Revered by who though? The people who revere him in death are the same people that would revere him in life. His death didn't gain him any followers. Outside of far right circles he's literally unknown to most people, and the people that do know of him just think of him as 'that kooky neo-nazi guy.' A martyr becomes more powerful in death than in life, and GLR lost all of his power in death. His party splintered and his followers were pretty much powerless until the advent of the internet.
You're hitting the nail on the head right here as to what this thread (I think at least) was supposed to be about. The problem with natsoc isn't the message, the message is the closest to truth our people have ever been, at least in modern times. The problem is the presentation, and this is what I think OP was trying to tackle. It's still possible to keep the message of natsoc pure while changing the aesthetics and presentation to fit our time and place. Acting like you're in 1920s Germany isn't going to do much good in 2010s America, even if there are some parallels between the two.
The problem here is that people here are more focused on the means than the end, which is interesting as it’s more indicative of a fascist outlook than a natsoc outlook. For a fascist, the goal is not important, the means are. It doesn't matter who the fascist fights or what his people achieve, just that they do it with power and speed as a unified force.
It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make a people great it is necessary to send them to battle even if you have to kick them in the pants. That is what I shall do
This is a Nietzschean view of the world, one where the goal is not important. Take the Overman for example. What makes him special is not his goal, but rather the fact that he "overcomes" the human condition. The means of what he's done is the essence of his very existence. Remember what the Protocols say of Nietzsche, they name him outright as subversive and Judaic. The essence of natsoc is not how we accomplish our goal, not the means; the essence is that we accomplish our goal by whatever means we need.
The organization is only a necessary evil. At best it is only a means of reaching certain ends. The worst happens when it becomes an end in itself
Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. I immediately tried to absorb the entire work, but something about it struck me as alien. That was, as I realized later, the overly pathetic, even theatrical element which, to me, appeared willful rather than perfect.
Hitler was no Nietzschean. He was the philosophical disciple of Dietrich Eckhart, who himself was a disciple of Arthur Schopenhauer. Nietzschean fascists reach back to Rome and seek to make men the slaves of their spirits, which may be an improvement over the modern era where men have no spirits, but it’s inferior to Hitlerian natsoc. Hitler reached back even farther, to Aryan prehistory. We neither want man enslaved to spirit or man devoid of spirit, we need man to become one with spirit.
Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a demi-divinity; even better, a myth… Mussolini is a man
Don’t be a slave to symbols. The goal is more important than the means, if we succeed in liberating our people and conquering our (((foes)) then our actions will be lionized regardless of whether you toed the orthodox 1920s NSDAP party line or not. Do what needs to be done, do it with nobility and honor, but don’t forget why you’re doing it. There’s a legitimate criticism to be had of PR-fags, people who are more concerned with PR than actually accomplishing their goal. But using PR doesn’t make one a PR-fag. PR is a tool like any other, and it’s a tool we’ll have to use. If you think Hitler didn’t use PR, then you’re off your rocker and you need to do some more reading.