Source: SS Leitheft, No. 2, 1939
The
destiny of a people is linked to the greatness and worth of its ruling class. In
it is expressed the revolutionary power of courage, will and aspiration. The
laws on which it depends, which govern its actions, are timeless and eternally
valid. Only men who love risk and danger, its tireless promoters, are called to
be leaders; they never lose the creative fever, put on their helmets after every
victory and constantly seek out more difficult and more attractive tests in new
battles. In the past, the history of our nation was shaped by these forces.
Periods of weakness and historical emptiness for our people reigned when they
failed and with them this courageous spirit. But after this decadence, and long
before the popular force withered away in a desolate renunciation, the nation
was taken in hand by a strong leader, straightened by a new will. The history of
our people is the history of its leaders. Whoever wants to understand it and
learn from it must go back to its sources.
The
association of all popular forces and their coming together to serve a higher
community based on the idea of a ruling class and a troop, are not inventions of
National Socialist ideology, arising after the period of political impotence and
internal fragmentation of the post-war period. Rather, it resurrected them. For
the notion of the leader is an essential component of the nature of
German-German man. It is, so to speak, an inherent law of the blood, a vital
expression of the racial essence that aspires to order in the community and
corresponds to the innermost need to commit one’s life to a cause or a work. It
gives meaning to the life of the individual only within the group and enables
him or her, as part of the community, to put national values to work in a
creative sense. Without the organic unity of leaders and troops, no national and
social achievement on the part of the Germanic people could be expected, even in
the past. All periods of national expansion found at their head those figures
whom we can look upon with pride and admiration. But their achievement was
always based on a voluntary and faithful recognition of their ability to lead
the community.
Elite
chefs
Every
genuine ruling class in the German-German spirit has risen from the bottom, from
the people, to the top, and this by force of personality, by its predispositions
and worth. This natural selective process goes back a long way in the recent
history of our people and corresponds to the political concept of the Germanic
peasantry, from the individual and his economy to the community, extending in
ever-widening circles to the peoples and ethnic groups. The intelligence of an
organic interplay between all the forces present in the organised community
blocks that arose from daily needs was aroused by the particularity of the
peasant farm in which all members work together. Like the peasant leading the
farm, which is part of a whole, a chief was at the head of larger communities
and popular groups, concentrating all units on the basis of voluntary
subordination. However, the will of the chief did not influence the communal
order; only the autonomy of the free members was decisive. The people had all
the rights, the chief had no legal power of his own. He was a mere delegate of
the people and had duties to fulfil towards his group.
The
choice or acceptance of the Germanic leader was based on his origin and personal
worth. The Germanic man considered that his ability to lead the community came
from the quality of his blood, the clan from which he came. To this racial
selection was added the judgement of personality: what the racial origin
promised in virtue, character and value of the individual, was valued in his
achievements and its approval was made by the clan and the community. It was
according to these two principles that Germanic men co-opted their leaders. It
has been rightly said that Germanic life was a ‘man evaluation’ where aptitude
and deeds were judged reciprocally in order to identify the best in the
community. Only the best, noblest, bravest and proudest could be elected as
chief, the first of all.
The
leader and the troop
The
Germanic ruler did not rule over subjects. His relationship was based on a
faithful alliance and a pact of assistance between free men and equals in
rights; this pact was established on a voluntary feeling, dignity, love of
freedom, pride and a sense of responsibility. All rights and duties between the
leader and the troop were reciprocal and determined by purely practical, legal,
economic and political aspects of life, thus giving rise to a high moral
standard. The leader saw his troop’s right as his own, his distress as his own,
and his honour and fame as his own, and his affront or outrage as that of the
whole troop. “On the battlefield,” wrote the Roman writer Tacitus in his
Germania, “it is a shame for the leader to be defeated in courage, it is a shame
for the companions not to match the courage of the leader. But above all it is a
blight on one’s life and a disgrace to have returned from a battle in which
one’s leader has perished; to defend him, to save him, to bring to his glory his
own exploits, is the essence of their commitment: the leaders fight for victory,
the companions for their leader.”
The clan
held the source of earthly life, which was fed by the hereditary position
indissolubly linked to the lineage. The product of the field, the Odal, was the
lifeblood of every legitimate Germanic man, chief and trooper alike. Since the
ethnic communities consisted solely of peasants, the peasant chiefs were also
chiefs of peoples. Neither the confrontation with the Roman world and the
troubles of the great migrations, nor the glory and joy of battle destroyed the
peasant roots of the Germans. Their aim was to preserve the freedom of the home
and the land at all costs, to protect the work and effort of the peasants. When
Bojokal, the leader of the Angrivarians, met the Roman monarchs with the
intention of finding land, he spoke out, looking up at the sun with his arms
raised: “As the sky is given to the gods, so is the earth given to mankind, and
any land that is abandoned must become someone’s possession. The Roman legate
was mistaken about the legitimate request of the Angrivarians: he only wanted to
give the arable land to their chief, with the intention of making him an ally.
However, Bojokal refused such an absurdity, ‘as a token of treason’, saying: ‘We
may lack the land to live, but not to die’. The loyalty of the Germanic leader
bound to his troop for better or for worse was expressed in this attitude, and
he preferred death to accepting an advantage of which his people were to be
deprived.
Sense of
freedom
The
names of the great Germanic leaders and their political deeds are unforgettable.
The words of Hermann the Cheruscan express how strong their ethnic consciousness
was: "If they (the Germans) preferred the fatherland, the ancestors and the
ancient customs to the despots and the new Roman colonies, then they had to
follow him as their leader to gain fame and freedom. And when he later met his
brother Flavus (the fair-haired one), who had joined the Romans, he laughed at
“the low reward for his servitude” and spoke of “the sacred rights of the
fatherland which they inherited from their ancestors”. The dignity and
statesmanship with which Ariovistus, the Germanic leader, confronted Caesar’s
general-in-chief is exemplary: ’I do not dictate to the Roman people how they
should use their right. If Caesar declares that he will not consider the
hostility of the Aedui without reacting, then he must know: no one has yet
fought with me without falling. If Caesar feels like it, he can fight: he will
see that the invincible Germans are heroes. These words express the same
nationalistic pride as the Fiihrer’s speech at Wilhelmshaven on the policy of
insolent English interference in matters of German life and territory.
Although
the Germanic state idea lacked a solid external framework— the concept of
borders—and was thus deprived of a homogeneous strike force, it was
distinguished by an elaborate justice and a good structure. The extension of the
communal order to several tribes and peoples depended even more on the ability
of the individual chieftain to create a state than on kinship. Thus, the Roman
historiographer Velleius Paterculus reports that Marbod, the chief of the
Marcomans, ’did not gain power among his countrymen by a coup de force or the
favour of fate; after strongly consolidating his empire, he took the royal power
and then brought his people out of the Roman sphere of influence. As some
peoples had yielded to the superiority of arms, he decided instead to advance
where he could enhance his personal power. He took possession of the ... fields
surrounded by the Hercynian forest ... and subdued the whole neighbourhood by
war or treaty. Under his authority, the mass of those who protected his Empire
and who had almost acquired through constant training the strong structure of
Roman military discipline, reached in a short time a great level of development,
dangerous for our (Roman) Empire.
But when
Marbod turned from an ethnic and peasant leader into a stubborn ruler and allied
himself with the Romans ‘to increase their tyranny’, his proud Marcan Empire
went to war with the Cheruscians fighting ‘for their old fame and soon recovered
freedom’. Tacitus tells us (Annals II): The strength of the two peoples, the
worth of their chiefs were equal, but the title of king made those of Marbod
odious, while Armin (Hermann) won all the favours as a freedom fighter’. The
resistance of the people was not against kingship per se, which is a Germanic
form of expression, but only against the abuses of royal power, and for this
reason most of Marbod’s troops went over to his enemy Hermann in order to fight
under his command for their ancient right and freedom. Throughout the Germanic
period and into the Middle Ages, there were uprisings led by the ruling class
united with the people against rulers who were considered degenerate because
they no longer wanted to be leaders of the people, the first of all, but masters
of their subjects and thus muzzle the old order and freedom. Julius Civilis, the
leader of the Batavians, expressed this feeling of Germanic freedom in these
words: “May Syria, Asia Minor and the East which have been won over to the king,
remain in their servitude: in Gaul there are still many people who were born
before a tribute was imposed on the country ... nature gives dumb animals a
sense of freedom. On the other hand, virile virtue is the hallmark of the human
race. And the gods are favourable to him who has the greatest courage.
(Josephus, Bell. Jud. IV).
Example
and attitude
The
framework of the Germanic communal order only appeared in extraordinary events.
It was most evident in external political events, colonisations and warlike
expeditions. The tasks of the leader then went far beyond those of everyday life
and, in addition to courage and bravery, required a special political skill,
intelligence and prudence. In the national assemblies, the most worthy of the
innumerable small tribal chiefs was raised to the podium. “Kings are chosen
according to their nobility, chiefs according to their courage,” reports Tacitus,
“but the power of kings is not unlimited or arbitrary, and chiefs, by example
more than by authority, if they have decision, if they attract attention, if
they fight in front of the front, impose themselves by admiration.”
In war
as in peace, the Germanic leader was an example of valour and action. When his
competence was tested in turbulent and battle-filled times, the troops closed
ranks around him and demanded that he express his sense of duty unreservedly to
the death. The sovereign power of the leader was not, however, unlimited; a
higher right only implied greater duties. The man in the troop owed less
obedience than loyalty to his leader. This was the bond, the basis of the
relationship of mutual responsibility. If the leader betrayed, he lost the right
to obedience of his troop, for the German- German man owes obedience only as
long as loyalty demands it. Despotism and blind obedience are alien to him.
The
purely human relationship between leader and troop is only healthy and natural
when it is determined by friendship and comradeship and does not violate the
natural distance conditioned by value and its respect. But it would be a mistake
to confuse this distance from the troop by any true leader with a lack of
comradeship. The lack of distance and the crude familiarity also exclude any
notion of authority; the person in this position is an individual among others.
The leader must share joys and sorrows with his troop in good times and bad, be
one with them in prosperity and misfortune. He must, however, constantly
maintain his dignity, be an example in the best sense, prevent excesses and
outbursts, keep a sense of proportion and respect good morals. These qualities
are a manifestation of the nature of the German-German man, especially of the
peasant, who can only maintain his authority over the members and subordinates
with whom he closely cohabits under one roof by means of distance, power and
dignity. In a genuine ruling class, the feeling of distance reflects the living
heritage of Germanic blood. It must not be lost under any circumstances and
forbids even the display of emotions before the troops.
A
genuine German-German legal community is characterised by the participation of
the entire free people in political life and by the small social gap between the
leaders and the people. The extension of this elementary principle is revealed
today in the naturalness of our National Socialist state system, whose internal
structure is based on the clear recognition of our particularity. When the
Nordic peasant Aki replies to his king in the Heimskringla: “If I am your man,
king, then you are also mine”, he is expressing what we still feel today, namely
that the relationship between leader and troop is based on the mutual duty of
loyalty and assistance.
Peaceful
missions
The
Germanic ruling class not only participated effectively in war and combat, but
also influenced the peace of the homeland, law and civility, honour, calm, order
and prosperity. It still lacked an external framework at that time, for ‘during
peace’, says Caesar (B. G. VI), ‘there is no common authority, but the chiefs of
the tribes of the provinces and districts discuss with their people, law and
benign quarrels...’. The fact that these chiefs of small communities belonged to
noble racial communities or that they were large free peasants determines in an
essential way their peculiarities and their tasks. In the old Norse texts, they
are all generally referred to as tribal or clan chiefs, ‘the first of the
region’ or ‘the ruler of the province’, in contrast to their troop of Thing
people’. Such Thing communities constituted legal and administrative units;
their chiefs were considered ‘the first of all’ on the basis of their origin,
achievements, and honourability, and formed the supporting pillar of the
political order and community structure. This relationship between the Thing and
the ruling class at the origin of the political order of the community can best
be defined as a happy connection between a democratic (popular sovereignty) and
an aristocratic (noble sovereignty) principle.
Apart
from this military authority in war, the tasks of the Germanic leader extended
to the exercise of religious faith, the safeguarding of law and administration.
As a leader, the chief was also the one most entitled to perform religious
ceremonies in public and in the community and to preside over the great cultural
festivals. For the ruling class touched on all areas of life that still formed a
whole, such as faith, morals and law. The knowledge of the sacred was not
monopolised by wizards but was the common property of all, and the acts of
consecration were performed both by each peasant in his own community and by the
chief of the Thing.
As
regards the safeguarding of law, the chief only had the power to practice the
right of assembly, the calling and holding of the Thing Assembly. He had little
influence on jurisprudence itself, for pronouncing, enacting law and making laws
was the business of the Thing assembly. “Then the king or the chief,” says
Tacitus, “each according to his age, according to his nobility, according to the
glory of his campaigns, according to his eloquence, make themselves heard by the
ascendancy of persuasion rather than by virtue of their power to command. If the
advice has been displeased, they reject it with murmurs; if it has pleased, they
stir up their frames: the most honourable assent is praise with arms.” Only his
great legal knowledge enabled the chief to assert himself, to safeguard the
rights of his Thing people and to guarantee their protection. In the old Norse
texts, the emphasis is on knowledge of the law, for example in the Njala: “There
was a man named Mord ... a powerful tribal chief and a great legal adviser, so
learned in the law that no judgement was considered lawful unless he attended
it” “Skapti and his father were great tribal chiefs and great scholars of the
law.”
Legal
knowledge, helpfulness, righteousness and insight were as valuable as warlike
fame. At a time when there were no treaties and no neutral jurisdiction, but
only self-defence and the law of the quarrel, they were the best instrument at
the disposal of the chieftain to settle problems peacefully and to maintain the
community order through honourable agreements and arbitration. The words of the
great Nordic legal chief Njal express the importance attached to keeping the law
and laws to ensure peace: “Our country is built by law, but devastated by
lawlessness.
The
Germanic people voluntarily placed themselves under the protection and authority
of the chief; they looked to him for friendly help, not only in words and
advice, but also for energetic social support when they suffered from bad
harvests and old nuisances. In the Nordic sagas, the generous chief is referred
to as ‘the most beloved man in the region’ or as ‘one of the noblest of the
pagan era’. The human relationship between the chief and the troop was a pact of
assistance that was driven by a genuine spirit of comradeship and imposed on the
first man in the community a sense of duty to help when misery struck. “It is
customary,” says Tacitus, “for the cities, by voluntary and individual
contributions, to offer to the chiefs large cattle and wheat, which, received as
a tribute, provides for their needs.” The chief received as much as he gave; the
gifts made to him were considered cooperative capital for the relief he
distributed in a patriarchal manner. For the troop man, his contributions were
voluntary, he provided the chief with no imposed services or contributions but
with friendly help and gifts as is customary between free and equal men.
The law
of honour
The
Germanic ruling class was not only concerned with the ‘leadership of the
province’, the legal order and administration on an external level, but also
with the definition of morality. The laws that were generally recognised as
moral values were the foundation. The supreme moral law was ‘life with honour’,
to which the ruler was even more strongly bound than any other. For the man of
the old Germanic period, honour was of decisive importance, enabling him to
judge the value of his life and his character. At the level of public judgement
honour was also the proof of one’s ability and value to the community. On honour
depended the individual’s self-esteem and commitment, the consciousness of his
own worth. It determined his authority as well as his political and social
position. It related to personal pride as well as to public judgement and was
generally regarded as the recognised law governing human life and by which
judgement was made.
The
community felt it had a mandate as a judge to apply the law of honour to the
chief. The latter had to prove his honourability and defend it. For the honour
of the chief was also the honour of the troop. If a citizen’s honour or his own
was damaged, then so was that of the whole community, and everyone had a duty to
clear it up. The leader displayed a sense of honour, an extreme virtue before
the troop and exerted his moral influence on the community. These moral values
included heroic attitude, bravery and self-assertion, sense of dignity,
individual and community responsibility, unconditional fulfilment of duty to the
community relying on him. Apart from this, other particular virtues of the
leader were celebrated such as magnanimity, generosity, generosity and constant
dedication to support in deed and word those who need help.
All
these qualities and virtues of leadership are not exclusive to one era. They do
not only characterise the internal community structure of our
Germanic
ancestors, but also constantly determine the nature of the authentic, mainly
Nordic ruling class. To participate in them, to emulate them, is for us the
noblest action, for there is always a lack of leaders, of men who cannot live
without a goal and a struggle, without the desire and the fever for action, men
who are inhabited by a creative force and whose self-control calls them to lead
others.
Our
generation is alone in the fleeting present. We must learn again to know the
laws of life most characteristic of our popular existence, which was denied us
by the direct route of natural transmission. The recent past up to the outbreak
of the Great War shows us only satisfied and softened generations who manifested
their own lack of culture and participated from afar in the struggle. We cannot
draw any strength from the emptiness of their existence because we are now on
the threshold of a new world. We have to look for a virgin path and walk with
courage in the darkness of the future. We must find our own scale of values in
the untroubled source of our history, in ancient Germanic history, and choose
the models of its fighters and leaders to guide our dangerous existence. We are
an awakened and creative generation that cannot live without its historical ties
and its brothers from the past.
He who
today claims to lead, must know what was the origin of the ruling class in the
course of history, must be aware of the great duties he has to fulfil at all
levels, towards the past and the future. He must beware of the spirit of
complacency and be filled with a fiery Germanic pride that overcomes and breaks
down all obstacles.
Edmund
Weber
