The Role of the Aryan in Society
Luther begins his article by asserting that one can never be an expert in more than one profession and then goes on to state that people are inherently suited for one kind of occupation due to their different nature in his section on 'The Role of Each Man in Society'.
Luther here is ignoring a fundamental point in that he hasn't defined and discussed the two terms he is using, because a profession is not the same thing as a kind of occupation. A profession is a specific type of employment, such as being a carpenter, a mechanic or a managerial accountant, not a kind (i.e. type) of occupation, which would imply less specific categories such as skilled labour, unskilled labour, managerial labour and so forth. This already makes Luther's analysis problematic, because he is conflating two terms, which imply different things as if they are exactly the same thing.
This vagueness comes out in his ancillary point, which is that members of the Aryan folk, not 'people' as Luther mistakenly terms them (which is again vague and doesn't implicitly include the recognition of race as National Socialism demands), are suited to only one kind of occupation. Now this is problematic, because this is obviously not the case. Since people can be inherently suited for multiple types of occupation and for numerous different professions. For example: a man who works as a manager could as easily become an unskilled labourer if it was necessary and indeed such men do do so in the privacy of their own homes when they do the gardening for one instance and when they put up shelves in another.
This means that Luther's point about there being a type of occupation which everyone is inherently suited for is incorrect, because it doesn't take into account the flexibility of humans in general, but also ignores the lessons from the animal kingdom in regard to behaviour such as tool use and the assigning and competition for group roles.
Now in the case of an individual's profession we also come across the problem of this vagueness in Luther's argument in so far as a man can be suited to multiple professions. For if a man has a good grasp of numbers and the ability to analyse numerical trends. Then he is suited for several different professions, such as the various different types of accountancy, statistical analysis, banking, professional gambling and speculating in stocks and shares (etc). We cannot reasonably call these the same profession, because although they use the same basic skill base: they are variant in the difficulty of the task, the types of data needed, the responsibilities implicit in them and the results expected.
Both these points would be valid at the time when Plato wrote 'Republic': although somewhat less so due to a lack of many of these occupations at the time. Luther needs to take into account that although the idea may sound like a truism upon closer inspection it is not so.
Even if Luther were to argue that the type of occupation and the profession an individual was suited for was determined by the state then he would also find logical problems. Since the issue of multiple suitability raises its head again even if one was to follow the Marxist axiom: 'from each according to his ability'. This issue is caused by having overlapping skill sets so that one skill set will not automatically indicate just one type of occupation and one profession, but rather several of each. This is why, for example, you find mathematicians becoming geneticists, because the skill set can allow them to be both, because the former is part of the latter.
Where the argument could be made is that the state, if we regard it like an organism, would need to evolve a specific selection strategy so that it could select a best fit skill set for its requirements. For example: an individual member of the folk might be a brilliant military tactician and a good leader of men, but also an able legal theorist. What should the state do?
Simply put the state's reaction as an organism will, if it is healthy (i.e. it is interested in doing the best for itself and the nation), be one of cutting its cloth for its specific circumstances. So if the state, for example, has not fought a war in fifty years and has no significant enemy that may pose a threat to it, then the individual member of the folk will be selected for a profession and type of occupation in the field of legal theory (a legislator, private advocate, public prosecutor, academic legal theorist etc). However if the state, for example, believes, rightly or wrongly, that it may have to fight a war, of conquest or defense, in the near future then the individual member of the folk will be selected for a profession and type of occupation in the military field (a field officer, staff officer, officer trainer or military analyst etc).
Now this assumes that the state simply determines what an individual member of the folk's occupation is going to be and unless we were to postulate a National Socialist state as something akin to that envisoned by Marxism-Leninism in the economic sphere then it is not going to be realistic. Since the state cannot determine what an individual member of the folk is going to spend their life in pursuit of, either using or in spite of their biological abilities, it is therefore somewhat redundant and unrealistic to assume or argue that the state simply allocates a type of occupation and a profession.
This therefore leads to the consideration of whether it is indeed possible for the axiom, appropriated by the Marxists, 'from each according to his ability' to hold true in a National Socialist state?
I would argue that it would indeed hold true if we take a less mechanical and more Darwinian approach to the problem. Luther's model is inherently mechanical in nature, in spite of its references to biology, so his approach is one of understanding things as one would understand the cogs of a machine. However if we use of one of the twin vectors of Darwinian thought, fitness, and modify our understanding of the statement 'from each according to his ability' to not include simply a skill set, but the important ability to realise what talents and skills one has and to be prepared to do everything that one ethically can to realise what one wants to achieve with one's talents and skills.
Therefore if we modify our understanding in this way: it follows that the state understood organically will be able to select those who have ability, because they will push themselves to the front. This is not to say that those who push themselves to the front in order to be considered for a service to the state will always be the best the nation has to offer in respect of the specific talents and skills required, but they are the best fit that the state is aware of, because even if they are not perfect they have made themselves known. For if a talent is not used then it is a waste, but nor can the state acquire perfect knowledge. The only way for the state to select the individuals who can serve it best in the desired profession or type of occupation would be to take full control of the educational system and to discover early on in an individual member of the folk's life what talents and skills he or she possesses.
However again this comes to an apparent point of conflict with National Socialism in so far as this might suggest a state based on Marxism-Leninism, i.e. socialism or communism, where the state gets to employ who it likes. This is, of course, mutually exclusive to National Socialism, which demands struggle and evolution. So there would have to be private enterprise and this therefore leads us to a point of conflict in so far as should the best of the folk go to serve the public or the private sector?
This is conflict is endemic, but not noted, within Luther's article, where it would have to be addressed for Luther's argument, following Plato, of an individual member of the Aryan folk being suited to one occupation. For this suggests that these individual Aryans are selected by some unknown process, which implies a form of objective determinism rather than what is commonly called 'the marketplace' or supposed 'pure competition'.
To solve this apparent conflict we have to understand that in National Socialism: the state, understood as an organism, is not viewed as a separate entity from the members of the nation i.e. the Aryan folk. National Socialism views the state as the natural government of the Aryan created by their will, i.e. by race soul, so that they can utilize their talents and skills in a civilisation where fear of crime, social disorder and other common ills are at an absolute minimum although never completely irradicated. The state is literally an organic outgrowth of the Aryan racial mindset, based on order, discipline, honour and the recognition of truth in all its forms, which arises from Aryans whereever they maybe and unless foreign racial elements enter and pollute the Aryan racial mindset by their biology then the Aryan will form similar although somewhat diverging state: dependent, of course, on the environment the Aryan is then evolving in and the contents of that particular Aryan gene pool all factors being otherwise equal.
With the public sector, i.e. the state, being an outgrowth of the Aryan race soul in National Socialism: it therefore follows that the private sector is also an outgrowth of this racial nature. The solution to this apparent conflict lies at the heart of the National Socialist weltanschauung in so far as both the public and private sector are expressions of the Aryan race soul and therefore they are both the 'state', if you will, but simply different expressions of the state.
In this conception therefore it is implied that in times when the public sector needs all the best of the folk to serve it, for example during an extended war, then the private sector will understand and not oppose these moves. However in times when the private seector needs all the best of the folk to serve it, for example during a time of economic expansion the public sector will understand and not oppose these moves. This is not to say there will not be competition between the public and private sectors for the best members of the Aryan folk to serve them, but that that competition will be of a generally friendly and constructive nature on the understanding that the two sectors have important roles to play at different times in the life of the nation.
This brings us onto a point that we should touch on, even in passing, in so far as the National Socialist ideology does in fact recognise that social, political, racial and economic 'classes' exist in the current world and that 'classes', if you will, will always exist along the natural striation of ability boundaries as related to what the current socio-political system dictates.
To briefly explain this: it can be said that, for example, in a system of political and social liberalism based on laissez-faire capitalism (i.e. 'each to their own' and 'do what thou wilt') that these 'classes' will naturally take on the form of those who are most suited to be selected in the current worldview and those who are not. What would be, and is, selected for at the moment is the exploitation without reservation of your fellow Aryan, lying, cheating, doing anything to get ahead and in essence following Rand's idea that an elite should do what it likes and do anything to succeed (and damn everyone else).
If we were to take the apparently inverse side and ask what would happen in a system of state socialism (i.e. communism)? Aside from the half-baked theory often propounded by Marxism-Leninism: the actual experiences of communism have shown that what is selected for is very similar to capitalism. However rather than endorsing everything what is selected for is adherence to the party line, moral flexibility, radical views and so forth: not actually caring for the very 'proletariat' the Marxists and their ilk claim to be 'fighting for'. In essence therefore the upper class in a communist society is made up of party members, particularly the 'old guard' from the pre-communist days, and the underclass is made up of anti-communists and those resistant to communist doctrine (for example Christians in the old Soviet Union).
All that is occuring here is that 'classes' are created by the governing ideology and whatever that ideology may propound it shapes those 'classes' accordingly. However, as Luther rightly points out, in National Socialist philosophy, despite these 'classes' being recognised as existing, asserts that these 'classes' should be changed to be based on biology and race. What National Socialism therefore asserts is that the current 'classes' should be gradually disposed off and that society should instead be striated by lines of racial purity combined with ability. So, for example, rather than somebody being manual labourer, because they can't afford to go to university and better themselves, despite being of pure Aryan ancestry and high intellectual ability, in National Socialist society they would be selected from their earliest youth as being of pure Aryan origin and of conspicious talents and therefore trained for types of occupation and professions that suit their talents, skills and biological inclination (i.e. their personal interests).
We will discuss this part of the National Socialist educational philosophy in reply to Luther's article in the next section, but before we discuss the issues that arise out of this. We need to expand upon the point that has been made above in so far as biological inequality is concerned.
We have stated above that in National Socialist philosophy the nation is stratified along racial and ability boundaries (in that order). This is based on the recognition, as Luther correctly recognises, of the biological origins of our talents and skills in so far as environment only alters the expression of our inherited traits rather than creates new ones in terms of a single generation. This is a fundamental point which contradicts much of what is currently taught as 'accepted scientific fact' in the social sciences and the humanities, but it is vital to recognise that whatever way we wish to see what the hierarchy of sciences tells us: we cannot escape this fact. Organisms are born inherently unequal and no amount of environmental tinkering is going to make up for a lack of ability (as opposed to mere lack of opportunity, which the lack of ability is often, deliberately, confused with). What we apply to the animal kingdom we must apply to humanity: there is no escaping the fact that humans are animals like any other no matter what Marxist scientists have spent their lives desperately trying to argue (often falsifying their data or suppressing data to do so).
Where Luther makes a mistake is when he asserts that environment is secondary to biology, which is a chicken and egg argument in so far as in evolution environment manipulates biology, but biology is what environment acts upon. We must realise that nature and nuture are, in a sense, symbiotic to each other, but not in the sense that Marxists claim.
The Marxist claim, often confused with the arguable reality, is that because environmental pressures can manipulate biology we can therefore suggest that biology is highly malleable (because evolutionarily it can be manipulated to produce certain effects) and that therefore we may conclude that biology doesn't matter and that therefore race doesn't exist (because we can manipulate biology so therefore all that needs to be changed is the environment). The Marxist argument that I have simplified is cognitively related to positive eugenics (i.e. selective breeding to a particular goal) in so far as it suggests that we can genetically engineer people by their environment (i.e. it is a modified form of Lamarckism).
This argument leaves out the egg and wants to just deal with the chicken so-to-speak, despite the claim often being made that it is dealing with both (when it patently is not since paying lip service to an idea is not the same as applying that idea to your thought). If we consider this argument: we see that it assumes that humans are rather like fruitflies in so far as if you subject them to certain conditions they will quickly biologically adapt to them (i.e. race will become no more and we will be a big brown glob of humanity if you will). This is important, because in making these kinds of arguments the Marxists ignore the fundamental difference between humans and fruitflies (which I am using as an example rather than as a strawman as some might accuse me of) assuming that they operate on the same basic platform and that they will evolve quickly to fit their environment.
To note here in passing the Marxists also presume that social pressures, rather than environmental ones more generally, are the key to this evolution so they assume that if you provide food and tools to a negro then the negro will become like an Aryan, because he has food and tools that he didn't have before. They also tend to remove the evolutionary vector of fitness from their calculations as they have removed the manner in which evolution, i.e. death due to incapability to find a mate, acquire food and/or survive the conditions, removes the unfit from a biology entity: therefore marring their breeding stock causing long-term dysgenic trends to be heightened by the existence of a significant unfit, and often fast, breeding population.
However they do not account as to how different the biological platforms are both historically and at the present time. This assumption of the sameness of humanity and fruitflies, similarly that different sub-species of humans are the same biological platform, is rather unjustified as one doesn't consider apes to be 'the same as' humans and nor do these same Marxists seek to accord them 'rights' or suggest that they are 'members of the proletariat' when they share nearly all of their genetic material, in terms of genetic similarity, with human beings.
If we therefore consider the environment without considering the platform, i.e. the biology, then we commit the cardinal error of only taking into account half of the generalised causes of evolution. If we consider the biology without paying environment sufficient attention then we commit a similar error of not taking into account the environment pressures, which need to be understood and manipulated to give the best long-term future to the Aryan folk.
It is not a matter of environment being subordinated to biology, but rather that biology and the environment in essence act upon each other (i.e. symbiosis). We can manipulate both through positive and negative eugenic policies with the positive policies acting upon environment and the negative policies acting upon biology. Luther's assertion that we cannot all strive to be scientists is correct, but what Luther does not mention is that although we are not all able to strive to be scientists. This does not mean that we are not all capable of producing children who may be able to become scientists. In so far as if it is necessary that the nation needs more scientists then part of any program to remedy this must be to manipulate biology and environment to produce a long-term solution to this problem. Rather than training unsuitable members of the folk to be scientists who then, because they are not suitable, will likely do an unintentional disservice to the folk by retarding the advancement of National Socialist science by their fundamental lack of biological ability in this area.
When National Socialism considers inequalities it does not look upon them as being a problem, but rather as Luther points out, it looks upon them as natural variation that can and should be used to the Aryan folk's advantage by the state. It is not a question that everyone has the 'right' to become a scientist, but rather that everyone has the 'right' to do what they are most suited and happy doing. If you tell the Aryan folk that they can all become actors and stockbrokers then you will find that there are a great many individual members of the folk who are disappointed in their unnatural ambitions, because they are not biologically suited to being an actor or a stockbroker. If these individual members of the folk manage to become an actor or a stockbroker then we can only count it as an opportunity cost in so far as they were not naturally suited to acting or stockbroking, but managed to succeed and would have in fact been of better service to the folk in other professions.
There is the cost to the folk in so far as there may well have been naturally suited actors and stockbrokers for those positions who are now forced to seek employment in other areas inadvertently causing harm to the Aryan folk by being unsuitable to their professions, but having to take that employment regardless. Therefore such an issue impacts upon the folk in a cascading manner in so far as when a mathematician wants to be a celebrity singer then they potentially force the naturally suited celebrity singer into being a mathematician: therefore causing harm to the nation by introducing members of the Aryan folk who are not suited for a profession into that profession and thus causing damage to that profession's contribution.
The point here is that expectations must be realistic and that is the job of the National Socialist educational philosophy, which we can now discuss having expanded upon Luther's argument about the natural inequality of organisms.
The Education of the Aryan Folk
Education is one of the most important parts of the National Socialist weltanschauung and it is essential to what Luther asserts to be an important goal outlined by Plato: the creation of a moral community. To this end Luther asserts that Plato's statement that 'cultural studies should be before physical studies' is incorrect in so far as Luther believes that a healthy mind requires a healthy body.
Luther and Plato have made a mistake here. Plato asserts that the only two parts of an individual's education are cultural and physical, because in Plato's era there was no active differentiation between Greek culture and Greek spirituality, because they were tied deeply one to the other. For in Greek culture the stories and legends of the Gods were its intellectual inspiration and figured as characters in many surviving Greek works of both fiction and non-fiction.
However even then we can assert that there was a separation in fact, even if it was not thought to be so at the time, in so far as an individual's spirituality is his own private solace, while the culture, even if overtly religious, is an expression of public rather than personal spirituality in that regard. So because we can interpose this distinction between private and public spirituality we can say that there is another category of education to be considered here, because an individual's personal spirituality may markedly differ from the public spirituality they enact as part of a wider culture. It is from this personal spirituality that we are most likely to find an individual's underlying motivation and therefore a moral community can only be created by educating the Aryan folk in their own spirituality in line with the natural spiritual inclinations of the Aryan race. We can therefore say that there are three segments of education required to create the moral community: cultural, physical and spiritual.
Luther, arguing against Plato, asserts that the physical education should take priority as I have pointed out above. This is, however, in contradiction to his overt assertion that the education should take place simultaneously. For if these types of education take place at the same time. Then how can Luther assign special importance to physical education when he has just criticised Plato for doing exactly the same thing in regard to cultural education? Luther cannot and thus makes a considerable error in his assigning of special value to the physical rather than the cultural education.
Luther's argument that physical education should take priority is in some respects a laudable one, because an individual may or may not have much intellectual talent or be particularly interested in their cultural and spiritual studies. However an individual, even if physically handicapped, can generally perform physical exercise and it is indeed important for all individuals to perform regular physical exercise as to maintain or increase their level of fitness.
What Luther's argument misses is that individuals are going to, and do, biologically differ in terms of their underlying talents and skills i.e. the biology inequality that we discussed in the first section of this article. There cannot be one standard here, because if we are to assign special significance to physical education then we would play to the strengths of only a part of the population and because it would potentially minimise the opportunities for the expression of intellectual or non-physical talent then it would do harm to the Aryan folk in the long run. Where Luther again goes wrong is his application of a mechanistic, quasi-Spenglerian, worldview rather than an organic one based on the hierarchy of the sciences and the principles of evolution.
If Luther had applied an organic worldview: he would have noted that his argument assumes one rule for all rather than noting that organisms will inherently vary, but can be placed into general typologies, but cannot be placed in one single typology beyond those of biological and anthropological classification.
We will discuss the application of this principle to practical education in reply to the next section of Luther's argument: 'The Raising and Development of Children'. However we can state in summary that the application of the principle that individual differ means in practice that each typology will have specific preferences and the education of the individual children who fall under that typology needs to be focused on building on their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses rather than one highly idealised principle built on a slightly abstract notion.
Luther next proceeds to point out that Plato believes that educative as well as public materials need to be regulated, by the state, on the basis that they may undermine the goal of achieving the moral community. Luther agrees with this and we have to agree in so far as Luther's argument implies that there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' and that it is more a polite, feel-good fiction than a rational cornerstone of any society no matter how idealistic. This we may add is because, as Luther points out, there is always censorship and propaganda in so far as those who create the educative and public materials for enlightenment and learning will always impose a conscious or unconscious bias in the direction of their own beliefs in their presentations. The idea that there is such a thing as an 'unbiased textbook' is, unfortunately, a nonsense purported to create the propagandistic image of non-existent 'freedoms' and 'objectivity' that are asserted without evidence to be rampant in 'democratic' society.
National Socialism recognises this important fact and asserts that the members of the Aryan folk need an honest government, which, rather than simply leave this bias to private individuals and private firms, takes an active role in scrutinizing the materials for distribution to the folk so that the moral community envisioned by the National Socialist state as the expression of the will of the nation can be advanced in a neverending struggle to come closer to perfection. This is important, because National Socialism is often characterised as 'totalitarian' when it is in reality not, but rather is what one might call a benign dictatorship based on the principles of science.
'Freedoms' to National Socialism are not 'rights' in the strict sense, but rather an individual member of the folk has a list of duties to the state, as the representative of the nation, and in return for the enactment of these duties the state grants the individual member of the folk a list of freedoms. This works similarly to the system that is used by militaries around the world where in return for obedience and the carrying out of orders soldiers are granted the 'freedom of the city' and other such perks. In essence therefore the core of National Socialism is the militarisation of society into a disciplined and orderly whole.
Now it should not be imagined that a 'democracy', or more correctly plutocracy, is somehow more 'free' than a National Socialist state for a 'democracy', regardless of its claims, operates on similar basic principles in order to enforce a modicum of order onto society it simply masks those functions with feel-good terms and propaganda. However National Socialism ardently believes that this is not caring for the nation at all. Since it involves cynically lying to the Aryan folk and then trying to cover that up with fine words and heightened idealism. What National Socialism again asserts is that the state, as the representative of the nation, needs to be honest, as far as is possible (i.e. regarding policy, institutions and so forth and not with necessary secrets, which benefit the nation by their not being made public, like those of the military variety), with the Aryan folk who make up that nation: for the key point is that there is a contract of trust written in blood between the National Socialist state and the nation that it represents. For the nation and the state are a living entity that exists in symbiosis without one the other will die.
Therefore National Socialist philosophy dictates that the educative and public materials must be subject to approval by the state, because unless that is so then one is being essentially hypocritical, because one is asserting by implication that only the state carries out the task of conducting propaganda, while the individual and firm does not. We can thus only declare that National Socialism requires that the education and public materials be supervised by the state as the representative of the will of the nation. For only the state has 'good intentions' in any meaningful sense, because it is the representative of the will of the nation rather than the individual or the firm who is only representative of minority interests, which may or may not be the best interests of the majority. However only an entity with the ability to see the larger picture and consider the effects of a form of propaganda can be allowed to control what educational and public materials are present in society and that entity can only be the state.
In this we have taken Luther's argument and advanced it further in its critique of 'democracy' and the idea that there is such an entity as 'freedom'. We have suggested and argued that there is no such thing as 'freedom' beyond the subjective sense of that felt, rather than known to exist, by the individual. We have stated that National Socialism's answer to this is one of honesty with the nation rather than trying to deceive the nation with slogans and fine-sounding words.
The Educational Development of Aryan Children
Luther in his third section, 'The Raising and Development of Children', argues that Plato's insistence on what he terms the 'sharing', or altruistic, aspect of a community in regards to the relationship between parents and their children that should, in Plato's view, be blurred in order to facilitate the treating of all citizens as brother, sister, son, daugher, father and mother (etc). Luther's argument against this is that there is such bonds are natural and therefore should be respected. However what Luther is misunderstanding here is the context of what Plato wrote and what model he was using for it. That model in Plato's case was the Greek polis, best transliterated as race-based (or folkish) city-state, of Sparta, which was and is famous for its warriors and close communal life. Sparta did not destroy the role of the parent, but rather it took children away from their parents when they had sufficiently grown to be able to independent of their parents and the state then raised them only releasing them to live at home once they were considered to be men and had wife who preferably had already born them a son.
With this we understand Plato's logic in so far as he is not suggesting that the destruction of the family-bond takes place as this was not the case in Sparta, where mother's famously told their Spartiate sons to come back with their shield or on it [i.e. dead], but rather is suggesting that the family bond be expanded to encompass the entire of the members of the state. So that you will call your friend brother, your uncle father, your niece daughter, but still call your mother and father by their correct titles. What Plato is asserting is that a state functions best when the nation, that is in symbiosis with it, treats each other as they treat their family members i.e. with respect, consideration and honour.
This same principle is found in National Socialism in the idea of referring to all Aryans as 'comrade' and your mate as 'life-comrade', while still calling your father and mother by their titles. It is meant to engender respect across previous lines that were thought to be distinct, because it is all to easy to slip into the mistake of materialistic individualism and think only of yourself. What Plato and National Socialism are trying to achieve by doing this is to re-create the feeling of family and responsibility across these previous lines that were thought to be distinct. Both Plato and National Socialism as essentially re-creating the state along the lines of the title of Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges' work: 'Family, Kin and City-State'.
Luther then proceeds to argue that military schooling would be the answer offered by the National Socialist state and that this would engender the necessary level of cultural, physical and spiritual education that Plato suggests would be necessary for the formation of the moral community. Luther is perhaps misunderstanding the nature of National Socialism here in so far as what he argues seems to suggest that the military should take over the education system.
This is in itself contrary to his stated premise that cultural and physical education should take equal precedence in his second section, 'Education', but is in line with his placing physical education of the individual children first. We have discussed this contradiction above, but it is well to state that Luther has again applied his mechanistic view of the world in expounding his theories in so far as he has not factored in the evolutionary nature of the organisms who are, after all, the subject of his article.
The mistake that Luther is making in recommended the somewhat general solution of 'military school' is that he takes the notion of the militarisation of society to mean the military will be all powerful and be solely responsible for the education of individual Aryan children. The concept of the militarisation of society is not built, as it might seem from Luther's mechanism, on the military alone, but rather is an organic concept where the different institutions and functions of the state will evolve to become similar to the military in how they run their institution and carry out their function. It is not that the military will rule them, but rather that they evolve to become similar to the military in terms of their outlook, discipline, organisation, loyalty and honour.
That said it should be noted that in National Socialist statecraft there are three basic general powers within the state, represented by their respective leaders appointed directly from the SS by the leader, who make up the key administrators under the direct supervision of the leader. These powers are: the Military, the State and the Church. Each of these powers has a different general area of operation (which overlap each other in terms of individuals so that no individual even a high-ranking member of the Military can be independent of the State and the Church), but all three are forced to co-operate with each other, because they have clearly defined roles and have to co-operate in the running of some functions, which are not natural monopolies, such as education.
The manner in which education would operate under National Socialism would be to apply the principles we have outlined in the first two sections of this article. This would mean in practice that individual children would be left to be schooled by their parents or tutors using an approved curriculum until they have reached a specified age. We will assume for the sake of simplicity that Luther's speculation of the age of twelve is the decision made. Then at this age they would be undergo a series of tests: psychological, academic, physical, spiritual, medical and genetic. In order to ascertain their capabilities and assign them to the correct type of school for the individual child. The child and their parents would then pick the school type that they wish to attend with the opportunity of changing within that list or requesting a new series of tests be conducted (subject to approval to stop frivoluous use of the nation's resources).
The type of schools would be assigned along four general criteria: gender, racial purity, type of ability and level of ability. Each school would be single sex and would provide room and board for all its pupils (with the children being allowed home on school holidays and for special occasions such as birthdays) so as to allow the individual children to focus on their studies and building friendships with each other. Then each school would be at a certain level of racial purity so those children who are found to be pure Aryan are put in different schools to those who are close to being pure Aryan and different schools again to those who are distantly mixed Aryans. In doing this we are applying the principle of stratifying society along racial lines in a eugenic manner as it allows us to separate out the best of the breeding stock and make it as clear as possible that they should, although they cannot be forced to, select mates of their own racial status.
Then each school would be for a different type of ability so that each school would, in a sense, be vocational so those with relatively low intellectual and spiritual abilities, but with strong physical abilities would be placed in a vocational school that would include more physical education with less cultural and spiritual education. The students would also receive specialist lessons, for example, in different trades, such as being a mechanic or a bricklayer, but at the same time also receive a form of military education so that the individual child will be able to defend themselves.
Then each school would be for a different level of ability so that each school would not include too large skill differences similar to how different 'sets' are used in education at the present time to teach individual children of different general levels of ability. So carrying on with our example a student with high physical abilities, but with little ability or interest in cultural and spiritual education would be placed in a top vocational school for his physical ability separated according to gender. So that he might be best able to succeed.
So in essence once an individual child has completed the testing phase then they and their parents will receive a list of different schools across the nation, which would be suitable [these will in most cases be schools with different types and levels of ability depending on the results of the individual child], but they may only pick from the list provided and not from others, which would not be suitable to them. If the individual child wishes to change his or her school then they may do so within that list and if it is felt the child has superior abilities than were exhibited then the individual child or the parents may request a re-test, which would take the form of a formal application and the assessment of that application before national resources are allocated to re-test the individual the child. This is again to prevent frivolous use of these limited resources and is designed to accomodate those individual children who are somewhat late in manifesting their talents and skills.
Now having described the general process of selecting for education: we can briefly summarise the relationship between the education system and the three general powers within National Socialist government. Since the education system does not naturally lend itself to being a monopoly, because it must have different influences within it. Then what would occur is that under a National Socialist state each type of education would fall under a different power's governance, but each would include tutors from the non-governing powers. So in our example the vocational school with more emphasis on physical rather than cultural and spiritual education would be governed by the Military, but its cultural education element would be undertaken by tutors assigned by the State with its spiritual education element being undertaken by tutors assigned by the Church. The general curriculum is decided by agreement of the three powers with each of them designing the curriculum for their separate type of education, which is subject to approval from the leader.
This system, which we have just generally described, allows the curriculum to be uniform, to be applied in the best interests of the nation and prevent any infighting between these general powers in the nation. It also allows individual children to be educated in the best way possible for their talents and skills while providing the nation with the necessary components of the moral community that Plato assigned as the goal. It also points out the error of Luther's mechanistic conception of National Socialist education in so far as the system outlined shows itself to be both organic and evolutionary allowing for change but at the same time acting in the nation's interest without giving too much influence to one general power over it. We cannot talk in abstract theories as Luther tends to, but rather we must ground our theory in practical policy for flights of fancy, however well intentioned, do not serve the national interest unless they are found in novels.
In Conclusion
We may state on the basis of our above that Luther's article, 'Plato and the National Socialist Ideal', suffers from a number of defects and errors, which can summarise as his use of mechanistic rather than organic philosophy. In so far as although he pays lipservice to the hierarchy of the sciences he does not apply it to his article. Another error he makes is that of superficially discussing points, assuming his meaning to self-evident, and while it is normal to try not to belabour a point too much: it is also important not to let important issues go unexplained in an article.
We should also point out that Luther also tends to assign too much authority to Plato and could be argued to be using Plato as a borderline fallacy of authority. In so far as Luther often uses Plato to back up his ideas rather than using his own thought independent of Plato. Another point of criticism, which I have not mentioned in my response, is that Luther only uses Plato's 'Republic' and not Plato's other works, which would have provided some further elucidation of his points. However as I am informed that another reply to Luther from the perspective of Plato's meaning in 'Republic' will be written in due course I will not go into this further.
All this considered however Luther's article shows in its conception the basis of an intellectually interesting comparison between the 'Republic' that Plato wrote of and the National Socialist conception of the state that I have described briefly and in part above. We must therefore commend Luther for starting a debate that is both intellectually interesting and important as it allows us to see that proto-National Socialist states may arguably have been formulated for as long as Aryans in any meaningful form have existing on this planet.
