Thoughts On Pan-Germanic Socialism (Pt. III of III)

My advice to living outside the metaphysical framework of Liberal Capitalism: “Know the Intents of the Patron Saints of Catholic Education, always striving to follow and to uphold those same Intents.”

Without Hitlerism and Strasserism, the problems with Pan-Germanic Socialism are related to hostilities toward the Catholic Church, the Jews, and the Slavic peoples. Pan-Germanic Socialism is not supposed to have an Intent to be against those three. There is literally nothing about the Liberal International Economic Order (LIEO), the European Union/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (EU/NATO), and Neoliberalism that are “Catholic,” “Slavic,” or even “Jewish.” The right amounts of Kapital and Schuld under the Incentives of Supply and Demand, together with Fordism-Taylorism, are more than enough to compel anyone into siding with Neoliberalism.

“Under Fordism-Taylorism, the industrial worker had to work at a pace dictated by the speed of the assembly line. Work was repetitive and often exhausting. [Since the death of Bretton Woods], if you have a job, you have to work at a speed dictated by computers, and you are competing, wage-wise, with other desperate people in low-wage countries.”

But Pan-Germanic Socialism’s original Intent is still missing. Why would Pan-Germanic Socialism remain distrustful and suspicious of Catholics, Jews and Slavs in a post-1945 world where those same three are also being exploited by Neoliberalism? Is there anything in Europe’s history that can provide us with some clues that might shed light on the missing Intent?

I have always been fully confident in my conclusions for the past ten years that Pan-Germanic Socialism’s real grievances are with the Catholic Church and nobody else. Its animosity should have been restricted to the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone! Neither the Slavs nor even the Jews deserved the hostility that they received from Pan-Germanic Socialism because they have always been the bystanders in this millennia of bad blood between the Church and the Reich. There were so many opportunities, some dating back thousands of years, where the Germans and the Europeans could have avoided or at least mitigated the widespread death and destruction that they had inflicted on themselves and the rest of the world in the two World Wars. All the consequences of 20th century, the byproducts of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, are still continuing to affect all of humanity in the 21st century.

That is why I believe the 20th century never ended in the 21st century. The world is still living with the consequences of everything that has happened in Europe between the 15th and 20th centuries. The 20th century was a pivotal moment where Europe could have chosen an entirely different future for itself and the rest of humanity by extension. The American people of these United States, Latin America, the Slavs and the Jews, and the rest of humanity never deserved the treatment which they had all received from Europe.

These are all beliefs which I have consistently upheld as an American Catholic since childhood and later reinforced during my teenage years. Even as an adult, ten years after I started my research on the Work-Standard, I will always uphold these longstanding beliefs no matter what. Nothing to the contrary is going to convince me otherwise and it will stay that way for as long as I live. These suspicions which I have had toward Pan-Germanic Socialism for the past ten years (because I simply cannot believe that ten years have passed) were recently validated in my readings of the Second and Third Editions of Rudolf Jung’s Der nationale Sozialismus in 2021.

Of all the things that remained constant in the pre-Hitlerist Second Edition and the Hitlerist-era Third Edition, it had to be the First Chapter of “Part I: Foundations of National Socialism” on Pages 20-22. Am I to believe that Jung subconsciously and subliminally argued that everyone in Europe–the Catholic Church and German Reich, the Germans and the Jews, the Europeans and the Slavs–had decided unanimously to create Pan-Germanic Socialism, which continues to be unaddressed and repressed in the European Collective Unconsciousness?

Pan-Germanic Socialism began with Charlemagne

“Charlemagne unified all the Germanic tribes in what is now France, Northern Italy, and Germany into one state. Under his son Louis, however, this Reich had already begun to crumble, and it was finally divided by his own sons Lothar, Louis, and Charles in the year 843 through the Treaty of Verdun.

In addition to the bishoprics of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, situated to the west of the Rhine, Louis also received all the lands east of the Rhine.”

Treaty of Verdun

This marked the beginning of our own German history, as well as that of France. The Carolingian family had, however, exhausted its strength with Charlemagne. In 887 the last of his descendants in the German lands was deposed. After an interlude a king was elected in the year 911, as had formerly been customary among the Teutons. From this the Franconian Duke Conrad emerged as king, who died 7 years later. Now selection fell upon the Saxon Duke he had recommended, Henry, known as the Fowler or City-Founder.”

For comparison purposes, here is a Cold War-era map of Europe. Note the geographic similarities between what Jung was describing in the pages of Der national Sozialismus (2nd Edition) and the geographical boundaries of the Charlemagne Empire on a Cold War-era map of Europe.
Now take a look at this post-Cold War map of Europe. Note that the nations that Jung was describing are now member-states of the EU/NATO.

It was only under [Charlemagne] that the German Reich actually came into being, and the German Volk along with it. This creation was subject to varied destinies. Henry’s son Otto I allowed himself to be blinded by the Roman imperial dignity, and as a result the German Kingdom became the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.” This unnatural covenant with Rome was the first link in an unending chain of trials and tribulations. German kingship should have become, like that of the French or the English, a völkisch institution; this would have overcome the tribal differences which were inherent within our Volk and so merged them into one. The un-German imperial ideal, international in its essence, has however only brought evil upon us. It was the cause of our fruitless pull towards Italy, which inhibited our natural drive towards the East and thereby suppressed the nascent settlement activity occurring there. Courland, Livonia, Estonia, Poland, and the Sudetenland [Read: Czechia] would be German today if the rulers of the Saxon and Salian Franconian houses, and the splendid Hohenstaufen family, had remained German kings. Instead, they chased after an un-German imperial delusion, which ultimately only led, under the Salian Henry IV (1056-1106), to the “Walk to Canossa” and the downfall of the German Reich of the early Middle Ages.

The Walk to Canossa
The First German Reich in the 12th Century

The covenant with Rome soon became a struggle with and about Rome, a struggle which the Hohenstaufens eventually lost. Their dynasty perished miserably. In the year 1256 the Roman-German Kaiserreich was shattered. In 1273 it was restored through the election of Rudolph of Habsburg. But under the Habsburg and Lützelburg (Luxembourg) rulers it was effectively only a mere shadow of itself. These dynasties were seeking merely to establish the greatest possible power bases for themselves, and the larger vassals imitated them in kind. In the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which concluded the Thirty Years’ War, the ruling princes became truly independent, and the disastrous Kleinstaaterei [Political Fragmentation] occurred.”

The First Reich in the 17th century

“Until the year 1806, when Francis II abdicated the German imperial dignity and assumed that of the Emperor of Austria, the Reich led only a phantom existence. An Imperial Prince like the Prussian King Frederick II could, for example, wage war against Maria Theresa, who ruled over the Habsburg hereditary lands, even though her spouse was the German Emperor!

The Saxon, Franconian, and Hohenstaufen rulers, although outstanding for the most part and brilliantly gifted – yes, like the Saxons, Otto I (936-978) and Otto II (973-983); the Frank, Henry III (1039-1056); and the Hohenstaufen, Henry VI (1190-1197) – lost their footing through their thirst for world domination. They entirely misjudged their real task of creating a Reich in Central Europe, comprised largely of Germans, which had to gather and to Germanize the scattered West Slavic tribes. They neglected to do so, even with the help of the valiant German bishops who would have been willing to establish a Christian-German church. These were their sins as statesmen, which we their descendants must still suffer from today after centuries.

The second opportunity for state unity and for the consolidation of the Reich offered itself centuries afterwards in the [Protestant] Reformation. It remained unutilized once again, and that is the original sin of the Spanish-clerical Habsburgs. The only member of this dynasty who felt himself a German and who desired to behave accordingly, at least within the range of his hereditary lands, was Joseph II, who arrived too late and lived too briefly.”

The German Reich in the 19th Century

Since then ecclesiastical schism [Read: Sectarianism and Tribalism] has been our misfortune, the eternal dichotomy between Roman and Lutheran the deeper cause behind every inclination towards Kleinstaaterei, i.e., behind all so-called particularism. We could never become completely German in the sense that the French are French and the Czechs are Czech, because we have always been primarily either Catholic or Protestant. Neither of the two is German in the depths of its heart. One, however, could never even become so, inasmuch as it has always taken its orders from Rome. Rome, however, has many offspring, and prefers to ignore its disobedient children for the sake of focusing on the already well-behaved German. How the Pope campaigned for a negotiated peace – when we were victorious; but when a shameful peace was imposed upon us he kept silent, and the German Catholics did not draw any conclusions from this!”

Could this possibly be what Heidegger meant when he said “Only a God can save us” (“Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten“) in his 1966 interview with Der Spiegel? It was that same interview in which I went out of my way to pull some of the peculiar passages from the whole thing. There were a number of peculiar passages that came across to me as being extremely cryptic, as if Heidegger was trying to allude to something that Europe and the rest of humanity have forgotten in the State of Total Mobilization. The Political Organization Problem has yet to be resolved:

Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of Philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a God can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the God or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering for in the face of the God who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us.

In closing, allow me to quote another important passage from Chapter 1 which I believe is still relevant in today’s political climate regarding the German-speaking world:

The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) – which arose out of religious conflict and the selfishness of the ruling princes – made Germany a playground for every possible nation [Völker] and plunged it into nameless misery. The Peace of Westphalia[(!)] rendered it powerless. Whoever wanted to tear a piece from Germania’s body could do so with impunity, and could certainly locate German princes who would assist him. Thus did Louis XIV of France rob Alsace. The German imperial territory of Lorraine was later traded by the Habsburgs to France in order for Maria Theresa to help her husband, Franz Stefan. When Bismarck reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine in 1871 it was not a conquest or “annexation,” as such a thing is called today; conversely, it probably did count as such a thing when both territories (provinces) – as occurred at Versailles on 28th June 1919–were cold-bloodedly handed over to France without a referendum.

After the appalling catastrophe of the Thirty Years’ War a gradual resurgence of our Volk occurred in the areas of economics, art, and science. The state, however, remained powerless. Even the Napoleonic War did not bring it its long-awaited unification. That remained reserved for Bismarck, and through him Prussia, which had gradually grown under the Great Elector and his successors (especially Frederick the Great) into the second great German power alongside that of the Habsburgs – and which in 1866 risked a necessary armed encounter with Austria, then with France in 1870, and so founded the new German Reich, the profound fall of which every nationally-conscious German presently mourns.

What every other nation was given generously, we were denied: the freedom to determine our national affiliation. We have been treated like livestock; they dealt with us in 1919 the same way they did with our forefathers in 1648. We are intended to be the servant-nation of the Earth!

Left: “Never Support the Oder-Neisse Line. Vote CDU/CSU.”
Right: “With the SPD, from Bonn to Berlin, for a free, social, and united Germany.”
“Forwards for a Free Germany!”
PS: The Flag of Pan-Germanic Socialism is Germany’s Black-Red-Gold Tricolor. Rudolf Jung ran with it in the First Edition of Der nationale Sozialismus.

Categories: Politics

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: