The Life of Tiberius Gracchus

Tiberius Gracchus, and his brother Gaius, are two important figures in early Roman history that we are told about by Plutarch in his 'Lives'. Tiberius and Gaius brought about the reforms that shaped Rome into being the superpower and empire that it was to become, but yet little is known about them or their eventual sacrifice of their lives for the ideals they espoused. I propose therefore to offer a portrait of the important parts of Tiberius Gracchus' life here, Gaius Gracchus in my next article and then offer an interpretation of the moral and warning of their lives and actions that is beneficial to National Socialism as it enters the second Kampfzeit. Since their lives are examples for National Socialists to understand and follow. I have based my account on Plutarch's 'Tiberius Gracchus' and will make references to relevant passages in footnotes (1). So let us begin our tale.

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were two brothers born nine years apart into a prominent Aryan family of Romans. Their father, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, was a general with two triumphs to his noble name and was renowed throughout Rome as a man of good character and principle. Their mother, Cornelia, was the daughter of one of Roman's greatest generals, the 'Roman Hannibal', Scipio Africanus and a woman whose honourable character and beauty were well known throughout the world to such an extent that the powerful Pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolmey VI (2), expressed his love for her and requested that she honour him by being his queen after her husband's untimely death in 150 B.C (3), but she refused this on the probable grounds that the Ptolmey dynasty, descended from one of Alexander's (Aryan) Greek generals, had become mixed with undesirable (negro and semitic) stock and would inevitably result in the dilution of her family's bloodline, which she rightly treasured.

Tiberius, the eldest remaining son of the marriage, retained these noble characteristics and he, with his brother Gaius, was known to be just, trustworthy and honourable (4). This respect was shown by Tiberius' swift appointment to the college of augurs, of whom there were nine, and a fellow augur and leader of the Senate, Appius Claudius Pulcher (5), offering Tiberius his daughter's, much sought after, hand in marriage, which Tiberius gratefully accepted, during the banquet that celebrated Tiberius' appointment to the college of augurs (6).

Tiberius was soon recruited to serve in the Roman army in Africa under Scipio Africanus the younger in the third, and final, Punic war against Carthage and was noted for his bravery being the first to storm over the wall into Carthage. Tiberius resultingly received much acclaim for this feat of bravery and was also held in great esteem by his commander with whom he was given the honour of sharing a tent (7).

After this military triumph Tiberius was elected as a quaestor (8) and dispatched to serve in Spain against the Numantines, a Celtic warrior tribe in northern Spain (9), under the command of the incompetant consul Gaius Mancinus. Mancinus proceeded to lose every engagement that he fought against the Numantines and his army was soon surrounded and outnumbered by fierce Numantine warriors. In order to try and save his own skin Mancinus promptly sent out peace envoys to the Numantines, but they refused to negotiate with anyone but Tiberius, because they had heard of his personality and had known his father who they held to be a great and honourable warrior (10)(11).

Tiberius negotiated fairly with the Numantines and managed to befriend them so that they allowed the Roman army to march back to Rome thus saving the lives of some twenty thousand Roman citizens (12). For this great feat of diplomacy and care these citizens and their families felt truly indebted to Tiberius, because he had saved their lives and allowed them to go back to their peace time occupations. This was little thanks to Mancinus who was rightly villified in Rome, by both the Roman people and the Senate, for his incompetance and lack of courage (13).

Unfortunately as a result of this villification of Mancinus a vocal minority of the Senate, who were more interested in enriching themselves by seizing land in the name of Rome for their own personal profit than maintaining the honour and diginity of the Roman people, used this strong feeling to demand that Rome not honour the terms of the peace as agreed by Tiberius but rather send a new army under Scipio Africanus the younger to crush the brave and honourable Numantines. These same self-centred Senators, much like the politicans of today, also tried to translate this into further political advantage by demanding the enslavement of all the officers of Mancinus' army, especially Tiberius, so that they could stripped naked and sent in chains to the Numantines as a statement of Roman's intent not to honour the peace treaty agreed by Tiberius (14).

Only the quick-witted actions of Scipio Africanus the younger in the Senate to mollify the majority that had been enraged by the rhetoric of the self-interest minority saved Tiberius and his fellow officers and in doing so had to sacrifice the incompetant Mancinus to the Senate's lust for blood. Unfortunately Tiberius saw this as a gross betrayal of everything he had agreed with the Numantines and strongly reprimanded Scipio Africanus the younger for his actions, which had saved Tiberius from a vicious punishment (15). This confrontation was eventually to help cause Tiberius' downfall and prevent what he belived in so passionately from coming to pass in his lifetime due to the creation of an enemity between himself and Scipio Africanus the younger who also divorced Tiberius' sister, Sempronia on the grounds that the marriage was not a happy one (16).

After Tiberius' awful experience in the Senate he began to notice that there was an increasing level of misery on the streets of Rome and noted that the same minority of self-interested senators who had been demanding his, and his fellow soldier's, blood were using all manner of con artist's tricks, such as creating non-existent tenants, and even illegal evictions of the inhabitants to forcibly confiscate land in their own name in defiance of the Lex Licinia of 366 B.C., which ruled that each citizen could only hold 310 hectares of land and no more. After forcibly evicting the citizens, with little but what they could carry and the clothes on their backs with no food or money, the greedy minority then brought in slaves, likely Semitic Carthaginians, to work the land in place of the original Aryan inhabitants.

This, Tiberius saw, was destroying Rome's military and civic backbone as these farmers, who were the part of the population that the Roman military recruited from and once these shylockian senators had forced them off their land they became very unwilling to volunteer for military service decreasing Rome's ability to recruit new legions and turning the countryside into the province of the wealthy and slaves with the inherent risk of slave revolts only increasing. This discontent was also speading to the towns and even Rome itself with the poor chalking and painting slogans and appeals on the walls, statues and monuments (17).

Tiberius, who was now a tribune of the people, and his supporters such as his father-in-law, Appius Claudius Pulcher, and the then Pontifix Maximus Crassus, drafted a moderate law that was to force the greedy minority in the Senate to hand the land back that they had illegally acquired to the Roman state, for which they would be suitably compensated, and the land would then be redistributed to the neediest Roman citizens and the veterans who would then provide the basis for the healthy continuation of the Roman state by being the recruiting ground for the Roman military (18).

Unfortunately this rather moderate program still did not win full support among the Roman people, because it offered only a temporary solution in so far as it did not protect them from the future activities of these shylockian senators, but only righted the wrongs that had been done to them. On the other hand it positively infuriated the shylockian senators who wished to keep their ill gotten gains and began to stir up resentment against Tiberius among the Roman citizenry by alleging that Tiberius was out for his own personal advantage and wished to create a general revolution for the purpose of making himself the king of Rome (19)(20). Fortunately however Tiberius was more than a match for these accusations with his personality ringing true combined with his rhetorical ability allowing him to sway the citizens to the cause of right rather than of self-interest (21).

Since the shylockian senators could not sway the Roman citizenry they restorted to an old Senatorial trick to prevent Tiberius' law being passed by persuading one of the other tribunes of the people, one Marcus Octavius (a former close friend of Tiberius') (22), to veto Tiberius' law and thus prevent it from becoming law (and forcing them to comply with it) (23). Tiberius responded to this open provocation by reformulating his law so that it was less moderate and fulfilled the demands of the Roman citizens without any concilliation to the shylockian senators. This was again vetoed and so Tiberius proceeded onto more extreme measures by stopping the day-to-day running of the Roman government by using his veto to prevent the law courts from opening, sealing the treasury and preventing any of the normal business of Roman government to occur (24).

This heightening of the tension, as well as the stakes, by both sides caused the shylockian senators to form a conspiracy against Tiberius and this being somewhat known Tiberius took to wearing a dagger at all times as to protect himself (25). After days of intrigue and counter intrigue, including attempts to disrupt votes and debates in the senate, Tiberius finally made a move to break the deadlock by moving to remove Octavius as a tribune, which was duly granted after many appeals from Tiberius to Octavius for the latter to stand aside (26). The vote was overwhelming and Octavius was removed, which promptly caused a riot as the Roman citizens tried to kill the man who had stood in the way of a law that they not only wished for but needed for their very survival. Tiberius, to his credit, tried to restrain the rioters and did just enough, along with the senators, to prevent Octavius being killed by the angry citizens (27).

After these events Tiberius' law was passed and a three man group was appointed to put the law into practice. These three men were Tiberius, his brother Gaius (who was on campaign against the Numantines with Scipio Africanus the younger) and his father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher. These three then began to enforce the law, but were regularly attacked and insulted within the senate who also, in the thrall of the shylockian senators (particularly Publius Nasica (28)), refused these men, particularly Tiberius, the basic facilities to enact the law such as a tent in which they could work (29). This continued for sometime until eventually Tiberius fell victim to the conspiracy of the shylockian senators who managed to finally turn some of the Roman citizens against Tiberius and to murder him as to prevent him from restoring to the Roman citizens what was rightfully theirs.

(1) The edition and translation I am using is Plutarch, Trans: Ian Scott-Kilvert, 1965, 'Makers of Rome', 1st Edition, Penguin: New York
(2) Ibid., p. 154, n. 2
(3) Plut., Ti. Gracch., 1
(4) Ibid., 3:4
(5) Ibid., 4; Macrob., Sat., 2.10
(6) Plut., Ti. Gracch., 4
(7) Ibid.
(8) An official who looked after the financial affairs of Rome.
(9) The Numantines would later commit mass suicide rather than be enslaved to a man by the Romans.
(10) Plut., Ti. Gracch., 5
(11) One of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus' triumphs had been given to him for his military victories in Spain presumably against, or involving, the Numantines.
(12) Plut., Ti. Gracch., 5
(13) Ibid., 7
(14) Ibid.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Plutarch, Op. Cit., p. 154, n. 3
(17) Plut., Ti. Gracch., 8
(18) Ibid., 9
(19) Ibid.
(20) The popular mythos of Rome, especially in the Republican era, was that the kings of Rome had been tyrants and that anyone who tried to make themselves a king was to be reviled, because they sought to create a tyranny. Hence the power of the insinuation and the charge made by the hostile senators against Tiberius.
(21) Plut., Ti. Gracch., 9:10
(22) The reason for Octavius' opposition was because he had been one of the senators who had seized large tracts of land illegally. Tiberius seems not to have known this before he tried to enact his law.
(23) Among the tribunes of the people it was necessary for all the tribunes to agree before the people were able to vote and hence it was a simple matter to persuade, blackmail and/or bribe one of the tribunes to stop the enactment of laws that senators were opposed to.
(24) Plut., Ti. Gracch., 10
(25) Ibid.
(26) Ibid., 11
(27) Ibid., 12
(28) Publius Nasica was one of the senators who owned the largest amount of illegally confiscated land and hence was strongly opposed to this law and Tiberius because it would deprive of him of income and status regardless of whether he had stolen the land or not.
(29) Ibid., 13

A Critique of the National Socialist Movement (Part I): The Concept of National Socialism

The National Socialist Movement (or NSM) is a neo-Nazi, not a National Socialist, group that has recently been making a significant amount of news. We believe the time is now ripe to begin to critique this group's ideology from a National Socialist perspective and explain why it isn't even remotely National Socialist, but more reminiscent of that of the German-American Bund and assorted other American Nationalist groups.

The first part of this critique we are going to direct towards their article 'explaining' what National Socialism is on their website (1) from where we will take all quotes attributed to the NSM unless otherwise stated. The format we will use for this critique will be a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal rather than an essay. Since this format will allow us to dissect the NSM's statements in detail and prevent us from going off topic too much to explain the philosophic basis of National Socialism in detail. We will be focusing on the NSM's actual statements of ideology in this critique rather than comparing them to the ideological ideals and positions of these other groups with the exception of National Socialism.

The first thing the NSM page states about National Socialism as an ideology is the following:

"National Socialism is, above all things, the doctrine that it is not only for the good of humanity but absolutely essential for the survival of humanity that scientific method be applied not only to the breeding of animals and bugs but also to the breeding of human beings."

Here the NSM has made only one point that is correct in regards to National Socialism and that is that National Socialism asserts that it is logical to apply the rules of husbandry, that have been applied to animals without any significant negative effect, to human beings in general (or the science of eugenics/dysgenics). This is possibly one of the most controversial parts of National Socialist ideology, but also one of the best known (arguably as a result of it being controversial).

What is not stated by the NSM is that, although National Socialism recognises that eugenics is both important and central to the National Socialist conception of the future of the Aryan race, eugenics as a policy might not be implemented for quite some time due to the folk's understandable resistance to what many do regard, and did to a significant degree during the Third Reich, as 'playing God'.

This isn't to say that the NSM are per se incorrect, but they place undue stress upon eugenical policy in National Socialism. National Socialism is about the centrality of race not eugenics, because although we may say with confidence that eugenics is an important part of National Socialist thought. If eugenics was found in the view of National Socialist scientists to be unfeasible then it would be removed from the philosophy of life's practical application. This can be done because National Socialism does not rest on eugenics, but rather on race (or 'is applied biology' if you like) contrary to what the NSM seem to think.

This brings us onto one of the serious errors in the NSM's statement in so far as they use the term 'humanity' and suggest that National Socialism believes in the 'good of humanity'. This is incorrect. National Socialism does not recognise the concept of 'humanity' beyond the Aryan race: in so far as non-Aryans are human beings, one cannot deny that fact scientifically, but that they are not of the same material and spiritual wealth as Aryans and therefore are not of the same value to the National Socialist state.

One could argue that National Socialism endorses the idea that all peoples have a right to homogenuity and self-improvement. Indeed this would be correct, but it misses out the necessary caveat: as long as they do not oppose the Aryan race. If forced to chose between other members of this so-called 'humanity' and the Aryan race: National Socialism will always choose the Aryan race. By using the generalism of 'humanity' the NSM are committing a capital ideological mistake and showing rather openly that they do not understand even the basic concepts of National Socialism, which is we note in passing, an elite ideology not a mass ideology as is often claimed (it is populist but the populace on the whole cannot be National Socialists, but they can be loyal party members if you like).

This brings us nicely on to the next part of the NSM's 'vision' (if one can call it that) of what National Socialism is:

"National Socialism does not wish to destroy inferior races or individuals any more than a wolf leader wants to destroy the pack but only to organize them into a productive order which alone can enable them to survive and enjoy some degree of human felicity."

We notice again this use of the universalist (and egalitarian) concept of 'the human being', which is invalid in National Socialism for the reason I have explained above. The NSM's above statement seems to realise this fact, but then contradict itself by suggesting that National Socialism wishes to 'organise humanity' so that 'humanity' can 'survive', which directly implies that National Socialism will dominate them (how else are we to assume that only through National Socialism can other races survive for National Socialism is only for Aryans not for jews, negroes or mongoloids due racial subjectivity). Then the NSM have a 'pink and fluffy' moment and decide that this is the only way for other races to 'enjoy some degree of human felicity'.

So essentially what the NSM are asserting here is that either National Socialism (i.e. Aryans) will dominate all non-Aryans and somehow make their lives wonderful (which is rather utopian as well as contra National Socialist doctrine about the interaction between Aryans and non-Aryans) or that National Socialism will be adopted by non-Aryans (which is an impossibility in National Socialism due again to racial subjectivity [i.e. different races think differently so National Socialism to non-Aryans would be very different to National Socialism to Aryans and would therefore not be National Socialism per se]).

Either of these two alternatives are opposed to the National Socialist philosophy of life, because they assert either that National Socialism, in essence wants to conquer/dominate the world, which is not the case, because National Socialism is for Aryans alone, but reserves the right to do as is required in the best interests of the Aryan race. The second alternative, as I have already pointed out, is opposed to the very basis of National Socialism in so far as it bases itself in an egalitarian assumption (i.e. 'all races think alike'), which is opposed to the National Socialist view that all races and individuals are inherently unequal and that each race has a different race soul.

Our problem in interpreting what the NSM are asserting National Socialism is. Is that the author of the 'What is National Socialism' on the NSM webpage seems to be suffering from a form of schizophrenia and contradicts himself or herself at least once a paragraph. There is also often contradiction between paragraphs and this is what we find when we compare the next paragraph to the language of the other two (quoted above).

The next paragraph states the following:

"National Socialism deplores the reversal of human evolution being accelerated by welfare-ism, brotherhood-ism, race-mixing and the unlimited breeding of the inferior races and individuals while the superior limit themselves to few offspring or none."

Our first thought when reading the above paragraph is that it is completely opposed to the assumptions of the two preceeding paragraphs. In so far in the first and second paragraphs there was the common assumption that there was and is a thing called 'humanity' in National Socialism, which there is not. 'Humanity' is an egalitarian-cum-religious term for human beings and the way the NSM use the term implies an egalitarian purpose, but in the second paragraph we saw that there was the assumption that only National Socialism can produce a 'productive order' among the 'inferior races', which stood out as a hypocritical point to the general direction of the article.

Now either the NSM can have a situation where National Socialism works in 'the best interest of humanity' or National Socialism dominates 'inferior races'. One cannot really have one with the other due to the simple application of the concept of race. In so far as what one race thinks is good for another is not likely to be congruent with what the other race thinks is good for itself. The difference here is that unlike the NSM we are applying race not merely mouthing the words: that is one of the key differences between a neo-Nazi and a National Socialist. We National Socialists apply our ideology: neo-Nazis just copy some of the words and symbols of National Socialism without being National Socialists (much how some corporations have included the red star of the Soviet Union in their logos and the hammer and sickle on their products, but cannot be classed as Marxist-Leninists).

We also note that the NSM use the terms 'inferior race' and 'superior race' when these are racially-subjective judgements with no racially-objective criteria to allow such a judgement. The NSM here are confusing the concept of the 'inferior race' (or Untermensch literally deriving from Lothrop Stoddard's term 'Underman') in so far as their logic presumes that inferiority in National Socialism is a state, which it is not, but rather is a process. It is true that in Stoddard's original usage it might have seemed to be a state, but that is because Stoddard wrote purely in the present rather than following his logic, which would have indicated that the 'inferior race' is actually a process (based on race and evolutionary pressures creating eugenical or dysgenical evolution/de-evolution).

