1,558 words
Time and time again the Alt Right gets dragged into disputes over the legacy of German National Socialism. They revolve around whether it should be denounced or embraced and whether it is expedient to display Nazi symbolism in public given the mainstream media’s incessant attempts to demonize any kind of white racial consciousness by inextricably linking it to the real or alleged brutalities of German National Socialism.
What is often being ignored however is the existence of a deeper historical reason on the part of the Establishment for attacking white racial consciousness. Liberals attack and demonize the Alt Right, and any implicit manifestation of racial consciousness on the part of whites, not because they fear the emergence of violence. In fact, their obsession with Nazism is also not primarily rooted in its brutalities. There is a far deeper concern that animates the guardians of the established order and their lackeys. It is the fear of the ascendance of a radically different worldview, a paradigm that views race and heredity as core aspects determining the trajectory of society and historical processes. Even in the absence of the prospect of violence such a worldview is simply unacceptable to them.
Seen in this light, liberals should in fact be credited with good discernment and lucidity about what the Alt Right represents. They understand it even better than many race realists who frantically try to condemn “Nazism” and reject that label.
This confusion and dissonance arise indeed due to different meanings attached to the word “Nazism” by different parties. Those in the Alt Right who condemn “Nazism” comprehend the term in a narrow sense, as referring to a particular political movement that emerged at a particular time in Germany. The Left however imbues the term with a more general meaning — i.e. the racial/hereditarian view of society and its organization along these lines.
In the Alt Right, therefore, everyone is Nazi, and no one is Nazi at the same time, depending on which meaning is attached to the term. In the narrow sense, none of us are Nazis since we function in a different historical period under different historical circumstances. In a wider sense however, all of us are Nazis since we essentially subscribe to the same worldview espoused by that movement. The incessant branding of any racially conscious white as “Nazi” by liberals should therefore be seen as something more than sleazy attempts at defamation, but rather surprisingly as demonstration of better judgement than on our part about who we are. The Left gets it right for a change, surpassing many in our movement in its lucidity.
Therefore, I would like to argue that the way forward for the Alt Right should be unifying its worldview into an historically coherent whole, which obviously includes the National Socialist period in Germany. This can best be achieved by viewing that phenomenon in a macro-historical context, in other words through its historicization rather than politicization. Seen from this perspective, the crimes and mistakes of German National Socialism (real or alleged) simply become beside the point.
Every worldview has its own life history and manifests itself differently at different stages of its evolution. The form these outer manifestations take depends both on the immutable internal logic of its development and contingencies which accompany it at different stages, both of which are at least partly independent of its core message. A worldview should therefore primarily be judged not by its outer manifestations, but by its core philosophy.
Every newly emergent worldview is bound to appear on the political stage through violence, since it has to break through the gridlock of the old established order. And the liberal worldview was no exception. Liberalism first appeared on the political stage through the French Revolution and the ensuing Napoleonic wars, both of which wrought immense devastation throughout Europe, being responsible for the deaths of many people by the standards of the time. Liberals however do not denounce the French Revolution, not to mention the very Enlightenment ideals that brought it about, for the violence. They see it as a necessary and perhaps inevitable step in the ascendance of liberal, egalitarian worldview in the West.
Likewise, National Socialism in Germany was the first political manifestation of racial/hereditarian worldview, which had already had a rich history and strong intellectual support from many different angles. In the scientific/analytical realm this involved Arthur de Gobineau, Francis Galton, Cesare Lombroso, Paul Broca, and Charles Spearman, as well as such popularizers as Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant, and in philosophy the German Conservative Revolutionaries (although their views on race were more ambiguous).
Although eventually German National Socialism was brutally destroyed, and the racial/hereditarian worldview has been fanatically suppressed by the guardians of the old order, it continues to be corroborated by novel findings from the fields of psychometry, evolutionary biology, and population genetics.
In the same way that the roots of French Revolution and liberalism are traced back to Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century, the National Socialist period in Germany will be regarded as the German Revolution by future historians, and its roots will be traced back to racial thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Alt Right in turn represents the continuation and modern day manifestation of this same school of thought, drawing upon both pre- and post-WWII racial and traditionalist thinkers for inspiration.
One other reservation about Nazism that is often brought about, in fact by those racially conscious whites who view it positively in general, is the mistreatment by Nazis of some of the white nations. It all inevitably devolves into quibbling over details about whether this mistreatment invalidates or compromises the value of Nazism for White Nationalism. However, leaving aside the debate about to what extent these mistreatments are real or fabricated and whether they can be justified or not, a historicized approach to Nazism renders also such considerations moot.
Every grand historical development that is necessary and/or beneficial for a civilization on a macro scale will inevitably involve some aggrieved subgroups. Moreover, historical personalities that stand behind those grand events are more often than not guided by narrower interests and are not consciously aware of the larger significance of the events they herald. It may very well be that Hitler was guided first and foremost by narrow German interests in his undertakings, although plentiful evidence suggests that he had far broader historical vision with regards to the fate of Europe and the white race in general than his contemporaries, and that he had mistreated some European nations in the process. Likewise Bismarck, for example, was primarily guided by narrow Prussian interests in the process of unifying Germany, which inevitably involved mistreatment of many Germans who opposed Prussia (e.g. Austrians and Bavarians). This, however, in no way precluded the veneration of Bismarck by Austrian and Bavarian Germans imbued with a broad German identity. In the same way, the mistreatment of their ancestors at the hands of National Socialist Germany should not preclude present-day racially conscious Poles or Czechs from taking inspiration from it by viewing it with historical detachment rather than personal attachment.
The legacy of German National Socialism inspires, and its symbolism rouses many racially conscious whites today regardless of their nationality. Whatever one thinks of National Socialism and whether or not one believes the official narrative about it, it is part of the common history of the movement to which the modern day Alt Right belongs, and it represented the same aspirations and longings that animate all racially conscious whites today. It was the first, and until now the only, time in modern western history when racial/hereditarian worldview reached the levers of power and was implemented politically, thereby providing inspiration for the future generations of all racially conscious whites. It is also the only time when whites confronted their present day deadly enemies in a large-scale effort.
Trying to avoid any association with Nazism on the part of the Alt Right is therefore a highly demanding task and is bound to consume a huge amount of energy, which could be spent for other more beneficial purposes. The real issue is not whether it is expedient or not to avoid any such association in the public eyes, but whether or not this is an efficient use of our creative energies. The more the Left insists on its hateful and genocidal agenda, the more whites will be radicalized, and it will become more and more difficult for White Nationalists to abstain from invoking Nazi symbolism in public, given its rousing potential.
The moral burden therefore rests on the shoulders of liberals. The ascendance of the racial/hereditarian worldview in Western Civilization is an organic historical necessity. The more they try to thwart it with their bigotry and narrow-mindedness, the more likely a violent confrontation becomes. They should be well aware that the excesses of Nazism were a direct result of the punitive Versailles Treaty forced upon the German nation and the emergence of Bolshevism in Europe.
The Alt Right in turn should come to peace with its roots and its history. Obviously, no one should be obliged to revere Nazism, but those among us who find inspiration in it should not be scorned or disowned. We will sound more convincing and more inspiring if we are coherent in our worldview and at peace with our past and with ourselves.
26 comments
(Finally.) Absolute pleasure in reading this article.
Lucid and common sense analysis.
It is my personal opinion that anyone who rejects Race is secretely an atheist. I don’t care how much they pray, or what holy or unholy scripture they read, because the rejection of Race is like rejecting of God.
That is true, which is why practically all established religious leaders are implacably hostile to racial reality.
Yes, religion being something outside of Race and culture, usually becomes anti-racial and thus atheistical.
Well, at least it is a rejection of nature, but that is at the core of the Marxist/Liberal world view, which is basically a form of ideological Lysenkoism.
“What is often being ignored however is the existence of a deeper historical reason on the part of the Establishment for attacking white racial consciousness. Liberals attack and demonize the Alt Right, and any implicit manifestation of racial consciousness on the part of whites, not because they fear the emergence of violence. In fact, their obsession with Nazism is also not primarily rooted in its brutalities. There is a far deeper concern that animates the guardians of the established order and their lackeys. It is the fear of the ascendance of a radically different worldview, a paradigm that views race and heredity as core aspects determining the trajectory of society and historical processes. Even in the absence of the prospect of violence such a worldview is simply unacceptable to them.”
J. R. Jorjani would add that that “radically different worldview” also involved acceptance of the implications of paranormal research, which render a liberal or laisse faire society unstable or impossible. See his Prometheus and Atlas (Arktos, 2016)
For an example of Hitler’s views of Europe generally as of 12/41 look at:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.htmlhttp:/
great article, btw i think that link is http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html
Thanks.
Excellent article. Echos many of the sentiments I’ve tried, less eloquently, to convey on the subject.
My only bone of contention is the characterization of NS Germany as ” the first political manifestation of racial/hereditarian worldview” and “the first, and until now the only, time in modern western history when racial/hereditarian worldview reached the levers of power.” With respect, this is an oversimplification and what I take to be purpose of the article is even better served by a more complete contextualization of this admittedly exceptionally salient moment in the history of western nationalism.
Even within NS’s historical epoch, it was by no means the first or only manifestation of racial/hereditary thinking. The contemporaneous nationalist revivals of, for example, Poland, Fascist Italy, and the Baltic, and in the preceding century, the throwing off of the Ottoman yolk, the manifest destiny of the United States, and the many explicitly tribal appeals and aspects of British Imperialism all were predicated on hereditary ideas. In the case of the former examples, these ideas even came to the fore in a revolutionary posture.
I don’t mean to downplay the distinguishably precise and complete development and expression of this worldview in National Socialism, nor its unique centrality in the world-historical significance of what you’ve aptly termed the “German Revolution” and its aftermath. The accomplishments and excesses of NS Germany in regards to racialism are indeed akin to the French Revolution and liberalism. But, in parsing out the grand historical tradition of liberalism, the French and American Revolutions are best understood in the context of the preceding 200 years of undoubtedly liberal non-revolutionary political developments in English parlimentrism and the revolutionary liberalism of political Protestantism. Similarly, in historicizing National Socialism for our movement, we would be best served as treating it as the political manifestation of a long running tradition at a particular stage of its development in a very particular historical era, rather than as the eurtext of political hereditarianism.
The French Revolution is best understood in terms of the anti-Christian ideas of the philosophes, who were Freemasons, and the Bavarian Illuminati, who used Freemasonry to organize their revolution. The idea of a universal humanity and a Great Society and the plan to eliminate the monarchy and the Catholic church by revolutionary dictatorship were new ideas and not an evolution from liberal ideas.
There’s no rehabilitating it. There’s no point to rehabilitating it. If you want to get out of the internet ghetto, you have to purge and quarantine this stuff.
If you don’t? Fine. At least stay our of the way while the adults do all the heavy lifting while you fade away into the background.
Trump won. Memes won’t be able to distract from the shortcomings of the actual Administration. They are already stale, repetitive and tiresome. Its time to professionalize.
If you want to look to the past for inspiration, why not Cyrus the Great? Same führer principke, same swastika, same Aryan race. With the added benefit of being the first Messiah (look it up).
The only way I would accept fascism is if I am the dictator, and most whites think the same way. We need to get the old formula back: ordered liberty + white nationalism.
Let me get this straight, you honestly think it’s politically wise to abandon modern politics, for some kind of revival of ancient Zoroastranism?
What would be the point, atleast Nationalsocialism is a valid and modern worldview that held a large group of adherents not even a century ago.
Excellent article. The key here is anything you say earns you the label of “Nazi.” You don’t have to embrace it, but don’t expend the energy trying to distance yourself from the label. It doesn’t work.
NEVER APOLOGIZE!
The best form of defense is attack. When the liberals and cultural Marxist accuse us of being Nazis, we should immediately fire back they are the inheritors and present representatives of a political movement with a long pedigree of murder, namely Lenin, Trotzky, Stalin, Mao, and of course “saint’ Fidel.
This article will help Americans feel good about LARPing as Nazis, which is nice because every boy should have a hobby, and it does no harm because American ethnonationalism has zero profile in political and electoral terms. But this article will have extremely limited appeal to successful European nationalists, who, a long time ago, recognized the connection between Nazi affectations and electoral Winter.
Thanks, Colin. I feel encouraged by this comment to say that I´m not satisfied with this article. I wish for a clarification of the alt-right´s stance towards Hitler-NS, or, fankly, a disapproval. What does this article do? Explain that Hitler-NS was explicit about the White Race, yeah, like that´s the point. The point about Hitler-NS is dictatorship and totalitarianism, if not in idea then however in practise (and also even in idea). Why the hell do we need that? Why can´t we just be ethno-nationalists like 99% of all people in 99% of all history? Nah… that article didn´t help (me).
I agree. There is nothing to be gained from constantly re-litigating the Nazi past. It will do nothing to save Europe and Europeans. Our position is about identity and our survival as a biological/cultural continuum. The fact that the Nazis also shared what we would term a race- realist perception of history and society is nothing special. Most everyone did in the 30s. The divergence is the way they applied it in theory and practice. There the divide between modern White Nationalism and Nazism is immediate. To claim that by seeking to preserve our identity we are implicitly endorsing the excesses real and alleged of Nazism is absurd. Similar to claiming guild socialism prefigures the the Red Terror. However, if we continue to affect a connection we continue give life to the Left’s outworn Nazi bogey.This article doesn’t help much.The claim that the excesses of National Socialism are simply typical of the first phases of a revolution can be used to justify any tyranny. But the point is we don’t need to. We don’t need to re-litigate the past. Our perspective is new and belongs to a new phase in our historical developement.
Nice precis of a thorny topic. Fear of this terrible ‘nazi’ or (god help us) ‘fascist’ taint has managed to corral some of our best minds into irrelevance or suicide. Just deal with the hard facts here. Nazis are all dead. Commies still call all enemies that (or ‘fascist’ if they’re dodging a libel suit; but negligible difference).
I really liked this article. As the great Jonathan Bowden said ‘we can step over that’, meaning the narrative about the Jewish holocaust. We can step over the larping too. What we want is our own homeland and studying the methods of the national socialists minus all the drama about the Jews, is one way of figuring out the details. One day there will be Nazi studies and that certain tribe will be a footnote.
Racial/hereditarian worldview sounds so contingent and ephemeral, like liberal or libertarian vorldview. If Hegel were with us I’m sure he’d say that just as self-conciousness is formed when one learns to distinguish oneself from preceived phenomena or other, so collective self-conciousness is an essential part of a naturally developed mind.
Does WN need a rethink? Thus far it seems to be working well against the liberals, but it seems to be losing ground against the civic mationalist altrighers, actually I suspect it’s much worse than that since both movements cannibalize on each other’s supporters, and furthermore instead of looking at the civic nationalist altrighters as allies maybe they should be looked at as the enemy? And the best outcome for the wnS will be to get the altright and the liberals to fight each other to a bloody stalemate that leaves whoever side that wins with a phyric victory, with the “winner” in a very weakend state, a real world example of this was the Byzantine -sasanid wars where the eventual winner was left in a state ruin and so was unable to put an effective defence against the Arabs.
It depends on what we mean by “Nazis.”
Are we referring to the National Socialist movement of 5 January 1919 to 29 January 1933?
The legal government of Germany from 30 January 1933 to 31 August 1939?
Or the Third Reich commencing 1 September 1939 and concluding 8 May 1945?
The first was a political party which successfully mobilized the mass of the German people and defeated the Marxist streetfighting organizations.
The second was the government which vitalized the German economy, created national unity, crushed communism and reoccupied lost national territories, notably in Austria and the Sudetenland. Remarkably, the NS government did all this via mostly legal means and diplomatic agreements. And without having to kill very many people (compare the record with the millions of “class enemies” whom the Bolsheviks liquidated during and in the aftermath of the Revolution).
The Third Reich, obviously, was instrumental for its share of killings and oppressions in World War 2.
What the Left fears is not so much the blitzkrieg invasions, the concentration camps, the civilians machinegunned in ditches, etc., during 1939-45. Rather, it is the NS movement and government of 1919-1939. These demonstrated that the people were behind National Socialism and, by extension, other racially based movements which subordinated the economy to the nation. And oh yeah, could face down the Left in the streets. But it just wasn’t the beer hall brawls. It was that millions of Leftists ended up defecting to the NS movement. So maybe there is that secret fear at the center of the Leftist id that somewhere, down deep, they too want to join the be-swastikaed ranks.
The real threat of the National Socialist movement–we might even say NS zeitgeist –is that it awoke an entire people. And from there the policies follow. As well as the people.
Very well thought out and presented: kudos! I’m not won over by National Socialism, save for the monetary sovereignty issue and infrastructure programs. A sensible racial consciousness is a good thing, but making it the centerpiece of political and social thinki9ng? Far from convinced, not least because I live in a South American country that has many mestizos, a white majority, but little racial tension. That notwithstanding, yours has been the most concise and convincing presentation on Nazism that I’ve encountered. As you wisely point out, there are those three distinct stages to be taken into account.
The claim that the successful European parties disavow NS in its entirety doesn’t get more true with repetition.
Golden Dawn has not only succeeded in Greece at the ballot box, it is the most popular party among the young, no thanks, I might add, to civic nationalist cravens like Marine LePen who “disavowed” Golden Dawn to please the globalists, Jews and normals who, predictably, call her a Nazi anyway.
There is also the question of whether the European parties other than Golden Dawn are actually successful given that they accept non-Europeans, Jews and other aliens into their ranks. None of these parties are proposing repatriation or using artillery fire if needed to keep migrants off European soil.
No one should accept the premise that these parties are successful without a clear definition of what success means in terms of keeping Europe European.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.