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
Democracy (either direct or representative), while sometimes necessary as a short-term filler, has been recognized by all radical ideologists throughout history as a poor long-term solution, and by authentic National Socialists as the worst possible long-term solution. The most fundamental flaw of democracy is not even that it is extremely easily subverted (e.g. by Zionist agents), but that it is by definition government by majority opinion, which is never the best informed or most intelligent – let alone the kindest or noblest – opinion. Democracy at best is empowerment of mediocrity. Furthermore, the crimes of democracies are rarely punished, as it is very difficult to punish an entire voter bloc, with the unsurprising result 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 people 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 is simply government by the superior minority over the inferior majority. As Aryanists, we recognize the advantages of aristocracy over democracy, but ultimately reject 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 any sort of caste system are people who enjoy coexistence with the inferior so that their own superiority is conspicuous in comparison, which we consider a despicable attitude. We accept aristocracy only as a medium-term plan, and then only as a means to remove the necessity for its own existence.
“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
As regards 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. 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
Thus government must be preceded by purpose, and the only purpose valuable to us is freedom. This is authentic National Socialist government. It is similar to theocracy, yet not contingent upon any metaphysical beliefs (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 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
