Here’s an explanation of the vision of Germany set forth by the National Socialist Workers’ Party. The highlighted passages are from the 25-point program prepared by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler. This program was publicly presented on 24 February 1920, and heartily approved. The annotations explain the circumstances or provide the rationale for the argument.
Adolf Hitler explained the program as:
[T]he program of the new movement was summed up in a few guiding principles, twenty-five in all. They were devised to give, primarily to the man of the people, a rough picture of the movement's aims. They are in a sense a political creed, which on the one hand recruits for the movement and on the other is suited to unite and weld together by a commonly recognized obligation those who have been recruited.
The common interest before self-interest – that is the spirit of the program. Breaking of the thraldom of interest – that is the kernel of national socialism.
We begin with the introduction:
The Program of the German Workers’ Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.
The limited duration is important as it explains that the measures were put forth in response to dire straits and not all points were necessarily intended to be permanent. Turmoil lends itself to stricter measures unlike prosperous times.
These 3 goals are directly related to World War I and its aftermath:
World War I started in 1914. Within two years Germany had practically won it, and Germans offered peace to Britain on a status quo ante basis, i.e., everything will go back as it was prior to the war. Britain would have accepted this offer, but the Jews promised England America’s intervention if it guaranteed them Palestine, and England agreed (Balfour declaration) even though Turkey was in control of Palestine.
Before the Balfour declaration, Jews were supportive of the Germans because Germany was undermining the Czar-led Russia they despised; major Jewish bankers even funded the Germans in this regard. Jews in Germany enjoyed a blessed existence and Germany had even given refuge to some Jews who’s first attempt at the Bolshevik revolution in Russia had failed. When the chance of establishing Palestine materialized, none of this mattered.
American Jews quickly started portraying, in the media, Germans as ruthless criminals that thought nothing of shooting Red Cross nurses and cutting off babies’ hands. The Jews arranged for the passenger ship, the Lusitania – with 1,195 passengers on board, including 195 Americans – to be sunk, enraging American passions against Germany. Jews bribed the American President, Woodrow Wilson, and America was off to war. Germany was defeated.
Germans started to awaken to the Jewish menace after realizing that treacherous Jews brought America into the war and led to Germany’s defeat. Jew-aware Germans started shunning Jews; they didn’t attempt to physically harm Jews.
In 1919, under the leadership of the Jews Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, Jews tried to bring the Communist revolution to Germany. This was a soft version of Communism, opposed by hardliner Communist Jews as well as military groups who felt stabbed in the back by the Communists
Germany was forced into the Versailles treaty after World War I, which obligated Germany to pay three times in reparations what wealth it had and handed over 25,000 square miles of German territory – inhabited by nearly 7 million Germans – to other nations, courtesy of the Jews. The territory loss set the stage for a nationalist awakening in Germany. To force Germany into signing the Versailles treaty, the British maintained a naval blockade from 1919 to 1921. As a result, about a million Germans died.
The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.
We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.
The rationale was that during times of turmoil, Jews and non-Germans couldn’t be trusted with responsible positions in public life. The emphasis was on Jews:
He who sees in the Jew nothing more than a “German citizen of the Jewish faith,” and not an exotic and distinct nation with pronounced parasitic tendencies cannot grasp the urgency of this demand. Whoever confuses a cabbage plant which accidentally fell into a strawberry patch, with a strawberry plant, or who believes he can harvest strawberries if he treats the cabbage with respect, is mistaken, as is the person who thinks that if he raises a lion among a flock of sheep, the lion will behave like a lamb.
A better illustration: a German would not make a good judge in India or China, and a Hottentot would not make a good mayor of a German city. And yet it would not be so bad if an Enver Pascha or Chiang Kaischek would bring order to Germany, as it would be if a Jew imposed his racial traits upon us.
It is certain that with the revolution, all ties of governmental order were dissolved. Both domestic Jewish bankers and the newly arrived eastern Jews enriched themselves massively on the misery of Germany. We all experienced it and saw it with our own eyes. We all suffered the consequences, which began with the destruction of Nordic social order. “But this cunning people sees only one possibility: as long as there is order, there is nothing for them to hope for” (Goethe at the fair in Plundersweilen).
They felt the need to stop immigration of eastern Jews and other parasitic foreigners, and recommend that burdensome foreigners and Jews be deported. Here’s Hitler’s later elaboration in The German State:
During the soaring inflation these Galician and polish Jews descended like locusts on the cities of Germany. Despite a severe housing shortage they soon had the best apartments, while the Germans lived in holes. Then they began their dirty dealings they bought up everything: pearls, Persian carpets, diamonds, gold, silver, platinum, war bonds, scrap paper, thousand mark bills, copper, lead, literary works, theatres, even scrap. Soon they were visibly rich, treated like citizens by ordinary Germans.
Under pressure from the National Socialists, the general political commissar in Bavaria, von Kahr, finally undertook to deport these eastern Jews (it was von Kahr who broke his word of honor “for reasons of state” and treacherously drowned, in blood, the German insurrection of 9 November 1923). Von Kahr finally dared to send his police units to several of the most notorious swindlers.
Then the “established, respectable” Jews of the Central Jewish Congress, long-time residents of Germany, intervened on behalf of the Galician mob. They came to the defense of their fellow Jews, -- and von Kahr made a cowardly retreat.
Only clear headed, resolute heads of state, guided by ethnic awareness, are capable of acting properly in this situation. Concessions simply cannot be made here. It is necessary to go beyond mere anti-Semitic measures. We must cultivate ethnic hygiene generally. We must cultivate the noble goal, the noblest of all, which is to indoctrinate our nation in Nordic thought.
Perhaps this question does not belong in the program of the NSDAP, but we must be aware that in the long run, little can be done with a bastardized German nation. Today we can see that the racial flood has been overcome, at least theoretically, thanks to the great interest, which the subject of ethnicity finds throughout society and to the availability of thoroughly researched literature on the subject. Only relentless work will advance our cause however.
Citizenship was to be restricted to only Germans who shared German culture and destiny, and here are the exceptions and elaboration:
Some people, even though German born, deliberately turn against the German nation state. They take their political orders from foreign countries and they do not share in our German destiny. They should not exercise the rights of citizens, any more than the Jews, and we shall have to exclude many of them from the privileges of citizenship. Unscrupulous swindlers, office holding deserters and traitors who still enjoy immunity, will no longer be allowed to exercise the rights of citizenship in our National Socialist State.
Those persons who are not true Germans should be allowed to reside in the German state only as guests. The laws should govern them as resident aliens. This is an important principle. It should put an end to the never-ending courting of foreigners by the present government.
That is not to say that we should not welcome foreigners and treat them courteously as guests, as long as they behave. And yet:
The rights and interests of the Germans should take precedence over those of foreigners. There is no need to demand further details in our program. Details of laws governing alien residents are a question for a later date, as are details of the exclusion of Jews from public life.
One cannot demand that a formulation of basic principles would also provide tactical details for the conquest of political power or other specific tasks. I am opposed to dedicating excessive resources to programs. In our titanic struggle, our principal task is the simple and irrevocable definition of our goals. It is not developing elaborate electoral strategies like the bourgeois and socialist parties.
A starving nation in financial chaos is unlikely to be welcoming of foreigners, but note the previous clarification that non-Germans would be welcome as guests in Germany provided they behaved.
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest.
The guiding principle of the national economic policy was to cover the needs of the people, not to provide the highest possible return on investment capital.
They realized that building an economy on production and consumption of what was produced was sound, but usurers and swindlers produced nothing of value to society at large:
They rob and steal and deceive in the usual sense of these words, and they enrich themselves thereby.
What do banks do? They facilitate money exchange and they extend credit. Yes; but the postal service does this faster and more cheaply; and to whom do the banks extend credit?
Do they extend credit to the needy, or to the masses of working people who have no home, so that they can build houses and thus relieve the critical housing shortage? No!
Do they extend credit to farmers, shopkeepers and business people, the producers and distributors of vital goods and services?
Hardly ever, and only when the borrowers offer “security” above and beyond the appropriate obligation to repay the debt, and agree to repay high additional expenses over a prolonged period, which they call “installments.”
Do the banks care whether their customers – shopkeepers and businesspeople – are promptly and reliably served, so that our national economic needs are met? – No! They serve only their own selfish profit interest in their percentages, points, related expenses and all the other names they have for extracting money. And what do the banks produce? – nothing at all! And what do they earn? – immeasurable sums!
And so usurers and swindlers, banks and finance capitalists produce nothing that is useful, yet they extract huge profits from the present capitalistic system. They are the real masters and exploiters of today’s predatory and antisocial economic order
Today, a high return on finance capital is the principal goal of the national economy. Working people have to turn over a large portion of their wages to financiers in the banks and stock exchanges as well as loan sharks and swindlers of every sort.
And what is the function of the phoney contractor, or “bloodsucker” as ordinary working people call him? He attempts to extract the highest possible profits by paying the lowest possible wages and by using the lowest quality materials, by mass production and by charging the highest possible prices.
The contractor is not concerned about the misery of his workers. It is no matter to him if his products must soon be discarded as worthless junk. So much the better, because it means new orders for him, the people are so stupid that they keep on buying junk if it is alluringly advertised. The malignant influence of the department stores. Profit is all that matters to the department store owner. Providing for the needs of the people is nothing more than a ruse, a means to an end. But even so - at least he produces something, provides employment. The real contractor, who is aware of his importance as economic leader, must be judged very differently.
A real contractor must be an ethical person, in the economic sense. His task is, first of all, to recognize the real economic needs of society. Often he accomplishes this pioneering task as inventor. Then he must determine the best and least expensive methods of production. He must produce a flawless product and allow for a continuing supply. He must pay his workers well so that they will be able to consume what the nation produces. He must always be aware of innovation and improvement in shop and factory. If he makes this his guiding principle, he is, in the best sense "serving the needs of the people." His gain comes from the goal of serving actual needs, rather than simply maximizing profit.
The leading and best-known example of this kind of industrial producer is Henry Ford. No less distinguished in this respect are the leading producers in German heavy industry. Such as Krupp, Kirdorf, Thyssen, Abbe, Mannesmann and Siemens, to name a few at random.
However, the nature of such firms changes immediately when they are no longer under the direction of an ethical individual. Ethical management had previously cultivated ethical relationship with its workers, for the sake of the proven mutual advantage, which accrued to both the firm and its employees. Once these firms are depersonalized, “made anonymous,” and changed into stockholder corporations with limited liability, such ethical management ceases to exist.
As long as the founder of such a concern, in the capacity of principal stockholder, can oversee the operational procedure, it can still continue. But most often, the imperative of pure profit-greed takes over immediately.
Where improvements in production and working conditions are concerned, the former owners and directors are now dependent upon an overview board, which has no interest in production or workers’ welfare, (other than those of slave drivers.) Their purpose is to insure maximum return on invested capital. These conditions became devastating with the introduction of the industrial proprietary act, which allows that any swindler or speculator can become a major stockholder or owner of an industrial enterprise without knowing the least thing about it.
What do these stock certificates represent to professional financiers and speculators, other than play money for the stock exchange? These stockholders certainly had no interest in production facilities and workplace. They did not even need to know what was produced, turnover, working conditions, pay or salary of the factories whose proper owners they are, thanks to bundles of stock certificates which they shuffled about in the stock exchange, relating to this or that factory. One must consider all the implications of the matter in order to grasp the rottenness of the system of finance capital.
Today, profitability has become the goal of our entire economy. The department stores – Tietz, Wertheim, and so on, all Jews, take a somewhat different approach as I have already shown. Teasing, pretence, bluff, the creation of superfluous “necessities,” that is, luxuries, are their stock in trade. Giant stores, palaces of monstrous dimensions, built with every decoration imaginable, invite you to buy useless objects. Seemingly low prices and easy payment plans seduce the consumer into purchasing every imaginable luxury.
