What Is A Nazi?

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

I see the term “Nazi” thrown around a lot these days.

I learned in Political Science classes in college that Nazism was a uniquely German phenomenon. You cannot be non-German and a Nazi just as no matter how much you love Judaism, if you are not born of a Jewish mother or converted through a recognized beit din (Jewish law court), you are not Jewish.

What made Nazism a party of the right and not the left was that it believed in human inequality.

Just as neo-conservatives aren’t conservative, neo-nazis aren’t Nazis. Just as neo-Hasidism isn’t Hasidic, neo-nazism isn’t Nazism. People called “neo-nazis” are more accurately described as ethno-nationalists (unless they seek to be known as neo-nazis) just as most Jews are ethno-nationalists (as normative Judaism is ethno-nationalism with Zion its home, and according to Torah, there is no room for non-Jewish citizens in the Jewish state).

“Neo-Nazi” in general usage has no meaning. It is purely a slur. The Unite the Right march in Charlottsville on Saturday was not neo-nazi and had nothing to do with Nazism (even if a few marchers waived that flag). White nationalists who do the Nazi thing are sending a message to the low IQ to rally for their race. It’s a short-hand for white nationalism. Take these guys seriously but not literally. For example, Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the number of Jews who died in WWII, but rather is a denial that Jews have ever been 100% the innocent party in group conflicts and denial that the Holocaust is the supreme event in history through which all else must be viewed.

According to Wikipedia:

Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism.[1] The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements.[2]

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, antisemitism, and initiating the Fourth Reich. Holocaust denial is a common feature, as is the incorporation of Nazi symbols and admiration of Adolf Hitler.

Neo-Nazi activity is a global phenomenon, with organized representation in many countries, as well as international networks. In some European and Latin American countries, laws have been enacted that prohibit the expression of pro-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic views. Many Nazi-related symbols are banned in European countries in an effort to curtail neo-Nazism.

Let’s take a closer look at the ideological foundations of neo-nazism according to Wikipedia. “Ultranationalism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Racism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Ableism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Xeno-phobia” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Homophobia” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. Antiziganism (hatred of gypsies) is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Antisemitism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive (in that it gives gentiles an edge when competing with Jews for resources). In other words, it strikes me that what is called “neo-nazism” is the natural human condition. Without the guardrails constructed by Jews, humanity’s natural default politics is something like “neo-nazism.” On the other hand, the common wisdom in America (and the West) prior to the 1960s, was ultra-nationalist, racist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-gypsy, and antisemitic. So was 1950s America neo-nazi? That’s ludicrous. Therefore, my earlier point holds — “neo-nazi” has no objective meaning except as a slur (and as a self-description for those non-Germans who like to dress up as real Nazis).

So why is there so much effort to curtail neo-Nazism? Because nationalism is the natural organizing principle for most people and all nationalisms contain the capacity for genocide and Europe is sick of genocide at the hands of nationalists.

Wikipedia notes:

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]), is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and other far-right groups. Sometimes characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism’s development was influenced by German nationalism (especially Pan-Germanism), the Völkisch movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after Germany’s defeat in First World War.

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[2] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum, and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or “inferior” races. The term “National Socialism” arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the “common good” and accept political interests as the main priority of economic organization.[3]

The Nazi Party’s precursor, the Pan-German nationalist and antisemitic German Workers’ Party, was founded on 5 January 1919. By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler assumed control of the organization and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers’ Party to broaden its appeal. The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for parliamentary democracy and his belief in Germany’s right to territorial expansion.

In 1933, with the support of traditional conservative nationalists, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and the Nazis gradually established a one-party state, under which Jews, political opponents and other “undesirable” elements were marginalised, and eventually, several million people were imprisoned and killed. Hitler purged the party’s more socially and economically radical factions in the mid-1934 Night of the Long Knives and, after the death of President Hindenburg, political power was concentrated in his hands, and he became Germany’s head of state with the title of Führer or “leader”. Following the Holocaust and Germany’s defeat in World War II, only a few fringe racist groups, usually referred to as neo-Nazis, still describe themselves as followers of National Socialism…

Following Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II and the end of the Holocaust, overt expressions of support for Nazi ideas were prohibited in Germany and other European countries. Nonetheless, movements which self-identify as National Socialist or which are described as adhering to National Socialism continue to exist on the fringes of politics in many western societies. Usually espousing a white supremacist ideology, many deliberately adopt the symbols of Nazi Germany.

