Lane, Barbara Miller and Rupp, Leila J.. nαzι Ideology before 1933: A Docuмentation (Kindle Locations 2719-2860). University of Texas Press. Kindle Edition.

In A New Aristocracy Based on Blood and Soil (Munich: Lehmann Verlag, 1930), a chapter of which is excerpted here, Darré proposed a comprehensive eugenics program.

(. . .)

Marriage Laws and the Principles of Breeding

R. W. Darré

The German Empire will not rise again until the good German blood rises again – Ruedolf

“It annoys me to see how much trouble is taken to cultivate pineapples, bananas and other exotic plants in this rough climate, when so little care is given to the human race. Whatever people say, a human being is more valuable than all the pineapples in the world. He is the plant we must breed; he deserves all our trouble and care, for he is the ornament and the glory of the Fatherland” (Frederick the Great).1 Doubtless if Frederick the Great had had the misfortune to be our contemporary, the host of his historic enemies would have been swelled by a group of Germans who would damn him utterly for his audacity in wanting to apply the laws of plant cultivation to the human race. For today it is part of the intellectual equipment of the “complete idealist” that he views the application to mankind of any breeding principles, learned from the world of plants or animals, as an expression of the worship of matter. He regards such things as “materialism” in the worst sense of the word.

This kind of negative attitude toward the application of principles of “breeding” to mankind is generally rooted in ideological considerations. Let me say something about that now, because one cannot very well create “aristocracy” without somehow subjecting it to principles of breeding.

The fact that today’s German sees any effort to couple breeding questions with those of the public good as contrary to idealism is in itself a peculiarity in intellectual history. What these Germans now condemn was for centuries considered by our people to be an expression of custom and morality. It is perhaps even more peculiar that this is happening in a people which as recently as about a century ago would not permit an apprentice to become a master unless he could show proof of his unobjectionable descent; nor could he retain the rank of master if he chose a girl of unknown or undesired origin as his wife. In Germany until well into the nineteenth century, not only the nobility, but also groups of craftsmen and Germanic peasants very consciously pursued a policy of selective breeding. It is surprising to discover in the old traditions the extent to which German marriage laws were filled with wisdom about the interdependence of blood and culture, especially in those cases where the Germans intentionally erected a blood barrier, as for example toward the Slavs. Today our people seem to have lost all this wisdom, and we have carelessly gone so far that he who points out the need to pay attention to such things runs the risk of antagonizing some of the best of our people.

Today antagonism begins quite often with a certain excitement about the word breeding. But it is not so that the application of this term to human propagation would import something new from animal and plant breeding! No, in earlier times the word “breeding” was used for everything living; only later did the term nearly disappear in its application to mankind, while remaining in use for animals and plants.

The derivation of the word Zucht [breeding, cultivation] is very clear, too: Our word Zucht belongs to the verb ziehen [to pull, to draw, to grow]. One of the meanings of the verb ziehen is illuminated by the usage das und das ziehen [to grow such and such], in the sense of “to cultivate,” züchten. Old High German zuhtîg-pregnant, with child-is derived from the same verb stem; in Middle High German it was still zühtic-polite, well-bred-but having the essential meaning of “fertile,” “fruitbearing.” The component meaning of “cultivation” in ziehen can also be shown in its Germanic prototypes: Dutch tucht, Afrikaans tocht-procreativity, procreation; Gothic ustaùhts-completion (Weigand, Deutsches Wörterbuch). In this way usages in Middle High German such as Züchten [in Züchten) to mean “chastity” are explained. A züchtige maiden was thus not one who ignored sex, but a girl constantly conscious of her “obligation to breed.”

Zucht was actually for our ancestors everything related to procreation within the framework of accepted possibilities. Therefore the contrary of Zucht in this sense was Unzucht [unchaste behavior, prostitution]. Unzucht was applied to all sɛҳuąƖ actions which grossly violated the limits placed on sɛҳuąƖ intercourse by popular morality and custom. It must be emphasized that the word Unzucht has been differently understood in the course of German cultural history. Thus, for example, our ancestors did not describe illegitimacy as unchaste if nothing disadvantageous could be brought up against the descent of the parents of the child; such behavior was perhaps improper, perhaps even immoral (at least in the view of the Christian church), but in no way unchaste. Today, on the contrary, a married person who gives birth to an illegitimate child is punishable by civil law, that is, indirectly punishable, since illegitimacy is grounds for divorce, and therefore, strictly speaking, is considered unchaste….

