The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRIs). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.
—  Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher
The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness and individual chemicl-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormous lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRIs). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.
It does not seem fanciful to see parallels between the rising incidence of mental distress and new patterns of assessing workers’ performance.
—  Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?

Outline for an essay I don’t have the energy to write or sufficiently research right now (all highly speculative!):

Thesis: Colonizing Mars is a bad idea, with very little to gain (except the aesthetic, which for some people–including me–is quite compelling). It absolutely shouldn’t be done right now, and certainly not by Elon Musk.

I. Economic considerations:

A. It’s expensive, of course; but beyond that there is no economic incentive to put a permanent human settlement on Mars. Mars has no resources which can’t be found on Earth, and very many that can’t (including many that would have to be imported, like oxygen).

B. Self-sufficiency would be extremely difficult. Lack of oxygen; lack of Earthlike soil in which to grow plants; lack of a microbiome to support a ground-up ecology; minor equipment failures could be catastrophic. Even if self-sufficiency was attained, a Mars colony would have trouble exporting anything of value to create wealth. Resources would have to be lifted out of Mars’ gravity, and sent all the way to Earth, and any imports back to Mars would be even more expensive (Earth’s gravity is greater, and air resistance is worse). Non primary/secondary sector industries would have to contend with the primitive state of the Martian economy, lag times between Mars/Earth communication, difficulty of establishing a high-bandwidth connection.

C. This doesn’t even get into power generation issues (dust storms and further distance from the sun inhbit solar a bit, but it’s the best option; no fossil fuels unless you ship them from Earth; nuclear fuel also a good choice, but IDK if you’d have to send that from Earth or you could expect to find it in situ; Mars’ atmosphere is very thin, so wind power probably wouldn’t work so well).

D. Any useful resource extraction will be badly outcompeted by much more profitable applications of the same engineering breakthroughs that would support Mars colonization, that is to say, asteroid mining, where there’s only one gravity well to contend with (Earth’s), and you can just schlepp the thing into orbit. Or lunar mining (gravity is still much weaker than Mars, no dust storms or air resistance to contend with).

E. This is more of a footnote really, but: any useful unique scientific breakthroughs to come out of getting a permanent population to mars are more likely to be engineering breakthroughs, with narrow applicability. Good science can be done easier, more safely, and cheaper with robots. Or even with putting humans in orbit of Mars and sending robots to the surface. This is the problem with all manned space exploration, especially as robotics and AI improves.

II. Environmental considerations

A. Mars is a nearly pristine environment about which we know comparatively little. Compare Antarctica; it would be better to preserve it as it is for all of humanity and for future generations, than to colonize it and risk damaging that environment (especially if it has native life!).

(Speaking of Antarctica: Antarctica is much closer, much more hospitable to humans, and we’ve been going there for centuries. Its current population is… a whopping 1 to 5000 depending on the season, roughly zero of which is permanent. This is a good proxy for the actual usefulness of Mars colonization, I feel.)

B. (This part could also go in economics section) No sustained environmental pressure on Earth makes Mars colonization attractive; Earth can support billions more, emigration to Mars would remain expensive and difficult, Mars unlikely to be able to support large human population for decades or centuries after colonization.

C. From a purely environmentalist standpoint: even if Mars doesn’t have life, it’s still an *environment*, if a dead one; it’s as unique and interesting in its own right as any other environment in the Solar System. Wantonly invading that environment is morally suspect (from certain perspectives), especially in the absence of a compelling utility to humanity (”it would be awesome” probably doesn’t count).

III. Political considerations

A. Recapitulating atomistic individualist politics in an environment which will demand high degrees of cooperation is dicey. (I may be very wrong about this, but) Musk’s flavor of intrepidity (is that a word?), while admirable, seems very much based on this outlook.

B. Under this worldview, colonization in an environment where profits are unlikely to be had, disagreement is likely to exist between competing people with highly articulated visions for a future society, and individuals play an outsized role in political organization–but a high degree of cooperation is necessary to be successful–such an enterprise seems dicey at best.