Few if any of the marchers in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville were Nazis. The march had no concern with Germany. A few marches adopted Nazi symbols, but just as a man who cuts off his penis and gets breast implants does not change his DNA into that of a woman, so too Americans with no connection to Germany can not become Nazis by adopting Nazi slogans and rituals.

As for the term “neo-Nazi”, it is thrown around so much for such a disparate group of people that it has no meaning. Exactly how is “neo-Nazi” useful for understanding the world today? I don’t see it.

What about the term “fascist”? According to Wikipedia: “Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.” It sounds like the word is similar to “Nazi” in the sense that it is usually used as a slur.

I’ve found that 99% of the time I hear someone fling around the terms “Nazi” and “fascist”, it indicates that they don’t want to think hard. They just want to call names. Name-calling is not an honorable form of argument. There are only two honorable forms of argument — to dispute over facts and logic.

Wikipedia notes that Nazism “aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft).” That sounds like a ton of different tribal approaches to life, including Judaism (aka the amcha).

A Google News search for the term “neo-nazi” shows 1,460,000 recent results.

So would Americans choose nationalism if they could? I suspect yes. Would they choose nationalism combined with economic populism? I suspect yes. Would they choose national socialism if they had the choice? I suspect that in America today, national socialism would have as much chance of winning elections as any other ideology (so long as it disassociated itself from Nazism, which is uniquely German).

So why the hysteria about neo-nazis? I think much of the hate is from Jews or it is influenced by Jews. They see a revival of Nazi Germany and that frightens them. Jews are an international people and gentile nationalisms limit their influence and threaten their survival.

Until Donald Trump, Americans never had the option of voting for a nationalist for president. Jews, like all groups, love nationalism for themselves, but fear it in others. Nationalism is a fantastic organizing principle and when people become nationalistic, they become more formidable competitors. Choices that were not possible before nationalism (such as excluding outsiders) become easy.

Peoples who don’t choose nationalism are cucks. They’re easy pickings. On the other hand, nationalism is dangerous. All nationalisms contain the capacity for genocide and the West in particular is sick of genocide at the hands of nationalists.

How many Americans watch Posted in Nazi | Comments Off on What Is A Nazi?

NYT: ‘Down the Breitbart Hole’

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Wil S. Hylton writes for the New York Times Sunday Magazine:

After losing Bannon and Gorka and Hahn to the White House; accepting the resignation of Yiannopoulos, who was caught advocating statutory rape; and firing the editor Katie McHugh over a string of odious tweets, Alex has left himself with a roster of writers who are startlingly inoffensive.

Because he’s writing in the New York Times, Wil S. Hylton has no need to explain what was odious about Katie McHugh’s tweets. He can just hurl slurs and that counts as big league journalism. That’s a sweet gig if you can get it. Honorable argument, needless to say, consists solely of contesting facts and logic. Any other type of argument is not honorable, but Wil S. Hylton and the New York Times have no moral constraints. They can hit as low as they want.

Then there’s the execrable headline about young Muslims being ‘‘time bombs.’

And what is execrable about that headline? Once again, Wil S. Hylton and the New York Times feel no need to make an argument. They just hurl slurs and call it journalism.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on NYT: ‘Down the Breitbart Hole’

WAPO Media Columnist: ‘This week should put the nail in the coffin for ‘both sides’ journalism’

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Margaret Sullivan (former ombud for the New York Times) writes for the Washington Post: “During the 2016 presidential campaign, the national news media’s misguided sense of fairness helped equate the serious flaws of Hillary Clinton with the disqualifying evils of Donald Trump.”

Evil is a moral judgment that requires a shared faith. Without a shared faith in a transcendent source of morality such as God, there is no objective right and wrong. If Donald Trump is evil, then what word would you use to describe Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao?

“In the aftermath of last weekend’s disaster in Charlottesville, [Trump] is being widely criticized for treating white supremacists and those who protest them as roughly equal.”

Very few if any of the marchers to preserve Southern heritage last Saturday were “white supremacists.” That’s just a slur. The Antifa weren’t protesting them as much as they were beating them. There’s a long ugly history of antifa violence.

Sullivan: “Journalists should indeed stand for some things. They should stand for factual reality.”

Such as racial differences in IQs?

Posted in America, Journalism | Comments Off on WAPO Media Columnist: ‘This week should put the nail in the coffin for ‘both sides’ journalism’

Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Paul Gottfried on Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. — March 3, 2007:

Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues once adorned monuments and boulevards are no longer deemed as fit for public mention.

The ostensible reason for this obliteration or dishonoring of Southern history, save for those civil rights victories that came in the second half of the twentieth century, has been the announced rejection of a racist society, a development we are persistently urged to welcome. During the past two generations or so, the South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. We are being told that we should therefore rejoice at the reconstructing of Southern society and culture in a way that excludes, and indeed extirpates from our minds, except as an incentive to further white atonement, the pre-civil rights past, also known as “the burden of Southern history.” This last, frequently encountered phrase is from the title of a famous study of the South by C. Vann Woodward, who in his time was a liberal-minded Southern historian.

Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?

Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Robert Weissberg writes:

Stated in cost-benefit terms, denying a few hundred (even a few thousand) high-SAT scoring Asians an Ivy League diploma and instead forcing them attend Penn State is a cheap price to pay for social peace.

This argument rests on an indisputable reality that nearly all societies contain distinct ethnic or religious groups who must be managed for the sake of collective peace. They typically lack the ability to economically compete, may embrace values that contravene the dominant ethos, or otherwise just refuse to assimilate. What makes management imperative is the possibility of violence either at an individual level, for example, randomly stabbing total strangers, or on a larger scale, riots and insurrections. Thus, in the grand scheme of modern America’s potentially explosive race relations, academically accomplished Asians, most of whom are politically quiescent, are expendable, collateral damage in the battle to sustain a shaky status quo.

Examples of such to-be-managed groups abound. Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes well into the 19th century or what several European nations currently face with Muslims or today’s civil war in Burma with the Karen People. Then there’s Turkey’s enduring conflict with the Kurds and long before the threat of Islamic terrorism, there were Basque separatists (the ETA), and the Irish Republican Army. In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe according to the Global Terrorism Database. At a lower levels add the persistently criminal Gypsies who for 500 years have resisted all efforts to assimilate them. This listing is, of course, only a tiny sampling of distinct indigestible violence-prone groups.

The repertoire of remedies, successful and failed, is also extensive. Our native-American problem has, sad to say, been largely solved by the use of apartheid-like reservations and incapacitating a once war-like people with drugs and alcohol. Elsewhere generous self-rule has done the trick, for example, the Basques in Spain. A particularly effective traditional solution is to promote passivity by encouraging religious acceptance of one’s lowly state.

Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.

To appreciate the value of affirmative action recall the urban riots of the 1960s. They have almost been forgotten but their sheer number during that decade would shock those grown accustomed to today’s relative tranquility. A sampling of cities with major riots includes Rochester, NY, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, Los Angeles, CA, Cleveland, OH, Newark, NJ, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Washington, DC and several smaller cities.

The damage from these riots— “uprisings” or “rebellions” according to some—was immense. For example, the Detroit riot of 1967 lasted five days and quelling it required the intervention of the Michigan Army National Guard and both the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions. When it finally ended, the death toll was 43, some 7200 were arrested and more than 2000 buildings destroyed. Alas, much of this devastation remains visible today and should be a reminder of what could happen absent a policy of cooling out black anger.

To correctly understand how racial preferences at elite colleges serves as a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence, recall the quip by comedian Henny Youngman when asked “How’s your wife?” He responded with, “Compared to what?” This logic reflects a hard truth: when confronting a sizable, potentially disruptive population unable or unwilling to assimilate, a perfect solution is beyond reach. Choices are only among the lesser of evils and, to repeat, under current conditions, race-driven affirmative action is conceivably the best of the worst. A hard-headed realist would draw a parallel with how big city merchants survive by paying off the police, building and food inspectors, and the Mafia. Racial preferences are just one more item on the cost-of-doing business list–the Danegeld.

In effect, racial preferences in elite higher education (and beneficiaries includes students, professors and the diversity-managing administrators) separates the top 10% measured in cognitive ability from their more violent down market racial compatriots. While this manufactured caste-like arrangement hardly guarantees racial peace (as the black-on-white crime rate, demonstrates) but it pretty much dampens the possibility of more collective, well-organized related upheavals, the types of disturbances that truly terrify the white establishment. Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro’s left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership. Violence is now just Chicago or Baltimore-style gang-banger intra-racial mayhem or various lone-wolf criminal attacks on whites.

Posted in Asians, Blacks | Comments Off on Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace