The Third Reich Was Not a Dictatorship, It Was Holistic
Note: This article is sourced from Richard Tedor’s book, “Hitler’s Revolution”. Noble has edited & condensed sections from Chapter 1. Tedor’s book has 270 pages of text, supplemented by over 1000 footnotes and a bibliography of over 200 authors, mostly German. This book is still available on Amazon. Secure a copy now before jewry has it “canceled”. https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-revolution-Richard-Tedor/dp/0988368226
For greater context, check out Kyle Hunt’s interview with Richard Tedor: http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/the-blitzkrieg-broadcast-w-kyle-hunt-4-11-14/
THE NSDAP RE-ALIGNMENT
"In the German nation the idea of freedom has always been connected with duties rather than with rights… The German fight is not a fight for freedom in the sense of being free from duties. It is the fight for a mission in which we try to live up the great duty which we were given. This is why the German nation is the most revolutionary in Europe and at the same time it is the nation where the all-enlightening ideas of inner-freedom originated. We are conscious that the inner values of the Germans, honor, faithfulness, loyalty and pride, represent the best elements of the European races.” -Alfred Rosenberg
The National Socialists government (NSDAP) in Germany, beginning in 1933, began to realign government policies with German & European customs & traditional practices. They believed their goals corresponded to the natural progression of their continent, and found the diametrical Western-democratic concept to be foreign & immoral.
The National Socialist conviction that a nation possesses its own ethos, a collective personality based on related ethnic (folk) heritage, and a natural ranking within mankind determined by performance, has no merit in Western-democratic thinking.
National Socialism was not a spontaneous phenomenon that derailed Germany’s evolution and led the country astray. It was a movement anchored deeply in the traditions & heritage of the German people, and their fundamental requirements for life. Adolf Hitler gave tangible political expression to ideas nurtured by many of his countrymen that they considered complimentary to their national character. Though Hitler’s party’s popular support was mainly a reaction to universal economic distress, his coming to power was nonetheless a logical consequence of German development.
A MUCH BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO LIBERALISM
"The liberal ideology, as a consequence of its folkish hostile absence of barriers, introduced the idea that by the doctrine of freedom of mind and the doctrine of equal rights for all, activity of a political & instructive nature was interpreted completely without any relation to a shaping centre. Therefore, equal rights were allowed not only to a fighter against the state form but, beyond this, to an agitator against the folkdom… The latter had the same rights as one who had risked his life a hundred times in the trenches. The intellectualizing liberal bastard even regarded it as particularly humane to cultivate international world ideas while arrogantly deriding every expression of the rights of his own people. It is self evident that chaos must follow.” -Alfred Rosenberg
True to the nationalist trend of his age, Hitler promoted Germany’s self-sufficiency & independence. His party (NSDAP) advocated the sovereignty of nations. This helped place the German realm, or Reich, on a collision course with a diametrical philosophy of life, a world ideology established in Europe & North America for well over a century; Liberalism. National Socialism rejected liberal democracy as repugnant to German morality and to natural order.
Liberalism had been crucial for humanity’s transition into the modern age. During medieval times, feudalism had prevailed in Europe. Local lords parceled land to farmers & artisans in exchange for foodstuffs, labor and military service. This fragmented political system, void of central government, gradually succumbed to the authority of kings.
Supported by narrow strata of noblesse & clergy, the royals became “absolute monarchs”, supposedly ruling by divine right. Common people found little opportunity for advancement. Only those choosing a career with the church received an education. Kingdoms provided the basis for modern central governments, but contributed little else to progress.
The revival of learning, with its interest in surviving literature from the Ancient World, led men to contemplate alternatives to the socially & politically stagnant royal regimen. The Renaissance was Europe’s intellectual & cultural rebellion against “absolute monarchy” and its spiritual ally, the clergy. Defying religious superstition & intolerance, the great minds of the age exalted reason above all. Awareness of the common man’s latent mental aptitude animated respect for the “individual”. Liberalism emerged as his liberator from the bondage of absolutism. It defined the state’s primary role as guarantor of one’s freedom and right to realize full potential in life.
