Government
“A man who feels it is his duty at such an hour to assume the leadership of the folk is not responsible to the laws of parliamentary usage or a particular democratic conception, but solely to the mission placed upon him. And anyone who interferes with this mission is an enemy of the folk.” – Adolf Hitler
The authentic National Socialist must be an openly avowed enemy of democracy, and should attempt to build the reputation of National Socialism as most immediately an anti-democratic (and hence necessarily anti-Western) ideology. As taught to the Hitler Youth: “The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the perception of the unlikeness of men.” How then is it reasonable that everyone be given, via popular elections, equal say over who is to govern? How is it fair that the political opinion of an idealist willing to die for his ideals be worth the same one vote as the political opinion of a lukewarm voter who would never personally fight for his preferences? How depressing is it that a visionary able to inspire a million people to lay down their lives for his vision be considered less worthy a leader than the popularity contest winner who persuaded two million people to merely tick his name on the ballot?
Notwithstanding its occasional necessity as a short-term emergency filler, democracy – either direct or representative - has been recognized by political radicals of all camps throughout history as one of the worst forms of long-term government. This radical criticism of democracy, National Socialist or otherwise, is not to be confused with more superficial criticisms of democracy based on observations such as elected governments often enjoying low popular support, or elected governments often failing to keep their election promises, or even that elected governments are extremely easily subverted (e.g. by Zionist agents). All these are indeed flaws of democracy, but not the most fundamental flaws. For it is not the ability of elections to adequately represent the will of the electorate that we distrust, but the will of the electorate itself. Democracy by definition is government by majority opinion, which is never the best informed or most intelligent – let alone the kindest or noblest – opinion. Democracy is empowerment of quantity over quality, of fecundity over morality, and – from our perspective – of Jewish and/or Gentile values over Aryan values.
Plato vs Aristotle
Furthermore, the crimes of democracies are rarely punished, as it is difficult to punish an entire voter bloc, so that democracies have far less practical disincentive to crime than any dictatorship whose dictator can be pinpointed for account. And when majority opinion – in itself already a socially persuasive force – is further given political authority, it acquires an illusion of moral rectitude, meaning that democracies can rarely be brought to even admit their evil. The voters will at most blame the representative they themselves selected, while retaining unshakeable confidence in their collective ability to wisely select his replacement.
“The conscience of a moral personality is far greater protection against the misuse of office than supervision of parliament or separation of powers.” – Rudolf Hess
Those who have rejected democracy on this account are often quick to promote the benefits of aristocracy, which simply refers to government by the superior minority over the inferior majority. As National Socialists, we certainly admit the advantages of aristocracy over democracy. This idea resonates with our basic intuition that a better government is achieved by finding higher-quality people for office, not by bulking up the system to resist abuse by low-quality people, be it through constitutionalism, terms of office or other so-called “checks and balances”.
Ultimately, however, we reject permanent aristocracy using the same reasoning by which aristocrats reject democracy. If a democratic state invites malicious subversion sooner or later, does not an aristocratic state also invite massed rebellion sooner or later? If the majority is unqualified to decide even the relatively inconsequential phenomenon of short-term policy, can the majority possibly be qualified to determine – via their reproduction - the destiny-bound phenomenon of long-term heritability? If it makes sense for a nation to be governed only by the superior, does it not make better sense for a nation to be populated only by the superior? We suspect that aristocrats and supporters of caste systems are people who enjoy coexistence with the inferior so that their own superiority is conspicuous in comparison, which we consider an ignoble attitude in itself. We accept aristocracy only as a medium-term plan, and then only as a means to remove the necessity for its own existence. For true nobility necessarily implies the quest for UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.
“Nobility will no longer be a feature of a caste constituting a horizontal social layer, but will pass vertically through all the ranks of the folk.” – Alfred Rosenberg
On the role of leadership, we reject the premise (arising from implicit democratic thinking) that a leader’s principal skill should be the ability to solve whatever problems the people throw at him. Not only do we consider the majority unqualified to select good leaders, but we more strongly consider the majority unqualified to identify what the important problems are. Most people tend to magnify problems that affect their own group and disregard problems that affect other groups. Very few are capable of fairness.
Experts are the people required to have problem-solving skills, and those to whom a leader should be able to delegate problems. The principal skill of a leader should be the ability to perceive problems, especially problems that most people are either too insensitive to identify, or too slavish to refuse to tolerate, thereby being in a position to put the experts to purposeful work. A leader is not a steward. His task is not to manage the people, but genuinely to lead them. In order to lead the people, there must be a destination to lead them towards. Therefore a nation has merely stewards, not leaders. Only a folk can have leaders.
“As Aryans, we can consider the state only as the living organism of a people which does not merely maintain the existence of the people, but functions so as to lead the people to a position of supreme freedom.” – Adolf Hitler
In other words, leadership must be preceded by purpose, and the only purpose valuable to us is freedom. This is authentic National Socialist government. Some may compare it to theocracy, yet is not contingent upon any metaphysical beliefs at all (nor otherwise exclusive to any particular religious system), but founded purely on immanent nobility irrespective of beliefs.
“We aim at this – that the highest of people would rather be the lowest in our nation, than the highest of any other nation. Such an aspiration can only be the outcome of an absolutely unified national will.” – Joseph Goebbels
The practical structure of such a government would be a form of absolute dictatorship best described as military rule over a nation without civilians - all citizens are regarded as troops, and as such are welcome to voice their ideas in a centrally adjudicated strategic discussion. A single leader would be required to evaluate ideas proposed and make decisions, whose outcomes - successful or unsuccessful in relation to the mission - will reflect on his ability to lead with a transparency that cannot be disguised. Under such a setup, soldiers are not loyal to officers, and officers are not loyal to commanders; all are loyal to the mission. And the mission must be a noble one.
Related Information
Archive
