Failings of the Third Reich: Historical Lessons For Contemporary Nationalists

[Cryonaut X]

Statism vs. Nationalism

When one looks beyond the smokescreen of volkish piety, the ugly truth is that the National Socialist experiment was essentially statist in nature. That is, all other concerns were subordinated to the interests of the state. The absolute primacy of the state in National Socialist Germany turned out to be the undoing of the whole experiment, and should serve as a warning to contemporary nationalists as well. The basic problem is that the modern state, regardless of any peculiarities in political organization, is essentially inimical to nationalism of any sort, and particularly to the holistic nationalism which National Socialism promised. It must be remembered that the state as we know it today first emerged in an era of consolidation. It's very nature is hostile to nationalism, for the state has only one purpose, the perpetuation of its own political institutions. To that end, states are all designed to maximize resources. As a result, the modern state tends inevitably toward a mechanized mass society. The state destroys the very distinctions that lie at the heart of nationality (and therefore nationalism). By embracing the absolute state, the leaders of the Reich doomed their movement. The needs of state drug Germany inexorably into a war she could not win, and the German volk ended up the greatest losers. What Hitler et al. missed was the subordinate role a truly nationalist state must play to a People. The state must be a reflection and extension of the volk rather than the volk a reflection and extension of the state. To do otherwise courts disaster.

Territorial Expansion

The other great mistake of the National Socialist experiment was its policy of territorial expansion. There are several inherent flaws in the whole notion which the Hitler regime apparantly missed or dismissed, to the sorrow of the German volk.

1. Territorial expansion inevitably strengthens the state at the expense of a People.

2. The military necessities of territorial expansion inevitably lead to greater urbanization, industrialization and environmental degradation, all forces hostile to nationalism. Territorial expansion in the modern world virtually ensures the rise of technocracy.

3. Territorial expansion undermines the very foundations of nationalism and collective identity. It virtually ensures greater mixing of races/ethnicities. Moreover, territorial expansion leads to geographic dislocation, and geographic dislocation leads to dislocation of cultural identity. When peoples are alienated from collective cultural identity, nationalism withers as they turn to the state or to material possessions (or both) to fill the void.

 

[Static]

Doh, almost thought it said 'Staticism'.

 

[Bleakest Harvest]

Static, methinks your head is beginning to inflate somewhat

 

[LiB]

Originally posted by Cryonaut X
When peoples are alienated from collective cultural identity, nationalism withers as they turn to the state or to material possessions (or both) to fill the void.

I can really relate to this and can apply this i especially in most urban areas, particularly multi-cultural communities where the once "dominant" English are now a minority, and its in these areas of racial tensions where outcrops of nationalism spring up. Most people i feel try to just ignore it and carry on with their materialistic lifes and hope for the best, because when all is said and done, everything is in a downward spiral engulfed in apathy when they themselves are being snubbed out and forced to cope with this influx of alienation.
I however dont think this void is brought on by lack of national/cultural identity, i think it is brought on by a feeling of helplessness of watching their community changing and having no say on what happens, because where else can people turn? in my opinion im going to have to contradict you, because in my experience, the most areas where they lack cultural identity, the more the outcrys of nationalism and pride can be found, an angry, outraged native population.

 

[Kozmos]

Originally posted by LiB
...in my opinion im going to have to contradict you, because in my experience, the most areas where they lack cultural identity, the more the outcrys of nationalism and pride can be found, an angry, outraged native population.

This is not a contradiction. You almost completed the explanation yourself. This kind of nationalism is a counter-reaction to the lack of identity caused by a lack of genuine nationalism in the first place. This reactionary type of nationalism tends to be negative and is very easy for politicians to manipulate for the purpose of directing people.

The application of absolute ideologies to society in modern times is usually an attempt by leaders to manipulate the population for their own ends. That's what ended up happening in Germany by Hitler (very gradually and very cleverly) and, in my opinion is starting to happen in a similar way in the US right now. The political colour may be different but that matters very little.

At the end of the day, modern technologically advanced civilisation is very difficult to socially organise in a way that is spiritually (or culturally) beneficial to the individual. It's just the nature of our modern mode of existence. I believe this is the reason why those in the present day western world, who are awakened to a need for spirituality and culture, search for it in a personal rather than social way.

 

[LiB]

Originally posted by Kozmos
The application of absolute ideologies to society in modern times is usually an attempt by leaders to manipulate the population for their own ends.

this is true, but without absolute idelogies being applied you get to the stage where we are at now, a kinda wishy-washy monarchy/democracy/liberal mess with hardly any control, respect for the law or population who really care. Im not saying we should be far right extremists or die hard communists, im just saying that with so many compromises being inacted in parliament these days its no surprised that things are going downhill as fast as they are. Politicians completely U-Turn on their agendas for sympathy votes and to make themselves more main stream.

I beleive anyone given a choice between any number of systems would not pick the system we live in today, because it completely goes against the individual and is not benefical spiritually or culturally. The only thing society today benefits is our need of greed, and it dosent even do that efficiently.

 

[Kozmos]

I know what you mean about the "wishy-washy" - the great rush for the middle ground etc.

I guess what I am saying is that, in my opinion, no longer can any political ideology provide a social structure that will support the cultural and spiritual needs of the populace. Not because of the ideology itself but because the very nature of our mode of existence in present day western civilisation has greatly reduced any potential impact of society (and thus politics) on the cultural and spiritual "well being" of the individual.

Materialism works in an iterative way: it begets greater materialism. It also focuses attention on the material needs/desires of the individual putting society further and further into second place. I don't mean this in a negative way, however. I think it's a natural part of the development of civilisation in a technologically advanced world. A process with too much momentum to be significantly redirected by any social policy.

The world is in a constant state of change and the formulae of the past will not necessarily work in the future, however much the aspects of human nature that drive the intentions behind such formulae remain constant. The most powerful aspect of nature (including human) is it's ability to adapt. Something too easy to under-estimated. It may well be the case that those who feel a spiritual/cultural need most strongly will inevitably form their own sub-culture (and sub-society) or continue their search alone depending upon their inclination.

 

[LiB]

firstly sorry for the copius amount of mistakes last post *blushes*. The more i discuss this the more depressed everything makes me, because i beleive we are not meant to live like this. I believe culture and spiritual "well being" is far more important than the pursuit of wealth, because this in my opinion is what wealth really is. Thats what i am in the heart, like i am a communist at heart. I know my heart has no place in todays society which is why i choose to keep quiet and just play the game of life as it is now.

The real problem is there are so many different types of culture and so many lifestyles living in such a small area that its impossible to even begin to cater for it all. Because what you cater for in one culture could directly offend another culture, which is one of the reasons i beleive multi-culturalism cannot work and is flawed, much like opposed religions living side by side, it just creates too much conflict, and people are scared of what they dont understand and largely ignorant of others beliefs and values.

Also another question is morality, with each lifestyle comes a different set of moral guiding principles, whats violent in 1 society or culture is common practice in another. The more i think about it the more bleak everything becomes, we are heading down a road of increased tension and conflict and the government is just acting as a catalyst to all the problems years down the line.

 

[Sadistik]

Originally posted by Cryonaut X
Statism vs. Nationalism

When one looks beyond the smokescreen of volkish piety, the ugly truth is that the National Socialist experiment was essentially statist in nature. That is, all other concerns were subordinated to the interests of the state. The absolute primacy of the state in National Socialist Germany turned out to be the undoing of the whole experiment, and should serve as a warning to contemporary nationalists as well. The basic problem is that the modern state, regardless of any peculiarities in political organization, is essentially inimical to nationalism of any sort, and particularly to the holistic nationalism which National Socialism promised. It must be remembered that the state as we know it today first emerged in an era of consolidation. It's very nature is hostile to nationalism, for the state has only one purpose, the perpetuation of its own political institutions. To that end, states are all designed to maximize resources. As a result, the modern state tends inevitably toward a mechanized mass society. The state destroys the very distinctions that lie at the heart of nationality (and therefore nationalism). By embracing the absolute state, the leaders of the Reich doomed their movement. The needs of state drug Germany inexorably into a war she could not win, and the German volk ended up the greatest losers. What Hitler et al. missed was the subordinate role a truly nationalist state must play to a People. The state must be a reflection and extension of the volk rather than the volk a reflection and extension of the state. To do otherwise courts disaster.

Territorial Expansion

The other great mistake of the National Socialist experiment was its policy of territorial expansion. There are several inherent flaws in the whole notion which the Hitler regime apparantly missed or dismissed, to the sorrow of the German volk.

1. Territorial expansion inevitably strengthens the state at the expense of a People.

2. The military necessities of territorial expansion inevitably lead to greater urbanization, industrialization and environmental degradation, all forces hostile to nationalism. Territorial expansion in the modern world virtually ensures the rise of technocracy.

3. Territorial expansion undermines the very foundations of nationalism and collective identity. It virtually ensures greater mixing of races/ethnicities. Moreover, territorial expansion leads to geographic dislocation, and geographic dislocation leads to dislocation of cultural identity. When peoples are alienated from collective cultural identity, nationalism withers as they turn to the state or to material possessions (or both) to fill the void.

shut it

 

[Cryonaut X]

Originally posted by Kozmos
I know what you mean about the "wishy-washy" - the great rush for the middle ground etc.

I guess what I am saying is that, in my opinion, no longer can any political ideology provide a social structure that will support the cultural and spiritual needs of the populace. Not because of the ideology itself but because the very nature of our mode of existence in present day western civilisation has greatly reduced any potential impact of society (and thus politics) on the cultural and spiritual "well being" of the individual.

Materialism works in an iterative way: it begets greater materialism. It also focuses attention on the material needs/desires of the individual putting society further and further into second place. I don't mean this in a negative way, however. I think it's a natural part of the development of civilisation in a technologically advanced world. A process with too much momentum to be significantly redirected by any social policy.

The world is in a constant state of change and the formulae of the past will not necessarily work in the future, however much the aspects of human nature that drive the intentions behind such formulae remain constant. The most powerful aspect of nature (including human) is it's ability to adapt. Something too easy to under-estimated. It may well be the case that those who feel a spiritual/cultural need most strongly will inevitably form their own sub-culture (and sub-society) or continue their search alone depending upon their inclination.