Liberalism’s great legacy was making people conscious of their individual human rights, regardless of birth, and their right to representation in government. To many, the democratic concept became synonymous with liberty itself.
Hitler gained power in Germany in 1933 through constitutional means, yet campaigned to eradicate “democracy”. The National Socialists (NSDAP) interpreted individual freedom differently, in a way which they argued was more realistic for Germany’s circumstances.
National Socialist propagandists publicly acknowledged the contribution of liberalism. The “Die SA”, the weekly magazine of the party’s storm troops, wrote, “Thanks to the triumph of liberal thinking, the middle class, and other social strata experienced a major spiritual & economic impetus. Many valuable elements that would otherwise have lain fallow and undiscovered were unleashed to the benefit of all and put into action. It should also not be forgotten that after the wars of liberation (against Napoleon), the best representatives of German liberalism stood at the vanguard of the struggle for Germany’s unity against the interests of the egocentric princely dynasties.”
“Die SA” magazine nevertheless condemned the basic premise of liberalism, “The absolute freedom of liberalism will ultimately jeopardize the benefits of community life for people in a state. Attempting to place the individual ahead of the nation is wrong… For the individual to live, the nation first must itself live; this requires that one cannot do what he wants, but must align himself with the common interests of the people and accordingly accept limitations & sacrifices.”
Hitler advocated an organic state form. Like a biological organism, the government organizes society so that every component performs an individual function for the common good. No single stratum elevates itself to the detriment of the others. The organism prospers as an entity. In this way, so does each individual person or class. Society works in harmony, healthy and strongly unified against external influences or intrusion.
Note: The Third Reich aggressively sought out talented individuals, regardless of their former rank in society, from the bottom to the top (meritocracy), and ensured that they were able to receive the proper education & opportunities to utilize their abilities to the fullest, to the great benefit of the community as a whole. The Fundamentals of National Socialism are of utmost importance to understanding this article. Research the fundamentals here: http://www.renegadetribune.com/national-socialism-the-fundamentals-part-1/
"Every individual element within the Reich preserves its independent character, yet nonetheless subordinates itself to its role in the community.” -Germanic Guidelines (NSDAP)
In Hitler’s words from a November 1930 speech, “Proper is what serves the entire community and not the individual… The whole is paramount; is essential. Only through it does the individual receive his share in life, and when his share defies the laws of the entity, then human reason dictates that the interest of the whole must precede his interests.”
To organize persons into a cooperative & functional society requires that its members renounce certain personal ambitions for the welfare of others. Mutual concessions signify a willingness to work together. The common goals of society, such as defense, trade, prosperity, companionship and securing nourishment, people achieve through compromise for the good of all the people in the community.
Hitler believed that a nation disregarding this will not survive. He declared in an address in April 1937, “This state came into being, and all states come into being, through overcoming interests of pure personal will and individual selfishness. Democracy steers recklessly toward placing the individual in the center of everything. In the long run, it is impossible to escape the crisis such a conflict will produce.”
“Die SA” magazine warned that “without controls, the free reign of personal ambition leads to abuse.”
“In as much as liberalism was once of service in promoting the value of individual initiative & qualities of leadership, its ideals of freedom & personality have degenerated into the concept of downright arbitrary conduct in personal life, but even more so in economic & commercial life.”
The German Institute for the Science of Labor concluded, in its 1940-1941 yearbook, that liberal economic policies bring about “the destruction of any orderly society, since persons in commerce are released from every political & social responsibility.”
"(In Democratic societies) There is no longer a sacred moral bonding of the individual person to a community, and no bond of person to person through honor or personal trust. There is no mutual connection or relationship among them beyond purely material, self-seeking interests; that is, acquiring money.” -Germanic Guidelines (NSDAP)
The German journalist, Giselher Wirsing, cited the United States, the paragon of capitalist free enterprise, as an example of how liberal economic policies gradually create social imbalance with crass discrepancies between want and abundance. “Even in America herself, Americanism no longer spreads prosperity and improves the standard of living of the broad masses, but only maintains the lifestyle of the privileged upper class.”
A German study on the depression-era United States, called “What Does Roosevelt Want?”, stated, “So in the USA, one finds along with dazzling displays of wealth in extravagant, parvenu luxury, unimaginable poverty and social depravity… In the richest country in the world, the vaunted paradise of democracy, tens of thousands of American families endure the most meager existence. Millions of children and other citizens are underfed.”
Hitler’s own voice on the subject from a July, 1930 speech reaffirmed his contention that a community stands or falls as one, “Our nation cannot continue to exist as a nation unless every part is healthy. I cannot imagine a future for our people, when on one side I see well-fed citizens walking around, while on the other wander emaciated laborers.”
The June 1937 edition of “Der Schulungsbrief” offered this analysis, “Since liberalism believes in the sanctity & limitless reasoning power of the individual, it denies the state’s right to rule and its duty to direct society. To liberalism, the state is nothing more than the personification of every unjust use of force. It therefore seeks to reduce the authority of the state in every way.”
“Die SA” magazine summarized that “according to liberal perception, the state has no other task than that of a night watchman, namely to protect the life & property of the individual.”
Hitler argued that the absence of sufficient state controls in a democracy enables the wealthy class to manipulate the economy, the press and elected representatives for its own gain. A widening gulf between poverty & affluence develops, gradually dragging the working class to ruin.
"Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be ‘discovered’ by an election.” -Hitler
Addressing Berlin armaments workers in December 1940, Hitler claimed that the public’s voice in democratic systems is an illusion. “In these countries, money in fact rules. That ultimately means a group of a few hundred persons who possess enormous fortunes. As a result of the singular construction of the state, this group is more or less totally independent & free… Free enterprise this group understands as the freedom not only to amass capital, but especially to use it freely; that is, free from state or national supervision… So one might imagine that in these countries of freedom & wealth, unheard-of public prosperity exists. On the contrary, in those countries class distinctions are the most crass one could think of; unimaginable poverty on one hand and equally unimaginable riches on the other. These are the lands that control the treasures of the earth, and their workers live in miserable dumps. In these lands of so-called democracy, the people are never the primary consideration. Paramount is the existence of those few who pull the strings in a democracy, the several hundred major capitalists. The broad masses don’t interest them in the least, except during elections.”
"Absence of responsibility is the most striking indication of a lack of morality.” -Germanic Guidelines (NSDAP)
The German army brochure, “What do we fight for?” recognized that “Democracy failed because it was a product of liberalism. Focus on the individual led to self-idolatry and renunciation of the community, the unraveling of healthy, orderly natural life, according to the inordinate value placed on material possessions from the economic standpoint formed social classes, and fractured the community. Not those of good character enjoyed greater respect, but the rich… Labor no longer served as a means to elevate the worth of the community, but purely one’s own interests. Commerce developed independently of the people and the state, into an entity whose only purpose was to pile up fortunes.”
"Freedom cannot be made identical to arbitrariness (random choice), lack of restraint and egoistic inconsideration.” -NS Essays
Hitler regarded liberalism’s de-emphasis on communal responsibility as an obstacle to national unity. He endorsed the words of Machiavelli, “It is not the well-being of the individual, but the well-being of all that makes us great.”
Hitler took the rein of government in hand in a liberal political climate. To overcome the liberal ideal, which for many was freedom personified, he introduced an alternative state form. It created opportunities for self-development, but also instructed Germans in obedience. In so doing, Hitler eventually achieved the parity between individual liberty & state authority long contemplated by the German intellectual movement of the previous century. This was an economic & social miracle; a blue-print for other ethnic (homogeneous) nations in the future to successfully duplicate under the banner of National Socialism.
Note: Hitler’s economic & social miracle was actually not a “miracle”, it was simply the logical result of what happens when National Socialists run their nation without the parasitic influence of International jewry. National Socialism operates in accord with the Laws of Nature, the natural order of things. National Socialism is holistic & practical in its approach.
