When describing his perfect community, during a discussion regarding the rewards of a moral society as opposed to that of an immoral society. Plato makes some startling revelations, that demonstrates not only the intellectual depth of this man, but also his inherent Aryan spirit, the Weltanschauung (world view) which resides within us all. In showing this I will formulate the key focal points of Plato's republic into different sections, and examine them in parallel with that of National Socialism.
The Role Of Each Man In The Society
In discussing the role of each man in the community, Plato quite aptly remarked that, one could never be an expert at more than one profession, that people are inherently suited for different kinds of occupation since each has a different nature [1] . It is with reason that I state this to be an apt description of the role of each man in the society:
National Socialism celebrates the inequality of man as something unique and natural to the order of society. It recognizes that each of us are biologically limited in our abilities, and implores us to strive to be the best we can be within those limitations. People more suited for their respective tasks should indeed be championed to take up these tasks and fulfill the role in society that had been gifted to him. We cannot all strive to be Physicists or Scientists, which is what society today purports we believe. It might sound good on the face of it, and it is this "noble" suggestion that most of us eventually succumb to, however, when we look a little deeper into the matter, the sheer fallacy of such a suggestion becomes easily exposed, if at once we consider society as a whole and what is needed for it to function. If we had all been equal and equally capable of these tasks, had only mere environment been generous to us, then society would at once lose the threads that bind it together and succumb.
It is not our environment which determines what it is we are capable of and what we aren't, it is our biological make up. It determines through hereditary traits whether we are to be more capable than another or less capable, of course it is true that education plays a part in our intelligence...The role it plays however is secondary to the role of biology. If we can explain it in another way, which would be more sensible as well as irrefutable : Our biological selection also determines our physical make up and because of this we can't all run equally fast, regardless of how much time we spend practicing and doing the laps. Some are just more gifted than others..it is their natural calling.
This of course is not to suggest that we should all be accepting of mediocrity, or not strive at all to improve ourselves to the fullest extent of our abilities. Rather that we embrace fully that quality which is gifted to us, and which naturally separates us from the rest. If each man embraced that gift which is natural to him, far more good can be brought for society and it's advancement. Why strive to be "similar" when being unique is such a more rewarding sense of being? I could never understand why people would desire being stale and similar.
Education
To Plato one of the important aspects of a moral community, is its education in terms of how it deals with educating the youth as well as the adult participants in the community. Plato states that:
"Education consists of cultural studies of the mind and of exercise of the body" [2] he continues further to state that "Cultural studies should be before physical studies" [3]
While it is a given that both exercise and cultural studies should be an integral part of an education system, I can't help but disagree with Plato on the latter part of this statement. It makes more sense to have them done simultaneously, purely because a healthy mind requires a healthy and fit body. Exercise provides the body with the healthy blood flow required in order to function properly. A well trained body, therefor gives the mind the necessary oxygen it needs to function healthy and clearer.
Now that we have dealt with the relevance of education and physical training, it's important for us to deal with the more important points Plato raises in his discussion regarding the education of the Society:
Plato argues that it is necessary for the educative material as well as publicized material to be regulated. And if found to be lacking, removed on the basis that it undermines the development of the student and subverts the society as a whole.[4] I am sure that most people would consider this in some way or another as undermining the "freedom" of speech and of expression. However, when we consider that this is already done, especially where the education of the youth is concerned there is little point in delving into reactionary responses. Before judgments are passed on this particular matter, consider the following question posed to you, the reader :
Are materials that deal on the basis of "race, creed, nationality, sex or sexual preferences" not undermined as a focal point of studies in our education systems today?
The reason is not because it lacks any scholarly validation, on the contrary, the reason is simply that it goes against the grain of the Governmental doctrine. Equality preaches that there are no distinctions between man in anyway shape or form, whether racial or otherwise. Any suggestion even the slightest hint that it is a baseless ideology, ends in the teacher immediately being muzzled, expelled from the school and replaced with one who is more willing to toe the doctrinal lines.
In this instance it is perceive as being "contrary to the interest of society", on the basis that it is "deemed offensive material". Whilst we're on the subject of mentioning the "offensive" nature of material, let's examine this preposterous nature of such a claim:
There can be nothing more ridiculous than to formulate laws on the basis of an emotional state that can neither be confirmed nor denied, since it is a personal condition of both the accuser and of the accused. You may find offensive what I deem to be perfectly legitimate and likewise the same way I could deem offensive what you deem perfectly legitimate...I ask then, how is it sensible for such ridiculous laws to determine what is right and what is wrong? especially in the academic field where inquiry is the soul of knowledge.
Is the willful neglect of biological studies that is at the core of inquiry into the origin of man and it's differences, good for society?
Certainly not, it's effects are harmful despite it being viewed as "having good intentions", therein lies the difference between Plato's regulation of harmful material, and that of the current ruling body:
Whilst Plato's intentions were purely for the advancement and upliftment of society and so too the intentions of our State, the same cannot be said for Democracy as a whole, on the grounds that it does not seek advancement, but rather it seeks to drag every one down to a standard that's below their capacity for the sake of maintaining the illusions of equality, and thereby perpetuating the most immoral conditions for a society. Democracy seems to take on a sort of child like envious position when it concerns the morality of it's people. If "we can't all be equally good, then conditions would be so that we are all equally guilty of immoral actions", it doesn't matter if these actions are equal in depravity, rather that neither one can judge another as we're all guilty of some form of ill-behavior. It further does this undermining of societal advancement through quota systems. Systems that replace the able individuals with individuals who are perceived to be "just as able" based on paper, but never quite so. Then of course there is the numbing of the education system to such a docile state, where students nowadays find it difficult to master even the language they speak at home!
Now as a supplement to this section on education, I will present Plato's views on further education for the youth.
The Raising And Development Of Children
Although there are several ideals mentioned by Plato in the chapter titled "Woman, Children and Warfare" that aren't feasible when looked at in context of the modern era, he does make some valid points that are still applicable to it. We'll start by listing the more feasible idea's and then explore the less feasible ones in due course.
Plato considers the sharing aspect of a community to be an important part of it's continued existence, he argues that, if each considers the other a brother, sister, father or mother, then they'd all feel the pain and the joy of every citizen in the community.[5] It does have validation, if we consider that biologically our racially homogeneous society are linked together. However, where Plato errs is by arguing that the parental biological bonds between parent and child should be "blurred", that is to say no child should know his biological parents and no mother either, this he argues, to foster a genuine feeling of "brother hood" to all citizens of the community.[6] This is contra the interests of our natural biological basis upon which our entire Weltanschauung rests. And because of this, the latter aspect must be dismissed entirely, since the biological bond between parent and child, is an important aspect of childhood growth.
Instead we'll suggest that the sentiment of brotherhood be fostered by other means, perhaps educational and societal.
One of the more important aspects of the childhood life, is the warfare aspect of it, Plato argues that it is important for the children to accompany their parents to war as much as possible, and to act as apprentices, so they may fully grow to understand their duties to the Community.[7]
We are much aware of the changes and the modernizing of institutions for apprenticeship such as the Military schools. We therefor do not suggest they actually accompany parents to warfare, rather that Military schooling would serve the purpose of educating and introducing the child to what is expected of him as a citizen of the Country.
To determine the proper age for Military schooling is a difficult task, and one where most will likely be in disagreement with each other. In our opinion, it's recommend to start from the age of 12 - 18, as this would provide those who prefer Military service with an already furnished entry point into the Military. Furthermore, the years from 12 to 18 would allow the child to have developed the necessary social skills required of a child. Given that he would acquire these in his first 12 years of normal schooling.
It is important we feel, to allow the child to attain the proper structural discipline needed for everyday adult life, and this a military school will provide them.
The Life and Duties of a Guardian
The Guardians of society, in Plato's view are those individuals who bear the following characteristics:
1)The Intellectual elite and have proven themselves competent for the duty.
2) Who care for the community and intertwine their fates with that of the community.
3) A selection of men that are willing to give their entire lives in the service of that community.
4) And refuses to partake in practices that are harmful to their community.[8]
The effort by Plato to determine who and what characteristics these Guardians should have is no different at all to the effort National Socialism undertakes to ensure such Guardians for their society. The difference between the two is slight but significant all the same, and not only in name..we have a slightly more complex system. Albeit similar in intention, it logically as time progressed evolved as thought and complexity of thoughts progressed. National Socialism's "Guardians" or the "Elite" of the society is the "SS", but it is not quite so simplified:
While Plato's "Guardian" was relegated to a single member of the community, the SS is a protectionist branch that reaches out to the racial elite of a society. And in doing so it is the elite of every branch of society. From farmers to poets, musicians to Intellectuals. Each member of society is charged with a moral code to adhere to, but the SS man more so than most. He is the moral compass that guides society, the individual who is charged with upholding and never wavering his moral righteousness for anything. Quite similar to the requirements Plato listed for his Guardians, he is charged to never do practices that is harmful to his community.
