True Left

’If…we examine the advantages and disadvantages of keeping the races and tribes apart in our German fatherland, we can see nothing but disadvantages! The German Volk would only be more splintered, set against one another, atomized by stirring up the racial problems; so it would be rendered insignificant as far as foreign policy goes. That is why I have forbidden more than once—and at the next Gauleiter conference I shall unequivocally repeat my prohibition against—any talk or writing about racial theory and the racial problem. We must do precisely the opposite! The community of the Volk, the community of the Volk, the community of the Volk—that must be our battle cry! Everything that unites and allies the strata must be brought out, cultivated, and promoted, and everything that separates them, everything that serves to awaken the old prejudices must be avoided, fought against, removed. We must make good the mistakes that were made on both sides. Like Christ, we must preach, ‘You are all brothers! Love one another!’’

'The Romans gathered the best students from their whole empire in boarding institutions. There they were taught and trained by the best teachers. This effort did not take the fathers’ profession into consideration. Only foreign races—Negroes and Jews—were excluded. In all other areas, Jews enjoyed Roman liberties; Negroes, on the other hand, were granted them only in exceptional cases, when they had made themselves deserving through especially outstanding achievements for the Empire. Jews could even become ‘Roman Citizens,’ as we see in the case of Saint Paul. But the school for pages—that is, the training school for the young men intended to enter public service—was not open to them. I have a similar institution in mind for Germany.'

'Since Hitler paused briefly, Schemm noted: 'I’m very glad, Herr Hitler, to hear you say this. There’s such a lot of nonsense talked about blond men, about the Nordic race, about the cult of Wotan and the spirit of the Edda, as if no one else on the globe had any right to exist, or at best to exist only in a second-class position, as subhuman creatures. These idiotic windbags have no idea what harm their spouting causes. For all they do is arouse inferiority complexes and hatred in those who don’t happen to be lucky enough to be blond, and so they divide the German Volk into two racial halves: the Germanic and the non-Germanic people.'
'I’ve expressly and repeatedly forbidden this sort of thing!' Hitler interrupted, flaring up. 'All that rubbish about the Thing places, the solstice festivals, the Midgard snake, and all the rest of the rubbish they dredge up from German prehistory! Then they read Nietzsche with fifteen-year-old boys and, using incomprehensible quotations, paint a picture of the superman, exhorting the boys: ‘That is you—or that is what you are to become.’'

The slaughter of the firstborn reveals that clearly enough. Just as they have done with us, the Jews had won the great lower stratum of the population for themselves -- 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!' -- until
one night they sent out the order, 'Down with the bourgeois! Kill them, the dogs!' but things didn't turn out so well as they had expected.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité (French pronunciation: [libɛʁˈte eɡaliˈte fʁatɛʁniˈte]), French for "liberty, equality, fraternity",[1] is the national motto of France and the Republic of Haiti, and is an example of a tripartite motto. Although it finds its origins in the French Revolution, it was then only one motto among others and was not institutionalized until the Third Republic at the end of the 19th century.[2] Debates concerning the compatibility and order of the three terms began at the same time as the Revolution. It is also the motto of the Grand Orient and the Grande Loge de France.

In classical antiquity Greek and Roman writers were acquainted with people of every skin tone from very pale (associated with populations from Scythia) to very dark (associated with populations from sub-Saharan Africa (Aethiopia). People described with words meaning "black", or as Aethiopes, are occasionally mentioned throughout the Empire in surviving writings, and people with very dark skin tones and woolly hair are depicted in various artistic modes. Other words for people with other skin tones were also used.

Skin tones did not carry any social implications and no social identity, either imposed or assumed, was associated with skin color. Though the color black was associated with ill-omen in the ancient Roman religion, "the ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism;... ancient society... for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man."[1]

Black Romans were central to Classical culture and not as an exceptional few or as slaves or servants. They were soldiers and traders, dramatists, poets, philosophers, theologians, and emperors. We need to re-imagine imperial Romans as having a completely unsurprising diversity of skin pigmentation.

'The Romans gathered the best students from their whole empire in boarding institutions. There they were taught and trained by the best teachers. This effort did not take the fathers’ profession into consideration. Only foreign races—Negroes and Jews—were excluded. In all other areas, Jews enjoyed Roman liberties; Negroes, on the other hand, were granted them only in exceptional cases, when they had made themselves deserving through especially outstanding achievements for the Empire. Jews could even become ‘Roman Citizens,’ as we see in the case of Saint Paul. But the school for pages—that is, the training school for the young men intended to enter public service—was not open to them. I have a similar institution in mind for Germany.' (Wagener, 1978/1985, p. 289)

'What people do in their beds’, Hitler used to say, ‘does not interest me so long as relationships do not prejudice the State and its leadership.’

'The third point is that a person must be racially flawless. Let him be Germanic, or Roman, or Chinese, or a Jew, or an Indian, or a Negro, and so on. I respect all equally. We can work with and count on all of them. Each has his established traits. Depending on what one is looking for, this one or that one is to be preferred for the job in question. It is no different with people than with horses or dogs. Once one has established the proper race for a particular task, one can rest assured that the task will be resolved.' (Wagener, 1978/1985, p. 143)

In the context given these words by Hitler are not explicitly anti-homophobic though, it is more a statist position than anything I would argue. It can be used to prove Hitler could not have been homophobic, however. By itself, it is not an anti-homophobic statement. What about a relationship between a dolphin and a human, as an example?

Honestly, at this point, I think it's preferable to prove why anti-tribalism and anti-ethnocentrism should be and in fact are key tenets of our ideology, than to prove that Hitler himself was opposed to ethnocentrism. Some of the reasonings provided on the main website for Hitler being opposed to it are convincing, but some of them aren't. I think Aryanism should be able to stand on its own without Hitler, because even after debunking some of the myths conjured by the West against Hitler's regime, I think that the National Socialism of that era was too mired in ethnocentrism. Regardless of whether Mein Kampf was just a publicity stunt or not, it's still the main book that Hitler wrote and was explicitly Nordicist, and Alfred Rosenberg's "The Myth of the 20th Century" also talked about a Nordic race and identified the Aryans with the Indo-Europeans, which is a big no-no for us, given what we now know about the Indo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans/Vedics were practically the opposite of Aryans. A lot of the people that Hitler surrounded himself with were ethnocentrists in general. That's not to say that Hitler wasn't different from the white tribalists of his time, because he most certainly was. He was clearly a different breed from the likes of Winston Churchill and others of the past who supported western colonialism and racism. But I think there are a few key issues that can't go ignored.

My biggest issue with the narrative of "Hitler was just trying to appeal to the masses, who were mostly racist at the time" is this: How were the communists able to promote an anti-ethnocentric worldview in predominantly white countries at the same exact time as the National Socialists then? If they could do it, then logically, nothing precluded Hitler from promoting an anti-ethnocentric racial theory within Germany if he so desired. But he didn't, so Occam's Razor says that it's most likely that he just didn't know enough about racial theory to form the same conclusions that we have, and ended up falling into the trappings of ethnocentrism because of that informational gap, or perhaps just straight up due to bias