Blog Archive

Thursday, October 2, 2008

What is National Socialism? Why is it bad?

First, let's form a distinction between nazis and national socialists. Nazis were a particular party at a particular time in Germany that did particular things. National Socialism is a philosophy that anyone can share anywhere on earth, while not having anything to do with the actions of the Nazis or the Nazi party. National Socialists falsely branded as neo-nazis may have nothing to do with the particular actions or decisions made by the nazis, but simply share a philosophical belief that socialism is good so long as it is confined to a homogeneous nation. That socialism lubricates the wheels of good will, peace, commerce, etc, and allows the nation to stand strong and secure. The best national socialist state in the world was not Nazi Germany, but currently exists today in Japan.

Socialism, but only for Japanese. This is the national socialist model most 'neo-nazis' are yearning for. It is neither expansionist nor genocidal, it is neither communist nor totalitarian, it is simply pragmatic good sense. When free-market capitalism doesn't produce the result one wants for a society, you include socialist policies to gently guide it back on course. You don't just shrug and say, nothing can be done, if the free market can't provide it, it can't be provided. If you want full employment, a minimum standard of living, a comfortable retirement, a safe working environment, low pollution, a safety valve for dead-enders, protection from predatory lending/advertising, etc, you cannot just leave the free-market to itself. Socialism must be included in the package. A national socialist is someone who first and foremost cares about the well-being of his people, (natio is latin for 'to be born' and all nations must be blood related by definition), and sees socialism as a tool in his toolbox to help his people. He does not care about the well being of the individual, God's will, some imaginary natural rights, the well being of the world, the trees, or anything else. National establishes his ends, socialist his means. When socialism is not productive or useful, he casts it aside and relies on some other method. When it is productive or useful, he refuses to cast it aside based on some sort of ideologically pure conformism to Ayn Rand. Though Japan is currently poorer than the USA, it has virtually no resources to work with except its own people, and thus starts at a disadvantage. Second, it has none of the other social maladies the US has. No crime, no diversity, no immigration, no poverty, no unemployment, etc. Japan is the best place on earth, the most enviable child born is a Japanese. And it, indisputably, is a national socialist state. One of the most exclusive and xenophobic countries on earth that cares about the purity of its blood from even koreans ten generations down the line, with all the standard socialist goodies of free health care, education, etc. It's the poster child for national socialism.

So let's look at the ugly duckling of the national socialist family again, our cute cuddly nazis which are trotted out in every argument to discredit anyone and everyone who cares about anything.

The nazis in the 20's and 30's were largely good guys. Applying pragmatic socialism they got their people out of a depression and curtailed runaway inflation. They built large public infrastructure and made one of the strongest economies in the world at the time, out of the complete debacle the previous government had left it in. Applying nationalist pride they stood up for their interests and took back their legitimate rights, the Rhineland, scrapping the Versailles treaty, cleaning the streets of alien communist agitator scum, the Anschluss by popular referendum with Austria and the Sudetanland Germans who were abused and oppressed by the Czechs (much like the Slovaks were). Until this point, this popular, elected Nazi party had managed one of the largest political and economic turnarounds in world history, giving themselves huge advantages for the future and being a blessing to their progeny by protecting their national interests and their economic worries. What went wrong?

Resentment of the jews became too high a priority. All of the anti-jew laws were unfair to largely innocent people. Instead of targeting specifically communist jews, or removing jews from specifically national vital roles like banking or the media, jews were simply attacked on all fronts for simply being jews. Though jews were encouraged to leave, they were not compensated for it or paid to do so like current repatriation platforms are based on for muslims. Nor did Nazi Germany create a state for them to go to, or carve out a state from inside themselves to give to the jews. In short, they persecuted jews for just being in Germany, while not allowing them to be anywhere else. They left no solution but the 'final solution,' the great injustice of the Holocaust that targeted men, women, and children indiscriminately, many of whom had never even lived in Germany and had never done anything to Germans no matter how far you stretch logic. Why did this happen? Is it due to nationalism per se, or the particular circumstances of Germany at that particular time? I of course say the latter. Due to a depression jews prominently profited from, the loss of WWI jews were blamed for however insensibly, and the Bolshevik revolution that attempted to take over Germany jews were prominently a part of, Germans developed an indiscriminate hatred of all jews and their resentment short-circuited their reason. Nationalism without such a history of prior events would never turn out the same or treat jews in the same way. Though jews are working industriously to create just as long a laundry-list of resentment native whites might feel about them, due to the real harm they are doing us all again, surely this time a more reasonable and fair approach would emerge. We do have, after all, history to learn from and not repeat.

Second, when they replaced reunification of all Germans into Germany, with simple conquest and plunder. When they occupied all of Czechoslovakia instead of just the land of the German minority, there was simply no moral justification for their act. It was after this that the world grew to distrust Nazi Germany and would declare war if they invaded anyone else. It was due to this that the reasonable demand of the german city of Danzig be restored to Germany fell on deaf ears. It was due to this that WWII began when, if Hitler had simply confined himself to 'Germans belong to Germany' no one would have objected. It was due to this Germany and the UK did not ally against the expansionist USSR and thus, the chance passed away to avoid the entirety of WWII and the Cold War. What a colossal error, and to what purpose? God knows how little conquering Czechoslovakia made Germany better, or if the occupation cost more than it gained. There was nothing nationalist about it. It was pure imperialism. Eventually this imperial streak wished to conquer all of Europe and install nazi puppet governments over everywhere they didn't intend to purge and settle for themselves. The insane belief that Germany could actually win such a war is another reason to reject Nazis and Nazism as a cause. They did the German people no favors, but in the end lost millions, perhaps tens of millions, of their finest and bravest, for a hopeless endeavor. Meanwhile they ignored the common humanity and relatedness Germans had to their fellow Europeans and created a mass slaughter of people virtually identical to them. Though this was hardly different from the 30 years war, the 100 years war, the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, or any other intra-European war for conquest and plunder, the modern weaponry and large populations due to modern technology make the same mistake look worse than ever before. Causing such a war is also doubly-tragic because it was the downfall of the philosophy they championed, striking a permanent blow to racists, nationalists, atheists, fascists, etc, who would then be bullied with the title 'nazi' forevermore, despite the theoretical correctness of their positions. Nazi Germany is evil not just for the harm they did, but for perverting something so good as what they originally had, the amazing German people and the amazing economic and political turnaround Nazi Germany had engineered and the amazing race-first darwinian view of life so necessary for a proper understanding of politics. They who had all the advantages to become the premier nation on earth and guiding light to the world, threw it all away and became a terrible example of evil instead. Thus the double blow of lost good and caused bad that smarts twice as much.

National Socialists today feel provoked to defend Hitler and the nazis, feel the need to even become neo-nazis and snap Herr Hitler salutes, due to Orwell's law: He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.

Communists, liberals, libertarians, and their ilk, by controlling the past "nazis were evil" control the future "nationalism is banned." These people feel that only be liberating the past from the liberals can they stand for a good future, and thus nationalism and nazism rise and fall together. 'If only,' they think, 'we could show that the nazis weren't really evil, that nazism isn't really bad, than the arguments of all our opponents would fall through, people would open their eyes, and national socialism could be reimplemented all across the world.' They're right of course, if somehow nazism could be shown to be a good thing, all the arguments would fall through and national socialism would be respectable again. To do this, however, you somehow have to prove the holocaust didn't happen, that invading Czechoslovakia was just, that invading Poland was sensible, that signing an alliance with the USSR after spending decades opposing communism as your ultimate foe makes sense, and on and on. You would have to prove the doctor's experiments on jewish subjects detailed in Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich false. In short, it's delusional and stupid to try and defend Nazism. As useful as it would be for Nazis to be good guys, they weren't, and as nice as it would be if nazis weren't used to cudgel nationalists for the rest of time, we just have to accept the fact that they will be.

There's one thing to be said for the Nazis. You can bet if they had won WWII, we wouldn't be dealing with any of these muslim immigrant issues. In the end, if nothing is done, it will turn out that a Nazi victory would have been better for Europe than the Allied one. Since the Allies, after all, just handed over all of Europe to an even worse fate, their complete annihilation and replacement by an inferior race and culture forevermore. But that's a rather steep cost to 'proving the nazis weren't really bad.' By the time you win that argument, the purpose of winning it will have already passed. Wishing it to happen just so you can finally win your pro-nazi argument is also a little ridiculous. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here, we want whites to pursue their own interests and not be exterminated by untermenschen, not to win arguments and feel good about our foresightedness. When the two come in conflict we must, sadly, care more about the former and not the latter result.

This same curious situation is why people commonly defend the Confederacy. The same revisionist nonsense is espoused, trying, fruitlessly, to prove that the South were the good guys so that history can be rescued from liberal arguments and thus a new Confederacy-like racism can emerge in the future. People concerned about hispanic immigration, black crime, miscegenation, the tax drain of minorities, and so on want a race-based secession to succeed, but since history discredited that ideal with the Confederacy, they feel the need to defend the Confederacy in order to defend themselves. This is again counterproductive. Allying yourself with a known evil like the Confederacy, who were simply slavers who cared nothing for the white race, importing millions of blacks who were commonly making up half the population of their states to do their labor for them, and thus take the precious niches of survival that white babies could have lived in forever, they were the exact opposite of white nationalists. Slavery is wrong innately because it lowers the value of mankind and creates unearned wealth for people who did nothing to deserve it. But slavery is also wrong, as is importing cheap foreign labor, because it destroys your ethnic genetic interests for the sake of your petty financial interests. Instead of giving jobs and land to more white children, you trade it away, forever, for a mess of pottage. It is a grand betrayal of your own children. It is a betrayal of your race. The confederacy stood for nothing but the extermination of whites in America in the hopes of being some sort of 1% minority rule where they would lord over endless slaves and servants who would do everything for them--including live in place of them. Trying to revise history to show the Confederacy didn't care about slavery, that they weren't racist, that they were about libertarianism, were just free market capitalists opposed to tariffs, etc, is a load of bull and again a shameful pairing of legitimate current needs with illegitimate past evil regimes.

Therefore, I ask all healthy whites to THROW THE NAZIS AND THE SLAVERS UNDER THE BUS. For God's sake, their day is done, they don't exist anymore, they lost, and good riddance. Stop associating with them, and the false associations the liberals keep drawing between them and us, will slowly fade away due to absurdity. Associate with them and champion them, and all you do is revive and give new legs to liberal calumny. It makes no sense to pair our current crisis with old, dead arguments we already lost. It makes no sense to stand or fall on the basis of Nazi or Confederate history. Let us stand on stronger, firmer ground than that! Let us stand for the early Americans who settled this land without fear of the Indians. Let us stand for the Boers who defeated the Zulus at the battle of blood river. Let us stand for Charles Martel at Tours. Let us stand with the brave Roman Emperor who died defending the walls of Constantinople. Let us stand with the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. Let us stand with Davy Crockett and Remember the Alamo. Let us stand for innumerable champions of the white race who all represented the same healthy nationalism and racism we so need to survive. There is no need to include failed, evil versions when the narratives of good, heroic whites fall like rain around us. There is plenty of 'history' to prove our point. Every time a liberal brings up the nazis, bring up the settling of America. Every time a liberal brings up the Confederacy, bring up the Roman Empire. Every time a liberal brings up Apartheid, bring up Athens. If you continue to defend our weakest positions you will only become as weak as they were. If you stand for our strongest moments and most glorious times, then we will be at our strongest and most glorious. It isn't rocket science. If we stand for good, we are good. If we stand for evil, we're evil. Let's stop standing up for evil.


Anonymous said...

Great article. It's refreshing to read an article with common sense. National socialism is an extremely effective mode of government and allows people to avoid a whole host of problems facing the west today. There is nothing evil about wanting to create a well-functioning society, but most people automatically associate national socialism with the evil of Nazi Germany.

Anonymous said...

Very thought-provoking. I certainly don't agree with you on a lot of your underlying assumptions (regarding racism and the like) but you argue a very strong point very well. It is probably something that needs more exposure and dialogue - as can be seen from the enduring popularity of the fascist/nationalist 'third way' (as opposed to the neo-liberal/leftist 'third way').

It is odd although I suppose unsurprising that a few governments from the 1930s have managed to prevent what are clearly popular policies - economic self-sufficiency, a strong state, support for workers and the abolition of 'unearned' income - from being implemented. Yet few governments have moral difficulties introducing work programmes or healthcare or any of the other policies championed by the Nazis.

Good read, thanks for writing it.