These people are really confused. 👇👇

https://t.me/pugilatoNSHC/5987

Barbarossa had nothing to do with saving anyone from communism (fascism is a variation of Marxism, what Giovanni Gentile called "practical Marxism," so how could it be "anti-communist"?) These ppl are repeating what was public-facing propaganda to conceal the real agenda of murderous Lebensraum. A July 1941 secret meeting between Hitler and top brass revealed as much:

> "It was essential that we should not proclaim our aims before the whole world; also, this was not necessary, but the chief thing was that we ourselves should know what we wanted"

> "What we told the world about the motives for our measures ought to be conditioned, therefore, by tactical reasons."

> "But we do not want to make any people into enemies prematurely and unnecessarily. Therefore we shall act as though we wanted to exercise a mandate only. It must be clear to us, however, that we shall never withdraw from these areas."

> "Accordingly we should act: 1. To do nothing which may obstruct the final settlement, but to prepare for it only in secret; 2. To emphasize that we are liberators. "

> "In particular: The Crimea has to be evacuated by all foreigners and to be settled by Germans only. In the same way the former Austrian part of Galicia will become Reich territory."

> "In principle we have now to face the task of cutting up the giant cake according to our needs, in order to be able: first, to dominate it; second, to administer it; and third, to exploit it."

Obviously they couldn't just announce that they wanted to steal land from the Russians so they sold ppl a bill of goods about saving the world from Bolshevism, which they had just allied with in Molotov-Ribbentrop, an ideology that Ribbentrop himself called "a form of National Socialism" and that Goebbels said he'd "rather go down with". We need to do away with this stupid myth.

From David Irving's Hitler's War, he explains that Hitler chose the timing of the attack further East based on rumors that Stalin might sign an agreement with the Serbs, so he ordered a ruthless intervention against the Serbs killing up to 17,000 civilians in air bombings:

"Of the United States he was not afraid. But Russia must be defeated now. ‘We have the chance to 37 2 iv: ‘War of Liberation’ smash Russia while our own rear is free. That chance will not recur so soon. I would be betraying the future of the German people if I did not seize it now!’ Hitler urged his generals to have no compunctions about violating their treaty with Russia. Stalin had only cynically signed it; but he also urged them not to underestimate the Russian tanks or air force, or to rely too heavily on Germany’s allies in this fight. He drilled into his generals that this would be a war between great ideologies, and as such very different from the war in the west. ‘In the east cruelty now will be kindness for the future. The Russian commissars and GPU officials were criminals, and were to be treated as such. ‘It is not our job to see that these criminals survive.’"

> "On April 3 the political clouds began to clear: Hewel brought to Hitler a disturbing Forschungsamt intercept proving that Stalin was on the point of signing a pact with the new anti-German regime in Belgrade. It was, therefore, now or never. An hour after midnight — it was now April 6, 1941 — he sent for Dr. Goebbels. He needed company. He told Goebbels that he was going to prosecute this war against the Serbs without pity. Hitler sipped tea until five -twenty, the appointed zero hour for his attack, then retired to bed as German armoured and infantry divisions began storming the fron- tiers of Greece and Yugoslavia. Three hundred German bombers were in the air, heading for Belgrade."

> "Within twelve days of Hitler’s attack, Yugoslavia was defeated. The British Expeditionary Force found itself fighting a hopeless rearguard action against the German armoured and mountain corps which had comfortably side-stepped the formidable Metaxas line to pour into Yugoslavia and Greece. The British had committed a real blunder in purchasing the coup d’etat in Belgrade. Hitler had ordered the attack to begin with die saturation bombing of Belgrade — with an eye to the deterrent effect on other powers, notably Turkey and the Soviet Union. As many as 17,000 civilians were killed in the air raid; robbed of their nerve centre, the Yugoslav armies caved in."

Irving reports on Hitler telling his aides that Stalin had "great achievements" and was the "greatest living statesman":

> "The next day, Papen also raised Stalin’s future with Hitler, and the Fiihrer repeated what he had told Goebbels a month before — that once the Wehrmacht had occupied a certain forward line in Russia, it might be possible to find common ground with the Red dictator, who was after all a man of enormous achievements. As another diplomat — Hasso von Etzdorf — noted: ‘ [Hitler] sees two possibilities as to Stalin’s fate; either he gets bumped off by his own people, or he tries to make peace with us. Because, he says, Stalin as the greatest living statesman must realise that at sixty-six you can’t begin your life’s work all over again if it will take a lifetime to complete it; so he’ll try to salvage what he can, with our acquiescence. And in this we should meet him halfway. If Stalin could only decide to seek expansion for Russia toward the south, the Persian Gulf, as he [Hitler] recommended to him once [November 1940], then peaceful co-existence between Russia and Germany would be conceivable."

Follow @redideologies

David Irving reports on Hitler's plans for colonizing the East:

> "By mid-October 1941, despite the foul weather, Hitler was still bred widi optimism. On the thirteenth he began laying the foundations for a Nazi version of a united Europe. Hewel wrote, ‘Reich foreign minister visits the Fuhrer; first thoughts on a European manifesto. Probably in the economic sphere first of all, and probably at the beginning of the winter. Fuhrer is in very best and relaxed mood.’ Over dinner he revealed that he had been thinking of calling together the economic experts of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, and Finland. ‘All those who have a feeling for Europe can join in this work,’ he said, meaning the colonization of the east. When Todt and Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel dined with Hitler on October 17, they were brimming with everything they had just seen in the east."

> "Again Hitler dreamed aloud of the vast construction projects whereby he would open up the east. ‘Above all we must lay roads,’ Koeppen wrote that night, describing the dinner conversation: He told Dr. Todt he must expand his original projects considerably. For this purpose he will be able to make use of the three million prisoners for the next twenty years. The major roads — the Fuhrer spoke today not only of the highway to the Crimea but also of one to the Caucasus and of two or three through the more northern territories — must be laid across the areas of greatest scenic beauty. Where the big rivers are crossed, German cities must arise, as centers of the Wehrmacht, police, administration, and Party authorities."

> "Along these roads will lie the German farmsteads, and soon the monotonous steppe, with its Asiatic appearance, will look very different indeed. In ten years four million Germans will have settled there, and in twenty years at least ten million. They will come not only from the Reich but above all from America, and from Scandinavia, Holland, and Flanders too. And the rest of Europe shall play its part in this opening up of the Russian wastes as well. . . The Fuhrer then reverted to the theme that ‘contrary to what some people think’ no education or welfare is to be laid on for the native population. Knowledge of the road signs will suffice, there will be no call for German schoolmasters there."

> "By ‘freedom’ the Ukrainians understood that instead of twice they now had to wash only once a month — the Germans with their scrubbing brushes would soon make themselves unpopular there. He as Fuhrer would set up his new administration there after ice cool calculations: what the Slavs might think about it would not put him out one bit. Nobody who ate German bread today got worked up about the fact that in the twelfth century the granaries east of the Elbe were regained by the sword. Here in the east we were repeating a process for a second time not unlike the conquest of America. For climatic reasons alone we could not venture further south than the Crimea — he did not mention the Caucasus at this point — even now hundreds of our mountain troops on Crete had malaria! The Fuhrer kept repeating that he wished he was ten or fifteen years younger so he could live through the rest of this process."

Follow @redideologies

> "We want the Germany of labor. What does that mean? We want a Germany in which labor and accomplishment are the highest moral and political values. We are today a workers’ party in the best sense of the word. Once we have taken over the state, Germany will become a state of labor, a workers’ state.”

> "Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler...the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight..."

> "It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism."

All statements are from Joseph Goebbels.

Follow @redideologies

Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile uses ideological bafflegab to argue that "the individual and the state are one entity". In other words, the fascist state will enslave you to its will because, they declare, the will of citizens is the same as the state always (it's not, but this is a clever way of negating any opposition to the state by declaring "everyone agrees with the state! The state and the citizens are one organic whole!") Really dumb stuff to justify totalitarianism.

> "The Fascist conception of liberty merits passing notice. The
Duce of Fascism once chose to discuss the theme of “Force or
Consent?;” and he concluded that the two terms are inseparable,
that the one implies the other and cannot exist apart from the
other; that, in other words, the authority of the State and the
freedom of the citizen constitute a continuous circle wherein
authority presupposes liberty and liberty authority. For freedom
can exist only within the State, and the State means authority.
But the State is not an entity hovering in the air over the heads of
its citizens. It is one with the personality of the citizen. Fascism,
indeed, envisages the contrast not as between liberty and au¬
thority, but as between a true, a concrete liberty which exists,
and an abstract, illusory liberty which cannot exist."