Züchtung [breeding] is applied knowledge of heredity. It is unimportant whether this knowledge of heredity has been gained by belief in a divine creation of the clan, or by belief in descent from an original ancestor, or by observation of human life, or by both of these together (as was obviously the case with our forefathers), or whether one uses modern instruments, like calipers, tape measure, magnifying glass, learned experiments and calculations, to establish that physical and mental abilities are indeed hereditary, that human beings are hereditarily different. The fact that until well into the nineteenth century, the whole status system and social order of our people originated in equality of birth in marriage is enough to show clearly that our people had been inspired by the idea of breeding (in the earliest sense of the term) for one and a half millennia-and this in spite of Christianity, which circuмstance is really the greatest peculiarity. Each rank consciously engaged in breeding: each rank supervised its own procreation by rejecting in marriage the next of kin and selecting from among other suitable girls. It does not matter whether the model for selection was firmly anchored in the consciousness, easily grasped, as it were, in material terms (and underlying racial evaluations, as is more or less clear in the case of the prescriptions against the Slavs), or whether it was only an indirect result of mental and physical merits of more immediate importance (such as might have come up, for example, in evaluating a girl as a housewife, etc.). In either case they understood the significance of the woman with her genetic inheritance for the ups and downs of the clan and tried to the best of their knowledge and ability to protect from harm the institution of marriage, which controls the direction of the clan’s journey into the future, toward good or evil.

If therefore until about a hundred years ago no journeyman-not to speak of noblemen or urban patricians-could become a master without having proved that he was born in “legal wedlock,” and that for his four grandparents the same was true, it proves that for one and a half millennia German culture consciously built upon the concept of breeding: a concept of breeding which controlled the legal order and was itself conditioned by it, and which must be seen as the rock upon which the culture of the German people rested, as if created for eternity. It therefore shows either simple thoughtlessness or serious ignorance of the history of German culture and customs when Germans among us today attack the science of heredity by arguing that it is degrading to the German soul to use the word “breeding”-this concept of “animal” breeding-in any connection with Germans.

The old German marriage law, fused with the goals of breeding and with the prerogatives of rank, worked on the one hand as a filter which permitted complete procreation only to that blood which had been tested in constructive work; on the other hand as a safety device to protect the tested blood against the struggle of life sufficiently so that the founding of families and the number of children would not suffer. This old German marriage law was the wall which protected valuable German humanity, which kept subhumans outside the German social order and limited very considerably their opportunities to reproduce themselves, even sometimes making it impossible. It must be emphasized that the present victory of “subhumanity” (which caused the North American Lothrop Stoddard to write his well-known work, The Cultural Revolution, the Threat of the Subhuman,2 and has made our geneticists look for the cause of the population excess among the inferior and undesirable races, that is, those races which influence the German social order in an undesirable way) could only become a problem to the German people when, about a hundred years ago, Hardenberg adopted a course which necessarily had to end in the final dissolution of all marriage restrictions, a situation which has now been reached.3 Read what Freiherr vom Stein, with his clear understanding of the causal interrelationships within the German people, prophesied as the result of these insane measures: it is easy to see that our present situation is solely the result of having at that time turned away from German views of marriage, thereby creating the foundation for a rank proliferation of inferiors of all colors. When today people talk about the “birthrate war among the races” as the cause of decline, they are confusing cause and effect.

Every legal order has not only an educational but also a breeding effect upon the whole of a people, even if this is not always apparent to the individual. The social order is the formal expression of the law, come alive. To use an analogy from natural science: the social order burns up as fuel the residual values of the people. It is less important that something is burned up than what is burned up. This “what” determines the “how” of the social order, which is directly dependent on the legal order. Therefore one can say that the legal order has the decisive significance for the fate of the hereditary values of a people, since it determines which human values are furthered and which limited or even eliminated. The form of the law in turn is an expression of a certain world view. So we get the following chain of causes and effects: world view-legal order-social order-breeding-human physical characteristics. As applied to our people this means: Christianity and the late Roman Empire changed the world view of the Germanic peoples; hand in hand with this change went a change in legal concepts in an un-Germanic direction; it is therefore, as shown above, thoroughly logical that Germanic-German culture and the Germanic physical characteristics of Germans are being more and more displaced by an un-Germanic humanity.

Wildhagen (in his excellent The English National Character) points to the selective and thus shaping force of the English social order which, erected on the foundation of the old Saxon law, was formed by English history but not essentially changed.4 Of course Wildhagen underestimates the value and significance of race. For neither the developments which we observe in a thousand years of English history nor the English social order of today produced the Englishman as he is today. It is rather the case that the Englishman had within himself the power to endow his political life with a legal order which through its fixing of a goal and its selective effects created a social order which by itself kept the original Germanic humanity of the Anglo-Saxons alive. This social order was to some extent able to maintain itself surprisingly unchanged up to the present and also to respond to external challenges in a reasonably consistent manner.

He who leaves the plants in a garden to themselves will soon find to his surprise that the garden is overgrown by weeds and that even the basic character of the plants has changed. If therefore the garden is to remain the breeding ground for the plants, if, in other words, it is to lift itself above the harsh rule of natural forces, then the forming will of a gardener is necessary, a gardener who, by providing suitable conditions for growing, or by keeping harmful influences away, or by both together, carefully tends what needs tending, and ruthlessly eliminates the weeds which would deprive the better plants of nutrition, air, light and sun. Exactly thus, speaking now of the folk, was the old German legal order intended, whose weeding and tending (which no doubt arose out of the blood consciousness of the Germanic peoples, based on an ideological foundation) created the conditions of existence needed for life and growth.

Thus we are facing the realization that questions of breeding are not trivial for political thought, but that they have to be at the center of all considerations, and that their answers must follow from the spiritual, from the ideological attitude of a people. We must even assert that a people can only reach spiritual and moral equilibrium if a well-conceived breeding plan stands at the very center of its culture….

It has become apparent that what we call human culture and what “history” shows as its essential meaning were obviously dependent on some very specific races and still are. Thus the concept of race left the purely scientific realm and began to become an instrument in evaluating people in relation to culture and customs. This racial theory was developed by ethnology; today applied ethnology is already attempting to utilize the findings of ethnology for human society.

Actually the procedures of this evaluation should be very simple. If it can be established that this or that race is exclusively or predominantly responsible for creating a culture, and that the condition and persistence of this culture depend upon the race concerned, then basically the task is very easy: that race, upon which the culture to be sought or to be maintained depends, is to be preserved and furthered. But strangely enough this simple conclusion is drawn by only a few; even fewer are those who set forth demands based on it. A great proportion of the ethnologists, together with a correspondingly large audience, want to transfer the scientist’s objectivity toward natural phenomena to races and cultural questions as well. But we are evading life itself if we are unwilling, or no longer able, to express our opinion of life….

Today we pursue only population increase, not breeding. We are surprised that German culture more and more disappears. But the general public in Germany is already too cowardly-for ultimately it is a question of cowardice!-to analyze these phenomena and find their causes. Or has the logical ability of the German people already diminished so much that it can no longer recognize the causes? Population increase alone is of no use at all; the important thing is the heredity of the children. But if we could ask our children what they have to say about this, they could only answer:

We are becoming fewer and fewer!

and:

We are becoming more and more inferior!5

And thus our customs are condemned to death: they are useless! That is the truth! Let us at least have the courage to admit at last that it is the truth, and that fine speeches about our “belief in Germany’s future” and similar subjects help matters not at all, even if made in frock coat, top hat, and officially; we are helped even less by sentimental, edifying discussions of the evils of modernity and the superiority of a pure and noble German soul.

Let us return to the customs of our forefathers: they sufficed to keep German culture alive for one and a half millennia. Let us reeducate our girls to a full understanding of the old German concept of Züchtigkeit [chastity]. For our ancestors it was not that bashful girl who had no knowledge of the facts of her sex who was züchtig [chaste], but she who consciously prepared herself to become a mother and as a mother to rule over a large number of children. Having children, for these women, was not exercising the right of selfdetermination but fulfilling their responsibility to the next generation; for them, service to the clan was still a guiding principle of life: their task was the preservation, furthering and increase of their kind. These women knew about breeding and it was their pride.

They did not feel degraded to a “brood-mare,” as is the silly objection voiced today by those who apparently understand the highly praised “personal freedom” of the woman to mean only the freedom to taste all the joys of a “bedfellow” at their discretion and preferably without limit. Instead it was the pride of these women to become the ancestress of a noble clan and to receive the confirmation of her own value in her noble son. There’s nothing better for a boy than to Have had a good and noble father and To marry well. I can’t approve of those Who go below their station out of love And compromise their sons through their own lust. (Euripides, Heraclides)6 If in our plan to create a new nobility, the concept of marriage includes breeding, we are not thereby importing anything animallike and unworthy of human beings. We are but resuming the best spiritual and moral traditions of our ancestors, while cleansing and clarifying them with the findings and researches of modern genetics. Thus we can thereby discredit any suspicion of “materialism.”

Ludecke, Kurt G. W.. I Knew Hitler (The Third Reich From Original Sources) (Kindle Location 929-944. Coda Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

It was a bitter disappointment, and to it was added the sorrow of his beloved mother’s death. Lonely and baffled, with only fifty crowns to his name, he went to Vienna early in 1909 to get along as best he could. He was then almost twenty.

(. . .)

A Roman Catholic, but never a good one, he soon ceased going to Mass and to confession.

