Is it right that you  converted to Islam and what did this involve?

Yes, I did convert to Islam. This involves testifying, in Arabic and in front of two Muslim witnesses, that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is his Prophet and Messenger.
 

Do you regret anything you have written or said?

No.
 

In the second part of your Autobiographical Notes  you state that you still, as a Muslim, regard Hitler as a good man and National Socialism as a noble cause. But, surely, Islam and National Socialism are different and irreconcilable?
 

They are different, but my understanding is that they are neither irreconcilable nor antagonistic to each other. In fact, they have many beliefs in common, such as honour, loyalty, duty and a belief in a person using their will to change themselves for the better by following a noble ideal.

As I mentioned in those Notes, genuine National-Socialists are not racists, just as National-Socialism cannot be defined in terms of racism. For racism is a modern term, invented by Marxist social engineers, and is used to mentally condition and control people so that a particular type of political society can be created.  These social engineers want us to view the world through the terms, the abstract ideas, they have created. I refuse to do this; I refuse to play their rigged game, and this makes me both unpopular and misunderstood.

Correctly defined and understood, National-Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way we treasure the diversity of Nature. National-Socialists believe our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas - through the creation of a socially-engineeered Marxist society. The world would certainly be a very different place if there existed only one type of tree, one type of bird, one type of insect, one type of fish!

Genuine National-Socialists respect other cultures, and people of other races, because genuine National-Socialists uphold honour. Honour means being civilized; it means having manners: being polite; restrained in public and so on. Honour means treating people with courtesy and respect - unless, that is, those people act in a dishonourable way toward you, when retribution may be in order.

National-Socialism expressed the view that a person should be proud of their own culture and heritage, respectful of their ancestors and their ancestral way of life, and accept that other peoples have a right to be proud of their own culture and heritage as well. The ideal is a working toward mutual understanding and respect.
 

This is the truth about National-Socialism which I and others have uncovered in the past decades; a truth covered up by decade upon decade of ignoble Zionist propaganda.
 
 

On the question of race, does not National Socialism say that the White race - what you have referred to in the past as the Aryan race - is superior to other races? And does this not contradict what Islam says, which is that all people, all races, are equal before God?

No, National-Socialism does not say this. It says only that different races have different Destinies, different abilities, and different ways of living, and that these different ways should be respected.

This means a respect of others and a pride in one's own people and own own culture. The more other peoples, other races, have a pride in themselves and their own culture, the more they express their own Destiny, then the more genuine and respectful co-operation there can be between different peoples and cultures. For such genuine respect derives from a natural sense of belonging to one's own culture. To consider other peoples and cultures as inferior does the exact opposite because it leads to a denigration of those considered inferior and to hubris: to the excessive pride and arrogance which people such as Aeschylus and Sophocles warned us about.
 
 

But I have read in Hitler's Mein Kampf and elsewhere that he regarded negroes as inferior to Germans, to White people.
 

I admit there was an element of racial prejudice and racial stereotyping in the early days of the National-Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), but National-Socialism was not then fully developed as a way of life - as a complete philosophy of living. Indeed, it was not complete in this respect until during, and shortly after, the First Zionist War (commonly called the Second World War). Hitler wanted to save Germany from Marxist tyranny, and create a just and noble society for his people and it was not until just before he achieved power that serious thought was given to how National-Socialism could be implemented. Few people up to then even understood National-Socialism as a new and revolutionary way of living; for many, the NSDAP was just another nationalist political party which promised better times and which they supported to bring about those better times.

The society which was created after the NSDAP achieved power was in many ways a compromise. Hitler himself admitted (to Leon Degrelle among others) that it would be the next generation - the Hitler Youth generation - which would create a genuine National-Socialist society. Organizations such as the SS and the Hitler Youth were steps toward the creation of such a National-Socialist society, and it was these organizations which implemented the ideal of personal honour, and respect for others, of whatever race and culture. As Hitler and his true followers, such as Rudolf Hess, matured in understanding, so too did National-Socialism.  National-Socialism was not born, fully-developed and fully-understood, in the early years of the NSDAP - it developed slowly, over several decades. Thus, as Hitler admitted, Mein Kampf was never intended to be some kind of bible of National-Socialism: it was the product of its time and while most of the underlying principles of National-Socialism were laid down in that book, some principles were not. What was written was subject to change, to revision, as National-Socialism itself developed.

What must be understood is that many people in Germany at that time did not understand National-Socialism; and it could be said that many of the people who voted for or supported Hitler were not genuine National-Socialists: they voted for or supported him for personal reasons unconnected with the idealism of honour, duty and loyalty.

With the defeat of Germany and its allies in the First Zionist War, National-Socialism was purified, emerging as a complete way of life, centred around honour, loyalty and duty. The political compromises needed to achieve power were gone, as were the supporters who did not understand or live up to the ideals of National-Socialism.  The essence emerged as the shell covering the essence was destroyed in the crucible of that war. People who have described this essence include Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano, and Leon Degrelle.

Since we now consciously understand this essence, it is possible to create - and only now possible to create - a genuiine National-Socialist society. This would be an entirely new type of society and while the inspiration would be National-Socialist Germany, it would in many ways be very different, although it would manifest the same ethos, the same ideals.
 

But many people who call themselves National Socialists today describe themselves as racists. Many of these people also say they hate other races and regard them as inferior.
 

Then they are not true, genuine, National-Socialists. A National-Socialist, to repeat myself yet again, is a person who upholds the ideals of personal honour, who is loyal to those given loyalty and who strives to do their noble duty to their own people, and to Nature. A true National-Socialist lives by honour, and strives to do what is noble, just, and fair.

Honour means treating individuals with respect, with courtesy, regardless of the race or culture of those individuals, as it says in the National-Socialist Code of Honour. Honour means being fair. Racial prejudice - that is, judging someone by their race or culture - is unfair, because it is a pre-judging of others, and honour demands you only ever judge someone on the basis of personal knowledge of them.

Judgement of a person on the basis of race is like judgement of a person on the basis of hearsay, rumours, gossip - it shows a lack of honourable character on the part of the individual who so "judges".

Those people you describe have probably never met any former SS soldiers or combat veterans of the Hitler Youth, who might be able to tell them a thing or two about honour, loyalty and duty. Such people as you describe have been taken in by all the Zionist hate propaganda just as they, if they say or believe such things, do not really understand personal honour.
 
 

But did you not - in some of your writings before you became a Muslim - describe the Aryan race as superior?<

Yes. Then, some years ago, I understood that the term superior was the incorrect term to use to describe the reality which National-Socialism expresses. The reality, as explained above, is one of mutual respect based upon a pride in one's own race, its culture and its achievements. There is also - or should be - an understanding that different peoples have different abilities, different talents, just like individuals within a race have different abilities and talents.

National-Socialism expresses the natural truth that each folk, each race, should live in such a way that its natural abilities and talents can find their highest expression, just as it expresses that within an ethnic, folkish, State - a Reich - individuals should live in such a way which suits, and have occupations suited to, their natural talents and abilities.

I have understood more and more about National-Socialism with the passing of the years and with each new experience, such as being a Muslim. As a result, I have been  better able to express in words the truths, the essence, of National-Socialism itself. In some ways, and as someone in Column 88 once described me, I was a Himmler in search of his Hitler. I never found the leader, the guide, I wished for so I had to stumble along the best I could.

As with National-Socialism itself, there has been for me a learning from experience: an organic process of change and development.
 

You have mentioned in the second part of your Autobiographical Notes the Muslims who joined the SS. I have read that some of the German Officers and NCO's of the 13th SS Battalion (Handscar) considered these Muslim recruits as inferior, made fun of them when they were praying, and called them by the derogatory name Mujos. Not very honourable behaviour, and not indicative of the Germans in the SS respecting what they considered a foreign culture.
 

There are always exceptions; always some individuals in any organization who do not live up to, or do not believe in, the ideals of that organization. For instance, there are some corrupt Police Officers, in this and other countries. But that does not mean that all Police Officers are corrupt, as it does not mean that the Police force tolerates corruption or has no noble ideals for its members to live up to.
 

National-Socialism is of the future - an expression of what is needed to create a noble, honourable society - and while it understands and values heritage and folk traditions and our ancestral ways of living, it values only that which is in accord with what is honourable, civilized and which can be used to further our evolution. A lot of what occurred in the past - a lot of traditions, and certain ways of thinking - were actually wrong; contrary to what is reasonable and honourable. What is honourable and necessary in our past must be found, understood and valued. What is not, must be rejected.

This is really what Adolf Hitler wished to do: create first a new Germany, and then a new Europe based upon the noble ideals and warrior ethos of National-Socialism, particularly evident in the pan-European Waffen SS.
 

In the distant past, Civilizations and Empires were created based upon military conquest and the exploitation of peoples. There really was no conscious understanding of honour; no desire to create order and harmony and create the way of living we now understand as civilization where things like reason are valued and where civic and private corruption are not tolerated. This changed to a certain extent with the Roman Empire, which strove to put into practice some of the noble ideals of ancient Greece, and which created a civilized way of life for the peoples of that Empire. Of course, this civilization was not perfect (especially in respect of its often dishonourable treatment of non-Romans) but compared to what existed before - and compared to what existed after it for many centuries - it was an achievement, one step forward in our evolution. 

Another, even greater, step forward was the original British Empire, which was an even greater achievement than the Roman Empire. It brought reason, justice, order and education to millions upon millions of people world-wide, greatly improving their way of life through building the infrastructure a civilization needs: an uncorrupt administration; roads; bridges; safe trade routes. For instance, the British Navy managed to control the piracy which was rampant in certain areas of the world (in South East Asia for example), as in India the British administrators ended the bribery and corruption of officials which was endemic. For a time, and from about the middle of the 1700's, the British Navy was the most enlightened and civilized institution in the world: a fine example of a civilized, warrior, ethos. Throughout the whole British Empire, the civilized ideal was followed, and literally hundreds of thousands of British people struggle and died in the lands of the Empire over the centuries in their quest to do what was right, noble and just. Millions upon millions of people could live in relative safety and peace, in an ordered and just way, thanks to this Empire.

Note that I said the original British Empire, for the truth is that from very early on in the Victorian Era the ethos began to change - the true, respectful, civilizing mission of Empire gave way to a brute Imperialism based upon financial gain. To quote Thomas More: "Everywhere do I perceive a certain conspiracy of rich men seeking their own advantage under the name and pretext of commonwealth."  There had always been an element of this present, of course, but the financial cabal gradually became the dominant force behind the expansion of the Empire, often unscrupulously using missionary Christianity to achieve their capitalist purpose.

Aspects of the old, civilized, honourable, Imperial attitude remained, and inspired individuals and some Institutions but they were largely without power and influence, often mere show, and more often than not manipulated by the financial cabal and their capitalist lackeys. [A fine illustration of the difference between the old and new British Empires is given by certain British characters in E. M. Forster's A Passage to India with Cyril Fielding representing the virtues of the older Empire.] By the time of the Boer War, British Foreign Policy had became purely a means of maintaining and extending capitalist markets, of obtaining raw materials with little or no regard for the native people.  This was particularly evident in, for example, Iran, where until just after the Second World War War the British Government supported a despotic, unpopular and repressive ruling minority, while capitalist companies leeched away the natural resources of the country, with little respect shown for either Iranian culture or the way of life of Islam. The decadent life-style of wealthy often immoral Europeans was held up as some sort of "ideal" for the "natives" to follow. In addition, many Europeans acted in a dishonourable, uncivilized, way toward others peoples, as did many of the soldiers of their armies.

I should also add that the civilization which Islam created and maintained was also a considerable and important achievement, comparable to that of both the Roman Empire and the original British Empire, and indeed far more civilized, in terms of its treatment of people, than the Roman Empire. In this Islamic civilization it is true to say that reason, scholarship and scientific research flourished as never before, as witness the Islamic civilization in Andalusia. Muslims regarded the pursuit of knowledge as a duty, which is why, for instance, Muslim scholars studied the manuscripts of the ancient Greeks, even though the ethos of ancient Greek civilization was different from the ethos of Islam, and indeed contradictory to it in many ways. By doing this, these Muslim scholars saved these precious treasures - for without this Muslim desire to respect learning, from whatever culture, and without this Muslim duty to seek accurate, truthful, unbiased, knowledge, the West would have been deprived of these ancient manuscripts.

With the collapse of the original British Empire, the defeat of National-Socialist Germany in the First Zionist war, and the final end of the Islamic Caliphate, the ideal of civilization had been replaced by the ignoble idea of a global capitalism where multi-national capitalist companies became rich by plundering the world, by committing hubris, with American military might used to maintain this plunder of the world by capitalism and its uncivilized consumer ethos. There was because of this, as there still is, an arrogance toward other people and the Earth itself: the arrogance of Marxism and capitalism, which really are just two sides of the same uncivilized way of life.
 

The next stage - the next development of civilization, built upon the achievements, the understanding, of the Roman, the Islamic and the British Empires - is to create a new type of Empire, based upon free, ethnic nations co-operating together, all bound together by a strong National-Socialist country whose people consciously understand their Destiny, their duty, to their own folk, and the world itself. The honourable, the civilized, thing to do is to trade on the basis of equal partners; to respect other peoples and their ways of life, their culture, and to respect the Earth itself. Capitalist and personal greed are uncivilized, irrational. We should be striving to create free, noble, societies and looking out toward the cosmos - toward exploring our galaxy - not turning inward and indulging in ignoble, squabbling among ourselves like children who have yet to learn self-discipline and so who are often moody, quarrelsome, petulant, petty, selfish, and vain. We must grow up, and learn to act, think and live as adults - as mature, civilized, human beings. For people to grow up, and so change the world for the better - to make the world truely civilized - we need another Empire, created and maintained by honourable, idealistic people, who look to the examples of the Roman, the Islamic and British Empires for inspiration, and who regard such an Earth-bound Empire as but the beginning: a base for a Galactic Empire.

I consider both National-Socialism and Islam as means whereby we can learn to behave as civilized adults. They are both moral ways of living, although it may well be that it is National-Socialism which will create the new world Empire we need and so begin to build the Galactic Empire which will be the next great leap forward in our evolution.

However, it is also possible for Islam to create such a world Empire, and there exists the possibility of National-Socialists aiding the creation of such an Empire and indeed being an integral part of it.  At this moment in time, the forces of Islam are far, far stronger than the forces of National-Socialism, and in the battle against the perfidy of world Zionism this may be decisive in the creation of such an Empire.
 
 

Are you a Muslim or a National Socialist? Or both?

Islam and National-Socialism are different in several ways, and yet similar in other ways: similar, for example, in the matter of honour, of loyalty, of duty,  in the use of will to change oneself for the better, and in the belief in a Supreme Being: in the belief there is an order to the cosmos, and a purpose to our individual lives.

Both Islam and National-Socialism are opposed to usury and the capitalist-consumer system based upon it, and both are dedicated to fighting the real evil which is Zionism.

In respect of the way of living, Islam believes the perfect society has already existed - the society founded by Muhammad at Medinah - and that all the laws and customs necessary to re-create this ideal social are already in existence, given by God in the Quran and the Sunnah (the example of the Prophet). In contrast, National-Socialism accepts that we are slowly evolving toward a noble, a perfect, society and that we have to use our reason, our fairness, in order to create the right type of laws and customs to manifest in a society a noble way of living, where the most excellent individuals of the past and present (such as real warrior heroes) may serve as examples for us.

In respect of theology, a Muslim accepts that there is only one god, Allah, and that Muhammad was the last Prophet of Allah who revealed the word of Allah in the Quran. A Muslim submits to God, and so strives to obey the commands of God, contained in the Quran and manifest in the life, words and deeds of Muhammad. For Muslims, Allah is the Creator of everything, the giver and taker away of life, but Allah is not manifest in the creations of Allah, as Allah cannot be conceptualized by us. Allah was not created, just as Allah did not and could not have any sons (or daughters) - human or otherwise. Allah is eternal, and unchanging, for the creation by Allah of anything and everything did not change Allah in any way.

A National-Socialist should accept there is a Supreme Being, and they may call this Being God, or the Eternal Creator or even something else. The Oath each member of the SS took was an oath before God.
 

As it says in the Quran: there should be no compulsion in religion. A person should be free to choose their way of life - their "religion" - with different ways respected. What I, as a Muslim, considered was important is that there should be this freedom of choice and correct, truthful, knowledge about the choices, about the different ways, and this is why I said all I said, as a Muslim, about National-Socialism. As a Muslim, I have a duty to present the truth about Islam to those who might be interested in it so that they have the opportunity to consider becoming a Muslim. But it is up to them whether they accept it, or reject it. If they reject it, they reject it, and I have to respect that decision.

The sad fact is that there is little truth, little truthful knowledge, in the West, about either Islam or National-Socialism. For Muslims, the pursuit of knowledge is a duty, which is why, for instance, Muslim scholars studied the manuscripts of the ancient Greeks, even though the ethos of ancient Greek civilization was different from the ethos of Islam, and indeed contradictory to it in many ways. By doing this, these scholars saved these precious treasures - for without this Muslim desire to respect learning, from whatever culture, and without this Muslim duty to seek accurate, truthful, unbiased, knowledge, the West would have been deprived of these ancient manuscripts.

Those who understand this will understand what I attempted to do, as a Muslim, in respect of National-Socialism. But I suspect I was and shall remain misunderstood, as usual.
 
David Myatt
1421 AH
111yf