The German Woman in Racial Awakening

Of Woman's Worth and Dignity

In her most powerful work, which allows us to relive the creation of worlds and beings up to humans as ever-new divine revelations in sublime beauty, in "The Creation Story", Dr. Fran Ludendorff encapsulates the achievement of the creation goal, the becoming human, in these words:

"The stars of divine revelation, dimly flickering in the animal, namely motherly love and divine pride, blaze brightly for the first time in a human pair amidst those cosmic catastrophes. Divine pride overcame cowardly fear and flight from the cold, and motherly love, becoming clear-sighted, suddenly mastered the use of fire. Thus, necessity was born."

At the beginning of human history, man and woman, different in essence and complementing each other, yet equal in worth, stood side by side because in both the divine shone brightly. Their harmony even in those earliest times was the sublime moment of creation of the universe, and time and again, it was their cooperation that created new life, thus preserving the awareness of the divine. The full equality of women thus becomes apparent. Yet, when we look into our society, we sadly realize how far humans have strayed from the true value of women.

Instead of responsible, equal participation of women in society and state, their disenfranchisement took place and the high esteem based on their intrinsic value gave way to their profound subjugation under men. Ultimately, the proper distribution of power between the sexes is crucial for the preservation of the people. By proper distribution of power, one that ensures the preservation of the people in its racial, psychological heritage is understood, where civic duties and rights in the state are distributed between men and women in a manner suited to the specific nature of this people and aligned with the different abilities of the sexes. Since women not only complement men in areas of intellectual talent but also in emotional capabilities, will, emotional life, and love, it is clear that a nation in which women are excluded from participation in areas suited to them due to their disposition will inevitably collapse sooner or later.

The distribution of power between the sexes mainly depends on three factors: the racial divine experience and the racial character determined by this, imposed by the subconscious, the foreign religion imposed on consciousness, and the knowledge or ignorance of the feminine nature, as well as the greater susceptibility of men to impulses from women.

It is a developmental historical fact, demonstrated in detail in the work "The Genesis of Love", that men generally show much greater excitability in their carnal desires, and thus dependency on women, although it must be emphasized that this sexual dependency shows differences among individual races. For example, in the Finnish, i.e., Semitic peoples, men's susceptibility to impulses is much stronger than in the sexually less excitable Germanic peoples. This dependence of men on the sexual differences is in contradiction to the strongly developed will to freedom and pride in men, and thus it is understandable that men try to prevent complete domination by the female sex by subordinating it, which then also makes their impulse dependency less noticeable.

This explains, for example, the position of women among Semitic peoples. Among the peoples of the Germanic race, given the lesser impulse dependency of men on women, such subordination could never be justified.

The racial character of our people strictly rejects any injustice towards women and demands their complete and responsible independence. Heroism, self-responsibility, self-confidence, freedom, and pride are the highest values of our racial heritage for both men and women. Their development is only possible through the highest possible freedom of the personality, restricted only by civic duties. The pride of the Germanic man is wounded by the love of a woman who does not want to be his equal co-combatant in all areas of life but prefers to be "subordinate" to him, and the Nordic woman can only give her pure and strong love to a man who fully respects her.

As the demand for the right to shape the future of our people urgently calls for the responsible participation of women on the basis of full equality, we must recognize and implement this, both for the sake of the people and for the women themselves, in accordance with the state.

The German understanding of God, which aligns with our racial heritage and the insights of our knowledge, sees the meaning of human life in the fact that man, from his inherent imperfection, transforms himself through his own strength on the path of self-creation into divine perfection. This therefore requires the self-determination and freedom of women, because self-creation is an act of the free decision of man and presupposes the freedom of his person. This freedom may only be limited as necessary for reasons of preserving the people, for according to the German understanding of God, the preservation of a people in its racial uniqueness is directly connected to the divine purpose of creation, because only through this is the diversity of divine life and consciousness ensured.

Among our ancestors, who lived in spiritual harmony with their racial beliefs and in racial purity, the woman also stood in full dignity in the family, clan, and people beside the man. A united front with shield and sword was brought by the man to his wife in marriage, and the significance of this is clearly highlighted in the report by the Roman Tacitus:

“So that the bride would not think herself apart from heroic sentiment and the dangers of war, the very first act of her marriage reminds her that she comes as a partner of the man in hardships and perils, and that she is to share his risks and endeavors in war and peace as his free companion.”

The Germanic woman was thus valued as an equal partner in battle and life. Her high position and appreciation in the community of the people is expressed by the Roman in the following words:

“The German attributes a certain sanctity and prophetic gift to the woman. He follows her counsel. He respects her advice. Thus, under the united Vespasian, we Romans saw all those sacred things that were revered far and wide as divine beings. So, too, have they revered Albruna and others. Yet this is neither flattery nor superstition.”

Thus, the Germanic peoples remained healthy, strong, and invincible as long as they lived in racial purity and perceived God's work in the rustling of their native forests, honored the woman, and followed her advice. Boundless pride fills us German men when reading the accounts of the Romans, and a sense of disgrace accompanies us when we turn our thoughts to later centuries.

Now everything has changed! In place of heroism, freedom, and self-responsibility, cowardice, servile sentiment, and the begging for the mercy of a personal God have taken over. But the worst was that the foreign doctrine, born from the soul of the Jewish people, brought contempt and disenfranchisement to the German woman.

From the soul of the Jewish people came the contempt and disenfranchisement of the German woman. The Indian, due to his strong sensuality and the dependency on women it causes, knows only their complete subordination. The same is true of Christianity, whose basic attitude towards women is clearly established in the creation story. We should keep these shameful things clearly in mind and look up the Jewish-Christian view of the creation of women in Genesis, Chapter 2, verses 21 and 22:

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

If, according to this, the woman is merely a piece of man, only flesh of the man who was created first, then she can never be equal, of the same value, but must always be subordinate to man. Compare this creation account with what is written at the beginning of this text! Do you, German men and women, feel the unbridgeable gap? I believe that reliving the moment of creation, as our Germanic understanding of God allows us, stirs precious memories in you — but that you would prefer to skip the pages of the second book of Moses! But that is not all. According to Christian doctrine, it was the woman who brought sin and transgression into the world because she took the fruit from the tree of knowledge, against Yahweh's prohibition. Therefore, the Jewish God asked the woman:

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16).

Do you German women really want to continue tolerating this degradation of your personality and your noble and sacred role as women and mothers? Is this your racial awakening, German men, to speak of race, blood, and honor, yet still tolerate the disgraceful degradation of your women and mothers?

The New Testament also fulfills the Old in this respect, and the Jewish apostle Paul writes in the first letter to Timothy, Chapter 2, verses 11 to 14:

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

And in the first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11, verses 7 to 10:

“For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”

Is it not logical, then, to cite just one example, that Tertullian, a particularly esteemed Church Father, spoke of the worth of women as follows:

“Woman, you should always be dressed in mourning and rags, offering your eyes full of tears of repentance, to make people forget that you were the ruin of the human race. You should live in constant sorrow and suffering because you are the door to hell.”

These are truly unpleasant things, expressed with a clarity and bluntness that is not often heard, but which must nevertheless be said again and again. There is much to unlearn, and cherished masculine notions must be discarded, however painful.

Finally, there is a direct line from this basic attitude towards women to that most despicable and heinous mass murder of German women through witch and heretic burnings. Let us never forget that in the land where once, more than anywhere else, women were honored and respected, it was possible, well into modern times, to commit the most barbaric crimes against women, to torture and kill them physically and mentally, to not only mutilate their bodies with calculated brutality but also to trample on their souls, to desecrate their womanhood in the most abominable way. Just one report among many thousands:

In the year 1744, five women were tied to a stake in Silesia, tortured, and burned after appropriate torture. A husband had to provide the wood for burning his wife, and the children had to build the pyre for their mother.

What repulsive cruelty and refined malice are revealed in this report! And how does that spawn of human depravity, the 'Hammer of Witches,' speak of women?

“What else is woman but a destroyer of friendship, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a pretty painted evil? As she is imperfect in her animal being, so she fails in all matters. In sum: all evil comes through women, driven by insatiable carnal desire.”

We are ashamed!

But let us not forget that as late as 1895, in a papal monthly magazine, 'Revue Romaine,' it was written:

“O blessed flames of the stakes! Through you, after the extermination of a few utterly corrupted people, thousands of souls were saved from the abyss of error and eternal damnation. Blessed and worthy memory of Thomas Torquemada!”

Never again, Rome!

In recognition of the high value of women and their absolutely necessary participation in shaping our national life, and in gratitude to our mothers and women, and finally out of respect for ourselves, let us restore to the German woman in people and state the position that corresponds to her dignity, her uniqueness, and the German racial heritage, ensuring the life and future of our people.

The German Woman in Marriage.

Marriage is the nucleus of the family and the clan, and as such, the immediate foundation of the people. It is also the closest physical and spiritual union of two people and is of the greatest importance for their own inner spiritual development. The possibility of mutual complementarity, inherent in the natural differences between the sexes, finds its highest triumph in the union of man and woman.

No other kind of friendship, not even the love of parents and siblings, can have such a strong influence on the inner spiritual formation of a person as does love, the 'healing of love.' In her work, where with reverent attention to the laws first revealed in it and partly tracing back to the unconscious and subconscious developmental processes of humanity, Dr. Ludenorf points out the reason for this strong mutual influence in the community of marriage. When a person, through the hard struggle for existence or from bitter experience, has closed their soul so tightly to external influences, they still open it again to their spouse, with whom they are allowed to experience the highest joys. The soul then shows the 'plasticity' of childhood; it becomes receptive again to the beloved, but also extremely sensitive and delicate like a child’s soul. It must be so, for in the experience of love, the soul sheds all its coverings because it seeks — in remembrance of our primal ancestors — complete merging of beings, true oneness with the spouse. Every word, every action of the beloved can thus bring about the possibility of inner ascent in the soul of the other, but also the beginning of moral decay. Precisely because the soul experiences everything so much more deeply in love and is so sensitive, even a harsh word can deeply wound it. Once spouses have internalized the understanding of this lawful interaction as secure knowledge and have the strength for responsible self-control in word and deed, shattered marriages will be far rarer than they are today.

Thus, love, like no other experience, can foster the possibility of self-creation toward perfection within us, but it can also greatly endanger us in this. In any case, it is of great importance for the inner spiritual transformation of both spouses due to the strong mutual influence.

The will for union, seeking fulfillment in the community of marriage and flooding the person with stronger force, is directly linked to the divine purpose of creation, securing its fulfillment. The deep spiritual connection formed in the moment of creation carries within it the possibility of achieving divine perfection and may belong to the rare instances where the divine goal is actually reached. What a high responsibility for the spouses! Does not the awareness of this noble office alone awaken hidden spiritual forces within us?

If the close connection between the essence of marriage and the entire meaning of the universe, its fulfillment, and every type of spiritual change in people becomes clear, then we know that any subordination of one to the other in marriage is unnatural and against God’s will, and that only the equality, self-responsibility, and independence of both partners can bring about fulfillment.

There is something further. Pride forbids the best German women to subject themselves to coercion and subordination in fulfilling their most sacred tasks. In the liberating feeling of personal responsibility, the woman, conscious of her duties to the people, wants to fulfill her role of motherhood. The equality of the German woman in marriage with the man, based on equal worth and equally high responsibility to the people, will greatly increase her willingness to become a mother.

With dismay, we note that the German woman, particularly in the moment when she prepares to fulfill her noble duty of marriage, is legally shackled and deprived of the freedom of her personality. This can truly not be misunderstood in light of the existing legal provisions.

Section 1354 of our Civil Code states in its first paragraph: 'The husband decides in all matters concerning the common marital life; he determines in particular the place of residence and the home.'

The authoritative commentary by the Reich Supreme Court judges on the Civil Code notes that this regulation, by which the husband, as 'the head of the family,' is granted the decision-making power in case of differing opinions, corresponds to the natural order of the relationship. Could the Jewish-Christian view based on Genesis, Chapters 2 and 3, be expressed more clearly than it is here? 'And he shall be your lord.' Thus, the husband, as the head of the family, has the final decision in everything that requires measures of economic and moral nature concerning the marital community. He chooses the place of residence and the home, determines the extent of the household expenses, the furnishing of the household, the relationship between the partners in the care and upbringing of the children, and everything else. Just one example of the sometimes almost grotesque consequences this basic rule leads to: The wife, during her husband's imprisonment, lacks the authority to independently change the marital residence.

No one would deny that matters of the household, the furnishing of the home, the extent of marital expenditures are areas for which the woman brings a very special aptitude. Yet, even in these areas, the law does not give her the right of equal, responsible participation. The wife is not allowed to pursue any employment outside the marital sphere assigned to her without her husband's consent — where again the decision mainly rests with the husband as 'lord of creation.'

Christians so often like to boast that the woman in the family, which is her world, should be a 'sovereign queen'; but this fundamental regulation of existing law truly does not correspond in any way to the desire for a sovereign or even an equal position but signifies nothing less than an oriental subordination under the man. Paragraph 2 of Section 1354, which states that the woman is not obliged to comply with the husband's decision if it represents an 'abuse of his right,' practically changes nothing, especially since the interpretation of the term 'abuse of his right' is left to the male judiciary. Moreover, the noble German woman will be reluctant to drag her marital affairs into the public eye before a forum of male judges. Thus, many a woman who did not have the strength to dissolve an unworthy union has been broken, and as a result, the best help of her racial heritage in achieving her life's holy purpose has been taken from her.

Even more disastrous is the fact that, unfortunately, quite a few men derive from this fundamental rule the right to make decisions even in the realm of love. Let's be honest! Are there not countless men who, based on this basic attitude that the woman was 'created for the sake of man,' demand the fulfillment of their sexual desires without consideration for the woman, solely according to their own wishes? Let us listen to the doctor who tells us that this lack of consideration, which violates the ancient law stemming from the heritage of the subconscious instincts of animals — that the female should determine the timing of the rare union — almost makes the experience of the highest bliss in love impossible for the woman, increases her insensitivity, and all too often causes resentment, bitterness, and aversion towards the man.

Do we men want to continue being so selfish, always thinking only of ourselves in love? A pitiful selfishness that harms us too, for the greatest joy comes only from the experience of mutual happiness. Once again, it is a law that reaches back to the unconscious beginnings of our development, that the greatest happiness in love for both man and woman is only possible when the man's courtship for the woman's love has preceded it. But how is the German woman supposed to bestow such precious gifts if the necessary respect for her is lacking, and in most cases, it is not even left to her to determine the timing of intimate union based on her emotional state?

It is unworthy of a human being to experience union in dull complacency merely as a physical sensation, similar to an animal. The close connection of the will for union with all the soul's abilities, with our emotions, and with divine gifts is the truly worthwhile goal of love. This 'spiritualization of love' is, due to developmental historical reasons, much more endangered in the life of a woman than in that of a man, as the conscious will for union in the woman appears later and regularly first undergoes the period of an infinitely delicate, character and mood-oriented infatuation. Thus, the eroticism of the woman already shows, even before it reaches full development, as the beginning of this spiritualization, these emotional connections. That this spiritualization of love is also the only absolutely reliable foundation of a lasting marriage and therefore must be pursued for the sake of preserving the people, should be mentioned here as an aside.

"It is thus primarily a matter of a fundamental inner reorientation for all of us in these significant questions and facts, while legal provisions can only follow as a secondary measure.

In this understanding, we consider it necessary that Section 1354 of the Civil Code be completely abolished. Any legal regulation that, based on the differences in the nature and talents of the sexes, would assign the decision-making power to one party or the other in marital matters, would be misguided, not to mention that such a demarcation of areas would not be easily achievable in law or in individual cases of life. It is inherent in the nature of a German marriage that marital matters, as long as they are not entirely trivial, are discussed and decided upon jointly. If the opinions of the spouses diverge, then they must examine each other's views, always in light of the noble goal of a successful marriage and its significance for the shaping of their individual destiny as well as the life of the entire people. If they are brought up in responsibility, they will find the right balance, especially knowing that neither party has the right to dictate. If the spouses still cannot agree on vital issues, then the cause lies deeper, in inner disharmony and in an irreconcilable difference of character. In such cases, it is better for an unworthy union to be dissolved before both people are ruined by it. In other cases of opposing and irreconcilable views, especially when the welfare of the children is at stake, the guardianship court may be called upon, but it should be emphasized again that the mere fact that neither party may dictate in marital matters will contribute greatly to encouraging the spouses to make the effort to think responsibly about each other's ideas and motivations, in order to understand the other’s standpoint. This will also keep both spouses' souls in a state of lively motion and prevent them from stagnating in indifference.

The disenfranchisement of the German woman in marriage extends further into the economic realm, as evidenced by the provisions of the Civil Code concerning marital property rights. Apparently, with the entry into marriage, the woman is no longer considered worthy or capable of managing her economic affairs independently. While Section 1356 of the Civil Code stipulates that the wife, though subject to the husband’s right of decision, is obliged to manage the household, work in this area, and in the husband's business as is customary according to the circumstances in which the spouses live, what the woman earns in this way through her work falls solely to the husband as his personal property.

Consider the unjustness of this with a real-life example, which occurs thousands of times: A farmer's wife gives birth to numerous children under great pain, risking her life and health. She raises them, which is often no easy task in such circumstances; she does all the housework, cooks, washes, sews for the entire family; but she also works hard in the barn, tending to the animals, and takes the butter and eggs to the city. On top of all this, she must help her husband with the fieldwork, which often cannot be done by one person alone. What she contributes through her work belongs solely to the husband, not to mention that she is not compensated for this work. She is therefore in a more miserable position than any servant and, as any lawyer can confirm from their practice, she is at the mercy of her husband and kept in a humiliating economic dependency for life, often leaving her with no choice but to endure an unworthy marriage. If she finally finds the courage to end such a relationship, she is left after decades of hard work, worn out, spent, and penniless on the street. This can only be described as a crying injustice against an entire gender, and we who are awakening in racial consciousness as Germans can no longer maintain such an unjust situation out of self-respect.

Given this legal stance, it is no surprise that the German wife does not even have free disposal over her own property. In principle, marriage brings with it the so-called 'statutory property regime,' although spouses have the option to arrange their property relations differently through a marriage contract, provided both parties are simultaneously present before a court or notary. However, since such a contract is cumbersome and many spouses are likely unaware of this possibility, the statutory property regime generally applies, automatically taking effect upon marriage. Its basic principle is laid down in Section 1363 of the Civil Code, which states:

'The wife's property is subject to the administration and use of the husband by virtue of the marriage (brought-in property). Brought-in property also includes assets that the wife acquires during the marriage.'

The husband is also entitled to take possession of items belonging to the brought-in property, such as the wife's savings book. He can even dispose of her money and various other items belonging to her without her consent. His right of administration also includes the authority to assert a right belonging to the brought-in property in his own name in court. The income and benefits he derives from his wife's brought-in property become his personal, free property; thus, the interest from capital that the wife brought into the marriage flows into the husband's hands during the marriage, and he can use it entirely at his discretion for his own purposes.

While Section 1389 of the Civil Code obliges the husband to bear the marital expenses, this cannot be seen as adequate compensation for the husband's right to the wife's property, especially considering that she works from morning till night in the household or in her husband's business, while also raising the children. Surely she is entitled to demand the means for her maintenance, especially since the husband must also pay a wage to any external household employee. In contrast, the wife, in principle, cannot dispose of her property, unless it is reserved property, without her husband's consent. Section 1395 of the Civil Code stipulates:

'The wife requires the husband's consent to dispose of the brought-in property.'

This amounts to the complete disenfranchisement of women in economic terms. A few examples will help make this clear even to those not familiar with legal matters. If a woman had lent a few hundred marks from her savings to a friend before her marriage, as a married woman she can no longer independently terminate and collect that loan; she needs her husband’s permission to do so. Without his consent, she cannot even spend her own money, which she no longer manages herself. A woman may have brought a large estate into the marriage as her property, but without her husband’s consent—who may have brought no assets into the marriage—she cannot even take out a loan of a few hundred marks against that estate. If she becomes involved in a criminal case and wants to hire a lawyer for her defense, she must ask her husband for the money for a retainer, even if she brought thousands of marks in savings, now managed by her husband, into the marriage. Is that not outrageous?

One must experience, as a lawyer in such cases, the full misery and helplessness of German women, who, due to Christian indoctrination, still see all of this as divinely ordained, in order to grasp the terrible consequences of such a regulation. These examples sufficiently demonstrate that, even in economic matters, the wife is considered under the current law as having the status of a minor child, in line with Jewish-Roman views.

It should not go unmentioned that through improper, wasteful management by the husband, as can be observed daily, a woman can be deprived of all her premarital savings, even the property painstakingly acquired by her parents, for Sections 1391 and 1418 of the Civil Code provide insufficient protection. If they are invoked at all, it is often too late.

There is no reasonable justification for this provision in the Civil Code, which, to avoid confusion with too many details, has only addressed the standard case of the statutory property regime. On the contrary, investigations and life experience show that thrift and care for maintaining assets are much more common among women than men. This is partly due to the altruistic disposition of women, who, with their maternal instincts and hearts, can never think of themselves first, but primarily it is linked to their greater self-control over 'vital inclinations,' sexual urges, and the desire to satisfy hunger and thirst and to seek physical well-being. It is well known how often this strong dependence of men on these drives and desires, and their lack of self-control, has brought misery and ruin to marriage and family, and even led to the downfall of entire states.

Considering this legal situation and the prevailing notions about the supposedly inherent inferiority and lack of independence of women, one can only be amazed that, despite everything, so much pride and sense of freedom can still be found in German women. Fortunately, the German racial heritage, which most strongly rejects this assessment of women, can still frequently assert itself in German men, allowing them to ensure that women retain their dignity and independence in marriage, as far as it is possible under this legal framework.

Equally encouraging is the growing recognition, even among wider circles, of the untenability of the property law provisions of the Civil Code and their blatant injustice towards women, a view that is also shared by National Socialist jurists, as can be seen from an article by LGDR Schröder in 'Deutsches Recht.' One might now choose between two options for the urgently needed reform of marital property law and establish, as the statutory property regime that comes into effect automatically upon marriage, either the separation of property, in which each spouse manages and freely disposes of their assets themselves, but with the provision that what the husband earns during the marriage becomes the joint property of both spouses, thereby providing compensation for the wife’s work as a homemaker and mother; or introduce a community of acquisitions regarding all earnings during the marriage. In this case, everything created and acquired by the husband or wife, or both together, during the marriage would become joint property, shared equally by both, while concerning premarital assets, the separation of property and each spouse's right to freely dispose of what they brought into the marriage would remain.

Practically, both proposals would result in almost the same outcome, but this community of acquisitions would need to be structured quite differently in its specific provisions than it is currently in the Civil Code under the similarly named property regime chosen by a marriage contract. In that case, the husband, in line with the fundamental attitude of the law towards the special value of the husband, has the sole right of management and disposal over the acquisitions and, as the law particularly emphasizes, is not even responsible to his wife for this management. The commentary by the Reich Court judges states that holding the husband accountable to his wife would make his position 'unbearable.' This is the height of arrogance!

If one chooses this altered community of acquisitions as the statutory property regime, then the best solution for management seems to me to grant each spouse the right to freely dispose of daily transactions within their scope of business, but for significant legal actions, such as selling a piece of land, require joint action or at least the consent of both parties. There is truly no substantive reason to grant the husband the sole right of management and disposal over the acquisitions. However, it is not the purpose of this document to make detailed proposals on all points, but only to provide fundamental guidance.

It cannot be denied, based on what has been presented, that the current legal regulation of the wife’s position in marriage—even though jurists are always eager to point out that the wife retains full legal capacity, with which, and this is the significant point, she practically can do nothing—represents her disenfranchisement in every respect. This is an outrageous injustice, poses serious dangers to the emotional development of both spouses, contributes to the destruction of many marriages, significantly reduces the German woman’s willingness to become a mother, and thus harms the entire people.

With a few changes, a fundamental transformation can be achieved, and it is truly high time for this. But even the best law remains only on paper as long as the German people do not inwardly change in their sense of responsibility towards the divine purpose of their lives and the life of their nation. Therefore, education in moral responsibility and in the German understanding of God is fundamental.

The German Woman as a Mother

The word "mother" awakens in us a world of loving memories and deep feelings. The comforting sense of security, as in our childhood days, and the certainty of the selfless, infinitely kind love of the mother make our hearts tremble with sacred reverence. How desolate is the heart to which life has denied this, and how poor is the nation where the mother can no longer fulfill her role!

Schiller, who recognized the true value of women and never tired of showing it to his people, encapsulates motherhood in these beautiful words:

"Beautiful is the tender majesty of the mother Among the sons of fiery strength, Not on earth is her image and likeness to be seen. High on the summit of life, She completes the circle of beauty, With the mother and her sons, The world crowns itself in perfect splendor!"

Motherly love participated in the moment of creation of humanity, and it is this love that continually brings forth new life. The life of the people and, beyond that, the realization of the divine purpose of creation are essentially placed in the hands of the mother. The role of motherhood naturally includes the task of education. The upbringing of a child into a strong character, self-disciplined, and racially conscious individual is not only crucial for the child's destiny but also the best guarantee for the secured future of the nation. This character education is far more the responsibility of the home, especially the mother, than of the school. Thus, the preservation of the nation is entrusted to the mother in two ways: her willingness to bear children is the guarantee of the physical preservation of the people, and her role as educator of the youth ensures the moral and character content of our nation. The German woman, as a mother and educator of the people, is among the most important indirect shapers of history and occupies a foremost place in the life of her nation.

It is therefore self-evident that the woman brings with her an exceptionally favorable disposition and talent for her educational and nurturing role with the children, ensuring the fulfillment of this task vital to the survival of the nation. In the work "The Woman and Her Mission," which objectively outlines the physiological and psychological differences between the sexes based on scientific research and life experience, and from there reallocates the national duties of the sexes according to their particular characteristics, Dr. Ludendorff highlights a particularly notable difference: the woman's stronger interest in the person. The female's focus tends to favor the individual over the abstract. Women have a pronounced interest in people, in their personal lives and destinies, far more than in the things around them. For instance, a technical marvel may be near them, but its constructive design does not interest them in the slightest. This is in stark contrast to men, who engage with the exploration of things and the establishment of general rules with great interest and are more attracted to the abstract over the concrete. It does not need to be particularly emphasized that this nature of female interest makes women inherently more suitable for the role of educator than men. Additionally, women have a well-developed, flexible imagination that makes it easy for them to immerse themselves in the world of a child's imagination and gain deep insight into the child's emotional life.

Psychological understanding and empathy are crucial for proper child-rearing. Consider, for example, the importance of truthfully investigating and justly evaluating a child's motives in the case of a wrongdoing. A punishment that is not appropriate can destroy a child's pride and turn it into defiance and stubbornness. Women, generally, have a greater aptitude for psychology, while men are rarely psychologically inclined. Considering the predominance of altruistic sentiment in women, their self-control over impulses and desires (such as alcohol consumption), and the fact that the spiritualization of love, and thereby marriage, against sexual degeneration, is more historically secure in women than in men, there can be no doubt that women are exceptionally suited to the education of children—indeed, in many cases, more so than men. However, it is true that women, due to their tendency towards greater emotionality, like all emotionally intense people, are more prone to mood swings and impulsiveness in their actions. These disadvantages in the role of an educator can be counterbalanced by disciplined willpower, cultivated in girls during their youth. Steadiness in action is a prerequisite for fair and successful education. Nothing is worse than when an educator allows themselves to be guided by fluctuating moods; if they overlook a child's misbehavior because they want peace, but then harshly punish the same behavior another time because they are in a bad mood, this inconsistency is detrimental to the child's development.

Certainly, only an educator who has gained the necessary self-control through strict self-discipline in their youth can engage in consistent educational work. While willpower is crucial, it has its limits. It must never go so far as to break the child's pride and turn them into a helpless, permanently irresponsible person. Willpower on one hand and the free development of creative forces in the child on the other are the two fundamental pillars upon which a strong, self-aware, yet self-disciplined generation can be built. This goal is achieved through an education that grants the child the level of freedom that corresponds to the degree of self-control they have achieved.

Does our law give the German mother the position that corresponds to the importance of her educational role and her special aptitude for it? Absolutely not! The German woman, even in relation to her children, holds a position subordinate to that of the man, which is almost a mockery of her role as a mother and educator. This can only be explained by the fundamental attitude of current marital law and the Jewish-Christian valuation of women. It has already been mentioned that according to Section 1354 of the Civil Code, "in all matters concerning the common marital life," the husband has the deciding power, and this includes the care and education of the children. This already legally establishes the husband's dominant position in matters of child-rearing. This is further detailed in the law regarding the relationship between parents and their children.

The Civil Code regulates the relationship between parents and their minor children under the term "parental authority," and Section 1626 states: "The child is under parental authority as long as it is a minor." The term "parental authority" is misleading because, fundamentally, only the father, not the mother, holds this authority. The mother can only exercise parental authority during the marriage in exceptional cases. Thus, it would be more honest to speak of paternal authority rather than parental authority. This authority includes "the right and duty to care for the person and property of the child" (Section 1627 of the Civil Code), to represent the child in legal matters, and to conduct legal transactions on the child's behalf, such as entering into apprenticeship, service, or employment contracts. The law gives the father, as the holder of parental authority, the right to manage the child's property (Section 1649 of the Civil Code). The right to care for the child’s person is more specifically defined in Section 1631 of the Civil Code as "the right and duty to raise, supervise, and determine the residence of the child."

During the marriage, the mother generally does not hold parental authority at all but instead has "the right and duty to care for the person of the child" alongside the father, according to Section 1634 of the Civil Code. The mother is not responsible for the child's property, and, as this section explicitly emphasizes, she is also not authorized to represent the child in matters concerning its person. For example, a German farmer's wife cannot independently place her daughter into service because she lacks the legal authority to do so; this remains exclusively the right of the husband, who alone can enter into such service contracts, even for the daughters. Anyone who thinks that the mother at least can exercise her rights alongside the father equally in matters of the child's care will be bitterly disappointed, as Section 1634, Paragraph 2, states: "In the event of a disagreement between the parents, the father’s opinion prevails."

The German woman, whom people are so eager to remove from public life and return to her world, to the family, so she can be a "sovereign queen," is, according to these provisions, placed under the authority of the man even in her most natural domain, in a way that is completely incompatible with her dignity and her abilities. It must be considered that in reality, the education of the children lies almost entirely in the hands of the mother, while the father often wishes to be spared from the arduous and soul-draining work of education. But the outrageous aspect is that the mother is burdened with the extensive work of educating the children but is not given full or even equal responsibility and decision-making power. Our Jewish-Christian law intentionally subordinates the woman and reserves for the man, as the head of the family, the final say in matters of child-rearing. It would be a pitiful state of affairs for Germany if all German families actually lived according to these legal provisions.

Our "German" law stands here in such deliberate opposition to our German racial heritage that in families where the racial heritage asserts itself in both husband and wife, the mother is given a completely different, genuinely German position as the educator of the children. Of course, in external dealings, even racially conscious parents are bound by legal regulations. Unfortunately, there are also many families where these unjust provisions of the Civil Code are strictly adhered to, which is not in the best interest of the children. This text does not aim to show in which families the legal provisions are followed and in which they are not, but only to highlight the position the law grants to women, regardless of the actual role they may take in individual cases. Even when it is possible to turn to the guardianship court to intervene (§ 1666 of the Civil Code), in cases where the father neglects his duties, this does not change the fundamental view. Moreover, the mother will rarely seek the help of an external judge regarding her children, and in most cases, the harm to the child will already have occurred before the guardianship court intervenes, as Section 1666 presupposes that the father has already neglected his duty and that there is a considerable likelihood of significant harm to the child's well-being in the future.

The parental authority is transferred to the mother only when the father has died or when the parental authority has been revoked due to criminal actions against the child, and the marriage has been dissolved (Section 1684 of the Civil Code). In cases where the father, during the marriage, has forfeited parental authority due to a crime committed against his children, this authority does not automatically transfer to the mother; instead, a guardian must be appointed for the child. The disenfranchisement of the mother goes even further: if the guardianship court, based on Section 1666 of the Civil Code, removes the father’s authority to care for the child's person due to endangering the child’s mental or physical well-being, this right, which is only a part of parental authority, does not even transfer to the mother. Instead, a guardian must be appointed to exercise this right for the child. The greatest shame lies in the fact that, as explicitly stated in Section 1698 of the Civil Code, in these cases, the mother’s right to care for her children’s person is only granted alongside the guardian or custodian, just as it is normally alongside the father according to Section 1634 of the Civil Code. This means that in cases of disagreement, the decision does not rest with the mother but with the unrelated guardian or custodian.

Let's clarify this absurdity with an example: if a father is stripped of his right to care for his child’s person due to dishonorable behavior by the guardianship court, and a custodian is appointed to exercise this right, the law evidently does not consider the mother capable of caring for the child alone in such cases. If the mother and the unrelated custodian have differing views on a matter of her child’s upbringing, the decision must follow the custodian's judgment. Rightfully, any unprejudiced German might ask whether such a legal provision is even possible.

In certain cases, the mother can exercise parental authority in place of the father during the marriage, though the parental authority itself remains with the father, such as when the father is actually prevented from exercising it, for example, due to prolonged absence or if his parental authority is temporarily suspended. For these cases, the law provides the humiliating provision that the enjoyment of the child’s property does not transfer to the mother but remains with the father (Sections 1685, 1656 of the Civil Code). Thus, even though the mother takes over the management of the child’s property in such cases, she does not benefit from it, and this benefit instead falls to the father, even if he has been absent abroad for years and is therefore unable to manage the property at all.

In summary, it is clear that the law disenfranchises the German mother in relation to her minor children just as much as it disenfranchises her in her personal and economic position as a wife. If the German mother endures this insulting treatment, her maternal love loses much of its divine essence. Moreover, in families where the consequences of these legal provisions are fully implemented and the parents do not live in harmony, the children are torn between the opposing wills of the spouses and are deprived of the precious blessing of a unified upbringing, which should ideally be complemented by the joint efforts of both father and mother.

Based on our German worldview, in accordance with our racial heritage, and considering the special suitability of women as educators, a fundamental change must also be made here. Parental authority, that is, the right and duty to care for the person and property of the child, including the authority to represent the child and the right to enjoy the child’s property if the latter is to be maintained, must be equally vested in both the mother and the father. In the event that parental authority is partially or entirely revoked from one parent due to dishonorable behavior or other reasons, the other parent should exercise it alone, except in cases where they are also unable to do so for any reason. In such cases, a guardian or custodian must be appointed. If differences of opinion arise between the parents, particularly regarding the upbringing of the children, they must both, as befits the nature of marriage, mutually examine and consider each other’s views, and having been raised in the German understanding of God with a sense of high responsibility, they will surely make the decision that is in the best interest of the child. If, however, these opposing views cannot be reconciled and the physical or moral well-being of the child or their property interests are endangered, the guardianship court must make the necessary arrangements. Of course, its composition must be fundamentally different from what it is today, with women being included.

But let us always be aware that even with the best laws, education in life will always be an art, and given human imperfection, certain shortcomings in the work of educators must always be overcome anew. As long as the goal of education is to train the child into a herd animal lacking independent thinking and judgment, who willingly believes all nonsense and falls for any suggestion, all good proposals are in vain. A thorough understanding of the laws of the soul, particularly those of the child, the possibilities and limits of education, but above all, knowledge of the true meaning of human life and the importance of preserving one’s own people as a racial entity are the crucial prerequisites that must first be instilled in the educator. In "The Child's Soul and the Parents' Duty," the new paths of education are shown in accordance with the laws of the soul and reality and in harmony with the desires of our racial heritage. The serious, responsible admonitions that Frau Ludendorff places at the beginning of the second part of her book, concerning the duty of parents, should become the guiding principle of our actions:

You gave yourselves the duty of parents,

Became the ancestors of distant generations By your own will.

So bear the fruit of love,

Hold your nation’s welfare In your protecting hands.

The Right of Divorce

Given what has been discussed so far, it should be easily understandable that the issue of divorce is of paramount importance, especially for women, due to the nature of their love, the upbringing of children, and the consideration of their future livelihood. Beyond this, the legal provisions regarding divorce also impact the life of the entire nation. Therefore, it is no surprise that opinions on this legal matter are sharply divided, with political, social, state, and especially religious views clashing fiercely over the issue of divorce. Should the current legal framework be maintained, should divorce be made easier or more difficult, or should it even be made completely impossible, as some religious circles would prefer? For years, there has been a bitter struggle over this issue, once again confirming for the more insightful observer that all written and spoken laws ultimately stem from a worldview or belief system.

Let's first consider the law as it currently stands. The fundamental principle of divorce law under the Civil Code, with only one exception, is that a spouse can only request a divorce due to serious fault on the part of the other. The law categorizes grounds for divorce into conditional and unconditional, or relative and absolute. The latter are those that always justify divorce. These include: adultery (§ 1565), malicious desertion (§ 1566), and willful abandonment (§ 1567). Regarding the relative grounds for divorce, which play the most significant role in both life and court practice, § 1568 BGB states:

"A spouse can file for divorce if the other spouse, through a serious violation of the marital duties or through dishonorable or immoral behavior, has caused such a deep disruption of the marital relationship that it is unreasonable to expect the other spouse to continue the marriage. Serious violations of duties include gross mistreatment."

Thus, no matter how deeply the marriage is disrupted, no matter how little inner spiritual community remains between the spouses, or how deep the mutual aversion might be, making the continuation of the marriage an unbearable emotional torment for each party, if the spouse filing for divorce cannot prove serious fault on the part of the other, and if the judge is not convinced that continuing the marriage is unreasonable for that spouse, then the marriage cannot be dissolved. Moreover, proving such faults in divorce proceedings is often very difficult, as it is clear that spouses generally do not provide strangers with a detailed view into their marriage and mutual relationships. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the more decent party to end up being the one disadvantaged in the process. In any case, it is certain that there is hardly anything uglier than some divorce proceedings. The primary blame for this lies with this unsatisfactory legal regulation, and one can only agree with what one judge wrote on the matter:

"The outcome of these legal provisions is accordingly: today’s divorce proceedings are in countless cases a disgusting web of hypocrisy and lies, in which parties, judges, and lawyers are equally entangled."

It is a matter of self-respect and decency, especially because we have a high regard for the nature of marriage, to keep hypocrisy and lies as far away from the courts as possible in the future. The primary cause of this situation is the fault principle in the Civil Code, which forces each spouse to place the blame on the other in court and present the other as poorly and despicably as possible. The result is that the process is fought with bitterness and dishonesty because simply highlighting the differences in character, the deeper reasons for the marital breakdown, is not enough. The law demands that dirty laundry be aired in public. This fault principle often results in great injustice, particularly towards the nobler spouse. Consider, for example, a case where the husband fulfills his "duties" as a spouse just enough to meet the legal requirements, but does not engage with his wife’s emotional needs or her desire for spiritual love. If the wife becomes outraged by such a marital relationship and expresses her feelings through emotional outbursts, she risks having the marriage dissolved due to her fault, even though her reaction to this immoral relationship only proves that she is the nobler party.

In the cases governed by § 1568 BGB, the assessment of the individual case is understandably very much influenced by the personal views of the judge regarding the nature of marriage, which ultimately stem from their worldview. One can imagine that a judge firmly rooted in the Catholic Church’s dogma might assess whether it is reasonable to expect the other spouse to continue the marriage by different standards than a judge who derives their moral conduct from a German worldview. Even in the matters of evidence and evaluation, opinions in practice often differ significantly. Some civil chambers are more inclined to grant divorces in doubtful cases, while others are not willing to decide on a divorce in such situations. Thus, this unfortunate legal regulation often brings even the German judge into an internal conflict, aside from the fact that it introduces significant legal uncertainty in this important area of law, as evidenced by the countless, often inconsistent, court rulings on this § 1568 BGB. For various reasons, it is often entirely uncertain whether a divorce will be granted or not. Along with human imperfection and the inherent difficulty of uncovering the truth in any legal process, the law itself is largely to blame.

This fundamental approach of the law is also related to the provisions stating that the right to request a divorce is extinguished by forgiveness or by the expiration of a time limit (§§ 1570, 1571 BGB). If the spouse entitled to file for divorce does not do so within the time limit, typically six months from the knowledge of the grounds for divorce, they will be denied the right to file for divorce. This can force the spouses to continue an entirely immoral relationship. Here’s just one example from practice, a case decided by the Reich Court itself: One spouse had increasingly succumbed to alcohol consumption, thereby becoming guilty of a marital offense under § 1568 BGB. The other spouse did not want to immediately seek a divorce, hoping instead for improvement, and thus waited. At some point, the alcoholic spouse, due to excessive drinking, became mentally ill. From that moment on, they were no longer responsible for their alcoholism, meaning that alcoholism could no longer be used as grounds for divorce. When the other spouse later filed for divorce, they were dismissed by the Reich Court because the six-month time limit under § 1571 had long since expired. The highest German court, based on the law, therefore condemned the two spouses to continue this unworthy and immoral marriage, which was in reality no longer a marriage. In other words, the law and the court’s decision in this case forced immorality. But immorality can never be lawful. Every court decision must be absolutely consistent with true law, which is born with and within us.

Only in one case does the law not require fault: when mental illness is involved. § 1569 BGB grants the right to divorce in such cases if the mental illness has lasted at least three years (!) within the marriage and has reached such a degree that any prospect of restoring the mental community is excluded. You don’t need to be a doctor to understand how difficult it is to provide this proof. Incurable diseases or mere mental weakness are not sufficient grounds for divorce, although in the latter case, there can no longer be any talk of a mental community. One would think that German law would take it as a matter of course that the closest spiritual and physical union of two people is only possible and can only be tolerated by the state when both are in full possession of their mental faculties.

The current law regarding spousal support after divorce is structured such that if the divorce occurs due to mutual fault, neither spouse is obligated to provide support to the other in the future. However, if one spouse is declared solely at fault, and the other spouse is in need and the at-fault spouse is capable of providing support, the at-fault spouse is required to pay support even after the dissolution of the marriage (Sections 1578, 1579 BGB). This support obligation ends if the faultless spouse remarries.

The regulation of care for children from a divorced marriage is also crucial. According to the provisions of the Civil Code, parental authority, which we have come to know as "paternal authority," generally remains with the father after the divorce. The father retains the right to represent the child in both personal matters and those concerning the child's property, and he does so alone. However, the actual care for the child is regulated differently by the law, depending on whether the divorce was due to mutual fault or solely due to one spouse's fault. In the latter case, the actual care is entrusted solely to the other spouse. If the divorce is due to mutual fault, the care for a son under six years old and for daughters is given to the mother, while older sons remain under the care of the father (Section 1635 BGB). The law, therefore, provides a schematic general rule, which has the significant drawback that actual care for the child and the right to represent the child in legal and business matters often do not belong to the same parent. For example, if the mother has actual care of the daughter, who lives with her and is being raised by her, she still cannot independently enter into an employment or service contract for the daughter. This right remains with the father. The mother cannot even claim child support from the father for the children in her care without the appointment of a guardian by the guardianship court. This regulation once again demonstrates the deliberate subordination of the woman and mother. Moreover, the judgment that one spouse is at fault is not necessarily proof that they are less suitable to raise the children, and this rigid regulation based on the "fault principle" can pose significant risks to the children. However, the guardianship court can make a different ruling in specific cases "if such is required in the interest of the child."

These provisions of the Civil Code regarding the right of divorce are so obviously inadequate that there is almost universal agreement on the need for their reform. What is lacking, above all, is a clear and correct guiding principle, which is understandable considering that these provisions were developed as a compromise between the most contradictory opinions and wishes. Among the proposals for the redesign of divorce law, those from leading National Socialists are particularly interesting. In the central organ of the National Socialist German Jurists' Association, Dr. Gfrörer published a treatise titled "The Law of the Family in the Third Reich," in which he makes several suggestions for the urgent redesign of divorce law. It is worth noting that he unfortunately misunderstands the essence of marriage by only considering one aspect of the marital union and its effects in one direction. He writes:

"Marriage can only claim recognition, protection, and promotion by the state if it is the nucleus of a hereditary German family with sufficient children, who then also represent a blessing."

He thus views marriage merely as the best means of raising as many children as possible but does not appreciate its profound significance for the inner spiritual development of the spouses themselves. Its highest moral value is not recognized. Consequently, the foundation of these proposals is flawed, apart from the fact that this view of the author is deeply hurtful and insulting to spouses living in a pure and refined marital union who, to their own pain, have been denied the precious joy of children. His proposals aim to significantly ease the divorce of "failed marriages" when no children are present or when only hereditary or mixed-race children can be expected. He believes that if the Hereditary Health Court establishes this, nothing should stand in the way of allowing divorce through a notarial, judicially approved contract. However, we must strongly oppose labeling marriages without children due to no fault of the spouses as "failed marriages." A failed marriage can only ever be an immoral one. He further includes in "failed marriages" those that are so disrupted that proper child-rearing seems impossible. In these cases, he wants to ease the process of divorce, particularly by eliminating the requirement to prove fault. Regarding all other marriages, he proposes making divorce more difficult and even in cases of absolute grounds for divorce, such as adultery, he suggests that it should be examined whether the continuation of the marriage could be expected "in consideration of the public interest."

In the same issue of "Deutsches Recht," Walter Buch, Reich Leader of the NSDAP, addresses the same issues in "Thoughts on Family Law." He does not make the mistake of Gfrörer regarding the starting point and, on the contrary, finds noble words about the essence of marriage, for example when he writes:

"Man and woman should become one in marriage, not only physically but also morally and spiritually, so that from their union, from their becoming whole, a child is born that becomes one with both."

It is especially encouraging that Buch unconditionally recognizes the high value of the German woman:

"The notion that a woman should be accorded a second-class status in the community must be fought against with all means. Both man and woman are of equal value and equally necessary for the preservation of the nation's strength."

We can wholeheartedly affirm this view on the value of women. However, we are all the more disappointed when Walter Buch, in an internal contradiction to his own fundamental stance, concludes by saying: "Divorce itself must undoubtedly be made more difficult." He wants to allow divorce only in cases of higher power or when required by public welfare, solely for the sake of the children and the woman. This may be well-intentioned, but it is absolutely wrong and therefore must be rejected, particularly with regard to the children and the woman. He himself states shortly before that "only from a healthy, cohesive parental home can strong, well-rounded characters emerge." Therefore, one should not advocate making divorce even more difficult than under the current law.

In contrast, Secretary of State Dr. Freisler has expressed views on these issues that closely align with ours.

When approaching the resolution of these complex issues, the starting point must be the nature and purpose of a moral marriage. We have recognized marriage as an intimate union of two people, which through spiritualized love can significantly promote the achievement of perfection, though it also poses risks to this goal. This recognition does not overlook the importance of marriage as the nucleus of the family for the nation. The preservation of moral marriages is of great interest to both the nation and the state. However, only moral marriages should be preserved, as an immoral marital union is not the place from which healthy and strong-willed children of the nation can emerge. Therefore, the best protection against frequent divorces is not legal provisions that generally make divorce more difficult, but rather addressing the deeper causes of broken marriages. What are these causes? They lie primarily in the ignorance of people about the divine purpose of their lives and the failure to recognize that the spiritualization of love, more than any other experience, can make the achievement of this life goal possible due to the strong mutual influence of the spouses. Educating the youth to be responsible and ensuring that they do not render themselves incapable of spiritualized love is the first prerequisite for forming a marriage that has the inner guarantee of durability. Given the prevailing morality, especially men are at risk of rendering themselves incapable of experiencing spiritualized love in marriage through unworthy early experiences. At this point, we must recall the serious law highlighted in "The Healing of Love" that the nature of the first experience of joy largely determines one's experience of love and its characteristics throughout life. Those who engage in unworthy relationships in their youth will likely struggle to develop the strength for a different kind of experience later in life. Early negative sexual experiences are often the root cause of acquired polygamy, with its terrible consequences and inseparability in marriage. However, this cannot be prevented by teaching youth to see their senses as something impure and shameful and by educating them to despise the will to pair. Instead, they should be raised in respectful awe of the laws of pairing and with the understanding that this will to pair ensures the fulfillment of the divine purpose of creation, and that the spiritualization of this most powerful human will can greatly enhance self-improvement. The safeguard against moral degeneration lies within the individual and in education towards duty-conscious responsibility.

It is only when all of a person's spiritual abilities are fully developed that a deep connection with the will to mate becomes possible; therefore, fulfilling sexual desires should not occur during youth. Our ancestors possessed great wisdom in establishing the principle that the sexes should not approach one another before the age of 20. As Tacitus writes:

"The young man only comes to experience love late. Even with the young women, there is no rush; they live in the same way. Thus, maiden and young man only pair in the fullness of years, and the blooming multitude of children testifies to the full strength of the parents."

And Caesar reports:

"The Germans consider it a disgrace to approach a woman before the age of 20. However, they do not live separately from each other; rather, they bathe together in rivers, wearing only short furs."

Because women are naturally more protected from degeneration due to their initial coldness (frigidity) and the phase of infatuation that precedes the conscious will to mate, they bear a particularly great responsibility. The German woman must fundamentally consider it beneath her dignity and pride to choose a man who has already sullied himself with shameful sexual intercourse. However, the Jewish-Christian perception of women has unfortunately led to many German girls and women today deliberately stimulating male arousal through the most disgusting means of coquetry, thus becoming complicit in degeneration and having only themselves to blame if men see them merely as sexual objects. The recognition of these shocking facts compels the race-conscious German to make a rapid internal transformation, starting first with themselves.

The most important prerequisite for a dignified and lasting marital union is, of course, the proper choice of a spouse. In the work "Self-Creation," Frau Dr. Ludendorff shows the different levels of inner spiritual development people can be on, and in "The Healing of Love," the impact of such opposing spiritual constitutions on the marital community is described. There are oppositions that make a lasting "union of the spouses in love" impossible from the outset. Harmony of racial heritage, i.e., racial character and the inherent experience of God, similar levels of inner spiritual development, as well as the greatest possible agreement in emotional life and the laws of the will to mate, are prerequisites for a "voluntary, love-sanctified monogamous marriage for life." It is a bad sign that it still needs to be explicitly stated that in choosing a spouse, emotional and character values must take precedence, and all economic considerations must be secondary. When spouses, thus prepared and strengthened in the feeling of responsibility towards the divine purpose of their lives and their nation, enter into marriage, the best guarantee for a lasting intimate union is provided. The spouses must always remember that there is no such thing as forgiving, forgetting, or undoing; every word, every action, and every omission leaves a deep imprint on one's own soul and the soul of the other. In "The Triumph of Immortality," the ancestress imparts this understanding to the dreamer with these words for his life journey:

"In every hour, stride with you, you powerful one, God, As a serious companion the knowledge, That nothing, not the spoken word, Not the already accomplished deed, can be erased Through regret, forgiveness, forgetting, And loving, divine action. And when in this knowledge You have become such a serious God, Then weigh in sorrow and in joy, In hatred and in anger, your words."

We recognize that in no other area is it as necessary as in marriage that the internal transformation of people must occur at least simultaneously with legal regulations. Then Germans will be worthy of a divorce law that does justice to the high purpose of human life and better serves the preservation of God in the people than the current one. Instead of various conditional and unconditional grounds for divorce listed in the law without any internal coherence, the fundamental regulation should be that a marriage can be dissolved at the request of one spouse if it is objectively so deeply disrupted that its continuation is immoral and contradicts the essence of marriage. The prerequisite of objective disruption should be judged according to the nature and task of a moral marriage, as we have recognized it. The requirement of fault is to be abandoned, and the effects that current law ties to forgiveness and the expiration of time limits should no longer apply. Instead of a schematic regulation, full consideration of the circumstances and relationships of the individual case should be given, especially in divorce proceedings with their variety and differences. The judge, strengthened by a sense of responsibility from German knowledge of God, should make decisions that do justice to the high purpose of the lives of the spouses, the children, and the preservation of the people.

In a regulation of divorce law according to these perspectives, the current provisions regarding the actual care of children after divorce must also be changed. The best and most dignified solution would probably be to give the spouses themselves the right to agree on who will take on the actual care of the children and thus also the right to represent the children. If the spouses cannot agree, or if the arrangement they make would endanger the mental or physical well-being of the children, the guardianship court must make the necessary orders from the standpoint of the best interests of the children. This would prevent many spiteful and undignified quarrels between divorced spouses from the outset and ensure a much better upbringing of the children than is currently the case. The obligation of spousal support after divorce should also be based solely on need and fairness in the individual case, with special consideration given to the non-working or partially working wife. The goal should be to free German people from unworthy unions, which neither the state nor the nation can have any interest in, by facilitating divorce, while also creating conditions for lasting marriages based on inner harmony, thus making frequent divorces impossible from the outset. German knowledge of God shows the way and provides clear guidelines.

The German Woman in the Nation and State

The image of those heroic Germanic women emerges before us, who, in pre-Christian times during the battles against the Romans at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae, urged the fighting men and sons to perform great heroic deeds and even took up arms themselves when the men had fallen. For a long time, they held off the advancing Romans from the wagon fort, and when only captivity remained due to the overwhelming enemy, they first killed their children and then themselves. "Countless was the number of women who killed themselves," reports the Roman account. The pride and will for freedom, which were as alive in the Germanic woman as in the man, were incompatible with surrendering to the enemy. Life without freedom was not worth living.

Then, centuries later, German women, who carry the same unchanging racial heritage within them, lay at the priest’s feet and confide the secrets of their souls to him! Between these events lies the bitter time of suffering for our people, with the racial heritage only occasionally breaking through with unyielding force, as it did during the desperate struggle of the Stedingers against the archbishops' knights, where men and women fought side by side and all perished on the bloody battlefield. What gave these women the strength to continue fighting after the men had fallen? It was not merely the overwhelming eruption of the national soul in the hour of the nation's death; the Germanic woman knew nothing else but that she was equally obligated alongside the man to carry out all the tasks necessary for the preservation of the people and, if necessary, to die for her people. After all, the man brought her a sword as a wedding gift. Thus, among our pre-Christian ancestors, important roles in the community were entrusted to women, as symbolized by the idealized images of the Asinnen, representing female virtues. We Germans, who stand in the wake of our racial heritage, must not simply overlook the immensely important fact that, among our ancestors, the world of women did not end at the doorstep. The Jewish principle that "the woman should keep silent in the congregation" did not yet apply.

The nature and character of women complement men in every respect, and so it is not surprising that some of the problems and shortcomings of modern state life are partly due to the lack of direct influence of women in these matters. It should be fully acknowledged that the modern state is a creation of men, which accounts for its strength but also—what is often overlooked—its weakness. The organizational and administrative structure of today’s state, as a product of male intellect and willpower, is, on the surface, a marvel. However, we Germans have unfortunately experienced firsthand how quickly it can collapse. The state, which should never be an end in itself but always a means for the preservation of the people, lacked a soul. The state and the people were orphaned.

The fact that modern states have distorted and exaggerated the necessary will to power into imperialistic, world-dominating, and people-destroying tendencies is largely due to the absence of the balancing influence of women in state affairs. This imperialistic pursuit of power, which stands in the sharpest contrast to the divine will of creation and the necessity of preserving peoples in their racial uniqueness as a precondition for the diversity of divine consciousness on Earth, has led to the destruction of valuable cultural assets and the annihilation of peoples with a right to life. Every people has the right to live according to its own nature, thereby bringing forth the creative forces inherent in its racial heritage and contributing to the diversity of divine experience, just as it has the duty to protect its life against any attack through defensive strength. Any weakening of the defensive forces of the Volk is deadly. We recognize that the German woman experiences the national soul more intensely than the man and that, therefore, her direct involvement in shaping our national life is an absolute necessity.

As we move from the family to the broader framework of the national community to examine and determine what tasks the woman must fulfill here, let the guiding principle be:

"Full equality of women is also the only way to ensure the preservation of such nations, for they require the participation of the female gender, which deeply experiences the national soul, in all national matters."

Of course, in this activity of women outside the home, it is not a matter of displacing men from their areas of work, for which they have a special aptitude, but rather of ensuring, for the preservation of the nation, that women stand in leadership positions alongside men in all areas where they have a pronounced talent or where the complementary influence of the female gender is indispensable. Thus, not in a position of conflict with men, but also not in a Jewish-Christian subordination under men, but in a position of equal rights and responsibilities, in line with German sensibilities and our racial heritage, should the German woman fulfill her role in the larger community of the state and the people. It is not sufficient to merely offer her opportunities for activity in subordinate positions, possibly under constant supervision by men; she can only bring her complementary nature and special talents to the benefit of the people if she is granted influence in leadership positions.

Naturally, this activity of women has its limits in their highest and most important life task, the role of motherhood. Everything else must be subordinated to this. For this reason, it would be very welcome if the many German women in factories could be returned to their families and children. However, as long as supranational financial powers influence the organization of the economy of nations, this will not be possible, because they hang the breadbasket so low that, in countless cases, women are forced to toil in factories. The most valuable cultural and national assets are thus destroyed in this way.

Before we turn to specific areas of national and state life, the question must be answered whether women are naturally capable of engaging in activities outside the home in a way that does not harm their role as mothers. Frau Dr. Ludendorff has addressed this question in detail in "The Woman and Her Destiny," affirming that women are rarely fully occupied by motherhood for more than two decades and that their strong "activity" and intellectual agility make it easier for them to work in various fields simultaneously. Thus, even the German mother, whose contribution can never be dispensed with, can make herself available for tasks in the nation and the state. Additionally, women have been naturally endowed with greater resistance to disease, making them tougher, a quality often referred to as the greater "youthfulness" of the female gender.

The foundation of national and state preservation is the formation of law, which includes legislation and jurisprudence. Written or orally transmitted law is a reflection of the worldview prevailing in a nation and the moral demands arising from it. Because women experience the self-preservation will of the national soul powerfully, their direct participation in shaping German law is absolutely necessary to ensure that this law is created in harmony with the demands of the national soul and its work for the preservation of the people. Moreover, through the involvement of women, the formation of law might be strongly enhanced from a psychological perspective, perhaps even enabling the often rigid legal paragraphs, which can never be entirely dispensed with, to be made more vibrant and connected to the people.

The Academy for German Law is tasked with finding ways to a German law that is close to the people and not alien to them, conducting its activities under the guiding principle "everything for Germany, everything for the German people." It is to undertake the immense task of reforming German law, and for this reason, numerous committees have been established for various areas of law. We consider it urgently necessary that women be included in the leadership of certain committees, such as those for family and marriage law, inheritance law, study reform, and others. For the development of a people-oriented German law, it is surely much less important to have extensive legal knowledge than it is to value women's strong national feeling, their strict morality, their heartfelt character, and their special talents in various areas.

Women are undoubtedly well-suited for practical legal work. Consider, for instance, their often-mentioned psychological aptitude, which is of great importance in the professions of judge and lawyer. Not without reason did the former Senate President Dr. Baumbach write some time ago that the reform of the judicial system is the foundation of any thorough legal reconstruction, and thus, a stronger inclusion of women in the judiciary seems necessary. It is unacceptable for a German woman to have her fate, particularly in the matter of the dissolution of her marriage, decided exclusively by three male judges who often have little psychological understanding of her nature and inner life. Every practitioner will admit that, especially in divorce cases, where evidence is often difficult to provide, the psychological empathy of the judge is a necessary precondition for a just verdict. Therefore, it is essential to prepare and train female jurists so that, in the future, at least one female judge can participate in divorce proceedings. Even today, it could be mandated that half of the lay judges and jurors in criminal cases should belong to the female gender. This measure would be even more justified, as psychological examination of the motives behind crimes is, at the very least, significant in determining the appropriate punishment.

The current law grants the guardianship court powers that deeply affect family life and relationships, such as the authority to remove parental rights from the father under certain conditions and appoint a guardian, or to make decisions regarding the care of children from divorced marriages that deviate from the legal norms. Women, under certain conditions, can also seek the guardianship court's assistance in their personal matters against their husbands. Generally, guardianship courts are responsible for the care of those in need, often minors. These courts, which intervene in significant aspects of people's lives, as these few examples show, are typically part of the local court system, where usually the oldest judge, hardened by years of battling legal paragraphs, oversees guardianship matters. How necessary it would be to include the warmheartedness and compassionate involvement of women in the fate of those seeking the help of the guardianship court! This could be restructured so that the appointed judge is accompanied by two lay judges, one of whom must be a woman. With these proposals, we align with the ideas of our pre-Christian ancestors. Alongside the Asen, "Forseti," the Asin, "Verwahre," also exercised judicial duties. It is said of her: "She seeks and helps all those to their rights who wish to refute false accusations."

When German law is reformed based on our inherent spiritual experience, when German courts are restructured in the suggested manner, and when the judges render their verdicts in alignment with the moral demands of German spiritual knowledge, only then will the laws and their application consistently serve the preservation of the people and the divine in the people.

In the hands of the German woman also belongs the highly significant office of national education. Proper education of the youth is one of the indispensable preconditions for the life of the nation, its power, and its future. In this regard, education has a threefold task. Because of the higher purpose of life, whose attainment is an act of free will, humans are not driven solely by the instincts of survival, which means they can act in ways that are dangerously counter to self-preservation and the preservation of the people. And indeed, they often do. Therefore, education must first and foremost provide the youth with the knowledge necessary for self-preservation and national preservation—knowledge that animals inherently possess through their instincts: the wisdom and knowledge passed down through heritage. For humans to apply this knowledge in specific situations, their ability to think and judge independently must be developed and strengthened in their youth. The compulsion of instinct, which ensures its application in every situation, is replaced in humans by rigorous self-discipline and education towards self-control. Readers of this text are strongly encouraged to refer to the work "The National Soul and Its Power," and to study the relevant chapters thoroughly.

It has been repeatedly emphasized that women have a natural talent for educational matters. Their warm-heartedness, their psychological understanding, especially of the child’s mind, particularly qualify them to contribute to the creation of textbooks. Because the complementary influence of women is indispensable for the entire problem of education, and especially since much more attention needs to be given to the education and training of young women for the role of motherhood, it is necessary to grant German women a leading influence in the field of education. We can easily imagine that the Ministry of Culture could be jointly led by a man and a woman, with full equality between them, ensuring mutual complementarity and influence in one of the most important areas of national life.

The image of those heroic Germanic women who, in pre-Christian times, during battles against the Romans at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae, encouraged the fighting men and sons to perform the most heroic deeds and even took up arms themselves when the men had fallen, comes to mind. They held off the attacking Romans from the wagon fort for a long time, and when the overwhelming force of the enemy left them only the choice of captivity, they first killed their children and then themselves. "Countless were the number of women who took their own lives," reports the Roman account. The pride and will for freedom, as alive in the Germanic woman as in the man, made it unthinkable for them to submit to the enemy. Life was not worth living without freedom.

And then, centuries later: German women, who carried the same unchanging racial heritage within them, lay on their knees, confessing the secrets of their souls to the priest! Between these two points lies the long period of suffering for our people, with only occasional eruptions of the racial heritage breaking through with relentless force, as when in the final struggle of the Stedinger peasants against the Teutonic Knights, men and women fought side by side with weapons and all perished on the bloody battlefield. What gave these women the strength to continue fighting when the men had fallen? It was not only the all-overcoming eruption of the people's soul in the hour of death for the nation; the Germanic woman knew nothing other than that she was equally obligated, together with the man, to carry out all tasks of preserving the people, even if it meant dying for her people. After all, the man had given her a sword as a wedding gift. Thus, in our pre-Christian ancestors, important offices within the community were entrusted to women, a fact that the ideal figures of the Asinnen, as symbols of female qualities, attest to. We Germans, who are experiencing a racial awakening, must not simply overlook the immensely important fact that in our ancestors' time, the world of women did not end at the doorstep. The Jewish principle of "let the woman keep silent in the community" was not yet in place.

The female character and nature complement the man in every aspect, and it is not surprising that the flaws and one-sidedness of modern state life are partly due to the lack of direct influence from women in these matters. It must be admitted that the modern state is a creation of men, which is both its strength and—something often overlooked—its weakness. The organizational and administrative structure of today's state, as a product of male intellect and willpower, is superficially a marvel. Yet, we Germans have unfortunately experienced firsthand how quickly it can collapse. The state, which should never be an end in itself but always a means of preserving the people, lacked a soul. State and people were orphaned.

The fact that modern states have distorted the necessary will to power into imperialistic, world-dominating, and destructive tendencies toward other peoples is largely due to the absence of the balancing influence of women in state affairs. This imperialistic drive for power, which stands in the sharpest contradiction to the divine creative will and the necessity of preserving peoples in their racial individuality as a precondition for the diversity of divine consciousness on earth, led to the destruction of valuable cultural assets and the annihilation of peoples entitled to life. Every people has the right to live according to its own nature, to bring forth the creative forces embedded in its racial heritage, and thus to contribute to the diversity of divine experience, just as it has the duty to defend its life against any attack. Any restriction on the defensive capabilities of a people is immoral. We recognized that the German woman experiences the soul of the people more intensely than the man and that, therefore, her direct participation in shaping our national life is a compelling necessity.

When we step from the family into the broader framework of the community to examine and determine what tasks the woman has to fulfill here, we must be guided by the fundamental principle:

"Equality of women is the only way to ensure the preservation of such peoples; for they need, in all matters concerning the people, the strong experience of the people's soul by the female gender."

Of course, in this activity outside the home, it is not a question of women displacing men from their fields of work, for which they have a special aptitude, but it must be demanded for the preservation of the people that women stand equally alongside men in leadership positions in all areas where there is a pronounced female aptitude or where the complementary influence of the female gender is indispensable. Thus, not in a combative stance against men, but also not in the Jewish-Christian subordination under men, but in a German sense and in line with our racial heritage, women should fulfill their tasks in the larger community of state and nation in an equal and therefore equally responsible position alongside men. It is not enough to merely allow them to participate in subordinate roles, possibly under constant male supervision; women can only bring their complementary qualities and superior aptitudes to bear for the benefit of the people when they are granted influence in leadership positions.

Naturally, this activity of women has its limits in their highest and most important life task, the role of motherhood. Everything else must be subordinated to this. For this reason, it would be highly desirable if many German women could be brought back from the factories to their families and children. As long as supranational financial powers influence the shaping of the economy of nations, however, this will not be possible, as these powers will keep the breadbasket so low that in countless cases, women are forced to toil in factories. On this path, the most valuable national and cultural values are destroyed.

Before we turn to specific areas of national and state life, the question must be answered as to whether women are naturally capable of engaging in activities outside the home in addition to motherhood, and in a way that does not harm their role as mothers. Frau Dr. Ludendorff has extensively addressed this question in "The Woman and Her Destiny," affirming that women are fully capable of working in various fields simultaneously, with their strong "activity" and mental agility making it easier for them to do so. Therefore, even the German mother, whose participation is indispensable, can free herself up for tasks in the community and state. Women are also naturally equipped with greater resistance to disease-causing agents, making them tougher, a quality also referred to as the greater "youthfulness" of the female gender.

The foundation of national and state preservation is the shaping of law, that is, legislation and jurisprudence. The written or orally transmitted law is a reflection of the prevailing worldview within the people and the moral demands that arise from it. Because women experience the people's soul powerfully, their direct participation in the creation of German law is absolutely necessary to ensure that it is created in harmony with the demands of the people's soul and its role in preserving the nation. Moreover, the inclusion of women would greatly enhance the psychological aspects of lawmaking, and it might even be possible to make the rigid legal paragraphs, which can never be completely dispensed with, more alive and connected to the people. The Academy for German Law is tasked with finding the way to a German law that is close to the people and not foreign to them, and it is to carry out its activities under the guiding principle "Everything for Germany, everything for the German people." It is supposed to accomplish the great task of reforming German law, and for this reason, numerous committees have been established for the various areas of law. We consider it urgently necessary that women be brought into the leadership of individual committees, such as family and marriage law, inheritance law, educational reform, and also into the other committees, because for the creation of a law that is close to the people, it is less important that the women have extensive legal knowledge and more important that their strong national feeling, strict morality, heartfelt character, and superior aptitudes can be valued in these areas.

For practical legal work as well, women are undoubtedly suitable. Consider their frequently mentioned psychological aptitude, which is of great importance in the professions of judge and lawyer. It is not without reason that the former Senate President Dr. Baumbach wrote some time ago that the reform of the judicial system is the foundation of any thorough legal reconstruction, and thus, the stronger inclusion of women in the judiciary seems necessary. It is unacceptable for a German woman to have her fate, particularly in the matter of the dissolution of her marriage, decided exclusively by three male judges who often have little psychological understanding of her nature and inner life. Every practitioner will admit that, especially in divorce cases, where evidence is often difficult to provide, the psychological empathy of the judge is a necessary precondition for a just verdict. Therefore, it is essential to prepare and train female jurists so that, in the future, at least one female judge can participate in divorce proceedings. Even today, it could be mandated that half of the lay judges and jurors in criminal cases should belong to the female gender. This measure would be even more justified, as psychological examination of the motives behind crimes is, at the very least, significant in determining the appropriate punishment.

The current law grants the guardianship court powers that deeply affect family life and relationships, such as the authority to remove parental rights from the father under certain conditions and appoint a guardian, or to make decisions regarding the care of children from divorced marriages that deviate from the legal norms. Women, under certain conditions, can also seek the guardianship court's assistance in their personal matters against their husbands. Generally, guardianship courts are responsible for the care of those in need, often minors. These courts, which intervene in significant aspects of people's lives, as these few examples show, are typically part of the local court system, where usually the oldest judge, hardened by years of battling legal paragraphs, oversees guardianship matters. How necessary it would be to include the warm heartedness and compassionate involvement of women in the fate of those seeking the help of the guardianship court! This could be restructured so that the appointed judge is accompanied by two lay judges, one of whom must be a woman. With these proposals, we align with the ideas of our pre-Christian ancestors. Alongside the Asen, "Forseti," the Asin, "Verwahre," also exercised judicial duties. It is said of her: "She seeks and helps all those to their rights who wish to refute false accusations."

When German law is reformed based on our inherent spiritual experience, when German courts are restructured in the suggested manner, and when the judges render their verdicts in alignment with the moral demands of German spiritual knowledge, only then will the laws and their application consistently serve the preservation of the people and the divine in the people.

In the hands of the German woman also belongs the highly significant office of national education. Proper education of the youth is one of the indispensable preconditions for the life of the nation, its power, and its future. In this regard, education has a threefold task. Because of the higher purpose of life, whose attainment is an act of free will, humans are not driven solely by the instincts of survival, which means they can act in ways that are dangerously counter to self-preservation and the preservation of the people. And indeed, they often do. Therefore, education must first and foremost provide the youth with the knowledge necessary for self-preservation and national preservation—knowledge that animals inherently possess through their instincts: the wisdom and knowledge passed down through heritage. For humans to apply this knowledge in specific situations, their ability to think and judge independently must be developed and strengthened in their youth. The compulsion of instinct, which ensures its application in every situation, is replaced in humans by rigorous self-discipline and education towards self-control. Readers of this text are strongly encouraged to refer to the work "The National Soul and Its Power," and to study the relevant chapters thoroughly.

It has been repeatedly emphasized that women have a natural talent for educational matters. Their warm-heartedness, their psychological understanding, especially of the child’s mind, particularly qualify them to contribute to the creation of textbooks. Because the complementary influence of women is indispensable for the entire problem of education, and especially since much more attention needs to be given to the education and training of young women for the role of motherhood, it is necessary to grant German women a leading influence in the field of education. We can easily imagine that the Ministry of Culture could be jointly led by a man and a woman, with full equality between them, ensuring mutual complementarity and influence in one of the most important areas of national life.