Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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:
(“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 tattoo: Seig 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
What about just hating collectivists? Doesn’t that set include all the important subsets, or are there some collectivists we like?
Collectivists you like? I don’t know.
How do you feel about the prophet Ezra? How do you feel about Moses?
How do you feel about the American revolutionaries whose Declaration talked about a specific kind of collective–one people–acting together, suggesting that individuals have no political action available to them? How about Lincoln insisting on that phrase ‘of the people’ as opposed to ‘of the individual’?
Who taught you that politics is about individualism & collectivism?
Mind in the basic sense means intention. I have a mind to do this or that. There is an implication there, that the world & the man are such that action is possible. Thinking through those thoughts you can call theory; & the other practice.
Mind, of course, in a restricted sense, is obvious in other animals, too. Reasoning or the fullness of mind one sees in politics is the specifically human preserve.
I deny that we can escape from politics, where prudence is prospective but is judged retrospectively, into some scientific future where predictability & expertise have conquered chance. We have to live with mortality & our flawed reason.
Sure, it is not possible for human beings to leave themselves up to fate or providence. Striving & judging concerning circumstances is part of living as mortal men. But you do not determine value or worth when it comes to this–if you can figure out what man’s yearning for the divine means, that’s probably all you can hope for.
The things you can value or weigh are derivative of the city. Thinking about whether you value the city itself or weigh it against anything beyond it should be interesting. For now, let me merely clarify the priority of the law & the city it founds to human action of this valuing or weighing kind: The education & experience that allow you to even talk meaningfully about valuing & weighing are dependent on the city prior to your being & are provided to you.
That’s, “poo-tee-TWEET”….
(I could swear on my life it was “tweet”, instead of, “weet”, but the web is saying, “weet”. Now, dang it, I have to look it up in the book.)
Titus, go ahead and disagree with Midge, but this kind of contempt really doesn’t have a place here. It comes off as shouting when all we’re trying to do here is to have a conversation.
On the point of Midge’s use of the economics framework to address non-financial issues: I think it’s usefulness has limits. As she and BDB have been arguing, outside of macroeconomics it’s really the study of decision making. That is extremely useful – ie to know what a decision maker values and to speak intelligently as to why – but it’s hardly the whole story and I don’t think Midge claims it to be the whole story. Economics cannot tell us what we should value or which criteria such assessments should be based on.
I am not speaking with any contempt. Despite what you imply, I am as literal as possible: In the world in which human beings live, willy-nilly, it is obvious to anyone who considers the matter that Lent is unknown to most of mankind past & present. The exception is, where Christians predominate. This is not up for debate. Economics, however, cannot be said to obey any similar restrictions or patterns. Any relation between the two is contingent & the latter cannot deduce or comprehend the former. There is no way to explain adequately the phenomenon of Lent in an economics kind of reasoning. Caricature is inevitable–see above for the example.
Further, economics supposedly makes sense to any thinking human being who thinks about decision making &c. But Lent can only be learned one way–in a very specific situation, whether you call it a culture or a history or what have you. To not see that there is a great crisis here is a great feat of innocence. Speeches about these matters are literally fairy tales: They posit impossible entities.
Now, the business with the unpleasantness. I cannot thank you for likening my rhetoric to shouting. It nevertheless speaks well of you that you should leap to the defense of Midge. I cannot help you. Midge & I have talked too much–& you & I too little–for me to take your opinion over hers. Perhaps I am wrong & she will not do me the honor of chastizing me…
I am not sure whether your morality above & your vagueness here are connected, but I am tempted to say that you whisper as confusingly as I shout. What does ‘the whole story’ really mean here? Are you saying that economics is of necessity going to make a travesty of faith or not? Do you hold that any kind of economic thinking is adequate to explaining divine law or not? Does the successful study of economics, however you conceive of it, suffice for a man to become able to understand the Christian faith or any other? Or is another independent & irreducible study or experience necessary? Is the competent economist, in virtue of being an economist as opposed to some other quality, competent to speak about the doings & goings on of Christian or Jew or Muslim in their respective capacities as Christian or Jew or Muslim?
I think my post speaks for itself. Economics can tell us how people make decisions and why they make decisions, but it cannot tell us what decisions they should make without simply assuming criteria. That’s all I was saying – ahem, said.
You’re now asking questions (“does economics suffice to be able to understand the Christian faith?” and “Do you hold that any kind of economic thinking is adequate to explaining divine law or not?”) that tell me you’re not understanding either Midge or me.
We can embrace the Christian faith while still falling short of our obligations to that faith – for example choosing to succumb to an urge for chocolate over our obligation to observe Lenten fasting or choosing to sleep in on Sunday instead of going to mass.
These decisions give us information about the decision maker, about the priorities of that decision maker in those instances. While this is useful information, it tells us nothing ab out the objective value/worth, if any, of those priorities.
Mr. G, I advise you to rethink phrases like ‘choose to succumb.’ You may come to rethink choice & the moral implications thereof. But I do not know whether you will choose to rethink or choose not to rethink. To confess a wild sort of ignorance, I’m not even sure decision or deciding has anything to do with it.Whether you do or do not rethink certainly says something about you & I have no doubt about ‘the objective value/worth’ of this rethinking. You see how different we are-
Then the language you’ve chosen doesn’t match your intent.
Sure, it has its limits! What discipline doesn’t?!
Thanks, Ed.
You could have fooled me! Your words read as the most abominable kind of arrogance toward those who didn’t share your perspective.
I am willing to take your word that you did not mean it as such.
I know you know that. I was just trying to build a bridge between you and Titus.
With respect, you seem to be inhabiting a fantasy world here, with what appear to be ludicrously arrogant assumptions about others’ ignorance of life.
Of course that description isn’t an exhaustive description of shame. It is, however, a partial – and important – description of shame’s impact on human decisionmaking.
You presume too much. I know more than “I could die, feeling shame.” I know “Only the intensity of conflicting obligations has stayed my hand,” if you catch my drift. My “irenicism” comes from this knowledge.
One need not be a stranger to the deadly shame that craves only self-annihilation to know that, even in our extremest anguish – and extremest ecstasy – we are still decison-making creatures whose actions reveal much of who we are.
A discipline like economics doesn’t presume to pry into the depths of the soul. Instead, it busies itself with studying the soul’s “surface” as revealed in action. That doesn’t mean that economics denies the depths exist, or pretends the depths have no connection to the surface.
However, the surface is the region amenable to systematic observation, the region that interacts directly with the wider world. That’s what surfaces are.
Your efforts are appreciated, Ed.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake, Ed G.:I owe you both apologies. I was clearly in the wrong in both manner of address & meaning.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
But… I’ll be keeping an eye on you… ;-)
EDITED: Thank you Titus.
Hi Bathos,
Not only are you perspicacious, but your avatar is terrific.
I had to copy it over to a new tab and enlarge it in order to see what it was; the reward was delightful.
I believe you; every word.
Individualism (from the OS X Dictionary.app):
1 the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
– self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.
2 a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
Since we’ve been discussing political systems, the first definition of individualism does not apply here. Are you claiming that Communists and the Left adhere to “a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control”?
Yes, that’s exactly what all of us are claiming who have ever heard or read communists talk about the end they favor. It’s called the classless society, where human beings who have been transformed by the revolution are finally free as autonomous individuals–they have to be transformed into autonomous individuals, apparently–to do whatever it please autonomous individuals to do.
I’m not sure there is any dictionary that can help you with this, but you could try Marx. Hell, you could try Hegel, where he learned it.
But, isn’t every means they use to attain this unattainable goal the opposite of individualism?
In many ways, yes, but not in every way. The most obvious two limits on individualism before communists take over are tied together: The family & divine law, in the various ways various people organize that faith. Both are destroyed or severely mutilated by the communist tyranny. Take that away & people will be more individualistic, however much they may hate it. There’s more: With some notable exceptions, Communist tyranny requires industrialization, urbanization, & more modern education in the sciences & engineering, all of which is done such that individualism is fostered.
It is one part of humanity, I think, you have in mind–that human beings insist on privacy, on something about their being which is secret or concealed–this is tied up with human dignity in some way–this is indeed attacked ruthlessly by communist doctrine & practice, whenever & wherever it is thought safe to do so, & even sometimes when it is believed to be unsafe…
Or maybe you have in mind things like property rights & related–also true.
Those are part of what I have in mind. What underlies both of those is the idea I have that individuals exist, but groups don’t; i.e., individuals are metaphysically primary. Individuals have rights and groups do not. Groups are made up of individuals who join them — all the time, but for their own purposes. So, the “people” that formed a “more perfect union” was not a thing in itself that took priority over the individuals that constituted it.
Individuals cannot even beget individuals, much less teach themselves to reason. This sounds really silly. You need a mother & a father to come into being. & you need a city to teach people about the human things. That is irreducible to individuals. If community or common good is an illusion–it’s only really individual good aggregated!–then no community can ask any member to sacrifice for the sake of the community.
What Titus said, although I think the social groups that the communists want to destroy are not restricted to just the family and religious society. But if you destroy those, the rest will probably come, too.
Those are the basic things. Then, too, there is aristocracy, with its splendor. But I’m not sure Americans know or care about that. Except Henry James…
I look at it this way: rather than individuals “inheriting” their rights from the groups they are members of (e.g, Sally is a black, gay, Baptist woman, and therefore inherits the special rights accorded to blacks, gays, and Baptists), groups may “inherit” the rights of the individuals that make up their membership.
For example, incorporation allows a group of individuals to act as a single “legal person” before the law in many ways, because the individuals composing the corporation agree to do so – corporate personhood. (Which doesn’t mean that anyone is daft enough to think of corporations as “real people”, or that the act of incorporating entitles a group to special “group rights”, just that individuals may combine their rights in this way, and have their combination recognized as a single entity.) Admittedly, I am no lawyer, but I believe the basics are easy enough for a layman to understand.