The Status of National Socialism, Communism and Christianity within these Parameters
by Eric Thomson

        We must define our terms in order to have meaningful discussion. We shall therefore look at the definitions of the above in terms of their denotation, their connotation and their historical occurrence.

        1. Collectivism: There are several denotative meanings found in various dictionaries. These have to do with collectivism as an economic theory of organization. One dictionary definition says: "An economic theory or system in which the people as a whole own or control the material and means of production and distribution". Another says: "The socialist principle of control by the state of all means of production or economic activity." If we take the latter definition as the real meaning of 'collectivism' we can see that the word could apply to a monarchy or feudalistic state as well as a contemporary 'socialist' state. In connotative usage, the word 'collectivism' is often equated with:

        2. Communism: "The holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." This economic denotation never really applied to the Bolshevik state in practice, for the seizure of property by the Reds in 1917 and thereafter was not for the common good, but for the sole benefit of the new Khazar emperors and their international banking backers. Instead, the actual practice of 'communism' is confined to certain primitive African tribes to a certain extent and to the early Christians to a greater extent. Yes, history records the early Christians as being economic and social communists, since they held property in common and lived as much as possible in religious communes or ghettos, catacombs, etc.

        3. Individualism: "A social theory advocating the liberty, rights or independent action of the individual"; also, "the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism." It is to be emphasized that individualism is a theory, for nowhere have paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc. discovered human societies in which man lives independently and apart from man on a permanent basis. As a bare essential, it takes at least two human beings to reproduce, so while a man or woman may think of himself or herself as 'individualistic', they depend entirely upon each other to assure the continuity of their life form. The only recorded humans who live as individuals are known as hermits, and even they did not spring full-grown out of the earth or drop miraculously from the sky, so we must conclude that individualism is a theory which may only rarely and infrequently be realized in practice. Individualists or 'atomists' whose social philosophies have done much in the way of misshaping society by distorting man's relationship with his fellow men are notably Rousseau and Locke whose thoughts were conveyed into law by the American libertarian and slave-holder, Thomas Jefferson. A latter day proponent of individualism was the materialist Jewess, Ayn Rand, and her ideological offspring, the Libertarians. Whether explicitly, as in the case of Locke and Rousseau, or implicitly as in the case of others, the major premise of individualism lies in the assumption that "in the state of nature" man lived all by himself, without reference to others, without taboos, social institutions, religions, families, tribes, trade, economic specialization, armies, leaders, etc. and because man lived (supposedly) in this fashion, "his basic goodness" was in full bloom. The pursuit of recapturing this supposed state of 'natural' individualism was exemplified by the anarchists and the nihilists, both of whom believed in blowing up all institutions and in 'liberating' human goodness by murdering policemen and persons in authority. On a less violent front, anthropologists have searched the world over for "the noble savage" or people living in some Garden of Eden style state of innocence, free from social institutions, sanctions, taboos, customs, authority, etc. They are still looking.

        Karl Mordecai, alias Marx, has been deemed the author of The Communist Manifesto and his philosophy has been linked inextricably and erroneously with Communism. Marx in fact saw communism merely as a steppingstone to anarchism, the ultimate expression of individualism, which would occur through "the withering away of the state". Thus was Marx actually an individualist of the most radical, that is, basic character.

        As the most extreme form of individualism, anarchy can only exist until two people band together for a common purpose. Once this banding occurs, anarchy ceases to exist. The human family is the most enduring of all collectivist organizations. Within human society, there is always tension between the desire for individual freedom and the unavoidable restrictions and obligations placed upon the individual by society. But it is to be noted that the individual depends very much upon society for his existence and that most individuals do not choose to live as hermits, so it would appear that the benefits of collectivism are sufficient to attract large numbers of individuals to live in groups which are in the order of increasing size: family, tribe, nation, race.

        4. Christianity: "A religion including the Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches"; also, "A belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament." While Christianity boasted of many hermit saints, the majority of Christians lived collectively, even insuring the Christian upbringing of children through the 'god-father' system . Christianity is linked inextricably with collective ideals such as the tale of "the good Samaritan", the concept of being "thy brother's keeper" and "no man is an island unto himself." The further insistence on the part of Christian church hierarchies that only through the subordination of the individual to the church, its clergy and its dogmas, can the individual achieve salvation, the Christian concept that all men are equal in the eyes of God, etc. place Christianity squarely within the collectivist camp, rather than the individualist weltanschauung.

