ZGram - 9/27/2003 - "The Nature of N.S. and the Dangers of Compromise" - Part II

zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Sat Sep 27 14:47:40 EDT 2003




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

September 27, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Part II on "The Nature of N.S. and the Dangers of Compromise":

[START]

A matter that cannot be separated from the issue at hand is the gross 
distortion of the term National Socialism. While one expects 
Americans to view the term as synonymous with the Third Reich as they 
lack an ingenious variant, the language skills and cultural 
background to know better, I have become distressed by seeing 
Europeans do the same. It should be common knowledge to everyone in 
Eurocentric circles that National Socialism has had numerous 
manifestations from the 1880s onward and that it simply makes no 
sense whatsoever to limit it [to] a system of governance found in 
Germany from '33 to '45.

Defining in a broad sense what is meant by National Socialism is a 
simple matter by defining key terms. A nation is the political 
expression of racial interests in the context of the Traditionalism 
of a homogeneous and fully sovereign folk rather than merely the 
perpetuation of coalition of disparate interests seeking dominance 
over society, as is currently the case. Such an expression can be 
either from the state or privately organized by societal interests, 
but what makes such arrangements nationalistic is the extent to which 
they can be made to maintain and advance their own Traditionalism 
rather than simply impose a sectarian will upon the nation, state, or 
government at large. Race is a widely extended aggregate comprised of 
those that share a highly similar genetic legacy. A history that 
produced a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and 
aesthetics, that encouraged societal cohesion over a great number of 
generations, is what defines a national Tradition. The means by which 
the collective affairs of the nation is carried out via a set of 
institutions that outlive their creators is what I refer to as the 
state. Government is nothing more than a temporary collection of 
individuals or organizations that control the state. Being a 
nationalist in part means recognizing the centrality of the fact that 
the nation is a product of the people that created the national 
Tradition we wish to protect.

Socialism is quite simply an economic arrangement whereby class-based 
oppression and conflict is actively discouraged by the state and/or 
society via institutionalized representation designed to balance the 
various sectoral interests within society. As such, socialism does 
not entail any particular form of governance (or theoretically any 
form of governance at all) and most definitely does not require state 
control of the economy. Prior to Marx, socialist doctrine was 
decidedly anti-statist (or libertarian in the pre-Randian sense of 
the term) favouring economic decentralization. Within the "rightist" 
camps, socialism had traditionally been seen as a means to counter 
the crass materialism, cosmopolitanism and urbanization that 
undermined the traditional societal arrangements of Europa. Socialism 
in such a context sought to stop class warfare which engendered 
bolshevism and societal decay while meeting traditional Catholic 
notions of social justice. These schemes entailed not state-run 
industries nor the destruction of private property but popular 
control over the means of production by employee-managed or owned 
enterprises organized into guilds and syndicates along the lines 
first described by the Marquise De La Tour Du Pin, latter guild 
socialists and distributalists. It should also be mentioned that a 
style of governance does not follow from such a form of socialism as 
one can readily note that La Tour Du Pin and Maurras both advocated 
an autocratic form of monarchy while their ideological descendants 
have promoted everything from plebescites to fascistic forms of 
governance. The form of the state and method of governance is 
legitimate to the extent [that] it maintains a racially based nation 
state with maximum sovereignty, minimal societal discord and a 
culture that reflects the traditional folkways and mores of the race 
that created the nation. As such, while I prefer a decentralized 
state and one that is not autocratic, I realize that under certain 
historical conditions authoritarianism may be the only means to 
prevent the destruction of the nation.

These ideas were integrated by numerous national revolutionary groups 
across Europa during the first few decades of the last century with 
the best known being a long series of French theorists, beginning 
with Berres and continuing with Valois, DeMann and a great many 
others that radically "reconstructed Marxism" into a conception 
designed to foster national unity and cooperation between the classes 
rather than the destruction of private property and a "dictatorship 
of the proletaria[t]".

A National Socialist then is one that fuses the biologic underpinning 
of nation with a state whose purpose is the advancement of the 
folkways and mores of a homogenous population sharing a common sense 
of purpose and an economy based upon the minimization of class 
conflict via sectoral representation. The form of socialism that I 
feel that best represents such a vision is detailed in strictly 
economic terms here: 
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/...f/gildpref.html although the 
site
http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Mary_Parker_Follett/ has some very good 
material as well as the works of the theorists I have mentioned 
earlier.

