The aryan man is superior culturally, they are the founders of civilization Sieg Heil

[Naofumi]

obvious. And one needed only a little imagination in order to be able to
predict the consequences that must result. The only question now was: Did
the founders foresee the effects of their work in the form that they appeared,
or were they themselves the victims of an error?
To my mind, both alternatives were possible.
If the latter case, it was the duty of every thinking person to oppose
this sinister movement, hoping to avoid the worst results. But if the former
were true, then it must be admitted that the original authors of this plague
of nations must have been devils incarnate. For only in the brain of a
monster, and not that of a man, could such a plan take shape--one whose
workings must finally bring about the collapse of human civilization and
the devastation of the world.
Such being the case, the only alternative left was to fight. This fight
must employ all the weapons that the human spirit, intellect, and will can
muster-leaving it to fate to decide who shall prevail.
And so I began to make myself familiar with the authors of this
doctrine, in order to study the principles of the movement. The fact that I
attained my obj ective faster than anticipated was due to the deeper insight
that I had acquired into the Jewish question-my prior knowledge having
been rather superficial. This newly acquired knowledge, by itself, enabled
me to make a practical comparison between the real content and the
theoretical pretentiousness of the doctrine laid down by the apostolic
founders of Social Democracy; I now understood the language of the
Jewish people. I realized that they use language for the purpose of
disguising or veiling their thought, so that their real aim cannot be
discovered by what they say, but rather only by reading between the lines.
This insight was, for me, the greatest inner revolution that I had yet
experienced.
From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan, I became an outright anti
Semite.
2.27 MARXISM AS DESTROYER OF CULTURE
Only on one further occasion-and that for the last time-did
oppressing thoughts arise that caused me some moments of profound
anguish.
As I critically reviewed the historical activities of the Jewish people,
I became anxious. I asked myself if, for some inscrutable reasons beyond

 

[Naofumi]

mortal comprehension, destiny might not have irrevocably decreed that
final victory must go to this little nation?
Is it possible that this people, which has lived only for the earth, was
promised the earth as compensation?
Do we have an objective right to struggle for our own self-preservation,
or is it merely a subjective thing?
Fate answered the question for me, insofar as it led me to make a
detached and exhaustive inquiry into Marxist doctrine, and into the
activities of the Jewish people in connection with it.
The Jewish doctrine of Marx.ism rejects the aristocratic principle of
nature, substituting for it the eternal privilege of force and energy,
numerical mass and dead weight. Thus it denies the individual value of the
human personality, and impugns the idea that nationhood and race have
primary significance. In doing so, it takes away the very foundations of
human existence and culture.
If this doctrine were ever accepted as the foundation of the universe, it
would lead to the disappearance of all conceivable order. Adopting such a
law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we
know-and the inhabitants of this earth would vanish.
If the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, were to triumph over the
people of this world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind. And
this planet will once again follow its orbit through the ether devoid of
humanity, just as it did millions of years ago.
Eternal Nature inevitably avenges those who violate her commands.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator: In defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting
for the work of the Lord.

 

[Naofumi]

CHAPTER 3 :
GE NERAL POLITICAL
REFLE CTIONS FROM MY
TIME IN VIE NNA
Today I am convinced that, in general, a man should not publicly take
part in politics before the age of 30-except for cases of extraordinary
talent. Until then, a man's mental development will mostly consist in
acquiring the necessary knowledge to serve as the groundwork of a general
platform, one from which he can evaluate different political problems. One
must first acquire a fund of general ideas-a worldview. Then he will have
that mental equipment necessary for consistency and steadfastness in the
formation of his political opinions. He will then be qualified to take part in
politics.
Otherwise he will run a twofold risk. He may find that his original
position was wrong, at least regarding some essential questions. He will
then either have to abandon his former position, or else stick with it
against his better judgment, and after reason has shown it untenable. In the
former case, he will find himself in a difficult personal situation. He will
appear inconsistent, and will lose the right to expect his followers to remain
loyal. The followers themselves may see him as lacking in judgment,
causing them to feel uncomfortable and nervous.
In the second case-which happens frequently-the leader no longer
has the power of personal persuasion. Hence the defense of his cause
becomes hollow and superficial. He now becomes vulgar. He no longer
fights seriously for his political ideas (no man will die in defense of
something that he does not believe), and he makes increasing demands on
his followers. Indeed, the greater his own insincerity, the more unfortunate
99
MEIN KAMPF
and inconsiderate become his claims on his followers. Finally, he abandons
the last vestiges of true leadership and becomes 'a politician. ' At this point,
his only consistency is his inconsistency-combined with overbearing
insolence and an artful lying, all developed to a shameful degree.
If, to the misfortune of all decent people, such a person succeeds in
becoming a parliamentarian, it will be clear at the outset that, for him, the
essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep a
permanent hold on this milk-bottle for himself and his family. The more
his wife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly he will
fight to stay in office. For that reason, anyone else who shows signs of
political competence ·is his personal enemy. In every new movement, he
will sense the possible beginning of his own end. And anyone who is a
better man than himself will appear to him as a danger.
I shall have more to say later about this kind of parliamentary vermin.
3.1 THE POLITICIAN
At the age of 30, a man obviously still has a great deal to learn. But
henceforth, what he learns will principally be an amplification of his basic
ideas; it will support his basic worldview. What he learns will not imply
the abandonment of his principles, but rather a deeper knowledge of them.
And thus his supporters will never have the uncomfortable feeling that they
have been misled by him. On the contrary: their confidence will grow when
they see that their leader's qualities are progressing and developing
organically by the assimilation of new ideas. His followers will see this
process as an enrichment of his doctrine, one that reinforces the correctness
of the view.
A leader who must abandon the platform founded on his general
worldview, because he recognizes it as false, can only act honorably when
he declares his readiness to accept the final consequences of his erroneous
views. In such a case, he should refrain from any further political activity.
Having once gone astray on essential matters, he may possibly go astray a
second time. In any case, he has no right whatsoever to expect or demand
that his fellow citizens continue to support him.
How little such a line of conduct commends itself to our public leaders
nowadays is proved by the general corruption prevalent among the present
cabal, which feels itself 'called' to political leadership.
Overall, there is scarcely one who is prepared for this task.

