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).
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.
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
