The democratic facade

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: godlessnorth, I hate to get off topic but may I ask why do you use a Bolshevik symbol as your avatar? I dont want to sound like your typical Cold Warrior but using such a symbol is counterproductive for a Socialist Nationalist.

I've always been fond of the hammer & sickle—as the Admin pointed out, it simply denotes the unification of the proletariat and the peasantry. I agree that during political activism, it's advisable for organizations to avoid using the hammer & sickle (at least as it was depicted in the USSR's flag), but amongst fellow Socialist Nationalists, we needn't fear or restrict it.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: godlessnorth, I hate to get off topic but may I ask why do you use a Bolshevik symbol as your avatar? I dont want to sound like your typical Cold Warrior but using such a symbol is counterproductive for a Socialist Nationalist.

I encourage him to continue displaying the hammer and sickle; it is a symbol unequivocally recognized for its enduring affiliation with the far-left. We are far-left activists (revolutionaries), and since I take pride in this fact, I support such symbolism (provided that we strip it of all its communist association) of the peasantry and proletariat. I believe that we should attempt to distance ourselves from reactionary nationalism (right-wing nationalism) at all costs.

My time on SF and subsequent banning have convinced me that I truly couldn't care less what reactionary imbeciles perceive and conclude.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I encourage him to continue displaying the hammer and sickle; it is a symbol unequivocally recognized for its enduring affiliation with the far-left. We are far-left activists (revolutionaries), and since I take pride in this fact, I support such symbolism (provided that we strip it of all its communist association) of the peasantry and proletariat. I believe that we should attempt to distance ourselves from reactionary nationalism (right-wing nationalism) at all costs.

My time on SF and subsequent banning have convinced me that I truly couldn't care less what reactionary imbeciles perceive and conclude.

I agree with Revolutionary Wolf. My only worry is that we might go so far left we will be drowned in and indistinguishable from all the other Leftist parties, without actually providing anything for the peasantry or proletariat.

I agree you guys have a point. This is a closed forum after all so its not like random people can get turned off by hammers and sickles. Dont get me wrong people. I actually think the hammer and sickle symbol looks cool. In fact I even have a collection of Soviet war medals that have hammers and sickles on them. Nonetheless I firmly believe that any group trying to rouse the masses ( if the time comes) should not use symbols that are considered exclusively Bolshevik by the public if it wants to achieve anything. Anyways sorry for getting off topic.

I hate bringing up old threads, but I fail to see how democracy is compatible with socialism. Before I get to my point I must ask about the terminology, why do people here use the term social-nationalism? It just seems to be National Socialism flipped around. I understand you can be a nationalist for a social class, but what is the big difference between "social-nationalism" and National Socialism?

Back to my point, I think democracy is a horrible mob rule ideology. I highly agree with hermeticist, the natural and right way for humans to function is hierarchy. The massses are not fit to rule and hold leadership positions. Take for example, The Third Reich. The NSDAP cabinet were all elites with IQs over 140, yet, they had a way to organize all classes of the German people. The worker must always be able to unionize and bargain, as the common man and the worker is the most important part to society, he is the backbone of civilization. This is why his will needs to be catered to via legislation. A true leader of his people realizes that, and does everything to see to it the worker is comfortable.

We let ourselves into this capitalist nightmare ourselves, it was because we trusted the feeble minds of the many, rather than the greatness of a bright and few that nature produces and offers. The masses were misled and got us into this usurous mess, and now we are all slaves to the banksters.

Oh and on the subject of "Might is Right" philosohpy, I don't see how it is capitalistic or incompatible with socialism at all. A people must apply this Might is Right philosophy to themselves as a collective group, rather than looking at it in a non-sensical indiviualist way. A people that are socially unified are most certainly mighty, and their might is what is right.

First of all Welcome to our forum arbeiter88.

As you may have noticed, i am a big supporter of direct democracy rulling, be it in the workshop, be it in the context of community or nation.

Your argument that it was "mob mentality" that lead us to this position is a common one, yet wrong in my opinion. And this is because one can see that the "mob" and their interests really don't have a choice, and never had in the last century or so in most nations.

What we have is dictatorships, disguised as "corporations" that effectively rule the world today, and create the "illusion of choice" for the masses, so that they think they are actually choosing something, when in fact most important decisions are made by the aforementioned corporations and their owners. These corporations serve only the interest of the leader, wich is totally unacountable, and uses his power to protect himself with the state that was supposed to uphold the masses interests. This is why i perceive any "hierarchical absolutist" form of rulling fundamentally imoral and inefective in preserving the working class standard of living.

I already exposed the form of government i would prefer, as well as it's functioning, so won't go there again, but i can say i would never trust some lone man living in a palace to know and understand mine ,and my working collegues problems "down here".

Leon Mcnichol wrote:First of all Welcome to our forum arbeiter88.

As you may have noticed, i am a big supporter of direct democracy rulling, be it in the workshop, be it in the context of community or nation.

Your argument that it was "mob mentality" that lead us to this position is a common one, yet wrong in my opinion. And this is because one can see that the "mob" and their interests really don't have a choice, and never had in the last century or so in most nations.

What we have is dictatorships, disguised as "corporations" that effectively rule the world today, and create the "illusion of choice" for the masses, so that they think they are actually choosing something, when in fact most important decisions are made by the aforementioned corporations and their owners. These corporations serve only the interest of the leader, wich is totally unacountable, and uses his power to protect himself with the state that was supposed to uphold the masses interests. This is why i perceive any "hierarchical absolutist" form of rulling fundamentally imoral and inefective in preserving the working class standard of living.

I already exposed the form of government i would prefer, as well as it's functioning, so won't go there again, but i can say i would never trust some lone man living in a palace to know and understand mine ,and my working collegues problems "down here".

Thank you for the welcome, comrade. I agree with you on that. Which is why I would do away with the lousy corporations who control and mislead their own people for the sake of personal profit. I also agree that you should be weary of a man "up there" making decisions for you "down there". This is why I think a true and noble leader should arise from the working class. One who can understand the common man. Just because one is in a position of power does not make them evil. Remember, we are all bound by the common cause of blood and nation first, and it is this notion that must unify all classes to work in the same direction, not for individual profit, but for the betterment of the nation.

I can maybe agree with you, that the workers should definitely have more control of things when it comes to working and wages. But when can one say is enough? There must be definite quotas and limits, set forth by strong legislation if you ask me. I think, perhaps, too much control for workers could lead to lethargy, and unreasonable demand of wages.

National socialism is associated with Hitler. Social nationalism is associated with more sane movement, like the one in Syria.

Metal Gear wrote:National socialism is associated with Hitler. Social nationalism is associated with more sane movement, like the one in Syria.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Also it dosn't really matter what it is associated with either the same tenets are there or they are not. Changing what you call beliefs for the reason of disassociation dosn't change the beliefs themselves.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:That sort of speech is what the powers that be want you to spout. They decry "democracy" evertime they can, and you are being a good tool for them decrying it too.

Ever wondered why all those "democratic" wars have the same system of political parties and state organization implemented? That's right, because it's that particular system that better serve the ultimate end of transcending democracy itself.

I don't believe in an authoritarian regime to serve the people. That is nonsense, history proved it time and time again, and if we ever needed more proof, the present day "corporations", with their small dictatorship, or "rule by small ellitist committee", are also a good example of how the ones above always get detached of the ones below.

