Would Americans Choose National-Socialism If They Could?

I’m trying to figure out the meaning of the hysteria about neo-nazis. A Google News search for the term shows 1,460,000 recent results. One thing the extreme reaction shows me is that much of the news is shaped by what is good or bad for 1.7% of the American population.

Steve Sailer wrote: "Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms."

Sailer wrote:

To quantify the statement that "Jews are a small group, but influential in their areas of concentration," in 2009, the Atlantic Monthly came up with a list of the top 50 opinion pundits: half are of Jewish background.

Over 1/3rd of the 2009 Forbes 400 are of Jewish background, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency's reporter who covers Jewish philanthropy.

Joel Stein of the LA Times found in 2007 that people of Jewish background hold a large majority of the most powerful positions in Hollywood.

This is not to say that influential Jews are at all united in what they favor. On the other hand, it is more or less true that Jews hold something of a veto over what topics are considered appropriate for discussion in the press, Jewish influence itself being the most obvious example of a topic that is off the table in polite society.

John Derbyshire wrote: "I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT—not ever again—be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently."

I’ve argued previously that just as neo-conservatism is not conservative, and neo-hasidism is not hasidic, so too neo-nazis are not nazis. They’re ethno-nationalists 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).

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? It is as likely a winner 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 The Man in the High Castle and see its portrayal of a white orderly America and yearn for it? I suspect half of the viewers feel that kind of tingle. The hero of the show so far is a Nazi – Obergrupenfuhrer John Smith.

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).

Let’s take a closer look at the ideological foundations of Nazism according to Wikipedia to determine if the Alt Right is Nazi-like or Nazi light. “Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism.” Anyone on the Alt Right has to be a race realist, has to understand that the different races have different gifts. This last phrase is different from Nazism’s racial hierarchy. Nazism apparently believes in superior and inferior races while the Alt Right agrees that the races have different gifts. The Nazis (and communists) hated IQ tests because Jews excelled Aryans. The Alt Right does not hate IQ tests. The Alt Right is dominantly a white thing and all white Alt Right intellectuals accept that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ of any group, and that east asians have higher average IQs than whites, more family stability and lower crime and STD rates. So the Alt Right feels no need to posit that whites are superior in anything including intelligence. The Alt Right does not need to claim superiority for their people to prefer their own kind and to want their people to live and have sovereignty in the countries they created (such as the United States, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, etc). Some segments of the Alt Right have a particular affinity with Nordics or Aryans over all other whites but they are a minority. Like Nazism, some segments of the the Alt Right want to overcome social divisions and other segments don’t care about social divisions. The hardcore Alt Right are ethno-nationalists, but only a tiny number of the Alt Right are concerned with racial purity. Also, only a small number of the Alt Right want to unite all white people. Most members of the Alt Right would regard that as utopian and are more focused on the well-being of their particular nation. Unlike Nazism, the Alt Right is not expansionist. Few members of the Alt Right want to conquer and rule over other races. Like the Nazis, most members of the Alt Right have a developed group identity around race, prefer their own kind, and are willing to privilege their own race over other races. The Alt Right today has no particular economic policy, though the more hardcore Alt Right see such questions as determined by what is best for their particular race, which will be a combination of capitalism and socialism. Like Nazism, the Alt Right hates communism, opposes cosmopolitan internationalism, and generally agrees that individual happiness is less important than the common good (as does Judaism). Nazism was hostile to organized monotheist religion while the Alt Right is all over the place with regard to religion (though its leading intellectuals tend to be atheists). In conclusion, the Alt Right has some things in common with the ideological foundations of Nazism in the same sense that 1950s America had some things in common with Nazism (Nazism got much of its racial policy from America). Like the Nazis, the Alt Right sides with the theory of gravity. It accepts Darwinism. Overall, however, the Alt Right is more reflective of 1950s Australia or America than it of Nazism. It may well be closer to Judaism (putting the interests of the nation first) than to Nazism.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see Amazon.com). My work has been followed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (Alexander90210.com).
This entry was posted in America, Nationalism, Nazi. Bookmark the permalink.