Agrarianism

“A solid stock of small and medium farmers has at all times been the best protection which a nation could have against the social diseases that are prevalent to-day. Moreover, that is the only solution which guarantees the daily bread of a nation within the framework of its domestic national economy. With this condition once guaranteed, industry and commerce would retire from the unhealthy position of foremost importance which they hold to-day and would … no longer constitute the basis of the national subsistence, but would be auxiliary institutions. By fulfilling their proper function, which is to adjust the balance between national production and national consumption, they render the national subsistence more or less independent of foreign countries and thus assure the freedom and independence of the nation, especially at critical junctures in its history.” – Adolf Hitler

In our near future awaits a global food shortage crisis that will at least be the biggest economic catastrophe in history and could at most wipe out most of the human population on the planet via starvation. What attitudes we allow to guide our response now will affect what happens to us when the crisis hits. Gentiles will follow their hunter blood memory and fight over the limited resources and try to secure as much of it as possible for his own tribe, never mind what happens to everyone else. Jews will follow their herder blood memory and sit back, let the Gentiles fight each other (and us!) and then finish off the survivors with ease. Aryans will follow our farmer blood memory and try to keep people adequately fed for long enough for us to depopulate the planet in an orderly way via state control over reproduction, thereby averting chaos. This is where agrarianism comes in.

The Aryan blood memory is of the Neolithic, the era of the first subsistence farming economies in human history from which comes the very name of our Aryan (“ar-” = “to till soil”) root race. While not everyone is aware of or believes in Aryan mythology, nevertheless the positive connotations of farming are abundantly embedded in language. The largely forgotten etymology of the word “human” is “hu-” (as in “humus”) + “man-” (as in “mental”) , meaning “soil-minded”, from an era when non-farming populations were regarded as “man” (ie. of intelligent mind) but not as “human” (ie. of character shaped by working on the land). In the same way, the common contemporary descriptive expression “down-to-earth” was probably invented with archetypical Aryans in mind whether the inventor knew it or not. Additional to promoting an Aryan narrative of history, one of the first propaganda efforts of National Socialist Germany after entering government was to restore the common term “bauer” (peasant) from a negative to a positive connotation.

Why just occupy? Why not take it over permanently?

External link: GrowFood

Alien to us is not only the illusory speculative finance of modern times, but even ancient historical concepts of wealth in terms of luxury products (or the ability to acquire such products). Wealth to us means a regular food supply, a freehold house (ie. no rent or property tax) to live in, and enough leisure outside of maintaining the above to devote to our mission of transcending material existence. The value of any product to us is determined neither by its material scarcity nor by the market difficulty of acquiring it, but purely by its necessity to our mission. If economics is about production of wealth, then an agrarian economy is the obvious choice for producing the kind of wealth we aim at, namely that which supports simple living and high thinking.

“First as a casual labourer and then as a painter of little trifles, I had to earn my daily bread. And a meagre morsel indeed it was, not even sufficient to still the hunger which I constantly felt. That hunger was the faithful guardian which never left me but took part in everything I did. Every book that I bought meant renewed hunger, and every visit I paid to the opera meant the intrusion of that inalienable companion during the following days. I was always struggling with my unsympathic friend.” – Adolf Hitler

Aryanist ideological promotion of agrarianism begins with rectification of associated terminology. Current mainstream journalism is extremely poor in this area, failing even to distinguish semantically between agrarianism and pastoralism. Pastures are routinely referred to as “fields”, ranches are routinely referred to as “farms”, and farming and herding (and sometimes fishing!) are lumped into a category wrongly called “agriculture”, when genuine agriculture (derived from roots “agro-” (meaning “field”) + “col” (meaning “to plough”) refers to farming only. Hitler ridiculed pastoralism thus: “At present, the base of our diet is the potato — and yet only 1 per cent of the soil in Germany is devoted to growing the potato. If it was 3 per cent, we’d have more to eat than is needed. Pasturages cover 37 per cent of the surface of our country. So it’s not man who eats grass, it’s his cattle.” It is also important to stress the difference between subsistence farming and commercial farming, of which Aryan agrarianism refers strictly to the former only. The term subsistence must be cleansed of its present-day negative connotation of poverty and restored to its etymological roots ”sub-” + “star-” meaning ”to stand firm”.

