|July 5th, 2011||#1|
Join Date: Jul 2007
National Socialism and Fascism
National Socialism and Fascism
“Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a demi-divinity; even better, a myth. … Mussolini is a man.” – Carl Jung
The Axis connection between National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy (with Italian propaganda laughably claiming that Mussolini was a major influence on Hitler’s thinking) led to a popular misconception that National Socialism is an offshoot of fascism, or a particular brand of fascism, when in fact the only relation between National Socialism and fascism was that they were both reactionary to the capitalist-communist dichotomy (which accounts for their shared views and political alliance). It should be noted that many in the NSDAP had become positively embittered towards fascism towards the end of WWII, considering it to have been a contributing cause of their defeat at the hands of the Zionist Allies.
“The roots go down to an overrating of Fascism. Blind to all disillusioning experiences of the First World War, Hitler seemed convinced, at least until 1943, that the will of Mussolini had made over the Italian people, had lifted them to a new level.” – Alfred Rosenberg
Nonetheless, Zionist agents have further pushed this conflation after WWII (smearing National Socialists as “fascists”) in order to regulate National Socialism to a generic fascist strawman more easily dealt with by anti-fascist advocates. With the hostility between fascists and anti-fascists intensifying, it is important to realize that National Socialism stands politically apart from, and ideologically far above, this debate.
Will To Power vs Will To Freedom
“Fascism itself was not National Socialism, contrarily to what so many haters of both seem to think. It was a political — and economical — system; not a more-than-political creed; and it inspired a Movement of practical and immediate — of time-bound — significance, not one of cosmic scope.” – Savitri Devi
To say that National Socialism is a brand of fascism is equivalent to saying that veganism is a style of cooking; the statement is not technically incorrect, but is intellectually seditious by placing the focus on the manifestation rather than the cause.
The simplest way to understand the key difference between fascism and National Socialism is to inspect the essence of their rhetoric:
Fascism: If we work together, we will have the power to achieve any goal we want. (“It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history.” – Benito Mussolini)
National Socialism: This is our goal. The only way to achieve it is to work together. ( “They are inspired by the feeling that they have a mission to fulfill, and we might just as well egg them on a little.” – Adolf Hitler)
Fascism does not specify the goal first. Instead, it promises the individual a return for his investment of participation – in the form of national power to achieve arbitrary goals. In other words, power itself is the spiritual motivation for fascism, and the accomplishments of a fascist nation will always be mere frivolities to prove its power to itself or to others. National Socialism, on the other hand, insists that power is strictly the means to achieve the goal – ending exploitation - which is specified at the beginning and thereafter made the focal point onto which everything else converges. National Socialism motivates individual participation not by glory, but by duty.
The practical implication is that fascism can be perfectly successful even when nobody (including its leaders) actually knows or cares about the purpose for which a nation exists, so long as its leaders keep the nation strong. This is not the case with National Socialism, where loyalty to purpose is paramount. In practice, therefore, fascists are merely high-powered nationalists, whereas National Socialists are genuine ideological warriors.
While some fascists mistakenly call themselves National Socialists (usually because they admire National Socialist Germany from their fascist perspective), the reverse does not happen. To call an authentic National Socialist a fascist is almost an insult, because it implies that he does not know why he fights.
A fascist nation has a possibility of developing into something more meaningful, for example when religion is able to supply the external purpose and the nation (including its leaders) takes religion seriously enough to pursue it, or when its leader understands and switches to National Socialism over time. With a view to promote this, alliance between National Socialism and fascism can be pursued. However, National Socialists must be wary against degrading into fascists themselves, as the corrupting lures of power and glory are not to be underestimated. This is one challenge that National Socialist Germany did not last long enough to have to face.
Overman vs Foe Destroyer
“Lust for pleasure and so-called ‘glory’… is the mark of the barbarian.” – David Myatt
Internally, fascism is highly compatible with the concept of the Overman, and it is common for fascists to share attraction towards this idea in addition to their political views. In contrast, National Socialism (despite what Zionist agents claim), which deliberately associated itself with the Aryan ethos, is more compatible with the concept of the Foe Destroyer (Arhat).
The difference between the two is that the Overman is advancement to a prospective condition (lit. by building ‘over’ the condition of ‘man’), whereas the Foe Destroyer is reversion to an original condition (lit. by ‘destroying’ the ‘foes’ that corrupted this condition). Hence the former is based on a non-Aryan spirituality of endless increase, whereas the latter is based on an Aryan spirituality of Original Nobility.
The Judgement of Paris
“The organization is only a necessary evil. At best it is only a means of reaching certain ends. The worst happens when it becomes an end in itself.” – Adolf Hitler
In mythology, the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite contested for Paris’ verdict of supreme beauty, with Aphrodite receiving his decision. The point here is not that Paris made the wrong choice; we as revolutionaries already know that Aphrodite was the wrong choice. The point of a three-way contest is to warn us that there are two wrong choices.
We suspect that those who confuse fascism with National Socialism are those who do not understand the difference between the gifts of Hera (who would make Paris the ruler of the most powerful kingdom in the world) and Athena (who would make Paris invincible in battle). Common interpretation would have us deduce that assurance of military dominance is obsolesced by assurance of political dominance, but this assumes that a nation’s soldiers exist to fight for the survival of the nation. Only by understanding that a nation has no reason to survive at all unless it fights for a transcendent purpose does Athena’s gift actually make sense.
Obviously, Hera’s gift and Athena’s gift would appeal to different kinds of people. We would expect the split to correlate very well with the split between fascists and National Socialists.
A second chance to choose may be approaching in the near future. If we get it wrong again, I really do not know how long we would have to wait until we get a third chance.
|July 5th, 2011||#2|
Join Date: Jul 2007
The Universality of National Socialism
(The Mistaken Category of Fascism)
|July 12th, 2018||#3|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Dr. William Pierce on the Difference between National Socialism and Fascism
Last edited by Gerry Fable; July 13th, 2018 at 12:43 AM.
|July 21st, 2018||#4|
Join Date: Jan 2011
'The Spiritual Foundations of the New Europe'
by Reich Press Chief Dr. Otto Dietrich
The basic element in the political concept of National Socialism is that of the national state. It has no ambition to make imperial conquests, but strives after inner collectivity and national concentration. And the clear proof of this is the unprecedented organization by National Socialism of that tremendous return migration of racial Germans, the return of German blood to the Motherland.
The political conception of the national state is not directed towards a frittering away of power by outward expansion, but towards rational internal construction and the safeguarding of the national standard of existence. It has enforced the idea that relations between states can be made more permanent if the prospect of the nations is clear and determined and if leadership is responsibly and authoritatively rooted in the nation.
The organization of life in our present-day Germany reflects internal national and political determination and externally also shows definite lines of conduct. The ideas and the driving force of National Socialism are directed exclusively towards peace, as long as the indispensable bases of existence and security are guaranteed to our nation of 85 millions living within the heart of Europe. National Socialist Germany has been forced to fight, because the principles of imperialism and world domination of the Anglo-Saxons negate the simplest preliminary conditions for the development of our peace-loving nation. It was for this reason that they declared war on us. Britain is conducting a war of destructive force against constructive organization in the life of nations. The fact that National Socialist Germany has proved itself to be stronger than its aggressor in a war which has been forced upon it, is no proof of the violence of its principles, but only of the strength inherent in its ideal of order.
They say: “We are fighting for the democratic way of life. We are fighting for the liberty of living our lives as we wish.” But National Socialism has no intention of preventing them from doing so. It holds the opinion that every nation should live its own internal life in accordance with its own desires. The crimes they attribute to us are in reality committed by themselves. In no single country in the world does there exist such a great and disgusting intolerance of the mode of living of others as in the Anglo-Saxon countries. This intolerance is carried on hypocritically in the name of liberty, a liberty the real character of which I have already described.
Our adversaries maintain that this is a war of democracy against tyranny that makes it necessary either to unmask these political play-actors or else to open the eyes of their public to their true nature.
I may be allowed here to quote a neutral scholar, who a short while ago wrote an article “Hitler and the Democracies.” He asked the question why the Führer should be an opponent of the democracies, as he was one of the people himself and as president of the most democratic republic in the world was constantly in sincere and direct contact with the people. During his examination this scholar comes to the conclusion that only the modern democracies, France, Britain and America in particular, apparently had something in common with the will of the people. In reality it was only a pretext for party interests and the compensatory business of a few political circles among the upper classes. The mistakes of liberal democracy had already been made by its founders who had introduced into it their own material and utilitarian outlook and economic individualism. All this had been shamefully decorated by the founders of liberal democracy behind a facade of idealism. They themselves had never honestly believed in the catchwords of “Liberty,” “Equality” and “Fraternity,” which they had invented. In these so-called Western democracies, power was not actually upheld by the people, but a few thousand capitalists. The functioning of democracy merely concealed the selfishness of a small minority living in ease and comfort.
These statements hit the nail on the head. One should not always only talk of democracy, but for once answer the question: “What is ‘democracy‘? What does it actually mean?”
If democracy is no more than invisible domination by a few, achieved by means of money and the fabrication of public opinion, then our opponents are right in calling themselves democracies. But if democracy really denotes government by the people, then it is not they, but we, who are the democrats. We attach no particular value to decorating ourselves with this word that has become so compromised on account of its political past. But if the plutocrats make use of it to camouflage their domination and to deceive the people, then it is necessary to make its meaning perfectly clear. Whoever studies the conception of the National Socialist state in its innermost structure and practical functioning is bound to recognize that it is the most modern government of the people in history. It demonstrates the principles of responsibility and leadership in the truly national state, in opposition to the anonymous principles of degenerate democracy. It regards the will of the people not as a dead parliamentary majority to be gained by money or financial influence, but recognizes it continually in the permanent and direct alliance with the life of the people itself. The National Socialist Party is, therefore, not a party in the parliamentary sense, but simply and positively the party of the German nation. It is the great guardian of the social conscience of the nation, it holds its hand on the pulse of the people, it feels its slightest stirrings, its anxieties and its needs, its requirements and its desires, its pleasure and its pain. It is its helper and adviser and the unceasing bearer of its suggestions to the higher authorities. It has entrusted hundreds of thousands of citizens of all professions and classes with political responsibility, thereby providing tens of thousands of politically tested Germans with the opportunity of advancement to leading positions in the Reich. It has linked the perpetual stream of youth, organically and eternally, with the life of the nation and has created a system for the selection of leaders, which compels future generations to play their uninterrupted and vital part. Tangible shape is thereby given not to the will of a questionable parliamentary majority, but to the true will of the people. By its principles of training, efficiency and selection of leaders, it has given the nation a wonderfully functional system with the rhythm of strength continually renewing itself.
Nearly 2,500 years ago Plato wrote in his “Laws” that the most excellent constitution of a nation was that which was successful in persuading the masses to submit voluntary and in raising the most intelligent in their midst to leadership. The new principle of national and political leadership developed by the highly gifted leaders of Germany and Italy has made these sublime political concepts reality. When today the messiahs of democracy and the plutocrats talk contemptuously of “dictatorships,” their intellectual arrogance only conceals the stain of ignorance or the essence of hypocrisy which fears nothing so much as the realization of truth by the awakening of the nations.
The nation and the government in Germany are one thing. The will of the people is the will of the government and vice versa. The modern structure of the German State is a higher form of democracy [ennobled democracy] in which, by virtue of the people’s mandate, the government is exercised authoritatively while there is no possibility for parliamentary interference, to obliterate and render ineffective the execution of the nation’s will.
“On National-Socialist Germany And Her Contribution Towards Peace.” Speech to the representatives of the international press at Geneva on September 28. 1933. German League of Nations Union News Service, PRO, FO 371/16728
We have modernized and ennobled the concept of democracy. With us it means definitely the rule of the people, in accordance with its origin. We have given the principle of Socialism a new meaning. ... Never have we left anyone in doubt that National-Socialism is not for export. ... We do not aim at world domination, but we do intend to defend our country, and it is our new conceptions which give us the inexhaustible and ever-renewed strength to do so.
On National-Socialism, Bolshevism & Democracy (September 10, 1938)