        5. National Socialism: It is interesting to note that the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, which was edited by the Jew, Jess Stein, says: "The principles and practices of the Nazi party in Germany" and, after looking up "Nazi" in this dictionary, there was no mention of the famous 25 point programme, but instead, a dubious and partisan diatribe against Hitler, Germany and "anti-semitism". One must therefore rely upon a definition which is both philosophically and historically valid, and it would appear that we could reveal much about National Socialism through its comparison to Fascism. In the latter political philosophy, the people existed for the state which was a corporate entity responsible to major power-holding groups within the state. Fascism was not primarily a racist philosophy, but imperialist, and all races of men who accepted the Fascist State and who supported it were worthy of becoming Fascists. National Socialism subordinated the state to the race which was the precious substance to be borne safely within the vessel of the state. An Aryan could be an Aryan National Socialist, just as a Japanese or Chinese could be an Asian National Socialist, but different races could not be termed 'a nation', even though they lived within the same geographic areas, such as the Germans and Jews. National Socialism was at once collectivist and individualist, for the nation was and is the logical, biological, natural, organic extension of the individual, family and tribe. While National Socialism was based on such fundamental concepts as "blood and soil", it had within it the seeds of great expansion, for it envisioned the unity of not only tribal groups within the nation, but of racially-homogeneous nations within a great European racial-state.

        6. Leftism and Rightism: These concepts are quite recent in origin and have the following denotations: (a) Left: "The part of a legislative assembly, especially in continental Europe, that is situated on the left side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more radical and socialistic views than the rest of the members" and "the complex of individuals or organized groups advocating liberal reform or revolutionary change in the social, political or economic order, usually on behalf of greater personal freedom or improved social conditions." (b) Right: "The complex of individuals or organized groups opposing any change in a liberal direction and usually advocating rigid maintenance of the established social, political or economic order, often by authoritarian means."

        Thus, we see that the designations, 'Left' and 'Right' have little or nothing to do with collectivism and individualism, although connotatively, there is a tendency to equate 'Left' with collectivism and 'Right' with individualism, but this is incorrect. In Moscow, for example, the ruling Communist Party would be on the 'Right', since it opposes all liberal tendencies and supports an unchanging authoritarian system. The meaning of 'Left' and 'Right' therefore changes according to time and place. For another example, American 'conservatives' are usually put on the 'right' of the political spectrum. Yet, an American 'conservative' is actually a 'Manchester Liberal' because of his belief in laissez faire private enterprise and in the diminution of the government role in society. The American 'conservative' is much more of a liberal than the so-called liberals in America who favor mercantilist-style government intervention in major aspects of individual life, and yet, these American liberals are placed on the 'Left'. One example of the unprofitable and confusing usage of 'left-right' terminology exists in a book entitled "Leftism from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse" by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. This author sets up the following parameter of opposition:

On the Right: On the Left:
True LiberalismTrue Democracy

        1. Personality: "The visible aspect of one's character, as it impresses others","an embodiment of a collection of qualities", "the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional and social characteristics of an individual." The connotation of personality is often 'individuality', since it is assumed that those persons with personality in some important manner distinguish themselves from the mass. Communism, like Christianity, restricts individual expression and therefore personality in terms of their dogmas and authoritarianism which inflict individualists with the Gulag on the one hand and eternal damnation on the other. National Socialism made a great deal of the cultivation of personality through its insistence on the inequality of individuals which is decreed by God and Nature. Thus it was that all creative, rather than destructive genius was encouraged under National Socialism and great artistic, social, industrial, military and economic achievements were obtained. Although Hitler believed in hierarchy and discipline, he saw these as bare necessities to link the individual with his society and permit him to realize his fullest individual potential. Hitler encouraged the development of personality through education, competition and funding of the arts and sciences. So great was Hitler's respect for personality that he even honored his political opponents like Stalin and Konrad Adenauer whom he said were great personalities. Hitler believed in the uniqueness of every individual and he decreed that all should have the opportunity to rise as high as their moral, spiritual and creative qualities would take them, within the context of the survival of the German Nation (People), for he saw the state as the vessel for the protection of the race and the race as the progenitor and nurturer of great creative individuals. A Beethoven in the middle of Africa, for example, would be lost, as he would have no suitable culture for his personality and his qualities of self-expression.

        2. Collectivism: We have already examined this concept and we find that it fits neither on the so-called 'right' nor on the so-called 'left', but exists at all times and in all places to a greater or lesser degree, just like oxygen in the atmosphere.

        3. Transcendence: This term is defined as "going beyond ordinary limits, superior, supreme". Adolf Hitler championed transcendence by calling upon the German people to do their best, regardless of material circumstances. The Communists, on the other hand, expect nothing more of man than the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain in terms of material acquisition. Many Christians, notably those of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, expect man to sin, because 'man is weak', and they tie the Christian believer to the church through an endless cycle of sin, confession, repentance, absolution and sin. For most Christians, the courting of transcendence is akin to blasphemy, but for a National Socialist, transcendence is a daily task and a daily achievement.

        4. Immanence: "Remaining within; indwelling; inherent". There seems to be some confusion in the author's placing of this term on the 'left', for it is always the Communists' and liberal-behaviorists' goal to create a 'new man', either through race-mixing or changing man's environment. Thus it is that few of those who call themselves leftists appear satisfied with man's inherent qualities, but seek instead to change man radically and completely. National Socialism sought also the improvement of man through eugenics as well as environment. Christianity seems rather to cultivate the dregs of humanity ("As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto me."), apparently hoping to produce an environment so repellent and uncomfortable on Earth that all men will pray for heavenly deliverance.

        5. Patriotism: "Devoted love, support and defense of one's country". This means loyalty to a piece of land above loyalty to one's family, tribe, nation and race.

         6. Nationalism: "Devoted love, support and defense of one's nation" or people, which is an extension of the individual through the family, tribe, nation and race. How 'patriotism', which is a geographical expression rather than a biological expression, could have any merit is extremely doubtful, since it involves brothers killing brothers over some arbitrary lines on maps. The internationalism of the 'left' is self-proclaimed and obvious, so it is incorrect for the author to make nationalism a creature of the Left.

         7. Liberalism: "A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavour and government guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties." If the author uses this definition of liberalism, then he should not have put liberalism on the 'right' without utterly contradicting the terms of normal usage. Nor does liberalism seem to fit on the 'left' since contemporary leftists are more collectivist rather than individualist.

         8. Democracy: "Government by the people". This concept reputedly achieved its greatest realization in ancient Athens, where it is to be remembered that the Athenian 'government by the people' excluded women and slaves who composed 90% of the Athenian populace! The most realistic examples which we have of democracy in action are in the small New England town meetings, in which every person not only had a vote, but had a say in the matters to be voted on, and in the much larger National Socialist state in which millions of citizens were encouraged to participate directly in governmental decision-making and organization. We therefore see that democracy is not only collectivist, but individualist by allowing for the maximum expression of the individual personality. What is to be gained by putting it on the 'left' or the 'right' is confusing and questionable, since we see that oligarchic and authoritarian regimes exist on both 'left' and 'right' as well as in between, and that historically, democracy has voted in tyrants to run the state with emergency powers!

        In this brief lexical and historical overview of the preceding concepts, we see that the use of arbitrary terms such as 'left' and 'right' is confusing, rather than informative. Perhaps the above mentioned author sought to defame Adolf Hitler and National Socialism by attempting to place them on the irrelevant 'left-right' political spectrum or perhaps he sought to make Hitler popular amongst Marxists who fancy themselves on the 'left', but the author only reveals his lack of knowledge in attempting this. In regard to Christianity, it has been all things to all men for so long, that it can be quoted on behalf of any social, political or economic system and therefore has no relevance to political, economic or social discussions. Practicing Christians have claimed to support Communism and National Socialism and Christian churches as well as Communist parties allied themselves against National Socialism. The Christian churches represent a power on the political scene, just as do the labor unions, the Communist parties and the Mafia, but Christianity, just like Communism, has no existence in reality and no application to productive political, economic and social discussions. Assuredly, the above mentioned author should have read a dictionary before writing his book, thereby saving many beautiful trees from being thus wasted as conveyances of pseudo-intellectual speculation.