“Farming has become a business at worst, and at best an occupation. No longer is the land farmed to provide food for the people who farm, with the excess produce being traded for essential items.” – David Myatt

Blue = energy efficiency 

Energy waste

Distribution of energy waste

It should be noted that National Socialism is not “agrarianist” in the petty sense of seeking to preferentially advance the interests of the farming classes at the expense of other occupational classes. Rather, our agrarianism is based on the belief that society as a whole benefits from an economy centred around subsistence farming. The three pillars of autarky, autonomy and autocracy directly correspond to the National Socialist slogan of “One Folk, One State, One Leader”. These can be examined in turn.

Autarky

“We’ll be building a solid State, proof against crises, and without an ounce of gold behind it. Anyone who sells above the set prices, let him be marched off into a concentration camp! That’s the bastion of money. There’s no other way.” – Adolf Hitler

A national economy based on a nation farming all the food it needs on its own arable land (without use of fossil fuel or nuclear power), thus attaining independence from imports, defines the national dimension of National Socialism. As Gottfried Feder describes the situation in 1930: “Today we are paying for our imported food mostly with the help of foreign loans, which drive the German nation deeper and deeper in debt to the international financiers who provide credits. If things go on as they are, the German poeple will become more and more impoverished. The only possibility of escaping from this thraldom lies in the ability of Germany to produce essential foodstuffs at home.” And, as promised, the NSDAP eliminated almost all food imports within only a few years of government. Hallmark policies such as labour-backed fiat currency and barter-based foreign trade should be properly understood as policies motivated to defend such an economy rather than as separate features. In fact, other policies along the same lines of reasoning were in ongoing development in National Socialist Germany, for example Hitler considers: “I have often wondered whether it would not be a good idea to re-introduce some sort of tithe system, under which the peasant could pay his taxes in kind. As things are, the middle-man gets for his potatoes, for instance, three or four times what he pays the peasant for them. It would therefore be to the peasant’s advantage to be able to pay his taxes in potatoes rather than in money.”

The main reason why food is not used as currency itself in all economic activity is entirely biotic: food is perishable. With this said, the general idea is to establish an economy that emulates the hypothetical economy that would result if food were not perishable (and thus useable as currency). This includes not only minimizing mercantilism (ie. profit via buying a product and reselling it without having done additional work on it, which is actually a fluid form of profit by possession), but furthermore to minimize industrialism (ie. frivolous or otherwise unnecessary processing work done on products prior to reaching the final purchaser). The overall directive is to minimize the number of steps, with or without additional labour involved, separating the initial producer and the final purchaser, which is the key to optimizing labour-efficiency.

“The farmer, who is still the greatest producer today, is not simultaneously the greatest purchaser. He is dependent on those intermediary stages which process his products before they arrive on the market. He cannot change them on the spot into ready goods, but must burden the transport system with raw materials.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Closely related to this directive is the idea of localizing the economy geographically ie. minimizing freightage distances. Not only should the nation as a whole be self-sufficient in subsistence, but ideally each locality within it also. Where this is technically impossible (e.g. due to absence of arable land in some areas), a locality should at most be dependent only on immediately adjacent localities. Such a nation would suffer minimal adversity in the event of logistical blockages, in contrast to many nations today in which numerous areas are dependent on supplies that must be transported all the way from the other side of the country. Furthermore, vehicles used for transporting food must not be dependent on fuel which itself must be transported from elsewhere. (In our envisaged Solar Civilization, we foresee a comeback of sailboats.) As population reduces under state control of reproduction, we would expect non-arable regions to be the first regions permanently vacated.

“Most things the village, the farms, needed for their daily life were made of wood, locally cut, shaped, crafted: carts, fences, gates, doors, even pumps. And what was not so made and crafted of wood, was more often than not made by a local blacksmith, or of stone quarried somewhere near.” – David Myatt

“A dozen factories or so would be enough to supply the whole world with all the necessary things: foodstuffs, textiles, machinery — flour, vegetable preserves, jams and chocolates, linen and cotton cloth, electric bulbs and engine parts.” – Savitri Devi

But unlike some anarchist agrarianists who disparage urban life in order to exalt rural life by comparison, National Socialism appreciates cities as spiritual focal points and artistic hubs. The National Socialist approach is to use agrarianism to remove only the negative elements of urban life, such as competition - what is commonly known as the “ratrace”. While on one hand it is the role of cities to accomodate the few with something special to offer (in Hitler’s words, “If a man is a genius, then it goes without saying that I will not use him for digging potatoes all his life, but set him to work at something else.”), on the other hand anyone unable to find a job in the city should always be able to fall back on farm work in the country. Thus there would be no pressure to maximize one’s qualifications for the sake of advantage in jobseeking (which in itself is absurd, since when everyone expends more effort in maximizing their qualifications, the jobseeking advantage cancels out, and the only net effect is increased bitterness among those who end up unemployed despite all their investment in qualifications).

Autonomy

“The intangible idea of folkish honour has its roots in the strongest grounds of all, in the most material of all reality; in the farmland of a nation.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Merely possessing enough arable land to feed the nation is not good enough; one must also have the means to defend this arable land from foreign powers who would try to seize it for themselves. This forms the basis of the relationship between agrarianism and defence policy. The horrors of the colonial era amply demonstrate what happens to militarily naive agrarian nations unfortunate enough to exist in the same world as the militarily aggressive post-Renaissance Western civilization. Hitler’s diversion of resources towards factories necessary for national rearmament – one of the top priorities of the NSDAP platform – almost immediately after coming to power was thus in no way contradictory to agrarianism, but supportive of it.

Mandatory firearm ownership by all citizens, all of whom have a duty as citizens to defend their own land using their own lives (known as the Wehrbauer principle), together with a high-quality standing army, is a start, but is hardly enough in our present-day era where war means airstrikes and missile strikes. Nuclear weapons are an unfortunate necessity until we succeed in total global disarmament. In perspective, an agrarian nation is not dependent on fuels, rare metals or any other natural resources besides water, sunlight and arable land, hence it is almost inconceivable for an agrarian nation to go to war for economic incentives. Culturally, its folk must overtly reject any form of celebration of war (in contrast to Judaism – in which almost every Jewish holiday is a celebration of some past Jewish conquest of non-Jews), but regard it purely as burden, in Hitler words: “It is our task, and it is the mission of the National Socialist Movement, to develop in our people that political mentality which will enable them to realize that the aim which they must set to themselves for the fulfilment of their future must not be some wildly enthusiastic adventure in the footsteps of Alexander the Great but industrious labour with the German plough, for which the German sword will provide the soil.”

Underlying all this must be sound ideological foundations of what constitutes just war. A National Socialist state must consider it moral in theory to destroy Israel any foreign state whose national total fertility rate is not sufficiently below 1, for any such nation implicitly entangles and endangers all other nations worldwide as resources dwindle, and sends out the unambiguous message that it does not care. (With that said, in practice war must remain a last resort, after all means have been exhausted of persuading a nation to reduce its own fertility to honourable levels.) A National Socialist state must also consider it moral to destroy Israel any state possessing drones, robots or other remote-controlled technology that could allow it to invade another country at no direct risk to the lives of its own army personnel. A National Socialist state must furthermore consider it moral to destroy Israel any state that makes tribalism part of its national ideology, as tribalism is automatically tantamount to declaration of war against the rest of the world.

Autocracy

“There is one thing about which we must be quite clear; anyone here who gets ideas above his station and beyond the confines of his farm must be sharply jumped upon.” – Adolf Hitler

 

Agrarianism itself, far from being exclusive to National Socialism, has had staunch advocates throughout history. However, National Socialism promotes agrarianism alongside central dictatorship, counter to the expectations of most modern-day agrarianists who see agrarianism as a way towards libertarianism or anarchism.

The libertarian reasons that a centralized state best stabilizes itself by keeping the people economically dependent on it. Therefore the libertarian deduces that agrarianism, by increasing economic independence, is a weapon against the centralized state. Such an analysis assumes that the centralized state is satisfied with obedience from its people, and has no interest in their sincere loyalty. The National Socialist, in contrast, reasons that a centralized state best stabilizes itself by the loyalty of its folk. True loyalty can only be discerned when there are no negative economic consequences for disloyalty. From this perspective, agrarianism works to the benefit of the centralized state by reducing the incentives for feigning loyalty. Insurrection against the state would be settled directly by combat against the insurgent faction, as demonstrated by National Socialist Germany’s renowned Operation Hummingbird against traitor Ernst Roehm and his SA followers.

“If the slightest attempt at a riot were to break out at this moment anywhere in the whole Reich, I’d take immediate measures against it. Here’s what I’d do: (a) on the same day, all the leaders of the opposition … would be arrested and executed; (b) all the occupants of the concentration camps would be shot within three days; (c) all the criminals on our lists—and it would make little difference whether they were in prison or at liberty—would be shot within the same period. The extermination of these few hundreds or thousands of men would make other measures superfluous, for the riot would be aborted for lack of ringleaders and accomplices.” – Adolf Hitler

Autocracy by central dictatorship is not only a sincere expression of National Socialism’s great reverence for the individual personality, but is at the same time the only practical way to lead an agrarian country along autarkic and autonomous principles, which requires authority over land use and authority over population.

Unlike an industrial economy where productivity can be increased indefinitely by adding labourers/fuel and increasing shift lengths, in an agrarian economy no more food is grown by adding more farmers to the same field, because the energy by which the food is grown comes not from the farmers, but from sunlight. Thus optimization of productivity requires optimization of land use. While, unlike communism, National Socialism supports private property in the sense of land ownership, it does not, unlike capitalism, support unrestricted enterprise on privately owned land. Instead, the National Socialist state has a duty to intervene in how such land is used, so as to ensure that it reaches its folkish potential. (In other words, private landowners are at liberty to sell their land to other private buyers if they do not wish to personally participate in the state-approved use of the land; what they are not allowed to do is put the land to different use without state approval.) Market-based enterprise tends to the path of greatest business profits (e.g. luxury products/services), which generally does not coincide with the path of optimal folkish contribution.

“The great British landowners have not the faintest idea of practical agriculture—quite apart from the time and money they waste on their celebrated lawns!” – Adolf Hitler

“To the right to hold property … is attached the obligation to use it in the national interest. … German land may not become an object of financial speculation, nor may it provide an unearned income for its owner. It may only be acquired by him who is prepared to cultivate it himself. Therefore the State has a right of preemption on every sale of land.” – Gottfried Feder

External link: Terraced Farms

A golf course built on arable land means starving children elsewhere.

How much corn is currently being grown

How much corn could be grown using only existing farmland

How much corn could be grown if we were in government we used all suitable land

The Honey Boo Boo clan tells it like it is!

But optimizing land use is completely futile without simultaneous population reduction via state control of reproduction. This is the most important point which distinguishes National Socialism from non-Aryan agrarian ideologies which always end in famine.

“It would … be a mistaken view that every increase in the productive powers of the soil will supply the requisite conditions for an increase in the population. No. That is true up to a certain point only, for at least a portion of the increased produce of the soil will be consumed by the margin of increased demands caused by the steady rise in the standard of living. But even if these demands were to be curtailed to the narrowest limits possible and if at the same time we were to use all our available energies in intenser cultivation, we should here reach a definite limit which is conditioned by the inherent nature of the soil itself. No matter how industriously we may labour we cannot increase agricultural production beyond this limit. Therefore, though we may postpone the evil hour of distress for a certain time, it will arrive at last. The first phenomenon will be the recurrence of famine periods from time to time, after bad harvests, etc.. The intervals between these famines will become shorter and shorter the more the population increases; and, finally, the famine times will disappear only in those rare years of plenty when the granaries are full. And a time will ultimately come when even in those years of plenty there will not be enough to go round; so that hunger will dog the footsteps of the nation.” – Adolf Hitler

But whereas state-organized depopulation can improve demographics, depopulation via famine and associated war over resources (two of the main processes of natural selection) almost always worsens demographics as it automatically favours opportunism over idealism, aggression over compassion, the tribe over the folk. Throughout history and indeed prehistory, every sudden food shortage led to genetic coarsening in the population subjected to it. The type-forming environmental conditions of both the Jewish and the Gentile root races were characterized by harshness and uncertainty - going all the way back to the Pleistocene – that demanded corresponding cruelty and selfishness, in contrast to the Neolithic river valley conditions from which the Aryan root race was able to evolve. Our nobility is anomalous under natural selection, and there is every sign that Nature is coming back to correct this evolutionary accident, this time on a global scale. Either we reduce population fast enough using our selection criteria, or Nature will do it using its selection criteria.

Beyond Agrarianism

“If it were possible to live on water and air, or at least on ripe fruit fallen by itself from the trees, we would be the first to condemn the practice of growing rice or wheat in order to eat it.” – Savitri Devi

National Socialist agrarianism as an economic policy will certainly help any country deal with current emergencies, and as a lifestyle for society is far better than the others available to choose from at present, but it is not an end in itself. In the event that we succeed in establishing such a policy and recovering such a lifestyle, we must then reject the temptation to feel complacent.

Some futurists fantasize about possibilities of genetic engineering that would allow our bodies to photosynthesize for all its energy needs in the way that green plants do, thus eliminating the need for food altogether (literally becoming the “Homo Sol” coined by David Myatt). This is something that we would support as the pinnacle of Solar Civilization, but even in this event we must not become complacent.

There is much we could build here, but the moment we build something so pleasant that it tempts us to stay, all the evils we had apparently eliminated will eventually make their return, and everything we thought we had accomplished will be for nothing. Therefore, even as we diligently set about solving the problems of the world, we must even more diligently refine our own nobility, so that no matter how much improved the world might become, we never forget that we must leave as soon as we complete our mission.

Break

Related Information