Source: http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-basics/
“In respect of the future of National-Socialism – that idealistic, noble, but mis-understood way of life – it is important to understand that National-Socialist Germany was only a beginning of the practical implementation of National-Socialism. That is, a complete National-Socialist society was being worked toward, but was never fully achieved because of the circumstances of the time – in particular the advent of the First Zionist War (commonly called the Second World War) with the need for Germany to fight a total war in order to try and survive. In many ways, Adolf Hitler (as he himself admitted, for instance to Leon Degrelle) had to make several compromises in order to not only achieve power, but also to keep power in the face of external and internal problems. … Thus, while NS Germany (what it was, not what Zionist hate propaganda has made it appear) should be considered as an inspiring model for us and future generations, it should not be looked upon as the perfect, ideal, National-Socialist society. … It is our task – and that of future generations – to lay the foundations for this complete National-Socialist society. To do this, we must expound pure, idealistic National-Socialism, untainted by any compromise with the societies of our time. That is, we must expressly state what National-Socialism is and involves, however “impractical” or idealistic it might seem, and however unpopular. … We do not need political propaganda – such as stirring speeches, rallies, marches, strident appeals – which only ever appeals to the fickle emotions of people. Instead, we need reasoned literature; factual stories of National-Socialist heroism; and living examples of National-Socialism in action, both individual and communal. That is, we need to show the idealism, the truths, of National-Socialism by personal example – through our own deeds and projects.” – David Myatt
Understanding National Socialism first requires understanding the historical circumstances under which it first arose early in the 20th century.
On the practical plane, Germany had never recovered from WWI, and was at an unprecedented low in morale, in terrible shape economically and hopelessly divided socially. Gottfried Feder describes it: “In the nation, taken as an organic whole, every aspect of our private life shows pain, bondage, suppression, insecurity, and presents a clear picture of a struggle of all against all. Government against people, Party against Party, … employer against employee, merchant against producer and consumer, landlord against tenant, labourer against farmer, officials against the public, worker against ‘bourgeoisie’, Church against State, each blindly hitting out at his particular adversary thinking only of his own selfish interests. … No one thinks of his neighbour’s welfare, or of his higher duties to community.” Alfred Rosenberg describes it: “It did not display a picture of a clear will, nor one of position and opposition but — if I may anticipate the developments of later years — a fight of all against all. In the end the parliamentary system was represented by forty-nine different parties, each one trying to present its own particular problem as the most important.” Hitler himself describes it, and proposes the beginnings of a solution: “What will happen one day when hordes of emancipated slaves come forth from these dens of misery to swoop down on their unsuspecting fellow men? For this other world does not think about such a possibility. They have allowed these things to go on without caring and even without suspecting – in their total lack of instinctive understanding – that sooner or later destiny will take its vengeance unless it will have been appeased in time. … Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these conditions. This method is: first, to create better fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which are incapable of being improved.“
On the intellectual plane, the empiricist worldview had (from the Renaissance onwards and ever more sharply with accelerating advances in experimental science during the so-called Age of Enlightenment) increasingly threatened spirituality with materialistic reductionism, promising to ultimately trivialize such things as emotions, dreams, free will and the spirit itself as mere side-effects of entirely physiological mechanisms. As the pressure became too great, philosophical reaction arose in opposition to empiricism by re-affirming intuition and sentiment as valid - indeed superior – routes to knowledge, as Alfred Rosenberg describes: “In various guises, an abstraction began to uproot life. The reaction in the form of German romanticism was therefore as welcome as rain after a long drought. … Where the Greek generalised, … the Romantic man personified.” However, this reaction itself immediately split into two movements, as reliance on feeling led to different types of people feeling differently.
The Romantic movement began as a movement proposing that empiricism, though powerful in generating knowledge about what is, does so at the devastating cost of cutting us off from knowledge about what ought to be. The latter is considered accessible only via a personal undertaking to refine the spirit, which in turn can only be achieved by immersion in conditions (in practice usually generated by works of art) that remove the usual social constraints to emotional activity, thus allowing us to distance ourselves from our lower emotions and, if possible, hand ourselves over totally to our higher emotions. Particular emphasis is placed on pure love, poetic justice and appreciation for beauty, all of which are believed to converge towards – and function as conduits towards – the Romantic ideal.
The Counter-Enlightenment movement, on the other hand, proposed quite differently that empiricism was cutting us off from primal human urges and hence leading to a dry, sterile humanity that experiences life less richly than those still connected to the primal. The response they recommend is to seek immersion in conditions that unleash primality. They admit that primal feelings might not converge, and indeed often clash with each other for dominance even inside the same mind, but argue that this is not something that should be worth concern, because the very expectation of convergence is a non-primal feeling in itself, and therefore to be rejected. Primalism is considered the only valid guide; rationalism is to be rejected along with empiricism.
In short, the Counter-Enlightenment feared that empiricism would devalue the lower emotions (which they value as primal), whereas the Romantics feared that empiricism’s trivializing method of devaluing the lower emotions would inevitably devalue also the higher emotions (which we value as salvational) at the same time, thereby interfering with the Romantic eschatological vision of the higher emotions directly vanquishing the lower emotions in a triumph of the will. Alfred Rosenberg summarizes the problem with the Counter-Enlightenment from a Romantic perspective: “One is immediately reminded of the sentimental return to nature and the glorification of the primitive which appeared in the late eighteenth century. … But the nature of primitive man—as far as we can reasonably conjecture—was not particularly heroic.”
But many of the Counter-Enlightenment soon started calling themselves “Romantics”, seeing only both movements’ shared disdain towards the industrializing West, shared preference for the medieval or even earlier past and for non-Western* civilizations, shared preference for rural life over urban life, and other superficial shared tastes that in fact were motivated by entirely different feelings. The Romantics naively accepted them, assuming that the Counter-Enlightenment would become initiated into true Romanticism over time. Instead, the opposite happened: the Counter-Enlightenment usurped the label of Romanticism and confused the movement with Counter-Enlightenment ideas, as Alfred Rosenberg describes: “The great German Romantic movement sensed darker and darker veils interposed before the gods of celestial light, and it immersed itself deeper and deeper into the impulsive, formless, demonic, sexual, ecstatic and chthonic, and into mother worship.”
(* Both the Romantics and the Counter-Enlightenment sided politically with non-Western civilizations whenever possible, as empiricism was viewed as a uniquely Western attitude. Hitler himself noted this: “It is perfectly true that we are a people of romantics, quite different from the Americans, for example … The only romance which stirs the heart of the North American is that of the Redskin; but it is curious to note that the writer who has produced the most vivid Redskin romances is a German.”)
Before long, the true Romantics had been pushed to the fringes of the Counter-Enlightenment-dominated so-called “Romanticism”. Frustrated, they needed a new and even more radical movement to rally around. At the time, it was fashionable among Counter-Enlightenment advocates to blame primarily Christianity for creating Western civilization, and hence to call for abandoning Christianity in favour of pre-Christian paganism. In contrast, the true Romantics were fiercely loyal to Christianity due to considering Jesus the greatest Romantic of all. A convincing new movement had to offer an anti-Western narrative that on one hand reassured true Romantic intuition regarding Jesus, and on the other hand accounted for the largely valid Counter-Enlightenment accusation against (Judeo-)Christianity. Dietrich Eckart was ready: “Schopenhauer … said that if one wants to understand the Old Testament one must read it in the Greek version. There it has an entirely different tone, an entirely different color, with no presentiment of Christianity!” With this new interpretation that not Christianity but Judaism was to blame for creating Western civilization, National Socialism was born.
Nationalism, Socialism and National Socialism
“One does not become a National Socialist. One only discovers, sooner or later, that one has always been one.” — Savitri Devi
Nationalism is based on the view of a country as a living being in itself, as opposed to a mere contractual entity produced by interactions between humans. A country consumes food, expends energy and produces waste. A country has a memory of its own past, imagines its own future, and can collect and analyze information to generate knowledge. A country communicates and forms friendships or hostilities with other countries. A country goes through the cycle of birth and death. A country can produce offspring countries. By any characteristic commonly used to define life or consciousness, a country really is alive and conscious. This view does not deny that inhabitants of the country each have a consciousness of their own, but perceives at the same time a national consciousness as a larger-scale unit**. A nationalist therefore attempts to relate to a country holistically, as if to a person.
“The present day doctrine is: Society is the sum of the individuals — the State at its best a convenient aggregation of individuals or associations. We may compare this doctrine of the construction of society to a heap of stones. The only real thing about it is the individual piece of stone. Its shape is a matter of chance; whether a stone is on top or underneath is indifferent. The result is neither more nor less than a heap. … But the National Socialist doctrine of society and philosophy of the State is the house. Speaking mechanically, a house also consists of so many individual bricks. … But anyone can see that a house is a higher entity, something new and peculiar … more than a mere sum total of bricks heaped together.” – Gottfried Feder
(** By this logic, the reverse also applies, so that smaller-scale units can also be considered to have consciousness of their own. As Miguel Serrano asserts: “For Aryans, atoms have never been numeric abstract empty formulas. They are gnomes.”)
