The National-Socialist Critique of Democracy

Chapter 4
Democracy or Leadership

Translated by Hadding Scott from the 16th (1940) edition of Hansjoerg Maennel’s Politische Fibel

DEMOCRACY IS THE DOCTRINE of the equality of all human beings and of the ability of all human beings to govern themselves. (Democracy, Greek = rule by the folk, rule by the masses.)

The starting point of the democratic conception is: “All men are equal.” “Everything that bears a human countenance is equal.” Not only are the peoples equal to each other (this view leads to Internationalism), but even the human beings within a folk are equal. Consequently all have equal rights, even an equal right to participate in the state. “The authority of the state comes from the people.” (Weimar Constitution, Article 1.) — Since direct rule by the people is unworkable, one chooses representative democracy or parliamentary government.

Parliamentarism is the principle of vote by representatives, who make decisions through majority rule. (Parliamentarism, from Lat. parlare = to speak.)

Critique of parliamentary democracy:

1. It is not true that all men are equal. Human beings are different. The democratic principle, “to each the same,” leads directly to Communism, to the dispossession of the gifted, industrious, and thrifty (precedent: Russia). — Democracy in the modern age started with the French Revolution (1789). “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” (“Gleichheit, Freiheit, Brüderlichkeit”) were the catchwords that ruled the entire 19th Century. The democratic principle of equality is always an instrument of the Jew for the elimination of the best racial forces. When all have equal rights (das gleiche Recht), the capable and intelligent are thereby forced onto the same level as the corrupt and stupid.

2. It is not true that the best and most capable emerge from a vote. Usually the greatest shouters, the most irresponsible, are chosen. Whoever promises the most has the greatest prospect of going to parliament. The MPs of the democratic system were in no way the elite of the nation. The principle of vote by popular representatives leads inevitably to the creation of economic or religious special-interest parties. The MPs did not represent the folk community, but mostly a specific class or group. Thereby unitary, goal-conscious state-leadership was made impossible. The bourgeois parties and the Marxist parties on the other side cancelled each other out. The power of the nation was likewise nil and could not be effectively and coherently (geschlossen) utilized abroad. International Jewry, however, tipped the balance on the scale of the parliament. — Democracy is always the reign of the Jewish money-bag; it leads to the most evil corruption.

3. It is not true that the decisions of a majority are always right and beneficial to the people. On the contrary: by no means are 51 voices against 49 voices necessarily correct. “What is the majority? Majority is nonsense. Understanding has always only been among few. One ought to weigh voices, not count them.” (Schiller, Demetrius.) The individual MP conceals himself behind an anonymous majority. He has “obeyed only his conscience.” Mostly however the “representatives of the people” had no conscience. Parliamentary democracy is irresponsibility elevated to a principle of government. It leads to the elimination of all authority, thus ultimately to the complete ruin of folk and state.

“The Jewish democracy of majority rule was always merely a means to the destruction of the existing Aryan leader-class.” — Adolf Hitler

National-Socialism is the fiercest enemy of parliamentary democracy. In opposition to that, it stands for the principle of Fuehrertum. Fuehrertum is the direction of an organization by one over-towering man. The fuehrer-principle is based on the conception of human inequality. There are the intelligent and the stupid, the industrious and the lazy, the good and the bad. The particular peoples and races are different, and so are the individual human beings within a people. — Every folk comrade is appraised according to his performance for the folk. Valuation according to performance. — The standard of valuation must be the same for every folk comrade. We National-Socialists reject preferential treatment for one class. (Examples: absolutism of the 18th Century; the Weimar System, in which the National-Socialist was a second-class person, while lower humanity could run wild with impunity; English plutocracy).

There is no privilege for any special class; all folk comrades are evaluated equally (Program, Point 9). The result of an equal evaluation of the individual person is however not the same, but different. Here this principle applies: “To each what is appropriate,”* not “To each the same,” as in democracy. He who sacrifices and achieves much ought to stand higher than he who achieves little and sacrifices nothing. The National-Socialist idea of leadership (Fuehrergedanke) is founded upon a deliberate selection according to race (genetic value), character, and ability. Thus a rank-order develops. The entire folk organically arrays itself as a pyramid. The most capable and gifted member of the folk, who has prevailed through his over-towering achievements, stands at the head of the folk: he is the Leader.

Draw this on the blackboard.

In democracy the “power of the state” comes from the people. It consists in the rule of the mass. Authority (power to give orders) goes from below to above, while on the other hand, responsibility goes from above to below. Both are, however, unworkable in practice. One cannot command upward and assign accountability downward. (Examples.) Democracy thus leads directly to leaderlessness and irresponsibility. — In Fuehrertum by contrast these principles apply: authority from above to below, responsibility from below to above. The Leader appoints his lieutenants (Unterfuehrer), he gives them their orders and guidelines, and for the execution and success of these they are responsible to the Leader.

The National-Socialist movement is an example of true Fuehrertum. If a political leader or an SA-fuehrer gives an order, this must be carried out. Every follower (Gefolgsmann) can be called to account by his leaders. Because Adolf Hitler built up the NSDAP rigorously according to the fuehrer-principle, the movement inevitably prevailed against the Marxist and bourgeois mobs. — Likewise the German state, which is led by means of strict Fuehrertum, prevails against the neighboring democratic states. Against the democratic idea of the mass we National-Socialists set the idea of personality. Everything great in this world, all inventions and all cultural achievements are created by personalities. (Examples.) — Our Leader has formed a German folk out of disintegrating mass. Democracy is a symptom of decline in dying peoples (e.g. Greece, Rome, etc.) All ascending peoples are, by contrast, always led by significant personalities. — Democratic propaganda flatters the mass. Everyone would rather command than obey. Consequently democracy was beloved and the idea of leadership was often unpopular.

It is a mistake to believe that under the “people’s government” it goes well for the people. On the contrary! Experience has shown that parliamentary democracy leads to the ruin of the people. A people can only experience progress (Aufstieg) when a leader (Fuehrer) stands at its head. Heroes make history!

A true leader feels that he is responsible to his people. Here Adolf Hitler is a shining example. This principle of the responsibility of the Leader to the Nation is designated “Germanic democracy.” With Western parliamentary democracy, which we reject, Germanic democracy has nothing in common.

The fuehrer-principle has meaning only in service to the entire nation. To be leader carries obligations The leader is the leader not because he bears special distinctions but because he bears greater responsibility. Leadership is not a privilege but an exalted duty. To be leader is to be an example!

Adolf Hitler is the ideal leader: purposeful and inexorable, but at the same time tactically astute; industrious, never resting, moreover prudent and far-sighted; proud and righteous, but also modest and unpretentious; energetic and austere, but full of warm love for his people. From the simplest origins our Leader has worked his way up against the most difficult obstacles to become the greatest statesman in German history. We National-Socialists are proud that we are privileged to follow a man such as our Leader. He is a lofty example for us. We emulate him with all our powers.

* * *

* Jedem das Seine is still the motto of the German military police.

* * *

Source: National-Socialist Worldview

For Further Reading

Previous post

Dr. Pierce's Open Letter to George H.W. Bush

Next post

Last Minute Payoff: Jewish Billionaire Epstein Won't Have to Face White Girls He Raped and Sold


  1. Erfurt
    9 December, 2018 at 6:49 am — Reply

    The ‘principle’ of equality does not mean all people are the same. It means that ‘in principle’ no particular race, or person, has power over another because all people have this right, to not be enslaved. The French Revolution does not epitomise ‘democracy’ or ‘equality’, as your article suggests, it epitomises freedom in sense explained above, to be free of tyranny. There is a profound link between the French Revolution and Germany, which as we know, was not even a state at the time. The problem is that reactionaries always hijack the moment a state has a vision for itself. The greatest example of this in the Martin Heidegger smear brigade, which, unbelievably, still goes on to this day, to the point where any decent Heideggerian has to constantly defend himself/herself against the lesser thinkers who stack the universities and repeat the same mantra. Unfortunately, I don’t even think people would recognise a visionary today, with all the propaganda that bombards our senses.

  2. 21st Century WN
    10 December, 2018 at 12:18 pm — Reply

    I’m in agreement with “Erfurt” regarding the meaning of “equality”. At least as the Founding Fathers defined it, it never meant “all people are the same”.

    Article: “Adolf Hitler is the ideal leader: purposeful and inexorable, but at the same time tactically astute; industrious, never resting, moreover prudent and far-sighted; proud and righteous, but also modest and unpretentious; energetic and austere, but full of warm love for his people.”

    What National Socialism under the Third Reich never answered was: when Hitler dies – who replaces him? Now, if you say “the next in rank” okay, but maybe “the next in rank” is not the best choice. As an example, even though he’s “next in rank”, is Mike Pence the best choice to replace Trump? He’s a nice enough bloke, but that said, I don’t think so.

    Likewise, was Martin Bormann (considered 2nd to AH) the best replacement? Again, I’m doubtful. But if not him, then who? And more importantly: who decides? If Hitler’s leading circle does, then basically they talk among themselves then “vote”. So right there, we’re back to “democracy”, except on a micro-level.

    Therefore, I think an NS governmental system, at least in regard to how leaders are selected, is highly questionable. Remember, Hitler was a force unto himself, and his kind could not likely have been replaced. So the Reich would’ve been reduced to choosing his replacement among far lesser mortals once his time on Earth had passed.

    Personally, I prefer a system of “meritocratic democracy” – or “Merivocracy” as it’s called. This, of course, would be in an all-white society, with many lesser whites never being granted the vote, while others of high-ability and achievement would have their individual vote multiplied five, ten, or twenty times higher than their one-vote counterparts, based on their value and contributions to society.

    • bertinia
      13 December, 2018 at 3:39 pm — Reply

      21st Century WN

      what is meant by merit, exactly

      kind regards

  3. 21st Century WN
    15 December, 2018 at 10:21 am — Reply

    Bertina @21st Century WN: “what is meant by merit, exactly. kind regards”

    Recognizing that no governmental system is flawless, some are certainly better than others. To answer your question, “merit” refers to quantifiable ability, such as IQ, for instance. True, there are smart people who are otherwise badly flawed, and would make less valuable citizens than a citizen of lesser intelligence who is nonetheless diligent in his duties to both family and work and country.

    So high-level IQ is only one aspect of “merit” when considering how a hypothetical WN country might come to choose those who will lead it. There is also “talent”, which is more nebulous to quantify with tests, as can be done with IQ. For instance, there were those among Hitler’s coterie who probably had higher IQ’s (such as rocket scientist and SS Major Wernher von Braun) but Hitler possessed a mesmerizing public speaking “talent” that Von Braun likely did not have, even though he had a superior IQ.

    And there are other aspects of “merit” that can be measured to varying degrees – all of which those who lead us should possess in greater quantity than the general populace they will lead. In the end, an ideal WN government should grant the most say in the direction a nation will take to those men and women of superior mind and talent.

    In the end, I believe that the present democratic philosophy of “one man, one vote” has led us to where we are now. In other words, stupid people deserve no vote at all because they are stupid, and mediocre people but one. But those of intellect and talent deserve multiple votes (and thus magnified influence) so that our best have a greater say in how a country is run.

  4. paul
    20 December, 2018 at 2:18 pm — Reply

    Equality has been used to control because it is the unquestionable or absolute sine qua non of this government. And one must consider the source and its malignant influence.

    It has begot the like god of egalitarianism , which makes the obvious, natural inequality to be equal. They destroy all quality; only zero is equal.

    Suggesting Martin Bormann betrays one’s lack of knowledge of the hierarchy. But he was generally disliked by all and persona non grata in polite venues, and whose real persona is still a mystery. A Russian woman I know claims he worked for the Jews and escaped to a waiting sinecure in Soviet RUssia.

    What is taken here is probably from Mein Kampf with regard to parliamentary democracy could also have been a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

    The adversary continues to malign the deceased with impunity. Is it his evil personality or the principal reason they declared was on the Third Reich,
    that it actually existed to help and preserve its own people ?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.