The concept of the 'superior race' (or Ubermensch or the commonly used terms 'Superman' or 'Master race') is, like the concept of the 'inferior race', a process rather than a state. It is racially-subjective, but at the same time it is vital to National Socialism in so far as it represents the eternal struggle towards being the Ubermensch (an impossible and always equidistant goal if you will). This concept of the eternal struggle towards something better is somewhat recognised by the NSM (in so far as they mistakenly associate eugenics wholly with it), but they do not understand its context in National Socialist ideology or the principles that underlie it.

The next issue we come to is the wording of this particular statement by the NSM. In so far as it uses at least one term that is unknown to us and not to our knowledge in use in National Socialist, popular or intellectual culture. That term is 'brotherhood-ism', which one can only assume probably refers to the 'Aryan Brotherhood' who are a criminal gang, who claim to be National Socialists (but are not in any way, shape or form National Socialists [for National Socialists are not common criminals]), involved in drug trafficking and prison violence. This made-up term presumably means that the NSM merely rejects the criminal behaviour and drug trafficking conducted by the 'Aryan Brotherhood'.

Although this is somewhat redundant given the amount of the NSM members who have convictions for criminal behaviour [i.e. a touch more than a speeding ticket]. If this is what the term means, and the NSM should be specific about the meaning of 'movement only' terminology, then it is a good thing to be against, but as we have said if the NSM is opposed to 'brotherhood-ism' then surely it should kick out its members who have partaken of drugs (and that use can't be put down to use of say cannabis once or twice when a teenager) and committed anything more serious than getting one or two speeding tickets.

We might be accused here of being 'overzealous' and suggesting members of the folk cannot be National Socialists if they have a criminal past (beyond the threshold of normality i.e. a speeding ticket or two and/or having smoked a cannabis cigarette once in their youth). To answer this let us be very clear about what National Socialism is in so far as it is an ideology based on three key pillars: race, evolution and the leadership principle. All three principles play into our answer to this objection in so far as those who have committed criminal acts are by nature not the elite of the race because they have felt the need to break the law when they should have known better (thus demonstrating that they are either irresponsible or are prone to criminal behaviour). This statement incorporates the first and third principles in so far as the race must be kept pure (i.e. the status of being an Aryan is not only biological but spiritual as well) and the elite/leaders of the race (i.e. the National Socialists) must set an example and therefore are required to be pure as far as that is humanly possible.

The second principle, that of evolution (inherent in the concept of the eternal struggle if any neo-Nazis are reading), answers the historical objection that many members of the SA (and to some degree the SS) had committed, sometimes quite serious, crimes in 1920s and 1930s Germany before the election of the NSDAP in 1933. The principle of evolution answers this because the conditions in the Weimar Republic were very different to the conditions in the United States today. In so far as violence was the political and social norm during the Weimar republic largely due to the existence of large communist military organisations (such as the Red Front Fighters) whose explicit aim was the overthrow of the government and executing all those opposed them. Such conditions do not exist in the United States today and therefore excusing criminal pasts is not acceptable or even possible in this much more peaceful environment where violence is not the social norm as it was in the Weimar Republic.

This is especially true in so far as that in order to attain power in the United States today. National Socialists cannot call themselves National Socialists, because to do so would merely invalidate all the good work National Socialists have done in educating the folk (per Ellul's observations about the fact that propaganda, in order to successfully propagandise the folk, must always go with the current grain and not against it). In essence National Socialism evolves along with science and with the conditions in which it finds itself (including the racial situation in the given country): it does not stand still as if it were the 1920s and 1930s in Germany (i.e. the first Kampfzeit or Time of Struggle).

The next issue we come to also has a little to do with wording, but most importantly to do with logic. The issue concerns the term 'welfare-ism', which is simply 'welfare' as in 'welfare state' with an 'ism' on the end to make it sound like a meaningful catch-all term (much like the Marxist term: 'Imperialism'). Since no definition is provided we should assume that 'welfare-ism' means something akin to taking welfare or sponging off the welfare system, but this interpretation (which is the obvious and simplest one) is somewhat contradicted by the NSM's logic in so far as they seemingly assert (without qualification mind you) that the welfare system is contrary to National Socialism, because it allows the unfit and 'inferior races' to procreate.

This is problematic because it is on the one hand suggesting, by logical implication, that a certain amount of welfare is suitable but on the other hand suggesting that taking any welfare benefit is contrary to the eugenical goals of National Socialism (i.e. breeding up). How do the NSM reconcile these two positions? The simple answer is that they do not and they do not provide any qualification as to what their logic and positions are: one would assume (to be generous) that what they actually mean here is that Aryans may receive welfare, but non-Aryans must not. However this would seem to be contrary the tenor of the paragraph in so far as in the NSM's view any Aryan who would take welfare is not of 'the superior race' by that very fact (i.e. shouldn't need welfare). This creates the paradox that we cannot really address here due to lack of qualification by the NSM, but what we can say is that the NSM would have to drop one of these two positions or completely reword their paragraph in order for it to make sense.

However in National Socialism, although we endorse natural selection and natural variation, we do not advocate letting the folk starve because they happen to require government assistance. National Socialism being a wholly race-based philosophy requires that National Socialists should look after the folk to the best of their ability and that includes those members of the folk without much material wealth who may, due to circumstances [such as the untimely death of a husband and having numerous young children], be unable to work in the sense of private employment but can be publicly employed as mothers for example.

Therefore because National Socialism is race-based and cares for the folk: it must have a form of what we may assume the NSM are condemning i.e. 'welfare-ism' in their own made-up terminology. This is not to say that National Socialism condones members of the folk to sponge of the body of the folk, but rather that a clear distinction is made in National Socialism between those who are unable to work in the usual sense, but this being due to a form of public employment (e.g. being mothers to more than two young children), and those who are able to work but choose not to do so while demanding money from the body of the folk who do work for it. Thus the NSM's logic, although rather fuzzy and contradictory, is wrong on both counts in so far it simply doesn't take into account the fact that National Socialism is a wholly race-based philosophy and doesn't simply work around the concept of eugenics.