THE (HOLISTIC) AUTHORITARIAN STATE
“Yes, the German people was at that time a democracy before us, and it has been plundered & squeezed dry… What does democracy or authoritarian state mean for these international hyenas (jewry)? They don’t care at all! They are only interested in one thing… Is anyone willing to let themselves be plundered? Yes or no? Is anyone stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no? And when a democracy is stupid enough to keep quiet, then it is good… And when an authoritarian government declares, ‘You do not plunder our people any longer, neither from inside nor from outside,’ then that is bad.” -Hitler
“The peoples must decide. Either they want majorities or they want minds. The two together can never agree. But the great things on this earth have thus far been created by minds, and frankly, what they created was then usually destroyed again by majorities.” -Hitler
“As soon as I have finished laying the foundations of the Reich, I am going to step down and devote myself to the elaboration of our ideology.” -Hitler
“The fact that in the new Reich there will be only one army, one SS, one administration, will produce an extraordinary effect of power.” -Hitler
“If one were to depend on the broad masses, then the experience of the child playing with fire, not knowing what it is, would be repeated on the largest scale.” -Hitler
National Socialism employs the use of an authoritarian state. This is roughly a compromise between the liberal concept that administrations exist to serve the public, and absolutism’s doctrine that grants the head of state supreme authority to make political decisions. It disallows the majority’s voice in government, but promotes the welfare of diverse social & economic groups evenly.
“Die SA” magazine offered this definition of the authoritarian state, “It rests in the hands of the leader alone. He forms & directs his cabinet which makes policy decisions. But he also bears sole accountability to the nation for his actions. The diverse interests of individual strata of society he brings into harmony and balances in conformity with the general interests of the people. This is accomplished through the endeavors of representatives who work within their group’s respective occupations, but possess no political authority. In this way, conflicts of interest & class struggle are eliminated, as is unilateral control by any commercial or political special interest group.”
Hitler stressed that “a regime must be independent of such special interests. It must keep focused on the interests of everyone before the interests of one.”
With respect to commerce, Hitler announced that he intended “to crush the illusion that the economy in a state can conduct an unbridled, uncontrollable and unsupervised life of its own.”
Under National Socialism, the head of state wielded supreme power. This was with the understanding that there would be no favoritism directing public affairs, and that “along with the loftiest unlimited authority, the leader bears the final, heaviest responsibility.”
According to “Die SA” magazine, “This system differs from dictatorship in that the appointed leader accepts responsibility before the people and is sustained by the confidence of the nation… His actions insure that the leadership of the state is in harmony with the overall interests of the nation and its views. The essence of this system is overcoming party differences, formation of a genuine national community, and the unsurpassed greatness of the leadership as prerequisites. The leader of the authoritarian state personifies the principle of Frederick the Great; ‘I am the first servant of the state.’”
Dr. Joseph Goebbels, in charge of propaganda in Hitler’s cabinet, contrasted democracy with the authoritarian state in a speech to foreign journalists in Geneva in September 1933. “The people and the government in Germany are one (holistic). The will of the people is the will of the government and vice versa. The modern state form in Germany is a refined type of democracy, governed by authoritarian principles through the power of the people’s mandate. There is no possibility that through parliamentary fluctuations, the will of the people can somehow be swept aside or rendered unproductive.”
The authoritarian state form required that only persons exhibiting natural leadership ability assume positions of responsibility.
Hitler spoke of the importance of finding such individuals during a speech in Berlin in February 1933. “We want to re-establish the value of personality as an eternal priority; that is, the creative genius of the individual. In this way, we want to sever ties with any appearance of a listless democracy. We want to replace it with the timeless awareness that everything great can only spring from the force of the individual personality, and that everything destined to last must again be entrusted to the abilities of the individual personality.”