C. Add to this the fact that oversight from existing legal structures will be nil, and actual ability to send people to intervene virtually nonexistent. Compare, by way of example, the political chaos that existed in early colonization efforts in America (h/t to @femmenietzsche‘s podcasts on the subject), where the environment was much *more* hospitable, and economic incentives to colonization existed at least in theory (gold, tobacco, acquiring slaves for sugar plantations).

(Luckily, Mars has no native population, so we can at least be assured that particular kind of monstrosity will not be recapitulated.)

D. There exist forms of political organization, and visions of civil society, that I think would be well adapted to the Martian context (consesus decisionmaking, anarchosyndicalism, even just the comparatively modest reforms to modern liberal capitalism proposed by people like Yanis Varoufakis that would minimize wealth inequality and prevent the emergence of huge social divisions in an early colony). They haven’t been tried at large scale though; I don’t think Musk is a particular supporter of those ideas (could be wrong); and any colonization attempt steeped in atomistic individualism/strong libertarianism is likely to be skeptical of such forms of organization.

E. Incidentally I think any group of initial colonists should be stacked so as to encourage a unique Martian ethnogenesis: it should be diverse, favoring no nationality or ethnic group (as much as possible), but with a strong common ideological reference point. It should try as much as possible to take the positive lessons of historical settler colonialism, while learning from the negatives (again, luckily no natives to displace; but nativism still possible, and the importing of old prejudices from Earth.)

F. But I think it would be better to hold off colonizing Mars at a large scale until we’re better about dealing with political tensions in general, and we can apply well-tested lessons learned on Earth to any attempt to build a new society on another planet.

IV. Miscellany

A. Trying to build human-hospitable environments on Mars is difficult and kinda dumb. Trying to terraform it is even dumber. Better to just genetically engineer humans and Earth biota to survive better on Mars (or at least to survive on a semi-terraformed Mars, or isolated environments that don’t have to be made entirely Earthlike). The energy cost is far lower, for the simple reason you don’t have to move millions of kg of stuff around to accomplish it (or worry about your terraformed atmosphere leaking off into space, because Mars is a low-gravity shithole that only seems attractive for colonization because Venus melts lead).

B. But honestly, if we’re going to go that far, just genetically and cybernetically engineer humans to live in asteroids, or a hard vacuum or something; much science fiction, and actual ambition, around human colonization of other worlds and spacefaring in general is predicated around the assumption we must make the universe hospitable to us; why not make ourselves hospitable to the universe? The essentially good things about humanity are not our number of toes or the spectrum of light we use to see, so there’s no reason to be too attached to them–and if we indeed want to ensure the survivability of our descendants, while being a multi-planet species is a start, being able to exist somewhere other than the very narrow shell of temperatures/air pressures/chemically favorable environments found on the surface of the Earth would be even better.

I actually really like the term “atomistic individualism” because the original greek word means “unbreakable” which is good and it also evokes imagery of the recreational nukes which is better.

anonymous asked:

So i'm trying to find a way to articulate to peeps about how the whole "privilege checklist" thing is not functionally helpful but I'm struggling a lot due to the fact that the nuance can be very easily misunderstood and upsetting if miscommunicated, do you have any advice for saying this? Thanks!

i guess you can say something about how “privilege checklist” mentality turns things that are supposed to be social relations into a series of individual atomistic attributes. also how placing the emphasis on what traits are attached to specific individuals encourages slippage that ignores historical-cultural contexts and whatnot

Consider mental illnesses an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualisation (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRI’s). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticalising mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.
—  Capitalism Realism - Mark Fisher
Perhaps most famously, Malcolm X recounts in his autobiography that when a white college girl heard him speak on white racism and agonizingly asked him “What can I do?” he dismissed her with a terse reply “Nothing.” Up until the last year of his life, Malcolm X argued that the white “man” was the devil, destroying black lives, families and communities and thus there was nothing that white people could do to help the United States achieve racial justice for black people and other people of color. White people inevitably were the problem, according to Malcolm X, and the only positive thing they could do was stay out of the Black people’s way.

