Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: National Socialism Is Platonic in Origin

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 12:02 AM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    585
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Paradagm here has hit on a very significant fact. The evolution of what we consider the Germanic people and their world view has been greatly influenced by the older Latin culture. This is true, from it's religion to it's political structure, to it's form of coinage. Without getting into the debate about whether or not this is good or bad a fact remains it has hindered our people from developing, pursuing and understanding it's own law, religion and political science, which was superior to that of the Greco-Roman even in it's infancy.

    For an in depth look into the battle of the blood and spirit and the resulting schism: read here, a book I highly recommend to not only those of Anglo-Saxon decent but to all Europeans of Teutonic stock.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    velvet, I was posting the Platonic Tripartite State from what I was recently reading on Plato, and I thought it was be an interesting discussion piece. I was posting it from a neutral view. I didn't proclaim anything (except the origins of NS), I was posting what Plato proclaims, and discussing it. As far as how a government would be structured I lean more towards the Aristotelian idea, and I would favor an "aristocratic constitutional" government, which I had explained, and then stated my actual position. Maybe you should actually read the posts before replying. It's also useless to explain anything to you, so I won't even bother with trying to reply to anything else you said.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  3. #13
    Eala Freia Fresena
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, July 29th, 2019 @ 12:24 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    I think good ol' democracy on a republican stance is still the best choice. It simply needs protection from invasion of foreign elements, free flow of information, decentralized decision as much as possible. As little state as possible and as much as necessary.

    Power, concentrated in the hands of few, is most always getting corrupted.

    The thing depends on the type of people you have. If you create a people of sheeple, the platonic state has its merits.

    If your picture of humans include free-thinking, independent and responsible people a republic as the one in the US works well.

    To take children away from their mothers after birth and bring them up in military like quarters will only produce degenerates. Little Kids need their mothers, older boys need fathers (or father-figures) to grow up healthy.

    Plans made with the intellect without intuition, without base in tradition, customs etc. will fail.

    You have to be with the folk spirit to be successful with state-building. There might be a few basic ideas but in general things should be open to what direction the folk-spirit takes you.

    Old germanics have been heavy influenced by a priest-class which is missing in Plato's version of a state. Unless you see a 'philosopher-king' in the mold of druids/godes/priests etc. (Even Adolf claimed to be led by the 'Vorsehung', something like a spirituel plan he was part of)

    To keep leaders ethical they have to be intimately connected to the folk, as they are the ones ruled for. The leader should be someone who can see what the folk wants and puts it into a method to accomplish that aim. It is not a 'ruler' in its own power, it is not that the ruler owns the people and they are subject to HIS ideas.

    I strongely believe that the folk-soul, spirit or however you call it, is responsible for its destiny, its wanting, will, form etc.

    A leader should be closely connected to that entity, then he will be closely connected to the folk/people. People recognize such a leader as genuine as well as they clearly recognize a leader who is destructive of them.