We are living under end-stage liberal democracy (that is, consumerism). The problem is that this is essentially an unsustainable existence; the process probably is possessed of too much momentum to be redirected, but the reality is that "onward, ever upward" is a utopian dream. The inevitable result is the collapse of the resource base which has supported the consumerist construct due to overconsumption, at that point, the "endgame" sets in (collapse of statist structures, liberal democratic and others). True nationalist (really tribalist) polities offer, I think, the best possible means of reconstruction in a post-endgame environment (actually, they probably represent the ideal means of social organization even now, but the entrenched order isn't going anywhere).

 

[demon talented]

So you're saying a nationalistic state could exist to foster things for the people? It seems that every government that's ever existed has been quite contrary to that... In fact, people end up serving the government, no the other way around - especially in nationalistic countries.

The idea intrigues me though.

 

[Cryonaut X]

That's largely due to the construction of the modern state, which exists for two purposes: to maximize production and resource use and to perpetuate its own existence. The truly nationalist polity would by necessity be organized at a community rather than state level, avoiding the concentration of power typical in statist regimes.

 

[demon talented]

Hm... I'm not sure how to respond. It actually sounds more like the agragian country Thomas Jefferson imagined. So, I'm wondering about application. This sounds cliché, but what about defense of country? Also, if it is community oriented, isn't there going to be natural rivalry among groups? Typically, nationalism is thought to be a federal nation, of course, while you're suggesting separation of that?

 

[Cryonaut X]

Originally posted by TheLedTool
Hm... I'm not sure how to respond. It actually sounds more like the agragian country Thomas Jefferson imagined. So, I'm wondering about application.

The ideal here is something along the lines of the Classical polis.

This sounds cliché, but what about defense of country?

The lack of a large scale state structure doesn't make defense impossible (see the successful defense of Greece against Persia).

Also, if it is community oriented, isn't there going to be natural rivalry among groups?

There is a natural rivalry among groups that transcends political organization.

Typically, nationalism is thought to be a federal nation, of course, while you're suggesting separation of that?

The basic idea would a confederation of autonomous communities representing a common culture.

 

[bleedingskeptic]

*cough* communists *cough*

don't ask me how but you are making nationalism sound like marxism...either that or i'm not getting it.

 

[Cryonaut X]

No, you're not. Marxism is in practice an ideology of the total state, not to mention opposed to every ideal of nationalism.

 

[Static]

Originally posted by Sadistik
shut it

Best...post...ever.

 

[Kozmos]

Originally posted by LiB
I believe culture and spiritual "well being" is far more important than the pursuit of wealth, because this in my opinion is what wealth really is.

very refreshing to hear that.

Originally posted by Cryonaut X We are living under end-stage liberal democracy (that is, consumerism). The problem is that this is essentially an unsustainable existence; the process probably is possessed of too much momentum to be redirected, but the reality is that "onward, ever upward" is a utopian dream. The inevitable result is the collapse of the resource base which has supported the consumerist construct due to overconsumption, at that point, the "endgame" sets in (collapse of statist structures, liberal democratic and others). True nationalist (really tribalist) polities offer, I think, the best possible means of reconstruction in a post-endgame environment (actually, they probably represent the ideal means of social organization even now, but the entrenched order isn't going anywhere).

I like your characterization of the scenario as "end-game". It reminds me of Plato's model of the progression of political system through the ages of a civilisation. Democracy is the penultimate phase. The final Phase is the Age of Tyrants with democracy being a thing of the past. Sometimes it feels like that's pretty close.

I'm starting to see where my approach to this topic differs from others in this thread: When one looks at the short term it does appear that social policy effects human behaviour but when you take a step back and look at the longer term it becomes clear that the gradual shifts in human behaviour throughout the ages of a civilisation are in fact the driving force and the political systems are an effect. I see the force of this as being like a tide that eventually washes away the flimsy conditioning attempts of social policy with great ease. I think that a degeneration of our "consumerist" (as you put it) civilisation into tyranny and total chaos is an inevitability. Eventually, as with all civilisations, ours will end.

 

[demon talented]

The best clarification would be in economic differences, which have not really been mentioned.

 

[LiB]

The economics have been mentioned, just not applied to any political theory. Its all essentially the same. The use of "scarce" resources to meet peoples "unlimited" wants in the most efficient way. This definition is inherrently bound to fail as there are limited resources and unlimited wants which eventually means we reach that end stage cryonaut said. When the resource base collapses and modern markets fail.

In the end it dosent really matter. The population will keep growing, the limited resources will be further and further stretched and we will tear ourselves apart. The only way i can foresee anything happening to reverse this affect is population control, a central state for rationing and limiting pretty much every type of production which goes against contemporary classical economic theory of free markets without intervention.

I think its a real shame that politicans refuse to talk about the cause of all the problems which is the shear number of people living today. If you ignore this then everything you do will fail, because without this, every problem you solve is 'short term'