White people are a big part of the problem. So too, of course, are white-privileging institutions, tax codes and other societal structures that help sustain white domination. But not all white domination operates on an impersonal level. A great deal of it functions through the practices and habits of individual white people and the predominantly white families and communities to which they belong. This does not mean that white people are atomistic individuals, sealed off from the world around them. On the contrary: like all human beings (and other living organisms), white people are constituted in and through the transactional relationships with their environments. Their experiences, beliefs and behaviors both are shaped by and contribute to a white-dominated world. And so the personal question of what white people can do still needs to be asked and answered. To say that white people can do nothing is to let them off the hook too easily. It says that they do not  have to respond to the racist damage that white people historically have and presently continue to cause and it countenances their continued negligence and inaction with regard to white domination of black people and other people of color.

Racial justice movements are not dependent on white people for their success. The struggles, protests and demands of people of color have been and most likely will continue to be the main motor driving racial justice movements. But white people can play a positive role in those movements as well. In fact, I think they have a small but somewhat unique role to play given the persistence of de facto racial segregation in workplaces, neighborhoods, school systems, places of worship and so one. Just as feminist movements need men who are willing to speak out against sexism and male privilege - especially in all-male settings such as lockers and fraternity houses - racial justice movements need white people who are willing to speak and act against white racism when they encounter it in their families, neighborhoods, workplaces and elsewhere. As important as women are to feminist change, eliminating sexism should not be reduced to “women’s work.” Likewise, white people who care about racial justice should not sit back and wait for people of color to clean up the mess that white people have made. White people need to make a positive contribution to racial justice even though their contributions will be secondary to those of people of color.
—  Good White People: The Problem with Middle-Class White Anti-Racism
By Shannon Sullivan

The Roman poet Lucretius (ca. 94–ca. 55 BCE) wrote a poem in 56 BCE describing the views of Greek philosophers who, like him, believed the universe to be composed of atoms. This poem is the only record of the beliefs of these early atomists whose works were lost due to their unpopular views. Lucretius’ poem was lost as well, but a copy was discovered in 1417. The veneer of venerable ancient scientists helped convince classics-mad chemists during the Enlightenment to investigate (or at least consider) the atomic theory. Today it is widely accepted.

president-greyshades-deactivate  asked:

what problem do you have with libertarianism?

Moral bankruptcy, atomist-individualism and in many cases support for things that are downright hostile to my people’s way of life (open borders and free migration, for one). Also mental gymnastics like suggesting that the solution to freeloading migrants is cutting the social safety net for everyone including natives instead of just no longer letting them into the country.

National Socialism: An Eclectic View

To understand the dichotomy between National Socialism and Democracy, it is necessary that we define the parameters of each one. National Socialism today is most definitely not popular, because of many misconceptions and its connection in the public mind to the so-called “Holocaust” which generates tremendous psychological aversion, I have taken the liberty to explain a little about its mindset as a basis from which to work. This information is mostly little-known, except amongst its implacable enemies, who, for reasons of their own, wish that National Socialism be destroyed. But at bottom, National Socialism is the application of the eternal Laws of Nature to the sphere of human society. Please read it, consider it, and if you feel that you have to reject its basis, at least it will be an informed decision on your part.


National Socialism is not merely a political system, or a form of government, in the way that Democracy is. National Socialism is a Weltanschauung, a German word which has no English equivalent. The closest translation is perhaps the phrase a “world-perspective”.

A Weltanschauung like National Socialism is an all-encompassing philosophical system, affording insights and opinions on all facets of life, racial, political, religious, ideological, military, financial, social, resources and yes, even spiritual. In this sense it is “totalitarian”, but note that this does not equate to “repression”. One cannot be a once-in-five-years voter in National Socialism, and think that one has discharged one’s political duties, as is the case in a Democracy.

