Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

Chapter II: The State
By 1920-1921 certain circles belonging to the present outlived bourgeois class accused our
movement again and again of taking up a negative attitude towards the modern State. For
that reason the motley gang of camp followers attached to the various political parties,
representing a heterogeneous conglomeration of political views, assumed the right of utilizing
all available means to suppress the protagonists of this young movement which was
preaching a new political gospel. Our opponents deliberately ignored the fact that the
bourgeois class itself stood for no uniform opinion as to what the State really meant and that
the bourgeoisie did not and could not give any coherent definition of this institution. Those
whose duty it is to explain what is meant when we speak of the State, hold chairs in State
universities, often in the department of constitutional law, and consider it their highest duty
to find explanations and justifications for the more or less fortunate existence of that
particular form of State which provides them with their daily bread. The more absurd such a
form of State is the more obscure and artificial and incomprehensible are the definitions
which are advanced to explain the purpose of its existence. What, for instance, could a royal
and imperial university professor write about the meaning and purpose of a State in a
country whose statal form represented the greatest monstrosity of the twentieth century?
That would be a difficult undertaking indeed, in view of the fact that the contemporary
professor of constitutional law is obliged not so much to serve the cause of truth but rather
to serve a certain definite purpose. And this purpose is to defend at all costs the existence of
that monstrous human mechanism which we now call the State. Nobody can be surprised if
concrete facts are evaded as far as possible when the problem of the State is under
discussion and if professors adopt the tactics of concealing themselves in morass of abstract
values and duties and purposes which are described as 'ethical' and 'moral'.
Generally speaking, these various theorists may be classed in three groups:
1. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntary association of men who have
agreed to set up and obey a ruling authority.
This is numerically the largest group. In its ranks are to be found those who worship our
present principle of legalized authority. In their eyes the will of the people has no part
whatever in the whole affair. For them the fact that the State exists is sufficient reason to
consider it sacred and inviolable. To protect the madness of human brains, a positively doglike
adoration of so-called state authority is needed. In the minds of these people the means
is substituted for the end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand movement. The State no longer exists
for the purpose of serving men but men exist for the purpose of adoring the authority of the
State, which is vested in its functionaries, even down to the smallest official. So as to prevent
this placid and ecstatic adoration from changing into something that might become in any
way disturbing, the authority of the State is limited simply to the task of preserving order
and tranquillity. Therewith it is no longer either a means or an end. The State must see that
public peace and order are preserved and, in their turn, order and peace must make the
existence of the State possible. All life must move between these two poles. In Bavaria this
view is upheld by the artful politicians of the Bavarian Centre, which is called the 'Bavarian
Populist Party'. In Austria the Black-and-Yellow legitimists adopt a similar attitude. In the
Reich, unfortunately, the so-called conservative elements follow the same line of thought.
2. The second group is somewhat smaller in numbers. It includes those who would make the
existence of the State dependent on some conditions at least. They insist that not only
should there be a uniform system of government but also, if possible, that only one language
should be used, though solely for technical reasons of administration. In this view the
authority of the State is no longer the sole and exclusive end for which the State exists. It
must also promote the good of its subjects. Ideas of 'freedom', mostly based on a
misunderstanding of the meaning of that word, enter into the concept of the State as it exists