred duty.
What is a World-Concept?
According to Hitler, a world-concept is far more than a political party that works within the system of democratic party politics. World-concepts:
. . . are intolerant and cannot be satisfied with the role of being a “party among others.” They arrogantly demand complete and exclusive recognition for themselves and a complete transformation of public life so that it will submit to their views.
The world-concept does not tolerate the existing state of affairs and seeks to do away with it, if it does not conform to its will. Political parties compromise their principles, but “World-Concepts never compromise.” Whereas political parties likewise accommodate their views to those of their adversaries in order to be agreeable, “World-Concepts proclaim their own infallibility.” Whereas the program of a purely political party conforms to what is held to achieve success in the next election, “the program of a World-Concept is a formula that declares war on an existing order, an existing state of things, and an existing World-Concept.” Hitler admits that it’s difficult to tell where the difference lies between a religious and a political world-concept.
The two world-concepts, international Marxism and race-based National Socialism, are diametrically opposed to one another. For Hitler, the former would lead to the destruction of mankind, but the latter to its salvation. In the 1920s, Marxism was long established, well-organized, and well-financed, but the race-based idea, despite having popular support, was disorganized and had no clear aims. Many parties and groups in the so-called Völkisch movement competed for support from German nationalists. Hitler thought that the disunity of the Right in the face of a united Marxist front was a deadly situation. He saw it as his mission to unite the German nationalists, give the race-based world-concept a clear and practical aim, and organize it politically so that it could fight Marxism head-on.
The Marxist World-Concept
“Marxism’s ultimate goal is and always will be the destruction of all non-Jewish national states.”
– Adolf Hitler
In the first volume of Mein Kampf, Hitler describes how he became politically and racially aware in Vienna. Working in a construction job, he recalls how he was harassed by members of a union. When he began to inquire into the nature and aims of the unions by reading their political pamphlets, newspapers, and speeches, he slowly realized what Marxism was:
When I began to understand, fear and horror crept over me. I saw a teaching compounded by ego and hatred, which according to mathematical law could very well lead to victory, but would then lead to the end of humanity as well.
The Marxists targeted the working classes with a promise of a better future, but Hitler saw it as a “disease masquerading as social virtue and the love of one’s neighbor – a disease which humanity must free the earth from or the earth would soon be freed of humanity.” During his time in Vienna, Hitler also became aware of the “connection between this doctrine of destruction and the nature of a people.” That people was the Jews. Hitler wrote about how the Jew pretends to have compassion for the plight of the working classes, and how he has studied their actual and perceived problems in order to win their confidence. The Jew then “arouses the desire for change. With infinite shrewdness, he stirs up the urge for social justice, an innate desire that is sleeping within every Aryan.” Once the working classes are enflamed with passion,
. . . the Jew turns it into hatred toward those more fortunate and puts the stamp of a very special World-Concept on the battle; he builds a philosophy designed to correct social injustice. He founds the Marxist doctrine.
But a closer study of Marxism shows that its intent is in fact “extremely evil,” for the goal of Marxism is simply “impossible to accomplish,” as many “good people” have observed. Hitler describes the Marxist doctrine as “an inseparable mixture of reason and absurdity, but it is always arranged so that only the absurd parts could be put into practice and never the parts of reason.” One of the fundamental problems he saw with Marxism was its absolute denial of the value of the “individual and of the nation and its racial substance,” and so “it destroys the basic foundations of all human civilization.” Hitler then declares this to be:
. . . the true core of the Marxist World-Concept, if this creature of a criminal mind can be called a “World-Concept.” The destruction of individuality and race removes the primary obstacle that prevented domination by the inferior man, the Jew.
Hitler held that if we were to deny that the races vary in their creative powers, it would lead to a denial of the unequal creative powers of individual men. But the ultimate aim would be “the creation of a tyranny of international world finance,” by which he meant “Jewry!” He explained further that “[t]he Jewish doctrine of Marxism denies the noble goal of Nature and sets mass and dead weight of numbers in place of the eternal privilege of strength and power.” Marxism denies the individual personality, the nation, and race, and therefore deprives mankind of the essentials needed for maintaining civilization and for survival. “As a foundation of the universe, Marxism would be the end of any order conceivable to man. The result of applying such a law could only be chaos,” Hitler writes. He then makes a bleak prediction: “If, through his Marxist faith, the Jew conquers the peoples of this world, his crown will be the death and destruction of all mankind. Earth would again move uninhabited through space as it did millions of years ago.”
