Ever since April when I heard Joseph Atwill announce he had posted an essay proving that National Socialism was created by Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy, I was inspired to rebut it.
Here we go:
————————————————————————————————————
In April 2023, Joseph Atwill posted his essay “The Freemason Invention of the Nazi Party” on the Postflaviana Wordpress platform. Postflaviana claims it is “Revealing the Structure of Western Civilization.” Atwill is also the author of Caesar’s Messiah, which develops the view that the New Testament is a Roman psychological operation to pacify the Israelites, presented as a typology in chronological order as an extended metaphor of the military campaigns in the region by the Roman Flavian emperors. This should inform our understanding of Postflaviana.
Atwill divides his extensive essay into 13 sub-sections, and provides many direct quotes from his many references. Here we will examine the essay’s claims that the “Nazi party” was an “invention” by Freemasons, in particular that sect or offshoot of Freemasonry known as Theosophy. We will rebut most of these claims and provide more accurate knowledge on the origins of the National Socialist German Labour Party (NSDAP).
Atwill begins with a tribute: “Dedicated to the memory of Richard Stanley, whose works inspired this one.” I sent an email question to Joe Atwill, and he said: “He did original analysis of Nazism, but not really along the vein - Theosophy - that I did.”
The essay is headed by a symbol:
We see the 6-pointed Star of Remphan (falsely known as the Star of David) most prominent, with an Egyptian Ankh stylized as approximating a Christian cross, and a smaller reverse Swastika at the conjunction of an ouroboros, the snake swallowing its own tail. The circular slogan reads “There is no religion higher than truth.” Above is a symboI known in Sanskrit as AUM. The caption Atwill provides reads “Seal of Theosophy.”
Presumably the inclusion of the Swastika among all these other symbols supports the thesis that the National Socialist party was invented by Theosophy Freemasons. We will examine the invalidity of this on a symbolic and historic basis.
Atwill conveniently summarizes his thesis is his second paragraph:
“...virtually every aspect of what became the Nazi party originated from a member (sic) the Theosophical Society. Whereas one or two aspects could certainly be circumstantial, the number of disparate elements that owe their origin to members of the Theosophical Society is unlikely an accident. It appears that the Theosophical Society was used as a mystical camouflage under which the Nazis symbols, racial and economic perspectives, the Nazi party itself and finally its leader, Adolf Hitler, were created.”
It is hard to understand why the NSDAP would need camouflage at all, since after the 1923 “putsch” attempt in Bavaria and subsequent release from the Landsberg prison, Hitler and his party members took a fully legal, public and electoral approach to power. Perhaps Atwill means the occult (hidden) ideology and symbolism of Theosophy informed the NSDAP and Hitler, without people—even Hitler himself?--knowing it, but this remains unclear. The ideology and symbolism resonated with the German people because they were essentially Germanic—even Aryan—not mystically camouflaged Theosophist.
The introduction section closes with a good question: “One obvious question that needs to be answered is why hasn’t the obvious connection between the elements that created Nazism become part of the historical understanding?” We will see whether Atwill answers his own question. Presumably he will say that The Powers That Be (might they be Jewish, something to which Atwill might largely agree, since he uses the term “Judeo-Masonic” often in his podcasts with Tim Kelly on Our Interesting Times?) do not want the original inspiration for National Socialism to be known. Why not? National Socialism has been demonized in every other way imaginable, why not publicly demonize it further by association with Freemasons and Theosophy?
Because then people would learn that Blavatsky was briefly married to a Jew (both of her brief marriages were never consummated and she remained a virgin) and one of her main benefactors was the Jewish banking family the Rothschilds, and so Jews would again be demonized themselves by association? “...she was born in Ukraine as Helena von Hahn. For some time her family was in the Khazar area ( Georgia ) where all current Israeli Jews are from.”
Attempts are made to discredit “Nazis” by association with Jews, such as the propaganda that Hitler himself had not just Jewish but even Rothschild ancestry (false), and that Jewish bankers including the Rothschilds funded Hitler and the NSDAP (false). Much anti-”Nazi” propaganda has already spread that they were aligned with evil occult practices and beliefs, so we should see no hesitation to openly associate “Nazis” with Theosophy and Blavatsky.