This whole philosophy is wrapped up in thick layers of ideological claptrap. They redefine words constantly to suit their whims. "ACKTUALLY freedom means subordinating yourself to the state and doing whatever it wants.... we have achieved true freedom when you have none". It's Orwellian stuff.

Follow @redideologies

We're not the only ones asking this question. 😀

Gentile admits that fascism emerged out of George Sorel's Syndicalism which he admits "conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism". So if you follow the chain of custody (Syndicalism based on Marx, fascism based on Syndicalism, thus fascism based on Marx too):

> "It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself." - Origins and Doctrine of Fascism: With Selections from Other Works

Then he makes the weak distinction between fascism and Marxism, which rests only on the idea that national identity should also be made a component of the doctrine instead of only class:

> "Fascism combats the abstract class conception of society, rejecting the entire notion of antithetical class interests upon which the artificialities of "class struggle" rests. The concept has already been largely abandoned by theorists. Marxism succumbed to that criticism as quickly as it previously had been elevated by theorists. To the theoretical criticism, practical failure has been added with the advent of the Great War. In the circumstances of the Great War, individual societies were compelled to abandon all ideologies—in order to adapt themselves to reality. They were forced to do so by the internal and irresistible logic of their own organic nature. [The very needs of the war] testified to the solidarity and intimate unity, both moral and economic, of the constitutive classes of the social and State organism."

That's an add-on, not a fundamental change on the economic side of things. In other words, National Marxism with a synthesis of class and national identity. They merely took the economic side of Marxism and tweaked around some of the philosophical concepts, and packaged it up with patriotism and references to Italian history, in order to make Marxist socialism more appealing to the Italian masses.

Follow @redideologies

Natsoc myth #1: "Hitler tried to save Europe from Communism"

Reality: Hitler's economic doctrine was very close to Communism so how could he save Europe from something he was dutifully implementing in his own country? His Molotov-Ribbentrop pact gave a green light for Stalin to expand into Poland and the Baltics. German and Soviet troops held a joint victory parade in Poland after their joint conquest. During Molotov-Ribbentrop, both countries ceased criticizing each other and began mutual praise. Hitler privately admired Stalin and his socialist autocracy. His invasion of the USSR had little to do with ideology and everything to do with plans for Lebensraum (conquering fertile soil in the East for German ethnic/territorial expansion, which Hitler outlined clearly in MK). The "fighting Bolshevism" bit was propaganda to convince dupes to join the fight for his living space. Remember, Goebbels said he'd "rather go down with Bolshevism than capitalism".

Natsoc myth #2: "Hitler was fighting for Western civilization"

Reality: Hitler was fighting for German supremacy in Europe, not the West in general. From David Irving: "Aboard his yacht Grille at Kiel he told Goebbels in May of his vision of a United States of Europe under German leadership". Hitler said: "the goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world." Bombing and invading a dozen Western countries is a funny way of showing his love for it. Hitler and his top brass all declared Slavs an "inferior race" incapable of statecraft and compared them to animals. This is not someone who "loved the West," it is someone who loved only Germanics/Nordics and sought the subjugation of the rest of the White race. Even his love of Germans ended when he declared his people inferior and not worthy of survival because they lost the war.

Follow 👉 @redideologies

How exactly is this guy Nordic? Clearly not. Even their Nordicism was not rooted in reality, since many of them didn't have the phenotype to fit the ideology.

"In the days that followed, much to the surprise of his lunch guests, Hitler continued to express his regard for Stalin. The Soviet dictator’s life resembled his own, he told them: the Georgian, too, had worked his way up from ‘an unknown man to the leader of a state’."
Source: Volker Ullrich, Hitler Downfall ( Hans Baur, Ich flog Mächtige dieser Erde, Kempten (Allgäu), 1956, pp. 178f.)

The Nazis were definitely economic leftists (socialists).

Source

Follow @redideologies

Hitler outlines the basic socialist mentality here, that you don't work to earn your daily bread for yourself or your family, but to "serve the group". He doesn't realize that working in general serves the group, as you're providing goods or services to the group via the market. Example, if you work in a barber shop or a bakery you're providing useful services (haircuts & food) to the group that make their lives easier and they compensate you with their dollars. But if you don't earn anything for your work, then you're a slave to a group that gives you nothing in return for your service to it. How is that a fair deal?

He says:

> "The Aryan’s peculiar ability for the building up of a culture is not grounded in his intellectual gifts alone. If that were so, they could only be destructive and could never be able to organize; the innermost essence of organization demands that the individual renounce his own personal opinions and interests, and lay both at the service of the larger group. By serving the common interest, he receives his reward in return. For example, he doesn’t work directly for himself but makes his productive work a part of the activity of the group to which he belongs—not only for his own benefit, but for all. The spirit underlying this attitude is expressed by the word ‘work,’ which to him doesn't mean earning one's daily livelihood but rather a productive activity that doesn’t clash with the interests of the community."

So you don't work for yourself (or your family), but for the exclusive benefit of others? That's slavery. Slaves don't earn a wage and are forced to work against their will for the benefit of others (not surprising that Hitler had a bunch of slave labor camps). Hitler is telling you that your purpose in life is not to better your own lot, but to better the lot "of the group," even though working in general does help the group as well as yourself. If nobody worked, then society would collapse. Getting up in the morning to do a job, any kind of job (plumbing, auto repair, fishing, cooking, cleaning, child care, handiwork, construction, accounting, etc.), is helping other members of the group. So what he's saying is superfluous.

He goes on:

> "Whenever human activity is directed exclusively to the service of the instinct for self- preservation, it’s called theft, usury, robbery, burglary, etc. This state of mind, which forces self-interest into the background in favor of the community, is the first prerequisite for any true human culture. From this alone rises all the great works of humanity, that bring little reward to the creator but is a source of great blessings for posterity."

So now he is describing criminal acts like theft, but everyone already agrees that is a crime. Yeah, crime is bad. Very profound, Hitler. He then says that the great works of humanity "bring little reward to the creator". That's just not true. The great works bring different types of rewards to the creator. It could be monetary compensation, personal fulfillment (enjoyment), or admiration/respect from others. Often, all of those things go together. Think about a painter. A painter gets personal enjoyment from painting. It is his love, his passion. That is a reward in itself. What could come later is other rewards like money, fame, respect, etc. But if the artist got $0 from his work en perpetuity, he would have to do something else to earn his daily bread and do art purely as an entertaining hobby. If the creator got no reward at all from the work, he wouldn't have done it in the first place.

He goes on:

> "It’s this spirit alone that explains why a people can endure a harsh but honest existence, but at the same time consolidates the foundations on which the community exists. Every worker, every peasant, every inventor, state official who works without ever achieving fortune or prosperity for himself is a representative of this sublime idea—even though he may never become conscious of the profound meaning of his own activity."

Continued from above...

He's endorsing a poverty cult here, basic socialist thinking. He's preaching the idea of pure selflessness, charity and putting yourself at the mercy of strangers' benefit. Very few humans embrace such a worldview, other than maybe religious monks. Every human has the capacity for charity and selflessness, some more than others, but it is against human nature to care more for others than yourself. Would anyone expect a father to care more for the children of others than his own, even if of the same nationality/ethnic group? It doesn't make sense to do that, it is against natural instinct.

What Hitler is preaching here played out in the Third Reich and all socialist states. One aspect of that is foregoing personal desires for whatever is deemed required by the state. Think about career. Say you want to be a film director. That's your dream. Well, too bad Johnny, the socialist state says there's no need for more film directors, instead you're going to work in a factory building armaments for the regime. If you refuse, you're being a "selfish individualist" and are put in a concentration camp. That's exactly what happened in every socialist state. Citizens could rarely choose their own path in life but be assigned one by the state. You are a cog in a machine, any personal desires thrown out the window for the "benefit of the group," which conveniently is decided by the bureaucrats themselves to suit their own whims/desires. The bureaucrats themselves have selfish desires that they demand you support with your labor (like Hitler's Lebensraum dream), but somehow they're not being selfish for demanding their citizens sacrifice everything for their grandiose pet projects, right?

It's all hypocritical nonsense to justify raw power and the elimination of any dissent from the State.

Follow @redideologies

Hitler thought of the German masses as dull and dumb who could only understand simplistic mantra-like phrases. A true lover of his people.

From MK:

> "The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings—that is, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will appeal to the hearts of the masses. The fact that our ‘bright boys’ don't understand this merely shows their conceit and mental laziness. Once we see the need to concentrate the persuasive forces of propaganda on the masses, the following lesson results: It’s a mistake to make propaganda multi-sided, as if it were a system of scientific instruction. The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials, and those must be expressed in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forth. If this principle is forgotten, and if an attempt is made to be abstract and general, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; the public won’t be able to digest or retain what’s offered to them in this way."

Follow @redideologies