To Have — or to BE?



(The essence of National Socialism is racial idealism.  What is such idealism based on?  In the following commentary an explanation is offered which brings moral clarity to the issue, as it challenges the reader to personal reflection and commitment to a Cause greater than that of one’s own petty existence.) 



The two most common verbs are “to have” and “to be.”  No one knows this better than those struggling with the irregular grammar of a foreign language.  It is these two words which are fundamental to all human conception and understanding. 


How one relates to these two verbs defines one’s personal identity.  Indeed, how society as a whole relates to these primal units of speech defines its tone and character. 

One of these words provides the basis for materialism, the other for that of idealism.  Those societies based on having represent one kind of world, while those based on being represent an entirely different order. 


In a healthy, idealistic society—where personal honor, integrity and heroism are held as highest values—more important than what one has is what one is.  And these values encompass a natural relationship to one’s own kind. 


By contrast, in a diseased, materialistic society—where such values are lost—most people opt for the “have.”  Possessing no honor or integrity, their image of themselves is based upon what material possessions they have or do not have.  Indeed, their entire existence is defined by those possessions or lack thereof.  In other words, their self-identity proceeds from that which lies outside of themselves, rather than that which comes from within. 

In the absence of “to be,” such creatures act on the basis of another verb, namely:  to seem.  “Schein statt Sein,” as the German paraphrase goes.  Instead of the real, they opt for mere appearance.  A world of cant and make-believe serves as a proxy for an actual one. 


The culmination of this “have” outlook is manifested most strikingly in contemporary society, which is dominated by crass consumerism and materialism, rather than by genuine idealism based on blood and honor.  Never-ending acquisition is its theme, and money is the measure of all things.


Unfortunately, most people have bought into this world of endless consumption, this world of mammon.  Seduced by commercial advertising and mass marketing, they have been conditioned to respond like Pavlov’s dogs, wagging their tails and salivating at all the many things they have been trained to want. 

Their values are to be found in mindless consumption, and their spiritual center—their mecca, as it were—is the shopping mall. 

No longer are they happy with what they already have.  Instead, they seek satisfaction in the acquisition of ever more THINGS—more trinkets, more toys, more gadgets and gewgaws of an ephemeral, throw-away society. 


More overpriced toys with which to spoil the kiddies, more cool fashions and videogames for overindulged teenagers, bigger TV screens and all the latest interactive electronic goodies for a me/now generation of adults—all in the belief that happiness is to be found in the insatiable quest for material things.  Indeed, as it is the sole thing sustaining the U.S. bubble economy, some have even gone so far as to equate this compulsive urge to splurge with patriotism! 


Perhaps howhere is this latter-day lust for the things of this world better reflected than in the comparative sizes of family homes after World War II and those today.  A half century ago, with far more children, most people were satisfied with homes which were modest and unpretentious.  By contrast, today’s yuppie baby-boomers—with far fewer or no children—require conspicuous, outsized McMansions to announce their arrival in the world. 

And down the road, when it comes to leaving a legacy to their children—if they have any—all they can think of is bequeathing a material estate, rather than a much more precious one of good blood and good upbringing. 

A white mother swoons at the prospect of her daughter’s engagement to some overpaid black sports “hero” on steroids. 


A white teenage things ex-inner-city rappers and their big bucks are “cool,” and he seeks to emulate his African role models. 


A yuppie, indoctrinated with the nutty notion that all primates are created equal, is prepared to welcome blacks into his all-white neighborhood with the non sequitur that the negroidal newcomers “make more money than most whites.” 

In each instance the underlying criterion is not what one happens to be, but rather what one has—as though the size of one’s wallet or bank account is an accurate measure of human quality. 


The deleterious effect of the “have” mentality can be seen in various ways.  One need only look at the environment to see Nature’s warning signs.  Polluted air, polluted soil, polluted streams and oceans, the destruction of forests, resource depletion, climate alteration, genetic contamination, the wholesale disappearance of species—these are the results of a world opting for global capitalism and a gluttonous American “way of life.” 


Above all the noise and clamor of a crass consumer culture, voices are sometimes raised, suggesting that there might come a time when the ballooning bill will have to be paid. 


But not to worry.  Your credit is good in this booming, buy-now-pay-later, bubble society—this flagwaving wonderland with the largest accumulation of debt in the history of the world.  Is this living, or what? 


With a mass mindset firmly fixed on material acquisition, the enthronement of the Money Power—predicated on concomitant debt, interest and ignorance—is assured. 


And so, in the quest for more, more—ever more!—one takes one’s place in the great Konsumgesellschaft and its endless rat race. 


Teenagers graduating from high school with overextended credit cards; young couples, on their way to wedded bliss owing their souls more to the banks and finance companies than to each other; two-job and two-income families, up to their ears in debt and interest payments, struggling to keep their heads above water.  These are some of the start-up costs of consumer capitalism. 

Is it worth it?  Under such a set-up, does one really live—or merely exist? 

“Get a life.”  We have all heard the expression.  It is usually uttered by someone who is himself caught up in a mindless rat race and unable to get a real life of his own. 


Yes, to “get a life.”  To live!  To BE, in the truest sense of the word—that is something National Socialism commends to everyone who aspires toward Aryan realization and fulfillment.  For without such a life, one does indeed simply exist, physically present but spiritually and morally dead. 


Life without a higher purpose is mere existence.  As such it has no meaning or value.  It is worthless.  It is of no consequence.  It doesn’t count. 

Today most people exist as mere protoplasmic blobs.  Spiritually and actually they are zeroes, nobodies—zilch.  They are not true people, but zombies. 

These walking dead have but one concern:  to “feel good,” to “be happy,” and go along with the brainless herd.  And the path to this nirvana of nothingness is sought in material acquisition. 


But that is not a purpose—it is simply an excuse for somnambulism and selfishness.  It has no enduring value for the future. 


Indeed, the aspirations of such sleepwalkers for creature comfort and ego-gratification can be compared to those of a slug or a mosquito—with the exception that the latter are driven by natural, organic needs, rather than unnatural desire. 

It is true that we all have certain basic material needs; and there is nothing wrong with trying to meet those needs.  But the real question is whether, in meeting and going beyond those needs, we allow material concerns to control our lives and what we are. 


Unfortunately, the lives of most people are controlled by what they have, rather than what they are.  It is this fundamental denial of reality—with an accompanying loss of personal identity—which is the source of spiritual alienation and unhappiness. 


So then, shouldn’t the focus be reversed?  Shouldn’t one’s REAL being—one’s person—control what one has or does not have? 


Beyond meeting one’s basic needs, National Socialism suggests that development and ennoblement of the person is more important than one’s material status.  Only thus can one attain to that fulfillment, which is not only the premise for true freedom and happiness, but also the basis for all higher culture as the expression of one’s identity. 


This is not to argue against wealth—even great wealth—per se.  It is important, however, to consider how such wealth has been acquired, as well as how it is disposed of—whether it represents an end in itself, or whether it serves a higher purpose. 

Here it is worth noting the paradox that during the Great Depression, it was National Socialist Germany alone—based on a non-materialistic outlook—which was able to produce material prosperity, whereas its materialist competitors in the Soviet Union and the West could, short of war, offer their citizens nothing but poverty and misery. 


There were two men who understood all of this and who acted accordingly.  Today we honor them, not because of any material possessions they had, but rather for what they gave and the sacrifice they made. 


They are, respectively, the one who stood closest to the Führer and the one who was to restore his Movement and raise the Banner anew up out of the ashes of defeat:  Rudolf Hess and Lincoln Rockwell. 


As exemplars, these two heroes and martyrs epitomize the state of being we are talking about.  They lacked great material possessions, and ultimately they lost what little they had.  But they were true to themselves—and they LIVED!  And so they live on today. 


We enter this world with nothing but ourselves, our persons.  Whether rich or poor, we depart this life with but what we are, leaving behind any material possessions we may have acquired along the way.  In other words, we begin and end our mortal journey with only that which is irreducibly essential.  


Between start and finish it is only what one is that counts, and thus denotes the personal worth of each individual. 


To have or to be?  The one is transitory; the other is forever. 

Those are the alternatives posed to those who wish to live.  Seek to be; but more than that, seek to become.  Become what you are, as the Great Philosopher expressed it.  Become what you already are—nothing more, nothing less. 


What you are, of course, is defined by your ideals, your values, as well as by your vision of a better world.  For every National Socialist, there can be but one set of ideals, one set of values, one common vision of that better world. 


In embracing those ideals, those values and that vision  you have the opportunity to discover your real self, the self beyond the ego.  And in being true to that self, you secure for yourself that personal immortality which eludes so many, who have yet to discover that move important that having is simply—BEING. 




 Source: NATIONAL SOCIALIST BULLETIN, Number 344, Second Quarter 2004 / JdF 115