We might answer Atwill’s question by supposing that the “connection” between Theosophy and National Socialism is far from “obvious,” and in fact is so tenuous that it hardly exists, while other origin influences far removed from Theosophy are actually obvious and well-known. Perhaps no other has been willing to attempt to show the “obvious” connections between “Nazism” and Theosophy because it is a failed theory, too difficult to justify. Atwill makes a valiant attempt. Let us move on to examine his specific claims.
We will largely bypass Atwill’s first two sections, “Blavatsky Was a Freemason,” and “The Other Founders of the Theosophical Society Were Also Freemasons,” because neither bears upon the question of whether National Socialism was formed by the Theosophical Society. We are willing to grant Atwill is accurate here and Theosophy is a sect arising out of Freemasonry or at least with significant influences, with the following reservation:
“Initially, Blavatsky wanted to form the society as a ritualistic and occult center based on the ancient model of Freemasonry. ...Although hampered by her decision not to found the Theosophical Society as a Freemasonic order, her (sic) and circle of disciples began to spread the Light of Theosophy.”
This will become relevant later when we examine National Socialism’s opposition to Freemasonry. Here the only Atwill passages with relevance are: (1) “The philosophy presented by Memphis-Misraim (another rite of Freemasonry created by Blavatsky’s mentor the Italian Garibaldi - KH) was the basis for much of Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine, which Dieter Eckart claimed somehow inspired Adolf Hitler.” Did Eckart actually claim this? If so, “somehow” will not suffice. How? We will show that Hitler had far more powerful influences.
(2) “The Rite went dormant again in 1925 because of opposition by the Mussolini government.” Here Atwill to some degree and in some sense refutes his own thesis. The general similarities between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism at the time, and especially in their opposition to Freemasonry, are well known (the differences are also acknowledged, mainly racial). If Mussolini opposed Freemasonry in Italy, Hitler did as well in Germany, as we will clearly show. It would take a grave contortion of logic to believe Hitler conducted a literal war against Freemasonry—as did Mussolini—while secretly owing his founding ideology and iconography to it.
Swastika From Theosophists?
Subsection 3 is titled “The Nazis’ Use of the Swastika Came from the Theosophical Society.” Atwill is persuasive in proving Blavatsky and Theosophy recognized and even used the Swastika as an occult symbol, though claims Blavatsky intentionally hid its association with Freemasonry. Why is not explained. However, so many other cults, religions, philosophies and even Communism used the Swastika too in human history that it is inevitable the Freemasons/Theosophists might as well. It is a universal archetype symbol that has been with humanity and in particular Aryans for at least over ten thousand years, found almost everywhere in the ancient Earth and many places still today.
In fact the quote from Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine Atwill provides acknowledges this, citing Pythagorean and Hermetic doctrines (ancient Greek), Fohat (originally Tibetan Buddhist), Sandhya (Hindu “twilight prayers”) and Kosmos (Pythagoras again). Similar to their Kabbalah and other elements of Judaism, and Jewish parasitism generally, Blavatsky stole from other esoteric and mystical traditions to cobble together her Theosophy screed. The Swastika was already so prevalent in many of them that of course Blavatsky would embrace it for Theosophy. It would be absurd to say that the National Socialists adopted their use of the Swastika from Theosophy merely because Theosophy had adopted it itself, because both had many other sources from which to adopt and portray the symbol.
The True Origins of the National Socialist Swastika
Mein Kampf itself provides some indication of the meaning the swastika had to the NSDAP. We will use Thomas Dalton’s new translation, conveniently divided into numbered sub-chapters. 7.9 is titled “The National Socialist Flag.”(p. 130) After an extensive examination of the meaning of the colors red-white-black compared to the red-black-gold of the 2nd Reich, author Adolf Hitler states:
“The question of the new flag—that’s to say, its appearance—kept us very busy in those days. (…) After innumerable trials, I myself decided upon a final form: a banner of red material with a white disc, and a black swastika in the middle. After many trials, I found the correct proportions between the dimensions of the flag and the white disc, as well as the shape and thickness of the swastika.