    I think the idea of a state hinges on two things: How you perceive humans/the folk and how you see the influence of spirituell beings.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  4. #14
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 02:39 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Western
    Country
    Other Other
    Gender
    Posts
    1,983
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    32
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    61
    Thanked in
    29 Posts
    Democracy, while sometimes necessary as a short-term solution, has been recognized by all radical ideologists throughout history as a poor long-term solution (most notably Socrates), and by authentic National Socialists as the worst possible long-term solution. The most fundamental flaw of democracy is not even that it is extremely easily subverted, but that it is by definition government by majority opinion, which is never the best informed or most intelligent – let alone the kindest or noblest – opinion. Democracy at best is empowerment of mediocrity. Furthermore, the crimes of democracies are rarely punished, as it is very difficult to punish an entire voter bloc, with the unsurprising result that democracies have far less practical disincentive to crime than any dictatorship whose dictator can be pinpointed for account. And when majority opinion – in itself already a socially persuasive force – is further given political authority, it acquires an illusion of moral rectitude, meaning that democracies can rarely be brought to even admit their evil. The people will at most blame the representative they themselves selected, while retaining unshakeable confidence in their collective ability to wisely select his replacement.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Elessar View Post
    Democracy, while sometimes necessary as a short-term solution, has been recognized by all radical ideologists throughout history as a poor long-term solution (most notably Socrates), and by authentic National Socialists as the worst possible long-term solution. The most fundamental flaw of democracy is not even that it is extremely easily subverted, but that it is by definition government by majority opinion, which is never the best informed or most intelligent – let alone the kindest or noblest – opinion. Democracy at best is empowerment of mediocrity. Furthermore, the crimes of democracies are rarely punished, as it is very difficult to punish an entire voter bloc, with the unsurprising result that democracies have far less practical disincentive to crime than any dictatorship whose dictator can be pinpointed for account. And when majority opinion – in itself already a socially persuasive force – is further given political authority, it acquires an illusion of moral rectitude, meaning that democracies can rarely be brought to even admit their evil. The people will at most blame the representative they themselves selected, while retaining unshakeable confidence in their collective ability to wisely select his replacement.
    In a democracy the leaders are only temporary and rotate, so they themselves have no long term investments in the country or land. They have no incentive for a long term goal if their rule or position will be only a few years, or if you hold a seat in Congress you're more worried about keeping your seat than actually working. This is the problem with government in general that has no real property or wealth of it's own, only it's people, so it becomes an unproductive parasite, a leech, that's trying to get as much as it can in a short time per ruler. Compared to a monarchy or kingdom where there is actual incentive to keep the people or subjects happy (so you won't lose your investment), and with the land and kingdom as an investment you'd want to pass it down through your family line, etc. The differences in a democracy and a monarchy is that in a monarchy the rulers actually have property investments in the kingdom in which they rule. In a democracy the rulers are mere care takers for the time being. Also, when looking at who's to be accountable for mishaps or negative actions on the part of the State in a democracy, who's to blame, and does it really matter? You can blame the entire bureaucracy for streets in disrepair, but do you think someone like a king would have their reputation and investments hang on the brink of some shoddy public work projects?
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  6. #16
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    71
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm View Post
    If we agree that National Socialism is Platonic, is it safe to say the idea is foreign to Germanics? Was the Third Reich just another Greek city-state in the works?
    To answer this I think we can quote someone considered quite an authority on national socialism:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf Hitler
    In the historical department the study of ancient history should not be omitted. Roman history, along general lines, is and will remain the best teacher, not only for our own time but also for the future. And the ideal of Hellenic culture should be preserved for us in all its marvellous beauty. The differences between the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as the German forms part of it.*



    Concerning politics there are indeed similarities between Platonism and Nationalsocialism. Both are in favor of an aristocratic organization of the state and of society and both think of aristocracy as a meritocracy; so no aristocratic class based on birth or wealth. Plato and Hitler both even use the same argument that, in contrast to aristocracy, f.e. democracy is only for the benefit of one class, the lower class. This shows their conception of aristocracy as a meritocratic system, where the best of the people rule for the benefit of all classes and not just the rule of a single class over the others, which is the case with democracy, timocracy or a police-state.
    Yet this does not suffice for nationalsocialism to be classified as platonic. I think that platonic metaphysics are not applicable to Nationalsocialism. Plato's universalism and realism do not match with the Artgebundenheit of which Rosenberg speaks.** Here's a quote of Rosenberg that shows what I mean:

    It [i.e. the awakened nordic race-soul] understands that what is racially and spiritually akin can be assimilated, but that which is alien must be unflinchingly excised, or if necessary, destroyed. This is not because it is false or bad in itself, but rather because it is racially alien [artfremd] and fatal to the inner structure of our being.***
    This of course concerns a lot of things (Rosenberg even includes science), including f.e. ethical judgements. But in Plato's Euthyphro we can read about how according to Socrates ethical judgements are made because of universal standards of what is Good and what is Just. Rosenberg also places importance on polarity in a dualist manner, which is impossible in platonic metaphysics.
    So politically there are, as I said, quite some similarities between Platonism and Nationalsocialism. Metaphysically they are rather different. This is of course due to a lot of developments and discoveries after Plato, both philosophical and scientific, which lead to the rejection of his realism and his universalism. For Nationalsocialism to be metaphisically platonic, the Ideal world of Plato must be revised according to discoveries and ideas which are at the base of Nationalsocialism, but even than it is likely that the result will not be a very consistent philosophical theory. Despite some similarities, I wouldn't classify Nationalsocialism as platonic.



    * Source: http://hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch02.html

    ** Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Evola, adhering to rather platonic metaphysics, rejects biological racism and politically is in favor of an empire based on universalist principles, transcending the different ethnicities.

    *** Source: http://aryanism.net/downloads/books/...th-century.pdf

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. What is National Socialism
    By Schneider in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012, 01:00 PM
  2. What Would You Choose? National Socialism or National Anarchism?
    By DieMenschMaschine in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 28th, 2011, 06:51 PM
  3. Chauvinism, National-Socialism or Racial-Socialism?
    By Lusitano in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 07:02 PM
  4. National Socialism - And Not Something Else!
    By Wissen ist Macht in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 10:58 PM
  5. National Socialism and National Anarchism
    By Aethrei in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Saturday, January 31st, 2004, 06:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •