Folk and Nation

“Is it blood? Blood is a common possession, but that has not prevented men who spoke one language to have been at loggerheads with each other for centuries. Is it our common economic interests? But that has not prevented the hardest struggles from taking place precisely in this sphere. Is it our history? We know it only too well: a sad tale of war and dissension. Is it religion which is common to us all? No, here too we have fought and disputed with each other … In the same way it is not common customs nor common usages. No, it is something quite different which not merely brings us to this community but even makes it inevitable. It is our common fate, that common fate which none can escape and which is the lot of all life upon this earth.” – Adolf Hitler

Nation

A nation is a people with a common past, specifically a common origin. A folk is a people with a common future, specifically a common destination. As such, a nation is not automatically a folk, nor is a folk necessarily restricted to a nation. But a folk of whatever origins or combination of origins that has operated as a folk for some time takes on the attributes and structure of a nation in its own right, as it increasingly also possesses a common past of shared experiences. Thus it is through folkism that nation-building occurs.

National Socialism has the capability to inspire a folk out of a starting population of any composition, and convert it into a nation of Aryan ideals. In Hitler’s own words: “The National Socialist theory is to make use of all forces, wherever they may come from.”  Authentic National Socialists are folkish nationalists. We must ensure that others do not confuse us with the present-day racist far-right reactionaries who often inaccurately call themselves “nationalists” and who have thus degraded what was once a respectable term implying political and economic independence. It is our aim to reclaim the term “nationalist” from the far-right, and we may have a chance now that they increasingly prefer the more accurate term “identitarian” to describe their views. Whenever opportunity arises, we should let people know that the far-right is not nationalist at all, for true nationalism is about national unification, not division along ethnic, religious or other identitarian lines. Nationalism and identitarianism are mutually exclusive positions: one can be a nationalist, or one can be an identitarian, but never both at the same time. (On the other hand, whenever there is need to avoid confusion, we can also refer to ourselves as folkists.) But the best way to reclaim the term “nationalist” is simply to rally for issues we support by invoking national pride as a motivator, and especially to encourage our fellow citizens of all ethnic backgrounds to display the same national pride, which will in turn steadily put racists off rallying under national symbols, and force them to turn to explicit identitarianism that can no longer disguise itself as “nationalist”.

Similarity, Not Relatedness

“The question of nationality just does not arise any more as in the old days. Rather, there is a singleness of spirit, a commonality in pursuit of the same ideals and goals.” – Arno Breker

The identitarian proclaims that most people prefer the company of other people not too different from themselves, and that this preference must be observed if trust is to be built in society. The folkist agrees. Moreover, both believe in biological heritability of traits. Where the two diverge is that the identitarian values ethnic relatedness (racial identity) whereas the folkist values qualitative similarity (racial idealism). To the folkist, those similar to himself are those who share his ideals without needing to be indoctrinated into doing so ie. those who possess such ideals genetically, irrespective of ethnic origin. In face of the identitarian who claims that a nation is an extended family, the folkist response is that most of us have family members or close relatives whom we cannot stand, and unrelated friends/spouses with whom we would gladly spend our lives, and that exactly the same is true of society. Hitler perceived nationhood not as an extension of family, but as an alternative to it, in his own words:  “I am a completely non-family man with no sense of the clan spirit; I belong solely to the community of my nation.” What is important is not crude relatedness, but similarity where it matters – in our case: UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.

Folkism demands that each person be judged individually by quality of character, but the method of judgement is not to be based on the individual’s prosperity in the existing world. Instead, the folkist way to judge a person is to ask: what would the world be like if everyone in the world were like that? The superior individual is the one whose behaviour produces a good outcome only if unanimous, whereas the inferior individual is the one whose behaviour produces a better outcome when not unanimous.

External link: Prisoner’s Dilemma

Purpose, Not Tradition

“We are sorry, not because these brothers of ours have adopted a new faith … but because they think that their new faith is a barrier between themselves and us.” – Savitri Devi

The identitarian proclaims that societal friction is caused by background differences. The folkist maintains that societal friction is caused by absence of purpose. Purposeful people perceive that which unifies them towards manifesting that purpose, in the same way that the different parts of a healthy body are relaxed and coordinated in athletic performance. Purposeless people exaggerate that which divides them, in the same way that different parts of an unhealthy body stress and strain against each other and cause injuries. The identitarian wants to prevent an unhealthy society from getting injured, whereas the folkist wants society to be healthy. (Which would Zionists prefer to deal with: an unhealthy hypochondriac or a healthy athlete? But that is another story.) The key is not a person’s background, but whether there is a common purpose for every people to express from whatever their background may be.

(Hitler called Jews the anti-folk for the reason that Jewishness is used not to express purpose, but to camouflage it (e.g. the religion of Judaism being used as a cover for Jewish racism towards all non-Jews).)

Folkish nationalism is not to be confused with civic nationalism. Civic nationalism is, like ethnonationalism, concerned with preserving the traditional culture of a country, but merely differs from ethnonationalism in that it does not require the preservers to be unanimously the blood descendants of those traditional ancestors. The consequence of successful folkish nationalism, in contrast, would be the creation of a new culture altogether. Hitler’s original choice for the name of his party was ”Social Revolutionary Party” before later settling on “NSDAP” for practical reasons. Nevertheless, National Socialists are necessarily social revolutionaries in thinking.

The identitarian supports regionally distinct cultures as opposed to a single global culture because he values cultural variety in itself. The folkist also supports regionally distinct cultures, not because he values cultural variety in itself, but purely because he considers different regions in the world to be beset with different problems, which require correspondingly different treatments to solve. Analogously, we support a hospital with doctors specializing in many different fields of medicine, not because we enjoy the range of expertize, but simply because such a range is required to treat the actual spectrum of patients. For this reason, the folkist (unlike the identitarian) nevertheless seeks agreement between all cultures on what the problems are and what it means to solve them. A hospital will benefit from having many doctors with many different approaches to therapy, but not from having many doctors who do not define health in the same way.

“How often our bourgeoisie rises up in moral indignation on hearing from the mouth of some pitiable tramp that it is all the same to him whether he be a German or not and that he will find himself at home wherever he can get enough to keep body and soul together. They protest sternly against such a lack of ‘national pride’ and strongly express their horror at such sentiments. But how many people really ask themselves why it is that their own sentiments are better?” – Adolf Hitler

Most importantly, the folkist (unlike the identitarian) is not a cultural preservationists, because that would be equivalent to a hospital deliberately keeping patients sick so that the doctors can keep offering therapy. The folkist is a cultural eschatologist, who aim at the day when no more therapy is necessary and the doctors can retire in success.

Myth, Not History

“Honour is the foundation of the folk community.” – Joseph Goebbels 

 

 

The identitarian proclaims that a society must be unapologetic about its history in order to be strong. The folkist recognizes the moral superiority of myth over history for this function. Hitler criticized the tendency of democratic countries most of all towards historical bias: “What we call chauvinistic education – in the case of the French people, for example – is only the excessive exaltation of the greatness of France in all spheres of culture or, as the French say, civilization. The French boy is not educated on purely objective principles. Wherever the importance of the political and cultural greatness of his country is concerned he is taught in the most subjective way that one can imagine.” Frankly, the history of every civilization in the world is a depressingly consistent chronicle of general greed, hubris, selfishness and cruelty, puncutated by only a few noble individual exceptions. To encourage a people to be proud of such a history is to encourage it to celebrate its own ugliness. On the contrary, it is sincerely admitting and apologizing for past wrongs that demonstrates goodwill and begins the process of genuine unification. Positive inspiration is also important, but should come instead from prehistoric or otherwise romantic myth, which reflects how we would like our civilization to be, and hence can depict genuinely admirable qualities for people to aspire towards.

Also of importance is that for every national conflict, each side of the conflict writes a version of history from its own perspective that often disagrees with versions written by other sides, thereby dividing those raised on different versions. In contrast, a local myth is above parochial biases and bound solely to the land itself, accessible to all who live there (irrespective of origins) and who are willing to be inspired by it.

Only by honestly admitting and struggling to overcome the human shortcomings so abundantly evident in all our histories, and only by an entire folk willing to immerse itself completely in the local myth of its homeland, will we have a chance to one day live this myth in reality once again.

The Last Battalion

“I asked myself: Are these men worthy of belonging to a great people? The question was profoundly disturbing; for if the answer were ‘Yes’, then the struggle to defend one’s nationality is no longer worth all the trouble and sacrifice we demand of our best elements if it be in the interests of such a rabble. On the other hand, if the answer had to be ‘No – these men are not worthy of the nation’, then our nation is poor indeed in men.” – Adolf Hitler

Folkism is one of the most crucial concepts to be rapidly understood if at this late hour we are to build any semblance of the unity among non-Jews that is so desperately needed during these troubled times - made even worse by the propaganda of the identitarians that openly encourage identity politics. If we can understand folkism, then our shared understanding of folkism itself becomes one of the factors uniting us, thereby laying the first in a long line of stepping stones towards a more friendly, more empathic social climate, which is the only social climate in which the nations of the world stand a chance of solving – genuinely solving, not just passing them onto another nation - the host of problems that will surely hit us in the near future.

“As Christ proclaimed ‘love one another’,” so our call – ‘folkish community’, ‘public need before private greed’, ‘communally-minded social consciousness’ – rings out! This call will echo throughout the world!” – Adolf Hitler

The hallmark of the folkish leader is to encourage awareness by the various groups in the nation of one another’s perspectives. It is when people are able to see through each other’s eyes that they become a folk. And the easiest way to do this is to provide a vision that everyone can see, for when everyone can see it, everyone can also know that everyone else can see it, and therefore - at least with respect to this particular object – we are already seeing through one another’s eyes. This is not only how Hitler unified Germany, but also how Hitler prepared us ahead of time to become his successors. When it became clear in 1945 that National Socialist Germany was to fall, Hitler predicted a Last Battalion that would one day appear in the world and complete his unfinished revolution. In effect, he then already offered a vision of the future for us to share, planting the folkish seed inside our hearts before most of us were even born. We can now choose to allow the vision to stop at ourselves, or we can choose to continue sharing it.

Folk

Break

Related Information