Hitler spoke of the importance of finding such individuals during a speech in Berlin in February 1933. “We want to re-establish the value of personality as an eternal priority; that is, the creative genius of the individual. In this way, we want to sever ties with any appearance of a listless democracy. We want to replace it with the timeless awareness that everything great can only spring from the force of the individual personality, and that everything destined to last must again be entrusted to the abilities of the individual personality.”
When Goebbels announced at the 1933 Berlin radio exhibition that Hitler’s revolution has “dethroned unbridled individualism,” this did not imply curtailing freedom for personal development.
Hitler clarified his party’s position in a January 1941 address. “Our ideal is the nation. In it we behold a mental & physical community which providence created, and therefore wanted, which we belong to. Through it alone we can control our existence… It represents a triumph over individualism, but not in the sense that individual aptitude is stifled or the initiative of the individual is paralyzed; only in the sense that common interests stand above individual freedom and all individual initiative.”
The National Socialist government assigned German schools to train the country’s cadre of future leaders. “Der Schulungsbrief” magazine defined it in this way, “Education receives the two-fold task of molding strong personalities and committing them to community thinking. The primary objective of ideological instruction is formation of a solid, community-oriented viewpoint. Building assertive personalities demands steady competitive performance, selecting the most accomplished, and setting standards of achievement according to questions of character, will and ability. Only achievement justifies advancement.”
Opportunities for self-development in the authoritarian state conformed to the National Socialist concept of individual freedom; “Being free is not doing what you want, but becoming what you are supposed to be.”
The Third Reich was not a dictatorship; it was authoritative & holistic! Common interests stood above individual freedom and all individual initiative; yet individual personality was cherished and highly nourished, being that it highly benefited the German community as a whole, and was supported by an authoritarian state framework that was free from the dictates of International jewry.
“What do people strive for who live a free & happy life, and take well-deserved pride in their nation’s progress? A family, a home and children! This is how it has been everywhere and at all times. A look at the statistics of the 1930s proves more clearly than any election results that the German people were very content at that time, and counted on a long time of peace. Anyone who claims that there was any considerable popular resistance against Adolf Hitler and his government before 1944 either lacks even the most basic understanding of those days, or is a contemptible liar!” -Prince Friedrich Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe (Germany)
“Woe to the people that fails to honor its heroes. It will cease producing them, cease knowing them. Heroes spring from the essence of their people. A people without heroes is a people without leaders, for only a heroic leader (Hitler) is a true leader able to withstand the challenge of difficult times. The rise or fall of a people can be determined by the presence or absence of a leader.” -Rudolf Hess
Note: In all important matters, Hitler never acted as a “dictator”, he never acted entirely on his own; on the contrary, in most cases his actions were guided by pertinent laws and by agreement with the government of the Reich. It is known that in particularly significant cases, like the Saarland, the succession of Hindenburg, the Enabling Act, etc., Hitler let the people themselves decide, and then acted according to the wishes they had expressed, either by plebiscite or through the Reichstag.
There is no doubt that Hitler could have gained power in the Reichstag in 1933 even without a vote, but he subordinated himself and his government to the decision of the old Reichstag. Hitler himself never felt that he had the power of a dictator. He once made the comment, “If one of us has the power of a dictator, then it’s Roosevelt, he has a much greater say in his country than I have in mine.”
Note: An authoritarian state, in its infancy, that arises in the aftermath of a collapsing Capitalist or Marxist-run country will differ greatly from an authoritarian state, in its advanced stages of successful development. In its infancy, to protect its people from the terrorist activity of Marxist partisans and globalist-funded destabilization & insurgency campaigns, the state must operate with a heavy-hand, which may infringe upon the “freedoms” of the individuals in order to protect the whole community at large. As internal threats diminish, protective restrictions will certainly subside. At all stages, however, the leader of the authoritarian state is contracted to deliver what was promised to the people, a commitment that the leader takes full responsibility for, and puts his life on the line to see it through. If the leader fails to deliver as a result of corruption or neglect, he will suffer grave consequences, unlike today’s Democratically-elected leaders who have get-out-of-jail-free cards on hand.
FONTE
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário