Excellent, a glimpse into yet another aspect of Pan-Germanic Socialism that has been forgotten and left by the wayside because of Hitlerism. In my descriptions of the German-speaking world on my Blog, I have always referred to it as the “German Reich,” a Pan-Germanic Socialist Council Democracy governed by a coalition between the “NSPDV” (Nationalsozialistische Partei des deutschen Volksreiches; Pan-Germanic Socialist Party of the German People’s Reich) and a Communist counterpart, a “KPDV” (Kommunistische Partei des deutschen Volksreiches; Communist Party of the German People’s Reich) comprised of the KPD and KPÖ. This implies that the Pan-Germanic Socialists prior to Adolf Hitler were once supportive of a “Germanic Federalism” that would someday serve as the German-speaking world’s analogue to the American Federalism originally promoted by the American Jew Alexander Hamilton. What a tragic irony!
Had the so-called “Jewish-commercial spirit” been genuinely understood as the Liberal Capitalists, whose ranks are overwhelmingly Gentile, the German-speaking world could have pursued a different path. I say this because when we read between the lines of the pre-Hitlerist literature, the Pan-Germanic Socialists wanted the Jews to integrate themselves more thoroughly into the German-speaking world. Those who did not support the Zionist cause for a Jewish nation should do their best to acclimate themselves to the German-speaking world. The goal would be something akin to what Hamilton had done in 18th century, what Bishop St. Johann Nepomuk Neumann, CSsR, of Sudetenland did in Philadelphia during the 19th century, or what Hannah Arendt did in the 20th century. While most non-Catholic Americans are understandably unaware of His Excellency (Catholic America is a different story), Hamilton is well-known and many are still surprised to learn that he was a Jew whose historical background straddled somewhere between “European American” and “Latin American.” Arendt, on the other hand, embodies the Prussian character and mindset based on her bibliography. Stay true to one’s Authentic Dasein within the State of Total Mobilization but always be acclimated to the social relations of the Totality by never treating it like a “Civil Society.”
Furthermore, the concept of Germanic Federalism opens additional avenues for Pan-Germanic Socialism beyond Hard Euroscepticism and Intersectionality Theory (more on that part later). Political and economic power is shared between the “Reich Government,” the “State Governments,” and the “Municipal Governments.” It all ties in neatly with Rudolf Jung’s descriptions of what he referred to as “Municipal Socialism” from Der nationale Sozialismus (2nd Ed.). With this detail in mind, Bogumil, allow me to bring to your attention a concurring discovery that bears implications for Pan-Germanic Socialism from my recently finished Treatise, Work-Standard Accounting Practices: Handbook of WSA Accounting and Political Finance for Beginners and Practitioners (1st Ed).
We both know that Pan-Germanic Socialism intends this Volksreich to be governed by the Volksgemeinschaft. But the Volksgemeinschaft itself is defined by a multiplicity of different groups of people throughout the German-speaking world. Even in the Volksreich, there will always be people who do not fall within the Typus shared by the Volksgemeinschaft and may feel “oppressed” because they do not feel “represented” (or in the context of Council Democracy, ‘delegated’) within the Volksgemeinschaft. The proposed solution that I found from Herman Schmalenbach, a German Jewish Sociologist and Philosopher credited for contributing to Pan-Germanic Socialism’s understandings of Volksgemeinschaft, was that instead of trying to recreate Civil Society as a “‘Volksgesellschaft,’” it would be best that those people be allowed to establish their own “Bünde (Social Communions).” Such thinking is only possible because of the fact that Pan-Germanic Socialism prior to Hitlerism once espoused its own Germanic Federalism, the “Bund” implying a “Federation,” “League,” or “Band.” The Council Democratic process will take care of the rest, beginning from the workspace and ending at the Reichstag building in Berlin.
On a sidenote, we are also aware that “Intersectionality Theory” in the English-speaking world has been applied to justify “Civil Societies within the Civil Society,” “Parliaments within the Parliament.” Often understood as the “Deep State” and “Institutional Racism,” the Liberal Capitalist version continues to be taken to its logical extremes and transposed on a moral plane of Absolute Good and Absolute Evil.
That particular issue ends in the Volksreich (not to mention the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, Imperial Japan and Hamiltonian America), where the Totality supplants the Civil Society. Intersectionality Theory in this context becomes something akin to what Maoism defined as “Social Imperialism,” which even Jung himself alluded to in one passage within Der nationale Sozialismus. Let the rest of humanity be themselves and find their own Authentic Dasein, their own National Essence. It means not casting prejudices on Proletarian Women like “Germanic Woman” or “Soviet Woman” by claiming that both are somehow less feminine and racially inferior to Bourgeois Women.
Literally, I have not found any Feminists chastising John Maynard Keynes and Irving Fisher for letting accountants and auditors objectify women in general as Kapital and allowing others to compare them to “The Gold Standard.” Where is “MeToo” when it comes to criticizing the whole Accounting Profession? Are accountants too boring to elicit outrage?
Anyway, I am still in the process of reading the rest of the ARPLAN post, but so far, I am finding parallels between my own research and our discussions of Pan-Germanic Socialism and Germanic Feminism. A follow up comment will be written to further elaborate on my findings, which are still ongoing as of late.
Leave a Reply