Refreshment rooms facilitate long visits to the department store. Thus these department stores are outhouses for wasteful shopping. No once should think he is getting anything for free. The really affluent do not shop in department stores. They know what poor people do not know: that whoever buys “on the cheap” pays more.
Do the customers of these department stores realize that these palaces are built from their hard-earned savings? Does the customer realize that he himself is paying for the escalators, elevators, and magical lighting? If you consider that the huge department store is the ruin of the middle class shopkeeper, that it brutally exploits home workers as well as in house employees, that it produces and distributes mostly cheap junk. Whereas quality items are more expensive than in proper specialty shops, then you will see that our resolute struggle against these stores is justified.
In these huge establishments, we also see a variant of finance capital. It serves no real purpose, yet generates huge profits for its stockholders. In the context of a genuine economy producing needed goods and services, which, we emphasize, has nothing to do with the communistic planned economy, the question of private property naturally takes precedence.
Note that an important aspect of loans is not clarified above, namely that the bankers loan money after creating it out of thin air.
It was clear that the people should be free of interest slavery to the plutocracy, and that the state shouldn’t incur debt:
The state is not to be compared with an individual in need of credit, who sometimes goes into debt, even though it is a mistake. The state however, is the master of coinage. It can do what the individual cannot: the state can create money. During the inflation, it did this to an insane extent. The state did it also with the Rentenmark also (although with forfeiture of its sovereignty to the so-called Reichs Bank, with the so-called Reichmark. The state could utilize its sovereign right to much better effect, without risking inflation.
To have the state control money, the following was recommended:
How would the procurement of funds for large scale public needs work? It was recognized that the creation of large, socially significant projects doesn’t necessarily entail borrowing, but a release of reserve notes would not cause inflation, provided that new value is created. For instance, if the government wanted to create a large hydroelectric power plant, it would direct the appropriate Reichs or State Banks to issue a new series of bank notes with the specific condition that these notes are intended to fully cover construction as it progresses, step by step. The notes would be backed by the full credit of the state and Reich and would be legal tender. When the project is completed, hydrogen or electricity is delivered in the place of this money. In a few years, the notes, which were issued for the project, can be retired. As a result, the nation will have created a new power plant, a powerful new source of revenue, and would be so much the richer.
Hitler contrasted this procurement of funds with the bankers’ finance capital:
Nothing better illustrates the absurdity of the existing finance-capitalistic system than comparison with the present procedure. Today, following credit approval by the Reich or state legislature, no real credit is approved. The only thing approved is that new debt is to be incurred with financial capitalists. Then, financing is accepted.
What the entire nation cannot accomplish with its representatives and referendums can suddenly be accomplished by a handful of capitalists, who graciously grant financing. Financing, naturally, in return for interest payments. Instead of the state’s exercising its supremacy directly in the interest of the people, it promises eternal interest payments, which are greatly in excess of construction costs. At all costs, the loan amount must be used to amortize itself. Thus the state ties a millstone around its own neck. Best of all, the state now prints new paper, that is, issues new obligations, creating supplementary purchasing power.
As far as accounting is concerned, it makes no difference whether the newly constructed power plants result from new paper money, or new “obligations.” But much to the disadvantage of the public, these obligations represent a lien on the new plant for the benefit of the capitalists. And the capitalists, naturally, reserve all rights for themselves, dictate the entire process and expropriate all advantages.
Under the present system, it is finance capital, which is enriched by construction of the new power plant. Capitalists are not interested in repayment of the loan, they want to convert such projects into eternal milk cows for themselves. And the public is required to pay more for electricity and hydrogen. Finance capital has once again placed liens on the property of the nation.
No real credit has been emphasized because just as Hitler’s proposal involves the state creating money, out of nothing, bankers who loan to the government create the loan out of nothing. So why get a ‘loan’ from the bankers when the state could do it by itself?
The basic idea of the construction bank was similar to the plan for financing large-scale public works:
A mixed economic entity, the construction and commerce bank, will be granted the right to issue funds for construction (construction-mark notes). Newly constructed houses will back these notes. These new houses could be built without the burden of huge mortgage liens, which today makes it impossible to construct houses in sufficient numbers. This sublime economic goal could be brought much closer: “For every German, a home of his own. A free people on free soil!”
This is aimed at the bankers who cause wars because people being desperate to win a war at any cost, war is the biggest debt generator.
Note how socialist these goals are (along with nationalization of the central or reserve banks). The national socialist goal was to have as many independent enterprises as possible, united in the social principle of service. It was argued that whereas it was impossible to conduct mines and foundries, heavy industries and shipyards as small enterprises, 100,000 independent master shoemakers are better for the economy and for political governance of the state than five giant shoe factories would be.
The goal was to have a healthy mix of small, medium-sized and large-scale operations in all areas of the economy, including agriculture. Only giant operations such as factories, syndicates and trusts were to be nationalized, and the rationale was:
This demand, again, is derived logically from our generalized struggle against the capitalistic idea. Syndicates and trusts serve the primary purpose of combining related enterprises for the purpose of dictating prices. The primary consideration is not to produce better and less expensive goods, but rather to dictate to consumers the quality, amounts and price of goods.
Speculators are particularly fond of rings that are already individually profitable. New undertakings within the industry are often sold off or shut down, at great expense. In this way the capitalist regulates the “supply contingencies” and is soon in a position to control prices. Ostensibly this occurs through the basic law of supply and demand.
Innovations and new inventions are looked upon with disfavor, usually repressed if they represent a threat to the profitability of the old enterprises. Such enterprises, now operated as giant trusts by a bureaucracy, are thus characterized as “ready for socialization.” That is to say, the owners have given up all attempts to serve the public. The enterprises are developmentally frozen and they serve no further interest except the capitalist’s greed for profit.
National Socialism acknowledged and protected private property, provided it was honorably and lawfully acquired. But if land was illegally acquired or not administered in accordance with national welfare, then the state could acquire it. This provision stemmed from Jewish companies speculating in land:
A fundamental discussion cannot be presented here, but whoever understands the concept of work can have no doubt that the products of labor must accrue to the laborer. The worker cannot conceive that the results of his labor, or equivalent value, should belong to an incomprehensible generality. Neither can he understand that the fruits of his labor should go to one individual capitalist. From this necessarily evolves, within the genuine concept of work, the concept of private property.
After all, we are dealing here with ultimate concepts, as with the concept of Heimat. Heimat becomes real when one stands on his own land, when one's family is surrounded by its own property. One’s own strawberries, potatoes, vegetables, fruit from one’s own garden, simply taste better than commercially prepared meals served in large establishments.
He who does not know this longing for his own property, he who can not enjoy the pleasure of personal ownership, is either a rootless person of the inner city or a rootless capitalist who considers the property of working people as fair game -- someone who understands the financial art of expropriating other peoples property.
When property is acquired by capitalistic theft, there arises an insatiable greed for more property, preferably convertible property. Such behavior contrasts with that of Nordic man, who is characteristically modest.
Nordic man wants only what he can utilize. That person is not a real worker, who wants to build an ostentatious villa which he himself cannot utilize. Nordic man wants a simple cozy home of his own, but he wants to own it outright. He does not want to rent it, paying three or four times the value of the house in the course of his lifetime.
By contrast: the greedy Jew, the capitalist, does not want permanent ties to one place. His highest ideal is a large safe stuffed with stock certificates, bonds, mortgages, and debentures. His goal is wealth -- not wealth in real property, but wealth in mortgaged property of others. He does not labor; and yet he does not rest until he has possession of a certain amount of debenture paper. This allows him to wield the whip of interest over his “debtors” even though they are not really indebted to him. Our program will place limits on this situation.
The rationale was:
Petty theft is punished harshly but major swindlers cannot be prosecuted, since they use capitalistic methods to rob the entire nation. Here we are thinking primarily of those who caused and profited by the inflation.
In all history it was never heard of that an entire industrious nation was robbed on the gigantic scale that German savings were stolen by means of currency manipulation. Bank usury following the stabilization was worse than highway robbery. More Germans were victimized by the War Societies than by organized robber bands.
We will discuss this in more detail later on when we have found the correct legalistic formulations for this. However, it is clear to everyone that organized betrayal of the entire nation should be prosecuted more vigorously than individual larceny.
Both the educational goals and legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports are of a socialist nature.
(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.
The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.
This proposal is very leftist. It’s obviously aimed toward Jewish ownership of the media. Given the times, it would be incorrect to blame this proposal on little respect for diversity of opinion or alternative viewpoints since removing Jews from ownership of the mainstream media is bound to increase diversity of opinion in the mainstream media. Hitler said:
The outcome of our struggle against cultural decadence will be of great significance. We are engaged in struggle against cultural mutilation and poisoning in the fields of art, literature, science, theatre, movies and above all, the press.
We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.
The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly – if need be to sacrifice their very lives – to translate this program into action.
A desire for a strong and powerful government is very socialist or leftist.
Hitler distinguished real social policy as acknowledging the general welfare as the highest good, not special interests policies masquerading as social policies. He described Marxism, in contrast, as the politics of class hatred, of pitting the elements of society against one another:
To adopt class struggle as a political creed means to preach hate as your basic principle. “Expropriate the expropriators,” means raising envy to the level of an economic principle. Marxist “socialization” actually means the destruction of human leadership and the personality factor. It means substituting mass and materialism for the human spirit and for human achievement. We need introduce no further proof of the complete collapse of Marxist theory than the bankruptcy of the communist economic system in Russia. We need only consider the wretched mission of the German revolution of 1918.
Here again I would like to direct the attention of the reader to the fact that Marxist pseudo-socialism concerns everything except communalism and common sense. Marxism is not truly social, not organically oriented. Rather, it is mired in the deepest depths of political backwardness. It is stalled on the philosophical basis of the most crass individualism. It represents the chaotic construction of society with which we became familiar in our section on fundamental principles.
Marxism consists of nothing except a plurality of individuals, connected as such through feelings of hate and envy. Under Marxism, individuals are not connected in any organic or logical way to higher principles. Workers are not bound to the other half of society. It is no wonder the social problem cannot be solved in this way, because the answer of Marxism to the social question can be only hate and exploitation. Likewise, it is no wonder that a viable form of government cannot come about under Marxism. The only possible result of a Marxist "stock market revolt" is a pile of rubble.
Once again National Socialism calls Marxism by its rightful name: “stock market revolt.” Marxism is an out-and-out capitalistic deception. It is capitalistic because the culmination of the social chaos of individualistic society, its deadly flower and rotten fruit, are inevitably high finance and monopolism.
The ostensibly anti-capitalistic policies (referring to the so-called social policy of the present government) pretend to be socio-political in nature. Consider its relationship to Marxism and the class politics of the occupational organizations. In reality these policies are necessarily capitalistic. However, in the present government there is no effort to achieve social assimilation, no striving for a systematic and beneficial inclusion of competing classes under a higher concept of national unity. Rather, we are dealing with brutal, egotistical striving of the individual to better his own position at the expense of the rest of society. Capitalism and Marxism are one and the same! They are derived from the same philosophical basis.
We National Socialists are the principal opponents of both capitalism and Marxism. We are separated by a whole world, by entirely different concepts of society. For us, the general welfare of society is the highest good. We reject class dialectic, class struggle and class conceit.
Once again it is evident that our limited number of socio-political demands ignores many issues of the day. We do, however, address the really important problems and tasks of real social policy, which are of concern to all our countrymen.
Note the accusation that ‘capitalism and Marxism are one and the same’; with Jews in charge of both, non-Jews have to choose between the fire and the frying pan.