Saturday, May 04, 2002


[from Erno Mobay]

I sometimes get the feeling that there are White Nationalist political philosophers who want to adopt the National Socialism of Nazi Germany as some sort of "camp philosophy."

"Marxists have Communism; we White Nationalists have National Socialism."

Nonsense. We, the White Nationalist political philosophers, need not adopt anything wholesale. We can pick and we can choose. We can learn from the past and adopt from the past. We can also reject from the past.

However, I believe that the National Socialism practiced during the 3rd Reich was correct on a number of issues, in theory if not always in practice. All that was right with the 3rd Reich might be summoned up by the statement Ein Reich, Ein Folk, Ein Fuhrer!

1. Democracy Is A Bad Idea. No matter its good intentions, it inevitably degenerates into a conflict of special interest groups. Democracy in itself provides no social glue. It provides no basis for governance other than excessive self-interest, greed, and corruption. When politicians realize that they can count on Paul's vote by robbing Peter to pay Paul, two things happen: politicians place a greater and greater tax burden on Peter and they institute policies that encourage immigration by inferior, subservient, and parasitic Pauls. This is exactly what happened in the Roman Empire, beginning with the extension of citizenship to non-Romans. This is exactly what is happening in the United States.

2. Blood Is Thicker Than Water. It is also thicker than paper. Various declarations, constitutions, and political poetry produce nothing that can cohere a team, and a nation-state is just that: a team. As every other theoretic glue melts away, in the end, racial heritage is the only fundament that can sustain a state. If there is such a thing as a "collective unconscious," then there is certainly such a thing as a "collective racial unconscious." It's in our blood. It's in our cells. Consider that in many cases the recipients of transplanted organs begin having the memories of the donor. This suggests, if not proves, persistent organic memory. Racial awareness is not hatred; it is pride. Racial awareness is not a license to exploit; it's a license to pursue a common destiny.

Various oligarchic contrivances are obviously not the answer either. Representative and parliamentary-based systems are just oligarchic geegaws. Oligarchic geegaws merely concentrate special interest in smaller, more virulent, groups of exploiters.

Therefore, a nation must be lead by an individual. It must be lead by an individual who has a blood connection with the people of the nation and leads them, not as an exploiter--not as a politician--but as a brother and as a father who shares and communicates a vision for a common evolutionary strategy.

As I understand it, having a group evolutionary strategy was part of Hitler's vision for a unified Germany under the 3rd Reich. Furthermore, in contradiction to statements made on this List, I do not think that Adolf Hitler attempted to preside over his own deification. According to David Irving, people who wrote about him described Hitler as "humble." However, Adolf Hitler doesn't have to have been perfect, or even a perfect example, for me to admire the fundamental correctness of essential parts of his vision.

Now, as for capitalism versus socialism.

Out of hand, I reject Communism as an oligarchic contrivance. The recognition that there is a greater good than the Individual does not therefore make one a Communist. Communism says that the greatest good is the agenda of the oligarchy. Although it masquerades as a "Social Democracy," Communism is fundamentally oligarchic.

In the Blood State, the good that is greater than individualism is the maintenace of the evolutionary momentum of the group. We accept that, for the group to evolve, its individual's must be allowed to evolve. Group evolution is the advancement of the group by means of the scientific, material, and spiritual achievements of its individuals. The existence of a group evolutionary strategy does not create a conflict between the individual and the group, but there can be conflict, and one of the primary functions of leadership is the resolution of conflict between the evolutionary strategy of the group and the evolutionary strategy of the individual.

I do not think that the government should own the means of production. As I said, one should recognize that Blood provides the only non-artificial basis for statehood. One should also realize that, to be happy, Men must be allowed, within reason, to pursue their own happiness in the style and to the extent their individuality provides.

Therefore, it should not be the ambition of the Blood State to collect and redistribute resources. It should only be the ambition of the Blood State to maintain "balance." The Blood State must ensure that avenues and mechanisms exist to provide all responsible team members with the ability to pursue happiness. In doing so, the Blood State must ensure that no individual's (or group's) pursuit of happiness obstructs the pursuit of any other individual.

The tangible benefit accruing to an individual from the resources he has accumulated above a certain realistic, practical cap ought to be weighed against the tangibility of the benefit of those resources when applied toward the evolutionary strategy of the group.

This is where the "collectivism" of a Blood State emerges. A Blood State's leader must oversee mechanisms of check and balance that ensure that no single group's or individual's ambitions conflict with, or override, the ability of the state to instrument its group evolutionary strategy. Example.

In the Blood State that I envision would Bill Gates be allowed to accumulate 100-billion dollars of personal wealth?

No, he would not, and for the following reasons. As Gates himself admitted in his Playboy interview, luck has played as large a part in his success as talent or ability. IMO, Gates has made as many bad decisions as good ones. IMO, Microsoft owes its success as much to the bad decisions of its competitors as it does to being in possession of superior ability.

But even more important than this, money makes money. Market domination can produce more market domination. Accumulation of wealth reaches a point of critical mass where its increase becomes almost quadratic. Can it all be lost? Of course it can, but I believe it is much more difficult to lose wealth once it is leveraged than it is to achieve wealth in the first place.

If this is true, then I believe it is acceptable for the Blood State to enforce the proposition that there should be caps on the accumulation of private wealth. When these caps are reached, wealth should flow back to the State--and not for redistribution, but for the creation of avenues, mechanisms, and incentives for the application of personal industry within the group.

Would this inhibit personal industry? Would Bill Gates drive Microsoft into the ground in fit of lethargy if he were told that his personal wealth were being capped at, say, 1-billion? Would Gates cry, "Why should I even get up in the morning?"

Somehow I doubt it. IMO, any individual who feels that his pursuit of happiness has been curtailed by a totalitarian state because his personal wealth has been capped at 1-billion (or even say, 100-million) should be encouraged to settle elsewhere.

More, in an ongoing manner, later.


[email to:

No comments: