CHRISTIAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST

Blog #2 by A14/88Xian

In my first blog I made reference to the two primary principles of National Socialism. The first primary principle is the common interest before the self. In many ways this requires us to limit our personal freedoms for the good of our nation. For those who have been tainted by Jewish materialism and a false sense of individuality this is not an attractive prospect at all. However it is the embodiment of the best of Western thought, as exhibited by Plato. Indeed, National Socialism is a very Platonic system of government.

This is another example where a true conservative would be on the side of National Socialism. Nothing is more traditional to Western values than Plato! When the founders of this nation were selling the constitution to the public they did not appeal to the Bible but to the Greeks and the Romans. The Federalist Papers cite example after example from those ancient Aryans. Hitler himself looked to them as the pinnacle of Aryan civilisation and even belittled Himmler for chasing Germanic archaeological sites which only showed that the Germans were living in huts when the Romans were building with concrete and had things like running water and sewers. The pseudo Right, however, would rather look to modern libertarian ideas to define what is “conservative” and moral.

For a True Nationalist we recognise the duty we owe to the Volk. Everything we are we owe to our nation. While we struggled as individuals to accomplish what we have and to reach where we are in life, without our nation giving to us we would have nothing. Our very language and ideas we owe to our nation. What lofty goal or thought could have been achieved without the language which forms our thoughts? What individual achievement would we have if we were not taught directly or by example how to do it? I can do some basic maintenance on an engine but I would have never come up with the combustion engine on my own. An Aryan came up with that invention and gave it to all of us.

Also consider the peace and order we have for us to be able to accomplish anything in our lives. Without our nation and the laws and order it provides we would be spending all of our time seeking food and firewood. Our minds would not be devoted to higher concepts of spirituality or pondering how things work, we would be expending all of our energy on finding food, protecting ourselves from human and animal predators, and ensuring there are supplies to last the winter. Even in modern times, when trying to survive in a cabin in the wilderness every second of free time is spent on collecting firewood and preparing for winter. There is no time to “waste” on higher pursuits beyond mere survival.

Not only did our nation provide the safety and framework to accomplish what we have in our lives, our ancestors and nation provided us our very lives. Our forefathers did not sacrifice all that they had in order to produce a selfish individual who does nothing for the future. They sacrificed for their descendants to carry on their culture and values. They killed and died to stop the Muslim hordes from overrunning Europe. They killed the American savage and suffered horrible butcheries at their hands to build a nation based upon their own values and beliefs. It is a complete dishonour and disgrace, the ultimate disrespect, to repay their sacrifices and the hard lives they led to disregard the civilisation they built. It is criminal to spit in the face of our ancestors and all they gave for us to refuse to carry on their genes and culture. We owe them a debt and duty.

This is the basis of the “social compact” upon which our laws rest. The nation has the right to regulate the conduct of those a part of it. This includes legislating morality. People say things like, “What business is it of the government what two consenting adults do in their own home?” If we believe that we don’t owe the nation any fidelity or duty then that would be a good point. However, the government is an extension of the nation, the racial body which created us and gave us all we have. The nation has every right to regulate itself and mandate codes of conduct of the individual people inside it and who benefit from it.

The sovereign citizen crowd thinks it’s a travesty that they have to get permission to use the nation’s roads as if they as individuals own something which belongs to the whole. The nation, the body, disagrees with that kind of individuality, it looks upon such a person with judgment-- "Did YOU subdue the murderous savage who used to squat on this land? Did YOU clear the land to create it? Did YOU enable the workers to obtain the materials and know how to pave that road? Then shut your mouth and sit down."

Does this mean that we must conform to the evil Jew occupied suicidal government we have now? Absolutely not. The founders of our nation gave us permission to rebel against the government of the nation if it becomes a foreign entity no longer serving the nation. In opposing the government we are being loyal to the nation. But that does not mean that we are lawless or criminals. It does not mean that we do not recognise the right of the nation to govern itself and regulate conduct of those within it— even if we personally disagree with the regulation. I personally don’t think I should have to buy a fishing license if I’m not harvesting any fish or pay to enter wild parkland. However, the owners of those resources, my people, have decided I do because they want the money to manage those resources. I may grumble but I cannot deny their authority to do so.

From a Christian perspective the Bible recognised the authority of government to punish evil and reward good (in fact it can be argued that that was the only type of government Christians were told to submit to). The Bible says that if we are going to be punished let it be for doing good rather than for doing evil, recognising that we will be under foul governments which punish for doing good things. As the apostles famously told the Jews, “I would obey God rather than man” when told to stop teaching Christianity. Flier drops and violating “hate speech” laws definitely fall into this category. Submitting to authority for an American Christian must include submitting to our founders who gave us the authority to remove an evil government and institute a better one.

All of these principles are included in the National Socialist concept of common interest before the self. Try to view everything around you through this lens and weigh your resentment at being told what to do against it. I will end this with the words of Socrates from Plato’s dialogues (Crito) where Socrates tells why he will not flee Athens after he was sentenced to death for asking inconvenient questions. He didn’t have founding fathers to point to as authority but the mentality he expresses is that of the National Socialist state:

"Answer, Socrates, instead of opening your eyes: you are in the habit of asking and answering questions. Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands?- you would not say this? And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this? Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding? also to be soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and if not persuaded, obeyed? And when we are punished by her, whether with imprisonment or stripes, the punishment is to be endured in silence; and if she leads us to wounds or death in battle, thither we follow as is right; neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him; or he must change their view of what is just: and if he may do no violence to his father or mother, much less may he do violence to his country." What answer shall we make to this, Crito? Do the laws speak truly, or do they not?

Cr. I think that they do.

Soc. Then the laws will say: "Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. These are the sort of accusations to which, as we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you accomplish your intentions; you, above all other Athenians." Suppose I ask, why is this? they will justly retort upon me that I above all other men have acknowledged the agreement. "There is clear proof," they will say, "Socrates, that we and the city were not displeasing to you. Of all Athenians you have been the most constant resident in the city, which, as you never leave, you may be supposed to love. For you never went out of the city either to see the games, except once when you went to the Isthmus, or to any other place unless when you were on military service; nor did you travel as other men do. Nor had you any curiosity to know other States or their laws: your affections did not go beyond us and our State; we were your especial favorites, and you acquiesced in our government of you; and this is the State in which you begat your children, which is a proof of your satisfaction. Moreover, you might, if you had liked, have fixed the penalty at banishment in the course of the trial-the State which refuses to let you go now would have let you go then. But you pretended that you preferred death to exile, and that you were not grieved at death. And now you have forgotten these fine sentiments, and pay no respect to us, the laws, of whom you are the destroyer; and are doing what only a miserable slave would do, running away and turning your back upon the compacts and agreements which you made as a citizen. And first of all answer this very question: Are we right in saying that you agreed to be governed according to us in deed, and not in word only? Is that true or not?"