Broadly speaking, any ideology committed to the development of the country as a whole unit can be described as a nationalist ideology. Nationalism never confines itself to the interests of any subgroup within the country, but always considers the impact of an action on every subgroup within the country, based on a view of every subgroup as akin to an internal organ in the body, and an understanding that depriving one organ in order to boost another is no way to a healthy body. Instead, nationalism expects every subgroup to be prepared to help out every other during times of crisis, just as in a youthful body the strong organs will automatically work harder than usual to assist weakened organs back to strength (whereas in an elderly body the weak organs receive no help from the strong organs, and hence eventually fail), in Hitler’s words: “If somebody or other objects that the continual giving involves too heavy a burden, then we must reply that that is the idea of a truly national solidarity. True national solidarity cannot find its sense in mere taking.” Nationalism identifies as enemies of the state any and all subgroups within the country with an agenda to exclusively advance its own interests rather than serve the country as a whole, based on a view of such subgroups as cancerous organs that drain the rest of nutrients and at the same time spread the cancer to them. The most well-known example of this is Jewry (see below), but it applies more generally to any group established around racial identity, class consciousness, education level, gender, sexual preferences, religious exclusivity or any other psychological notion that ultimately produces tribalist behaviour. Members of such groups cannot be accepted as citizens of a nationalist state.
Another principle of nationalism is that a country cannot expect and should not wait to be helped from outside (whether by other countries or by entities such as banks or the UN), but must find ways to help itself. This is not to say that a country is obliged to always refuse outside help when offered it, but only that none of its plans should be contingent on outside help to succeed, so that it never finds itself in a position of having to accept help that comes with strings attached. Nor does it mean that a country should not give help to other countries at cost to itself. Nationalism does not imply isolationism, non-interventionism or otherwise indifference to the plight of other countries, and above all does not imply acting solely with the interests of one’s own country in mind. On the contrary, a genuinely nationalist country would encourage other countries not to be perpetually dependent on outside help either, and therefore offer them all short-term help it can give so as to enable their eventual long-term independence, in Hitler’s words: “The aim of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief, which is ridiculous and useless, but it must rather be a means to find a way of eliminating the fundamental deficiencies in our economic and cultural life.”
(In such attitudes, nationalism is in complete disagreement with identitarianism (including Zionism), which declares:“It makes decision for its own people and does not consider its impact on others.” Identitarianism is tribal; nationalism is anti-tribal. The fact that much of the present-day far-right uses the two terms interchangeably is ample evidence of their illiteracy, and of Zionist success in confusing the vocabulary of political discourse.)
Nationalism is not an ideological principle in itself, but rather an executive principle which can serve a wide range of ideologies. A capitalist can be a nationalist provided he believes in attracting money to the country rather than following the money wherever around the world it goes (as an international capitalist would do). In the same way, a nationalist communist will aim at equalizing wealth distribution inside his country, rather than worry about equalizing wealth distribution between different countries. A nationalist fascist will aim at giving his country a state capable of both internal and external power projection, rather than the latter alone. A nationalist libertarian will aim at making his entire country run on minimal government, rather than tolerate more government in some parts of the country than others. And so on.
“Hitler … not only recognised the necessity of national unity above everything else, but was also willing to press to the hilt the demand for social justice.” – Alfred Rosenberg
Socialism is the belief that state intervention is essential to realistically combatting social injustice, and that it is the moral duty of the state to so intervene. It is based on the view that the stateless system (e.g. free markets) is rigged against true merit in favour of non-merit-based competitive advantages, a problem which can therefore only be remedied by adding rules to the system, where the rules have been derived with the promotion of merit in mind, and function as to nullify the non-merit-based competitive advantages.
Jews Gentiles
Any and all who choose not to follow these rules are thus enemies of merit and hence must be
placed into concentration camps
declared outlaws who also no longer receive protection from the rules as citizens receive.
