Why Nasjonal Samling?

Article by Gulbrand Lunde.

The bourgeois parties criticize NS, claiming that we are disrupting the ‘bourgeois front,’ which they argue was uniting against the Marxists. Simultaneously, they acknowledge that we receive support from dissatisfied individuals who are unhappy with bourgeois politics. However, there exists a significant contradiction in these statements.

Firstly, the bourgeois parties admit widespread dissatisfaction with their policies, even if they hesitate to fully acknowledge their own incompetence in addressing contemporary challenges, particularly unemployment. Concurrently, the robust growth of Marxist parties results from disenchanted individuals gravitating away from bourgeois politics. When NS, according to the bourgeois perspective, garners support from these ‘disaffected’ individuals who might otherwise have aligned with the Marxists, it inadvertently weakens Marxism and bolsters elements that uphold societal stability. The bourgeois parties’ insistence on an alternative narrative reflects narrow party egoism and lacks objective reasoning.

We contend that the bourgeois parties are out of touch with current times and developments. Their worldview and political stances belong to an era that is waning. The question is not merely about choosing between bourgeois or non-bourgeois politics; rather, it revolves around determining which political perception and outlook on life should supplant the ideologies we have lived under for the past century.

This last epoch in our history, which we can call the liberal capitalist era, has been relatively short. The political governance it has given rise to in our country—the party political, parliamentary system—has existed for only 50 years. It reveals a lack of historical knowledge when people imagine or try to convince others that this system will endure indefinitely. In the development of a nation, 50 years is not a long time.

I won’t delve into further details here about parliamentarism and party politics and their impact in our country. Criticizing these aspects is straightforward because their unfortunate consequences are glaringly evident today.

Marxism is not the future.

As I mentioned, dissatisfaction with bourgeois politics is steadily increasing, and more and more people are aligning themselves with the Marxists. It would only be a matter of time before Marxism replaces our current social order if developments continue in the same direction as before (what we refer to in our program as the ‘la-skure policy’).

Now, however, it is our opinion that Marxism is not the system to replace liberal capitalism.

The Marxists correctly criticize the old social system in many ways, but they also make some unjustifiable errors. Moreover, what Marxism would replace the old system with could be far worse.

The idea of solidarity:

NS (our organization) believes that the new system should primarily be characterized by cooperation—a solidary collaboration among all classes in society. The current urge for unity and the feeling of solidarity are evident within revolutionary parties, where class solidarity prevails. However, we assert that this sense of solidarity must extend to all segments of the population. We need to establish cooperative agreements to lift ourselves collectively.

In today’s society, people have increasingly distanced themselves from each other. Individualism has taken hold. Unfortunately, this one-sided focus on individual development has eroded community bonds. Our entire society consists of isolated individuals, held together primarily by laws that are sometimes reluctantly obeyed.

The state, once envisioned as the pinnacle of Norwegian society, has transformed into a coercive institution. Each individual pursues personal goals independently, often disregarding others. Society is fragmenting.

The union of individualism and community:

However, our era of rapid technological advancement necessitates cooperation among people. To fully exploit the abundant opportunities in our society, we must find social governance structures that reconcile individual progress with common interests.

We must build upon freedom, self-preservation, individual initiatives, and property rights. Every person, as a free individual, should have their own occupation and work, while also collaborating for the mutual benefit of themselves and society as a whole. The first prerequisite for implementing such a perspective in practical politics is to restore faith in our people’s society. As Quisling eloquently expressed:

“Just as any society can save itself during a serious crisis and experience rebirth, our people must also rediscover their life-giving foundation and unleash their potential. A spiritual and responsible worldview, infused with faith, should permeate all aspects of our lives. What our people need most is a harmonious blend of individualism and community. As leaders, we should champion personal freedom, safeguard life and property, recognize the importance of work and its fruits, and uphold the family institution and lineage. We must value our connection to blood and soil, prioritize goodwill and cooperation over class struggle, and adhere to sound economic principles that benefit both individuals and society as a whole. Simultaneously, we should strengthen executive state power and the authority of the state, rectify any unhealthy or ambiguous expansions that have affected the concept of the state, and counter the diminishing understanding of the value and potential of each individual. By liberating spiritual life and fostering economic solidarity, we can shape a better future.