“And this is how it has remained.
”(…) The new flag appeared in public for the first time in midsummer 1920. It suited our young movement admirably. It was young and new, like the movement itself. No one had seen it before; it had the effect of a blazing torch. We ourselves experienced an almost childlike delight when one of the party women made the flag and handed it over to us.
“...And what a symbol it truly is! Not only because of those revered colors that express our glorious past and which once brought so much honor to the German people, but this symbol was also an embodiment of the movement’s will. As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red, we see the social ideal of the movement; in white, nationalism; in the swastika, the mission of Aryan humanity to fight for victory, and at the same time, for the victory of the idea of creative work, which has always been anti-Semitic and always will be anti-Semitic.”
Mein Kampf is believed by most advocates and critics alike as being the honest thoughts and accounts of the leader of the NSDAP during his months in prison in 1924. By the time he was appointed Chancellor in 1933, some of Hitler’s views had changed since then, but as he said: “And this is how (the flag) remained.” In this succinct explanation for the meaning of the swastika to National Socialist Germans, we find nothing similar to Blavatsky’s and no reason to think Hitler and the NSDAP needed to rely on Theosophy to define it.
Atwill says Blavatsky said the swastika “is symbolized by the number 6.” No, the star of Remphan, aka Star of David is symbolized by the number 6. The Swastika is symbolized by the number 4, or possibly 8. Certainly not 6. Everyone can see that. Blavatsky writes of the “pole” effect emanating from the center of the symbol upward and downward three-dimensionally, and while this may feature in some Freemasonic rituals, it is not inherent in the symbol itself.
“...the Nazis’ use of the symbol was chosen to cryptically indicate who was really in control of the organization.” The Swastika is such an ancient and wide spread symbol, that a bone in a museum in Ukraine dating at least 12,000 years old (in Rise of the Aryans foreward, author Roland dates it at 25,000, p. ii) has carved into it a Swastika. It is all but universal, and the Theosophists, Freemason, even Communists tried to use it. In the symbol war, Hitler and the National Socialists won out and put it on their national flag most prominently. Communists and National Socialists engaged in warfare of every kind, from street brawls to full-scale Operation Barbarossa to culture wars to psy-ops. They battled over the use of symbols and colors too, and Hitler and the NS party succeeded in wresting the crimson color (though not the gold, which Hitler avoided as too expressly symbolic of the 2nd Reich) from Communists. Likewise they succeeded in claiming the Swastika as their own, which it rightly was, since it was a prominent symbol displayed by the ancient Aryans.
That Freemasons and Theosophists used the Swastika to some extent does not prove that they controlled National Socialists. Further, Atwill claims the National Socialists themselves chose the symbol to secretly signal to their hidden Theosophist controllers. In light of Hitler’s own statement on the meaning of the swastika to National Socialist Germans, we must dismiss this claim as false. Hitler tells us clearly and curtly what the swastika means to him and his.
The NSDAP campaign to uplift the morale and racial pride of the German people using the swastika and other motifs, so damaged by Jewish cultural degradation during the Weimar period, was greatly successful. Again it would seem a gross contortion of logic to assume so successful a campaign could be founded upon the fraudulent and un-German claims of Blavatsky and Theosophy, when legitimate sources of the swastika and other Germanic motifs were available to the National Socialists.
“Aryans” a Theosophy Concept?
Atwill’s next section is titled “The Nazi Concept of the Aryan Race Comes From Theosophy.” Atwill often quotes from Blavatsky’s infamous book The Secret Doctrine, which in this case states on page 249:
“The Aryan races, for instance, now varying from dark brown, almost black, red-brown-yellow, down to the whitest creamy colour, are yet all of one and the same stock—the Fifth Root-Race—and spring from one single progenitor, called in Hindu exotericism by the generic name of Vaivasvata Manu : the latter, remember, being that generic personage, the Sage, who is said to have lived over 18,000,000 years ago, and also 850,000 years ago—at the time of the sinking of the last remnants of the great continent of Atlantis… and who is said to live even now in his mankind.”
Such prognostications cannot be considered history much less genetic science or archaeology—fantasy better describes it. Yet from this Atwill declares: “The concept of the ‘Aryan Race’ was not used by Germanic people to self identify before Blavatsky, who invented the application of the term (Aryan) that was subsequently used by the Nazi Party.” Further: “If Nazism was a long term project of Freemasonry, the idea of the ‘Aryan Race’ was invented to begin the process of giving the German people a focused racial identity that would ultimately be used by the Nazis to promote their racial separatism. Of course, as history played out, Blavatsky’s invention of the ‘Aryan Race’ was not a gift to the German people, but simply isolated them for destruction.”
We must say here that the NSDAP only applied “racial separatism” to the only different race in their nation, Jews, and applied racial togetherism with other European sub-races or tribes, such as the French, British, Italian, Dutch and many others.
True Origin of the Aryans
In James Harting’s “’Aryan’ Is the Correct and Proper Name of Our Race,” we learn the term “Aryan” was written by Herodotus in around 450 BC in his The Histories. He used it to describe the Medes to the East of Greece:
“The Medes were called anciently by all peoples “Aryans,” but when Medea, the Colchian, came to them from Athens, they changed their name. Such is the account which they themselves give.”
Harting asserts:
“About 4,000 or 5,000 years ago there was a racially homogeneous collection of tribes who called themselves the “Aryans” or something similar. The name means the “Noble Ones,” and is related, for example, to the Greek words aristos (“the best”) and arete (“excellence in virtue”). In addition to being of one race or ethnicity, they all spoke the same language, and had common religion, legal system and social structure.”
Harting recognizes the precise origin lands of the Aryans is difficult to determine, but places it in Southeast Europe (the Danube basin) or Southwest Asia (Anatolia)
.In his book The Rise of the Aryans, author Patrick Chouinard identifies Aryans as emerging around 7,000 years ago, most likely around the area of the Black Sea, which was a much smaller fresh water lake at that time. The names of nations such as Iran and Ireland refer back thousands of years to the Persians, who were most likely Aryans (Revilo Oliver disputes this in his book The Enemy of Our Enemy, but recognizes the nearby Medians as Aryan), and the Kelts, who were as well.
The term Aryan is far more ancient than Blavatsky and she cannot possibly have invented it for use by the National Socialist Germans. They adopted it as a way of helping uplift the morale and racial pride of the German people, badly demoralized by the Jewish propaganda that afflicted them during the Weimer period. We are seeing the same demoralization and deracination of Whites by Jews today in the U.S, to which Atwill will agree.
Further, the National Socialist Germans conducted extensive archaeological, genetic and historical studies world-wide to identify their ancient Aryan forebears. Heinrich Himmler oversaw the Ahnernebe program “to find the origins of the Aryan race.” They had no need to adopt this term supposedly provided by Blavatsky; they were already well aware of it from other sources.
The term Aryan is mentioned 15 times in Mein Kampf, in 4 places as multi-page explanations of such aspects as “founders of culture” and “self-sacrificing, idealistic.”
Atwill says Blavatsky’s conferring of the Aryan term to National Socialists “simply isolated them for destruction.” How so? Communist Jewish totalitarians (in the USSR, USA and Britain & France) and Capitalist Jewish totalitarians (in the City of London and Wall Street) tried to isolate Germany for destruction. It is true that through their media control they demonized the German National Socialists as “racist” and “master race supremacists,” even managing to demonize the term Aryan in association with their German enemies, but this part of the psy-op did not take hold until after the war.
Author of Hitler’s Revolution Richard Tedor went to East Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall and scoured the newly-accessible records and found no mention among the National Socialist Germans’ own documents of the term “master race.” This was applied to them by primarily Jewish defamationists as part of their war propaganda. In the same way the term Aryan was demonized in an attempt to isolate Germany for destruction, but any terms the Germans used in their campaign of cultural and racial restoration would have been demonized. So even if Blavatsky had provided the term (which the National Socialist Germans easily took from other sources, as they did the Swastika), the term itself was not inherently demonizable. Any term would have served.
Besides, no isolation occurred, when we consider that Germany formally allied with Romania, Hungary, Italy and Japan, the first two especially during Operation Barbarossa. The Waffen SS formed as another Ally of Germany, made up of soldiers from many European nations and even some Arabs. The Dutch supplied the most soldiers to the Waffen SS, 25,000, and French soldiers also joined. Roughly half the French population approved of the German occupation of France and the Vichy government cooperated closely with Germany as an ally. Hitler repeatedly referred to the British people as cousins or kin of the Aryan Germans, in attempts at alliance. If Blavatsky’s objective was to isolate Germany by getting it to adopt such unpalatable concepts as “Aryan,” she failed. The enemies of Germany tried to isolate the Fatherland not because it was “Aryan,” but because they were under Communist-Jewish control.
Blavatsky Timeline
The Secret Doctrine was first published in 1888, and Mein Kampf was written half in 1924, and Part 2 in 1925, so the timeline at least allows for the National Socialist Germans to have received knowledge of Aryans from Blavatsky. The timeline also allows them to have received knowledge of Aryans from other sources too. Atwill provides us no evidence for the vector through which Blavatsky supposedly provided the term Aryan to the Germans of 1920 at the earliest or at least by 1924 when the term appears in Mein Kampf. Though the details of Blavatsky’s childhood appear deliberately obscured (she does appear to be non-Jewish), the date of her death in 1891 (p. 17) is well established.
The precursors of National Socialism as an ideology were established, but nothing like National Socialism as it emerged as a defense against Communism and promotion of racial destiny at least 30 years later existed. Blavatsky herself could not have foreseen National Socialism and could not have conveyed any aspect of it, not Swastika nor Aryan nor anything else, directly. She died at least 30 years before the emergence of Hitler’s National Socialism. Atwill says the vector of Theosophy to National Socialism was Dietrich Eckart. We will examine this for validity later.
Bellamys Were Not National Socialist, But Communist
“Blavatsky wrote in the Theosophist’s magazine how pleased she was with the international progress of the Bellamy’s (sic) in promoting National Socialism in Germany. She wrote: ‘The organization of society, depicted by Edward Bellamy in his magnificent work Looking Backward admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what should be a first great step towards the full realization of universal brotherhood.’”
Universal brotherhood is a Communist internationalist goal. A German National Socialist goal would be unity of racial national folk. In many ways the two are at opposite poles. The realization of universal brotherhood would eliminate German folk unity, and the realization of German folk unity would eliminate the hope of universal brotherhood.
I could not access Atwill’s reference here since it is accessible only to “institutional accounts,” so I have no way to verify if the term National Socialism was ever used in this reference. But I was given access to the first page. It reads: “Edward Bellamy described a humanized system of publicly owned capital in which the government oversaw production and distributed national output equally among citizens.” This alone proves the dissociation of Theosophy from National Socialism. This statement more exactly describes Communist economics applied to a nation-state, most definitely not National Socialist (NS) economics.
NS economics describes an ethno-nationalized system of privately owned free-market commerce working synergistically and harmoniously with a smaller publicly owned sector in which government carefully regulated private production and distribution that afforded sufficient distribution among all classes, while allowing and even encouraging increased selective distribution through a free market meritocracy—but only to a point. “It is the function of government to ensure that the freedom of the few does not become the enslavement of the many.” -Irish National Socialist William Joyce
Atwill: “...Looking Backward actually advocated a dehumanized bureaucracy in which all decisions (sic) made by the State.” Again, this is International Communism, not National Socialism. NS allows and even encourages many decisions to be made by the free market, the meritocracy, the private sector and other powers within the nation such as churches, foundations and media outlets, other than “the State”--so long as those decisions are of benefit to the Nation and Folk overall.
Atwill says Bellamy’s next quote is “critical and is not merely an amazing foreshadowing of fascism. Within the context of this analysis it is literally its definition and, by the advocation of it, part of the way its (sic) was implemented.” Let us examine whether Bellamy’s quote is the literal definition of Fascism.
