EGI and National Socialism, Part III: National Socialist Basics

Fundamental characteristics.

See this.  There, National Socialism is defined as:

A collectivist authoritarian system centered on a race-based palingenetic ultranationalism.

In other words: racial fascism.

A more modern definition: An authoritarian political system that utilizes collectivist organization to promote the ethnic genetic interests of the population, in the context of palingenetic ultranationalism.

Let us consider what I consider the fundamental characteristics, the foundational basics, of National Socialism, independent of the specific Hitlerian aspects of the historical German National Socialist German Worker’s Party (e.g., Germanocentic chauvinism, Nordicism, aggressive military expansionism, certain attachments to traditionalist feudalism, etc.).  In other words, what is the “National Socialist minimum” that would be applicable to, say, a pan-European national socialism?

The “national” part of the philosophy notes that it is a very particularistic ideology, focused on a particular ingroup – nation as a people, not as merely a nation state. National Socialism in its fundamental (as opposed to specifically German) form does not necessarily define what the “people” is, other than it has to be, ultimately, based on some sort of shared ancestry, there has to be a biological basis (see below) for the ingroup. Ingroup-outgroup competition is fundamental to the ideology, and to its particularistic nature; thus, “humanity” as a whole cannot be an ingroup, although a broad racial group (e.g., European-derived peoples) can be, in competition with other racial blocs. Therefore, in the sense of pursuing interests, National Socialism is opposed to humanism and universalism, although Universal Nationalism can be compatible with National Socialism, as other groups are entitled to have their own racial (or ethnic) blocs, although, as previously stated, these will be the subject of competition (although this competition need not threaten the existence of any group).

Being a form of fascism, National Socialism is, naturally, “ultra-nationalist,” the nationalism is of an extreme nature and, also according to its fascist nature, palingenetic in nature.  The nationalism centers on rebirth, a new order, change, and in National Socialism this is focused on, first and foremost, biological race, although cultural and civilizational considerations are also important.  Akin to ethnic genetic interests (EGI), National Socialism considers the biological to be ultimate interests while other considerations, while they may be extremely important, are proximate interests.

The “socialism” is political, not necessarily economic and thus private property and some degree of free market capitalism can be consistent with National Socialism (although economic socialism can be a part of the ideology’s implementation if desired).  Political socialism implies the reality that National Socialism is a collectivist ideology.  Now, Western individualism can of course be part of National Socialism, the ideology does not aim for an Asiatic hive-like mindless conformity; indeed, National Socialism opposes that (and that is one National Socialist critique of Bolshevism/Marxism – that it led to such an Oriental insect hive society).  However, although Western traditions of individual expression, Faustian overcoming, and the development of superior individual are prized, collectivism means that – at least when necessary – individualism and individual interests need to be subordinated to the collective good of the nation/people/race. When there is a conflict, particularly when the conflict becomes existential in the sense of threatening the racial basis of the people, then individual rights are sacrificed to serve collective interests. This also suggests when political socialism requires economic socialism – in the cases where private enterprise conflicts with national interests then private enterprise must be subordinate to state control, leading to at least some degree of economic socialism. Thus, decisions about economics are based on what is perceived as best for the collective; the economy is a mean and not an end.  Unlike Marxism, National Socialism does not derive its fundamental values from economics, but from the natural laws of evolved organisms, the struggle of life itself.

National Socialist collectivism manifests on what can be termed “hierarchical egalitarianism” – which is not an oxymoron.  National Socialism is egalitarian in that it strives to do away with class distinctions and makes all members of the nation – defined as a specific biocultural people – equal members of the “folk community," independent of class, wealth, status, etc.  All have the opportunity for upward mobility, and to prove their worth in the service of their people.

However, National Socialism is hierarchical in two meanings of the word. First, and fundamentally, it recognizes differences between people and ranks people based on inherent worth – that worth not based on class, wealth, status, etc. but instead based on racial values, merit, accomplishment, service, etc. These differences can be those between ingroup and outgroup and they can also be those within a group, such as recognized differences within the ingroup, meaning that while all members of the nation are fundamentally equal parts of the folk community (egalitarianism) so are more valuable specimens than others and are allowed to rise or fall based on their ability (hierarchical).  Second, hierarchy is manifested in the manner in which the nation state is politically organized, with a leadership cadre, and a leader-to-follower stratification of society based on overall worth (that is still egalitarian as members of the folk community have equal access to leadership possibilities independent of class or any other pre-determined societal stratification). This hierarchical political leadership need not lead to some of the “defective political institutions” identified by Salter in his On Genetic Interests analysis of fascist regimes.  Thus, I wrote:

Getting back to national socialist-style fascist regimes, one can ask: can the problem of defective political institutions be solved?  I think yes, if we presume that the “fuhrer principle” is not an essential feature of such regimes.  One could them consider authoritarian/totalitarian political structures that can have checks and balances (e.g. the Soviet regime had power split between Party, KGB, and Army –with Stalin being an aberration) and be responsive to the (properly informed) will of the people.  I have always been intrigued by Fest’s talk of “totalitarian democracy” in his book on Hitler; point is, we can consider “fascism” broadly conceived as a flexible, living ideology and not as a fossilized, history artifact.  In this way, national socialist political structures can be envisioned that can control elite free-riders and constrain ethnic mobilization within reasonable limits. One need not resort to democracy – which has been discredited with the destructive evil of multiculturalism and mass migration – to ensure the stability of any future EGI-based regime.

Again, we need to separate the fundamental basics of National Socialism from its specific implementation by the Hitlerian National Socialists of Germany.