The problem with looking at it that way is the fact that these corporations are empowered by capitalism - it's through money that they get their power, and through greed that they get their money, therefore the greediest members of the nation become its rulers, and naturally they are bad rulers for everyone but themselves. That is why I support government constructed in war: War is the only time when you learn who's really there, ready to sacrifice everything for their ideals, so you find a good person who's a true leader and you put him in charge, and instead of opening this governmental system up to everybody (and thereby, corruption - what's worse for getting a disease, getting bitten by just one tick, or by 20?), let this man you know to be good of heart and of good judgment pick the next leader, and him the next, and if you get a man in power who is a tyrant, then you will know who to blame - after all, who do you blame when things go sour in a democracy? I think if anything, history has taught us that the "will of the people" is often a very dangerous thing, because not everyone is fit to rule - shortly, democracy ignores the aristocratic principle of Nature, namely, that different men are fit for different duties in life. Those fit to rule must rule; those fit to push a plow must be honored and respected for their skill with the plow, and therefore as a laborer and producer of the nation, but only a fool would let him have a hand in running anything, just as only a fool would put a natural-born leader behind a mop to clean floors.

-TDW

Welcome to the forum, Arbeiter88. I'm glad you decided to join us. Before I begin, I should just preface everything by letting you know that there was a time in my life when my political views were almost indistinguishable from your own.

Arbeiter88 wrote:Before I get to my point I must ask about the terminology, why do people here use the term social-nationalism? It just seems to be National Socialism flipped around. I understand you can be a nationalist for a social class, but what is the big difference between "social-nationalism" and National Socialism?

The founders of this forum made the conscious decision to abandon the "National Socialist" label because of its attachment with the legacy of the Third Reich and Hitlerism. I'm well aware of the fact there have been organizations and individuals who used the label prior to the NSDAP's adoption of it, but the term is well beyond being salvageable at this point.

To answer your second question, the difference between what some of us call "Socialist-Nationalism," and what was Hitlerian National Socialism, is our socialism is much further to the Left than that practiced in the Third Reich, and the nationalism we espouse is also quite different—for example, we're anti-imperialists and we oppose ethnic chauvinism.

Back to my point, I think democracy is a horrible mob rule ideology. I highly agree with hermeticist, the natural and right way for humans to function is hierarchy.

Looking to nature for justification of anything is useless—for every instance of hierarchy and inequality that exists in nature, you can find a counterexample; I recommend reading Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution for more on this. Yes, at times humans have organized themselves hierarchically, but they have also done so democratically and in an egalitarian fashion. Moreover, appeals to nature amount to little more than committing the naturalistic fallacy—just because something can be observed in nature doesn't somehow suggest we should emulate it.

The massses are not fit to rule and hold leadership positions.

Where do the people you think are fit to lead come from, if not from the very masses you scorn? You may persuasively argue that leadership skills are scarce in society, and that perhaps there's a genetic component to leadership itself, but carrying out the mundane, bureaucratic tasks of governance really doesn't require an unaccountable elite of Übermensch. It is the surplus labor of the masses that enables there to be a government in the first place, so those masses have every right to have their leaders held accountable to them. History is replete with horrific examples of abuses of power that occur when individuals are given positions of power and are not held accountable by their constituencies.

Take for example, The Third Reich. The NSDAP cabinet were all elites with IQs over 140, yet, they had a way to organize all classes of the German people. The worker must always be able to unionize and bargain, as the common man and the worker is the most important part to society, he is the backbone of civilization. This is why his will needs to be catered to via legislation. A true leader of his people realizes that, and does everything to see to it the worker is comfortable.

The Third Reich lasted all of twelve years. As intelligent as some of the party leaders were, it's naïve to think corruption and abuse didn't exist in National Socialist Germany. Furthermore, raw IQ doesn't tell you much about the ethical character of someone, nor their leadership potential.

As for unionization and collective bargaining, in a socialist state there should be no bourgeois class to bargain with any longer. Workers can and should appropriate the surplus value they produce among themselves. However, I do agree with you in that the proletariat is the very backbone of civilization. Work (be it physical or intellectual) alone is what makes a society what it is, not mere ownership of productive assets. As William Petty wrote, "Labor is the father of material wealth, the earth is its mother."

We let ourselves into this capitalist nightmare ourselves, it was because we trusted the feeble minds of the many, rather than the greatness of a bright and few that nature produces and offers.

I completely disagree. The masses weren't led into capitalism, on the contrary, capitalism has always violently imposed itself onto reluctant populations (research the history of primitive accumulation).

Oh and on the subject of "Might is Right" philosohpy, I don't see how it is capitalistic or incompatible with socialism at all. A people must apply this Might is Right philosophy to themselves as a collective group, rather than looking at it in a non-sensical indiviualist way. A people that are socially unified are most certainly mighty, and their might is what is right.

When considering the issue of collective power forcing change onto society, I'm reminded of a poem I've always been fond of:


Nevertheless, the "might is right" philosophy can lead to illogical and positively harmful outcomes. Force alone doesn't render something "right" or appropriate. A man physically overpowering a woman and thereafter raping her doesn't somehow legitimate such a heinous crime; nor does the fact I may be intellectually cunning enough to swindle people out of their money justify such a theft.

I suggest reading Jack London's short essay, "How I Became a Socialist." He went from being something of a Nietzschean, "Might is Right" individualist, to understanding the folly in such a myopic world view.

This is why I think a true and noble leader should arise from the working class. One who can understand the common man.

Joseph Stalin came from humble origins, but his background didn't prevent him from committing horrendous crimes against other peasants and proletarians. As Mikhail Bakunin wrote in Statism and Anarchy (p. 6):

"Ultimately, from whatever point of view we look at this question, we come always to the same sad conclusion, the rule of the great masses of the people by a privileged minority. The Marxists say that this minority will consist of workers. Yes, possibly of former workers, who, as soon as they become the rules of the representatives of the people, will cease to be workers and will look down at the plain working masses from the governing heights of the State; they will no longer represent the people, but only themselves and their claims to rulership over the people. Those who doubt this know very little about human nature."

Just because one is in a position of power does not make them evil.

Not necessarily. There have obviously been relatively benevolent dictators and kings at certain points in history, but I'm simply not willing to risk my life in the hope that an individual given unaccountable authority will be (or will remain) benevolent throughout the duration of his time in office.

Remember, we are all bound by the common cause of blood and nation first, and it is this notion that must unify all classes to work in the same direction, not for individual profit, but for the betterment of the nation.

I believe the idea of class collaborationism is a fantasy; it's never existed and will never exist. If your goal is that of ethnic and cultural preservation, you have to take into consideration the material basis of society. Leaving a bourgeois class intact, as National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy did, is a recipe for disaster. Capitalists care about one thing above all else: maximizing profit—they literally have to think in such a manner in order to remain in business, so notions of "blood and soil" are fairly meaningless to them (if not an outright hindrance to capital accumulation).

I can maybe agree with you, that the workers should definitely have more control of things when it comes to working and wages. But when can one say is enough? There must be definite quotas and limits, set forth by strong legislation if you ask me. I think, perhaps, too much control for workers could lead to lethargy, and unreasonable demand of wages.

Since workers would be controlling the means of production themselves (and thus collectively appropriating the surplus value they produce) they would be in as good a position as anyone to know what is or isn't reasonable. As for lethargy, since their salaries would be intimately tied into the success of their firm, they would have every incentive to stay productive (which is why labor-managed firms are frequently more productive than capitalist enterprises).

Arbeiter88 wrote:I hate bringing up old threads, but I fail to see how democracy is compatible with socialism. Before I get to my point I must ask about the terminology, why do people here use the term social-nationalism? It just seems to be National Socialism flipped around. I understand you can be a nationalist for a social class, but what is the big difference between "social-nationalism" and National Socialism?

We are socialist nationalists because our ideology (as far as the RSF is concerned, that is) is considerably different from that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and due to our aversion to its predominant contemporary proponents. This was a conscious decision on the part of the RSF leadership in light of our commitment to developing a coherent, radical working class movement upon a progressive nationalist foundation. The term "national socialism" itself is not exclusive to the NSDAP, but historical realities have all but obliterated the term's validity in the public mind, and it has become associated absolutely with the Third Reich and (this is by far the most lamentable of its connotations) with neo-fascists and their ridiculous public exhibitions and proclamations.

On a personal note, I have long considered myself a "national socialist," but upon increasing my knowledge of the world, realizing my true ideals, and coming to understand that the majority of so-called "national socialists" know next to nothing of National Socialist Germany, the preconditions that allowed for Hitler's ascendance to power, the guiding ideology of the NSDAP and its strong initial socialist principles, or the general history of the term itself, and the association of far too many "national socialists" with reactionary currents such as the Ku Klux Klan, paleoconservatism, Christian Identity, "Hollywood Nazi" stormtroopers, and so on, I have come to view the ideology as farcical, at least as far as common usage of the term is concerned.

As it stands, there are few "national socialists" whom I view as harboring a genuine and productive ideology, but of those who exist, I must certainly name Povl Riis-Knudsen to be amongst them. I highly recommend that you read his two excellent articles, National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement and National Socialism: The Biological Worldview. They have certainly expanded my understanding of true national socialism as it exists today.

TriumphDesWillens wrote:The problem with looking at it that way is the fact that these corporations are empowered by capitalism - it's through money that they get their power, and through greed that they get their money, therefore the greediest members of the nation become its rulers, and naturally they are bad rulers for everyone but themselves.

Indeed.

That is why I support government constructed in war: War is the only time when you learn who's really there, ready to sacrifice everything for their ideals, so you find a good person who's a true leader and you put him in charge, and instead of opening this governmental system up to everybody (and thereby, corruption - what's worse for getting a disease, getting bitten by just one tick, or by 20?), let this man you know to be good of heart and of good judgment pick the next leader, and him the next, and if you get a man in power who is a tyrant, then you will know who to blame - after all, who do you blame when things go sour in a democracy?

As worthy as someone may prove him or herself to be on the battlefield, it doesn't necessarily follow that such an individual would be fit to rule a nation appropriately, let alone while being unaccountable to the citizens. Furthermore, what good does knowing "who to blame" serve people when the tyrant in office controls the police and/or military apparatuses?

I think if anything, history has taught us that the "will of the people" is often a very dangerous thing, because not everyone is fit to rule - shortly, democracy ignores the aristocratic principle of Nature, namely, that different men are fit for different duties in life.

I've observed no such lesson in history, primarily because there have been very few examples of legitimate democracies existing. What humanity has thus far experienced are monarchies, dictatorships, and plutocracies masquerading as "democracies." The closest thing to a democracy that existed was perhaps Barcelona following the syndicalist revolution and, to varying degrees, humanity's hunter-gatherer phase during the paleolithic era. Democracy doesn't disregard this "aristocratic principle" you believe exists, it merely asserts that those given the authority to lead be held accountable to the people they govern. If it's so obvious that only a certain percentage of people are qualified to lead, while the vast majority are not, then those leaders will naturally emerge and prove their legitimacy to the people—but the moment you sever democratic accountability from those leaders, expect corruption and abuse to follow. The point is, leaders should have to continuously prove their legitimacy.

Those fit to rule must rule; those fit to push a plow must be honored and respected for their skill with the plow, and therefore as a laborer and producer of the nation, but only a fool would let him have a hand in running anything, just as only a fool would put a natural-born leader behind a mop to clean floors.

And I contend only a slave would submit before anything other than the principle that people should have a say in decisions in proportion to the degree they are effected by said decisions.

Celtiberian wrote:Welcome to the forum, Arbeiter88. I'm glad you decided to join us. Before I begin, I should just preface everything by letting you know that there was a time in my life when my political views were almost indistinguishable from your own.

Thanks for the welcome, comrade. I am not sure you know my views 100%, but it is easy to guess that I am an ardent National Socialist. Emphasize on the Socialist part as many "reactionaries" forget about that.

The founders of this forum made the conscious decision to abandon the label "National Socialism" because of its attachment with the legacy of the Third Reich and Hitlerism. I'm well aware of the fact there have been organizations and individuals who used the label prior to the NSDAP's adoption of it, but the term is well beyond being salvageable at this point.

I can undertand that. I like the direction this board is going, with the Socialists of all creed being accepted. Be they National, Democratic, etc. I personally do not care about salvaging the term, I love the NSDAP, but I can see logic in your reasoning.

To answer your second question, the difference between what some of us call "Socialist-Nationalism," and what was Hitlerian National Socialism, is our socialism is much further to the Left than that practiced in the Third Reich, and the nationalism we espouse is also quite different—for example, we're anti-imperialists and we oppose ethnic chauvinism.

I see that your form of Socialism is a little more to the left than myself, but that is perfectly fine as I consider myself a left-wing activist anyways. I have my own racial/ethnic views but I see no reason to bring them up, as I joined this forum primarily for the discussion of Socialist political and economic theory.

Looking to nature for justification of anything is useless—for every instance of hierarchy and inequality that exists in nature, you can find a counterexample; I recommend reading Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution for more on this. Yes, at times humans have organized themselves hierarchically, but they have also done so democratically and in an egalitarian fashion. Moreover, appeals to nature amount to little more than committing the naturalistic fallacy—just because something can be observed in nature doesn't somehow suggest we should emulate it.

But can we not say there are some humans are superior to others? Who are smarter, more charismatic, and more fit to hold leadership positions and make executive decisions than others? Surely equality under the law is one thing, but can we say that equality exists anywhere? I would have no problem organizing myself below a strong charismatic leader, if he abuses his power it is the right and the DUTY of the people to revolt.

Where do the people you think are fit to lead come from, if not from the very masses you scorn? You may persuasively argue that leadership skills are scarce in society, and that perhaps there's a genetic component to leadership itself, but carrying out the mundane, bureaucratic tasks of governance really doesn't require an unaccountable elite of Übermensch. It is the surplus labor of the masses that enables there to be a government in the first place, so those masses have every right to have their leaders held accountable to them. History is replete with horrific examples of abuses of power that occur when individuals are given positions of power and are not held accountable by their constituencies.

I am actually almost in full agreement with you here. Just because I support a strong central government and a strong leader and one party state, does not mean I do not think the leader shouldn't be held accountable. It is the duty of the folk to hold their leaders responsible. The government should be an expression of the will of the people.

The Third Reich lasted all of twelve years. As intelligent as some of the party leaders were, it's naïve to think corruption and abuse didn't exist in National Socialist Germany. Furthermore, raw IQ doesn't tell you much about the ethical character of someone, nor their leadership potential.

Truthfully, the downfall of the Third Reich was due to outside forces who hated it. And don't mistake me, corruption exists everywhere, I wasn't implying it was totally free of corruption.

Workers can and should appropriate the surplus value they produce among themselves.

Agreed 100%.

I completely disagree. The masses weren't led into capitalism, on the contrary, capitalism has always violently imposed itself onto reluctant populations (research the history of primitive accumulation).

This is also partly true, though we must also hold the masses and our fathers accountable for letting these capitalist dogs into our nations and monopolizing them.

When considering the issue of collective power forcing change onto society, I'm reminded of a poem I've always been fond of:

"SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" by Charlotte Stetson
In northern climes, the polar bear
Protects himself with fat and hair,
Where snow is deep and ice is stark,
And half the year is cold and dark,
He still survives a clime like that
By growing fur, by growing fat.
These traits, O bear, which thou transmittest
Prove the Survival of the Fittest.

To polar regions waste and wan,
Comes the encroaching race of man,
A puny, feeble, little bubber,
He has no fur, he has no blubber.
The scornful bear sat down at ease
To see the stranger starve and freeze—
But, lo! the stranger slew the bear,
And ate his fat and wore his hair;
These deeds, O Man, which thou committest
Prove the Survival of the Fittest.

In modern times the Millionaire
Protects himself as did the bear:
Where Poverty and Hunger are
He counts his bullion by the car:
Where thousands perish still he thrives—
The wealth, O Croesus, thou transmittest
Proves the Survival of the Fittest.

But, lo, some people odd and funny,
Some men without a cent of money—
The simple common human race
Chose to improve their dwelling place:
They had no use for millionaires
They calmly said the world was theirs,
They were so wise, so strong, so many,
The Millionaires?—there wasn't any.
These deeds, O Man, which thou committest
Prove the Survival of the Fittest.

Nevertheless, the "might is right" philosophy can lead to illogical and positively harmful outcomes. Force alone doesn't render something "right" or appropriate. A man physically overpowering a woman and thereafter raping her doesn't somehow legitimate such a heinous crime; nor does the fact I may be intellectually cunning enough to swindle people out of their money justify such a theft.

I suggest reading Jack London's short essay, "How I Became a Socialist." He went from being something of a Nietzschean, "Might is Right" individualist, to understanding the folly in such a myopic world view.

Lol, I enjoyed the poem, thanks. I agree just being strong dosn't make something right, but it is the might of the people of which I am speaking. Rights are something bought and purchased by the sword, natural human rights really don't exist. Only the strong and most genetically fit have a right to exist as a people.

Not necessarily. There have obviously been relatively benevolent dictators and kings at certain points in history, but I'm simply not willing to risk my life in the hope that an individual given unaccountable authority will be (or will remain) benevolent throughout the duration of his time in office.

It is up to the leader to prove themselves to the people.

Capitalists care about one thing above all else: maximizing profit—they literally have to think in such a manner in order to remain in business, so notions of "blood and soil" are fairly meaningless to them (if not an outright hindrance to capital accumulation).

Exactly why the capitalists must be done away with.

We are socialist nationalists because our ideology (as far as the RSF is concerned, that is) is considerably different from that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and due to our aversion to its predominant contemporary proponents. This was a conscious decision on the part of the RSF leadership in light of our commitment to developing a coherent, radical working class movement upon a progressive nationalist foundation. The term "national socialism" itself is not exclusive to the NSDAP, but historical realities have all but obliterated the term's validity in the public mind, and it has become associated absolutely with the Third Reich and (this is by far the most lamentable of its connotations) with neo-fascists and their ridiculous public exhibitions and proclamations.

On a personal note, I have long considered myself a "national socialist," but upon increasing my knowledge of the world, realizing my true ideals, and coming to understand that the majority of so-called "national socialists" know next to nothing of National Socialist Germany, the preconditions that allowed for Hitler's ascendance to power, the guiding ideology of the NSDAP and its strong initial socialist principles, or the general history of the term itself, and the association of far too many "national socialists" with reactionary currents such as the Ku Klux Klan, paleoconservatism, Christian Identity, "Hollywood Nazi" stormtroopers, and so on, I have come to view the ideology as farcical, at least as far as common usage of the term is concerned.

As it stands, there are few "national socialists" whom I view as harboring a genuine and productive ideology, but of those who exist, I must certainly name Povl Riis-Knudsen to be amongst them. I highly recommend that you read his two excellent articles, National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement and National Socialism: The Biological Worldview. They have certainly expanded my understanding of true national socialism as it exists today.

Thank you for the articles comrade, but I have read both of them already. I agree 100% that the term National Socialist by Right Wing conservative types who do not understand the true meaning of it. I will never relinquish the term and surrender it to them, to do so would be a disgrace to my German ancestors, but I see the reasoning here. Understood and appreciated.

Arbeiter88 wrote:Thanks for the welcome, comrade. I am not sure you know my views 100%, but it is easy to guess that I am an ardent National Socialist. Emphasize on the Socialist part as many "reactionaries" forget about that.

Forgive me if I sounded a bit presumptuous in my previous post. I simply meant to say, based off of what I've read from you so far, your political views seem to conform very well with the ones I held when I was younger. Most of the time I considered myself a National Socialist, I felt more of an affinity towards the Strasserist faction of the ideology—hence I emphasized the 'socialist' aspect of the National Socialism quite a lot—and I can tell that you're coming from a similar background.

I can undertand that. I like the direction this board is going, with the Socialists of all creed being accepted. Be they National, Democratic, etc. I personally do not care about salvaging the term, I love the NSDAP, but I can see logic in your reasoning.

That's understandable, comrade. I don't seek to try to tell you what or what not to believe in. Where we do have differences of opinion, I think it's perfectly fine to debate in a civil manner. What's important to keep in mind is that, at the end of the day, we're both fighting for a socialist and nationalist future—even if we may disagree about some of the specific details that socialism and nationalism might entail.

But can we not say there are some humans are superior to others? Who are smarter, more charismatic, and more fit to hold leadership positions and make executive decisions than others? Surely equality under the law is one thing, but can we say that equality exists anywhere? I would have no problem organizing myself below a strong charismatic leader, if he abuses his power it is the right and the DUTY of the people to revolt.

I think that some people are clearly more intelligent, competent, charismatic, etc. than other people, and part of this is the result of their genetic endowment. Incidentally, I don't subscribe to the innate human equality dogma, but then many socialists and communists historically didn't either. With that said, my argument in favor of democracy doesn't rest on the notion that all people are innately equal, but rather that democratic participation in governance is a value in its own right, and that it serves an even greater instrumental value with respect to limiting abuses of power.

I am actually almost in full agreement with you here. Just because I support a strong central government and a strong leader and one party state, does not mean I do not think the leader shouldn't be held accountable. It is the duty of the folk to hold their leaders responsible. The government should be an expression of the will of the people.

I just don't see how one can truly ensure accountability without democracy.

Truthfully, the downfall of the Third Reich was due to outside forces who hated it. And don't mistake me, corruption exists everywhere, I wasn't implying it was totally free of corruption.

You're right, part of the reason the Third Reich Reich was destroyed was because of aggression on the part of the bourgeois states (e.g., Britain and the United States) of the world uniting to undermine its development. However, it would be erroneous to overlook Hitler's own responsibility in the matter—I'm specifically referring to his war of aggression against the Eastern European territories, starting with Poland and ending with the Soviet Union (which, in my opinion, was carried out to fulfill his imperialist "lebensraum" foreign policy).

This is also partly true, though we must also hold the masses and our fathers accountable for letting these capitalist dogs into our nations and monopolizing them.

I think the proletariat and peasant classes did a lot, insofar as resisting capitalism is concerned, especially in the past. The relative apathy observed in Western world since the 1950s is the result of several factors, but chief among them are: bourgeois propaganda and the failure of Stalinism. I think Noam Chomsky addresses the issue rather succinctly in the following videos:

Lol, I enjoyed the poem, thanks.

I'm glad you appreciated the poem, I thought you might.

I agree just being strong dosn't make something right, but it is the might of the people of which I am speaking. Rights are something bought and purchased by the sword, natural human rights really don't exist.

I agree that concepts such as "natural law" are a myth, and perhaps Mao Zedong was onto something when he said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Having said that, I believe there are certain ethical values which are very much a product of our human nature (i.e., the golden rule), and that some conception of rights is necessary to maintain and maximize human welfare.

Only the strong and most genetically fit have a right to exist as a people.