“The organization of the industry of the nation under a single control, so that all its processes interlock, has multiplied the total product over the utmost that could be done under the former system. [It may be compared] with that of a disciplined army under one general – such a fighting machine, for example, as the German army in the time of [Prussian general] Von Moltke.”
This quote refers only to the economic, labor and limited social aspects of society. Fascism refers to much more, including a spiritual element, but even this limited economic aspect described is far from National Socialism and Fascism. Again, “The organization of the industry of the nation under a single control” is Communism, and fully antithetical to National Socialism. That such a system “has multiplied the total product over the utmost that could be done under the former system” is proven false by the utter failure of Soviet “collectivization” of farms, whose output declined compared to the former system. Industrial output also tanked under Communism. The U.S. had to supply the USSR in industry, materials and finance through WWII and the Cold War.
Conversely, the National Socialist system resulted in the “economic miracle,” full employment, prosperity and rising standard of living for all classes including the working class, and overall improvement in quality of life, driven by a combination of individual ambition within a meritocracy that rewarded creativity and work, and an awareness of the good of the whole nation and people. Productivity under the Communist system declined and all but the government apparatus shared in the deprivation, while productivity under National Socialism soared, and all shared in the abundance.
National Socialism vs. Judeo-Bolshevik-Communism & Judeo-Freemasonic-Capitalism
In the essay “Understanding National Socialism – It’s foundation, what it really stood for, opposed, and why” by Justice for Germans, we see:
“The Freemasonic liberal ideals, by contrast, engender a “nation of individuals” with each going his own way, with little or no concern for the needs of that national community as a whole; the organic unit from which the individual was first derived and was nurtured, with only a theoretical notion of a trickle down effect to others. And underlying this, the assumption that those who do well, do so rightfully, and will occasionally give a little something back, thereby, legitimizing the power structure of the plutocrats or oligarchs, and the degree of power and influence which they, the few, maintain over the many. That is generally thought of as “Free Enterprise” but it is really unbridled Judeo-free-market-capitalism, and thrives in a system of stock market speculation, back-room deals and manipulation, and especially so where the monetary system (creation and control of currency) is in private hands, combined with debt and interest or “usury”, creating a monopoly, such as with the U.S. Federal Reserve. The National Socialists in Germany opposed this by putting strict controls on the central bank and the stock markets, by creating and controlling their own debt and interest free currency based upon the worth of the labour and resulting output of the people, not on Gold, Silver or other commodities, the value of which is subject to speculation. They also put limits on wages and prices, as well as reduced imports and exports, and prevented large-scale “big box” retail outlets which could flood the market with cheap imported goods.”
From the same essay, this provides a good summary:
“It must be noted that Judaism and Freemasonry are intimately linked, and that the Bolshevik-Communist Revolution was financed by the International Bankers of Wall Street, who happen to call themselves “Jews”, and was fomented by their minions. Thus one should rightly be called Judeo-Bolshevik-Communism, and the other Judeo-Freemasonic-Capitalism. They are two sides of the same coin and both have same (sic) net effect of destruction of sovereign nations, both engender expansionism and globalism, and both result in exploitation and slavery. Whereas, National Socialism was a true, self-financed, grass roots movement that opposed the aforementioned and thus, they would had (sic) no interest in financing a party which promoted a system of governance that could put an end to their monopoly and their global agenda. Indeed, they would do everything in their power to try and stop it, including defamation, economic war and outright military warfare….and they did.”
This is essentially correct, though the “grassroots” nature of NS is more complex given its ideological and practical influences—none of which was Theosophy.
The Real Roots of National Socialism
Now, we must consider the actual roots of National Socialism as an ideology. It was not rooted in Theosophy, as Atwill claims, but—small surprise—in German workers. The work of Rudolf Jung, National Socialism: Its Foundations, Development, and Goals, first published in 1904, gives us the origins of National Socialism:
“Originally titled Der nationale Sozialismus: Eine Erläuterung seiner Grundlagen und Ziele (National Socialism: An Introduction to its Foundations and its Goals), Jung’s book was the first serious attempt at outlining and explaining völkisch National Socialism as an ideology, as a body of theory constituting a general, all-encompassing worldview. Pamphlets and articles in the past had sought to address this topic, but never before had it been the subject of an entire book. The scope of Jung’s work made it something new.” (p. i)
“In Bohemia, Jung came into contact with the Deutschen Arbeiterpartei in Österreich (German Workers’ Party in Austria, DAPÖ), a minor political party founded in Trautenau in 1904 by disgruntled nationalist workers who had become disillusioned with the internationalist, ‘pro-Czech’ stance of Social-Democracy and the Marxist unions. The DAPÖ was tailor-made for Jung’s worldview, with its programme presenting a synthesis of völkisch nationalism and reformist socialism which agitated as much against the Czechs as it did for the liberation of the working classes of the German people.’” (p. iii)
An important footnote on this page reveals the first known usage of the specific term “National Socialism.”
“During the 1908-1910 period the DAPÖ began experiencing an influx of more ‘middle-class’ members; previously party membership had been comprised almost exclusively of skilled artisans and proletarians. It was in this same period that the term ‘National Socialism’ became increasingly widespread within the party and in the broader nationalist workers’ movement, used to describe the ideology underpinning their policies and activism. This terminology had existed since the beginning (potential names debated for the DAPÖ during its founding in 1903-04 had included ‘National Social Party’ and ‘German Social Party’), but it was not truly solidified until the movement began attracting more intellectuals in the years just prior to the War.” (p. iii, footnote)
The DAPO evolved further after the war, and the party name changed:
“Following the end of the War and the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the returning members of the DAPÖ decided to reconstitute the party in recognition of the changing circumstances brought about by the Empire’s defeat and dissolution. On 5th May, 1918, the party met in Vienna to vote on a new name, eventually deciding on the ‘German National Socialist Workers’ Party’ (Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei, DNSAP).”
This is a simple re-arrangement of the same words of the party Hitler joined in Germany in 1919.
The Book on NS
Jung literally wrote the book on National Socialism:
“Many of the programme’s proposals would be expanded upon the following year in the first edition of Jung’s book on National Socialist ideology, Der nationale Sozialismus. It was this work, in combination with the Vienna Programme and the body of published theoretical documents which he already had to his name, which helped cement Jung’s reputation within the movement as National Socialism’s chief ideologist, something of which he was quite proud – Jung’s stated ambition, according to those who knew him, was to be the ‘Karl Marx’ of National Socialism.”
If Atwill were to rebut, he might seize upon this to prove that National Socialism had Communist—and even by association Theosophical—roots. We understand, however, that Jung and National Socialism were practically conceived in opposition to Marxism, and he only indicated his ambition to be an ideological founder of National Socialism, as Marx was for Communism.
Hitler’s NSDAP
Some key early history shows the emergence of the German NSDAP and Adolf Hitler:
“Immediately after the War, a number of new National Socialist organizations had emerged in the neighboring German Republic, the most significant of which were the German Socialist Party (Deutschsozialistische Partei, DSP) and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP). By 1923 the NSDAP had not only completely absorbed the DSP, but under the leadership of its chairman Adolf Hitler had also grown to be the largest and most dynamic National Socialist party in all German-speaking territories, outshining the far older and far more experienced DNSAP organizations in Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As the NSDAP grew in popularity and influence within Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s, so also did its influence intrude upon Jung’s DNSAP, creating tensions within the Sudeten party between the older, reform-oriented party leaders and the younger, more radical members, who had been attracted to National Socialism largely by the pull of Hitler and by the mounting successes of the German ‘brother-party’. The younger members’ radical inclinations helped provide the Czech state with an excuse for persecution, resulting in heightened censorship and crackdowns against the DNSAP until, in the face of an imminent ban in late September 1933, the Sudeten party ended up dissolving itself completely.”
Jung soon made it into Germany where his longing for recognition as a founder of National Socialism was partly achieved:
“Jung spent much of his time in the Reich attempting to attain the recognition and prominence which he felt was his due, in light of his intellectual contributions to National Socialism and the multiple decades of his life which he had committed to advancing the movement’s cause. In November 1935 he was granted membership in the NSDAP and received official recognition from the state as an Alter Kämpfer… In 1938, as public acknowledgment for his 30 years of activism, a small ceremony was held in which Jung was also appointed both an honorary Gauleiter and an honorary member of the SS, receiving the rank of SSGruppenführer.”
The introduction says of Jung:
“...a man who had been with the National Socialist movement almost since its founding, who had been associated with National Socialism even before the Führer and who had played an invaluable role in the development of the movement’s ideology…”
In summary:
“(Jung was) a man who had once been regarded among his peers as the ‘Karl Marx’ of National Socialism, as the ideological leader and ‘patron saint’ of an entirely new political worldview… ...the role Jung played in the development of National Socialist ideology deserves recognition, as does the book he wrote about that ideology – a book which exercised considerable influence over the theory and practice of a political worldview which has had an indelible impact upon history, and which is today still infamous the world over...”
The title of Jung’s “infamous” book is: National Socialism.
Here we find the actual direct foundations of National Socialism, as defined by the words themselves and rooted literally in German workers’ struggles for social support within a nationalist context. Atwill’s proposed foundations come from Marxist sources (Bellamy), and never use the actual words “National Socialism.”
Feder National Socialist Finance
Another ideological foundation of National Socialism, which had a more direct influence upon Hitler than Jung, from Gottfried Feder, is so well known we need not present it here except for a brief summary. Here we draw from Kerry Bolton’s review of the English translation of Feder’s classic Manifesto for the Breaking of the Financial Slavery to Interest:
“… Feder was a seminal influence on the early thoughts of Hitler and was a founder of the German Workers Party. It was Feder who gave opposition to usury and a demand for a new banking system, a technical foundation without which the National Socialist economic and financial policies might not have gone beyond a vague enmity towards capitalism because of its identification with Jews.”
“Hitler was instantly fascinated by Feder’s ideas, which he had heard of prior to joining the German Workers Party, as Feder clarified the meaning of the struggle. Hitler attended Feder’s lectures and was taught the difference between loan and industrial capital of which he had been previously unaware. After the first lecture, in which he first heard about stock-exchange and loan capital, he recalled: ‘I had now found a way to one of the most essential pre-requisites for the founding of a new party.’”
This pre-requisite had utterly nothing to do with Theosophy or Freemasonry, but was firmly based in the National Socialist vision of state issuance of currency without interest to private Jewish bankers, and a thriving national free-market economy uplifting all classes and the folk and nation as a whole under careful intelligent government supervision and regulation.
In Part 2 we will look at the possibility that Dietrich Eckart was a vector for Theosophy to National Socialism, actual NSDAP funding sources, the true nature of the Thule Society, and other assertions Atwilll makes trying to show the NSDAP and Hitler himself were creations of Theosophy.
Your completely on the right track Karl with this article! Nietzsche wrote in 'Beyond Good and Evil,' "Little by little, I came to understand what every philosophy to date has been: the personal confession of its author, a kind of unintended and unremitting memoir." No different with Atwill's writings about NS! Like many, Atwill harbors a deep resentment and rancor towards the movement, especially Hitler! Also, his "scholarship" makes it difficult for those who take pride in thorough and erudite research. There are many that have had issue with his "manufacturing method," especially in the realms of mythology or theosophy, where refutation is not as "scientific" shall we say, so Joe can kind of get away with some of his spurious claims.
I suggest reading an article by Mark Carrier from 2013 titled 'Atwill's Cranked-Up Jesus,' where he goes in depth revealing the fraud that is Joe Atwill. I have nothing but the highest esteem for Tim Kelly, but why he chooses to have this charlatan on his show weekly is beyond me. I personally think he should replace him with this chap named Karl Haemers who I'm finding does some excellent work!🤔
Thank you. A GREAT ARTICLE, ONCE AGAIN!
I have copied the article on Blavatsky; and will [as advised] take my time to take it in.
Unfortunately, in my 74 years of learning, I never came across Pat Rydz of The Vatic Project [I'm an Aussie].
My sincere loss. A wonderful, knowledgeable character, and a person of high esteem as has been portrayed in her obituary! I'm sure she could have taught me much; just as your writings do! Ray.