“The aim of a National-Socialist government is to encourage the noble change and further evolution of human beings in such a way that they progress upward towards a more noble way of living and the establishment of a noble and just order. This involves creating favourable conditions for the emergence and blossoming of the innate nobility of individuals.” – David Myatt
There are many distinct notions of supposed social injustice, which follow from many distinct notions of merit. Democratic socialism, for example, perceives only injustice perpetrated against the majority in any situation, and its statist remedy is simply to give the majority whatever it wants, even if it involves oppressing the minority. It considers the majority incapable of social injustice against the minority, because majority opinion defines merit, and the minority should just shut up and go along with it. Marxist socialism perceives only injustice perpetrated against the proletariat, and its statist remedy is to take from non-proles to give to proles. It considers proles incapable of social injustice against non-proles, because merit is exclusively equated with being a prole. It is worth noting that Marxist socialism and democratic socialism coincide whenever the proletariat is also the majority.
(Identitarianism (including Zionism) is never to be classified as socialism even when it employs statist means to further its agenda, since it does not argue based on social justice in the first place, but solely based on group interests. For example, the Jewish tendency to accuse anti-Zionists of being ”anti-Semites”, rather than of being “unfair” (as a misinformed but sincere socialist might accuse anti-Zionists), in itself shows that Jews care nothing for fairness, and everything for furthering Jewish group interests whether fair or unfair. The same applies to Gentiles who have copied this trick and accuse their critics of being “anti-[insert Gentile group here]“.)
National Socialism perceives injustice perpetrated against all. At the most fundamental level, just by being born, every one of us is automatically and for the entire duration of our lives a perpetual and constant victim of injustice, because none of us chose to be born. The courage to acknowledge this plainly obvious and utterly irrefutable fact (“The whole of life is one perpetual hazard, and birth is the greatest hazard of them all.” – Adolf Hitler) distinguishes National Socialism from every other form of socialism. Whereas all the others sooner or later tends towards utopianism, National Socialism repudiates utopianism (a False Left idea) from the outset by this acknowledgement and hence elevates itself to a genuinely eschatological ideology on a par with the ancient (True Left) pan-Gnostic religions.
“Even we are not so simple as to believe that there will ever be an age in which there will be no drawbacks. But that does not release us from the obligation to fight for the removal of the defects which we have recognized, to overcome the shortcomings and to strive towards the ideal.” – Adolf Hitler
Every other form of injustice is thus understood in context as a sub-injustice occurring between fellow victims of this principal injustice, which places it in a thoroughly different light than viewing it as an injustice occurring between people who have no oppressor in common. As fellow prisoners in one prison, we allstart out on the same side; our only valid enemies among one another are those who choose to “sell out” and side with our imprisoner by losing empathy for other prisoners, and who thus degrade themselves from prisoners to slaves (for which they may well be rewarded by the imprisoner with mastery over other slaves). Such a perspective – often smeared as “pessimistic” by its detractors - is in fact unprecedently positive, as it not only makes fresh rapport possible among people each previously accustomed to viewing every other as a rival against oneself, but also logically demands that the political problem of sub-injustices be tackled by an approach that simultaneously addresses the principal injustice, in other words by the approach of state control over reproduction – in classic socialist terms, adding rules derived with the promotion of merit in mind, in this case concerning genetics.
In this most radical sense, National Socialism does not merely mean ”nationalism plus socialism”, but more gramatically accurately means “socialism as pertains to nation”, which ultimately means “socialism as pertains to being born” (see later section). Where National Socialism achieves parity with the pan-Gnostic religions by its recognition of the exact same principal injustice as they all independently recognized, it excels beyond them all by being the only ideology to propose a realistic strategy for universal salvation. Where the Gnostic offers vision, the National Socialist offers action. Where the Gnostic escapes, the National Socialist counterattacks. Where the Gnostic terminates his own bloodline, the National Socialist is prepared to terminate all bloodlines which refuse to terminate themselves.
“The Aryan hosts have penetrated from beyond the borders of this Universe, warriors and warrioresses. To “crucify themselves” on the four realms of the demiurgic creation they have overturned the entire demonic plan.” – Miguel Serrano
Führerprinzip
“It rejects in general and in its own structure all those principles according to which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according to which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in the greatest problems, one person must have absolute authority and bear all responsibility. In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the following: The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higher organizations – the Bezirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (region). In each case the president is appointed from above and is invested with full authority and executive power. … One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.” – Adolf Hitler
National Socialism values the individual personality above all. This may at first glance appear contradictory to the National Socialist position that demography is destiny, but upon closer inspection is in fact part of the same position. It is the individual who introduces the potential for positive change (negative change requires no individual inspiration), and then it is demographics which determine the extent to which this potential can be actualized. As Hitler asks rhetorically: “Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?”National Socialists view all of history as a moral struggle of rare individual heroic idealists in opposition to traditionally popular norms. Aryan racial theorymerely adds the proposition that these idealists are who they are by blood.
