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