Ludecke, Kurt G. W.. I Knew Hitler (The Third Reich From Original Sources) (Kindle Locations 9227-9282). Coda Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

We were cut short by the arrival of wine, coffee, sandwiches, ‘and cakes, and we all settled down round Hitler, who had ‘stretched himself in a chair near the window, obviously enjoying ‘his role of host and master, with disciples at his feet. Our talk ran on at random for a while, until I was able to tug it round to a subject I was much interested in. Something gave me occasion to remark that it was fortunate for the nαzι movement that it had been born in Catholic Bavaria, which was more Church-ridden than Protestant Prussia; it would have been harder to bring Bavaria into a racial movement which hadn’t originated there.

I was thinking of an article in which I had said that religious and social energy must be developed in equal strength in the German liberator, and I wanted to see how clearly Hitler was foreseeing the religious controversy that must inevitably come, and also to know what role he was going to play in it.  The Fuehrer took my bait and began to lecture rather professorially. “Yes, it was indeed good fortune that National Socialism started in Black Bavaria, and that’s why Munich will always remain the capital of the movement. Naturally, practical politics demands that, for the time being at least, we must avoid any appearance of a campaign against the Church.” He was careful to emphasize again that he was a Politiker, with no ambition to become a prophet. But National Socialism, he said, was a weltanschauung and in fact a religion which was now building itself up and disseminating itself, except that its forms of activity and of propaganda were different.

In ancient Rome, for example, Christianity had been able to mobilize masses in a way that the old polytheistic religions never could. “And now in turn,” he added, “National Socialism is able to influence greater masses at once than the Church possibly can.” By this time he was talking entirely to me; it is his habit to centre himself on one person when he gets warmed up. The others were listening intently enough except the good Hoffmann, who seemed slightly bored and had concentrated on the wine with such good effect that just about here he dumped the bottle over, and the precious liquid spilled over the priceless little table at his side and on to the priceless rug. Hitler stopped. He looked up frowning, lifting his shoulders in annoyance, but said nothing. There was an awkward silence, in which Hoffmann blushed like a child, mumbled something, and disappeared.  Hitler spoke at last. “Na-ach-where was I?” he said, snapping his fingers. “Oh, yes, Ludecke, if you want to see my meaning illustrated, you need only go to the funeral of a fallen nαzι and watch the Storm Troopers ranked about the grave. Watch their faces, blank while the priest is reading the service”-and here he stopped long enough to imitate a priest mumbling the litany, fingering an imaginary rosary, and spreading hands in blessing (an excellent performance, as always)-“and then see them light up when the nαzι leader lifts the flag and begins to speak words of flame over the dead.

“Yes, National Socialism is a form of conversion, a new faith, but we don’t need to raise that issue-it will come of itself. Just as I insist on the mathematical certainty of our coming to power, because might always attracts might, and the traditional wings, whether they be Right or Left, constructive or destructive, will always attract all the activist elements, leaving only a juiceless pulp in the middle-just so do I insist on the certainty that sooner or later, once we hold the power, Christianity will be overcome and the ‘Deutsche Kirehe’ established. Yes, the German Church, without a Pope and without the Bible-and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.”  Hitler was ablaze now, and I could see the ideas of Rosenberg’s Mythus working in him. When he shouted with passionate energy: “Of course, I myself am a heathen to the core!” it seemed to me that the form this church might take was implicit in the words.  “No, Ludecke, we don’t need to declare this fight openly. It would be political stupidity to show the masses too many enemies at once. The political victory can only follow if the fight is concentrated against the fewest possible number of enemies-for the time being, the Marxists and the Jews. Then will come the turn of the Reaktion, and the end of that will mean the end of the Christian church-and the opening of our own temples, our own shrines.

The French Revolution, Bolshevism, all of Marxism, in fact, our whole deformity and atrophy of spirit and soul would never have come into being except for this oriental mummery, this abominable levelling mania, this cursed universalism of Christianity, which denies racialism and preaches suicidal tolerance.”  Someone remarked here that the Jews were pointing to Christ as the first Communist.  “Quite so,” Hitler nodded. “Jesus Christus,” he said thoughtfully, in a quieter, almost solemn voice. “It is the tragedy of the Germanic world that no German ‘Heiland’ was born among us; that our organic, spiritual evolution was suddenly violently interrupted; that Jesus was judaized, distorted, falsified, and an alien Asiatic spirit was forced upon us. That is a crime we must repair.”

There was much more talk that night, but none so portentous as that I have reported here. I thought of Hitler’s words months later when, as Chancellor, he put on the great show in Potsdam that he had foretold in our talk at the Kaiserhof--a tremendous, solemn celebration to proclaim the epochal nature of the great change in Germany. It was done in full harmony with tradition; the ceremonies were opened with both Lutheran and Catholic services, attended as a matter of course by all the potentates - Hindenburg and all the dignitaries of Church and State. But while these preliminaries were in progress, Hitler went with Goebbels to lay a wreath on the grave of Horst Wessel in a Berlin cemetery. As the act not only of a party leader but of the Chancellor of a Christian country, it was an intended affront to the Christian nature of that country and a challenge to the Catholic Church, of which the Fuehrer was nominally a member. The story went about that Hitler did it because he had been refused communion by the Church -sheer nonsense in view of the fact that for years he had not set foot in a church to confess and pray, probably never since the war. He was plainly throwing down his glove to the Church that had refused church funerals to dead SA heroes and had threatened Catholic nαzιs with excommunication. And the Catholic Church evidently weighed the gesture and realized its own situation, for it adopted a more conciliatory attitude.

Evola, Julius. Notes on the Third Reich (Kindle Locations 659-764). Arktos. Kindle Edition.

IV

After this we shall pass to a brief examination of aspects of the Third Reich that are relevant to race, its worldview and the Jєωιѕн problem.

 We have already mentioned the racial background presented by the concept of Volk, which gave rise to a type of ‘ethnic nationalism’ or ‘nationalism of birth.’ Point 4 of the original programme of the National Socialist Party already distinguished the true citizen (Reichsbürger) from the ‘member of the state’ (Staats-angehöriger) on a biological and racial basis in the following terms: ‘He alone is to be considered a citizen with full rights who is a comrade by birth (Volksgenossen) and is of German blood without regard to religious confession.’

The concept of ‘member of the state’ is, on the other hand, purely juridical. It refers to all those who are bound by a simple, formal membership in the state only by not being foreigners. Hitler had considered scandalous the fact that, for so long, the ethnic-racial concept of citizenship was not taken into account, that acquisition of citizenship could ‘take place no differently from admission to an automobile club;’ that is, all it would take is ‘a request so that, by the decision of a bureaucrat, something happens that not even Heaven can do: a stroke of a pen and a Zulu or a Mongol becomes a pure German.’[136] Birth in a German territory could define the simple quality of being a ‘member of the state.’ By itself, it should not give the right to hold public office or exercise political activity.

According to the views expressed by Hitler in his Mein Kampf, becoming a ‘citizen,’ a real member of the Reich, would require a further validation, based, in addition to race, on physical health and then on an oath of allegiance, solemnly sworn and shown to the Volksgemeinschaft, the community of birth. Only then would the applicant receive a ‘certificate of citizenship,’ which would be ‘like a bond that unites all classes and covers every abyss.’ Hitler goes so far as to affirm that ‘being a street cleaner in a Reich like this would signify a greater honour than being a king in a foreign state.’[137] With these words and others like them that attest a completely plebeian spirit, Hitler offered as much as was needed so that any German who was not born from the mixture with ‘non-Aryan’ or Jєωιѕн blood could raise his head.

In addition, in Point 6 of the original programme of the nαzι party he says, ‘The right to decide on the direction of the state can be recognised only for citizens who are comrades by birth. Therefore we request that any public office in the Reich, in the provinces and the districts be occupied by a citizen of the Reich.’ Once he had seized power, he began implementing this programme. Early retirement was granted all those bureaucrats who did not merit the full qualification of ‘comrade by birth.’ (The requirement for this was not having Jєωιѕн blood, or blood from another non-Aryan race, in one’s ancestry going back three generations.)

The same provision was then adopted in regard to those functionaries who, although they were ‘Aryan,’ had nevertheless married or planned to marry a woman who belonged to a non-Aryan race. In the case of a fait accompli, that is of a functionary, official, professor, and so on who had married a non-Aryan women before the promulgation of these laws, the choice was left of divorce or losing his position. At first some exceptions were made for veterans or relatives of decorated veterans who had fallen in the First World War. Other exceptions could be considered by the Ministry of the Interior in agreement with an official who was a specialist in matters related to functionaries stationed abroad, for whom an essentially discretionary and pragmatic criterion was followed. Other exceptions could be dictated by reasons of state for those who had deserved well of the Reich. Hence the curious qualification of Ehrenarier, or ‘honorary Aryan,’ which however should strictly speaking have had as counterpart the title of Ehrenjude, that is, ‘honorary Jew,’ ‘honorary Levantine,’ and so on, to be applied to the many who, although biologically ‘Aryan,’ were not so in character, behaviour or spirit. Other laws extended similar measures even beyond the narrowly political and governmental sphere to the cultural, professional and even religious sphere.

