Nazis. I Hate Nazis.

 

Strange times we live in when American conservatives — or some of them, anyway —  think it makes perfect sense these days for Europeans to get their Nazi groove on. I’ve been hearing this a bit too much on Ricochet of late, so I thought I’d make what in normal times would be an excessively easy call.

Nazis. I hate Nazis. And so should you.

The pro-Nazi argument, as I understand it, is that Europeans have been forced into their moist embrace by a political establishment that has unwisely ignored the larger public’s concern about the large number of migrants and refugees now streaming into Europe.

In discussing this, I’m going to single out comments by BDB not because he’s the only one to represent this argument, nor because I have it out for him, but because he’s tough and I know he can take it. I thus reproduce parts of an exchange we had on another thread:

BDB: You seem to view any opposition to Muslim immigration as such, and especially for cultural reasons, as akin to Nazis.  I’m sorry, but that’s a bad fit. This may make sense if you have a worldview that does not value Western Civilization, or which sees no threat to any culture through demographic change, but without at least one of those assumptions operating, mass Muslim immigration is fairly seen as a threat to Western Civilization. And not a single one of them has to intend harm in order to carry it out.

You don’t see danger — I do.  That doesn’t make me Hitler.  That makes me a conservative — literally — to conserve.  It’s disappointing to have to make that distinction here.

CB: No, you’ve misunderstood me, but I made this point on another thread, so perhaps you didn’t see it. I said that I don’t view opposition to Muslim (or other forms) of immigration as illegitimate or akin to the Nazis:

There are political parties in most of Europe that represent a more cautious or skeptical approach toward accepting refugees, but don’t wallow in the language, tropes, ideology, colors, and mud of traditional European fascism — or Putinism, for that matter. Germans who are uncomfortable with Merkel’s approach have the option, for example, of voting for the CSU, a perfectly respectable Christian conservative party. In France, they can vote for the Républicains — not that France under Hollande has taken in anything like an “inundation” of refugees; in fact, the total accepted in France so far is 14,800, with plans to take in another 24,000. It’s a myth that there are no mainstream parties to which voters may attach themselves if they’re uneasy about immigration.

What I view as akin to the Nazis are the parties and movements that are, in fact, explicitly Nazis (in that they say, “We are Nazis”) or very much akin to Nazis, in that they skirt laws or taboos against the formation of explicit Nazi movements by appealing to Nazi language, tropes, and ideology — e.g., Golden Dawn in Greece:

149327_402442516446610_100000425962344_1289883_576872380_n

(“The charm of the swastika, the splendor of red and black flag is alive today … our National Socialist task scream full of passion, faith in the future and our visions: HAIL HITLER!”) — Golden Dawn Issue 13.

(“Against the Jewish Life Perception whereby the Ioudaiochristinismos entered the history … Within the National Socialist renaissance dominance holds true religion of Europe paganism as an authentic expression of the religiosity of the Aryan man.”) –Golden Dawn Issue 59, p. 13-14

So I don’t think I’m straying into the territory of paranoia to suggest that Golden Dawn are akin to Nazis.

Some time ago, there were a spate of books written by European leftists like Nick Cohen — you may remember him; he wrote “What’s Left,” as well as by that great windbag BHL. They noted and deplored the European left’s willingness to ignore or justify Islamism in the name of multiculturalism. I see a similar tendency now on the right to ignore or justify the recrudescence of European fascism in the name of fighting Islamism. It’s a grave mistake.

BDB: And a reaction to the first.  Given a dominant political position that imports a culture-wrecking crew, do you really see other alternatives?  People who do not wish to be shoved off are being forced to lose or get offensive. Nobody chooses to lose.

Well, where do I start. While I don’t see “opposition to Muslim immigration as such, and especially for cultural reasons, as akin to Nazis,” I do see those who suggest that “there’s no alternative to the Nazis” as, very literally, akin to Nazis. That’s inarguable, no? If you’re offended at being tarred with the Nazi brush, I suggest it would be unwise to argue that Nazis are a natural reaction to anything, no less the only alternative in a sea of alternatives.