When today we consider that the influential people of our society are often seen doing the most incomprehensible acts, and considering the consequences these have on our children and on our society as a whole. There is much to be said for such a system, which seeks to actively improve both the biological and the intellectual moral life of the folk.
I am sure the question begs "how does it improve the biological life of the folk?":
The answer is quite simple, an SS man is charged with the responsibility to marry a wife who is either his equal in attributes and qualities or his better, in this sense I do not argue in favor of the principle of equality, since it clearly would contradict the position of our Weltanschauung. Rather, that the attributes and qualities i.e. Racial, Moral, and Spiritual qualities is to be similar or higher than that of the partner, this is to continue to ensure the strive for perfection. While we do recognize that perfection is unattainable, it is the beauty of the struggle for it which we celebrate. As mentioned before, there is no need to accept mediocrity simply because we are human and ipso facto imperfect.
There had never existed such a great anesthetic to our people, whom in spirit strived for improvement in every aspect of our lives, for exploration on the basis of increasing our knowledge, than to suggest we ought to be satisfied with being "imperfect" to suggest that accepting mediocrity is a sign of true virtue.
The Philosopher King And The Fuehrer
Inspecting the "Political systems" Plato concluded that an Aristocracy based on the intellectual caste of society, was the best political system in which a society could be ruled. And the perfect ruler for this Intellectual-Aristocracy was the Philosopher King, giving his explanation for this Plato states the following :
"Unless communities have philosopher kings or current kings practice philosophy with enough integrity there will be no end to societal problems".[9]
There are several attributes Plato uses to describe this Philosopher king, but none more striking than the unequivocal statement that the Philosopher king is one who uses personal power for the good of the Community, rather than for self satisfactory reasons, and this we ourselves envision for our Leader. Plato places high value on the Leader being a man of philosophical thought or a philosophical nature, and not because it is something he himself had been, but rather because a man of philosophical thought is a lover of knowledge, and in being a lover of knowledge so as well a lover of morality."Unless communities have philosopher kings or current kings practice philosophy with enough integrity there will be no end to societal problems".[9]
It's hard to imagine that a lover of morality could be easily swayed away and toward the path of immorality, that he could act and use his power for his own good rather than for the good of the Folk and of the Nation. If only because he removes such devices and temptations from his immediate presence.
The principle of a Leader who devotes his life in the service of his folk and of his nation, is certainly not a new one, but definitely one that is based within the natural laws. That Democracy is not the nature of our people, is evidenced by the simple truth that, despite the power of the President being limited by the power of congress, we as people still solely hold responsible the man elected into office. Anger is directed at the President himself for the failures and shortcomings, rather than toward the entire Democratic system under the auspices of the current "regime". This clearly shows our inherit steer toward a Monarchical form of rule.
Unlike the Democratic system we reside in today. We know that our Leader could hardly afford himself such a luxury as to hide behind others, for he is indeed the sole man responsible for the operation of the Nation. I am sure that most here would consider those of his advisers equally responsible but, unlike Republicanism under a Democratic system, he can ill afford hiding behind the ones he appointed as overseers of the tasks, this is a luxury extended only to the Democratic system.
And because he can ill afford to hide behind a poor choice of advisers, he naturally has to appoint himself advisers that are the best suited for the task rather than those who are popular. The incompetent are at his mercy, and easily replaceable. An incompetent Democratically elected regime lasts for four years, eight years if he manages to swindle the folk a second term.
Being popular in the minds of others necessitates one wear a mask to hide his true intentions, to tell the people what they want to hear rather than what is. This is the fallacy of "Majority Rule".
Notes:
[1] Rep., 370B
[2] Rep., 376E
[3] Rep., 377B
[4] Rep., 377D
[5] Rep., 462B - 462D
[6] Rep,. 457D
[7] Rep,. 467A
[8] Rep,. 412D - 412E
[9] Rep,. 474D
No comments:
Post a Comment