In regard to religion, the ‘Aryan clause’ created conflicts with both Catholics and Protestants because, on the basis of the clause, pastors and holders of other religious offices in the two churches who had had ancestors of non-Aryan blood up to the third generation could not be authorised to exercise their functions in the Third Reich. This was naturally unacceptable from the Christian point of view, which is that of the essential equality of all creatures and of the super-racial character of the priesthood, which in Catholicism is established only by a sacrament. The only Christians who accepted the new disposition were the so-called German Christians in the Protestant camp, who voted for certain laws and elected bishops who were dependent on a central bishop of the Reich who was obliged to swear loyalty to the head of state, that is, Hitler. Similarly, there were plans to form a ‘German National Church’[138] (Rosenberg, Hauer,[139] Bergmann,[140] etc.).

The racial idea affected the political idea so strongly that Hitler wrote, ‘The state represents not an end but a means. It is the premise for the formation of a superior human culture, without being, however, the principle that creates such a culture. This principle, or cause, is uniquely the presence of a race that is fit for culture. Even if there had been hundreds of model states on the Earth, should Aryan man, the bearer of culture, become extinct, there would no longer be a culture at the spiritual level of today’s superior nations… We must distinguish with the greatest accuracy the state, which is the “vessel,” from the race, which is the “content.” This vessel has a purpose only if it is capable of holding and protecting the content. Otherwise it makes no sense.’[141] ‘The defence of the race’ is therefore proposed as the primary goal of the state. This is the source of the so-called ‘Laws for the Defence of German Blood and Honour.’[142]

On the one hand, prohibiting mixed marriages and even mixed unions, under the penalty of suffering the consequences, was intended to protect the racial substance of the body of citizens of the Reich from further mutating crossbreeding. Later, various eugenic measures were considered that were intended to prevent, even among ‘Aryan’ Germans, offspring who were genetically tainted.  The role that ‘myth’ played in all this is clear, as well as its confusing the concept of ‘race’ with the concept of the nation (which ends up basically democratising and degrading the former). Further, no thought was given to defining in positive, even spiritual, terms the concept of ‘Aryan.’ It implicitly allowed every German to think that he was preeminently the ‘Aryan’ to whom was attributed the creation and origin of every higher culture. This was the incentive for a baleful arrogance that was more than nationalist (and completely foreign to the traditional Right). It had, on the one hand, an undeniable efficacy in the emotional mobilisation of the German masses, but also deleterious consequences, inter alia, in the policy followed by nαzι Germany in occupied territories, as we shall discuss later. In reality, when the more serious racialist authors had spoken of the ‘Aryan,’ they had had in view a rather extensive genus in which ‘German’ (and also ‘Germanic’) could figure only as a particular species.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain himself,[143] who was highly respected by Alfred Rosenberg, the principal ideologue of nαzιsm, had used ‘Aryan’ to refer to a ‘Celtic-German-Slavic complex.’ If, therefore, the concept of race had an unclear content in National Socialist propaganda and legislation and suffered a collectivising degradation, on the other hand a different and more selective direction was asserted in the Third Reich, although less officially. Here the reader can return to what we have said in considering the sense, purpose and acceptable aspects of the ‘racist’ turn of Italian Fascism. If generic racism was a simple expedient for reinforcing national self-consciousness — here, as we have said, the attitude was not very different from the one assumed by England in its empire concerning other races, for instance — since modern race doctrine does not consider only the large-scale anthropological divisions, but also ‘races’ as special articulations inside each race, including the White or ‘Aryan’ race, we should recognise that, in reference to this scholarship, Germany does not represent the expression of a single, pure and homogeneous racial stock, but in general is a mixture of several ‘races’ (in this second, more differentiated sense). This is the basis for the move to a second-level racism, so to speak.

The collectivist idea that the Aryan-German Volk and Volksgemeinschaft should be delimited, defended and manipulated in a totalitarian fashion on the basis of Gleichschaltung came to be replaced by the idea that not all the racial components of the German people had the same value, and that the higher, more qualified element was that of the Nordic or ‘Nordid’ race. In addition, plans were developed that were intended to develop this component in the Third Reich, to guarantee it positions of supremacy. With an eye now not only on the biological element, but also on definite gifts of character and a definite vision of life, the term Aufnordung was coined, that is the ‘Nordification,’ of the German people. To elevate it, it would be necessary to try to give a prevalent ‘Nordic’ stamp to the German people. If this initiative was not asserted in the Third Reich in the official seats of power, it was, however, viewed from on high with sympathy and played a significant role in some organisations of which we shall soon speak, notably the SS. Nevertheless, to the German man in the street there was no lack of motives for rather ironic reflections about the state of affairs, because, in relation to race, Hitler was not at all a pure ‘Nordic’ type, nor were his closest collaborators and the heads of the Party, like Goebbels, Himmler himself, Ley, Bormann, and so on. (At most one could mention Rosenberg, Heydrich and von Schirach).[144] On the other hand, Hindenburg and Bismarck were physically of Nordic stock, but ‘Phalic,’[145] while the Nordic element in the Prussian was strongly mixed with the ‘Ostid’ (Slavic). If anywhere, the Nordic element could be rather clearly recognised especially in the officer corps, the aristocracy and some non-urban stocks in the provinces. 

At any rate, from our point of view, for a global evaluation of German racism, the German-Aryan presumption under which, as Hitler proclaimed, being a street sweeper in the Reich should be considered a greater honour than being the king of a foreign country, should seem a demagogic aberration. Nonetheless, the fact remains that, even from the point of view of the Right, a certain balanced consciousness and dignity of ‘race’ can be considered as salutary, if we think where we have ended up in our days with the exaltation of the Negro and all the rest, the psychosis of anti-colonialism, and ‘integrationist’ fanaticism, all of which are phenomena occurring parallel to the decline of Europe and the West as a whole. In the second place, when dealing with Fascism, we have already recognised the legitimacy that could be offered by the ideal of a new, superior human type at the centre of a general process of crystallisation, rectification and formation of a nation’s substance, on the condition that we do not excessively emphasise the biological aspect in this ideal, but only if we particularly stress the ‘race of the spirit.’ Instead, in National Socialist racism it was precisely this biological aspect that played a significant role and indulged in wishful thinking by means of a ‘scientistic’ mental deformation, when it was thought that all that had to be done was to discover prophylaxis and erect barriers against crossbreeding and miscegenation, along with more eugenic measures, so that lost virtues would reappear, the idea being that, almost automatically, man would arise again as the creator of a higher culture.

Today we see populations like the Norwegian, Swedish and Dutch that present a high degree of racial and even ‘Nordic’ purity, but within they are more or less lifeless, spiritually bastardised, and deprived of the virtues that characterised them in other epochs.  An essential point that cannot be overlooked in the present essay, but cannot be adequately developed either, is National Socialism’s anti-Judaism and our judgment upon it. For Hitler, the Hebrew is the mortal enemy of the Aryan race, in particular of the German people. He is the bearer of a force that acts in a destructive sense, the subversive contaminator in the bosom of the cultures and societies within which he seeks, on the other hand, to assure himself power and influence. We should recognise that in Hitler anti-Semitism played the role of a true idée fixe, of which, in this almost paranoid aspect, it is not possible to completely explain its origins and which had tragic consequences. In his writings and speeches, Hitler over and over again attributes to the Jew the cause of every evil. He truly believed that the Jew was the only obstacle to the creation of an ideal German national society, and he made this obsession an essential ingredient in his propaganda.

( . . . )

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/adolf-wagner1.htm

Background: Adolf Wagner was the Gauleiter for Munich. In this article from Der Schulungsbrief, the party monthly for political education, he goes after the Church for failing to grant total power to National Socialism. This was published during a general public assault on the Church and its institutions alleging sɛҳuąƖ improprieties, among other things. This article is apparently exerpted from a speech, although the details are not given..

The source: “Männer der Bewegung sprechen,” Der Schulungsbrief, 3 ( August 1936), 293-294.

---

Men of the Movement Speak

Good fortune probably determined that Adolf Hitler began his battle against the destruction of our German people in Munich. Here in Munich he found the concentrated strength that wanted to restore the roots of the German nation. And when the Red Internationale was replaced by the Black Internationale [a reference to religious opponents of nαzιsm] it did not change the battlefront for the young National Socialist movement since the enemy remained the same, even if its color changed.

Through tough and bitter fighting, the National Socialist movement threw these destructive forces to the ground. Finally the National Socialist revolution triumphed in the entire Reich; here in Bavaria the old leaders were tossed out on 9 March [1933]. There are not many Red Internationalists left in Bavaria. The most dangerous are in Dachau.

We do not need to bother with those noble and bourgeois elements that look with hopeful but nervous hearts to plans to restore the Hapsburgs in Austria and something similar in Bavaria. These elements are old and insignificant.

Things are entirely different in the churches, particularly with the Catholic Church. We must unfortunately recognize that although the great majority of the lower-level clergy have come to loyally support the state, the higher-level clergy, most prominently several bishops, have taken nearly every opportunity to oppose the National Socialist state and our movement.

I say this today not only because I have the opportunity to speak to you gathered in this room. I mention it because of a report of a sermon at the end of May by the Bishop of Eichstätt, Dr. Michael Nackl at confirmation in Ingolstadt. The Bishop of Eichstätt said in a subtle, but unmistakable way that the Church had sole claim to the worldview education of baptized Catholic youth. He proclaimed the same right with regards to Catholic organizations. He was just as subtle but unmistakable in objecting to a ban of political activity on the part of priests. He said that the party’s slogan of the previous year, that the political revolution was over and that ‘the National Socialist movement’s worldview battle for people’s minds’ was an attack on the Church, on Catholic bishops, priests, indeed on Catholicism in general. He said that he had to speak the truth openly since he was German, loyal and honest.

I want to reply to the Bishop of Eichstätt in just as German a manner, just as loyally and honestly: If a worldview claims political power, that worldview must demonstrate its right to claim political power by its achievements. During its three years of total power in Germany, the National Socialist worldview has proven in Germany that its demand for total power was justified, and that it also has the right in the future to maintain this total demand for power. 99% of the German people approved of this [in the referendum] on 29 March. And the National Socialist worldview’s economic achievements of the past three years have proven that it was, and will remain worthy, to claim that total economic power. National Socialism’s total power in political and economic matters has lifted an oppressed, defeated, economically ruined people into a free, proud, and hard-working people.

If the National Socialist worldview further demands the totality of youth education, it is equally as justified, since the German youth has left behind the fragmentation under which it once suffered and is on the way to becoming a healthy, productive youth. We know that our youth is better off in the hands of the HJ and the BDM than in the hands of some sort of monastic institution which is today the subject of criminal investigation, the findings of which are a disgrace not only for the Church, but for the entire German people.

The laws of National Socialism are unalterable. The laws of the National Socialist worldview are the laws of the Third Reich. We require and demand that everyone respect these laws, even bishops. All the questions that the Bishop of Eichstätt mentions are clearly regulated. It is senseless to object.

We recommend putting the time to better use: keeping order, cleanliness, fear of God, and honesty in the ancient body of the Church and its institutions. The National Socialist worldview will follow its path, not resting until the German nation is once again great and splendid.

Our daily worship is go to our workplaces to build the German nation. And our daily prayer is work for the nation.

This demonstrates that the nαzι ideology is a contradiction to the Catholic Church.

It demonstrates that Bishops involved themselves in political matters, and thus came into conflict with the government of their country.  The Germans were preoccupied with the Bolsheviks both in and out of their country.
They were harsh to those who impeded this end. They were right. Thanks to the allies, the communists won the war and now the whole of Europe and most of the world is a contradiction to the Catholic Church.

When a political issue involves morality then the bishops have the obligation to speak up. Abortion for example,  

Wrong again. That would've been a breach of the Reichskonkordat.

Jesus told the apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations. He didn't say preach the Gospel to all the nations except Germany. When an issue involves faith and morals the bishops have the obligation to speak out. There is no "deal" or concordat that can do away with that obligation.   

You sound like a protestant. The clergy were not to involve themselves in politics as the Holy See agreed to.

I join you in our joint opposition to the Church being involved in partisan politics. However it is the obligation of the Church to address issues relating to faith and morality.

This is a timely podcast and confirms what I've been saying.


Pius XI was addressing in his encyclical those that were self claimed National Socialist's that were imposing individual ideals that were never officially endorsed by the party or government. I suspect Pius XI knew this, hence not mentioning the NSDAP by name because he knew it was not official policy. This would also solve the issue on why he endorsed Hitler and the NSDAP and told the Catholic Center party to stand down after the NSDAP won the election and agreed to the concordant. We still don't know the authenticity of the encyclical, but that still leaves the issue of enemies within the clergy who were flat out aiding and abetting the Communists, as they were ones themselves, that people like Poche just flat out refuse to address.


https://www.radioaryan.com/search/label/Dennis%20Wise


So, this senseless back and forth with Poche is defused by simply understanding the mechanics of what was going on leading up to the war. The outbreak of the war forced Hitler to prioritized winning a war against anti Christian Masonic hordes and then deal with the dissent of those that were pushing ideals that he himself never promulgated later when the war was won. You have to understand, Hitler was juggling Catholics and Protestants, trying to defeat the Marxist's who were hell bent on destroying Europe. It's easy to call make pot shots from the "citadel" of the Church.

Hitler did not create the religious dissent between Catholic and Protestants, nor the diverging opinions of the German people on how the Church should function within the nation. That was something he inherited that was in part the doings of the Church itself.

The encyclical was authentic. The National Socialist philosophy is a contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches. Marxism is evil but it is not the only evil philosophy. National Socialism is also evil. It is not they themselves that are evilbut their philosophy that is evil. What Pope Pius XI had to say is true then and it is true today.