The ideal Aryanist state leadership structure – at least in its infancy – is relatively rare in history. As we have only written a limited amount on leadership and government, I think it is important to develop this further. I will compare Augustan Rome and Hitlerian Germany for the commonalities which highlight the characteristics of Aryanist political leadership. The comparisons are not perfect, especially since the quantity and quality of records from the latter period surpass that of the former considerably. Nevertheless, the comparison should assist in comparing the basic outlines of Aryanist with non-Aryanist leadership.
Aryanist governance requires a visionary leader who guides the state and thus the destiny of that realm over which he has power. The use of ‘guide’ is important, as it reveals the difference between a leader and merely an administrator. Quite obviously there is great difference between ‘Fuehrer’ and ‘President’, with the latter tending much more towards the managerial notion of libertarian governance. Thus, it isn’t the role of the Aryanist leader to personally formulate policy or to bother himself with its implementation and micromanaging. Obviously this has historical significance; in terms of the misperceptions of Hitler as either the ‘sort-of-dictator’ of the Structuralists, or as the omniscient devil of popular culture (to whom anything involving Germany between 1933-45 can be directly attributed).
Rather, Aryanist leadership derives from authority. Giorgio Agamben has gone into considerable depth on the link between the Roman auctoritas and the National Socialist Fuehrertum, as well as Weber’s “Charismatic authority”. Essentially, for those unaware of the Roman political and cultural text, auctoritas is ‘authority’ and potestas is actual ‘power’. An important example from Weber would be the comparison with the auctoritas of a figure like Christ or Gandhi, compared with the potestas of, for example, a legislator.
After firmly establishing himself as the dominant force in Rome through successive consulships, Caesar Augustus abandoned this post and became the princeps (first citizen). Essentially, his leadership was enabled only by his ability to “make people do what he wanted, just by being who he was”. While still maintaining executive powers (imperium), Augustus’ power derived fundamentally from his authority as the central leader of Rome.
Something similar is true with Hitler, who was called ‘leader’, as opposed to the embodiments of potestas – President and Chancellor. This allowed Hitler to set Germany along a National Socialist path, while at the same time playing almost no rule in administration. He primarily relied upon the willingness of the bureaucracy and people to “work towards the Fuehrer” – interpreting his desires and innovating and administering the practicalities of its implementation.
The benefits of this form of leadership are perhaps less evident to those accustomed to modern, Western politics, than the drawbacks. With the latter comes the obvious problem of interpretation; with considerable power falling to a chaotic network of competing individuals who may misinterpret the words of the leader, thus resulting in unintended policies. Similarly, the lack of explicit instruction can prevent the desired policies from being implemented. This is why both leaders also possessed executive power (essentially absolute power) to intervene where required.
However, the benefits are immense for an Aryanist state. The leader is able to avoid micromanaging the territories under his control, and instead devote himself to the role of a leader – that is, forming, developing and communicating a vision for the rest to follow. Additionally, it allows for the development of a real leadership in possession of the initiative which the modern state lacks. I fear that a proper appreciation of the significance of this alone is incredibly difficult for those of us who have never witnessed in our lifetimes the potential of personal leadership, as opposed to the continuity of unchanging democratic governments.
Nevertheless, the reason I started with the qualification “at least in its infancy” is because I believe that this form of government is the most applicable for our age. In the west, it should be able to bind the mainstream parties into a coalition under the authority of an Aryan leader. The delegation of tasks from the leader downwards will also lead to what we now call “grassroots activism” which will most rapidly and properly communicate Aryanism from the top downwards, quickly becoming culturally and socially engrained.
I sought with this post only to develop further on an Aryanist state leadership. This is by no means extensive, conclusive nor authoritative. I suspect that this topic will require further elaboration in the future.
Entries (RSS)