D.F. Mulder2019/02/270 Comments

 

They Want To Put Us In Camps

We live in strange times here in America, punctuated by total tyranny coupled with great abundance. The people don’t dare revolt, contented and entertained as they are, but, I mean, does any sane person seriously believe we are a free people anymore? How could anybody seriously believe that?


Kaitlin Bennett, gun-loving conservathot, visited UCLA last week. She carried around a petition in support of placing Trump supporters in camps. Yes, you read that correctly. A very large percentage of the students she approached signed the petition. Some didn’t like the term “camps” and preferred “reeducation facilities”. Others were hesitant, but most basically went along. The banality of evil, I guess. Yet the right’s response to the video is even more alarming. It seems half the country wants to put us in camps, yet many on the right seem to think this is some sort of fringe minority, that the threat is imaginary, that America is still great. It’s not and it’s not and it’s not. While Americans talk casually of putting millions of their fellow citizens in camps, those who will be put in camps (whites, christians, etc.) seem oddly disconnected, even indifferent to this gravely serious threat. Perhaps they can’t be bothered with threats like this when the final season of Game of Thrones is so near.


America ceased being great a long, long time ago. It ceased being free a long, long time ago as well. Most Americans confuse material abundance with governmental legitimacy and genuine human liberty. There is little relation between these matters. In fact, many totalitarian, completely despotic, perfectly undemocratic nations around the globe, feed their people quite well. Not all do, but many do. Consider many of the gulf states (Qatar, UAE) or China or Saudi Arabia or Iran. Yes, there are many totalitarian states run by mad dictators where people go hungry, but there are just as many that are materially quite well off. There is no direct relationship between material abundance and liberty. Most modern Western nations prove that you can have material abundance and yet little, if any, democracy. The American government (along with other Western governments) is actually deliberately replacing its people with more servile, low IQ, third world peoples, yet we call this government legitimate and liberal and democratic. It is laughable.


This is not to say that all is well here in America when it comes to material matters, including basic sustenance. Countless Americans are out on the streets living in tent cities, veterans included. It is true that few Americans are starving, but not many are thriving. Deaths of despair (opiate addiction, suicides) and other social ills are pervasive, including sexual and economic exploitation (pornography, prostitution, predatory lending, payday loans, et al.). While Americans struggle enormously, big banks and multinational corporations buy up more and more of the government and the economy, even though if capitalism really functioned in America, most of those banks and corporations would have been wiped out during the last financial crisis.


America itself is admittedly somewhat economically free and fairly economically well-off (I use the term “somewhat” because the US economy is a lot less free, upward mobility a lot more constrained, meritocracy a lot more illusory, and the game far more rigged than most let on, and I use the term “fairly” because although America has ample wealth, it is distributed in such a way that ordinary people really only enjoy that ample wealth in the most trivial and tangential of ways). However, our government doesn’t seem to be responsive to our votes, demands, or interests at all. In fact, it ignores us constantly. We voted for a wall and a Muslim ban. We got Jared Kushner and “more legal immigrants than ever before”. It doesn’t seem like our votes can change anything, because they can’t. We basically have zero influence over what the fundamentally corrupt, imperial government in D.C. does. And by the way, just to give you an idea of how perfectly amoral and depraved this criminal government is, our elected officials are now perfectly fine with infanticide. That’s literally where we are.


As to individual liberty, well that’s just comical. Sure, we enjoy a number of constitutional protections, because our Founders were brilliant men, but we also have the mass surveillance state, a rogue judiciary, a cop on every corner, we are terrified to speak openly on so many subjects for fear of losing our jobs and our reputations, and we seem to have ceded control of our own fate to a tyrannical government and invading hordes from the south and their offspring, etc. Americans increasingly do not feel free, and for good reason. Just ask them. They feel as if they are under siege from a vicious, parasitic, puritanical, authoritarian Cultural Marxist power class, because they are. This is not what the Founders intended.


The Cultural Marxist globohomo bankster class has enslaved us so thoroughly, that one wonders what our overlords are even serious about anymore, and what they do simply to mock and torment us.

They are like a sadistic slave-driver who makes his slaves hop from foot to foot, entertaining him, dancing and truckling for crumbs, with nary a shred of dignity. Get down and grovel before your pet minorities, you albino n*gger! Don’t want to? Get your pale, stale ass on the whipping post. Ok, now say that men are women. But men are not women! And now you get the whip, cracker! Now say AIPAC has no power. But AIPAC clearly has tremendous power. What are you an anti-semite? Crack goes the whip, goy! Don’t you know the American government only has the best intentions for Venezuela. Really, does it? Did it have only the best intentions for Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and El Salvador? Crack crack crack, honky!


All good sense is verboten in contemporary America. Thought itself has been virtually completely subjugated to the illegitimate interests of the powerful. Consider the concept of “gender”, a hot topic in our times. Why is there even such a thing as gender, outside of the linguistic context? What does “gender” even mean? It’s basically how one thinks or feels about oneself, right? That’s all “identity” is after all. So if I feel like I’m a soccer ball that makes me one? If I believe I have a full head of hair, even though I am bald, that means I do? What purpose does this term even serve? All it can really do is legitimize delusion, fantasy. There is your sex, namely what your chromosomes make you, and that is what you are. If your gender differs from what you actually are, biologically, you’re confused, delusional, nothing more. That seems quite clear. Thus all the term “gender” does do and can do is lend credence to delusion. Or worse, it makes one’s fantasies not just into legitimate claims, but into sacred truths that must be honored by others.


This is why I refuse to acknowledge this concept of gender as modern leftists define it. It’s a nonsense term, as far as I’m concerned. There is biological sex (objective reality) and then there is human thought (identity). I don’t feel any more compulsion to respect the thoughts and feelings of others regarding their “gender” than I do to respect the thoughts and feelings of others on any other subject. Oh, you feel socialism is a wise economic system? Good for you. Oh, you think colonialism is the cause of widespread poverty and violence in Sub-Saharan Africa? Touching. Your fatuous thoughts and vacuous feelers don’t matter that much to me, even if those thoughts and feelers concern something so holy as “gender identity”. The reeducation camps are calling my name.


All of that aside, why are we sharing a nation with people who hate us and want to put us in camps? Why should we have to? How can this possibly all end peacefully, and should we want it to? America is over, that much is clear. We can not vote ourselves out of the predicament we find ourselves in. The only discussion now should be about what comes next, after America, and how we get there. Boomercons are in total denial. These are people who will be waving their American flag around as they board the train to Nome, or wherever the reeducation camps might be located. It is insanity.


We should be talking about ways to minimize bloodshed, to dissolve this completely lost nation, with its rogue government, as peaceably as possible. We need to get off the couch and put on our yellow vests. Yet we’re not. All normiecons talk about is how they will shoot back when the time comes. Right, but when will the Red Brigade or government mercenaries be at your door? When whites are 30% of the population, or 10%? Of course, you might say this is all empty chatter from campus radicals, but it’s really not empty chatter. They are talking about putting you in camps, openly, publicly, proudly, and the sentiments of these students are common, everyday sentiments on the left now. They hate righties and whities. They hate us!


Miss Bennett likened these young, left-wing nutcases over at UCLA to “Nazis”. Now, I don’t wish to delve too far into the absurdity of calling these borderline communists “Nazis”, but let’s just say that the British Government put people in camps too, in the Anglo-Boer wars, and so did the Khmer Rouge and the Soviets, and by the way, so did our government, numerous times throughout history. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter all that much what we call these left-wingers. You can call them Fascists or Nazis, even though their totalitarian ideology is fundamentally different from Nazism/Fascism, or you can call them Neo-Bolsheviks, or white-haters, or radical Cultural Marxists (far more fitting terms), but the implications are the same, the conclusions identical. We need to get off the red, white and blue train. Now. The last stop is Nome, people.



D.F. Mulder2019/02/080 Comments

 

Trump's SOTU Laid Out A Plan For Certain Defeat

Trump is on track to get absolutely decimated in 2020. Decimated. MAGA defectors are piling up, slowly but surely. Trump also no longer has a meme army behind him. Both the Alt-Right and the Alt-Lite, which is to say the youth, think he is a more douchey, sex-addled version of Jeb Bush. Yet far too many normiecons (everyday conservatives) are completely blind to this reality. Trump can not win in 2020 running only on the power of a few crusty boomer-con talking points, and the battery in Charlie Kirk’s vibrator. Drastic things will have to be done to change the trajectory he is on.