 

[Naofumi]

Even though, in those days, I used to give more time than most others
to the consideration of political questions, I still carefully refrained from
taking an open part in politics. I spoke of those things that bothered me,
but only to a small circle of friends. This habit had many advantages. Rather
than talk at them, I learned to listen-to get the feel of others' way of
thinking. Often their outlook and views were quite primitive. But I trained
myself well, without losing the time and opportunity for education.
Nowhere in Germany was the opportunity for making such a study so
favorable as in Vienna.
In the old Danubian Monarchy, political thought had a wider range and
richer variety of interests than in old Germany of the same era-excepting
certain parts of Prussia, Hamburg, and the districts bordering on the North
Sea. When I say 'Austria, ' I mean that part of the great Habsburg Empire
that supplied, through its German population, not only the historic basis
for the formation of this state, but also whose population was, for several
centuries, also the exclusive source of cultural life in that artificial political
system. As time went on, the stability of the Austrian State and the
guarantee of its continued existence depended more and more on the
maintenance of this germ-cell of the empire.
3.2 VIENNA'S LAST REVIVAL
The hereditary territories were the heart of the empire. And it was this
heart that constantly sent the life-blood pulsating through the whole
political and cultural system. If this was the heart, Vienna was the brain
and the will.
At that time, Vienna appeared like an enthroned queen, whose
authoritative sway united the conglomeration of heterogenous nationalities.
The radiant beauty of the capital city made one forget the sad symptoms
of senile decay that were manifested in the state as a whole.
Though the empire was quivering internally because of the conflicts
among the various nationalities, the outside world-and Germany in
particular-saw only that lovely picture of the city. The illusion was all the
greater because, at that time, Vienna seemed to have experienced its
greatest revival. Under a truly gifted mayor, one who had the stamp of
administrative genius, the venerable Residence of the Emperors seemed to
have recaptured the glory of its youth. The last great German who sprang
from the ranks of the people that had colonized the Ostmark was not a

 

[Naofumi]

so-called statesman. This Dr. Lueger, in his role as mayor of the Imperial
Capital Vienna, achieved so much in almost all spheres of municipal
activity-both economic and cultural-that the heart of the empire
throbbed with renewed energy. He thus proved himself a much greater
statesman than the so-called 'diplomats' of that period.
3.3 GERMANDOM IN AUSTRIA
The fact that this political system of heterogeneous nations called
'Austria' finally broke down is no sign of political incapacity on the part of
the Germans in the old Ostmark. The collapse was the inevitable result of an
impossible situation. Ten million people cannot permanently hold together a
state of 50 million, one composed of different and conflicting nationalities
unless certain definite prerequisite conditions are established in time.
The German-Austrian had very big ways of thinking.
Accustomed to living in a great empire, he had a strong sense of
obligation. He was the only member of the Austrian State who looked
beyond the narrow borders of his own people and took in the full sweep of
the empire. When destiny severed him from his common Fatherland, he
tried to manage the tremendous task at hand. This task was to maintain for
the German-Austrians that which, through innumerable struggles, their
ancestors had originally won from the East. And it must be remembered
that they couldn't put their undivided strength into this effort, because their
hearts and minds were always turning back towards their kinsfolk in the
Motherland-leaving only a small part for the homeland.
The general horizon of the German-Austrian was comparatively broad.
His commercial interests comprised almost every part of the heterogeneous
empire. The conduct of nearly all major business activity was in his hands.
For the most part, he provided the state with its leading technical experts
and civil servants. He was responsible for conducting foreign trade, to the
extent that that sphere of activity was not under Jewish control. He held
the state together. His military duties carried him far beyond the narrow
borders of his homeland. Though the recruit might join a German regiment,
the regiment itself might be stationed in Herzegovina, Vienna, or Galicia.
The officers in the Habsburg armies were still Germans, and so were the
better parts of the civil service.
Furthermore, art and science were in German hands. Apart from the
new artistic trash-which might just as well have been produced by a

 

[Naofumi]

nation ofNegroes-all genuine artistic inspiration came from the Germans.
In music, architecture, sculpture, and painting, Vienna abundantly supplied
the entire Dual Monarchy. And this source never seemed to show signs of
exhaustion.
Finally, it was the German element that determined the conduct of
foreign policy-though a small number of Hungarians were also active in
that field.
All efforts, however, to save the unity of the state were doomed to end
in failure, because the essential prerequisites were missing.
3.4 CENTRIFUGAL FORCES OF THE AUSTRIAN PEOPLE
There was only one possible way to control and hold in check the
centrifugal forces of the differing nationalities. This was to centrally govern
the Austrian State and organize it internally on this basis. In no other way
could the existence of that state be assured.
Now and then there were lucid moments in the ruling authorities when
this truth was recognized. But it was quickly forgotten or ignored, because
of the practical difficulties. Every step toward federalism was bound to fail
because, without a strong central authority, there was insufficient power to
hold the federal elements together.
It must be remembered that the conditions in Austria were quite
different from Bismarck's Germany. That was faced with only one
difficulty, namely, overcoming political conditions; the whole Reich
already had a common cultural basis. Apart from a few minor fragments,
it comprised only a single people.
Conditions in Austria were quite the opposite.
Apart from Hungary, there was no great political tradition in any of the
various nations. If there were, time either erased all traces, or at least
rendered them obscure. Moreover, this was the age of ascendant
nationalism-the awakening of national instincts in the various countries
of the empire. They were difficult to control because, just outside the
borders of the empire, new national states were forming, consisting of the
same racial stock as those within it. These new states were able to exercise
a greater influence than the German element.
Even Vienna couldn't hold out forever in this conflict.
When Budapest developed into a metropolis, a rival appeared-one
who's mission was to strengthen one part of the empire, and not to help

 

[Naofumi]

hold it together. Soon Prague followed the example of Budapest; and later
on came Lemberg, Laibach, and others. As these former provincial towns
rose to become national cities, they became the centers of an independent
cultural life. Through this, local national instincts acquired a spiritual
foundation and thereby gained a deeper hold on the people. The time was
bound to come when the particular interests of those various nations would
become stronger than their common imperial interests. Once that stage was
reached, Austria's doom was sealed.
The course of this development was clearly perceptible since the death
of Joseph II. 1 Its rapidity depended on a number of factors, some of which
had their source in the Monarchy itself. Others resulted from the position
that the empire took in foreign policy.
Only a firm and persistent policy of centralization could hope to be
successful at enforcing a permanent consolidation of the Austrian State.
Before all, the principle should have been adopted that only one common
language could be used as the official language of the state. In this way it
would be possible to emphasize the formal unity of the imperial
commonwealth. And thus the administration would have in its hands a
technical instrument to ensure the persistence of the state as a political
unity. In the same way, schools and other forms of education should have
been used to inculcate a feeling of common citizenship. Such an objective
could not be reached in 10 or 20 years; the effort would take centuries. Just
as in all problems of colonization, steady perseverance is a far more
important element than a momentary output of energetic effort.
It goes without saying that, in such circumstances, the country must be
governed by strictly adhering to the principle of uniformity.
3.5 CONSEQUENCES OF ETHNIC DIVERSITY
For me it was quite instructive to discover why this did not occur--or
rather, why it was not done. Those who were guilty of the omission must
be held responsible for the break-up of the Habsburg Empire.
More than any other state, the existence of the old Austria depended
on a strong and capable government. It lacked ethnic uniformity; this
constitutes the fundamental basis of a national state, and will preserve its

 

[Naofumi]

existence even should the ruling power be grossly inefficient. When a state
is composed of a homogeneous population, the natural inertia of such a
population will hold it together and maintain its existence through
astonishingly long periods of misgovernment and poor administration. It
may often seem as if there were no life in such a body-politic. But a time
comes when the supposed corpse rises up and displays to the world an
astonishing manifestation of its indestructible vitality.
But the situation is utterly different in a country where the population
is not homogeneous, where there is no bond of common blood, but only a
ruling hand. Should that hand show signs of weakness, the result will not
be a kind of hibernation of the state, but rather an awakening of the
individual instincts that are slumbering in the various ethnicities. These
instincts are dormant when the state has a strong central government. The
danger that exists in these slumbering instincts can be attenuated only by
centuries of common education, traditions, and interests.
The younger such states are, the more their existence will depend on
the ability and strength of the central government. If they survive only due
to the power of a strong individual leader, they often collapse as soon as
he dies. But even after centuries of effort, these separatist instincts cannot
always be completely overcome. They may suddenly awaken when the
central government shows weakness, or when centralizing efforts prove
unable to counteract the vital energies of the separate nationalities, as they
forge ahead towards shaping their own individual existence.
The failure to see the truth of all this constituted perhaps the tragic guilt
of the House of Habsburg.
3.6 JOSEPH II
For only one Habsburg ruler did Destiny hold aloft the torch over the
future of his country. But the torch was then extinguished forever.
Joseph II, Roman Kaiser of the German nation, was filled with growing
anxiety when he realized that his House was moved to an outlying comer
of the Reich, and that before long it would be overturned and engulfed in
the whirlpool of Babylonian nationalities-unless something was done at
the eleventh hour to overcome the dire consequences of longstanding
negligence. With superhuman energy, this 'Friend of Humanity' made every
possible effort to counteract the carelessness of his predecessors. Within one
decade he strove to repair centuries of damage. If Destiny had granted him
1 05
MEIN KAMPF
40 years for his labors, and if but two generations had carried on his work,
the miracle might have been performed. But when he died, broken in body
and spirit after ten years of rulership, his work sank with him into the grave.
They now rest forever in that Capuchin crypt, never to awake.
His successors had neither the ability nor the will-power necessary for
the task they faced.
When the first signs of a new revolutionary epoch appeared in Europe,
they gradually scattered the fire throughout Austria. And when the fire
began to steadily burn, it was fanned, not by the social or political
conditions, but by forces that had their origin in the nationalist yearnings
of the various ethnic groups.
The European revolutions of 1 848 primarily took the form of a class
conflict in almost every other country, but in Austria it took the form of a
new racial struggle. Insofar as the German-Austrians there forgot the
origins of the movement-or perhaps had failed to recognize them at the
start and consequently took part in the revolutionary uprising-they sealed
their own fate. They helped to awaken the spirit of Western democracy that,
within a short while, shattered the foundations of their own existence.
3.7 THE DISSOLUTION OF THE HABSBURG MONARCHY
Setting up a representative parliamentary body, without first insisting
that only one language be used in all public discourse, was the first great
blow to the German element in the Dual Monarchy. From that moment on,
the state itself was lost. All that followed was nothing but the historic
liquidation of an empire.
To watch that process of progressive disintegration was a tragic but
also instructive experience. The execution of history's decree was carried
out in thousands of details. The fact that great numbers of people wandered
around blindly, even as they were surrounded by signs of decay, only
proves that the gods had decreed Austria's destruction.
I don't want to dwell on details here, because that would lie outside
the scope of this book. I want to treat in detail only those events that are
typical among the causes that lead to the decline of nations and states, and
which are therefore of importance to our present age. Moreover, the study
of these events helped to furnish the basis of my own political outlook

 

[Naofumi]

3.8 PARLIAMENTARIANISM
Among the institutions that most clearly showed unmistakable signs
of decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine, was that which, of all the
institutions of state, should have been the most firmly founded-I mean
the Parliament, or Reichsrat as it was called in Austria.
The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that which existed
in England, the land of classic 'democracy. ' The whole of that blissful
organization was bodily transferred, unchanged, to Vienna.
An Austrian counterpart to the British two-chamber system was
established: a Chamber of Deputies and a House of Lords. The 'houses'
themselves, considered as buildings, were somewhat different. When Barry
built his palaces on the shore of the Thames, he could look to the history
of the British Empire for his inspiration.2 In that history he found sufficient
material to fill and decorate the 1 ,200 niches, brackets, and pillars of his
magnificent edifice. The House of Lords and the House of Commons
became temples dedicated to the glory of the nation.
This was when the first difficulty came for Vienna. When Hansen, the
Danish architect, 3 completed the last gable of the marble palace, he turned
to the ancient classical world for subjects to fill out his decorative plan.
This theatrical shrine of 'western democracy' was adorned with the statues
and portraits of Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if in
symbolic irony, the horses of the quadriga atop the two Houses are pulling
apart in all four directions. There could be no better symbol for the kind of
activity going on within the walls of that very building.
The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification of Austrian
history in the decoration of this building; they insisted that it would
constitute an offence to them. Much the same happened in Germany, where
Wallot's Reichstag building was dedicated to the Germans only under the
thunder of cannons in the World War-and then only in an inscription.
I was not yet 20 when I first entered the Palace on the Franzensring to
watch and listen in the Chamber of Deputies. That first experience aroused
in me a profound feeling of repugnance.
I always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. On the
contrary, as one who cherished ideals of political freedom, I couldn't even

 

[Naofumi]

magine any other form of government. In light of my attitude towards the
House of Habsburg, I would then have thought it a crime against liberty
and reason to consider any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of
government.
I had a certain admiration for the British Parliament, and this
contributed to the formation of my opinion. This feeling came almost
unconsciously, much of it while reading the newspapers when I was young.
I couldn't discard that admiration in an instant. The dignified way in which
the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed me greatly,
thanks largely to the glowing terms used by the Austrian press. Could there
could be any nobler form of government than self-government by the
people?
But these considerations furnished the very basis of my hostility to the
Austrian Parliament. The way it was represented here seemed unworthy of
its great example. The following thoughts also influenced my attitude:
The fate of the Germans in the Austrian State depended on their
position in the Reichsrat. Prior to the introduction of universal suffrage by
secret ballot, the Germans had a majority in the Reichsrat-though not a
very substantial one. This was a cause for concern because the Social
Democratic faction of the German majority was unreliable regarding
national questions. In matters of critical concern to the Germans, the Social
Democrats always took an anti-German stand because they were afraid of
losing support among the other national groups. Even before universal
suffrage, the Social-Democratic Party could no longer be considered a
German Party. Universal suffrage put an end even to the purely numerical
dominance of the German element. The way was now clear for the further
de-Germanization of the state.
My nationalist instinct of self-preservation made it impossible for me
to welcome a system in which the German element was not really
represented as such, but always betrayed by the Social-Democratic faction.
Yet all these defects, and many others, could not be attributed to the
parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular.
I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the
representative body, there would be no occasion to oppose such a system
as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.
Such was my general attitude at the time when I first entered those
sacred and contentious halls. For me, they were sacred only because of the
radiant beauty of that majestic building. A Greek wonder on German soil.
But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes!
1 08
CHAPTER 3
Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of
great economic importance, and each one had the right to have his say.
That experience of a single day was enough to supply me with food
for thought during several weeks afterwards.
The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Sometimes the
debaters didn't make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present
didn't speak German, but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I
had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had previously
known only by reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all
gesticulating and screaming at one another, with a pathetic old man shaking
his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to order by friendly
appeals, exhortations, and grave wamings.4
I had to laugh.
I paid a second visit several weeks later. It was an entirely different
picture-almost unrecognizable. The hall was nearly empty. They were
sleeping in the other rooms below. Only a few deputies were in their places,
yawning in each other's faces. One was ' speaking. ' A deputy speaker was
in the chair. He looked around with obvious boredom.
Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the
Parliament whenever I had any time to spare, and silently but attentively
watched the spectacle. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be
understood. And I studied the more or less intelligent features of those
elected representatives of the various nationalities that composed that
motley state. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.
A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or
completely eliminate my former convictions regarding the character of this
institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form that the principle
of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria; no. It became
impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time, I had
believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were
due to the lack of a German majority. But now I recognized that the very
essence and form of the institution itself was wrong.
A number of questions arose in my mind.

 

[Naofumi]

I studied the democratic principle of majority rule more closely. And I
scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the
gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted
with the task of making this institution function.
Thus I came to know both the institution itself and those in it.
And thus I formed a clear and vivid picture of a typical example of that
most dignified phenomenon of our time: the parliamentarian. The picture
of him that I then formed became deeply engraved on my mind, and I have
never altered its essential character.
Once again, these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from
getting firmly entangled by a theory that, at first glance, seems so alluring to
many people-though that theory itself is a symptom of human decadence.
Western democracy, as practised today, is the forerunner of Marxism.
In fact, the latter would be inconceivable without the former. Democracy
is the breeding ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world-pest can
grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy
produced an 'abomination of filth and fire'5-the creative fire of which,
however, seems to have died out.
I'm very grateful to Fate that I noticed this problem when I was still in
Vienna; if I had been in Germany at that time, I might easily have found
only a superficial solution. If I had been in Berlin when I first discovered
what an illogical institution 'parliament' is, I might easily have gone to the
other extreme. I might have believed-as many did, and not without
apparently good reason-that the salvation of the people and the empire
could be secured only by restrengthening imperial authority. Those who
believed didn't understand the tendencies of their time, and were blind to
the aspirations of the people.
In Austria, this was impossible.
Here it wasn't so easy to fall from one error into another. If the
Parliament was worthless, the Habsburgs were worse--or at least no better.
The problem wasn't solved by rejecting the parliamentary system. A
question immediately arose: What then? To repudiate and abolish the
Vienna Parliament would have resulted in leaving all power in the hands
of the Habsburgs. For me especially, that idea was unthinkable.
Since this problem was particularly difficult in regard to Austria, I was
forced, while still quite young, to go more thoroughly into the essentials
of the whole question than I would otherwise have done.

 

[Naofumi]

3.9 LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY
The aspect of the situation that was most thought-provoking to me was
the manifest lack of any individual responsibility.
The parliament takes an action that may have the most devastating
consequences, and yet nobody bears responsibility for it. No one can be
called to account. Can we call the government responsible if, in the face of
a catastrophe, it simply resigns? Or if the coalition is changed, or even if
parliament is dissolved?
Can a fluctuating majority of people ever be truly responsible for anything?
Isn't the idea of responsibility bound to an individual person?
Is it even possible to actually hold the parliamentary leaders
accountable for any action that originated in the desires of the mass of
representatives, and was carried out under their direction?
Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the true
statesman's business really consist in the art of making a whole pack of
blockheads understand his projects? Is it really his job to beg and plead so
that they will grant him their generous consent?
Is it really an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should
possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with his ability to conceive great
political measures, and to carry them through into practice?
Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to
win over a majority of votes in an assembly that has been called together
as the chance result of an electoral system?
Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily
appraised a great political concept before that concept was proven a
success?
In this world, isn't the creative act of genius always a protest against
the inertia of the mass? And what should the statesman do if he doesn't
succeed in coaxing the parliamentary mob to give its consent?
Should he buy it?
Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens,
should he then refrain from pushing forward the vital necessities? Should
he resign or remain in power?
In such a case, doesn't a man of character find himself face to face with
an insoluble contradiction between knowledge and moral integrity-or
better, his sense of honesty?

 

[Naofumi]

3.10 THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IDEA OF LEADERSHIP
Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honor?
Shouldn't every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself
to the level of a political gangster?
And, on the other hand, doesn't every gangster feel the itch to 'play
politics, ' seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him
personally but rather with an anonymous, unaccountable mob?
Doesn't our parliamentary principle of majority rule necessarily lead
to the destruction of the idea of leadership?
Does anyone honestly believe that human progress originates in the
brain of the majority, and not in the brain of the individual personality?
Or may it be presumed that future human civilization can dispense with
this as a condition of its existence?
Or rather, doesn't this seem today to be more indispensible than ever?
The parliamentary principle of majority rule rejects the authority of the
individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In
doing so, it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental
law of nature-though it must be admitted that this principle is not reflected
in the decadence of our upper 1 0,000.6
The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not
easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish press, unless the reader
has learned how to think independently and examine facts for himself. This
institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre
people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a
man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to
refrain from taking part in politics; under these circumstances, the situation
doesn't call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favor of the
majority. The situation appeals to small minds, and it attracts them
accordingly.
The narrower the spirit and knowledge of our leather-handlers, the
more accurately can they assess their own situation. They will therefore be
all the more inclined to praise a system that doesn't demand creative genius
or even high-class talent, but rather the craftiness of an efficient town clerk.
Indeed, they value this kind of petty craftiness more than the political
6 In other words, of the "1%".
1 1 2
CHAPTER 3
genius of a Pericles. 7 Such mediocrity never worries about responsibility.
From the beginning, our parliamentarian knows that, whatever be the
results of his ' statesmanship,' his end is already written in the stars; one
day, he will have to clear out and make room for another equally great
spirit.
It's a sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen
grows as the caliber of individual personality dwindles. That caliber will
inevitably shrink as the individual politician increasingly depends upon
parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be
the lackey of idiotic incompetents and big-mouths. And they in turn, being
the representatives of the majority-and hence of stupidity-hate nothing
so much as a superior mind.
For such an assembly of wise men, it's always a consolation to be led
by a person whose intellectual stature is on par with their own. Thus each
one may have the occasional opportunity to shine in debate; and above all,
each one feels that he too may rise to the top. If Peter be boss today, then
why not Paul tomorrow?
3.11 THE EXCLUSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LEADER
This invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar
phenomenon that has recently become a real disgrace-namely, the
cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever
important decisions must be made, they always find themselves fortunate
in being able to hide behind the so-called majority!
In observing one of these political manipulators, one notices how he
begs the majority for their approval for whatever action he takes. He needs
to have accomplices, in order to shift responsibility to other shoulders
whenever it is convenient to do so. That's the main reason why this kind
of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage. At the
same time, it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept
responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to hide, is a
cowardly scoundrel. Whenever a national leader comes from that low class
of politicians, evil consequences will soon follow. No one will then have
the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and
defamation rather than rise up and take a stand. And thus nobody is left
7 Pericles (ca. 495 - 429 BC) was one of the great Athenian statesmen.
1 1 3
MEIN KAMPF
who is willing to risk his position and his career, if necessary, in support of
a determined line of policy.
One truth must always be kept in mind: the majority can never replace
the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice.
And just as a hundred blockheads don't equal one wise man, so a hundred
cowards are incapable of any heroic action.
The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the
greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity,
will come to place their immortal energies at the service of the nation. They
are so anxious that they find it hard to wait their turn . They stand in a long
line, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them, and
calculating the hours until their turn comes. They watch every change in
personnel, and they are grateful for every scandal that thins the ranks ahead
of them.
And if someone sticks to his stool too long, they consider this as almost
a breach of a holy pact of solidarity. They grow vindictive, and don't rest
until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over
his cosy berth back to the public. After that, he will have little chance of
getting another opportunity. Usually those creatures who have been forced
to give up their posts try to get in line again, unless they are hounded away
by the protests of the others.
The result of all this is that, in such a state, the succession of sudden
changes in public offices has a very troubling effect in general, one that may
easily lead to disaster. It's not only the ignorant and the incompetent person
who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions; the genuine leader
may be affected just as much as the others, if not more so, whenever Fate
has placed a capable man in a leadership position. If the superior quality of
such a leader becomes recognized, it will result in a united front against
him-particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should
fall into the habit of intermingling with this exalted society. They want to
have only their own types as company, and they will quickly take a hostile
attitude towards any man who might show himself superior to them. Their
instinct, which is so blind in other ways, is very sharp in this respect.
The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class
steadily declines. One can easily predict how much the nation and state are
bound to suffer from such a condition-provided one doesn't belong to
that same class of 'leaders. '
The parliamentary regime in the old Austria was the purest form of this
institution.

 

[Naofumi]

Though the Austrian prime minister was appointed by the emperor and
king, this act of appointment merely gave practical effect to the parliamentary
will. The huckstering and bargaining that went on in regard to every
ministerial position showed all the typical marks of western democracy. The
results that followed were in keeping with the principles applied. The
intervals between the replacement of one person by another gradually became
shorter, finally ending up in a veritable chase. With each change, the quality
of the 'statesman' in question deteriorated, until finally only the petty type
of political gangster remained. In such people, the qualities of statesmanship
were measured and valued according to the skill with which they pieced
together one coalition after another; in other words, their craftiness in
manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which is the only kind of
practical activity suited to the aptitudes of these representatives.
In this sphere, Vienna was the school that offered the most impressive
examples.
Another feature that engaged my attention even more was the contrast
between the talents and knowledge of these representatives of the people
on the one hand and, on the other, the nature of the tasks they had to face.
Willingly or unwillingly, one couldn't help thinking seriously of the narrow
intellectual outlook of these chosen representatives of the various
nationalities. And one couldn't avoid contemplating the methods through
which these noble figures in our public life were first discovered.
It was worthwhile to make a thorough study of the way in which the
real talents of these gentlemen were devoted to the service of their
country-in other words, to thoroughly analyze the technical process of
their activities.
The more I penetrated into the intimate structure of parliamentary life,
and the more I studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit
of ruthless objectivity, the more deplorable it became. Indeed, it's
mandatory to be strictly objective in the study of an institution whose
sponsors speak of 'objectivity' as the only fair basis of examination and
judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their sordid
existence, the results were surprising.
3.12 'PUBLIC OPINION'
Objectively considered, there is no other principle that turns out to be
quite so ill-conceived as parliamentarianism.

 

[Naofumi]

Here we may pass over the methods according to which the election
of the representatives takes place, as well as the ways that bring them into
office and bestow new titles on them. It is quite evident that public wishes
are satisfied only to a small degree, by the manner in which an election
takes place. Everyone who properly estimates the political intelligence of
the masses can easily see that it is insufficient to independently form a
general political outlook, or to select the men who might be competent to
carry out their ideas.
Whatever definition we may give of the term 'public opinion, ' only a
very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual
insight. The greater portion results from the manner in which public matters
have been presented to the people, through an overwhelmingly impressive
and persistent system of 'information. '
In the theologial sphere, religious yearnings slumber in the soul, and
the profession of a denominational belief is largely the result of education.
So too, the political opinions of the masses are the final result of influences
systematically operating on the human soul and intelligence, in light of a
method that is applied with unbelievable thoroughness and perseverance.
By far the most effective branch of political education-that which is
best expressed by the word 'propaganda'-is conducted by the press. The
press is the
chief means employed in the process of political
'enlightenment. ' It represents a kind of school for adults. This educational
activity, however, is not in the hands of the state but in the clutches of
powers that are of a very inferior character.
While still a young man in Vienna, I had excellent opportunities for
coming to know the men who owned this machine for mass instruction, as
well as those who supplied it with ideas. At first I was quite surprised when
I realized how little time was necessary for this great evil power within the
state to produce a certain belief among the public. In doing so, the genuine
will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued. It
took the press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter
into an issue of national importance--while vital problems were completely
ignored or hidden away from public view.
The press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from
nowhere within just a few weeks. They made it appear that the great hopes
of the masses were bound up with those names. And so they made those
names more popular than any man of real ability could ever hope for. All
this was done, despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown, even
up to a month before the press publicly extolled them.

 

[Naofumi]

At the same time, older figures in politics and other spheres of life
quickly faded from the public memory, and were forgotten as if they were
dead-though they were still vigorous and healthy. Or they were so vilely
abused that it looked as if their names would soon stand as permanent
symbols of villainy. To understand the really pernicious influence that the
press can exercise, one must study this infamous Jewish method whereby
honorable and decent people are besmirched with filth, in the lowest form
of abuse and slander, from hundreds of directions simultaneously-as if
by magic.
These spiritual robbers will grab at anything that might serve their evil
ends.
They would poke their noses into the most intimate family affairs, and
not rest until they had sniffed out some petty issue that could be used to
destroy the victim's reputation. But even if nothing were discovered in the
private or public life of the victim, they continued to hurl abuse at him in
the belief that some of their charges would stick, even though refuted a
thousand times. In most cases, it finally became impossible for the victim
to continue his defense because the accuser worked together with so many
accomplices that his slanders were repeated interminably.
But these slanderers would never admit that they were acting from
motives that were believable or comprehensible to the common run of
humanity. God forbid! The scoundrel who defamed his contemporaries in
this villainous way would, like an octopus, cover himself with a cloud of
respectability and clever phrases about his 'journalistic duty' and other such
nonsense. When these pests gathered together in large numbers at meetings
and congresses, they would dish out a lot of slimy talk about a special kind
of 'honor'-namely, the professional honor of the journalist. Then the
assembled species would bow their respects to one another.
This rabble fabricates more than two-thirds of the so-called public
opinion, from whose foam the parliamentary Aphrodite eventually arises. 8
3.13 THE MAJORITY PRINCIPLE
Several volumes would be needed if one were to give an adequate
account of all its hollow fallacies. But if we pass over the details and look

 

[Naofumi]

at the product itself while in operation, I think this alone will suffice to
open the eyes of even the most innocent and na'ive person, so that he may
recognize the absurdity of this institution by looking at it objectively.
This human aberration is as harmful as it is absurd. In order to see this,
the best and easiest method is to compare democratic parliamentarianism
with a genuine German democracy.
The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy
is the fact that a number of persons, let us say 500-these days, including
women also--are elected to parliament and invested with authority to give
final judgment on everything. In practice, they alone are the governing body;
for although they may appoint a cabinet that outwardly seems to direct state
affairs, this cabinet has no real existence of its own. In reality this so-called
government can't do anything against the will of the assembly. It can never
be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in
the cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The cabinet always functions
only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be
judged only by how far it succeeds in adapting to the will of the majority,
or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals.
But this means that it must descend from the level of a real governing
power to that of a beggar, one who has to beg for the approval of a majority.
Indeed, the main job of the cabinet is to secure for itself the favor of the
majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will be
more favorably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts, it
may go on 'governing' for a little while. If it should fail to win or form a
majority, it must resign. Whether its policy per se was right or wrong
doesn't matter at all.
For all practical purposes, responsibility is abolished.
The consequences of such a state of affairs can easily be understood
from the following simple considerations:
Those 500 deputies who have been elected by the people come from
various dissimilar callings in life; they show widely varying degrees of
political capacity, with the result that the whole picture is incoherent and
deplorable. Surely nobody believes that these elected representatives of the
nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects! No one, I hope, i s
foolish enough to pretend that hundreds o f true statesmen can emerge from
papers placed in the ballot box by voters who are just of average
intelligence.
The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage
cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those times may be
1 1 8
CHAPTER 3
really called blessed when one genuine statesman appears among a people.
Such statesmen don't appear by the hundreds or more. Secondly, the broad
masses instinctively display a definite antipathy towards every outstanding
genius. There's a better chance of a camel passing through the eye of a
needle than of a truly great man being 'discovered' through an election.
Throughout world history, exceptional events have mostly been due to
the driving force of an individual personality.
But here, 500 persons of sub-par intellectual qualities pass judgment
on the most important problems affecting the nation. They form
governments, that in tum learn to win the approval of the illustrious
assembly for every legislative step-which means that the policy to be
carried out is actually the policy of the 500.
And that's just what it usually looks like.
But let's pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and
ask what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider the fact
that the problems to be addressed are variable and diverse, we can very
well realize how inefficient a governing system must be that entrusts the
right of decision to a mass assembly, one in which only very few possess
the requisite knowledge and experience to properly deal with the matters.
The most important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal in which
not more than 1 0 percent have studied economics. This means that final
authority is vested in men who are utterly devoid of any preparatory
training that would make them competent to decide on the questions at
hand.
The same holds true of every other problem. It's always a majority of
ignorant and incompetent people who decide on each measure. The
composition of the institution does not change, while the problems to be
dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life. An intelligent
judgment would be possible only if different deputies had the authority to
deal with different issues. It's out of the question to think that the same
people are qualified to decide on transportation questions as well as, say,
on questions of foreign policy-unless each is a universal genius. But
scarcely more than one true genius appears in a century.
Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real thinkers, but only with
dilettantes who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant
intellectual prostitutes of the worst kind. That's why these honorable
gentlemen show such astonishing levity in debating matters that would
demand the most painstaking consideration, even from great minds.
Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the state
1 1 9
MEIN KAMPF
are discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed, the
latter would be a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than
that of deciding the destinies of a race.
Of course, it would be unfair to assume that every member in such a
parliament was endowed by nature with such a small sense of responsibility.
No, by no means.

 

[Naofumi]

3.14 THE DESTRUCTION OF CHARACTER
But this system, by forcing the individual to pass judgment on questions
for which he is not competent, gradually debases his moral character. Nobody
will have the courage to say, "Gentlemen, I'm afraid we know nothing about
what we are talking about. I for one have no competency in the matter at all."
(Besides, if such a declaration were made, it wouldn't change matters very
much; such outspoken honesty would not be understood. The person who
made the declaration would be deemed an honorable ass who shouldn't be
allowed to spoil the game.) Those who know human nature know that nobody
likes to be considered a fool among his associates; and in certain circles,
honesty is taken as a measure of stupidity.
Thus even a man who was originally honest, once he finds himself
elected to parliament, may eventually be forced to acquiesce in a line of
conduct that is base in itself, and which amounts to a betrayal of the public
trust. This destroys every real sense of honor that might occasionally rise
up in the conscience of one person or another. Finally, the otherwise upright
deputy will succeed in persuading himself that he is by no means the worst
of the lot, and that by playing along, he may prevent something worse from
happening.
An objection may be raised here. It may be said that, of course, the
individual member may not have a knowledge of what's required for
addressing this or that question. But in such a case, the party sets up special
committees of experts who have more than the required knowledge for
dealing with the questions before them.
At first glance, that argument seems sound. But then another question
arises: namely, why are 500 persons elected if only a few have the wisdom
that is required to deal with the more important problems?
Yes-this is the worm in the apple.

