ZGram - 9/26/2003 - "The Nature of N.S. and the Dangers of Compromise" - Part I

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

September 26, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Below is an absolutely extraordinary "revisionist" essay - which came 
to me essentially sans punctuation.  At first, it was exceedingly 
difficult to read, and hence to understand, since the phrases and 
sentences ran into each other.  Additionally, there were some 
spelling mistakes distorting meaning and some connectives missing, 
which didn't help.  But what a fine mind - and what cogent and 
rational thinking!  I took the liberty of playing the grammarian, not 
claiming that I fixed every flaw - and not claiming either that I 
understood every thought-within-a-thought of this essay.  I got the 
drift - and hope that you will, too.  (Where there are square 
brackets, I inserted a little something to help the flow along ...)

This essay ought to be placed in forums (fora?  fori?) where 
otherwise sane, reasonable and good-natured intellectuals with that 
well-known funny reflex can be found that makes them kick a dead man 
in the shin so as to preen themselves about their own above-board 
ethics to their colleagues - who'll never fail to nod approvingly. 
(By the way, NSDAP stands for Nationalsozialistische deutsche 
Arbeiterpartei...simplified, the Hitler Workers' Party)

I'll ship you this essay in two parts since it is rather long and not 
that easy to digest.  It's worth the effort, though.

Part I herewith:

[START]

The Nature of N.S. and the Dangers of Compromise

This list, like all Eurocentric forums that don't cater to Hollywood 
nazis, expends a fair amount of effort on lambasting the lunatic 
fringe and condemning national socialism in the hopes of widening the 
appeal of nationalism. Perhaps it would be fruitful to step back from 
the rote condemnations and ritualistic appeals to moderation and 
address the matter of what exactly National Socialism entails, what 
are the essential elements of Eurocentrism, realistically appraise 
what the NSDAP regime stood for as well as consider the threats and 
opportunities inherent [to] compromise with a destructive Zeitgeist.

As a starting point, it seems worth stating that, to a significant 
extent, all Eurocentrics are historically inclined and prone to 
nostalgia and that such tendencies can be, but often are not, 
positive in that they at least implicitly recognize that our 
identities are the product of our unique histories and the sacrifices 
and visions of our ancestors. In this respect we differ from the 
proponents of the anti-culture and Occidental destruction in that we 
do not subscribe to utopian constructs and societal formations that 
have never existed, nor do we speak of remaking humanity to conform 
with an ahistorical ideal via social engineering - as the Fabians, 
Anarchists, various flavors of Bolsheviks, Social Democrats, and 
others that reject folkish conceptions of humanity do. As 
Eurocentrics we recognize, or at least we ought to, that our 
existence has as its meaning the perpetuation and advancement of the 
genetic and cultural inheritance bequeathed to us by our ancestors, 
whose communal environment was an expression of the majesty of 
providence.

As a result, we should realize the folly of taking inspiration from 
that which never was, as [it] is promoted by the likes of 
Saint-Simon, Fourier, or Godwin, as well as that which cannot be (ex. 
the new Soviet Man) and that which requires the destruction of that 
which is of proven value for the transitory and nebulous, as the 
proponents of the "tan everyman" would have us do. When looking to 
bygone eras, we see individuals and societies that prevented our 
enslavement and destruction and even cultural renewal and provided 
the means for salubrious living. Any era, society or individual that 
one could reasonably describe as providing such conditions deserves 
to be considered as a worthwhile source of inspiration, as European 
man is currently facing extinction and our cultures are nothing more 
than faded remnants of our ancestor's glories, strangled by the 
miasma of the anti-culture and demographic decline. It is my 
contention that the NSDAP era can be accurately described in such 
terms and represents the most recent example of Eurocentric 
resurgence.

As to the NSDAP era, it is and will remain an issue for us to 
confront, because every socializing institution of any significance 
in the Western world is controlled by interests that wish to destroy 
Europa and raise the specter Hitler a la Hollywood as a means of 
demonizing any manifestation of Eurocentrism. In order for one to 
successfully confront this perennial problem, we must have a basic 
understanding of what the NSDAP regime actually did - and address its 
relevance to the struggle today without recourse to the hoary 
demonology of establishment propaganda, nor the equally unfounded 
counter-myth promoted by those nostalgic for an era they are ignorant 
of.

While a great many theorists have written magnus opuses detailing the 
short-comings of
multi-racialism, the virtues of folkish societies, the mechanisms of 
racial decline and prescriptions for national restoration, very few 
have ever made a viable bid to have such notions put into action, let 
alone had the opportunity to put theory into practice on a societal 
scale. This is not to say that ideas not enacted on a societal scale 
are somehow lacking utility, but it is to say that such notions 
should be judged within the context of that which has been 
implemented or at least tried on a large scale.

We should give credit where due - and that means that accomplishments 
should be recognized even when the motive force has been both 
demonized and reasonably critiqued. In the case of the NSDAP regime, 
it should be recognized that it was a regime rather then a mere think 
tank, website, publication, sect, party, person or unfulfilled 
revolutionary faction, which simply can't be said of a great many 
NR/RC/NS manifestations that I and others of this list find more 
palatable. The Hitlerian regime succeeded in staving off the 
immediate destruction of Germany and successfully assisted numerous 
other forces of Eurocentric national insurgence in doing the same - 
as well as making a great many other credible efforts elsewhere.

Obviously, such efforts were done because they served the interest of 
the regime rather than some fully noble cause of pan-European 
salvation as we all would like, yet the consequences of not doing so 
would have had very grave [consequences] indeed for a great many 
nations of Europa. While some here doubtlessly prefer other rightist 
regimes of similar vintage and rightly point out the substantial 
differences they held with the German model, and that Axis alliances 
were often marriages of convenience, the fact remains that they would 
have had more dubious prospects, were it not for the efforts of NS 
Germany to create a pan-European legion opposed to both Jewish Social 
Democracy/cultural Bolshevism in the West and Jewish Bolshevist 
totalitarianism in the East. If General Victor Suvorov's writings 
(see: Journal of the Royal Institute for Defense Studies June '85 ) 
are accurate, Western Europa would have fallen to the tender mercies 
of Stalin, had not Hitler invaded the USSR in '41 - placing Hitler 
into a very small group of leaders that can legitimately claim to 
have staved off the military conquest of the West, which in and of 
itself makes the regime worthy of recognition and qualified 
admiration in some respects.

It is also undeniable that while one hears much talk about forging an 
economic path that is neither "right nor left", NS Germany under the 
economic genius of Hjalmar Schacht underwent one of the greatest 
economic recoveries of history, along with some noteworthy progress 
towards social justice. One of course does hear comments to the 
contrary from Strasserites, who reject racialism, praise Bolshevik 
economics, fawn over Mao and Che while quoting obvious forgeries as 
unadulterated historical truth - as well as various theorists 
unencumbered by the realities of governance. All of which is to say 
that while the NSDAP model was obviously not intended for export, nor 
in accordance with the vision of National Socialism I adhere to, it 
does not deserve to be summarily discounted as mere capitalism -  as 
the Bolsheviks and idealists within our ranks often do with 
unqualified certitude.

While I often have commented upon my fondness for agrarianism and the 
examples, in theory, advanced by French, Iberian and Nordic 
proponents of guild/corporatist/sydicalist arrangements as a way of 
advancing an Organic society, Walther Darre made it a reality until 
wartime conditions, combined with personal conflicts and bureaucratic 
struggles, forced his vision to give way to the pragmatic methods of 
Herbert Backe. That I find myself more in tune with Maurras, Marquise 
De La Tour Du Pin, Antonio Sardindha, Pedro Teotonio Pereira and 
Roloa Preto and some of my own landsmen than the Third Reich simply 
means that I am forced to admit that Hitler, in spite of numerous and 
serious flaws with his regime, had gotten closer to making 
nationalist agrarianism a reality than did the rightist Iberian 
regimes, in spite of their longer life and domestic tranquility.

While plenty of nationalist regimes forcibly beat back the forces of 
moral degeneration and should be commended for doing so, the example 
of a folkish disposition being instilled by the new regime resulting 
in a cultural renewal of major proportion is something that very few 
in contemporary nationalist circles can lay claim to their preferred 
theorist or find replicated within the modern era, let alone living 
memory. One can also point to the vast outpouring of high quality 
life, affirming art along with fantastic technological advancements 
in countless areas as yet another indication of an inherent value of 
the NSDAP regime. The upshot of all of this is that the wholesale 
denunciations the NSDAP regime, and anyone that expresses an interest 
in what it offered, are ill-founded.

Also ill-founded are the notions that the regime can serve as a basis 
for contemporary activism and ideology. I say this not because of the 
atrocity propaganda pushed by the establishment but rather because of 
inherent problems with the model itself. As Irmin so truthfully 
pointed out: "Hitler defined his own national socialism as a uniquely 
German movement: 'The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always 
proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German 
people.' (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945) In other words, 
German National Socialism arose at a specific time in a specific 
place under the pressure of a unique set of historical circumstances, 
none of which could ever be precisely replicated elsewhere. In 
particular, the autocratic Führer state, central to NS Germany and 
still advocated by a few racial nationalists, would never be 
acceptable to Americans; our republican political culture and belief 
in individual rights is, thankfully, far too strong. Hitler was a 
dictator and his government authoritarian; Americans prefer their 
political and civil liberties, such as they currently are."

On a fundamental level one can point out the obvious fact that  the 
NSDAP model depended upon strong autocratic figures that simply don't 
have any modern equivalents, nor the societal conditions in which 
they could thrive if they did exist, meaning that slavish adherence 
to the Hitlerian model is simply not an option anywhere in the 
Occident. Furthermore, in spite of the abyssic [?] hate displayed by 
the Hollywood Nazis, the truth remains that the ideology of the NSDAP 
was a compressive world view used to address the problems of the day 
in all societal spheres. I have yet to hear any concrete 
recommendations on how one can make the legal, economic and societal 
prescriptions of the old regime valid today by even genuinely wise 
chaps like Colin Jordan.

In moral respects, a sensible person can easily reject the inane 
propaganda that keeps making the rounds (ex. Hitler was Jewish, a 
pervert, a Satanist, junkie etc. or that NS is nothing more than 
racist communism) by those that wish to remove racialism from 
nationalism or pretend that theocratic pronouncements or Evolian 
notions [of] occult warfare are the basis for National Renewal as 
fifth columnists seeking to destroy what opportunities we do have for 
salvaging the West. Nonetheless, plenty of negative aspects exist 
that give reasonable people serious concerns about the NSDAP model. I 
refer to: the barbarous conduct of Einsatzgruppen, the widespread use 
of slave labor (yes, I realize it was needed to keep the war effort 
going), having a state be defined by a single leader causing 
succession problems, a severe authoritarianism that simply can't be 
held up as an inspiration in any but the most desperate of 
circumstances and an outlook that was Pan-European only because of 
wartime demands rather than by design. I deem these flaws serious 
enough to warrant the avoidance of using the NSDAP era as a model.

When genuine nationalists (not theocratic cranks, Strasserites and 
"Traditionalists") condemn the Hitlerian movement, it most often has 
as its basis a rejection of the costumed fetish types that one sees 
so much of in the American scene. While such people are in fact a 
great liability to the struggle, they also are grossly ignorant of 
NSDAP ideology and public policy that they simply do not deserve to 
be lumped in with honorable men like Mr. Jordan and the members of 
the old WUNS activists. The worst aspect of all of this is that after 
60 years or so omnipresent vilification of NS Germany and the 
suppression of genuine history and texts, the overwhelming majority 
of those attracted to the Hitler regime will be sociopaths incapable 
of productive activism or a genuine understanding of what the regime 
actually aspired to. As a result, I view the promotion of Third Reich 
style National Socialism to be counterproductive to such an extent 
that the minuscule number of sincere adherents that the school has 
are totally neutralized by the misfits that riddle such circles.

When what I have said is taken in total, the question arises as to 
how the Hitler matter should be handled. We can not ignore it, as the 
propasphere will continue to raise the specter of Hitler = satanic 
evil & stupidity = any fundamental rejection of multi - racialism. I 
for one can't trust anyone that feels the need to make ritualistic 
condemnations of the Third Reich while repeating widely accepted 
falsehoods, as such notions, it seems, almost always lead to avoiding 
addressing the Jewish question or pretending that race is somehow 
less than critical to the future of Europa. In the end, the only way 
that I can advise the matter be handled in good conscience is to 
simply state [that] we should state clearly that our efforts to 
prevent the destruction of our kinfolk and the restoration of our 
heritage and historic obligations to blood and soil do not entail 
mimicry of any past regime - that we, instead, stand for the eternal 
values of folkish restoration, self determination and separatism for 
all races and an adherence to public policies that preserve our 
uniqueness as a biologic and cultural entity and nothing more.

[END of Part I]

(Source:  http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1354" )