“From amidst a world in which slavery was considered as a necessary evil by respectable people, sprang a few individuals who condemned it … To those to whom the age-old exploitation of animals seems normal just because it is practically universal and as old as man, we shall say that there are today people who strongly disapprove of it — never mind if they be but a handful scattered among millions of human beings still at a more barbaric stage of evolution. There are today a few men and women, far in advance of our times, who keenly feel the revolting injustice of all exploitation … the horror of all gratuitous infliction of suffering. … Those few are now “dreamers,” “eccentric folk,” “cranks” — like all pioneers. But who can tell whether their opinion will never become that of average man, and their principles the law of the world?” – Savitri Devi
It is therefore accurate to call National Socialism an individualist ideology, but this radical individualism is almost the total opposite of the so-called “individualism” of liberal/libertarian/anarchist conception. Any true conception of individualism does not and could never imply individual expression by everyone, for the simple reason that whenever everyone in the same society simultaneously attempts individual expression, the result is mutual cramping and hence no individual expression for anyone. True individual expression is only ever achieved when only one person per society - the leader by definition - is expressing his individuality, and the duty of all sincere individualists in the same society is to support this leader such that the leader’s individuality is able to be expressed to the fullest. Radical individualism is thus wholly devoid of (and indeed contrary to) self-centredness; the radical individualist purely wishes to see individuality maximally expressed - not necessarily one’s own individuality. This is none other than the attitude of die-hard fans of pop culture icons (musicians, actors, athletes, fictional characters, etc.), who feel that their greatest or even only meaning in life is to support the individual expression of the icon to whom they have devoted themselves, whether financially or via production of fanworks, presence at fan events and offering fan feedback, and who set aside much of their own individuality in order to do so. A political radical individualist is always an absolute monarchist, who (unless he happens to be the leader himself) would consider it his calling in life to seek and find a worthy leader to serve, making himself an extension of his leader’s personality much as pop culture fans make themselves (by the processes described above) extensions of their icon’s personality. As Rudolf Hess succinctly stated: “Hitler is Germany.”
The word “folk” etymologically derives from the word “follow”, and hence has the same meaning as the present-day word “following” (noun) as commonly used in pop culture to describe a fanbase of a particular icon. The state in this worldview is simply the totality of the mechanisms that most efficiently allow the leader’s following a.k.a. folk to assist in the expression of the leader’s personality. And, just as the true die-hard fan lives up to his name by psychological readiness to die for his icon without question and at a moment’s notice, the true political individualist is similarly ready to die for his leader. It is no coincidence that National Socialism is aligned with youth (“The Hitler Youth has taken his name. It is the only organization in the Reich that does bear his name.” - Joseph Goebbels), as fan passion is most closely associated with youthful enthusiasm and declines with age among most people.
“The insane belief in equality that found its crassest expression in political parties is no more. The principle of personality has replaced the notion of popular idiocy.” – Joseph Goebbels
A true leader is not supposed to represent popular opinion.
A true leader demands the loyalty of his country’s youth to himself, not to their families.
Original Nobility is what a true leader is supposed to represent.
To further elaborate on the spirit of radical individualism, one who sincerely wishes to see individuality maximally expressed can feel no urge to follow anyone who does not indeed possess an outstanding individual personality. Thus a leader in the individualist worldview is never a traditionalist, and a follower in the individualist worldview is also never a traditionalist, for traditionalism only appeals to those who lack reverence for individuality. A radical individualist wishes to see individuality expressed always and only ever in opposition to tradition, the latter being invariably determined by the norm rather than by the exception. Furthermore, a radical individualist defines personality always and only ever as opposition to identity (“Personality (will plus reason) is a power representing the spiritual in man opposed to the material. … Persona (instinct plus understanding) is the body of man and his interests.” – Alfred Rosenberg), the latter being invariably determined by pre-existing roles into which we are placed without our own consent rather than by our own sincerity of spirit in absence of pressure to meet expectations. Thus a good measure of individual personality is the extent to which it scorns confinement by tradition (identity being one aspect of tradition), so that a shallow personality is anti-traditional only in superficial ways, whereas a deep personality is anti-traditional in the very fundamentals of its thought. (“True personality at first hostilely faces the object to be altered, then the latter is forced to answer to a formal will. When this occurs, personality style is the result.” – Alfred Rosenberg) As such, so-called “traditionalist leaders” are not leaders at all in our eyes, but mere paternalistic mediocrities, or - more bluntly - slave prefects.
Radical individualism – “individualism for the leader alone” – thus simultaneously opposes both the phony “individualism for everybody” of the modern False Left, and the “individualism for nobody” traditionalism and paternalistic authoritarianism of all right-wing ideologies, and as such is an attitude exclusive to the True Left. Classical Platonist ideas about a “philosopher-king” come close in form to our conception of leadership, but Romantic-influenced National Socialism hits the deeper mark by visualizing the leader as less a philosopher and more an artist, hence further emphasizing the importance of individual personality. Hitler was precisely such a leader, and National Socialism was a movement by and for people with artistic sympathies – the comparison between a National Socialist leader and a pop culture icon becomes even more analogous with this in mind. Such a leader must not be concerned about his own popularity among his followers, or else he would have ceased to be leading his followers and degenerated into doing whatever they want him to do, and thus ceased to be a leader (or even an individual) in any meaningful sense. Instead, as an artist, the leader’s only duty is to stay true to his artistic vision.
“In its organization the State must be established on the principle of personality, starting from the smallest cell and ascending up to the supreme government of the country. There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons. And the word ‘council’ is once more restored to its original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual person alone.” – Adolf Hitler
“If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a Weltanschhauung. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.” – Adolf Hitler
It is inaccurate to describe such a leader as a tyrant, as he does not force anyone to serve himself – the very notion is as nonsensical as the notion of pop culture icons forcing anyone to be their fan. In a practical world of many countries and many leaders, all followers should be allowed to choose to offer their services to whichever leader they prefer, and to physically relocate to the corresponding country as necessary in order to serve their leader of choice alongside the rest of their folk. It is mutually beneficial among leaders to facilitate such a process of free relocation by aspiring followers, as it will match every leader with the followers most loyal to himself. One who believes that he himself can be a better leader than any currently existing is also open to try becoming one via his own means. Only after an oath of loyalty is freely taken by a follower does he become honour-bound to serve the leader until death or until the leader releases him from his oath. It is democracy which is tyrannical by forcing large numbers of citizens to tolerate elected governments towards which they feel no loyalty, based on the excuses: 1) they lost the vote; 2) they can vote again in a few years’ time.
Volksgemeinschaft
“Our economic principle is: the duty of the national economy is to provide the necessities of life and not to secure the highest possible profits for capital.” – Gottfried Feder
“Our principle as regards social subjects is as follows: the general welfare is the highest law of all. This principle of ours is in direct opposition to present-day practice according to which every class tries to gain advantages for its own particular group.” – Gottfried Feder
No less important to National Socialism is how the leader should treat the folk, and how members of the folk should treat one another. In this, the analogy of the pop culture icon and the fanbase continues to be useful.
A pop culture icon obviously wants his fans to be in the best personal condition possible to appreciate his work. A fan who is hungry or homeless, or who has difficulty paying bills or who remains stuck in debt despite working long hours, or who must deal with chronic illness, or who is intermittently subjected to the stress of litigation, or who is otherwise saddled with formal banalities that consume most if not all of his daily faculties of attention, is unlikely to have the time and concentration or even be in the mood to devote himself to his icon no matter how much he would theoretically wish to. The same is true of a follower in relation to his leader under National Socialism, except that the leader – as a politician – is in a position to actively improve the living conditions of his followers via state initiatives. Therefore an initial objective of the National Socialist leader is to make sure his followers have enough physical and mental health as well as financial and civic reassurance in day-to-day living, all while sparing them from unnecessary bureaucracy, that followers can get back to doing that which they most love to do: providing fan support.
“To fill forms — one of the international occupations of modern civilised humanity.” – Savitri Devi
“It nauseated me to think that one day I might be fettered to an office stool, that I could not dispose of my own time but would be forced to spend the whole of my life filling out forms.” – Adolf Hitler
“Forms and questionnaires should be reduced as much as possible. People have no time to write out their entire biography on some ridiculous form to get something that is important to them. One should be reasonable and require of them only that which is essential.” – Joseph Goebbels
“National-Socialist law … does not accept the absolute necessity of “professional lawyers” or “solicitors”, regarding such a necessity as dishonourable … All the proceedings should be understandable by ordinary people.” – David Myatt
Only a person can help another person. Bureaucracy has never helped anyone.<span lang="EN-GB" style='font-family: "book antiqua" , serif