 

[Naofumi]

3.15 JEWISH DEMOCRACY
It isn't the aim of our modem democratic parliamentary system to bring
together an assembly of intelligent and well-infonned men. The aim rather
is to bring together a group of non-entities who are dependent on others
for their views, and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower their
mental outlook. This is the only way that party policy-according to the
evil meaning it has today-can be put into effect.
Only in this way is it possible for the wire-puller, who exercises real
control, to remain in the dark, so that he personally can never be held
accountable. Under such circumstances, none of the decisions taken, no
matter how disastrous they may be, can be laid at the foot of the scoundrel
who is truly to blame. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the
party as a whole.
In practice, no actual responsibility remains. It arises only from
personal duty and not from the obligations that rest with a parliamentary
assembly of empty talkers.
The parliamentary institution attracts liars and moles, people who shun
the light of day. No upright m�n, who is ready to accept personal
responsibility for his acts, will be attracted to such an institution.
That's the reason why this brand of democracy has become a tool in
the hand of that race that, because of its inner goals, must shun the open
light-as it has always done and always will do. Only the Jew can praise
an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself.
By contrast, consider a truly German democracy. Here the leader is
freely chosen and is obliged to accept full responsibility for all his actions
and omissions. Problems are not put to a majority vote, but they are decided
upon by the individual. As a guarantee of responsibility for those decisions,
he pledges his worldly belongings, and even his life.
The objection may be raised here that, under such conditions, it would
be very difficult to find a man who would be ready to devote himself to so
risky a task. There is only one answer to that:
Thank God that our German democracy will prevent the chance
careerist, who may be intellectually worthless and a moral slacker, from
coming to power in devious ways. The fear of undertaking such far
reaching responsibilities, under German democracy, will scare off the
ignorant and the incompetent.
But if it happens that such a person sneaks in, it will be easy enough to
ruthlessly identify and challenge him-somewhat as follows: "Be gone,

 

[Naofumi]

you scoundrel! Don't soil these steps with your feet; these are the steps of
the Pantheon of History, and they are not meant for status-seekers but for
men of noble character!"
Such were the views I formed after two years of attending the sessions
of the Viennese Parliament.
Then I never went back.
3.16 THE COLLAPSING DUAL MONARCHY
The parliamentary regime was one of the chief reasons why the
Habsburg State steadily declined during its final years. The more that the
German element was whittled away through parliamentary procedure, the
stronger was the system of playing off the various constituent nationalities
against the other. In the Reichsrat, this always occurred at the expense of
the Germans, which meant that the results were detrimental to the empire
as a whole. At the close of the century, even a simpleton could see that the
cohesive forces in the Dual Monarchy could no longer counterbalance the
separatist tendencies of the provincial nationalities.
On the contrary.
The measures that the state adopted for its own maintenance became
increasingly mean-spirited; correspondingly, general disrespect for the state
increased. Hungary and the various Slav provinces gradually ceased to
identify themselves with the unified monarchy, and therefore they didn't
feel its weakness as in any way detrimental to themselves. Rather, they
welcomed those symptoms of decay. They looked forward to the final
dissolution of the state, not to its recovery.
Complete collapse was temporarily averted in parliament by the
humiliating concessions that were made to all kinds of annoying demands,
at the expense of the Germans. Everywhere the defense of the state rested
on playing off the various nationalities against one another. But the general
trend of this development was always directed against the Germans. Given
that the right of royal succession gave a certain influence to the Archduke
Franz Ferdinand, a policy of increasing the power of the Czechs was
systematically enacted throughout the administration.9 With all the means

 

[Naofumi]

at his disposal, the heir to the Dual Monarchy personally furthered a policy
aimed at eliminating the influence of the Germans-or at least he defended
that policy. Purely German districts were gradually but decisively brought
within the danger zone of the mixed languages. Even in Lower Austria,
this process began to make increasingly rapid progress, and Vienna was
looked upon by the Czechs as their largest city.
The central idea of this new Habsburg was to establish a Slavic State in
Central Europe. The Czech language was favored. (The Archduke's wife
had formerly been a Czech countess, and she was wedded to the prince by
an arranged marriage. She came from an environment of traditional hostility
to the Germans.) This new state was to be constructed on a purely Catholic
basis, so as to serve as a bulwark against Orthodox Russia. As had happened
often in Habsburg history, religion was thus exploited to serve a purely
political policy-and in this case, a fatal policy, at least for the Germans.
The result was lamentable in many respects.
Neither the House of Habsburg nor the Catholic Church received the
reward that they expected.
Habsburg lost the throne, and the Church lost a great state.
By employing religious motives in the service of politics, a spirit was
aroused that the instigators had never thought possible.
The attempt to root out Germandom in the old monarchy led to the
emergence of the Pan-German Movement in Austria.
In the 1 880s, Manchester Liberalism, which was fundamentally Jewish
in its outlook, had reached or even passed the zenith of its influence in the
Dual Monarchy.10 The reaction that set in arose not from social but from
nationalistic tendencies, as was always the case in old Austria. The instinct
for self-preservation drove the Germans to vigorously defend themselves.
Economic considerations only slowly began to grow in influence; but they
were of secondary concern. But of the general political chaos, two party
organizations emerged. The one was more of a national character, and the
other more social. Both were highly interesting and instructive for the future.
After the humiliating end of the War of 1 866, the House of Habsburg
contemplated a military revenge. 1 1 Only the tragic death of Emperor
Maximilian of Mexico prevented a still closer collaboration with France.

 

[Naofumi]

The chief blame for Maximilian's disastrous expedition was attributed to
Napoleon III; the fact that the French abandoned him aroused a general
feeling of indignation. Yet the Habsburgs were still lying in wait for their
opportunity. If the War of 1 870-7 1 had not been such a singular triumph,
the Viennese Court might have risked a bloody venture in order to avenge
Sadowa. 12 But when the first reports arrived from the Franco-German
battlefield, which, though true, seemed miraculous and almost incredible,
the 'wisest' ofall monarchs recognized that it was an inopportune moment,
and tried to put the best face on a bad situation.
The heroic conflict of those two years [ 1 870-7 1 ] produced an even
greater miracle. With the Habsburgs, the change of attitude came only from
the pressure of circumstances, never from a heartfelt urge. The German
people of the Ostmark, however, were entranced by the triumphant glory
of the newly-established German Reich, and were profoundly moved when
they saw the dream of their fathers resurrected in a glorious reality.
Let there be no mistake: The true German-Austrian realized, from this
time onward, that Koniggratz was the tragic but necessary pre-condition
for the re-establishment of an empire that would no longer be burdened
with the morbidity of the old alliance. Above all, the German-Austrian
came to feel, in the very depths of his own being, that the historic mission
of the House of Habsburg had come to an end, and that the new empire
could choose only a kaiser whose heroic convictions were worthy to wear
the 'Crown of the Rhine.' It was right and just that destiny be praised for
having chosen a scion of that house which, in Frederick the Great, gave
the nation an elevated and shining symbol for all time to come.
3.17 REBELLION OF THE GERMAN-AUSTRIANS
After the great war [of 1870-71], the House of Habsburg desperately
set to work to slowly and deliberately root out the dangerous German
element-whose inner feelings and attitude could not be doubted. Such a
process would be the final result of the Slavization policy. It was then that
the fire of rebellion burned among the doomed people, such as has never
been seen in modem German history.

 

[Naofumi]

For the first time, nationalists and patriots were transformed into rebels.
Not rebels against the nation or the state as such, but rebels against that
form of government that they were convinced would inevitably bring about
the ruin of their own people.
For the first time in modem history, the traditional dynastic patriotism
and national love of fatherland and people were in open conflict.
It was to the merit of the pan-German movement in Austria during the
1 890s that it pointed out clearly and unequivocally that a state is entitled
to demand respect and protection only when it is administered in
accordance with the interests of the nation-or at least not in a manner
detrimental to those interests.
The authority of the state can never be an end in itself. If that were so,
any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred.
If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the
purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right of
every individual citizen-it is his duty.
The question of whether and when such a situation exists cannot be
answered by theoretical dissertations, but only by the exercise of force; and
it is success that decides the issue.
Every government-even one that is the worst possible, and even though
it may have betr�yed the nation's trust in a thousand ways-will claim that
its duty is to uphold the authority of the state. Its adversaries, who are fighting
for national self-preservation, must use the same weapons that the government
uses, if they are to prevail against such a rule and secure their own freedom
and independence. Therefore the conflict will be fought with 'legal' means as
long as the power to be overthrown uses them. But the insurgents won't
hesitate to apply illegal means ifthe oppressor himself uses them.
Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human
existence is not the maintenance of a state of government, but rather the
preservation of the species.
3.18 HUMAN RIGHTS OVERRIDE STATES' RIGHTS
If the species is in danger of being oppressed or even eliminated, the
question of legality is only of secondary importance. The established power
may, in such a case, employ only those means that are alleged to be 'legal. '
And yet the instinct of self-preservation on the part of the oppressed will
always justify, to the greater degree, the use of all possible resources.

 

[Naofumi]

Only on the basis of this principle was it possible to conduct those
struggles against foreign enslavement or domestic oppression, of which
history supplies us with many magnificent examples.
Human rights surpass the rights of the state.
But if a people be defeated in the struggle for its human rights, this
means that its weight has proved too light in the scale of destiny, to be
worthy of survival on this earth. When a people is unwilling or unable to
fight for its existence, then Providence, in its eternal justice, will decree
that people's end.
The world is not here for cowards.
Austria affords a very clear and striking example of how easy it is for
tyranny to hide its head under the cloak of so-called 'legality.'
The legal exercise of power in the Habsburg State was then based on
the anti-German attitude of the parliament, with its non-German majorities,
and on the dynastic House, which was also hostile to the German element.
The whole authority of the state was incorporated in these two factors. Any
attempt to alter the lot of the Germans through these two factors would
have been absurd. Those who advised the 'legal' way as the only possible
means offered no resistance; no policy of resistance could have been put
into effect through legal measures. To follow the advice of the legalist
counsellors would have meant the inevitable ruin of the German element
within the monarchy. And this disaster would have come very soon. The
Germans were actually saved only by the collapse of the state.
The spectacled theorist would still rather die for his doctrine than for
his people.
Because men have made laws, he subsequently comes to think that they
exist for the sake of the laws.
The pan-German movement rendered a great service by abolishing all
such nonsense-to the horror of all doctrinaire theorists and other fetish
worshippers.
When the Habsburgs attempted to attack the German element through
all available means, the Pan-German Party hit back ruthlessly against the
'illustrious' dynasty. This party was the first to probe into the corrupt
condition of the state. In doing so, they opened the eyes of hundreds of
thousands. To its credit, it liberated the high ideal oflove for one's country
from the embrace of this deplorable dynasty.
When that party first made its appearance, it secured a large following
in fact, almost an avalanche. But the initial successes didn't last. When I
came to Vienna, the Pan-German Party had been eclipsed by the Christian-

 

[Naofumi]

Socialist Party, which had meanwhile come into power. Indeed, the Pan
German Party had been reduced to almost complete insignificance.
The rise and fall of the pan-German movement on the one hand, and
the unprecedented progress of the Christian-Socialist Party on the other,
became a classic object of study for me. They played an important part in
the development of my own views.
When I came to Vienna, all my sympathies were exclusively with the
pan-German movement.
I was impressed by the fact that they had the courage to shout 'Heil
Hohenzollern, ' and I rejoiced at their determination to consider themselves
an integral part of the German Reich, from which they were only
temporarily separated. They never missed an opportunity to explain their
attitude in public, which raised my enthusiasm and confidence. To publicly
avow one's principles on every problem that concerned Germanism, and
to never compromise, seemed to me the only way of saving our people.
What I couldn't understand was how this movement declined so soon after
such a magnificent start. And it was no less incomprehensible that the
Christian-Socialists should gain such tremendous power within such a short
time. They had just reached the pinnacle of their popularity.
When I began to compare those two movements, Fate gave me the best
means of understanding the causes of this puzzling problem-in this case,
accelerated by my own sad circumstances.
3.19 SCHONERER AND LUEGER
I'll begin my analysis with an account of the two men who must be
regarded as the founders and leaders of the two movements: George von
Schonerer and Dr. Karl Lueger.
As far as personality goes, both were far above the level and stature of
the so-called parliamentary figures. They lived lives of immaculate and
irreproachable purity amidst the morass of general political corruption. My
initial sympathies lay with the Pan-German representative, Schonerer; it
was only afterwards, and gradually, that I felt an equal liking for the
Christian-Socialist leader.
When I compared their respective abilities, Schonerer seemed to me a
better and more profound thinker on fundamental problems. He foresaw
the inevitable downfall of the Austrian State more clearly and accurately
than anyone else. If this warning to the Habsburg Empire had been heeded