National Socialism is just one-partyism

What is National Socialism?

It was not really Gassing the Jews-ism as most people seemed to think.

No, it was "one-party-ism".

Starts 1:53

This is what Hitler says about National Socialism:

"When our party had only seven members, it already had two principles:  first it would be a party with a true ideology [of nationalism ie of the long term national interest]..   And second it would be, uncompromisingly, the one and only party ... "

This does sound rather frightening, but if it were up to me, the rights of party members will be protected in the following terms, as per Article 4 of the Chinese Communist Party:


Party members enjoy the following rights:

(1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party's education and training.
(2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party's policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.
(3) To make suggestions and proposals regarding the work of the Party.
(4) To make well-grounded criticism of any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party in a responsible way, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent cadre.
(5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.
(6) To attend, with the right of self-defense, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves or to appraise their work and behavior; other Party members may also bear witness or argue on their behalf.
(7) In case of disagreement with a Party decision or policy, to make reservations and present their views to Party organizations at higher levels even up to the Central Committee, provided that they resolutely carry out the decision or policy while it is in force.
(8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to higher Party organizations even up to the Central Committee and ask the organizations concerned for a responsible reply.
No Party organization, up to and including the Central Committee, has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.

People may sneer at this idea, but ask any MP or any member of any party in the UK if they have anything like the equivalent and you will know how much Article 4 protects the rights of its members more than any constitution of any political party in the UK.

Cabinet Members are only Cabinet Members until the next reshuffle, and this will be subject to the Prime Minister's whim.  

That is why they fear to speak out, lacking an Article 4 to protect their rights to free speech.

You see, it is the free speech of the politician that must be protected, and theirs is more important than any member of the public.

3:103 http://quran.com/3/103 and 6:159 http://quran.com/6/159 of the Koran certainly appear to say that a one-party state would be just what the doctor ordered if the constitution of that party protects the rights of its members to speak freely about policy matters without fear of being marginalised, demoted or expelled.

But I fear this revelation will only fall on deaf ears.

National Socialism = One-Party State = National Government

It is possible to argue that National Socialism just means a one-party state which is a ruder way of saying National Governmnt (which Britain had during WW2). Frank Field proposed this as recently as 2008 in The Guardian.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/government-debt-gilt-sales

In my view Nazism can be clearly distinguished from National Socialism.

National Socialism, an ideology of nationalism with a stated concern of the working classes, is generic.

Nazism - the failed anti-semitic German version - is nation-specific.

Libya was National Socialist, and so was the Soviet Union. China remains National Socialist.

Singapore however is only a de facto one-party state because although in practice a one-party state, it actually allows other parties to exist, a bit like the UK, which is a bunch of parties with different names but with policies indistinguishable from each other.  (De facto means in practice though not in law.)

I am arguing that a de jure one-party state would be better. (De jure means in law.)

This does not mean no more elections, it just means NO MORE WHIPPING. It means that Peter Bone MP's House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill would in effect have come into force, because every vote would be a FREE VOTE.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9096000/9096136.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9584000/9584782.stm
This means that MPs can vote according to their consciences, convictions and principles, where found.

The rights of members of this Only Party would be fiercely and rigorously protected. This means their right to free speech would actually exist, unlike now, when to criticise the leader of their party would mean demotion or expulsion.

Is anyone still with me so far?

I am saying that National Socialism does not have to be racist, anti-semitic or xenophobic or aggressive to its neighbours. It is basically whatever you have successfully argued is in the National Interest and get to the majority of the members of this only party to vote for.

Remember, it was through this mechanism that allowed China to dump Communism and embrace Capitalism, without a counter-revolution. It can be done and has been done.

I propose that we dump Nanny Statism and embrace Libertarianism by means of National Socialism, because fewer laws and lower taxes, ie a Smaller State, would be in the National Interest.  

I also propose that only those who pay a minimum of tax get to vote, to immediately disenfranchise the Slut Single Mums and their useless welfare scrounging probably criminal bastards.

This has already been proposed by Ian Cowie of the Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

A philosophical offer Slavoj Zizek should not refuse

Dear Dr Zizek

A PHILOSOPHICAL OFFER YOU SHOULD NOT REFUSE

I have a theory that you would probably do better as a comedian than a philosopher because so much of what you say is so excellently funny.  I have myself done a bit of stand-up comedy myself in my time, but it is harder to be funny and remember all your lines than just to talk for about an hour about your favourite subject to a captive audience, so I understand.   

Having admired you greatly for a few days, I have decided that I would like to interview you during which I shall seriously consider whether or not I will offer myself to you, should you find me sufficiently attractive.

I have this theory that no man resist sex from a woman, provided she is not actually repulsive or obviously diseased.  

I would also like you to answer a few questions, before or after sex, as you wish.

These questions will centre around the question of the mislabelling of you as a philosopher of the Left when you are in fact a philosopher of the Right.  I regard myself as a philosopher of the Right since I am currently promoting  the idea of the one-party state for Britain.  This would make me a National Socialist, I believe, or perhaps even a Communist, in the Chinese sense of the term.

I will be giving a talk on the subject of consciousness and why this question is important to take place on 16 November 2011 in Kingston on Thames.  Details at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=208329229203126

In this talk I intend to demonstrate why Western philosophy is a complete waste of time.   

I do hope you will be able to attend.  If you are looking for overnight accommodation, I may be able to help you should I not find you actually repulsive in person.   

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/

http://twitter.com/#!/1party4all

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Default.aspx

are links that should give you a flavour of what I am about.   I should also mention that I was expelled from the BNP in July for things said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show that was found offensive by the disabled and their single mum.  The transcript of what I said is at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html

I would very much like to know if you approve of their decision from a philosophical point of view.  

If you do not love me already and want to have sex with me right this very moment, I hope I shall have the opportunity of persuading you in person, subject to my not finding you actually repulsive.  

To assist you in deciding whether you would like to accept my offer of no-strings sex, you could friend me on Facebook and meet all my friends who want me to meet you too.   

Yours philosophically

Claire Khaw

What is the difference between National Socialism and Fascism?

1. One is known to be German and the other Italian.
2. One thought it had a very bad Jewish problem, but the other wasn't too bothered about Jews.

My Facebook friend Constantin von Hoffmeister said:

"National Socialism postulates that the state should serve the people. Fascism postulates that the people should serve the state. National Socialism places the people (nation) above everything else. Fascism places the state above everything else (even the nation)."

I think it rather profound way of saying that it is a distinction without a difference.   

Liberalism and National Socialism

If liberalism can be turned from something that is rational, peaceful and liberty-giving to something that is irrational, warmongering and liberty-destroying, then National Socialism could in theory be rehabilitated.

In case you hadn't noticed, National Socialism has been practised for over 40 years in Libya and over 60 years in China.

It is therefore quite wrong to think that National Socialism is all about exterminating Jews.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGhdX1SI3KY

Hitler says at 1:54 that National Socialism has two principles: (1) "it would be a party with a true ideology [of National Interest]" and (2) "it would, uncompromisingly, be the one and only power in the nation. The "true" ideology would always change, mutatis mutandis, and it would be "adaptable" and "malleable" to do what is necessary in the circumstances a nation finds itself.  "Onepartyism", however, is a fundamental principle. Therefore all de jure one-party states purporting to act in the National Interest are National Socialist.

Mao's Cultural Revolution undoubtedly cost many millions of Chinese their lives and it is now admitted by the Chinese government that "mistakes were made".  They have altered the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party since and are now terrified of any personality cult of a party leader.  (That is one of the reasons why they are so hard on the Falun Gong.)  

One must not forget that the Chinese Communist Party managed to do this counter-revolutionary thing of dumping Communism without a violence, and give them credit where it is due.

While it would be galling for Hitler to subsequently learn that other nations of inferior races are better at National Socialism than Germans themselves, it would tend to suggest that National Socialism or one-partyism in the National Interest is not all bad if one does not go around starting wars and being defeated in them.  That was the fatal mistake that Hitler made.  

What a shame then that Western leaders seem unable to learn the lessons of history or even of those of recent history. Undaunted by the disaster that remains Iraq and Afghanistan, they now have their eye on Libya.  

Socialism

Hitler:

"Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have some thing to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

We are all socialists now!

International Marxism, National Socialism and The Third Way

National Socialism was an ideology to combat International Marxism, which has world ambitions.

National Socialism attempted to be a - ahem - Third Way, ie a middle way between capitalism and socialism.

Does any of this sound familiar?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/may/08/leaders.labour

Islam is another example of a third way ideology between the ethno-exclusiveness and high entry requirements of Judaism and the extremist ideology of the Christians which claimed that all one had to do to reach the Kingdom of God is believe that Christ is really God, amongst other odd and extremist doctrines.  

There are many examples in history of hybrid and evolving ideologies.

Historical inaccuracy by Pope about Hitler's alleged Atheism

Having read Mein Kampf, I was very disappointed at the Pope for pretending that Hitler wanted to remove God from the Germans. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11313328  Quite the contrary. This is what Hitler actually said about religion:

"By helping to lift the ...human being above the level of mere animal existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own existence. Taking humanity as it exists today and taking into consideration the fact that the religious faiths which it generally holds and which have been consolidated through our education, so that they serve as moral standards in practical life, if we should now abolish religious teaching and not replace it by anything of equal value the result would be that the foundations of human existence would be seriously shaken. We may safely say that man does not live merely to serve higher ideals but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the necessary conditions of existence as a human being. And thus the circle is closed."

"The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defence of its own teaching."

A new definition of nationalism

Reduced to its essentials, nationalism is simply the theory and practice of pursuing the national interest.  It should be benign, pragmatic, rational and most certainly non-racist, if understood properly and practised correctly. 

One can only judge the success of this ideology by the success and longevity of the nations who practice it.  

The People's Republic of China just celebrated its 60th anniversary last year. 

Khavian Koranism Ideological Weapon against Radical Islam

I am sorry to appear egotistical, but it seems I have no choice but to put my name to a new ideology I have created to counter Radical Islam in order to avoid being accused of being a Radical Islamist myself. I am saying that while you hate Radical Islam, you will love Khavian Koranism because it is different. It is different because it does not require a belief in God for you to subscribe to it. In other words, it will not damage the integrity of your agnostic and atheistical beliefs.

I have had it said that I wish to create a new religion. I certainly wish to create a new ideology - that of Secular Khavian Anglican Islam (or whatever it ends up being called) whose principles would be judiciously balanced by the principles of libertarianism. 

It is an ideology that rationally and humanely combines Koranic principles with libertarianism which is agnostic as to the existence of God, which I propose to call Indifferent Agnosticism. 






It is indeed a hybrid ideology rather like, it has to be admitted, National Socialism. It must be pointed out that National Socialism and Fascism were created as a vaccination against International Marxism by those who feared and hated this radical ideology.





National Socialism's most distinguishing characteristics are:

1. a one-party state
2. a leadership and personality cult
3. a stated preoccupation with social justice and the people
4. a stated preoccupation with the national interest

National Socialism was in fact practised outside Germany, after Hitler's death.  While it is unarguable that  International Marxism became National Socialism the moment those who adopted it gave up their international ambitions, this is not generally accepted by political theorists.  

The explanation is simple: Hitler is one of the major villain's of recent history.  This being so no nation would wish to acknowledge that the ideology they are in fact practising has all the main elements of National Socialism.  It may even cause a major diplomatic incident if it were pointed that China is the most established and successful nation on earth that practises National Socialism.  (The People's Republic of China 60th birthday was celebrated in 2009.  The Russians once practised it, but gave up National Socialism when they gave up their one-party system under Gorbachev.) 


The spectre of Radical Islam hangs over the world just as the spectre of Communism hung over the world at the beginning of the last century. 

I therefore propose countering Radical Islamism with Secular Khavian Anglican Islam - an ideology that combines the elements of 

1. agnostic neutrality on the existence of God so that we make the most of our agreement
2. racial neutrality
3. libertarianism
4. family values AKA anti-feminism
5. social justice
6. nationalism (ie an ideology of national interest which is an abstract concept of balancing the competing interests of the different groups that make up a nation)
7. a one-party state under a constitution that protects the rights of individual members against the leader and his cronies and no personality cult

International Marxism, National Socialism and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" AKA Pragmatic Nationalism

Now on the second volume of Mein Kampf, it is quite clear that, whatever you think of Hitler and his incoherent racial theories, he cared deeply about social justice and wanted to improve the lot of the poor.

It should be noted that the party that he joined was the Labour Party, which he very successfully moulded to take the form of his particular ideology.

National Socialism was therefore the anti-thesis of International Marxism because National Socialists wanted socialism for their own country, but rejected World Communism, which was a feature of International Marxism.  

Trotsky clung to Marx's purist goal of World Communism until Stalin decisively saw to it that the Russians concentrated only on Russia Empire.  Mao was only interested in the Socialism for China and not any other peoples who did not come under the rule of China.

It could therefore be said that any form of Socialism that had no international ambitions is in fact National Socialism.

The Russians can be said to have given up on their National Socialism the moment Gorbachev abandoned their one-party system - which is the distinguishing feature of National Socialism.

It can therefore be said that the Chinese remain the only living flourishing practitioners of National Socialism (with Chinese characteristics), which is a very interesting thought indeed.

National Socialism appears to have served the Chinese rather well.  They have certainly made a point of not being obviously aggressive and expansionist.  "One country two systems" demonstrates that they are capable of compromising when the need arises.  Since China is undoubtedly an empire, they are very keen emphasising racial harmony, very understandably.

What a shame Hitler is not alive today.  It would be delicious to be able to put the point to him on The Today Programme, perhaps, that his National Socialism is perhaps being implemented better by the Chinese than by the Germans, and whether he still stands by all the nonsense that was his racial theory.

He did after all say:

"Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years."

It would be delicious to be able to call the Singaporeans Nazis too, but it appears they only have a de facto one-party state, not a de jure one.  Shame.