The preceding matters were raised in order to introduce the matter of 
the dangers and opportunities of moderation in an attempt to broaden 
the appeal of nationalism. Within nationalist circles one sees a 
great deal of efforts to surrender our core principles in the hopes 
that by being more like the establishment, our views will be accepted 
and we will be propelled to power.

Typically, this begins out of a fear of being called a "racist" or 
"hateful" leading to supposed Eurocentrics mimicking the 
propasphere's propaganda about the Third Reich. Simply denouncing 
Hitler does not satisfy those that control our nations, so supposed 
nationalists attempt to prove that they are socially acceptable by 
having the products of miscegenation, Jews and other racial aliens as 
members or even candidates and leaders. Oftentimes such parties will 
avoid raising any economic concept that is not already fully 
institutionalized so as to appear mainstream, while simply addressing 
some aspect of economic distress (ex. the welfare state, aid to 
asylum seekers, high taxes, de-industrialization etc.) while 
pretending that minor reforms done fully within the current framework 
of a globalized economy, social democracy and all other pillars of 
the current order are meaningful responses to the crisis of the West. 
Eventually, such compromises result in the faux nationalist of 
abandoning any fundamental rejection of muliracialism, racial 
separatism, and adoption of the neo-conservative position that 
culture exists independently of race and that the demographic decline 
of Occidental man is not the problem, but rather it is just happening 
too fast, and that an Occidental society will survive our demise via 
the magic assimilation, conversion to some modernistic version of 
Jew-approved Christianity, the mystical workings of "market forces" 
or the restoration of some legal doctrine sans the societal 
conditions that gave rise to it.

At best it leaves the nationalist opposition simply pointing out the 
negative consequences of societal destruction while completely 
avoiding the crux of the problem (i.e. the inherent nature of 
multi-racialism) or the consideration of any systemic solution in 
favour of simply reducing the rate of decay via mucking about with 
the tax code or reducing the rate of our dispossession via scaling 
back the third world invasion a bit. Following such a notion to its 
logical conclusion, one gets supposedly traditional Catholics that 
denounce Maurras and the delusion that Western civilization exists 
wherever the faith is prominent. Such a causal chain leads to the 
implicit multi-racialism found in American neo-confederate groups and 
the anti Occidental insanity found in the Scottish National Party. It 
also results in supposed paleo-conservatives like the American Pat 
Buchanan embracing multi-racialism while rejecting the societal 
damage it has done, all in the name of "respectability" as one can 
see here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=30233

This is not to say that genuine nationalists must never support 
populist parties that promote policies that stand to reduce the rate 
of our dispossession, as a great many parties in Europa seek to do. 
It is to say that we should not confuse the limited and short term 
gains brought about by such efforts as a victory for nationalism, nor 
should we let such efforts consume our energies to such an extent 
that they hamper the public promotion of real nationalism as a 
genuine alternative to the current order. Instead, populist parties 
serve mainly as a stopgap measure to buy us time to form activist 
cadres and tailor our policy prescriptions to various segments of our 
kinfolk and form tactical alliances with those that do not share our 
grand vision of National Restoration.

In the end, the efforts of appeasing the current order by the 
populists will fail because they have no systemic solution to the 
problems facing our nations, but merely peripheral reform that serve 
as a pressure valve for the establishment. We are already seeing just 
how short-lived such faux alternatives are in several recent 
elections, which are bound to come from the fact that pointing out 
the symptoms of decline but not addressing its causes prevents any 
profound change from happening.

As nationalists, our job is [to] prove by public activism and 
personal example that our cause is the only real and comprehensive 
alternative to societal decay. Fine-tuning the presentation of what 
we stand for need not and should not entail the surrender of 
principles, because gaining power is only useful and moral if used 
for the purpose of Occidental Restoration rather than simply the 
promotion of an election list that is somewhat less socially 
destructive than our supposed opponents. Rather than surrender 
principle to expediency we need [to] demonstrate not just the 
shortcomings of the current order but what we can offer that meets 
the needs of our countrymen.

We do so by pointing out how a nationalist economy provides our 
kinfolk with greater control over their own lives. We do so by 
detailing how the empowerment of local communities provides for a 
fuller, safer, more wholesome environment for our neighbors' 
children. We do so by addressing the value of our identity, the 
uniqueness and value of what our people have done. We do so by not 
demanding anything for our own folk that we would not grant to others.

[END]

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


More information about the Zgrams mailing list