How did such muck as National Socialism gain traction in Germany? Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fürher. How can you ignore the egalitarian rot that underlie the Nazi propaganda of government legitimacy somehow deriving from the "Volk"/people?
You could just as well replace the word "Volk" with the word "Gott". It is an abstract entity that has nothing to do with any concrete individuals. The Nazis represent extreme collectivism and extreme authoritarianism. Nothing I've been arguing for here.
The poison of egalitarianism began with the Revolution, giving birth to the lunacy of human rights, or rather the "declaration of rights of man and citizen," with which the gammas and the epsilon morons overthrew their betters setting-up the Terror.
Any rational human being reflecting upon the consequences of gammas and epsilon morons grasping at that which is beyond their aptitude would recognize the fallacy of egalitarianism and human rights.
So, you think because some people/families are genetically so inferior that no minimum standards should be applied as to how well they should be treated? What ideology does that sound like?
The idea of permanent upper classes being actually superior to the lower ones goes against biological reality. First of all, premodern societies exploited only a small part of the whole pool of talent precisely because the social pyramid was so narrow and tall and because anti-meritocratic beliefs such as yours were held. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is such a thing as regression towards the mean. The children of very capable people tend to be inferior to their parents because exceptional traits are largely the result of favorable random combinations of genes. Thirdly, exceptionally good genomes get diluted by the very process of sexual reproduction. Fourthly, in order to maintain power in the hands of one lineage, there is a temptation for royal families to marry relatives too close. The Egyptian royalty and the Habsburgs are a good examples of what consequences that can have. For these reasons, there used to be plenty of idiots in charge in past centuries.
The accomplishments of the Terror were only bested by the Nazis in their industrial killings, which in turn were outclassed by the communist muck in Russia by a factor of 5, Maoist meatbags by over a factor of 10, and equaled by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields.
The real problem is the authoritarian personality who cannot live without strict hierarchy, discipline and uniformity of dogma. Ideology is irrelevant. People of that personality type are capable of perverting any idealistic arrangement however beautiful in theory. The only antidote is the decentralization of power and adequate checks and balances where centralization is unavoidable. The transition from aristocracy to bourgeois democracy was smooth and bloodless in societies with strong rule of law and checks and balances in place such as the United Kingdom. Besides, the transition is history. There is no use railing against it now.
People ought to know their social and political station. Superior men do not kill or hate those who are inferior; it would be as insane as man hating swine.
Yes, people don't hate swine. People feed swine, keep them in their pen and slaughter them when they have grown to size. If you want to compare most of your fellow human beings to swine, you will have come up with very convincing arguments for not being slumped together with most people into that category.
The aristocracy did not scheme to cause more misery to their serfs because serfs did not enter into their minds. Only those who are driven by envy and insecurity born of their low station perpetuate the mass killings that baffle the rational human mind.
If you think the preindustrial world was some sort of pastoral idyll without frequent warfare, famine and pestilence you are gravely mistaken. The aristocracy did not scheme to cause misery on their serfs. That was a matter of course in a world where armies lived off the land. The aristocracy specialized in violence and coercion. Warfare was their life. Societies dominated by the aristocracy were warlike, and in war, they ravaged the lands of competing aristocrats in other countries (or their own countries in wars withing the same kingdom) or had their lands ravaged by their enemies. Germany's lack of democratization and militarism took so long to disappear precisely because Germany was a latecomer to unification which is why it had a relatively large group of royal and aristocratic families in existence who exerted much influence in society until the late 19th century. German officer corps when it comes to the higher ranks were made up of noblemen to a large degree. While they must have despised Hitler's populism, they certainly cherished his militarism: it provided them with ample career opportunities. The aristocracy loves war because that's what it exists for.
Also, it is a common fallacy that the modern era has been particularly lethal on a per capita basis. That is not true. See the documentary below. At 13:30, there is a comparison of what percentage of the world's population died in conflicts throughout history. You might be surprised to learn that conflicts of the premodern era killed a far greater percentage of the population that existed then than even the deadliest conflict in history (in absolute terms), WW II.