The next paragraph also confirms the NSM's lack of understanding, typical of neo-Nazis, that National Socialism is a wholly race-based philosophy:

"To accomplish these utterly fundamental and vital aims, National Socialism declares its goal to be nothing less than the absolute domination of the white, civilized areas of the earth by the Aryan white man and the leadership of the Aryan white man by the strongest and wisest individuals of the race rather than the largest number of weaklings, mediocrity's and selfish private interests."

Firstly: we note that the author of the NSM's article regards himself or herself to have outlined the 'aims' of National Socialism in the first three paragraphs, but even if we were to assume these were representative of National Socialism in even the loose sense. Then the author would not have outlined even a basic program or basis for a weltanschauung (or philosophy of life), but rather just a series of meaningless and vague statements, which, as we have shown above, are extremely fuzzy in terms of their logic and are often mutually exclusive to one another. The author has, unfortunately, proven nothing but his or her own incompetance and lack of understanding of National Socialism as a profound and revolutionary philosophy of life.

Secondly: the NSM's statement that the 'Aryan white man' (whatever that is) is supposed to 'dominate' 'white civilized' areas of the earth is simply asburd. In so far as civilisation is another aspect of National Socialist thought in which, although it is certainly comforting to think there is a racially-objective standard, there is only the racially-subjective standard (i.e. what one race thinks is civilised is to another quite uncivilised as can be ascertained by the history of the contact between Aryan Europeans and the rulers of India as well as between the Conquistadors [who were decidedly non-Aryan on the whole] and the Aztecs and Inca).

We may presume that what the NSM are referring to without actually saying the name of the point of principle is Lebensraum (or living space), which dictates that Aryan man has the right, which is to be exercised pragmatically for the good of the folk, to claim lands that were originally Aryan (i.e. where Aryan remains can be found as to indicate an Aryan civilisation once existed there). This does not mean, as the NSM put it, that National Socialism wishes to 'dominate' the 'white civilized' parts of the earth, because National Socialism has little interest in this overt 'domination' (one presumes the NSM author has been reading too much Nietzsche and has consciously or unconsciously assumed the intellectual garb of a master-slave mentality), because National Socialism naturally views itself privately as superior to all other philosophies and ideals (but that isn't to say it doesn't encourage careful and precise study of them in order to learn from their successes, mistakes and intellectual foundation) and, like the Aryan folk in relation to non-Aryan folks, realises that superiority is not expressed in 'domination' but rather in naturally being above others (i.e. struggling upwards and letting the results speak for themselves).

In the Lebensraum principle National Socialism does not seek to 'dominate', but rather allow natural order to assert itself in so far as if the Aryan folk are to feel themselves superior to non-Aryan folks then the Aryan folk need to demonstrate that superiority in and of themselves to the non-Aryan folks who will be covertly 'dominated' by the Aryan if you like. The NSM seem too busy trying to assert that Aryans should be dominant rather than they are dominant: for if an individual is truly naturally superior to another then they shouldn't feel the need to talk about 'dominating' them all the time, but rather just get on with 'dominating'. This again highlights the difference between National Socialists and neo-Nazis in so far as Neo-Nazis talk about things as 'being a superior race', 'dominating other races' etc ad infinitum, while National Socialists simply commit themselves unceasingly to the eternal struggle upwards and get on with actually putting the ideology into practice.

We can also note that by the NSM's own stated 'standards', with so many (ex-)criminals in their past and present ranks, the NSM is composed of the same 'large number of weaklings, mediocrity's' and those with 'selfish private interests'. Unfortunately the NSM despite its rhetoric simply fails to live up to the (quite mediocre) expectations that it holds up as the ideal, but then this is nothing new when studying the question of neo-Nazism in so far as Neo-Nazis, unlike National Socialists, love to talk the talk without walking the walk (so-to-speak).

Thirdly the NSM's statement is rather confused racially-speaking so far as it asserts that there is such a thing as 'White men' when there are not. 'Aryan' and 'White' do not mean the same thing. Aryan is a term which refers to the Indo-European (and possibly the Proto-Indo-European) folk who in National Socialism are equated with Northern Europeans with their most pure expression being the Nordic and Celtic sub-races, but including Alpine as a second tier of purity. 'White' on the other hand is a colloquial expression which has no meaning beyond the common racial fallacy of equating colour of skin with race. 'White' doesn't equate a race, because there are no logical racial boundaries of 'Whiteness' much the same as one would find it hard to be racialistic on a racial level (i.e. that of Caucasoid) without including jews, Arabs and Indians in the equation as 'White'.

One thing National Socialism requires of every National Socialist is a study of the racial question in so far as each National Socialist needs to understand basic racial theory, but because of the intricate nature of the question they merely have to understand the digested version rather than one with all the supporting data and arguments added. The NSM don't seem to know about, let alone understand, this basic point of National Socialist practice let alone being able to apply that knowledge to the situation in the United States. Simply put the idea of the 'White man' or the 'White race' is simply redundant and intellectually bogus.

The NSM then proceed to make a slightly more sane statement in so far as:

"To achieve this goal National Socialism recognizes that power must be won legally, first in the strategic center of the world, the United States, and then in all the other white Aryan areas of the earth."

This is somewhat correct. National Socialism does recognise that power must be attained legally, but one suspects that this statement comes less from an application of National Socialist principles and analysis to the situation in the United States, but rather to a simple copying of the strategy adopted by the NSDAP after the failure of the famous Beer Hall Putsch. This is evident in the fact that this 'legal path to power' is merely stated as an adjunct to the rest of the article, almost as a disclaimer, which does not include any further revelation about the specific legal route to power to be adopted but rather that that is the way forward for some unspecified reason (i.e. a disclaimer to prevent the NSM being sued for advocating violent revolution, which it quite blatently does on occasion). One does not expect the NSM to tell the world exactly what they plan to do to achieve power, but one does expect at least some kind of general blueprint of how they plan to operate within the reasonable boundaries of the law, which predictably is not provided by the NSM.

Another issue with this latest NSM statement is that it speaks of the United States as the strategic centre of the world and while this is partially true: it is not wholly true. In so far as the United States is home to a somewhat sub-racially (and to a lesser extent racially) mixed population, but it also contains a considerable amount of military and economic might as well as has, despite the racial and sub-racial mixing, a very viable Aryan racial stock. However the NSM would have to revise their assertion to be the United States being the strategic centre of the Aryan world in order for it to be correct: since their statement at present ignores other strategic quasi-superpowers such as China and to a lesser extent Russia.

The rest of the statement we have already addressed above. So we can swiftly move on to the next paragraph written by the NSM, which still relates to geopolitics and again apes the notion of race without applying it in the analysis and response to the knowns and unknowns of the situation. This paragraph is as follows:

"National Socialism does not recognize the imaginary geographic boundaries of nations as being as important as the very real boundaries set by nature in RACE."

This statement by the NSM has little to recommend itself either in logic, knowledge or terminology. This is because the NSM confuse the word 'nation' with the word 'country'. A nation is a biological entity (i.e. a folk tied together by blood and soil if you will) and a country is a geographic entity. A country may include many nations and a nation maybe split across many countries. That said nations still have geographic boundaries, whichever way we wish to look at the situation as every tribe has an extent to its territory and does not go into another tribes territory unless it wishes to declare war on that tribe and increase the size of its own territory. Countries are similar, but base themselves on a collective unity under a common non-racial and universalist myth, which tries to combine all the nations that make up a country into an unnatural unit and then use them to bring more territory under the country's sway and incorporate new nations and parts of nations into the unnatural unit.

That said these common and universalist myths can be used to successfully tie several nations and parts of nations together such as in the case of France, the United Kingdom, Austria-Hungary, Italy and particularly the United States. This isn't to say that there is not a racial order that is arrived at in these countries where usually one nation dominates the others through the use of their natural competitive instincts and gifts (and that can be anything from military force to atrocity propaganda to the use of bribery), but rather that this racial order is unstable due to competing racial interests and mindsets often leading to bloodshed between the nations within the country (Czechoslovakia and the bloodshed between the ruling Czechs and the discriminated against Slovaks and Germans is an appropriate example). This is part of the basis of the justification of the need for National Socialism in so far as nations cannot live together, but the NSM statement does not recognise, let alone understand, the difference between the nation and the country.

The NSM assert that geographic boundaries have no meaning, but this is logically and intellectually redundant as I have explained above. It also perpertuates the stereotype of National Socialism seeking 'world domination' that was so common in the United States in the 1940s (with the faked Hitler quote famously claiming that 'Our Stormtroopers will soon be in the Whitehouse' [I paraphrase slightly from memory]). By talking like this the NSM show that they are rather hypocritical in so far as their first paragraph talked of a utopian solution for all folks under National Socialist rule (or rather that was what it implies), but now the NSM have begun to imply that National Socialism has no boundaries and wishes, in effect, to conquer the world. After all one can readily substantiate this point by looking at literature common to the 'White Nationalist' 'movement', of which the NSM is a part (despite claims otherwise), where numerous 'White homelands' are claimed to be in existence from China (using the Tocharin Indo-European folk in Western China) to Sumeria (in modern day Iraq using Arthur Kemp's 'blue-eyed statues' argument) to India (using the Aryan invasion hypothesis).

We should also note in passing that if the NSM view race as being so important (i.e. in the capitalisation of the word in the original, which I have retained in my quote for purposes of accuracy): why have they not applied the implications of race to their definition of National Socialism? National Socialism is, I repeat, a wholly race-based philosophy and the easiest way to tell a National Socialist from a neo-Nazi is that the National Socialist applies the implications of race to the situation, while the neo-Nazi just spouts of about race without applying it to the situations with which they are confronted both intellectually and on a daily basis.

The next paragraph from the NSM's 'definition' of National Socialism is largely a repetition of the errors of the paragraph we have just critiqued, but because it contains the application of the NSM's idea of geographic boundaries meaning nothing and an additional point about two general socio-economic systems it is worth taking the time to critique. The paragraph is as follows:

"We therefore declare out intention eventually to incorporate all Nordic and Aryan white peoples into a single political entity so that never again will white men fight and kill each other on behalf of such silly things as imaginary geographic boundaries or such vicious things as Jewish economic swindles-either Communism or capitalism."

The first thing we notice about this statement by the NSM is that it is overtly utopian in nature. In so far as it suggests that if a 'single political entity' that incorporated all Nordic and 'Aryan white people' (whatever they are) that someone said folk will not kill or harm each other over such 'silly things as imaginary geographic boundaries or such vicious things as Jewish economic swindles-either communism or capitalism'.

This is simply delusional on the part of the NSM in so far as they assume that political entities equate nations or countries, which they do not, because politics is often international and political entities are themselves often international by their very nature. Even your standard foreign affairs department or ministry is an international political entity, because of its need to keep significant amounts of its assets abroad for embassies, consuls, diplomatic intelligence gathering operations, pressure groups and so forth. A political organisation is not simply a national or country specific entity as the NSM presume, but rather a far more complex beast with the likeihood of being in some way international (such as the Comintern was from 1919-1943 for example where it was an adjunct of Soviet foreign policy and propaganda) and even supranational (such as the United Nations pretends to be).

Therefore such a 'single political entity' seems rather unlikely, especially when such issues as historical cultural differences, historic rivalries and the fact that the folk genuinely see their country-level identity as being very important to them. For example Norwegians will not stop being distinctly Norwegian just because you transplant them somewhere else and tell them that they are part of a racial community and that being Norwegian is simply irrelevant.

National Socialism in its realised form during the Third Reich did not declare that Norwegians suddenly stopped being Norwegians but instead propagandised the Norwegians to the effect that the Germans and Norwegians were different and this was good and proper. However what they also argued, and very effectively as well as correctly, was that Norwegians and Germans shared a common Aryan heritage and that they were cousins and should treat each other as family and kin.

This demonstrates a much keener understanding of human nature and the essence of applied National Socialism compared to the NSM's statement, which is based on a marxist-type assumption that 'we are all equal in our race'. This assumption is one that is often used in its more common form: 'we are equal in our humanity' that the author of the NSM's 'definition' all but used in the first and second paragraphs. National Socialism does not seek to destroy national identies, but rather seeks to create links between the Aryan nations based on treating each other as one would treat family. National Socialism understands and treasures the fact that Aryan culture is different in the specifics, but shows remarkable similarity in its general ideas, which can only be the product of the Aryan race soul.

To further expand on a point we made above: the NSM's definition suggests that the Aryan folk will not kill each other over 'silly things' once this state is achieved, but this is simply absurd. One can very easily regard the idea of killing another Aryan over such a thing as an argument, the love of a mate and/or in a drunken rage as being 'silly', but they will still happen in an Aryan state. Crime will still occur and man, Aryan or not, will still engage in 'irrational behaviour' (actually it is quite rational if one understands humans in the context of the animal kingdom). Therefore one cannot help wonder but as to the state of mind of the NSM author of the definition of National Socialism since it is utopian and rather absurd.

As for the economic systems that are briefly mentioned: communism and capitalism. The NSM are somewhat correct in that they imply that these two systems are not regarded as suitable in National Socialism, but what they don't qualify is why these two systems are excluded or the variation which is excluded.

In the first case of communism, we may presume the NSM mean the Marxist-Leninist variant, all variants of communism are unacceptable however [as opposed to socialism of which are few variants are acceptable], the marxist system relies on the assumption that the truth of man's nature lies in his economic behaviour and that the material is all that is. This assumes that man starts off from roughly the same basic biological footing and that there is no real difference between the nations and races other than a few external considerations such as culture, physical appearance etc. It demands that the world be governed by the 'mass of the people', what it calls the proletariat, which is the origin of the Stoddard's idea of the 'revolt of the underman' that did influence National Socialist thought, because the only difference between the proletariat and the bourgeous (those who own the means of production) is capital and marxists assert that the capital belongs to all not just the few.

Marxism is not a suitable economic system in National Socialism, because it is a contending world view that starts off from assumptions that are simply contrary to the basis for National Socialism. For where National Socialism asserts that we are all born biologically unequal due to hereditary and genetics and that this is very important. Marxism asserts the opposite: that we are all born more or less biologically equal and that any variation is due to environment which can be corrected under communist rule.

This makes the two philosophies of life at complete odds with one another and bound to come to blows: physical, mental or spiritual. National Socialism also has a strong spiritual component and believes in a creator (as to whom we identify this creator as: that is a whole other debate and fortunately largely a personal one), while marxism preaches out and out atheism believing in no creator and no God while asserting that the only thing that actually matters is what we do that effects the material circumstances during our time on planet earth. Therefore it is rather obvious in this rather brief summary why Marxism and National Socialism are completely incompatible.

Capitalism on the other hand is not a philosophy of life, but is rather simply a position statement on economic issues and like socialism there are a number of capitalist variants that are compatible with National Socialism, because captialism does not necessarily assert the equality of man, but rather exists of man's inequality. That said however capitalism is by its very nature focused on the creation of more capital and this leads to the unlimited variant of capitalism, or laissez-faire capitalism, being mutually-exclusive to National Socialism because it prioritises the creation of capital over the well-being of the folk. In essence invalidating National Socialist principles and policy by its demand that more capital be created (per the standard conception of the rational economic man i.e. a man who thinks in terms of profit and success and nothing much else). Therefore, like with socialism, National Socialism is compatible only with certain moderate varients of capitalism, because National Socialism prioritises the interest of the folk and the folk's interest is at the very centre of the National Socialist nation state. You could in essence call National Socialist economic policy: folkism (i.e. the interests of the folk community first before the interests of capital and the wider 'social' community).

This leads us then past three paragraphs in the NSM article, which are simple statements of morality (i.e. National Socialism isn't explicitly out to murder people) and, rather mild, statements of opposition to jews and an attempt to formulate an internal policy of simply exiling undesirables, which doesn't solve very much but that is a matter of practical policy rather than intellectual coherency. The last statement however is merely a reformulation of the several of the other paragraphs and claims that National Socialism is all about 'contributions to humanity', which it is not, as I have explained above, and also attempts to assert once again that National Socialism is eugenics-based and not race-based. In skipping these last three paragraphs we are not skipping any pertinent information, but rather doing so because they re-state previously addressed positions and ideas as well as often deal with mere rhetoric in regards to things like the jewish question, which has little bearing on this critique and hence we feel it would be superfluous to critique these passages.

So let us sum up our critique of the NSM briefly. The NSM have not shown any understanding of the National Socialist philosophy of life what-so-ever: they maintain that eugenics is the centre of National Socialist thought when it is in fact race. The NSM suggest that National Socialism has something to offer humanity: this is incorrect for National Socialism is for Aryans alone and due to racial subjectivity National Socialism is only suited for Aryans. National Socialists apply the philosophy of life to every minute of every hour of their existence and get on with the necessary reality of living the Spartan ideal every day rather than merely talking about it as the NSM clearly are more interested in doing. The NSM are simply neo-Nazis with little idea what the symbols they so eagerly use mean or what the ideas they espouse mean in practice. Simply put they are rather similar to 'living history' re-enactors who spend their weekends pretending to be something they are not as a form of entertainment and the NSM are really just the same: trying to relive the first Kampfzeit as if a small town in beautiful Ohio was really the streets of Munich in 1927.

(1) http://www.nsm88.org/whatisns/whatisns.html

The Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life

A Book Review of Susannah Heschel's, 2008, 'The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton

The Aryan Jesus is a strange book with a quite provocative title that we may presume is meant to evoke a sense of irony in Heschel's readers. Since it is widely taught, and believed, today that the historical Jesus was jewish regardless of what we may say. Although this is a rather materialistic assumption and quite opposed to what one might consider consistent Christian doctrine (i.e. how can Jesus even be part human if he is God, but rather must be God in human form, which is a subtle yet very important distinction that has to be made): it never-the-less provides the basis for an interesting and in some respects laudable study of one of the main institutes researching into what jewish academic Alan Steinweiss termed 'Nazi Jewish Studies' (i.e. a critical version of the rather uncritical jewish studies of modern times).

The academic institute around which Heschel's book is based was named 'The Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence in German Religious Life', which both generally explains the focus of the institute's activities and its intellectual mission. To be more precise we can say that the institute's activities we targeted towards removing jewish ideas and concepts from Protestant Christianity in the Germanic homelands and its mission was to provide the intellectual and popular basis for a revival of Christianity in line with its Aryan roots.

Heschel, being a jewess, repeatedly scoffs at this intellectual postion (and its supporting evidence) and suggests that it is based on a 'series of unjustified inferences' without giving her assertion a basis in fact first. This is interesting, because Heschel simply takes it for granted that Jesus was a jew but merely assumes the equation of religion equates race (and then applies it to intellectual thought the Third Reich which specifically rejected this equation) and that Jesus was not, in fact, the Messiah (since the Messiah would not actually be of a race, but might take the physical form of a race).

In this Heschel is misstating, perhaps deliberately, the arguments of the one of the main theologians behind the institute, Walter Grundmann, who she notes had argued that Jesus was irracial in his earlier work and then went on to argue later that Jesus was, in fact, an Aryan as well as a precursor to National Socialism. This Heschel states is a contradiction in terms and is an 'evolution of thought' towards making Christianity in general, and Protestantism specifically, more acceptable to the Third Reich. This idea of an 'evolution of thought' lies at the very foundation of Heschel's argument in so far as she argues, and unsuccessfully attempts to evidence, the thesis that Grundmann and the many other theologians associated with the institute actively and progressively corrupted their own theology, the unstated adjective in Heschel's mind being 'jewish', contra their own scholarship in order to make their ideas congruent, or at least acceptable, to National Socialism. This idea is a, presumably deliberate, attempt to delegitimise the Institute's theologians and their scholarship by suggesting that, in effect, they became intellectually bankrupt and tried to save their own skins by bending their scholarship to suit the ideology of National Socialism.

This is not to say an 'evolution of thought' thesis is entirely incorrect for clearly individual and group's ideas evolve, but Heschel is misinterpreting the normal evolution of ideas to mean the deliberate corruption of ideas in order to fit a preconceived notion of the world. Although to be sure all organisms with the capability to think are guilty of this to a greater or less extent (due to biological subjectivity i.e. the affect of their own biology on their intellectual thought and psychology) if Heschel's logic were to hold she would have to actually demonstrate this corruption with evidence (which she does not). Rather Heschel produces a somewhat detailed chronicle of the intellectual currents and ideas behind the formation of the institute and then implies that shows the deliberate corruption of scholarship that she wishes to indicate (as to simply invalidate the scholarship she is discussing entirely). This would evidence a normal evolution of ideas but not a corruption of ideas in so far as the institute's mission was the logical result of a long and happy trend in German theological scholarship rather than simply a reaction to the formation and consolidation of the Third Reich.

Grundmann's logic should have been clear to Heschel, as it is not only logically implied but stated in his works on the question of Jesus' material origins, in so far as she characterises Grundmann as changing his position, but in fact all Grundmann did was elaborate on his position in regards to Christ when he argued that he was by nature irracial, but the form he took was that of an Aryan. This was also in line with what had been argued by German scholars in the 19th century, as Heschel notes, as it is based on the, correct, assertion that Galilee was not racially jewish and had Judaism imposed upon them by the jews when they invaded the territory. Heschel seems to be so desperate to discredit Grundmann and Institute, in order to facilitate the claim that Jesus was a jew and therefore all Christians should be pro-jewish, that she misstates his theses constantly. One can only suggest on the basis of these distortions that they are deliberate since it is obvious Heschel has read numerous works produced by the Institute, and Grundmann in particular, but hasn't represented them accurately but has in fact added in some of the intellectual context.

Readers might find it strange that we have concentrated on Grundmann, but we have done so in order to point out Heschel's agenda in her book in so far as she continually dismissing the institute's research, misstates its arguments and spends the last chapter of her book trying to substantiate the claim that there is a sinister 'Nazi conspiracy' in Protestant Christianity centred on the postwar activities of Grundmann and the institute's scholars who by enlarge survived the war. She also tries to suggest that Grundmann and the institute's scholars were in some way partially 'responsible' for the 'persecution of the jews' and the so-called 'holocaust', which is rather absurd given that an intellectual position can't be held to be 'causing racial hatred' without directly suggesting as such in much the same way as Alan Dershowitz can't be accused, as much as one might wish to, of advocating and supporting genocide.

'The Aryan Jesus' spends a lot of time concentrating on the particulars of the institute and these to my knowledge are largey accurate in terms of narrative and correctly notes that Reichsleiter Bormann was a large rabidly anti-Christian thorn in the side of the institute and the German Christians in general. Heschel also correctly notes that Bormann forced the Institute to take more extreme positions in order to be achieve the recognition it sought from the NSDAP, but this was never to be unfortunately. Heschel's notion that much of the NSDAP membership were devout Christians who saw in the NSDAP the force for spiritual regeneration through a newly invigorated Christianity will surprise many, but if one stops to think about it: it does make intellectual sense. If the NSDAP was to achieve power it needed to draw on the conservative demographic as well as the revolutionary demographic and the foundation of the conservative demographic of Weimar was its Christianity, in particular Protestant Christianity. We should however note that the NSDAP was more successful in recruiting the Protestant faithful as opposed to the Catholic faithful, because of the existence of the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) and that the NSDAP was suspicious of the Jesuits who were seen as the powerful agents of a foreign power (the Pope).

Heschel's narrative in 'The Aryan Jesus' is generally good and it is certainly a book that we can recommend reading as it offers an interesting insight into Protestant Christianity during the Third Reich and furnishes many intellectual ideas, often in passing, that are of value to National Socialism today. However it is worth remembering that Heschel often distorts the intellectual positions of the institute and hence her comments on this score should be taken with a pinch of salt and a critical mind rather than by simple acceptance. All in all 'The Aryan Jesus' is a worthwhile addition to any National Socialist's library and essential reading to a National Socialist theologian or philosopher of religion.