Let me quickly establish two important points. First, that the parties and movements we’re discussing are indeed Nazi parties. They are not misunderstood Jeffersonian Democrats with a curious but incidental taste for cuffbands, chevrons, belt buckles, commemorative badges, regimental standards, trumpet banners, field caps, service medals, shoulder flashes, permits, passes, boots, leather, chains, Iron Crosses, swastikas, and the Horst Wessel song. Their penchant for nattering on about Jewish Conspiracies and Blut und Boden is not a meaningless historic coincidence.

Here again is Golden Dawn:

Still not convinced?

No? Perhaps this will persuade you: When Nazi slogans were painted on Nikaia cemetery in Piraeus, Greece’s largest Jewish burial ground, they left behind their calling card: Hrisi Avgi — Golden Dawn. In May 2012, they ran under the slogan, “So we can rid this land of filth.” Party Leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos placed an adorable marble eagle on his desk. Here’s Golden Dawn MP Eleni Zaroulia during her inauguration, wearing the Iron Cross. Oh, and what have we here? Panagiotis Iliopoulos, another Golden Dawn MP, displaying his tattooSeig Heil!  Then there’s Artemis Matthaiopoulos, another Golden Dawn MP and the frontman of the tastefully-named band “Pogrom,” which churns out hits such as “Auschwitz” with lyrics such as “[redacted] Anne Frank” and “Juden raus.

Beginning to believe me yet? Well, let’s continue. Spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris quoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a speech to parliament on 23 October 2012. Golden Dawn’s leader, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, denied the existence of gas chambers and ovens at Nazi extermination camps:

“There were no ovens — it’s a lie. I believe it’s a lie. There were no gas chambers either,” Michaloliakos said in an interview with Greece’s private Mega television, broadcast on Sunday.

Then Golden Dawn MP Ilias Kasidiaris said it outright, in the Greek Parliament: He’s a Holocaust denier.

It’s not just the rhetoric, either: It’s the action:

Late on Thursday, about 50, wielding blunt objects, violently confronted Communist party members in the Greek capital while they were passing out flyers … Nine leftists were hospitalized after sustaining severe wounds.

“The way in which they acted and the weapons employed … are evidence of the murderous nature of the attack. Among the Golden Dawners, some of whom had covered their faces or wore helmets or [party] shirts, were their leaders, well-known fascists and thugs.”

In April 2014, Golden Dawn MP Ilias Panagiotaros described Hitler as a “great personality, like Stalin,” and denounced homosexuality as a “sickness.” He described immigrant Muslims to Greece as, “Jihadists; fanatic Muslims” and claimed that he supported the concept of a one-race nation, stating, “if you are talking about nation, it is one race.”

Look: If looks like a Nazi, swims like a Nazi, and quacks like a Nazi, it’s not a duck.

They’re now the third-largest party in the Greek Parliament, by the way.

Now, suppose you’re a normal Greek, not a Nazi, and you’d like to vote for a party that takes a tough line on immigration. Well, you could vote for ANEL, the Independent Greeks — they’re not particularly attractive; a bit of that old anti-Jew stench off hangs off of them, too — but at least they’re not outright Nazis. They have a strong anti-immigration agenda; they want a 2.5% quota for non-Greeks residing in the country, the mass expulsion of illegal immigrants, and a hierarchy of “preferred” immigration by country of origin, heavily biased towards western and Latin American countries. They’re a little crazy and little conspiracy-prone, but at least they’re not Nazis. Or you could vote for the perfectly sane, center-right New Democracy Party, which proposed during its recent time in office to introduce a strict immigration policy. They recently strengthened this part of their platform. Or perhaps you could vote for the Popular Popular Orthodox Rally, which describes itself as “Hellenocentric,” opposes illegal immigration, and suggests deporting all undocumented immigrants. “I don’t want them to become a majority,” party leader Giorgis Karatzaferis says. 

But frankly, if you’re Greek, it doesn’t seem that immigration is anything like the biggest of your concerns, no matter what you think Greeks should think. According to opinion polls — for what they’re worth — immigration barely even ranks in their top concerns. If you’re Greek, your biggest concerns (at least, as of last year) were “International Financial Stability,” (95 percent), followed by “Global Climate Change” (87 percent), followed by Iran’s nuclear program (64 percent). I certainly understand why the first and the third issues are sources of concern. As for the second, I am beginning to doubt that the Greeks are a fully rational people, but then again, Americans too seem much preoccupied by this fear.

So don’t tell me that becoming a Nazi is a perfectly understandable reaction to an ambient political class that won’t take seriously your concerns about the assault on European culture — especially because most Greeks, from what I can tell, don’t share your concerns. They seem to want to do the decent thing toward these boat people, and I find it impossible to blame them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOVx_reOlXQ

This post is too long as it is, but I’ll continue tomorrow by looking at other countries, other parties, and other plans for handling the refugee influx beyond The Nazi Option. I will, I hope, convince you that there are many alternatives to Nazis. Stay Tuned.

Published in Foreign Policy, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 249 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    Ball Diamond Ball:Non-Europeans are not the only ones with a culture that they cherish and will defend.

    Just to repeat, I’m not sure how much Europeans, at least western Europeans, want to defend their culture.  Claire stipulates one of her Five Steps for successful integration of this deluge of immigrants is the abolition of multiculturalism. This is laughable. Multiculturalism, or anti-racism, is the religion in Sweden, Germany, Holland, etc. If Claire thinks a political entity that endlessly prosecutes an Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf for merely teaching that Mohammed was a pedophile will get rid of multiculturalism, then, I’m sorry — Berlinski fan though I am — she’s out of touch.

    You cite polls and treaties. I’m saying that people are not going to put up with this.

    She keeps repeating Europe’s being locked in to treaties; ergo they must accept being inundated with immigrants.  But as far as I can tell, most of these immigrants are coming from already safe zones.  And I seriously doubt the signers to these treaties ever contemplated any injunction to accept refugees in such numbers as to cause serious fraying to their social fabric.

    “Hour upon hour, national governments bolt from the European Union’s legal framework, and stick settled treaties into the shredder. The Bundeskanzlerin [Merkel] makes no exception in this.”

    -“In Europe Prevails a Collective State Failure

    • #91
  2. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    [quote continued from comment 90]

    For instance, Rummel reclassified Mao Zedong‘s Great Leap Forward as democide in 2005. He originally believed that Mao’s policies were largely responsible for the famine, but that Mao’s advisers had misled him. Therefore, he believed it was not an intentional famine and thus not a democide. However, reports from Jung Chang and Jon Halliday‘s Mao: The Unknown Story allege that Mao knew about the famine from the beginning but didn’t care, and eventually Mao had to be stopped by a meeting of 7,000 top Communist Party members. Based on this new evidence, Rummel now believes the famine was intentional and considers it a democide. Taking this into account, the total for Chinese Communist Party democide is 77 million, more than the Soviet Union (62 million), Nazi Germany (21 million), or any other regime in the 20th century.

    • #92
  3. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    It seems to me that the fault of racial ideologies lies with the categorical errors made by early speculators in human genetics. What was clear to them in the 19th century was that clearly there were distinguishable groups of humans (ie. races), to them the term race was nearly synonymous with what today we would call a species, and it should be noted that even today species is a moving target in terms of definitions.

    In the 19th century the cataloging of various species was a taxonomic affair. It was done based on differences in habitat and morphology. Today it is done on genetic relationship. The two methods have a good deal of overlap, but simple taxonomy has not held up when put up against genetics when it comes to fine distinctions in morphology ie. just cause two rabbits have different colors is no longer a basis for calling them different species.

    The geneticist of the late 19th and early 20th century made a bold prediction, based on their limited understanding. They predicted that the differences between Europe, Asia, and Africa in terms of culture and development were due to inherit genetic characteristics. Much in the same way that the differences between tigers and lions. On this hypothesis they grafted their view that their culture was superior and that therefore so to was their genetics. Since the linchpin was genetic any dilution of the genes would mean a dilution of the culture. Hence their love of for eugenics.

    • #93
  4. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Valiuth: …Since the lynch pin was genetic…

    I see what you did there.

    • #94
  5. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Ultimately this view of genetics as upstream of culture was an untested hypothesis at the time of its maximum social and political influence. Their hypothesis was so good in their opinion, and held such convenient explanatory power for their prejudices that it required immediate adoption as a means for guiding social policy. When coupled with preexisting notions of antisemitism it provided a scientific justification for the prejudices already existent in society.

    Today the theory has been well tested, and nothing in its claims can be substantiated to any plausible degree. Certainly different human populations have genetic differences, but no genetic mechanism has been shown that could have an impact on culture so broad as to align with the views of the advocates of early racial theories.

    This is where the modern advocates of this thinking turn to conspiracy to explain away all unfavorable data or lack thereof as a plot to ignore the reality that these early scientists proposed. Shielded by the appeal to conspiracy, blinded by naked racism, and misguided by early and highly speculative science (really some of those early geneticist were probably pseudo-scientist, but I haven’t read them enough to firmly assert that) the modern Nazi is trapped in a pitiable intelectual state.

    That said they are not mad, or stupid, and to many who are untrained in critical thinking this complete world view can offer an appealing narrative that is grounded in enough reality to make it sound intuitive and plausible.

    • #95
  6. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Valiuth: …Since the lynch pin was genetic…

    I see what you did there.

    Ha indeed. That was actually not wit but rather sloppy writing. Alas, my finger move faster than they should, and I don’t always proof read all that I post….but thanks for catching that.

    • #96
  7. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Nazis. I Hate Nazis.

    An interesting dilemma.  Should I hate a people that have not done anything to me and mine in recent history but whose ancestors did make war on mine?   Should I hate these folks in the name of another people (Muslims) that regularly profess to hate me and mine, all I stand for, all I believe and threaten war upon me and mine?   I am not inclined to be friendly with either group, but of the two groups it would seem to me that the Muslims are much more a threat to my way of life than some remnants of a political philosophy that was crushed 70 years ago.

    • #97
  8. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    I hate socialists of all stripes – hate being the habit of anger and fear, to be clear. Nazis are no worse than communists. Do you hate communists, Claire?

    • #98
  9. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Fake John Galt:

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Nazis. I Hate Nazis.

    An interesting dilemma. Should I hate a people that have not done anything to me and mine in recent history but whose ancestors did make war on mine? Should I hate these folks in the name of another people (Muslims) that regularly profess to hate me and mine, all I stand for, all I believe and threaten war upon me and mine? I am not inclined to be friendly with either group, but of the two groups it would seem to me that the Muslims are much more a threat to my way of life than some remnants of a political philosophy that was crushed 70 years ago.

    Whether they have been crushed or not is the debate of this decade.

    I think they are like germs, like bacteria, and if we don’t get rid of all of them, they will come back stronger than ever. :)

    Maybe I don’t want to eradicate them all until they commit a crime, but I sure want to keep an eye on them at all times. :)

    • #99
  10. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Ed G.:

    Miffed White Male:I’ll get upset with nazi-like parties in Europe the day after the communist parties in Europe get treated with the same disgust by the same European elite who are so upset by the Nazis.

    Stalin killed more people than Hitler did.

    And it was Stalin’s non-aggression pact with Hitler that enabled the Nazis to start WWII.

    It doesn’t have to be one or the other for us, though. Both are repugnant; both are simply different sides of the same anti-liberal coin.

    EDIT: I see Concretevol said the same already, right down to the same metaphor. I swear I’m not copying from his paper!

    I wasn’t saying “one or the other”.  I’m saying both.  Why have Communist parties been welcomed into government membership in modern europe, but Nazis shunned?

    • #100
  11. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    Barfly:I hate socialists of all stripes. Nazis are no worse than communists. Do you hate communists, Claire?

    Well, as Emil Fackenheim said, there is a reason why Nazism burned itself up so much more quickly than did communism. Nazism was (is) nihilistic to its core. Say what one will about Marx and marxism — and there’s plenty sanguinary ideation in Marx and his groupies by their own words  — they were at least trying to understand an external world independent of rank subjectivity, or a will that wills nothingness than not will at all (Nietzsche).

    Leo Strauss’s lecture “On German Nihilism,” which I’ve started re-reading tonight is extremely powerful, edifying.

    It’s important to see that when the reds and browns were beating each other to a pulp in the streets of Weimar Germany, this really meant something to them.

    This was not internecine war.

    It’s misleading to say, “take away the nationalism, and what you’re left with is roughly indistinguishable from the communists” — a view proffered a few times on this thread.

    To make a long story short, nazism (irrespective of whether individual nazis held it consciously, which overwhelmingly most did and do not) has to be understood as a phenomenal reaction to the movement unleashed in history: the French Revolution. Marxism was essentially an extension of it.

    On that note, Claire is mistaken — i.e., “unwise to argue that Nazis are a natural reaction to anything.”   She should read that Strauss essay.

    • #101
  12. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Miffed White Male: I wasn’t saying “one or the other.”  I’m saying both.  Why have Communist parties been welcomed into government membership in modern Europe, but Nazis shunned?

    The communists should also be shunned.

    • #102
  13. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Robert Lux: a phenomenal reaction to the movement unleashed in history: the French Revolution. Marxism was essentially an extension of it.

    Yup. Both were.

    • #103
  14. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Robert Lux: Well, as Emil Fackenheim said, there is a reason why Nazism burned itself up so much more quickly than did communism.

    Two reasons, actually. Nazism was nationalist, which circumscribed its appeal. And it was beaten soundly.

    To credit its nihilism for its demise is after-the-fact rationalization – Nazism was no more nihilistic than any other a-theist philosophy, and arguably less so than communism. Its promises were at least concrete.

    • #104
  15. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Miffed White Male:

    Ed G.:

    Miffed White Male:I’ll get upset with nazi-like parties in Europe the day after the communist parties in Europe get treated with the same disgust by the same European elite who are so upset by the Nazis.

    Stalin killed more people than Hitler did.

    And it was Stalin’s non-aggression pact with Hitler that enabled the Nazis to start WWII.

    It doesn’t have to be one or the other for us, though. Both are repugnant; both are simply different sides of the same anti-liberal coin.

    EDIT: I see Concretevol said the same already, right down to the same metaphor. I swear I’m not copying from his paper!

    I wasn’t saying “one or the other”. I’m saying both. Why have Communist parties been welcomed into government membership in modern europe, but Nazis shunned?

    I don’t know the answer to that. I do know, though, that we shouldn’t wait for the commies to get their due before we get upset about nazi like parties. We should continue to get upset about all illiberal groups.

    • #105
  16. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Fake John Galt:

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Nazis. I Hate Nazis.

    An interesting dilemma. Should I hate a people that have not done anything to me and mine in recent history but whose ancestors did make war on mine? Should I hate these folks in the name of another people (Muslims) that regularly profess to hate me and mine, all I stand for, all I believe and threaten war upon me and mine? I am not inclined to be friendly with either group, but of the two groups it would seem to me that the Muslims are much more a threat to my way of life than some remnants of a political philosophy that was crushed 70 years ago.

    I disagree with your characterization of the problem. Taking the side of or choosing to ignore Nazis exacerbates issues created in multi ethnic societies. The Nazis oppose and actively seek to prevent assimilation between Europeans and non-Europeans. A Nazi conception of the world, which I fear many more Europeans share intuitively (ie. blood drives culture) makes it hard to integrate Muslims into a European society. Having Nazis and Muslim immigrants makes the problem far worse than having either one alone.

    Furthermore you seem to tar Muslims with a rather broad brush while holding back on judging these neo-Nazis in a similar manner. It would seem to me that the average Muslim immigrant has less connection to Islamist ideology than any neo-Nazi has to actual Nazism.

    • #106
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Robert Lux: Leo Strauss’s lecture “On German Nihilism,” which I’ve started re-reading tonight is extremely powerful, edifying.

    Thanks for the link.  I’m in the process of reading it.

    I must confess that I tend to distrust abstractions that aren’t accompanied by concrete examples of what specific people said and did. In other words, I wish Strauss had possessed the gift that he said he lacked — that of a lyrical reporter. (page 359)  But I’m reading it anyway.

    • #107
  18. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Barfly:I hate socialists of all stripes – hate being the habit of anger and fear, to be clear. Nazis are no worse than communists. Do you hate communists, Claire?

    I can’t speak for Claire, but I for one hate communists, I would say my feelings towards them even border on irrationality at times. At least in my gut reaction to them. In fact I must say I probably loath them on a visceral level more than I loath Nazis. Though, I would not begrudge anyone for personally hating the Nazis more than the Communists.

    That said why do we need to choose? To quote Patton we should “attack in both directions”.

    • #108
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Why must fascism wear an armband or a swastika when it comes again?  Fascism always seems fair of face and beguilingly complimentary at first. Always.

    In this day and age fascism calling itself fascism, or openly claiming a relationship to the Nazis, would undercut both of these for any but a fringe in the West. And yes, the fringe exists, but without broader support it is irrelevant.

    This site has a number of definitions, among them (emphasis added):

    Bosworth avoids a succinct definition of Fascism for reasons he himself summarizes as follows:

    “…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter?  All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined).

    And it’s that definition of a foe (that’s central to world view) fluid enough to go beyond racial or religious group that is fascism’s entry point today.  We can be fascists without being racists or religious bigots.

    • #109
  20. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    The Reticulator:

    EThompson: It’s important to note that anti-Semitic behavior also originated as anti-capitalism.

    Really? I’d need a lot more evidence in order to be convinced. Also, there was anti-Semitic behavior long before there was Hitler.

    True, anti-Semitism in Europe is very old. In modern Germany, was it Protestants or Catholics who did more to stoke it?

    The kind of insanity that called itself anti-semitism is of recent vintage–the 1870s. It claimed science had proved the races different & one superior…

    As for German anti-capitalism–there are two strands of thought here. First, anti-Semitism was in many cases the exemplar of an opinion that finance capitalism was bad–that the banks were crooked or exploitative. This is not to say the same people wanted to burn down factories, for example, or give up modern weaponry… I guess Marx is as good an example of anti-capitalist anti-Semitism of this kind as any…

    Secondly, there is a Romantic yearning in what people in Germany called their culture. That is simply incompatible with the rights-based individualism of liberalism, the thinking behind capitalism. The Romantic yearning has to do with ties beyond the understanding of voluntarily-entered-into contracts advertised as mutually beneficial. The strength of this faith is its claim that peaceful prosperity, the selling point of capitalism, is not desirable in itself & may be deadly. I am not sure this makes any sense to Americans…

    • #110
  21. captainpower Inactive
    captainpower
    @captainpower

    Barfly:

    Robert Lux: Well, as Emil Fackenheim said, there is a reason why Nazism burned itself up so much more quickly than did communism.

    Two reasons, actually. Nazism was nationalist, which circumscribed its appeal. And it was beaten soundly.

    To credit its nihilism for its demise is after-the-fact rationalization – Nazism was no more nihilistic than any other a-theist philosophy, and arguably less so than communism. Its promises were at least concrete.

    Great point.

    To say Nazism burned itself out while Communism fizzled out (I guess that’s the opposite?) ignores the whole war angle.

    We killed Nazism and Tojoism because they were nationalist – limited to a specific country. It was much harder to kill Communism because it was internationalist and imperialist (and we were undermined by spies and useful idiots from within) – but the cold war was not an act of passivity.

    Neither Nazism or Communism disappeared on their own (to the extent that either one even really disappeared).

    • #111
  22. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Zafar:This site has a number of definitions, among them (emphasis added):

    Bosworth avoids a succinct definition of Fascism for reasons he himself summarizes as follows:

    “…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter? All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined).

    And it’s that definition of a foe (that’s central to world view) fluid enough to go beyond racial or religious group that is fascism’s entry point today. We can be fascists without being racists or religious bigots.

    Well, that’s very reassuring. But all political associations excludes their enemies & that does not make all politics fascism, does it? Wanting to exclude people who want to be included–like Australia with foreigners–does not make for fascism, does it? Do you mean, treat other people already within the association as enemies? Is every civil war fought by fascists?

    • #112
  23. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    The Reticulator:

    Robert Lux: Leo Strauss’s lecture “On German Nihilism,” which I’ve started re-reading tonight is extremely powerful, edifying.

    Thanks for the link. I’m in the process of reading it.

    I must confess that I tend to distrust abstractions that aren’t accompanied by concrete examples of what specific people said and did. In other words, I wish Strauss had possessed the gift that he said he lacked — that of a lyrical reporter. (page 359) But I’m reading it anyway.

    I’ve been rereading it, too, that & Living issues in post-war German philosophy. (Post-Great war.) They’re not abstractions, except to the extent required by the talk itself–they’re a thinking through someone’s life or experience. It’s not easy to get from the experience to the explanations, but it’s worth trying given the extraordinary achievements & ambitions of Germany before the horror she became…

    • #113
  24. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    captainpower:

    Barfly:

    Robert Lux: Well, as Emil Fackenheim said, there is a reason why Nazism burned itself up so much more quickly than did communism.

    Two reasons, actually. Nazism was nationalist, which circumscribed its appeal. And it was beaten soundly.

    To credit its nihilism for its demise is after-the-fact rationalization – Nazism was no more nihilistic than any other a-theist philosophy, and arguably less so than communism. Its promises were at least concrete.

    Great point.

    To say Nazism burned itself out while Communism fizzled out (I guess that’s the opposite?) ignores the whole war angle.

    We killed Nazism and Tojoism because they were nationalist – limited to a specific country. It was much harder to kill Communism because it was internationalist and imperialist (and we were undermined by spies and useful idiots from within) – but the cold war was not an act of passivity.

    Neither Nazism or Communism disappeared on their own (to the extent that either one even really disappeared).

    Wrong on the very terms you’re both offering: it’s precisely because it’s wedded to a Blut und Boden ideology — romanticism plus militarism fixated on “the particular” opposed to “the universal” of communism; moreover, militarism of a kind utterly unlike communism — that it burnt itself up so much more quickly.

    There’s no after-the-fact rationalization. Strauss’s lecture was written in 1940.

    It’s impossible to read it and not see the brownshirts and communists were, at their core, two completely different animals.

    • #114
  25. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Zafar:Why must fascism wear an armband or a swastika when it comes again? Fascism always seems fair of face and beguilingly complimentary at first. Always.

    In this day and age fascism calling itself fascism, or openly claiming a relationship to the Nazis, would undercut both of these for any but a fringe in the West. And yes, the fringe exists, but without broader support it is irrelevant.

    This site has a number of definitions, among them (emphasis added):

    Bosworth avoids a succinct definition of Fascism for reasons he himself summarizes as follows:

    “…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter? All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined).

    And it’s that definition of a foe (that’s central to world view) fluid enough to go beyond racial or religious group that is fascism’s entry point today. We can be fascists without being racists or religious bigots.

    One of the reasons that fascism disappeared so totally is partially obscured by these definitions.

    captainpower: To say Nazism burned itself out while Communism fizzled out (I guess that’s the opposite?) ignores the whole war angle.

    Captain Power is stronger here; Japanese culture was changed far more fundamentally than German culture, and not because it was entirely nihilist; the Zen Buddhism of the leaders has a lot of faults, but nihilism isn’t really one of them.

    Another key reason, though, is that they didn’t have to change their beliefs too much to change their labels. The Nazis dramatically expanded the welfare state as one of their central platforms, building on Bismark’s work, and were succeeded by Social Democrats with the same beliefs. The Nazis dramatically increased focus on massive state infrastructure programs, building on Bismark’s work, and were succeeded by Social Democrats with the same beliefs. The same goes for environmental law, progressive taxation, and other areas of reform. Bismark worked hard to bring labor into harmony with society by adopting a corporatist social model that Hitler turned into law. Hitler’s labor law reforms are still in place today, but have been expanded on by the Social Democrats.

    The two areas where the Bismark – Hitler – Social Democrats escalator is broken are the Holocaust and militarism. While Hitler built on the Kaiser’s use of atrocities and on previous German anti-semitism and expanded on it (the difference there is greater than in the previous examples), the Social Democrats stopped it. They’re still terrible on Israel, but they are not, as a party, formally anti-Semitic. While they waffle when it comes to Commie/ Russian atrocities, they don’t massacre people themselves.

    • #115
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Titus Techera:Well, that’s very reassuring.

    Well it’s not, really.  Fascism can sneak up on one.  And the fact that it’s beguiling to begin with – and is probably a universal tendency (though not inevitability) – makes it more dangerous, not less.

    But all political associations excludes their enemies & that does not make all politics fascism, does it?

    No, of course not.  But if you combine that ideological focus on an enemy with the other factors that Mussolini mentioned, then it may indicate a fascist trend.

    Wanting to exclude people who want to be included–like Australia with foreigners–does not make for fascism, does it? Do you mean, treat other people already within the association as enemies?

    As enemies because intrinsically different and therefore mad, bad, dangerous to know, polluting, culturally degrading, sexually voracious, violent, dirty, aggressive, dishonest…

    Scratch the surface and it’s like reading a modified Der Sturmer.

    I don’t think Australia does this with boat people – and we take a lot of refugees per capita, mostly from places like the Middle East or Somalia or Burma – but at the same time I doubt we’d be sticking boat arrivals in detention if they were mostly English.

    Is every civil war fought by fascists?

    No.  But many are – think ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, think religious massacres in Lebanon – and every pogrom is prosecuted by them. (Whatever they call themselves.)

    • #116
  27. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    Titus Techera:

    The Reticulator:

    Robert Lux: Leo Strauss’s lecture “On German Nihilism,” which I’ve started re-reading tonight is extremely powerful, edifying.

    Thanks for the link. I’m in the process of reading it.

    I must confess that I tend to distrust abstractions that aren’t accompanied by concrete examples of what specific people said and did. In other words, I wish Strauss had possessed the gift that he said he lacked — that of a lyrical reporter. (page 359) But I’m reading it anyway.

    I’ve been rereading it, too, that & Living issues in post-war German philosophy. (Post-Great war.) They’re not abstractions, except to the extent required by the talk itself–they’re a thinking through someone’s life or experience. It’s not easy to get from the experience to the explanations, but it’s worth trying given the extraordinary achievements & ambitions of Germany before the horror she became…

    Thanks for reminding me of “Living Issues” — I had flagged that a few years ago as a “to read” and completely forgot about it…

    BTW, all this recent nazi talk is fortuitous given Jeremy Rabkin’s just posted, amusingly entitled “Springtime for Schmitt.”  I’m thinking I shall do a post on Rabkin’s piece for Ricochet soon…

    • #117
  28. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    James Of England:One of the reasons that fascism disappeared so totally is partially obscured by these definitions.

    Explain?

    Because Fascism is back – by whatever name – and back in a big way in India, and Sri Lanka, and Russia, and (imho) China, and (perhaps again) in parts of Europe.

    Is it going to tempt the good people of the Americas?  How could it not?

    • #118
  29. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Sabrdance:

    James Of England:

    Tommy De Seno:One man’s patriot is another man’s nationalist…

    As Sabr says, “they fight”. As Sabr knows, Kentucky is partly the charming state that it is because the Kentucky Constitution has uniquely strong rules against fighting.

    I love this state, but that’s the first time I’ve heard that particular clause referred to as “charming” instead of “hilarious.”

    But I think it’s worth remembering the reason it exists: our people did settle political disputes with duels, and that was not a good way to represent the people (the victory went to the fast, lucky, or good shots, not to the just, righteous, or correct). At the present time, the fights are not being won by the just, righteous, or correct, but by the mendacious, tendentious, and demagogic.

    In those circumstances, the even chance of the duel has appeal.

    I hope you are feeling better about mendacious, tendentious, and demagogic fights in Kentucky than at the point of posting.

    • #119
  30. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Zafar:

    James Of England:One of the reasons that fascism disappeared so totally is partially obscured by these definitions.

    Explain?

    Because Fascism is back – by whatever name – and back in a big way in India, and Sri Lanka, and Russia, and (imho) China, and (perhaps again) in parts of Europe.

    Is it going to tempt the good people of the Americas? How could it not?

    Fascism was a Syndicalist movement. Mussolini split off from the rest of the Syndicalists, but he kept most of his beliefs and he maintained ties. They talk about the state doing a lot, but they ignore the organization of society into structures that allow stakeholders to express their positions in a unifying manner. By ignoring the content of the Fascist and Nazi platforms and focusing instead exclusively on the procedural and rhetorical stuff, they downplay the continuity between fascism and its predecessors and successors and heighten the sense of discontinuity. They also reduce the obviousness of the degree to which their preferred political philosophies are related to fascism.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.