Tuesday, 1 October 2013
Nowadays, it’s common to hear the claim that the Nazis were left-wingers. The claim relies on a reductive definition of conservatism as simply anti-statism. Since the Nazis created a totalitarian government, the argument runs, they cannot have been conservatives.

But this view, expressed most notably in Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism, is simply rhetorical and philosophical sleight of hand. Where does it say that conservatism means opposition to the role of government?

Conservatism, very simply, is the defence of the traditions and distinctiveness of a people against the forces seeking to undermine it. It is no coincidence that the terms left and right and the very concept of conservatism were birthed in the French Revolution, the starting point of the European Genocide. By embracing universalist moral codes, the Cult of Equality and the anti-democratic ideal of human rights, by substituting the government-allocated status of citizenship for deeper notions of ancestral belonging, the French Revolution sowed the seeds whose apocalyptic fruit is being reaped in our own time.

The Left were those who sat literally on the left of the national assembly in Paris. They were the firebrand Jacobins calling for their countries traditions to be put to the torch. The right, those who sat on the other side, were sceptical of the changes proposed and sought to restrain them.

There is really no reason to believe that conservatism has anything to do, per se, with libertarianism, free market economics or anti-statism. This definition of conservatism is an American import. Traditional definitions of conservatism, based around the defence of a people, cannot apply in America, because in America there is no people to be defended. America is an agglomeration of peoples, an artificial construct, a zoo in effect, not an organic nation serving as the home of an ancestral tribe.

Left and right has nothing inherently to do with big government or little government. The axis of difference is not economic, but moral: anti-nationalism versus nationalism. People are naturally nationalistic, so an argument could be made that anti-nationalism could only ever be made effective at the policy level through intrusive government action. Leftism, then, has a more natural tilt towards big government or even totalitarianism than conservatism does.

Since the dawn of time, however, unscrupulous rulers have sought to suppress the nationalist impulse. Their dreams of power caused them to erect empires that transcended the natural territorial limits of peoplehood. History is essentially just the chronicle of ordinary people attempting to resist the trans-nationalist machinations of rulers and assert their natural nationalist instincts in defiance of them. That struggle continues into our own time.

Whenever nationalists come to power, therefore, they are likely to find themselves not in what we might call the default condition of humanity: an extended kin group living as a homogeneous unit under its own governmental authority in its own ancestral homeland – but in some balkanised nightmare that has emerged from the scheming of power-mad rulers. Different ethnic groups will be living under the same government. Their lack of empathy with one another – proceeding from their genetic difference - will be the source of endless discord. They will plot against one another’s interests. Government policy will be the unsatisfactory end result of the mutual contention of these ethnic factions.

To unwarp this warped world will require government action, perhaps big government action. Once the natural nationalist balance of things has been restored; once trans-nationalist utopian fantasies have been abandoned and countries once again consist of ethnic cores cherishing and preserving their own distinctiveness, then perhaps conservatism can downsize into libertarianism and just let people do their own thing. Until that great day arrives, the insistence that true conservatism = minimal government action does not deserve to be taken seriously. And the claims that the Nazis were left-wingers should be dismissed as a profound error of understanding.


13 comments:

Anonymous said...

DP111 writes..

Excellent CZ

The French revolution has caused great damage to not just Europe, but worldwide. This revolution was the prototype for communism and all the barbarities that flowed.

Anonymous said...

The solution is a world federation by means of a world parliament. That way countries' nationalisms and world nationalism can co-exist.

Anonymous said...

The solution is a world federation by means of a world parliament.

Oh right. A world parliament where the West is outvoted by the Non-West every time, and the non-West has the right to vote to tax our wealth and change our immigration laws! Brilliant idea!

Anonymous said...

Plz read Leftism Revised-Nazi Germans were LEFTISTS-Goebbels was reuttering this on several occasions!

Anonymous said...

Indeed, Hitler and Mussolini (the father of fascism) are both self-avowed leftists; Mussolini was a member of the Italian socialists in the 20s and listed Marx as one of his inspirations.

Anonymous said...

"Der Idee der NSDAP entsprechend sind wir die deutsche Linke! Nichts ist uns verhasster als als der rechtsstehende Buergerblock!" Josef Goebbels, 6th December 1931

"According to the idea of the NSDAP we are the German Left! Nothing is more abhorrent to us than the right-wing bourgeoisie!"

Eric Dondero said...

You are wrong here Cherandenine, so, so wrong. The Nazis were the ultimate leftwingers. There was a reason it was called the German Socialist Workers Party. Hitler first instituted a minimum wage law when he became Chancellor. He hated free enterprise. His henchmen hunted down famed libertarian Ludvig von Mises. The Nazis hated capitalism.

Jonah Goldberg is spot on. You are dead wrong in this analysis.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net

Anonymous said...

Hitler was a German nationalist first - pro white and pro European. Where he adopted socialist concepts these were always subordinated to the ideal of the Folk. If you do not look at Hitler from this perspective your understanding will be flawed. You can say Hitler was a demon worshipper and a homosexual and a commie and even a mass murderer - you can say whatever you like - he may have been all of these things but its not relevant. Hitlers relevance is his love of his people - and white people generally - his tribe, his folk - the very same people who are right now being genocided out of existence.
Hitler and Himmler predicted what is now occuring to the white race - Hitler in particular understood what the future had in store for white people.
Consider what his sister said of him in 1957
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZR114apjEA

Anonymous said...

I think the racial supremacism, imperialism and violent anti-democratic rule of nazism was morally wrong and an absolute failure! That is to say without the insanity, Im a devout national socialist!

Nationalism is mother natures democratic socialism and nationalist democratic socialism is the reason why Europe is almost a paradise compared to the rest of the world.

Jonah Goldberg is a libertarian or a "classical liberal", that is to say he is at war with nature and the ethnic nature of mankind. He is also at war with social responsibility and as a libertarian/liberal a supporter of an internationalist plutocrat tyranny.

It is liars and fighters against nature like him who push for the destruction of european man. The nazis are long gone and no one wants to repeat their bloody mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Which bloody mistakes do you refer to? It was the World Congress of Jews meeting in New York in 1933 who declared war on Germany. It was Churchill who (after he was saved from bankrupcy by influential and well meaning jews) who, in 1937, said that Germany had to be destroyed. It was Britain and France who declared war on Germany in 1939 and then looked the other way when the Soviet Union did the same thing to Poland that Germany did (Stalin suckered Hitler into invading Poland by telling Hitler he would go in at the same time as the Germans). It was Britain and America who sided with the Bolshevik murderers against Germany. It was the Soviets who were poised to sweep through Germany and take all ofg Europe for communism forcing Germanys disastrous attack on Russia. It was Churchill who rejected 30 German overtures to stop the war. lt was the Americans, British and French who murdered 1.25 million German 'disarmed enemy combatants' in the Rhine 'meadows' and other open air 'camps' at the end of the war. It was the Allies who killed approx 9 million German civilians after the war ended. It was the jews who vastly inflated jewish numbers of war dead so as to massively profit from the war.
And it is whites who are now being genocided off the face of the planet.
Despite all the discussion about which is the best political dogma and despite the rewriting of history and all the coverups that got us to where we are now what l want to know is who is sticking up for the white race and who is against the white race because our backs are getting closer and closer to the wall they want us to line up against - right about now we need to unite and draw upon our inner aryan spirit - the spirit that has been very nearly killed off in us. Does your political ideology bolster our chance of surviving as a people?

Anonymous said...

Of course political ideology bolster your chances of survival! You can choose nationalism and survive, and you can chosse multiculturalism and die. Its not that difficult.

And dressing Hitler up as a saint is just a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

all we should know about the jews >> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html

Fab Bibleproph said...

The Palestinian Mufti Al Husseini, head of the Supreme Council of Arab countries, significant friend of Hitler, has participated in the elimination of Jews. History shows Al Husseini to be a brutal man with aspirations to rule a pan-Arabic empire in the Middle East. He rose to prominence by actively eliminating those Jews and Arabs he considered a threat to his control of Jerusalem's Arab population, and he heavily utilized anti-Jewish
propaganda to polarize the two communities. Most Mideast observers today recognize the younger Al Husseini by the secular name he adopted as his own in 1952, Yasser Arafat. http://www.islam-bible-prophecy.com
http://www.islam-bible-prophecy.com/book/islam-antisemitic-and-antichristian-spirit.pdf
http://www.islam-bible-prophecy.com/book/christians-persecution-in-muslims-countries.pdf

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews