Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘national socialism’

Escaping Our Fascination With Nazism

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

Hitler will always fascinate the West because his Reich was the last vestige of what most of us think of as the old order, where society had structure, there was a right and wrong, and a nation was defined by one ethnic group instead of being a nation-state of whoever showed up and paid taxes. His fall was the announcement that the West had given up.

At the same time, we should remember that in bad times, even good things are tainted with doubt, and so what Hitler thought was right was divergent from what was. His regime was not particularly traditional, not fully nationalist, and modern to the degree that it corrupted whatever message or principle he was hoping to establish.

Future historians may summarize the Nazis as dualistic; they both attempted to re-create an older social order, and chose to do so by using the modern method of finding a message that would motivate the masses toward a singular purpose. If Nazism had a thesis, it would be that we can use mass culture as a means of undoing mass culture, and not surprisingly, this paradoxical attempt failed.

The Left says Hitler was a Right-winger and in fact as far Right as we should dare imagine; the Right says that he was a Leftist. The Right is more correct: Hitler, while he incorporated some goals of the Right in his plan, chose to implement it through Leftist methods and a desire to create an egalitarian society, just one based on race and not citizenship.

In particular, he borrowed a great deal from the Communists:

Adolf Hitler, who admired Stalin for his ruthlessness and called him a “genius,” was also heavily influenced by Marx. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism,” Hitler said, “as I do not hesitate to admit.” Throughout his youth, Hitler “never shunned the company of Marxists” and believed that while the “petit bourgeois Social Democrat … will never make a National Socialist … the Communist always will.”

Hitler’s “differences with the communists”, argued Watson, “were less ideological than tactical”. Hitler embraced German nationalism so as not to “compete with Marxism on its own ground”, but explicitly acknowledged that “‘the whole of national socialism’ was based on Marx”. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nazi Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so closely to resemble the Soviet Union.

How much did the Nazis learn from the Soviets?

In his 1947 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, Hoess recalled that the Germans knew of the Soviet program of extermination of the enemies of the state through forced labour as early as 1939. “If, for example, in building a canal, the inmates of a [Soviet] camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.” The Nazis would use the same tactic on the Jewish slave laborers in, for example, munition factories.

Following their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote Watson, the Germans collected information on the immense scale of the Soviet camp system and were impressed by the “Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through forced labor”.

As some have noted, the tactics of the French Revolution were applied in Nazi Germany, just more efficiently than neurotic French Leftists could imagine. Where the French marched whole families to the guillotine, the Nazis attempted to deport them, then used them as slave labor, and finally when that failed, began to liquidate them.

National Socialism, as an idea, combined the need for nationalism — rising in Europe as nation-states became unstable and fragmented — with the dominant strain of European government at the time, which was increasingly socialist, and incorporated some aspects of the capitalist-driven fascist corporate State.

It did not swing to the far Right, which has always been those who hope to conserve l’ancien régime which is a society with caste, aristocracy, elite culture, hierarchy, customs, and a code of honor motivated by virtue. No modern government can emulate that because the basic idea of modernity, mass motivation, requires an equal herd clamoring for some trend or another.

The Nazis chose to make their message one that would motivate a group and, in doing so, reduced its meaning to what fit the expectations of the crowd, instead of what was needed. Having done that, the Nazis could no longer control public expectation, and got carried away with their rhetoric, making them both arrogant and cruel.

People imagine that Hitler was a successful totalitarian, but in fact, he was ruled by his people as much as he ruled them. They rebuked him on his attempt to ban smoking, and enjoyed a more comfortable standard of living even during the war than people did in the rest of the West. The Crowd shared in the dictatorship.

Not surprisingly, the Nazis showed signs of crowd infiltration even in their political statements, as we can see with these excerpts from The 25 Points of The Programme of the NSDAP:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

If we look at these through the wide-angle lens of history, they do not appear that much distinct from either those of the French Revolution or the Soviet Union: in the name of equality, a State is being formed to re-distribute wealth, and it requires total power to do so. The total power is not being taken from We The People, but from its natural hierarchy (aristocracy).

The West remains obsessed by Hitler mostly because the Left has used him as a convenient symbol for all things that they fear, which means all of the things that would un-do our current time, which not coincidentally are things that many of us crave because we detest the current time. But following their lead is to assign them power over us.

Perhaps the Left fixates on Hitler in order to distract us from the actual far-Right ideas out there like Traditionalism and Futurism, because if we get our hands on those, there is no way we will ever be satisfied with the managerial nanny state ever again. From a perspective that far to the Right, Hitler would appear as a slightly less Leftist version of our present time.

Nonetheless, Hitler still seduces us, mainly because he stands for the return of leadership that actually cares about civilization instead of using civilization as its own meal ticket. Democracy stands for nothing except hollow promises about free speech, free association, and use of your own property that turn out to be lies, as it goes in search of (endless) new forms of funding.

First it was taxes, then it was immigrants, and in the future, they will probably charge you directly to be part of their society, and then tax you. Sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, licensing fees, income taxes, tariffs which the consumer ultimately pays for, mandatory inspections, and payroll deductions: they kill you with the death of a thousand cuts and it is not about money. It is about power.

Right now, we summarize WW2 by saying that Hitler was evil and the Allies were mostly good. In the near future, we will recognize that the Allies were not mostly good, mainly because they fought a war of attrition against Europe in the name of what became fully Communist Leftism. In the distant future, people will see the Allies as the bad guys, and Hitler as an unfortunate but predictable response. Years after that, they will see the Holocaust as predictable and avoidable too.

At some point, we will dig out Theodor Herzl and realize that he was one of the first — after Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and others — anti-diversity philosophers. His point was not that the French were bad, but that the Dreyfuss Affair was predictable, because when you stand out from the rest, you will get scapegoated in times of crisis.

This originates in practical reasoning. If the group is basically in agreement, and they are all doing the same roughly right thing, then if something goes wrong either “right was wrong” or there was a sabotage, and suspicion is naturally cast on those who are not doing the right thing like everyone else because they are different. It does not matter how they are different, or who they are, but just the fact of being different alone qualifies them to be a threat or scapegoat.

Jews have been booted out of 109 nations not because Jews are bad, but because being Other is bad. Diversity never works. Jewish groups also have a history of going into nations and taking things out of context, like “work hard, get ahead.” Among a native population, this is understood as part of a social process; to an outsider, it is a singular task that eclipses all others, and is more easily undertaken, because they have no need to participate in that culture and its intricate sorting rules that choose people above others.

Jews, like Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in the current USA, throw everything normal out the window and go for the throat of education and business. This alone makes them a target, but perceived or actual nepotism — probably a mix of both — and a tendency to lean toward politics and behaviors that emphasize their Otherness also make them a perpetually resented force. This is why the Holocaust was predictable, and in more honest times in the future, we will say that, without approving of the Holocaust at all, because mass murder of families is a Leftist thing and Leftism is a form of brain disorder.

When the future looks back on the twentieth century, it will see that we created all of our own problems through theories that focused on what the audience wanted — equality, diversity, feminism, socialism — instead of what our best people knew must be done to make civilization as an organic whole thrive. As time goes on, Hitler loses his sting, but we still see him as the only force that stood up to the perpetual encroachment of herd behavior, which always focuses on what the audience wants.

The most terrifying taboo out there now is not Nazism; it is the idea that people want to restore Western Civilization, which in turn would make the Left obsolete and forgotten. It would also bypass the intermediate stage that Hitler tried to turn into a future, and avoid the fate he encountered by his own hand.

Neo-Nazism Is Whites-Only Socialism

Sunday, October 29th, 2017

Socialists, like all Leftists, worship equality. They believe the State is a family. They believe you absolutely cannot have society without socialism. Anyone who disagrees is nothing but a stoned Libertardian who doesn’t realize flush toilets would be impossible without common infrastructure to dispose of the wastes. People who live in society’s family, on the other hand, can lead the Life of Julia.

But wait. This was Barack Obama. This was socialism that catered to minorities and brought in more minorities. It subsidized the importation of inferior people and therefore got inferior outcomes. Heck, if stocked with moron, affirmative-action pozzoids, Wall Street could even blow up the housing market or something. Put them in charge and major energy companies will immediately steal their employee pension funds and lie about their earnings to boost the CEO’s compensation package. Get too many of those people in charge of the government, and they’ll start pointless, unwinnable wars in countries that have virtually nothing to do with America’s national security intrests. And you don’t really even want them in Congress either. They’ll keep asking NASA scientists where on Mars the US astronauts put up the flag.

Now if you’ve read this paragraph and followed the links, you may well notice that it subtly inverts a common meme you’ll read on one of these websites. Two of the villains in the paragraph above were pozzoid poachers of the worst order. But what of the other three examples? Ken Lay, Ken Lewis, Jamie Dimon and The Bush Cuck Dynasty are all nasty in a common way. They also share a common nastiness with Barack Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee. All five sets of malefactors share the common malady despite the politcally correct !DIVERSITY! of their skin pigmentations. All five examples I’ve cited are at least somewhat incentivized by ideologies that feature large government intervention in markets to improve outcomes. In other words, it’s the introduction of the negative incentivization implicit to socialism that leads every person I’ve mentioned above to do or say remarkably evil things.

To describe things further, the problem with any sort of system where the government takes resources from some people and uses them to benefit the tribe, the order, the race, the umma or whatever, is one of moral hazard. Moral hazard occurs when people recognize that they are able to mine the system, tribe, corporation, nation or whatever we are discussing for benefits without putting any skin in the game. They get membership in the collective without having to pay for it and then start receiving “Lebensraum,” entitlements, artificially inflated stock options or any other collective benefit paid for with the taxes, property or blood of other individuals in the group. This invariably gets abused. This ability to parasite off the system invariably allows the worms to multiply and to eat the beautiful and complex higher-order organism.

The problem here is that many people, even those supposedly on the Alt-Right, believe that socialism involves nothing more than publicly governed, owned or financed property. This is not accurate. Socialism is an ideology that argues that people are entitled to use and enjoy this property regardless of whether they are required to do anything to earn that right. There is some inherent characteristic that allows them a special right to inflict The Tragedy of The Commons on others without concern for the societal outcome. The typical Communist version of this is that a member of The Proletariat gets to do this as redress for past slights or depredations. They even have a potemkin Theory of Surplus Value to accuse anyone who expects them to get a job and support themselves of being an exploiter.

Civic Nationalists subscribe to The Magic Dirt Theory. Get plopped out in the right country and you get all the benefits of that country. You can even directly and deliberately insult that nation like Lt Rapone or Colin Kaepernick and still get all the rights, benefits and privileges of a heroic Combat Rifleman who got an arm and leg shot off back in The Tet Offensive.

Credentialists argue that getting the piece of paper from the right University and knowing all the right people allows you to take over a corporation and run it like Ken Lay, or more recently, Heather Bresch. Again, neither of these individuals has to contribute, they have the right papers so they get to be CEO and rape it for what the futhermucker is worth.

In case of White National Socialists, the entitlement mentality is no different. They are !WHITE! Maybe even genetically white enough to pass as Shuan King. Therefore, they actually expect to receive that Platinum White Privilege Visa Card in the mail that Mr. King hypocritically and dishonestly accuses them of walking around with and using to get unfair benefits. National Socialism, as practiced under the auspices the White Nationalist Movement; is simply dishonest socialist entitlement based on racial characteristics. It’s still a one-way ticket to hell. Hitler’s Berlin ended up just like Democratic Party Detroit. Both were governed by Socialists. Both wound up in ruins. The means vary. The result doesn’t. Socialism leads to death.

And I get the case for preferring white cultures to others. I get that not just because of the fact that I’m corusucatingly white like the undershirts in a Tide commercial. White culture gave us this:

Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.

Let #BLM go off in the woods and live without that stuff for a month because #CulturalAppropriation. White culture is why you use a functional toilet instead of a cat box or a hole in the ground. White Pride, without a pestilential background of hatred towards the other, is understandable, logical and should be cultivated in all of our children.

Staving off White Genocide, promoting White Pride, celebrating various white cultures and keeping the successful and positive traditions of all of these societies alive should be an unquestioned good that people of good will should actively pursue. You can protect yourself, respect yourself, continue your kind and elevate them yeah, verily to the stars without any sense of entitlement. The sense of entitlement is not what made the White Race great. We didn’t take over and redefine the planet as a Great Society Program. Socialism is not the key to accomplishing this goal. Whitewashing the tragedy of the commons will not somehow make it less tragic. Socialism can only lead to death in the end.

Why National Socialism and White Nationalism Have Become Obsolete

Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

In the weeks after the Charlottesville protest, which will prove to be a pivotal event in human history, several movements have become obsolete and not because they are being censored by government, media and corporations.

Neo-Nazism, white nationalism, National Socialism and White Supremacy have died. In their place has risen something much more threatening to the status quo: the awakened interest of Western European people in having their own civilization. This includes the knowledge that diversity, democracy, consumerism, tolerance and other equality-based ideas make it impossible to have that civilization.

For many years, WN/NS have coexisted with our media in a symbiotic relationship: when the news gets slow, the Hollywood Nazis show up and do something outrageous, which allows the media to have a conniption fit and sell tons of newspapers and internet ads because people are terrified that Hitler has showed up among us to genocide our Jews and enslave our African-American citizens.

The reality is that the people who have showed up tend to be insignificant, except for the fact that they can get media attention and then, in a mirror image of the SPLC and ADL, solicit donations from those who realize that diversity is unworkable and want an alternative. The whole thing is a big scam on both sides, except for a few True Believers who are worth paying attention to.

But in the last seventy years, WN/NS have done nothing but drive away the normal, well-adjusted upper half of middle class citizens who make all the decisions in our society. When you look out and see angry proles, you do not care if they are Communists or Nazis, because you realize that they are marginal at best and probably unstable.

The rise of a cluster of movements — Neoreaction, the Alt Right, Traditionalism and Identitarianism — show us that people desire the ability to speak in favor of social order, which general includes taboo ideas like nationalism and traditionalism, instead of the barely contained anarchy that is our democratic, consumerist and diverse society.

When the Alt Right showed up in Charlottesville, the Nazis among them did not define the day, although the media and Hollywood Nazis both wanted that to be the case. What defined the day was the the Alt Right, dressed in preppy clothes and snarky like college students, created an even more extreme reaction than WN/NS could garner, and this made the WN/NS elements obsolete.

Consider this as a simple question of economics. If you have two products, and one suddenly does everything that the other does and more, then why keep using the less effective product? WN/NS has been priced out of the market by the Alt Right, which communicates in a language that normal people can appreciate and avoids the extremism, violence and insanity of the majority of WN/NS groups.

The Alt Right is not calling for genocide, warfare and discrimination. The Alt Right simply points out some taboo aspects to reality: the diversity does not work despite centuries of effort and trillions of dollars in aid, that democracy creates a parasitic and tyrannical government, that promiscuous and selfish behavior is ruining our future. These truths themselves terrify egalitarians.

In other words, the Alt Right offers what people wanted from WN/NS, but gives much more. It offers a hopeful future vision, where diversity ends peacefully and a transition of power occurs, and Leftists resettle to the third world. It gives reasons for those ideas, and points out the obvious failings of our society by making fun of them in the grand tradition of savage humor.

Where WN/NS promised instability, the Alt Right offers stability. Part of this is that it did not eject the WN/NS from its ranks, but simply removed their power and made their ideologies obsolete, so that their best option is now to join the Alt Right and give up the unstable and sadistic aspects of their belief systems. They can no longer command the cameras by simply stepping out with flags and regalia. They are obsolete.

It is natural that conflict begins at the edges of society where antisocial behavior thrives. The man who is making a half-million a year notices the same problems that the man making a twentieth of that and living in a trailer does, but the first man has options and chooses to avoid conflict by escaping the problem. That has ended with the accelerating Leftist takeover of government.

The antisocial behaviors common to WN/NS are no longer needed. The upper half of the middle class is open to the idea that Western Europeans should live apart from others, that everyone else must go home, that our behavior needs an upgrade, and even that we need leadership more competent than what democracy can provide. They are not interested in cruelty, bigotry and a proclivity for violence however.

We have bypassed the conventions of those edges of society, including antisocial and cruel behavior, and gone for the middle. People in the middle want function above all else, and respond to practical ideas that are also favorable in the long term. These people have sleeping in them the ancient spirit, and secretly desire a Lord of the Rings style anarcho-monarchist and traditionalist society, which requires rule by culture and not markets or the popularity contest that resembles a market, which in turn requires identitarianism, or selecting the population by both ethnic heritage and cultural compatibility in parallel.

Many of us have for years criticized WN/NS as being excessive about the wrong things and weak about some important things. We were waiting for something better to come along. During the past few months, the Alt Right has had an internal debate about its future, and the issue has been decided by the fact that we neither need WN/NS, nor want their instability. We have a better path.

Most People Do Not Understand Nationalism

Friday, August 11th, 2017

In one of life’s grand ironies, very few people understand nationalism, but the humorous part is that this apply especially to self-proclaimed nationalists.

We figured the “normies” — who are not actually normal people, only droid-like followers of every trend in an attempt at camouflage within the herd — would not get it right, and they have cooked up two Big Lies about nationalism which befuddle anyone clueless enough to still trust their television and newspaper:

  1. Patriotism. If you open up the average dictionary or newspaper, “nationalism” is presented to mean “strong patriotism,” or those who are really fond of their nation-state and its flag. This is a variant of the proposition nation and “magic dirt” theory which holds that anyone can be a member of a civilization if they swear the right oath to the flag, memorize the right stuff in school, obey its laws and participate in an economic system. We might call this the “shopping mall” view of citizenship: the citizens are shoppers, and as long as they do not offend the prevailing pretense, they are considered to be good people.
  2. Civic Nationalism. When analyzed, this term tends to mean the same thing as patriotism, except that there is a hint of exclusivity about it. “America First!” means “and everyone else second.” Civic nationalism has the idea of patriotism for those who are already here or doing the right thing, and everyone else can go suffer and die in whatever third world pocket of failure and Hell they can find to accept them. At the same time, it has the same basic idea as the shopping mall, only this time the cops crack down more, and they really do not care what happens at the other malls.

To that the “nationalists” — usually between HitLARPing and posting racial epithets to Reddit — add two more silly definitions:

  1. Race-Patriotism. When you replace the nation-state with race, you get race patriotism, or the idea of being loyal to your race above all else. This is unfortunate for two reasons: it offers no political concept of how society should be organized, and perhaps more dangerously, it ignores the fact that ethnic diversity is as destructive as racial diversity, both in terms of social impact and genetic effects.
  2. Culturism. In this viewpoint, culture is important but race and ethnicity are not. Those who decide to behave as part of a culture and adopt its values are accepted into that society. Some combine this with a minimal racial barrier, such as that they must be mostly of one race or ethnic group, but this seems like a formula for ethnic replacement of those groups through outbreeding. In addition, it carries overtones of “magic dirt” and patriotism, both of which impede the need for a different approach.

In the above, we have essentially race fanaticism and patriotism of varying forms. None of these address the root cause of racial displacement, which is that the civilization in question is defined not by its ethnic group, but by political constraints. This means that these are delaying tactics, not solutions, to the problems we face in our current civilization structure.

Nationalism on the other hand presents a simple idea which implicates other changes as well, although not the ones with which it is usually paired in the media. When we speak of nationalism as a philosophy or element of international politics, it takes on a meaning far from that which is reported in the press.

The meaning of the term “nationalism” is derived from “natio,” which refers to those born together from the same root. It has a singular idea: the nation is defined by the ethnic group and not politics, economic system or externally imposed “culture. Let us look into the definition of nationalism:

Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles.

Nationalism defines the state or civilization by ethnographic principles, which means that the group is limited to those from the founding ethnic group. This in turn implies a number of related ideas:

  1. Genetic health. If the core of the nation its its ethnic group, then that group must be kept healthy. This includes avoiding admixture with other groups, because that replaces the genetic profile — a mesh of related genetically-coded traits — with something else. It also implies some degree of eugenics, or trying to breed the best people possible, which does not mean so much “kill the bad” but “encourage the good to reproduce, and ensure they receive the power and wealth so that they do so more than others.”
  2. Culture arises from genetics. Instead of imposing culture by external means, nationalist societies are organic, which means from the simple principle of their founding, all other other necessary tenets arise, or are emergent properties of the core. For example, nationalism implies a need to put cultural sentiments first before “pragmatic” economics or political ideology. Nationalism indicates a need to provide not for individuals, but for the organic society as a whole. It also tends toward a belief in a single standard, and this is why the Left hates it, to which people adhere or they are seen as out-group. It imposes discipline, duty and responsibility on individuals through these implications. Nationalism is anti-individualistic.
  3. Traditional values are essential. Traditional values emphasize a K-strategy, or conferring social capital upon offspring and having fewer (2-7) so that they are able to be raised with this social capital. Nationalism raises the need for the family, of social order, culture, tradition, customs, education and faith as a means of providing an environment for children. Society is not oriented toward altruism and individualism under nationalism, but toward virtue and health.

The Left attacks nationalism by first demonizing it, and then corrupting it. The corruption takes the form of changing its definition such as through terms like “civic nationalism,” which is an oxymoron that means the exact opposite of what nationalism does. Nationalism is the opposite of the nation-state, which is a political and economic grouping of people instead of an ethnographic one.

The confusion arises because there is a difference between nationalism-the-theory, which has been part of civilization since the dawn of time, and nationalism-as-historic-entity, which is the first time the term was used in its modern context. The confusion can be debunked by reading the history of the rise of nationalism:

Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of “feeling” and “identity” [see Herder above all on this] and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a “people” rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic “identity nationalism” and Liberal “civic nationalism” were essentially middle class movements. There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of “inclusion” – essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a “citizen”. In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism. The German method, required by political circumstances, was to define the “nation” in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn.

You can see the same divisions there that we still suffer under: the French “inclusion” and Liberal “civic nationalism” live on as patriotism and civic nationalism, and the Romantic “identity nationalism” is what actually present a challenge to the modern time. The German method of defining the nation in ethnic terms was not new to Germany, but an ancient tribalism that had protected Germany in the past.

In the 19th century, of course, these groups were cleaning up after the end of the 18th century, in which the French Revolution overthrew kings and made culture and ethnic group secondary to participation in the international cult of the worker. Nationalism did not arise as an idea in the 19th century, but was an old idea brought back to try to heal the wounds.

Interestingly enough, over time nationalism re-asserts its German roots:

At its inception, French nationalism was a more liberal form of nationalism; it advocated freedom, equality and individual rights. Then after the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), French nationalists took an anti-German tone, demanding the recovery of territories lost in the war.

By the late 19th century, French nationalism evolved further, with one branch becoming more ethnocentric and anti-Semitic — especially after the “Dreyfus affair,” when a French Jewish artillery officer was accused of treason. In the interwar period, this iteration of nationalism adopted fascist and anti-communist elements and came to resemble some of the nationalist ideologies of Spain, Italy and Germany.

Two things are going on here: first, anti-Semitism arises because it is a simple way of identifying the Other that is used to convey the concept to the wider middle classes. It is important not to confuse this method with its actual goal, but the more mercantile nationalists do this all the same. Establish nationalism, and the cultures separate, and there is no “Jewish question.”

Next, French nationalism is shifting from its inversion — the “liberal form of nationalism” which is basically Leftism plus patriotism — to its natural form, which is the German model, or understanding the nation as an ethnographic creation and not a democratic or mercantile one. This means that the original form was unstable and decayed to a clearer version.

As nationalists in the modern time, our only task is to understand nationalism. It means that the nation is defined by the ethnic group, and everyone else goes home. Ethnicity is more important than race. The genetic pattern that makes up an ethnicity is fragile and must be protected from all admixture, and everyone who cannot conform to this must go home.

Nationalism does not prescribe hatred of other ethnic groups, only a recognition that their interests are different. This can be maintained through mutual dislike of outbreeding and intermarriage, as was the case with European Jews up through the Dreyfuss affair, after which European Jewry demanded inclusion in order to avoid future events of this type, furthering distrust between Jews and their national hosts.

As Samuel Huntington predicted, the age of ideology has ended. People are returning to tangible, timeless, tried-and-true and most of all realistic types of social order, in which the order above the individual is more important than the individual, reversing The Enlightenment.™ For nationalism to thrive in this time, it must know what it is, not what is enemies claim it is.

What Are “Left” And “Right,” Or, Why To Avoid National Socialism

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

It is a popular thing to say that one is neither Left nor Right, because the public parties of both have done nothing to save us from the fate that has been obvious and inevitable for so long.

Few know what these terms mean, so it makes sense to revisit them through history. The Left arose when people in France, inspired by The Enlightenment™ and its predecessor The Renaissance,™ overthrew the monarchy in France and established a new system. Those who supported it sat on the left side of the French senate.

On the right sat those who opposed the “new” — only if one had missed what happened in Athens and Rome were these new — order, but were concerned enough for the future of their country that they wanted to work with it. They wanted to preserve as much of the old way as possible, but were hampered by the need to compromise with the democratic regime.

It is not a stretch to call it a “regime,” either, since the time after the Revolution brought changes we might associate today with Stalin-era Communism. Whole families were executed for being aristocrats; secret police were established, and people sentenced to death for hearsay evidence that they had denied the regime or supported the aristocracy. The new nation quickly impoverished itself with egalitarian social roles, since people no longer had to be productive in order to be supported, and quickly launched on a disastrous series of wars to conquer Europe so that it, too, could be democratic. Some of us refer to this process as “the Napoleonic Arc,” referencing how revolts by the people quickly produce tyrants who launch impossible ideological wars in order to keep the disintegrating society together.

All of those Left wing ideas had a single root: egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone is equal. Equal how? However they want to interpret it. They start by asking for legal equality, which means that an intelligent contributor to society for fifty years has the same rights and treatment as a criminal who has never given anything. From that the demands expand to equal participation and subsidies, or “socialism,” in which every citizen is a stockholder of the industry owned by the state, and receives dividends in the form of social benefits or entitlements paid directly to them.

The Right, on the other hand, did not have a single idea except for the notion of classical civilization, which was more a spirit and moral code than a method. Ideology like the Left has is much simpler and easier to understand. The Right wanted to preserve a society that can only be described as “Tolkienesque”: kings, lords, a feudal caste system, code of honor instead of laws, a clear ethnic identity for each group and benevolent xenophobia toward all others, customs, folkways, calendar, cuisine, and an intense reverence for nature and the gods they saw within it. This put the Rightists at a disadvantage, in addition to the “first mover” advantage the Left already had by acting first and changing the dialogue to follow their actions. We can summarize the Right as a perception that there is a kind of natural order to humanity, found in parallel in nature and the divine, where each person has an unequal place that allows them to cooperate toward the goal of civilization by contributing what they can, and being limited in contribution where their abilities are not appropriate to the task.

In our contemporary era, these terms have lost most meaning because of the political parties that represent them. Most conservatives today are a variety of Leftist, a consequence of both their necessary compromise with the Leftist regime, and the fact of democracy, which requires them to say things which appeal to the broadest section of the population. This mass culture has no awareness of history, future or the principles of civilization. It cares about tangible things, like checks in the mail from the government or displays of patriotic fervor. As a result, both parties have been made simplistic relative to their original beliefs.

No sane person can support Leftist, which resembles a fanatical cult or a mental health disorder. It is a pathology that serves individualism, or the idea of “me first” that is supported by discarding the need to maintain civilization, and spending that effort on the individual instead. This institutionalized selfishness naturally leads to the kind of social breakdown that causes the Napoleonic Arc to run its course. The era of modernity is defined by its support of individualism, naturally arising from the ideas of The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance.™

During the early twentieth century, after the disastrous and fratricidal first world war, several movements arose to try to stop the Napoleonic Arc. Two of these, fascism and National Socialism, are commonly identified as Right-wing. However, these movements were both fundamentally modernist, in that they did not want the Old Order, but to make out of the Leftist regime something with Right-wing values. However, as history shows us, the form of the civilization outweighs its stated values, and so even those extreme forms of government led back to the same problems experienced by Leftism. Both supported some degree of socialism, a lack of caste system, suppression of the aristocracy, and the replacement of culture by ideology, even when they did not intend it according to their public statements.

Some argue that National Socialism was a different type of socialism, but the problem remains that it is a state instead of an organic civilization comprised of aristocratic leaders and different castes, and as such it is still stuck within the modern framework of egalitarianism. Any attempt to distribute wealth makes the focus of the nation the state instead of the culture, and while it is within the realm of good leadership to remove threats — relocating Others and exiling defectives — any step into socialism makes the state the replacement for the nation. This is why such arguments are unconvincing:

In our time the traditional left wing is predominantly Marxist — even to such a degree that the very term “left wing” is thought to be synonymous with the word “Marxist.” This, of course, has no basis in reality. Any revolutionary is a left-winger — it is just that the Marxists have had so little competition that they have been able to appropriate the term.

On the other side of the political spectrum we have the right wing, consisting of reactionaries who want to preserve the present society and the so-called Christian civilization of the West with its materialism and capitalism. The rightwingers stand up for traditional patriotic values: they are good Christians and good citizens who defend the Constitution and are loyal to their country and their monarch, if they have one.

…National Socialism seeks to build an entirely New Order based on idealism and a profound respect for the laws of Nature in all aspects of life. This, definitely, is the most revolutionary idea of this century — and thus very much left-wing! — and it certainly is not Marxist! Compared to National Socialism, Marxism is nothing but a pseudo-revolutionary idea, invented by Christianity and upheld by Liberal Democracy: If all people are created equal, why should not all wealth be distributed equally among all people? Seen in this light, Marxism is simply part of the Old Order we want to destroy.

The mistake here is not going far back enough. The Old Order to which he refers is in fact the “New Order” which was formalized with the French Revolution. To be Rightist is to want not just nationalism — the definition of nation by its founding stock and exclusion of all Others — but an entire civilization built around eternal principles. Some compare it to Tolkien, others look to the middle ages, and still others of us look at the “golden age” described by Plato, which was contra-materialist. Those early idealist times involved acting toward consequences which fit within an order of nature and the divine, an ends-over-means analysis, in contrast to materialism, which is a means-over-ends analysis designed to protect the participants from having to face consequences or exert themselves, contra their own individualism, toward goals higher than themselves. When we say we live in materialist times, it is to this distinction that we refer.

European Aristocracy guided the core of our civilization, which is the genetic strata of Indo-European people, through many tragedies and challenges. They eventually succumbed after being weakened by Mongol invasions, plagues, Muslim conflicts and inter-national conflict but what really took them out was the rise of the middle class. The middle class make their living not with their hands but their ledgers and calculators, and while they may be more natively intelligent than the lower classes, they are not intelligent enough to rule for anything but the type of sphere in which they interact. And so they like laws, rules, fines, taxes, punishments and other short-term solutions that cause long-term chaos. They overthrew the monarchy by pooling their money and dividing the power structure of Europe against itself, essentially allowing their short-sighted greed to predominate over more complex thinking and benevolent visions for the qualitative improvement of Western Civilization.

A middle class person, essentially a glorified clerk, distinguishes himself by his literacy. He knows words and texts. He then remakes the world in his image, thinking “if this, then that,” and reasoning deductively from physical facts. His interpretations of those facts go no further than the sphere in which he operates, and so he thinks exclusively in terms of money, safety, gaining customers and flattering others. “Middle class” or “bourgeois” values are the values of the advancement of the individual in the middle class, and run contrary to what civilization needs, which is for the smartest and most morally excellent people to be in command, thinking about the long term. In the centuries of middle class rule, the West has gone from greatness to mediocrity.

Leftism and National Socialism both come from the middle class tradition. They are short-sighted and focused on people, and convincing others to act in a mass like customers flocking to a new product, and so they miss both the natural and eternal in their thought process. For this reason, they are both things to be avoided. We must be extreme — so extreme that we avoid modernist thinking entirely — and escape this system of ideologies, rules and formal control. Instead, we desire unity through culture, with its roots in race and caste, which requires a denial of egalitarianism in all of its forms, no matter how surfactively nationalist they are.

Why No One Should Commemorate D-Day

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Every June 6th, the media and patriotic brain-dead conservatives fawn over D-Day, the event that occurred 73 years ago when the Allied forces invaded Fortress Europe. Instead of celebrating reputable holidays, we commemorate a People’s Holiday for a war no one won.

It does not require us to be National Socialists, or even to have felt that the National Socialists offered a better alternate because on the whole they did not, to notice that World War Two was a war for democracy, which is essentially the antechamber to Communism.

As Plato wrote 2400 years ago, democracy naturally leads to tyranny of the sort promised by Communism: a revolt of the plebes, overthrow of social order and caste structure, and its replacement with many equal people dependent on government. When this happens, the intelligent and good die out and are replaced by the kind of thoughtless, short-term, high time preference and low foresight people found in the third world.

Democracy arises from a long chain of events that occur with the pitfall of success. When one task is vanquished, another one arises, and this one is invisible because it is intangible. A society that thrives must find a long-term purpose other than its citizens and their individualistic wants, or it falls prey to egalitarian thinking.

The West succeeded beyond all other civilizations in recent history, but by doing so, it bred and attracted people who wanted simply to participate instead of participating in an active culture. These went into cities, started businesses and became prosperous, and quickly — i league with the Church, foreign groups and secret societies — began agitating for power over those above them in the hierarchy.

With prole revolt, the West overthrew the social order that had worked so well for it, and began a thousand-year fall into Leftism, which triumphed with the end of WWII and since that time has ravaged this society so thoroughly it is unrecognizable. Leftism is egalitarianism, which arises from individualism, which comes from hubris or the “me first” attitude that denies the natural hierarchy of ability.

On D-Day, democracy won its greatest victory since the French Revolution, and a mere twenty years later the people of the West — drugged on postwar economic booms and Leftist self-congratulatory rhetoric — voted for their own ethnic replacement. They were not aware that this was what they were doing, but this is the failing of democracy: voters are not personally accountable, nor do they experience direct consequences, so they treat voting like going to the circus and choose whatever they think makes them appear to be wise, compassionate, generous and most of all, egalitarian. Democracy always goes Leftward for this reason.

As happened in World War One, the West sacrificed many of its best to destroy those who opposed democracy, and drugged itself with talk of freedom, equality, liberty, tolerance, pluralism, justice and peace as a way to explain away the obvious collapse of civilization. Generations despaired. Culture faded away. Religious faith died, and the family was hollowed out.

After 1945, the West still had Communism to keep it in check. Leftism cannot advance when there is an example of how bad Leftism will inevitably become if not opposed, and the rampant murders and genocide of the Stalinist years made it clear that the Soviets had to fall for the Leftist mental virus to continue unchecked. As the 1980s closed and the Soviets fell, Leftism flew free like a pandemic.

Since that point, the West has gone so far democratic and Leftist that it would be unrecognizable and hated by those who stormed the beaches on that first D-Day. As usual, what the politicians promise is an illusion, but like all victims of scams, the voters delude themselves. WWII was a slaughterhouse like the war before it, and we all lost for what the West has become.

For that reason, there is no point celebrating D-Day; it is a tomb, both for those on all sides who lost life and limb in the conflict, and for the West itself. No one won, and the West will never win again until it abandons the arrogant and greedy prole revolt that is democracy.

Happy HitLARP Holiday!

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

April 20th brings with it many memories, including Columbine, teenage potheads, and of course, Adolf Hitler. This brings out the HitLARPers who want us to believe that if we just adopted National Socialism, everything would be fine, and they are going to act the part as defined by Hollywood to show us how.

My own opinion has long been that Hitler, like every other leader, was a mix of good and bad. The bad in his case seems traumatic because it invokes genocide and tyranny, but in reality, this pales in comparison to what, say, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao did. The Left just LARPs on the anti-Hitler trip in order to conceal how much more their people have been committing murder, torture and oppression since the French Revolution at least, having become known for secret police, gulags, executions at dawn and guillotining whole families.

But Hitler had a few good points. He recognized that diversity cannot work. He wanted to restore an organic state based in the ethnic group. He knew that modernity was a failure and its aesthetics needed reversal. Unfortunately, he tried to do these from within a modern context, and so ended up with modern results, namely catastrophe. Not that he could have escaped it; the world was poised for downfall, and most people were suicidal after “the war to end all wars,” so it demanded a fratricidal and pointless war and got it. Did anyone win WWII?

We also have to wonder how much of The Official History™ is actually fake. After all, they’ve been lying to us for centuries.

The Left always lies, and the Left is the party of modernity, and modernity has turned out to be kind of boring, where we all live in bubble worlds and work in cubicles and no one is really happy but the money is OK so we carry on. Maybe we can finally escape the Left. It will require going farther Right than Hitler and rejecting modernity entirely. We need to restore Western Civilization, and since the dawn of time, there has been only one structure of civilization that has worked. It is not that we want to go back to that; we want to go forward to it, like moving from winter to spring even though spring was only six months ago.

In the meantime, the Alt Right needs to get over its HitLARPing. We are not White Nationalists; we are nationalists, but only as a part of a general program that wants a traditional society. That means rejecting modernity entirely, starting with the sacred cow (and mental crack for white people, apparently) of “equality.” If you want to celebrate Hitler, celebrate what he tried but could not do, which is abolish the idea of equality and with it, the State. We need nations, not nation-States. We want a traditional society because it works and everything else does not.

Hitler had his day, but he was more symbolic — resistance against modernity and racial erasure — than literal. To the (possibly inevitable) sadness of the Germans, they followed him literally and encountered a great defeat. This was not from their lack of prowess, but from the vast forces they faced, since illusion is always more popular than realism. And yet, we would be ultra-morons to make the same mistake twice.

To avoid making that mistake, we must revisit the core of modernity, individualism. Individualism makes people demand equality, so that all individuals are included, no matter what they have done in the past. But to an independent person, individualism is a crutch, a thing to be overcome. If you want to be more Hitler than Hitler, accept the nihilism of literal reality, and that you are a small part of a vast civilization, not a god-like consciousness to which civilization should be dedicated.

It is fascinating and lugubrious that we face the same challenges as we did during the First World War and the French Revolution. Nothing, really, has changed; we are still trying to advance the same dying ideas and they are failing as they always have. This Hitler Day, let us reject those ancient and moldy failures and move on to something more sustaining and cheerful!

Division Of Power Produces Instability

Saturday, January 28th, 2017

The Los Angeles Review Of Books has, in a roundabout way, discovered Neoreaction:

The supermanager is neoliberalism’s governance mechanism, a way to negotiate and smooth over differences between sectors of power in society, just as the supermanager avant la lettre did so in Nazi Germany.

…The most plausible explanation is that supermanagers are paid for governance where the state has been redeployed elsewhere or, even, effectively dissolved…One could think of this in a rather perverse way as real marginal added value, compensation for the difficult work of governance without a Rechtsstaat — without a rational, sovereign state, or with a receding or redistributed one.

…Before Margaret Thatcher began the privatization of council housing and long before welfare reform was a twinkle in Bill Clinton’s eye, the Nazis were turning heavy industries, nearly the entirety of the financial and banking sector, and even some social services over to private hands and to new, innovative public/private hybrids.

Naturally this is tied to National Socialism because in Leftist behavioral patterns, anything which contradicts Leftism must be “fascism,” which is their shorthand for any non-hybridized Right-wing society.

Reprivatization recognized a fundamental truth: formalized authority subdivides power, attempting to separate those who produce from those who rule. Informal authority closes this gap and eliminates layers of politics.

If the Right has a fundamental principle, it is the combination of realism and transcendentalism that recognizes that the order of nature is not only the most efficient but the most moral. For this reason, it prefers to create a social hierarchy and choose its leaders not by appearance, but by what they are able to achieve.

When liberal states separate power from results, they create an intermediary which serves as a chronic parasite that attempts to redirect productivity toward the collective in the name of achieving equality. This in turn produces worse results.

The ultimate extension of Rightism can be found in the aristocracy, which takes wealth and power and distributes it among the best leaders the society has produced, entrusting them with it because it is in their interest to advance it. By doing so, it eliminates the conflict of interest between government and productivity.

As the Leftist era of the postwar world and centuries after the French Revolution comes to an end, interest arises in getting rid of these middlemen, marketers and manipulators. The quest for equality destroyed our ability to be productive and with that, our ability to apportion some of that productivity toward activities that are not strictly wealth-generating, but make life better by improving civilizational and cultural health.

Those who can improve productivity of all sorts, including the non-commercial kind, are the original supermanagers. These people know not only how to react to opportunity but how to expand it by increasing function outside of what immediately returns profit so that future health, stability and sanity increase the output and existential wellbeing of the society and the people within it.

That tendency creates the patterns we see in Leftist societies: equality is achieved by reversion to a mean, where everyone lives at the level of the lowest, except those who rise through the ideological hierarchy. This leaves behind ruined societies ruled by incompetent super-elites who “make money” at the expense of productivity.

184

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

As the realization sets in that the functional side of humanity in the West has rejected Leftism and liberal democracy, the usual neurotics and unhappy people who make up the Left are campaigning to hide the dissent, as they always do.

To that end, the little totalitarians have set up a list of Twitter accounts they want censored for the crime of deviating from the Leftist narrative. We have a phrase for this: Typical Leftist Behavior (#TLB).

We — the account used to promote Amerika — made it to #184 on the list for an account that has already been shadowbanned by Twitter for several months, if not longer.

Here is the rant from the Reds:

Twitter is brimming with active Nazis who use your platform as a tool to recruit members, spread hate, and harass other users.

In the past several years, this problem has turned from a disturbing joke into a more disturbing reality. Racists and neonazis have consciously used issue coalitions to spread hate, recruit new members, undermine basic values of decency and honesty, and actively hound folks who would counter their message.

…It’s not subtle. When someone uses a #1488 hashtag or expresses their violent thoughts on the JQ, they’re clearly engaging in hate speech.

This is classic Leftist dogma, which takes the form of circular reasoning: “Assuming that our perspective is right, anything opposing us is wrong, and therefore is blasphemy against what we think is truth, and must be removed lest it make the gods angry.”

As some have pointed out, this religious view leads toward a type of intolerance of dissent so total that it has divided our society into two groups, realists who oppose it and individualists who support it:

Dylan sang of a change so profound that the older generation would not even understand it. Now, we do understand. Dylan was announcing a worldview invasion of the West by Eastern pagan thinking. In much of our culture, that invasion has become a triumph, overturning the Western Christian view of existence. We have moved from a Twoist presupposition of a Creator God who made the structures of existence and revealed his moral will, to a Oneist presupposition that rejects any Creator or pre-existing structures and believes that humanity creates its own reality and will make a better world. This is why the Left showed utter disbelief at having lost the election; traditional politics does not even enter into its worldview.

The Eastern pagan nature of Leftism, descended perhaps from the Mongol invasions of Genghis Khan, is the idea of human individualism taking precedence over natural order and an organization to existence that extends into the metaphysical. Where the West pursued transcendentals like excellence and realism, the East pursued humanity, and as a result fell into an impassive solipsism. Now we follow them through liberal democracy and Leftism.

Those who oppose this change get called whatever nasty terms the Left can dig up. At first it was “royalists,” then “elitists,” then later “classists,” until finally with Hitler they found their Emmanuel Goldstein and started calling all of us “racists” and “Nazis.” These terms now have no meaning because they designate only that the offender has disagreed with a Leftist somewhere.

Amerika will never be popular because it offers a complex, nuanced and realist vision of human existence, but also does not reject the metaphysical. It is Nietzschean conservatism at its fullest, except that it is warm to sane interpretations of religious faith and sees them as beneficial, making it closer to Plato in the end calculus than Fred Nietzsche. It does not distill intricate political issues into slogans, emotions, or other forms of manipulation. As a result, it is difficult and unpopular.

It is only thanks to those who have made an effort to seek it out that this site thrives. It endures despite Twitter censorship including mysterious mutings, the rage of the Left, and the deliberate slighting of Amerika by those on the Right who fear it as competition because its worldview is more comprehensive than ours. It thrives only because of you, our readers.

So thank you, from the bottom of my heart and those of our other writers. It is thanks to you that we are reaching the world. Today, #184… tomorrow, the world! As we push back against the Arschpresse — that is a “Nazi-era term,” journalists — and shout ZIEGE HEIL! at the top of our lungs, remember, world: reality is dangerous, and realists are pushing back for a more interesting dangerous world than the clear path to civilization collapse that Leftism (spit) offers.

Welcome to a new Dark Age.

Let Us Finally End World War II

Friday, December 2nd, 2016

hitler_speaks

Why is Hitler, and by extension the Nazis, still a prime obsession in our society?  One obvious answer is that the post-WWII world, and the legitimacy of American hegemony, is tied up in it. 

America, we are told, can never go back to minding its own business because of The Holocaust™ and Isolationism.  And that’s just coming from the garden variety cuckservative that will always bind together the US military with Leftist foreign policy, providing us the true fasces of our time. Today’s iteration of the Roman Empire is once again a double headed eagle, one head Spartan red state militarism with its brain gnawed out by its blue counterpart from Foggy Bottom.

The Cult of Hitler, and make no mistake, his cult of personality is still going strong, is a remarkable thing made up of worshipers from every walk of life.  It isn’t just his ironic fanboys on /pol/ that worship the long dead dictator, but all the “right thinking” goodwhites who never pass up the opportunity to curse his name to this day.  Just because they’ve made Hitler the patron deity of evil, doesn’t change the fact that they still give him the honors of a deity.  In fact, most of his worshipers belong to the latter camp, making Hitler’s status as the G_d that Holocaustianity worships the precise definition of irony.

Breaking free of this cult is a great, unfulfilled challenge for the Alt Right, but let me be clear of what we need to break free from.  I do not mean we fall in line with the frame set by the Cathedral in regards to Hitler.  Anyone of sufficient intelligence understands that pop history, and especially the politically relevant pop history of WWII is nonsense.  We just don’t know how it’s nonsense.

Opinions on the Alt Right vary widely from condemning Hitler as just as bad the Cathedral claims, to those that claim he was, “The Greatest Person Ever!!!!” — no, for reals.  I read that on a Hollywood Nazi site once.

In fact, the failure to sit down and have a definitive, honest redpill on Hitler and Nazism is essential to any political movement coming out of the Alt Right to succeed.  It was a major oversight on the part of Mencius Moldbug to just assume, after having deconstructed liberal democracy and its Cathedral, that he hadn’t just inadvertently rehabilitated Nazism and even Soviet-style Communism. 

If you demonstrate that everyone has been in a false reality, there’s no reason to assume that any of the foundational assumptions of that false reality hold true once you break free from it.  Naturally, no one on the Alt Right was inclined to meme Stalin back to greatness, but /pol/ had been drawn to the natural Schelling point of Hitler for years.

History is all about interpretation.  It’s about constructing a plausible narrative based upon available evidence.  But the interpretation is the key part to this, because unlike mathematics or physics, the human actor is the key to history.  2 + 2 will still be 4 and the laws of thermodynamics are set, but why the War of Northern Aggression happened is a human construction.

And adding to all of this is the fact that the Cult of Hitler is the law of the land in many parts of Europe, and the de facto law of the land in the US and the UK.  Questioning Hitler’s status as the King of All That is Evil is heresy, punishable by loss of your job, friends, family and good name.

The trap that is far too easy to fall into is to yell “black” when the enemy says “white” and by so doing to engage in the assumption that Hitler was just Jesus except not dressed like a hippie.  Jim Goad published an image of German soldiers crucifying Hitler on the back of Answer Me! No. 3, an arresting image that exemplifies the 1488-er cult of Hitler.  (“He killed for your sins….” to borrow a line from Adult Swim’s Sea Lab 2021.)

Hitler is dead.  He’s been dead for 71 years.  He’s going to continue to be dead until the heat death of the universe.  He is not divine, and no, you cannot meme someone into godhood.  It didn’t work for Kek or Gnon either.  Learn about allegory lads.

The challenge before us is that the keystone of the Cathedral that towers over us is the Hitler Meme.  To remove it, and bring down Babel 2.0, the Alt Right is going to need some honest, genuine scholarship, showing who Hitler was, what National Socialism was, and to give those of us who care about reality an honest assessment of both.

Recommended Reading