To achieve its aim, Marxism first has to undermine the old order. He described it thus:
[Marxism] began its constructive work by practicing criticism and has continued for seventy years. And how destructive it was! This corrosive criticism continued until the constant gnawing of the acid undermined the old State and brought it to collapse. Only then did the so called “constructive work” of Marxism begin.
This sounds so familiar. Marxism was not created in a vacuum. It could only come into being in a world that was already decaying and already infected with ideas similar to it. Hitler describes the role of Karl Marx thus:
. . . international Marxism itself is just the transformation, by the Jew Karl Marx, of a long existing World-Concept into a definite political profession of faith. Without the widespread pre-existing foundation of such a poison, the amazing political success of this doctrine would never have been possible. Among millions of people, Karl Marx was the one man who, with the sure eye of the prophet, recognized the poisons essential to his plan were already in the swamp of a slowly decaying world. He separated and identified those poisons, like a black magic wizard, to make a concentrated solution he could use to speed the destruction of the free nations on this earth. All this was done to serve his race.
Hitler says that the privileged, or bourgeois, classes are also to blame for the success of Marxism because they never cared for the workers and opposed even the slightest amelioration of their condition. He saw this as an unforgivable crime against their own people and it drove the workers into the open arms of the Marxists, who pretended to care for the workers and their needs. Resistance by the privileged-class is also futile, because:
Marxist doctrine is the extract of the intellectual soul of today’s universal World-Concept that is boiled down into a concentrated form. For that reason alone, any struggle against it by our privileged-class is impossible and I would even say such a fight would be ridiculous. The privileged-class world is already saturated with all these Marxist poisons.
The privileged class is also already devoted to a similar world-concept as the Marxist one, which differs only in degree. The privileged class is already Marxist, but according to its own weak character, it thinks it can control and dominate the movement and stay on top of it. This is an illusion, for “true Marxism works day and night to deliver the world into the hands of the Jew.” The bourgeois political parties are so busy with the usual party politics and keeping their seats in the parliament, unmoved by higher ideals, that in the face of Marxism they don’t stand a chance: “The privileged-class camp of politicians cannot draw enough spiritual strength from this kind of self-indulgent dealing to fight a battle with the organized power of Marxism.” These delusional “snake-oil-salesmen, who are supposed to represent the white race” use the rallying cry of Western democracy against a doctrine that is designed to destroy democracy. Little do they know that “Marxism is the means to an end, and that end is the destruction of Western Democracy by paralyzing the political body . . .” Hitler adds, “. . . how crazy it was to think that one can resist the Jewish world-conquest with the tools of Western Democracy.”
The National Socialist World-Concept
Up until 1920 there was no flag that opposed Marxism, at least not one which would have represented its direct opposite as a World-Concept . . .
Even though internationalist Marxism is both false and criminal in its nature, it is successful because it faces only weak, disunited, and disorganized resistance from the Right. Hitler writes:
The Marxist World-Concept, which is led by a unified head organization, faces a jumble of opposing views which makes little impression on the enemy’s united front. Victory cannot be achieved by such weak weapons. Only when the international World-Concept that is politically led by organized Marxism is opposed by a race-based concept that is equally unified and equally organized and equally well led, will these two camps meet on even ground, and that is when victory will stand with the camp that has eternal truth on its side.
In the face of a politically well-organized World-Concept like Marxism, resistance that is timid and defensive, that tries to adhere to the rules of the existing order, and which tries to maintain its respectability is bound to lose. It has to be equally bold and on the offensive:
At a time when one side, armed with all the weapons of a World-Concept, even though it is absolutely criminal, prepares for the attack on an existing order, the other side can successfully resist only if it covers itself in the form of a new, and in our case political, faith, and exchanges the catchwords of a weak and cowardly defense for the battle-cry of a bold and brutal attack.
No real resistance against the advance of organized Marxism can be expected from the existing political parties. They are comfortable with the system and will not change voluntarily. In fact, change “is impossible because they are being directed by Jews, Jews here and Jews there and Jews everywhere.” Hitler adds:
If current events are allowed to develop unhindered, the final result will be the realization of the Pan-Jewish prophecy, and the Jew would devour the peoples of the earth and become their master. . . . A party led by [the Jew] can fight for only Jewish interests, and these have nothing in common with the needs of the Aryan.
Hitler foresaw that there would be great inertia against change from those with a vested interest in the present system, and he feared that the National Socialist Party would also succumb to that fate, becoming comfortable with the democratic system and thus ending up as only one party among many. What the young National Socialist movement needed was something comparable to the zeal of early Christianity:
Christianity could never be content with building its own altar. It was driven to destroy pagan altars. The faith could only grow when there was no controversy, and it did grow out of this fanatical intolerance. In fact, intolerance is absolutely indispensable for the growth of any faith.
National Socialism is not prepared to share its place with another world-concept. It only partakes in the democratic parliamentary process in order to destroy it. It can never support a regime or state of affairs that it condemns and intends to destroy; “it feels obligated to fight the current state-of affairs and the entire world of hostile ideas belonging to that order by every means possible until it achieves the enemy’s downfall.” Hitler emphasizes that there can be no controversy. There must be no freedom to interpret the doctrine. It has to be fixed and absolute, and it must demand absolute loyalty from its members:
A World-Concept doctrine cannot fight and win if it allows the unlimited freedom for anyone to interpret its meaning. It can only fight and win if it is clearly defined in the limited and consolidated form of a political Organization.
The world-concept can only lead its ideas to victory if it manages to unite the best people of its time “into a vigorous fighting organization.” Because not everyone is a philosopher, certain core ideas from the world-concept have to be used as the basis for a confession so that they are more easily grasped by the members of the movement. This is also to underscore that the core ideas are not open for discussion. In Hitler’s own words, they are to be “wrapped up in brief, precise, slogan-like qualities that make them suitable as a doctrine of faith for a new fellowship of men.”
National Socialism, or the racialist world-concept, “recognizes the importance of the racial component of humanity. In principle, it sees the state only as a means to an end and its end is the preservation of the racial existence of mankind.” It hardly needs to be said today that this doctrine does not proclaim all races to be equal, but Hitler still felt the need to say that. That was probably in response to accusations from the monarchist or traditionalist Right, which receives its share of scolding in Mein Kampf. It must be kept in mind that nationalism itself originated as a Left-wing movement in Europe, at a time when the Right still opposed it from the standpoint of the monarchical and aristocratic system. According to Hitler, the inequality between the races also entails the inequality between individuals:
In principle, it acknowledges the aristocratic idea of Nature and believes in this law’s authority down to the last individual creature. Racialism recognizes that races have different values and there are different values of individual men.
Hitler calls the race-based world-concept an obligation to honor the “universal Will of Nature that rules the universe.” To honor it “results in the organizing force of racialism and not the disorganizing force of Marxism.”
The highest ideals of mankind are, according to Hitler, intrinsically bound to one race in particular: the Aryan race. He writes:
Human culture and civilization on this planet are inseparable from the existence of the Aryan. His extinction or downfall would bring the barbaric uncivilized ages on the globe once more. In the eyes of any race-based World-Concept, undermining of the existence of human culture by destroying the one group that sustains it, is the most repulsive crime possible.
Thus, the doctrine of Marxism is an enemy of mankind since it seeks to do away with the one race that is capable of maintaining human culture and civilization, whereas the race-based concept is in harmony with “the profound will of nature.”
But even though a world-concept is totally correct and in agreement with the eternal will of nature, it cannot be successful unless it is clearly defined and understood, and represented by a political party whose members are willing to give their own lives for the idea. Hitler writes:
Even a World-Concept that is totally sound and of the utmost value for humanity will never have any practical value and will never shape the people’s lives until its principles have become the banner of a fighting movement. . . . General concepts must be molded into a political program, a general World-Concept into a definite political faith.
The aim of the movement is success in the real world, so the political faith must not only serve the ideal, but it must include the means necessary to fight and win victory. This means that one who develops a program, and who declares the movement’s intellectual idea, must be joined by a politician who has enough practical insight to shape the idea into an achievable plan (unless of course they are one and the same man). Hitler does not fall into the trap of useless high-minded idealism:
An eternal ideal that is the guiding star of humanity must adjust itself so that it takes into account the weaknesses inherent in man because of general human imperfection, and only then can it avoid failure the instant it begins.
The founder of the idea needs someone who knows the spirit and temper of the people and is able to impart a clear understanding of the basics of the idea and inspire them to action so that the idea may become a reality. Together, “they must work together in order to extract what is humanly possible for tiny mortals from the realm of ideals and eternal truth and to give it a shape that can be used in the fight.” Success stands or falls with how successful the transformation of the idea into a practical plan is, that is, a solid, workable world-concept. Hitler’s grasp of his own world-concept and his knowledge of the people and how to communicate with them led him to include a seemingly self-fulfilling, yet astonishing, prophecy:
Out of a crowd of millions who individually have at least some understanding of these truths, and a few who may fully understand them, one man must arise who can form clear and rock solid principles. This man will create a force out of the shifting tide of understanding that exists in the broad masses, and this force will be so strong it cannot be doubted. He must fight to make the truth of these ideas exclusive so that no others can be considered and continue in his fight until he creates an unshakable rock out of man’s will and a single solid belief rises from a world of free flowing and shaky ideas. The right to take such action comes from necessity and the right of the particular man to take this action is justified by his success.
Hitler’s words that “Marxism’s ultimate goal is and always will be the destruction of all non-Jewish national states” are as true now as ever before. They are eternally true. Though the face of Marxism has changed from an economic doctrine and dictatorship to the subtle Cultural Marxism of today, its goal remains the same. The interest it serves is the same. Or should I say, the people it serves is the same? The idea of an evolutionary group strategy propounded by Kevin MacDonald is very helpful in getting a good and scientific grasp of this.
Even though organized Jewry has split into two main factions, the liberal Left and the neoconservative Right, this division is in appearance only. The ultimate aim of both these movements remains the same. Their only difference is that of means to the end, and not the end itself. They also differ from Marxism only with regard to means. The final aim is and always has been the destruction of white countries, white nations, and all that we hold dear.
Just look at what it is that most of the mainstream political movements hold as non-negotiable. They may differ on issues such as economics, ecology, urban planning, foreign interventions, social issues, and so on, and they remain polite mostly when debating those. But when the issues of immigration, or repatriation, or worse, race, are brought up, the mood changes. They sense the presence of an enemy, an existential enemy, and recoil in horror, and react with hatred. These are thoughts that cannot be uttered in their presence. These are thoughts that must be destroyed. The survival of the good is anathema to the evil.
We are nearing the point at which no one on the Right can claim not to have heard what the bet was. It is our lives, our lives collectively, politically, and thus existentially, and more and more people are finding this out.
 Heinrich Weinel, “Richard Wagner and Christianity”, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1903), p. 609.
 Virgil, The Book of Ancient Wisdom: Over 500 Inspiring Quotations from the Greeks and Romans, ed. Bill Bradfield, (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2005), p. 89.
 Ibid., p. 415.
 Ibid., p. 416.
 Ibid., p. 146.
 Ibid., p. 143.
 Ibid., p. 42.
 Ibid., p. 33.
 Ibid., p. 42.
 Ibid., p. 284.
 Ibid., p. 285.
 Ibid., p. 344.
 Ibid., p. 414.
 Ibid., p. 54.
 Ibid., p. 414.
 Ibid., p. 344.
 Ibid., p. 338.
 Ibid., p. 339.
 Ibid., p. 451.
 Ibid., p. 346.
 Ibid., p. 340.
 Ibid., p. 413.
 Ibid., p. 414.
 Ibid., p. 416.
 Ibid., p. 347.
 Ibid., p. 416.
 Ibid., p. 345.
 Ibid., p. 345.
 Ibid., p. 345.
 Ibid., p. 342.
 Ibid., p. 343.
 For a Few Dollars More (Sergio Leone, 1965).
Remembering Martin Heidegger:
September 26, 1889–May 26, 1976
In Defense of Hatred — of the Right Kind
Solzhenitsyn for Today’s World
Introduction to Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe
Gianfranco de Turris — Julius Evola: Filozof a kouzelník ve válce (1943-1945)
Fondations du XXIème siècle: Le Siècle de 1914 de Dominique Venner
Warren Beatty’s Reds
Liberalism & the Mystification of the Twentieth Century