The form of government within a National Socialist state might well be a semi-democracy, with a qualified franchise, but the purest form of National Socialist government is the so-called “benign dictator”, or Rule of One (as opposed to the democratic Rule of Many). This is perhaps the most difficult thing for Americans to understand: the voluntary relinquishment of certain “rights” to a State-organisation, as happens in National Socialism.

So, National Socialism is a Weltanschauung, as opposed to Democracy, merely a form of government.


The philosophical basis of National Socialism includes the centrality given to quality of life. Viewing a Volk, the racially homogeneous inhabitants of a state, as an organic unit, the only end worthy to be the primary object of any such people’s existence is to produce the largest possible number of truly superior men and women - of robust health, overflowing energy, unspoiled instinct, mind powerful to analyse and create - of that integrated, masterful personality and elevated spirit that ever characterises the truly noble human.

There are two reasons for this:

(a) great men and their works are a source of pride and glory, the justification of the Volk’s existence and highest fulfillment, in which each individual, even the lowest, feels himself lifted up, in that he knows that he has taken some necessary part in making those achievements possible, and
(b) great men are the Volk’s salvation. They alone can organise the life of the Volk as a unit to make it generally satisfying, and steer it safely past the perils that assail the life of every people.

The racial Weltanschauung is fundamentally distinguished from Democracy by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure.
Hence the supreme purpose of the ethnical, National Socialist State is to guard and preserve those racial elements which, through their work in the cultural field, create that beauty and dignity which are characteristic of a higher mankind. As Aryans, we can consider the National Socialist State only as the living organism of a people, an organism which does not merely maintain the existence of a people, but functions in such a way as to lead its people to a position of supreme liberty by the progressive development of the intellectual and cultural faculties.

Note well that, in contrast to Democracy on a political plane, National Socialism does not make happiness the end of a people’s existence as a society. Happiness is deemed to be at its richest and most satisfying when it is not directly sought, but comes as a by-product of expending one’s energy in doing some piece of work well, or for the sake of achieving some other thing in which one deeply believes.


Circumstances which favour the emergence of the superior man are: (1) racial homogeneity [effected by (a) segregation (b) inbreeding and © subjection to the same values over a long period of time], leading to (2) social solidarity. According to the measure of their comprehension and strength of their character, all have the same ethic, the same religion, believe passionately in their greatness as a people, and understand and accept and uphold their social organisation, their goals, their government and their way of life as the most desirable on earth. Every man, no matter what his position on the social scale, feels that he belongs. He walks with the dignity of one who knows himself important to a whole with which he is inextricably connected. Beneath all surface differences and personal clashes, there is an underlying unity which, in a crisis, makes man stand with man, family with family, class with class, and all with the whole in a devotion which is unto death. Such a people may be crushed by superior force, but they will never disintegrate. A good example of it is the Japanese. Another is the jews.

In contrast to this organic unity of a Volk which National Socialism seeks to nurture, the Democratic way of thinking lays excessive emphasis on the individual and his “rights” and “freedoms”. A society of individuals, as required by a Democracy, is an atomistic society, a pile of loosely-cemented stones. Its cohesive forces are weak. On an ever-increasing scale, Democracy as practised today, is turning our societies into human anthills, and our people into faceless and all but nameless nothings, as alike as grains of sand. And those of us in whom the life-force has not been tamed and beaten, hate the meaninglessness of mundane existence - its boredom, its emptiness, its indignity.

The third circumstance required to favour the superior man, is (3) the pyramidal form of government (differentiation in function and responsibility).

Capping these three is the umbrella of an eugenic religion. If any society is to maintain and extend itself in the face of its environment and its enemies, and attain the heights of cultural greatness, it must have at its helm those of its number who are of profoundest wisdom and most exalted character, men of deep religious experience. Standing apart, freed from the narrow cares and anxieties and little duties that burden and fret the rest, and with disinterested and exalted motives, as it were from a conning tower, they scan the horizon, study the stars and set the course of the ship. The fate of everybody on board rests on their wisdom, their love, their strength.

National Socialism needs such men, men who come forth out of these circumstances to guide and lead. This National Socialist mindset is vastly superior to the Democratic one which allows an obscure nincompoop to be thrown up in an over-sponsored popularity contest, to grip the leash of power in, say, a mighty country like the USA. National Socialism says: “Character Counts”, Democracy says: “A fat wallet counts”.

Even purely theoretical work, which cannot be measured by a definite rule and is preliminary to all subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the majority organize or think; but always and in every case the individual man, the person.

Democracy introduces universal suffrage, chatters about equal rights but can find no foundation for this equality. It destroys the basis of quality.


A Weltanschauung which repudiates the democratic principle of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people - that is, to the highest quality of mankind - must also apply that same aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the Volk-community.

National Socialism insists that it must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence are given to the best men.

Hence the leadership principle is not based on the idea of the MAJORITY, but on that of PERSONALITY.

The leadership principle may be imposed on an organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives, the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practical effect.


National Socialism does not have electioneering in the way that Democracy has. Issues were settled by referendums; leaders rise higher in the structures by virtue of character, competency and efficiency as displayed by their track records.

Democracy lurches from one election to the next with flexible agendas. The intervals between the replacement of one person by another gradually became shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase. With each change the quality of the statesman’ in question deteriorated, until finally only the petty type of political huckster remained. In such people the qualities of statesmanship were measured and valued according to the adroitness with which they pieced together one coalition after another; in other words, their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest political transactions,

There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man discovered’ through an election.


National Socialism is perhaps the first ideological system to apply the concepts of “management-by-objective” on a national scale, ie within the political life of a Volk. The achievement of those objectives are entrusted to appointed leaders who have the duty to exercise their skills and talents in the most beneficent, efficient and honourable way possible. The criterion is that the welfare of the whole outranks the well-being of the individual. This means that, in a situation where a conflict of interests arise, the lesser is sacrificed to the greater, in pursuit of quality.

National Socialism appoints a leader in a certain position, and by virtue of his appointment receives the power and freedom to make decisions. The results of those decisions determine whether the incumbent will remain in that position, because he, and only he, is responsible for the results of his decisions. If they go wrong, as measured against set principles and goals, he has to accept accountability for his errors and vacate the position of power. Freedom is balanced out by responsibility; fulfillment of duty is rewarded by more power, failure is met with accountibility.

Democracy can never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in the Cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The Cabinet always functions only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be judged only according to how far it succeeds in adjusting itself to the will of the majority or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals. But this means that the ruling body must descend from the level of a real governing power to that of a mendicant who has to beg the approval of a majority that may be got together for the time being

Thereby all responsibility is abolished in practice. In practice no actual responsibility remains. For responsibility arises only from personal duty and not from the obligations that rest with a parliamentary assembly of empty talkers.

This principle of combining absolute authority with absolute responsibility will gradually cause a selected group of leaders to emerge; which is not even thinkable in our present epoch of irresponsible parliamentarianism.


When talking about the concept of “power”, democratically-minded people are very quick to respond by quoting Lord Acton’s dictum: “Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But we as humans MUST face up to three facts:

(1) No society can EXIST unless power is entrusted to SOMEBODY.
(2) It is of the most vital urgency that it be possible to PIN RESPONSIBILITY ON SOME PARTICULAR MAN. In a democratic government, where decisions are taken by committees and commissions and majority vote, responsibility is so divided, dispersed and comminuted that in the end it is virtually impossible to fix responsibility to anyone. From this it has come about that large numbers of men, of very high positions in our society, can be grossly delinquent and even downright traitors without having to answer for it.

(3) If it be inseparable from government that power be entrusted somewhere, it seems the part of wisdom to entrust it where its tendency to corrupt him who wields it, is most likely to be resisted - that is to say, to men whose very character would make them scorn to misuse it, and whose very membership in a corporate elite known to visit the severest punishment, remorselessly, upon any of its number found guilty of dereliction, would deter even the boldest from yielding to temptation. Granted the miscarriages of intention that inevitably accompany the actual operation of any system, there is nevertheless the fundamental belief, indeed the profound instinct, that if one man is to have power over another it should be only he who obviously is the BETTER MAN, and that if he IS the better man, he OUGHT to have the greater power, and with it the rights and privileges requisite for its proper use.

In a National Socialist state, the instruments which shape public opinion are brought under State control and no longer left in the hands of aliens and enemies of the people. This is simply a measure of self-defence to protect the Volk.


National Socialism insists that the best constitution and the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the community.


The National Socialist State divides its representative bodies into:
(2) a corporative chamber that represents the respective trades and professions.

To assure an effective co-operation between those two bodies, a selected body is placed over them. This is a special senate.

No vote is taken in the chambers or senate. They are organizations for work and not voting machines. The individual members have consultive votes but no right of decision is attached thereto.

The right of decision belongs exclusively to the president, who is entirely responsible for the matter under discussion.

Strikes by trade unions are not allowed as it disrupts the organic production of the National Socialist state, and also violates the good relationships between employers and employees, like partnerships, which National Socialism strives to construct.


Regarding the possibility of putting these principles into practice, I should like to call attention to the fact that the principle of parliamentarian democracy, whereby decisions are enacted through the majority vote, has not always ruled the world. On the contrary, we find it prevalent only during short periods of history, and those have always been periods of decline in nations and States.

“A time will come, even though in the distant future, when there can be only two alternatives: Either the world will be ruled according to our modern concept of democracy, and then every decision will be in favour of the numerically stronger races; or the world will be governed by the law of natural distribution of power, and then those nations will be victorious who are of more brutal will and are not the nations who have practised self-denial.” From Mein Kampf


“There were three principles promulgated by the Republicans [French revolutionists] which were profound absurdities. The first was the doctrine of equality, not simply equality in the eye of the law (that [Goethe] accepted), but of absolute equality;…The second was the doctrine of government by the people. [Goethe] believed in no such principle. Even when you kill the king, he says, you do not know how to rule in his place…The rulers were destroyed, but who was there to protect the Many FROM the Many?…The third revolutionary principle was that political freedom is necessary to man…through life we find [Goethe] insisting on the fact that no man CAN be free…” From L&W of Goethe

The question is: “To whom shall we with most confidence entrust the direction of affairs in society, and how should we go about finding such men and placing them at the helm?”

“Democracy” (“mob-rule” in my opinion) is one answer; “men of superior character and ability” is another. These two answers are diametrically opposed in intent and meaning.


(1) Democracy is seen to be just that one political system that provides the best opportunities for alien enemies and traitors to encyst themselves in the political body, and there to work under cover for the destruction of the people. It so turns out that most of the efforts to run the traitors down, the really big traitors, lead to the door of the International Money Power. And in the end we are forced to the conclusion that the Money Power always proves to be any people’s supreme enemy, and that Democracy is completely and totally lacking in the kind of power necessary to put the Money Power into shackles. This stands as Democracy’s supreme and final indictment.
(2) Even if we register the judgement of people on any great issue, what would be the worth of the judgement after we have it? Vital issues of the State require a measure of consideration and detailed background knowledge most people lack, do not care about and lack the character to fathom. Witlessness remains witless, whether multiplied by one or by one million. You do not get wisdom by counting numbskulls.

(3) There is also no appeal against the masses - once the “majority” decides an issue, hopelessly wrong as it may be, the minority WHO MAY BE RIGHT about the said issue, gets drowned in the deluge.

(4) One of the most demoralising results of Democracy is its dissipation of responsibility. POWER WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY IS RUINOUS TO ALL GOOD GOVERNMENT.

(5) The philosophical infrastructure of Democracy is Liberalism with its concomitant concept of “equality”. But equality is nothing but the envious and resentful cry of the inferior man against the superior, a cry of insurrection to destroy those of innate superiority, and bring into being a world of mediocrity, full of those who are now weak, ugly, dull and generally botched.

The doctrine of equality poses a twofold threat: (a) a denial of the need of leadership. And (b) a repudiation of quality. It denies that natural differentiation apart from which quality cannot exist.

P: Philosophical basis
NS: Natural aristocracy.
D: Liberalism.

P: Ruling Idea
NS: Producing greatest number of superior people.
D: Producing greatest number of happy people.

P: Mission Statement
NS: “What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.”
D: Eh…?

P: Man-model
NS: Character counts.
D: Wealth counts.

P: Human equality
NS: Accepts that it does not exist.
D: All equal.

P: Model of the State
NS: The State is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a meaning only if it preserves and safeguards the contents. Otherwise it is worthless.
D: Huh..?

P: Political Programme
NS: The programme of a Weltanschauung represents an organism enclosed in itself, solid and internally homogeneous. Unalterable principles.
D: “A recipe for cooking up favourable results out of the next general elections”. Very volatile, based upon expediencies.

P: Citizenry divisions
NS: Citizens (with rights and obligations), subjects of the State (no rights, many obligations), and aliens (no rights, no obligations).
D: Citizens (with rights), and aliens (no rights).

P: Franchise
NS: Qualified by birth in country, race, age, community service.
D: Qualified by birth in country, age.

P: Decision making
NS: There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons. And the word council’ is once more restored to its original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual person alone.
D: Dissipated in nameless committees, councils and assemblies. “Majority rule”.

P: Responsibility
NS: Responsible to superior; accountable for failure.
D: Lost in majority decisions.

P: Appeal to higher authority
NS: Right up to Leader (Fuehrer).
D: Umm…

P: Fraternity
NS: Qualified by race and Volk.
D: Free-for-all for all citizens.

P: Naturalisation
NS: Unless member of race and Volk, not possible.
D: Anybody can become a citizen.

P: Freedom
NS: Private freedoms; public obligations and duties.
D: Free to do what one wants, as long as it does not infringe on someone else’s freedom.

P: Bringing International Finance under control
NS: State-owned central bank; state-issued money (no foreign loans).
D: Huh…? Say again…?

P: Monetary system
NS: National Socialist
D: Capitalism.

P: Monetary backing
NS: Productive capacity of Volk.
D: “Trust” (NOT gold).


A. National Socialism claims definitely to be a Weltanschauung.

B The Philosophical Basis of National Socialism

(1) Volk = the racially homogeneous inhabitants of a state
(2) Strive towards quality of life
(3) Purpose - greatest number of superior men
(a) great men and their works are a source of pride and glory
(b) great men are the Volk’s salvation.
C. Three Circumstances and a Religion
(1) racial homogeneity
(a) segregation
(b) inbreeding and
© subjection to the same values over a long period of time
(2) social solidarity
(3) the pyramidal form of government (differentiation in function and responsibility).
(4) eugenic religion
D. Happiness NOT the end of a people’s existence.
E. The Leadership Principle

Aristocratic postulate - the highest quality of mankind within the Volk-community.
Positions of leadership to the best men.
Not based on MAJORITY, but on PERSONALITY.
Chosen through process of selection lasting over several years.
F. Electioneering
Democracy has flexible agendas.
G. Accountibility & Responsibility
Democracy can never be called to account for anything.
Responsibility is abolished in practice.
Responsibility arises from personal duty.
Principle of combining absolute authority with absolute responsibility.
H. Note on POWER.
Power must be entrusted to SOMEBODY.
Responsibility must be pinned to an individual.
Entrust power to the BETTER character.
I. News media under State control.
J. The form of government - The best brains in positions of importance and influence.

K. Trade Unions

Corporative chamber represents trades and professions.
No vote; decision by president who is entirely responsible.
No strikes allowed.
Partnerships between employers and employees.
L. Tenets of Democracy
doctrine of equality
doctrine of government by the people.
political freedom is necessary to man

by Mjollnir


Die Stryd om die Ordes, HG Stoker (anti-NS)
Mein Kampf, A Hitler
The Life and Works of Goethe, GH Lewes
The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism, RA Brady (anti-NS)
Which Way Western Man?, WG Simpson