Personally, I don’t subscribe to National Socialism. Among other reasons, unrestrained racial idolatry rings hollow; intractable limitations accompany a temporal view of our existence; a repackaged 20th century ideology cannot fulfil 21st century demands; authoritarianism would insufficiently counter Marxist institutional control; identity should be authentic–not escapist. And even if all those aforementioned problems were absent, optical problems with actively rehabilitating Adolf Hitler’s record far outweighs the benefits. (Not that these honest criticisms matter to the Left, as explained later).
Many reject the Left’s tendency to castigate ideological opposites–in fact, their vitriolic politics was what initially triggered my own rightward path. Whatever term used to describe this behaviour–‘identity politics’, ‘attack politics’, ‘virtue-signalling’–the Leftist moral impugnment of political opponents is unequivocal and widely felt.
The Left obviously wages such psychological warfare to frighten away potential nationalist converts. For all its purported faith in science and data-based conclusions, these vengeful attacks are far preferred.
This phenomenon best manifests itself in rancorous accusations, that label conservatives and nationalists as ‘Nazis’.
Before further proceeding, a little history. Upon its earlier use in German, ‘Nazi’ was used to discredit the NSDAP Party in Germany and adherents of National Socialism.
Even Adolf Hitler–the core mind behind National Socialism and its enduring symbol today–never identified as a ‘Nazi’. ‘Nazi’ was only used for derogatory purposes. ‘Nazi’ was never meant to describe a country, government or person in any objective sense.
During the 1940’s, the word was weaponised for propagandistic expediency, to demonise Germany. Which is understandable in any military struggle: to enhance feelings of malice and ensure war enthusiasm, even as the caskets came rolling home.
In comparing the 1940’s with today, ‘Nazi’ is arguably more connotative and wields a broader reach. Never mind that all actual national socialists are dead or imprisoned–a hysterical climate exists over suspected ‘Nazis’, and whether the ideology will resurface. As of 2019, even the most pro-Israel President America has ever seen, that himself condemns ‘Neo-Nazis’, is called ‘Nazi-like’. Meanwhile, many fantasize over the idea of killing ‘Baby Hitler’. And when Fraser Anning spoke for a positive Australian identity in his maiden Senate speech, the media virtually ignored his discussion of demographics, and further regurgitated holocaust talking points.
So what lessons may be drawn from these anti-‘Nazi’ attacks, which seem to be intensifying?
Upon years of reflection, my feelings are as follows.
The dominant educational and cultural institutions today purport there to be an unparalleled, incomparable set of evils in human history: National Socialism, Adolf Hitler, and Germany between 1933-1945.
The script goes that Hitler caused the Holocaust, World War Two and would have eternally enslaved humanity had he not been stopped. In his sheer malevolence, Hitler stands alone. (This is despite Hitler’s fellow 20th century dictators in Stalin and Mao, who arguably carried more malicious intentions and certainly killed more people). Today you can pragmatically defend Stalin along these lines: “Communism and equality was a good idea; it just doesn’t work in practice.” Whereas if you say anything that resembles this on National Socialism, one faces political, economic, cultural and technological disenfranchisement.
Put simply, Adolf Hitler is a comprehensively dehumanised figure. From this point of complete and irredeemable dehumanisation, comes the logical follow up: how can we stop his wicked ideology from ever re-emerging?
The favoured answer seems to be by socially, emotionally, financially and physically attacking anyone remotely resembling or adjacent to German National Socialism. Just as how advocates of universal health-care, the welfare state and workers rights can be associated with Stalinism; today, a similar connection that contemporary nationalists, conservatives, and all unashamed white people share with National Socialism, serves to justify ‘Nazi’ attacks and their ensuing dispossession.
Take the Leftist support for ‘punching Nazis’. This first gained traction in 2017, after Richard Spencer was punched at the time of Donald Trump’s inauguration. Tellingly, Spencer said “I’m not a Neo-Nazi” before being cowardly assailed–for being a ‘Nazi’.
Likewise, a recent CBS advertisement glorifies the violence committed against Spencer and ends by imploring viewers: “It’s time to punch a few Nazis!” Now has Nyambi Nyambi since clarified his message: violence should only be committed against SS tattooed thugs, or those who endorse the founding of a National Socialist regime? No, and given the ongoing ‘Nazi’ witch-hunt earlier described, Nyambi’s heedless plea is meant to be interpreted in kind.
In addition to the ever-widening application of ‘Nazi’; the Left is heavily aggrieved; Whites are facing disenfranchised, reviled futures; we inhabit unstable, turbulent times.
These four factors collectively suggest in the future, ‘Nazi’ will be used more extensively and carry heightened consequences for those alleged. Where this will end, I don’t know–history is a chaotic and unpredictable business.
Yet as White babies are suspected racists, and some of these racists may develop into Nazis, little would appear to impede ‘Nazi’ from ultimately blood libelling all White people.
As recently tweeted by Vigilante Jesus Rises,
Punch a “Nazi”? Why stop there? Why not go full ‘Minority Report’ and punch them before they become Nazis? Even better, go in search of five- year old, fair-haired, Aryan-looking boys and push them off balconies to their death in case they one day grow up to be Nazis.
7 thoughts on “The Political Utility of ‘Nazi’”