"Strong" and "fit" are subjective concepts. The eugenicists of antiquity would most likely have euthanized someone like Stephen Hawking for being "unfit," even though today we'd consider such a proposal patently absurd. Once you start arbitrarily deciding who is or isn't "fit" for survival, it's a slippery slope. In my opinion, every people should possess the fundamental right to survive and flourish in their own way. If a superior alien race were to hypothetically invaded our planet, you wouldn't just bow down before their superiority and allow them to exterminate you and your people, would you? Would you think they had a right to destroy your people and culture simply because they were "superior" in some capacity?

I actually do support the formation of a eugenics program of sorts, but under the strict condition it's implemented in a socialist society and on a voluntary basis (aka, "positive eugenics")—I'd, perhaps, even support the sterilization of the criminally insane and/or mentally retarded, provided society should agree with such a proposal. However, I don't think the greatest promise for improving humanity lies with eugenics; rather, I see far more potential in outright genetic engineering.

Exactly why the capitalists must be done away with.

Agreed.

Forgive me if I sounded a bit presumptuous in my previous post. I simply meant to say, based off of what I've read from you so far, your political views seem to conform very well with the ones I held when I was younger. Most of the time I considered myself a National Socialist, I felt more of an affinity towards the Strasserist faction of the ideology—hence I emphasized the 'socialist' aspect of the National Socialism quite a lot—and I can tell that you're coming from a similar background.

I like elements of Strasserist and Hitler's National Socialism.

That's understandable, comrade. I don't seek to try to tell you what or what not to believe in. Where we do have differences of opinion, I think it's perfectly fine to debate in a civil manner. What's important to keep in mind is that, at the end of the day, we're both fighting for a socialist and nationalist future—even if we may disagree about some of the specific details that socialism and nationalism might entail.

Agreed, I love a good debate with a fellow of like mind and being able to shake hands at the end of the day.

I think that some people are clearly more intelligent, competent, charismatic, etc. than other people, and part of this is the result of their genetic endowment. Incidentally, I don't subscribe to the innate human equality dogma, but then many socialists and communists historically didn't either. With that said, my argument in favor of democracy doesn't rest on the notion that all people are innately equal, but rather that democratic participation in governance is a value in its own right, and that it serves an even greater instrumental value with respect to limiting abuses of power.

I think abuse of power is even more common in democratic nations. You can have all sorts of sleezy politicians make all these promises and statements and not follow up on them once elected. A politician is a sleezy profession. Yea sure, he will be out of office in time, but then we can just vote in another bearer of false hope. The people almost never revolt because they believe they are already free when in actuality it is the furthest from the truth.

I just don't see how one can truly ensure accountability without democracy.

No matter how the leader gets there, or the law, a people should always hold their leaders accountable. There is no way to ensure it, but I believe it is easier to be brainwashed in a democracy as the subjects might actually believe they are free - when really you just have the rise of talking politicians and many parties who claim to stand for different things, but ultimately; they're the same and don't offer any real hope.

You're right, part of the reason the Third Reich Reich was destroyed was because of aggression on the part of the bourgeois states (e.g., Britain and the United States) of the world uniting to undermine its development. However, it would be erroneous to overlook Hitler's own responsibility in the matter—I'm specifically referring to his war of aggression against the Eastern European territories, starting with Poland and ending with the Soviet Union (which, in my opinion, was carried out to fulfill his imperialist "lebensraum" foreign policy).

I have my own opinion on the Lebensraum policy, but delving into the history of this is not relevant to this discussion.

I think the proletariat and peasant classes did a lot, insofar as resisting capitalism is concerned, especially in the past. The relative apathy observed in Western world since the 1950s is the result of several factors, but chief among them are: bourgeois propaganda and the failure of Stalinism. I think Noam Chomsky addresses the issue rather succinctly in the following videos:

I think there could have and should have been a militant uprising way before the 1950s even. Alas though, it was impossible to see into the future and see what sort of mess we are in today... Our people have been inflicted with an aberration well before capitalism came along, capitalism is just the icing on the cake if you ask me. It is one of but many evils.

I agree that concepts such as "natural law" are a myth, and perhaps Mao Zedong was onto something when he said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Having said that, I believe there are certain ethical values which are very much a product of our human nature (i.e., the golden rule), and that some conception of rights is necessary to maintain and maximize human welfare.

Of course, within our own people that is.

"Strong" and "fit" are subjective concepts. The eugenicists of antiquity would most likely have euthanized someone like Stephen Hawking for being "unfit," even though today we'd consider such a proposal patently absurd. Once you start arbitrarily deciding who is or isn't "fit" for survival, it's a slippery slope. In my opinion, every people should possess the fundamental right to survive and flourish in their own way. If a superior alien race were to hypothetically invaded our planet, you wouldn't just bow down before their superiority and allow them to exterminate you and your people, would you? Would you think they had a right to destroy your people and culture simply because they were "superior" in some capacity?

That is a good question actually, and one raised a lot to me when I talk about my views. Would you bow down and let them destroy all we are simply because they are superior? No, you would not. Because you would not truly know who is superior until you have met them and faced them. If they were to come here and start killing us because they want to use our planet for resources, would I cry about human rights and genocide? I would not. That is a very feeble mindset. We could face them as the proud and defiant people we are, and let nature decide who is the victor. One must always first seek the propagation and protection of their own kind.

To quote a favorite historical leader of mine...

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

I actually do support the formation of a eugenics program of sorts, but under the strict condition it's implemented in a socialist society and on a voluntary basis (aka, "positive eugenics")—I'd, perhaps, even support the sterilization of the criminally insane and/or mentally retarded, provided society should agree with such a proposal. However, I don't think the greatest promise for improving humanity lies with eugenics; rather, I see far more potential in outright genetic engineering.

I personally think if we practiced genetic hygiene we could improve ourselves greatly. Improving humanity lies in genetic hygiene, proper health education, removing all the synthetic poisons on the market today and absolute shit sold as food, and also through spiritual transformation. And maybe one day; as you said, genetic engineering.

Arbeiter88 wrote:Agreed, I love a good debate with a fellow of like mind and being able to shake hands at the end of the day.

Likewise.

I think abuse of power is even more common in democratic nations. You can have all sorts of sleezy politicians make all these promises and statements and not follow up on them once elected. A politician is a sleezy profession. Yea sure, he will be out of office in time, but then we can just vote in another bearer of false hope. The people almost never revolt because they believe they are already free when in actuality it is the furthest from the truth.

You mean ostensibly "democratic" nations. We live in capitalist plutocracies which completely lack functioning democratic institutions—it's impossible to expect democracy to exist in societies which feature the vast inequalities of wealth the capitalist mode of production engenders (after all, money buys power, as we all know).

A politician is a public servant, which should be (and, very easily, could be) considered a noble profession in a decent society. Obviously politicians operating within plutocracies are typically a "sleazy" lot, but such is to be expected. Abuses of power are certainly experienced in our current pseudo-democracies, but not nearly to same extent as the abuses which have occurred in absolutist dictatorships.

No matter how the leader gets there, or the law, a people should always hold their leaders accountable. There is no way to ensure it, but I believe it is easier to be brainwashed in a democracy as the subjects might actually believe they are free - when really you just have the rise of talking politicians and many parties who claim to stand for different things, but ultimately; they're the same and don't offer any real hope.

I don't advocate on behalf of a multiparty democracy, there's really no room for such concepts in a socialist society. And you're right, people are more easily manipulated within plutocracies (since they're presented with the illusion of choice). However, the fact remains that even the meager level of accountability politicians currently face is enough to ensure that they don't abuse their authority to the degree unaccountable dictators typically do.

I think there could have and should have been a militant uprising way before the 1950s even.

Even excluding the Bolshevik Revolution, there were several militant uprisings that occurred long before 1950 (e.g., the syndicalist revolution in Barcelona, the Paris Commune, etc.), all of which were violently suppressed by the bourgeois establishment. The people have been trying, it's just a long and bitter struggle—or as a famous socialist martyr put it, "You lose, you lose, you lose, you win." The proletariat will be triumphant in the end, justice shall prevail, but it's not going to be an easy task.

Of course, within our own people that is.

I only speak on behalf of my people, it's up to other people to decide how best to organize laws to maximize their own welfare.

That is a good question actually, and one raised a lot to me when I talk about my views. Would you bow down and let them destroy all we are simply because they are superior? No, you would not. Because you would not truly know who is superior until you have met them and faced them. If they were to come here and start killing us because they want to use our planet for resources, would I cry about human rights and genocide? I would not. That is a very feeble mindset. We could face them as the proud and defiant people we are, and let nature decide who is the victor. One must always first seek the propagation and protection of their own kind.

Again, appeals to nature are essentially meaningless. The question isn't whether or not you'd "cry about human rights" in the face of possible annihilation from a superior species, but rather, whether you'd want those superior beings to be decent enough to follow a "live and let live" ethic. In the face of a clearly superior species, you certainly wouldn't want leave things up to "nature to decide." If you would prefer for the superior beings to follow the aforementioned peaceful coexistence principle, then on what basis can you deny the right of other peoples to live in peace? As the saying goes, "treat unto others."

There's nothing encoded in our DNA which dictates that we have to disregard the wishes of "inferior" peoples, and use our alleged "superiority" as a justification to plunder their resources and/or commit genocide upon them. We have choices. We can choose either war or peace—but make no mistake, in the modern age, choosing the former can result in nuclear holocaust. In my humble opinion, it's wiser and more just to allow people to live in peace and according to their own cultural preferences.

To quote a favorite historical leader of mine...

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

Hitler committed the same fallacy many early Social Darwinists did, and chose to view the world in terms of "eternal struggle." Yes, struggle and competition are aspects of life, but empathy and cooperation are equally significant factors in life—and, again, we have the ability to consciously choose which of these behaviors we'd prefer to foster within our nations and between peoples. Moreover, Hitler fought and died. Should we therefore conclude that it was right for him to perish, and in the manner he did? According to his own logic, he and/or the Third Reich proved to be "inferior" and thus, deserved the fate he/it met.

I've posted this before, somewhere, but I think it needs to be reposted.

ARE LEADERS GOOD AND NECESSARY?

This is not a double question, since if leaders are necessary, they [are] perforce good. Let us then examine the leader, and see if he is necessary. A leader implies at the outset some men who are being led; and the term is used to describe a man who, in a representative capacity, has acquired combined administrative and legislative power. As such, he sees no need for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file, except to applaud his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point of view, by breeding criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and causes confusion. His motto is, "Men, be loyal to your leaders." H[i]s logical basis: Plenary powers. His social and economic prestige, is dependent upon his being respected by "the public" and the employers. These are the three principles which form the platform upon which the leader stands. He presents, in common with other institutions, a good and a bad aspect.

THE GOOD SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

1. Leadership tends to efficiency.
One decided man, who knows his own mind is stronger than a hesitating crowd. It takes time for a number of people to agree upon a given policy. One man soon makes up his mind.
2. He takes all responsibility
As a responsible leader, he knows that his advice is almost equivalent to a command, and this ensures that his advice will have been carefully and gravely considered before being tendered.
3. He stands for Order and System
All too frequently, "What is everybody's business is nobody's business," and if no one stands in a position to ensure order and system, many things are omitted which will cause the men's interest to suffer.
4. He affords a standard of goodness and ability
In the sphere of public usefulness there is a great field of emulation. The good wishes of the masses can only be obtained by new aspirants for office showing a higher status of ability than the then existing leaders. This tends to his continued efficiency or elimination.
5. His faithfulness and honesty are guarded
Hero worship has great attractions for the hero, and a leader has great inducements on this side, apart from pecuniary considerations to remain faithful and honest.


THE BAD SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

1. Leadership implies power
Leadership implies power held by the Leader. Without power the leader is inept. The possession of power inevitably leads to corruption. All leaders become corrupt, in spite of their own good intentions. No man was ever good enough, brave enough, or strong enough, to have such power at his disposal, as real leadership implies.
2. Consider what it means
This power of initiative, this sense of responsibility, the self respect which comes from expressed manhood, is taken from the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their initiative, their responsibility, their self respect becomes his.
3. The order and system
The order and system he maintains, is based upon the suppression of the men, from being independent thinkers into being "the men" or "the mob." Every argument which could be advanced to justify leadership on this score, would apply equally well to the Czar of all the Russias and his policy of repression. In order to be effective, the leader must keep the men in order, or he forfeits the respect of the employers and "the public," and thus becomes ineffective as a leader.
4. He corrupts the aspirants to public usefulness
He is compelled in order to maintain his power, to see to it that only those, who are willing to act as his drill sergeants or coercive agents shall enjoy his patronage. In a word, he is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy.
5. He prevents solidarity
Sheep cannot be said to have solidarity. In obedience to a shepherd, they will go up or down, backwards or forwards as they are driven by him and his dogs. But they have no solidarity, for that means unity and loyalty. Unity and loyalty, not to an individual, or the policy of an individual, but to an interest and a policy which is understood and worked by all.

Finally he prevents the legislative power of the workers.

http://www.llgc.org.uk/ymgyrchu/Llafur/1926/MNS.htm

You mean ostensibly "democratic" nations. We live in capitalist plutocracies which completely lack functioning democratic institutions—it's impossible to expect democracy to exist in societies which feature the vast inequalities of wealth the capitalist mode of production engenders (after all, money buys power, as we all know).

A politician is a public servant, which should be (and, very easily, could be) considered a noble profession in a decent society. Obviously politicians operating within plutocracies are typically a "sleazy" lot, but such is to be expected. Abuses of power are certainly experienced in our current pseudo-democracies, but not nearly to same extent as the abuses which have occurred in absolutist dictatorships.

Agreed to some point. Our elections are rigged in a way anyway. You know who in charge of the banks and corporations just pile their ill-gotten wealth and influence on their candidate of choice. How do we go about ensuring a decent society? I would prefer a single party state. Once you have something great it would be foolish to switch. Unless of course it becomes corrupt, a revolution must take place.

I don't advocate on behalf of a multiparty democracy, there's really no room for such concepts in a socialist society. And you're right, people are more easily manipulated within plutocracies (since they're presented with the illusion of choice). However, the fact remains that even the meager level of accountability politicians currently face is enough to ensure that they don't abuse their authority to the degree unaccountable dictators typically do.

Many today do abuse their authority though. The monopolized media just has way too much control of people's minds for the masses to see it.

Even excluding the Bolshevik Revolution, there were several militant uprisings that occurred long before 1950 (e.g., the syndicalist revolution in Barcelona, the Paris Commune, etc.), all of which were violently suppressed by the bourgeois establishment. The people have been trying, it's just a long and bitter struggle—or as a famous socialist martyr put it, "You lose, you lose, you lose, you win." The proletariat will be triumphant in the end, justice shall prevail, but it's not going to be an easy task.

I think you're looking at it too much as specifically a class struggle. Economic liberation would only be part of the victory. If the proletariat were to succeed it would mean nothing if our nations were not cleansed of the political, social, and spiritual dogma that has been affecting our people for at least 1000 years. I think common working man really lost his sense of purpose under the feudal system; and later under the capitalist "grab as much wealth as you can" system.

I only speak on behalf of my people, it's up to other people to decide how best to organize laws to maximize their own welfare.

Amen.

Again, appeals to nature are essentially meaningless. The question isn't whether or not you'd "cry about human rights" in the face of possible annihilation from a superior species, but rather, whether you'd want those superior beings to be decent enough to follow a "live and let live" ethic. In the face of a clearly superior species, you certainly wouldn't want leave things up to "nature to decide." If you would prefer for the superior beings to follow the aforementioned peaceful coexistence principle, then on what basis can you deny the right of other peoples to live in peace? As the saying goes, "treat unto others."

There's nothing encoded in our DNA which dictates that we have to disregard the wishes of "inferior" peoples, and use our alleged "superiority" as a justification to plunder their resources and/or commit genocide upon them. We have choices. We can choose either war or peace—but make no mistake, in the modern age, choosing the former can result in nuclear holocaust. In my humble opinion, it's wiser and more just to allow people to live in peace and according to their own cultural preferences.

I don't buy into the whole treat unto others and golden rule jibber jab. If I were to ask the aliens for a peaceful coexistence based on our right to exist I'd only be a hypocrite. If our people needed resources, living space, etc I would have no problem taking it from another people. It is our people that matter. Likewise for these "aliens" if they needed the resources or living space for their own kind they would have every right to try and take it from us. And it is our duty to stop them for the sake of our own people.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make war on other people's for zero reason whatsoever, but if our people needed the resources it is their needs we must consider.

Hitler committed the same fallacy many early Social Darwinists did, and chose to view the world in terms of "eternal struggle." Yes, struggle and competition are aspects of life, but empathy and cooperation are equally significant factors in life—and, again, we have the ability to consciously choose which of these behaviors we'd prefer to foster within our nations and between peoples. Moreover, Hitler fought and died. Should we therefore conclude that it was right for him to perish, and in the manner he did? According to his own logic, he and/or the Third Reich proved to be "inferior" and thus, deserved the fate he/it met.

Empathy and cooperation are perfect behaviors to foster within our own people. In fact, we must foster them within our own people if we are to survive. Empathy and cooperation can be used towards other people as well, but not when our well being or advancement is threatened. Empathy and cooperation serve no purpose towards another people than for friendly relations and mutual assistance. Only when is it in our interest should we be empathetic and cooperate.

Hitler did fight, and Hitler died. The Reich did prove to be inferior when the whole world clamped down on it and blotted out the voice of our people. To think for a second we have a right to exist would be wrong. It is only our sacred duty to see that our people are well protected and propagated. The Reich was the epitome of that duty, and the Reich remains a beacon of hope in a world gone mad where our people's only purpose in life is material gain.

Arbeiter88 wrote:How do we go about ensuring a decent society?

The obvious first step is to change our mode of production. Secondly, civic virtues and an atmosphere of active participation have to be fostered within society—which can be accomplished by, among other things, reforming education.

Many today do abuse their authority though. The monopolized media just has way too much control of people's minds for the masses to see it.

Indeed, but the abuses of authority that exist within our contemporary plutocracies seldom result in mass executions, as they had been (and continue to be) within totalitarian dictatorships. Don't misunderstand me, plenty of innocent people have been killed in pseudo-democratic nations for daring to question the status quo, but, for the most part, voices of opposition are primarily defeated by denying them access to media outlets which would enable their subversive message to be heard by an appreciable portion of the population.

I think you're looking at it too much as specifically a class struggle.

Because that's what this ultimately boils down to.

Economic liberation would only be part of the victory. If the proletariat were to succeed it would mean nothing if our nations were not cleansed of the political, social, and spiritual dogma that has been affecting our people for at least 1000 years.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to insofar as "political, social, and spiritual dogma" is concerned, but those topics are most likely more appropriate for separate threads.

I don't buy into the whole treat unto others and golden rule jibber jab. If I were to ask the aliens for a peaceful coexistence based on our right to exist I'd only be a hypocrite. If our people needed resources, living space, etc I would have no problem taking it from another people. It is our people that matter. Likewise for these "aliens" if they needed the resources or living space for their own kind they would have every right to try and take it from us. And it is our duty to stop them for the sake of our own people.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make war on other people's for zero reason whatsoever, but if our people needed the resources it is their needs we must consider.

I would argue that the golden rule isn't just some theistic cliché, but rather, it's a deeply engraved aspect of our human nature—it's simply not something that can be pounded out of us. We would never have made it this far as a species if we didn't follow such an ethic.

When you start having this arbitrary "only our people matter" attitude, nothing but death and destruction follow. What constitutes "our people" is a rather subjective notion as it is. Nordicists contend "their people" are only those who possess the Nordic phenotype, while Spanish reactionary nationalists claim "their people" consist of everyone who lives within the geographic boundaries of modern Spain, etc. Where do you draw the line and who's to say it's correct? I believe that nationalism is an emergent human phenomenon, but it follows no consistent or specific pattern. Moreover, what separates us from lower lifeforms is the fact we can think and, consequently, plan out a course of action. If a nation is in need of food, it can peacefully trade with other nations; if the population size is getting out of control, contraceptives exist; etc. The dog eat dog world you envision isn't inevitable, and it certainly isn't desirable (at least from my perspective). Again, I fear the end result of such a world view (were it hypothetically embraced by everyone on the planet) would result in countless petty wars, and ultimately end in nuclear annihilation of the species.

Empathy and cooperation can be used towards other people as well, but not when our well being or advancement is threatened. Empathy and cooperation serve no purpose towards another people than for friendly relations and mutual assistance. Only when is it in our interest should we be empathetic and cooperate.

From the point of view of international relations, the well being and/or advancement of any people is only threatened when some external group seeks to engage in a war of aggression against them for geopolitical hegemony and/or resources. Thus, it's best to not encourage such a state of affairs and, conversely, seek to live in relative peace.

To think for a second we have a right to exist would be wrong.

Humans create their own "rights," it's just that some are better than others. Maximizing human welfare (which includes respecting other people's desire to live in peace) and preserving life are clearly superior to the alternative, in my opinion.

The Reich was the epitome of that duty, and the Reich remains a beacon of hope in a world gone mad where our people's only purpose in life is material gain.

The Third Reich had some good qualities, but it was far from some sort of heaven on earth. Imprisoning dissidents, censoring speech, engaging in pointless wars of conquest, preserving the bourgeois class, etc. are not what I'd consider ideal (to say the very least).

Celtiberian wrote:As worthy as someone may prove him or herself to be on the battlefield, it doesn't necessarily follow that such an individual would be fit to rule a nation appropriately,

I'm not only speaking of fighting skills, but of their dedication to their people and their cause. No leader is going to come to power without the support of the people, and war is the best way to show who's most dedicated.

Celtiberian wrote:let alone while being unaccountable to the citizens.

This is accountability:



The people should not need a political safeguard to hold their leaders accountable, because those safeguards, being part of the government by necessity, are just as easily circumvented by corrupt leaders. What you see above is the only true "accountability," which is why I support gun rights 100%.

Celtiberian wrote:Furthermore, what good does knowing "who to blame" serve people when the tyrant in office controls the police and/or military apparatuses?

First, you teach the children loyalty to Volk and NS before loyalty to the State, and then you make sure everyone's well-armed and trained in how to use a gun, and also, we put power back into the hands of the parents and take it out of the schoolhouses to ensure everyone knows HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. Then, when someone goes corrupt, a revolutionary movement would be able to get the support of the military and police, at least a part of it. There's no doubt about it, the world is based around struggle, so if we're going to have a political system, we ought to have one where it's made most apparent to the people that the struggle needs to happen when it does. If Vinlandic National Socialists succeed in setting up an NS government in this land, I have no doubt that it will not last forever, even if it lasts a thousand years...

Celtiberian wrote:I've observed no such lesson in history, primarily because there have been very few examples of legitimate democracies existing. What humanity has thus far experienced are monarchies, dictatorships, and plutocracies masquerading as "democracies." The closest thing to a democracy that existed was perhaps Barcelona following the syndicalist revolution and, to varying degrees, humanity's hunter-gatherer phase during the paleolithic era.

I have no wish to get into a debate about what was and was not a given form of government. I know very well how that turns out. So I'll just accept this one, but what I will debate is that there's no such lesson in history. Remember, one second ago is history, and all we need to do to get a good idea of how a "real" democracy would turn out is look at the idiots we have today in America. Just look at some of the stuff they do: When they disagree with someone, they want to kill them or ban them. When a foreign country angers them, they want to nuke them. When the democrats don't get something done fast enough, they go out and vote almost straight republican (who are far worse in my opinion). The "people" are idiots, and I have no wish to live according to mob rule.

Celtiberian wrote:Democracy doesn't disregard this "aristocratic principle" you believe exists, it merely asserts that those given the authority to lead be held accountable to the people they govern.

You don't have to have a democracy to have government accountability, as I showed above. True accountability lies in an accurate gun and a large clip.

Celtiberian wrote:If it's so obvious that only a certain percentage of people are qualified to lead, while the vast majority are not, then those leaders will naturally emerge and prove their legitimacy to the people—but the moment you sever democratic accountability from those leaders, expect corruption and abuse to follow.

But the problem is that if you allow the people to choose their leader then you're involving the unworthy in leading. Those who are worthy to lead are also those worthy to choose a leader; that doesn't mean the people have no involvement, it just means their involvement should be passive, not active. They are there with machine guns ready to act if the government goes corrupt, but they have to be prompted, as opposed to having an active role.

Celtiberian wrote:The point is, leaders should have to continuously prove their legitimacy.

100% agreed.

Celtiberian wrote:And I contend only a slave would submit before anything other than the principle that people should have a say in decisions in proportion to the degree they are effected by said decisions.

Not necessarily. This is part of the Leadership Principle. People look up to heroes; they like having a strong man that they know they can trust - someone who captured their attention with their strength, valor and courage. They are inclined to follow him because Nature, in Her infinite wisdom, installed an instinct in us to follow the strongest and the best, but when and if he goes bad, that he should be killed and replaced with the next best man. I would contend that people respect more a man who TOOK power through his strength (and that they support, of course) than one that they put there themselves, since the former gained power entirely through his own work, while the latter was given power without having to do anything other than pay lip service to the almighty people and their whims. Let me conclude by saying that I do NOT favour a system where the leader is not held to any laws - on the contrary, like my ancient ancestors, I think the law should have to be followed by all men. I just think that the government should be strong, and run according 100% to Nature's eternal, perfect laws, and not by a system which seems best to grant the whims of the weak - might is right, as all of Nature declares, and therefore, those not strong enough to take, do not deserve, and so I would go so far as to say that a people not strong enough to rebel against a corrupt leadership does not deserve its freedom. Thank you.

-TDW

TriumphDesWillens wrote:I'm not only speaking of fighting skills, but of their dedication to their people and their cause. No leader is going to come to power without the support of the people, and war is the best way to show who's most dedicated.

Well, i reckon a really dedicated soldier usually is a dead one.

This is accountability:



The people should not need a political safeguard to hold their leaders accountable, because those safeguards, being part of the government by necessity, are just as easily circumvented by corrupt leaders. What you see above is the only true "accountability," which is why I support gun rights 100%.

Well you contradict yourself there. The masses are not fit to rule democratically, yet they are fit to hold AK47s against their own rulers when they see fit? Not to mention that such weapons are nothing against the might of trained police force with heavy weapons.

First, you teach the children loyalty to Volk and NS before loyalty to the State, and then you make sure everyone's well-armed and trained in how to use a gun, and also, we put power back into the hands of the parents and take it out of the schoolhouses to ensure everyone knows HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. Then, when someone goes corrupt, a revolutionary movement would be able to get the support of the military and police, at least a part of it. There's no doubt about it, the world is based around struggle, so if we're going to have a political system, we ought to have one where it's made most apparent to the people that the struggle needs to happen when it does. If Vinlandic National Socialists succeed in setting up an NS government in this land, I have no doubt that it will not last forever, even if it lasts a thousand years...

And yet, history proves that such tactics led entire countries to war, or to total internal disruptions. Such bellic mentality leads inevitably to war, and the time before it is just used to get an excuse to war.

I have no wish to get into a debate about what was and was not a given form of government. I know very well how that turns out. So I'll just accept this one, but what I will debate is that there's no such lesson in history. Remember, one second ago is history, and all we need to do to get a good idea of how a "real" democracy would turn out is look at the idiots we have today in America. Just look at some of the stuff they do: When they disagree with someone, they want to kill them or ban them. When a foreign country angers them, they want to nuke them. When the democrats don't get something done fast enough, they go out and vote almost straight republican (who are far worse in my opinion). The "people" are idiots, and I have no wish to live according to mob rule.

Yet you want a leader to "educate" them in being totally selfless beings, have automatic weapons, and a strong bellic conscience against their own government if they ever step over the "line"? Who draws this "line" if not "mob rule"? Such contradictions would create an unstable nation who would slide into a civil war sooner rather than later.

You don't have to have a democracy to have government accountability, as I showed above. True accountability lies in an accurate gun and a large clip.

More important than the gun, is the reason behind holding it. What stops people from taking power just for the power itself then? "Volk"? That's wishfull thinking at best.

Not necessarily. This is part of the Leadership Principle. People look up to heroes; they like having a strong man that they know they can trust - someone who captured their attention with their strength, valor and courage. They are inclined to follow him because Nature, in Her infinite wisdom, installed an instinct in us to follow the strongest and the best, but when and if he goes bad, that he should be killed and replaced with the next best man. I would contend that people respect more a man who TOOK power through his strength (and that they support, of course) than one that they put there themselves, since the former gained power entirely through his own work, while the latter was given power without having to do anything other than pay lip service to the almighty people and their whims. Let me conclude by saying that I do NOT favour a system where the leader is not held to any laws - on the contrary, like my ancient ancestors, I think the law should have to be followed by all men. I just think that the government should be strong, and run according 100% to Nature's eternal, perfect laws, and not by a system which seems best to grant the whims of the weak - might is right, as all of Nature declares, and therefore, those not strong enough to take, do not deserve, and so I would go so far as to say that a people not strong enough to rebel against a corrupt leadership does not deserve its freedom.

People look to themselves, and their lives, they worry about their relatives, their friends, their surroundings and their happiness. "Heros" are nice for religious zealots or soldier types, wich ironically, are the perfect example of "brainless mob" you so much despise. You can't tell people to be "responsible" and to come with guns over their government if anything doesn't go their way, while at the same time telling them to forfeit any power whatsoever. Thats incoerent, and it's actually AGAINST nature itself. If one feels he has power, he will TAKE power, because thats what he must do to take a "step up" in life.

As for nature itself, most rural communities of old were ruled by committee, with appointed leaders who would live AMONG their peers, because thats the only true measure of acountability, when the ruler, or rulers are part of the community their are rulling over. So if anything bad happens to them, it is happening to all. Thats why i propose the system that i do.

A thread over at SF, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t815622/#post9383739

A very interesting topic, I think we should present our views in that thread.

Secondly, how would YOU govern a White Nation?

Molov wrote:A thread over at SF, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t815622/#post9383739

A very interesting topic, I think we should present our views in that thread.

Secondly, how would YOU govern a White Nation?

I've actually been in the process of writing an essay on this very subject, entitled "Governing the Workers' State." Most of us here endorse the establishment of an ergatocracy, we just disagree on some of the finer details.