Sadly, however, Trump’s State Of The Union address did not signify drastic change. If Tom Brady is your quarterback, you don’t want change. You want things to stay the same, forever. The same is true if he is your son-in-law. And he could have been Trump’s son-in-law, but he’s not. With Brady you win, with Kushner you lose. It’s as simple as that.

If Trump really desires to serve a second term, he has to stop caving to Pelosi and get the wall up. That was his signature campaign promise. He probably won’t win even if he gets the wall up, but if he doesn’t, he’s dead in the water. Blaming the swamp or the establishment (artful deflection) won’t work for him when it comes to that issue. He may think his base is stupid or forgetful, but we’re not. Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt he will get it up. He looks old, will-less and defeated. The neocons have ground him down to orange pulp. Stormy Daniels probably couldn’t even help him get it up at this point.

I still can’t understand why it wasn’t built/funded during the first half of this term, while Republicans had majorities in both houses. The only explanation I can come up with is that the GOP establishment doesn’t want the wall to be built, and desperately wants to see Trump lose come 2020. The GOP establishment, and especially the Cultural Marxist oligarchs that fund the GOP, hate Trump and everything he represents (especially the implicit white racial consciousness he encourages). They want to see him lose in 2020, so they can claim he lost because he’s a racist (when he really lost because he governed largely as a Bushite, adopting nearly all of the unpopular policies which made “W” so widely loathed), before declaring the official end of the Trump Era. That way they can go back to business as usual, which is to say robbing, terrorizing, and enserfing Americans while they feed us absurd counter-factual platitudes about freedom, prosperity, and American exceptionalism.

I can’t help but think that the widespread enthusiasm for his State Of The Union speech is driven by the same people and the same agenda. Everyday conservative know-nothings are being led by the nose down the road to perdition by those who have no regard for their interests and want Trump to lose resoundingly in 2020. Little Benny Shapiro called Trump’s SOTU address “the strongest speech of his presidency”. All this new-found adulation is for something, that’s for sure. Major media outlets (pseudo-con outlets included) know Trump is headed for defeat and they want to keep him on that track. They can do so by talking about how presidential he seemed, and how he is wooing non-whites, and how toning down the anti-immigrant rhetoric is a political winner, and all that nonsensical propaganda, when the truth is, he’s in bad shape and they know it, and they like it that way. Or maybe, just maybe, they simply like what he’s doing because he’s governing like a puppet of the Cultural Marxist oligarchy and they support that kind of governance. It’s hard to say, but it’s a really bad omen either way.

Trump trying to prove that he really cares about blacks by droning on about black unemployment figures is just painful to watch. It looks a lot like when white leftists shackle themselves and get on their knees and sob before black strangers while begging to be forgiven for their great-great-great-grandfather Elmer’s sins. Groveling and pandering like this is pitiful and unseemly. When did Kekistan become Cuckistan?

88% of those who voted for Trump were white. 88%. White. That means a full 7/8 of Trump’s support is from white Americans alone. Roughly 1% of Trump’s support comes from the black community. 1%! So why all the focus on the interests of non-whites? Why isn’t he talking about white employment numbers or what he is doing to combat the opioid crisis devastating white communities all over America? We are his damned base. We put him in office. We put him there to represent us, not the Military Industrial Complex, not felons, not celebrities, not Big Tech, or corporate America, with its unslakable appetite for cheap labor, not Israel, not Holocaust survivors, us! Who does this orange clown think he is in Washington to represent anyway? He can’t win in 2020 by appealing to the black demographic or the Holocaust survivor demographic. Less than a quarter of Jewish voters supported this man in 2016. Only 8% of black voters did. 84% of blacks think Trump is an irredeemable “racist”. What does he hope to accomplish by droning on about black unemployment? Does he think Lebron James is going to visit the White House and shine his big red shoes or something?

Then, to add insult to injury, this buffoon actually said he wants immigrants to come to America “in the largest numbers ever”. He actually said that. Except he won the Republican Primary by sounding off about restricting immigration. That’s arguably why he won the election as well. We, his base, do not want more immigrants. We want fewer immigrants. A lot fewer. We want fewer immigrants from the 3rd World. We want a Muslim ban. We want less unskilled immigration. Many of us even want less skilled immigration. We want less immigration, period. That’s what the wall is supposed to be about. Sure, it’s about keeping out illegals, but it’s also a symbol for and interwoven with immigration restrictionism, tight borders and higher standards for entry, and keeping unassimilable foreign populational groups out of our communities (especially those populations that are particularly prone to violence and terrorism, and that hate us on account of our race and religion). If we wanted to live in places that look and feel like Iraq or Venezuela or the Congo, we’d move there. The Western World can be destroyed by mass-scale legal immigration just as surely as it can be destroyed by mass-scale illegal immigration. Our great leader doesn’t seem to comprehend this fact.

Moreover, continuing to import more immigrants, 90% of whom are non-white, whether legally or illegally, is not a good electoral strategy for the political right. Georgia, a state in the Deep South, is about one decade away from permanently flipping over to the Democrats. Texas is about two decades away. Texas for heaven’s sake! When Texas goes, Republicans will basically be shut out of the presidency permanently. Furthermore, this all is due almost entirely to demographic transformation. Arianna Huffington would likely make a better adviser to the President than his imbecilic wimp of a son-in-law.

Look, it doesn’t bother me to watch the GOP establishment and the mainstream media direct Trump off a cliff. I expect that. They want to see him crash and burn. They hate Trump just as much as they hate white christian middle-Americans, like the Covington kids. But to see everyday righties cheer and congratulate Trump as he lays out a plan for certain defeat… I have to admit, that’s a little harder to take. Maybe conservatives are guilty of overoptimism, or perhaps they just don’t want to appear disloyal to their team or their leader; either way, 2020 is shaping up to be devastating for them. No declaration of a national emergency to build the wall, but an ambitious initiative to eliminate HIV in America? At Trump’s State Of The Union address? Ha! It may as well have been Kamala Harris’s inauguration.

D.F. Mulder2019/01/090 Comments

 

Political Correctness Is Much More Harmful Than Most Believe It To Be

A recent poll found that Political Correctness is extremely unpopular in America, even amongst moderates and independents, which got me thinking on the subject. There exists an old quote from a famed British psychiatrist by the name of Anthony Daniels regarding Political Correctness. It is the best quote I know of on the subject, and I have been mulling it over for some time, considering its meaning and its implications. The quote reads:

Political Correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine Political Correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

In this way, Political Correctness can be seen not only as a form of narrative control and truth suppression, but as a type of relentless bullying. Speech codes and persistent propaganda no one is even allowed to object to (like diversity worship or the fictions we constantly hear about human equality), reinforce society’s sense of powerlessness. If you can get people to assent to obvious lies, or better yet to repeat them, or better still to absorb them, which is to say to lie to themselves, there is virtually nothing you can’t make them do. You have broken the seal, as drinkers say.

It is as if you have forced a man to murder an innocent, or to rape his own sister. You have destroyed a bit of his soul, you have forced him to surrender, to submit, to choose pragmatism over rectitude, to abandon his reason for the sake of social or professional survival. Once a man has lost his sense of shame, of pride, of agency, of integrity, once he must abandon his own conscience and put on a performance for all the world to see just so that he’ll be socially accepted, he’s a sheep being led to slaughter at that point. He has been subjugated completely. His heart is a gaping wound. He has been warped and debased to his core, to his essence.

We must see Political Correctness then as a very intense form of psychological and spiritual warfare. The goal of it is not just to censor ideas and words and keep people in the dark. The ultimate goal is to destroy the subject’s sense of right, and the subject’s sense of shame, and most importantly, the subject’s will to resist, to live a life of authenticity, of honor, of virtue. Once these dams are broken, vice flows effortlessly downhill for the individual, and for societies living in the shadow of these dams, known colloquially as principle, conscience, probity, integrity, honor and civic virtue--- the things that uphold human civilization.

If people aren’t even willing to stand up and rebuff the most glaring of falsehoods, what will they stand up to? They will go along with most anything at that point. People conditioned to wear a mask every day of their lives, to present to the world a perfectly false self, to celebrate things no decent or sensible person could or would celebrate, have already assented to the intolerable. When the most unthinkable atrocities arrive, they will be more than ready to tolerate them. They have had ample practice tolerating the unthinkable already. They have already assented many times to denying the reality right before their very eyes, and to countenancing what they know in their hearts to be pure evil.

If we understand Political Correctness this way, we must understand Political Correctness to not only be an assault on the truth, which it is of course, but as the main front of a war on human liberty itself, on free minds, on free peoples, on free nations. Political Correctness paves the way for the army of horribles behind it, by turning madness into gospel, meekness into fashion, and surrender into habit.

Vanquished, demoralized peoples do not fight back, they do not rise up and deliver themselves from Marxist tyranny. They applaud rather than cringe (as all people of sound mind would do) when their overlords trot out, on national television, an 11 year old drag queen dressed up in the attire of a street hooker. They do nothing when told that 9 year old boys are perfectly capable of deciding to start physically transitioning into girls via powerful, permanently mind-altering and body-altering pharmaceuticals. They play along when Cultural Marxist oligarchs and media personalities tell us that flooding the country with criminals and imbeciles from the third world will lead to moral and social progress. They remain silent when they are told that East Asians and whites are the real racists for not wanting to be systematically racially discriminated against in hiring and university admissions countrywide. Because who would assent to absurdity is half-way to atrocity already. He has sacrificed a piece of his soul for security, but will not receive it. The universe never has and never will reward such a bargain.


-Amalric de Droevig

D.F. Mulder2019/01/080 Comments

 

Ocasio-Cortez: The Hugo Chavez Of North America

Jennifer O’Connell, columnist over at the Irish Times, thinks recently-elected American congresswomen weeping and dancing in the Capitol Building is refreshing, “touching” even. She thinks it is a clear upgrade from Trump’s macho politics, and for an institution she describes as too “pale, male, and stale”. Yeah, the left doesn’t hate white people, in particular white men. Nah, not at all.

I don’t mean to suggest in this article that there is anything wrong with showing genuine emotion upon being sworn into Congress or dancing your heart out on some city rooftop in college. There isn’t. There really isn’t. Frankly, I find a lot of the the criticism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez emanating from the political right, to be both petty and unfortunate. This is not to say that many or most conservatives were really outraged by Ocasio-Cortez’s college dancing video. There is a fair chance that the supposed conservative outrage regarding this event was entirely fictive, which is to say spun out of whole cloth by the lying press in order to manipulate the public.

I also don’t think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a bad person. The truth is, she has a bright political future. There is a long and growing list of low-IQ people in America, easily taken in by charismatic charlatans promising easy fixes for complex problems. Ocasio-Cortez actually has a lot of the same qualities Hugo Chavez had. She is extremely likable and engaging, arguably even a demagogue in the making. I even find myself liking her most of the time. I would not be at all surprised if she was elected President in ten or twenty years. People are clearly drawn to her delightful personality.

Nevertheless, there is one thing that is really starting to nettle me about her, and it is this: Ocasio-Cortez strikes me as a person who has always gotten by on her cuteness and charm. The force of her personality has gotten her places she could never dream of getting on intellect alone. That is sort of the scary, sickening thing about her. It is as if she has never really learned anything anywhere, because she’s never had to. I mean, this is a woman who minored in economics at Boston University, yet self-identifies as a socialist. She is a Congresswoman who doesn’t seem to know the first flippin’ thing about basic government function. She is a one-trick magician: tax more, spend more, and voila. It’d be humorous if it wasn’t. Ocasio-Cortez has a gravely serious job, but she simply isn’t a serious person.

I’ve never heard her say anything interesting or profound on any subject, ever. She is a textbook ideologue with a pretty superficial understanding of every single issue she broaches. She appears to think all of life is a playground of some sort, or perhaps a nightclub. She has no appreciation whatsoever for the gravity of the role she finds herself in, or the sacred institutions she is skipping through. And while it’s all fine and well for you and I to know that socialism isn’t a serious idea-system, the truth is, half the country doesn’t appear to understand that anymore.

Maybe America’s economic prowess has rendered too many of us spoilt, foolish, insulated from the causticity of genuine poverty and hardship. In other words, maybe capitalism has been so successful in America that we just don’t appreciate how good we have it. Maybe America is fated to adopt some grotesquely idiotic, extremely destructive left-wing policies before we can really hope to come to our senses and purge the nation of the excesses and absurdities of Marxist thought (Marxist thought extends well beyond the realm of zany economic theorizing, by the way). The people of Brazil, and especially their new president, would know precisely what I’m talking about here.

The point is, dancing in the halls of Congress could perhaps be described as “refreshing” or “adorable”, that’s true. Or it could be described as unseemly or even beneath the dignity of the office. In any case, maybe I’ve just gotten old and stuffy (I’m only two years older than her though, at 31), or maybe I’m reading too deeply into a few isolated events. Nevertheless, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say it looks as if we have children running the country, a country mind you with some pretty serious problems before it… and that’s not cute, it’s terrifying.


-D.F. Mulder


D.F. Mulder2019/01/060 Comments

 

The Nazis Were Not Left-Wing

I like Dinesh D’Souza. I respect him. He is a man with a lot of unusual, interesting, and thought-provoking ideas. Nevertheless, his position that the Nazis were left-wing is simply a bridge too far. On the Nolan Chart, the Nazis are generally classed as center-right or right-leaning statists, and for good reason. Whatever criteria D’Souza is using to make this determination, it goes without saying that those criteria are not widely accepted. Moreover, it is not just the left that rejects his criteria and methodology, it is also most of the right.

D’Souza claims that the Nazis were leftists, because look at their name (National Socialist German Workers’ Party)! Seems obvious enough, but is it? Well, firstly, “National” modifies “Socialism” in the term “National Socialism”. National Socialists are no more socialists than a pig latin speaker is a latin scholar, or a butt pirate is an actual pirate. Secondly, the principal goal of socialism is to give workers ownership over the means of production, yet Hitler didn’t believe in that at all. In fact, upon assuming power, the Nazis abolished trade unions and the right to strike (sound like leftism to you?). In other words, he disempowered workers and made private industry even more hierarchical. If Hitler was a “socialist”, he was the shittiest socialist ever.

So, what did Hitler mean by this term exactly? While it should be noted that adding the term “socialism” to the party name was controversial early on, and indeed was not included in the original party name (Nazi Party was founded as the “German Workers Party” and made no mention of nationalism or socialism), it is still striking and peculiar that he would use this term. However, upon careful analysis, my conclusion is that what Hitler meant by the term was closer to what has sometimes been dubbed “paternalistic conservatism”. Basically, Hitler felt that all Germans had deep obligations to fellow Germans, in particular that the rich and the powerful had a moral obligation to advance the interests of their own people, via notions of organic society and principles underlying the social contract. Hitler also felt that although private property rights were important, they were not paramount. He felt that some property should be publicly/socially owned (not all property, as actual socialists believe), and that capitalism had to be subordinated to the interests of the collective in some instances. I suspect he and Teddy Roosevelt would have gotten on quite well.

Anyway, that was the extent of Hitler’s commitment to “socialism”. Hitler’s use and understanding of the concept was really no more socialism, in the technical sense, than noblesse oblige is “socialism”. Hitler, in truth, was a fanatical, raving anti-communist, on par with Joseph McCarthy. There was really nothing he loathed more than communism, and his many stirring speeches make this abundantly clear. What’s more, the political left, all over the globe, felt the same antipathy towards the Nazis as the Nazis felt for the left.

Mind you, there is no universally accepted definition of “right” or “left”. What constitutes rightism and leftism varies by nation and circumstance. However, there are some cornerstone ideals that punctuate leftism. Perhaps foremost is the left’s [unholy] obsession with equality. Some political theorists consider this the defining distinction between right and left, namely whether an ideology deems equality to be a desirable societal goal. Needless to say, the Nazis, unlike the Bolsheviks and Reds elsewhere, did not seek absolute equality. They were not hard economic egalitarians, or race egalitarians, or moral egalitarians (relativists). They did not pursue a raceless, classless, or moneyless society. Hitler consistently accommodated capitalism and was quite fond of hierarchy generally. Thus, there is really nothing about Nazism that shouts leftism.

Sure, Hitler held some moderate, liberal, or even leftist views on certain subjects, like animal welfare for example (the same goes for many conservatives by the way, given that very few people are ideologically pure). However, it should be noted that many far-right people take a pretty hard line on animal welfare too. Ultimately, Nazi ideology was complicated, convoluted, syncretistic. The Nazi worldview is not easily defined or categorized. However, calling Nazis left-wing is simply not a claim with any substantial basis in the evidence. Some Nazi ideas or policies could be described as more leftist than rightist, but in the aggregate, the claim is simply nonsense. The Nazis were creatures of the right. Even if you place them closer to the center, they are still far from the left-wing.

Others who claim Nazis are leftists invoke the concept of collectivism. They claim Nazis were “collectivists”, automatically rendering them lefties rather than righties. Now, this is a particularly hard claim to refute, in part because the term “collectivism” is not all that well defined. Nevertheless, nationalism, organized religion, and democracy (to name a few) are all widely understood to be forms of collectivism. Needless to say, American conservatives are very selective about the kinds of “collectivism” they oppose. In other words, they aren’t against collectivism per se, they seem to only be against certain types of it (like racism, although they weren’t always against that, and aren’t against that in most parts of the world). Hardly a persuasive argument as to why Nazism is left-wing.

Furthermore, if we examine conservatism elsewhere, like on the European continent for example, there is a strong emphasis on community, on national traditions, on group interests, and on collective continuity with the past, and a far weaker emphasis on individualism, individual rights, and individual liberties. On the old continent, these latter values (individualistic ones) are generally associated not so much with conservatism and tradition, but with liberalism and modernity. Anyhow, the notion that thinkers on the right reject “collectivism” wholesale, is not supported by any available evidence. Righties, even here in America, readily adopt collectivistic attitudes on many subjects when so inclined (abortion being another).

D’Souza also claims that Nazis are left-wing because they are statists (they support “big government”, whatever that means). However, even on the most casual analysis, this claim crumbles spectacularly. In the first place, it is not the willingness of a movement or idea-system to wield state power, but rather the goals pursued in wielding that state power, which separates the right from the left. Nothing about the Nazis’ goals can rightly be understood as left-wing. Acquiring resources via conquest, the wholesale eradication of competing tribes, national and ethnic rebirth, a return to deep [Germanic] roots and traditions, etc. are not left-wing ideals or goals. The Nazis believed in duty and sacrifice for the collective. They did not believe in hedonism, moral relativism, absolute social leveling, or twelve year old drag-queens. Where exactly is the leftism then in Nazism?

In the second place, American “conservatives” don’t oppose big government. Not really anyway. The tax rates in Nazi Germany were much lower than tax rates in contemporary America. The US Government also has far more resources and relative power/control than did the Nazi Government. I mean, we have cops on every corner in most major cities, and a surveillance state the Nazis would blush at. So, if “big government” is the key factor which makes a nation or an ideology left-wing, America is pretty hard-left and certainly far to the left of Nazi Germany. The only area the Nazi regime can really compete with the American government as far as big government is concerned, is on militarism and military spending. However, military spending is often rightly associated with right-wing politics here in America. In other words, if anything, this commonality doesn’t separate Nazi Germany from the political right, it links it to the American right!

Many of the remaining claims underlying the absurd view that the Nazis were left-wing are simply bald-faced lies, like, for example, that Hitler was an ardent gun-control proponent. In fact, Hitler only restricted gun rights for Jews and citizens of occupied countries, both because he was a maniacal anti-semite, and also because he understandably did not want uprisings in the East. Conservatives are right to argue that governments will often disarm their own people to suppress or disable resistance to their totalitarian agenda, but Hitler’s gun control policies were very limited/targeted. Hitler actually loosened up the fairly strict gun control policies which had been put into place during the time of the Weimar Government, a government dominated by leftists. He expanded gun rights for ninety-eight percent of the population. He didn’t disarm his own people (Germans), to achieve a non-violent utopia or an easily controlled and repressed citizenry, he only disarmed other people (non-Germans). That is a critical distinction, and it distinguishes Nazi policy from communist policy and leftist policies more broadly. Hitler was a decorated war veteran. He was no David Hogg or anti-gun zealot. He was not squeamish about firearms or violence.

Ultimately, there is plenty of space on the right for factions that disagree vehemently. There is space for republicans and monarchists, for Nazis and paleolibertarians, for Alt-Righters and normiecons, for neocons and paleocons. It seems to me this inane claim about the Nazis being left-wing is driven by a basal, albeit childish desire on the part of righties to distance themselves from all things Nazi-related. The problem is, this is both silly and unnecessary. You can share a side of the political spectrum with Nazis and yet detest and reject Nazism, just as true liberals can detest and reject traditional Marxism (or Cultural Marxism for that matter). Men like D’Souza doth protest a bit too much methinks. The right side of the political spectrum is spacious and ideologically diverse. It is not comprised of people who agree on everything, it never will be, and it never should be.


-Amalric de Droevig


← Newer Posts