There is probably little need to give a breakdown of where the term Nazi came from. Its actual origin in terms of its use by Hitler and the Germans is almost entirely irrelevant for this discussion specifically. Even explaining what the term refers to is almost surely a waste of time. It is used so commonly as an insult or shaming tactic that even the most uneducated person in the western world, who doesn’t know the first thing about World War II, has at least heard of the Nazis. There is even something called Godwin’s Law that states the longer an internet discussion goes on, the probability of a Nazi or Hitler comparison approaches 100%. This term was even entered into the Oxford English Dictionary in 2012. It seems as if there is no need to give an introduction to the word Nazi, it is already ubiquitous…
…but why? It can’t only be due to mass death caused by the regime while almost conquering the whole of Europe. With the likes of Mao and Stalin to contend with, there must be a reason Hitler and the Nazis are singled out. Just like all the other political tactics, there is a reason why Nazis are used as the epitome of evil instead of the many other options to choose from, we just have to find out why.
To start, let’s just examine Godwin’s Law for a second. With a closer look, it’s rather silly. As the length of any discussion grows, the probability of anything being mentioned approaches 100%, but this is not the point of the law. Even the creator knows and acknowledges this. He says, “Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.” Ah, there it is, I think we found it boys. We need to remember the Holocaust. We need to think about the Holocaust. We need not forget the Holocaust. We need to make movies about the Holocaust. We need to constantly reference the Holocaust. We need to constantly exploit the Hall of Cost. The Holodomor? Forget that. Sure, there are some things emotional manipulation can’t buy, but for everything else there’s Holocaust. I don’t know about you, but I get the feeling someone keeps bringing up the Holocaust to exploit white western nations for personal gain.
History teaches us if there is any story that we can be sure is not true, it’s the official one. History truly is written by the victors, and the story of WWII is no exception. Learning history in grade school often comes with narrative structure. That structure might be there to make the events more easily absorbed by having a good guy fighting against a bad guy, but who is labeled “good” and who is labeled “bad” is often determined by where or when you’re learning about the events. In this way, history is determined by who tells it. Events are included or left out, narratives are spun about motives, and eventually the mind, especially a young mind, is naturally fixed to a position. As with most ideas or perspectives, once the mind has decided on a way to view the world, changing that view becomes much harder. First impressions are vital. Once the Nazis are established as the epitome of evil, the association is hard to break. At the end of WWII there was a group of victors who were more than happy to paint the most recent attempted conquest by unified Germans as the quintessential manifestation of man’s evil. This time, however, the world was drastically different than in previous centuries. The atomic bomb had been dropped, the cold war had begun, and those who orchestrated the annihilation of the Russian people had successfully conquered the Germans and securely rooted themselves in the new global super power of the United States.
The jewish Bolsheviks created a system under which millions of Russians and other Slavic people were murdered, starved, or exiled during nearly a century of destructive communist dictatorship. The jews dominated the Weimar period in Germany with a similar Trotskyist philosophy up until the National Socialists effectively allowed Germans to rule over themselves once again. Then, the hubris and strategic incompetence of Hitler lead the Germans to crushing defeat in WWII. The German people were not only fragmented after the war, but many German soldiers were either left to die or even intentionally murdered in prison camps after the war. (It has been said that nearly one million German soldiers died in captivity after the war. These numbers are disputed, but I do not believe those who disagree with what I am saying here want to open the can of worms that is accurate/inaccurate death toll numbers from events surrounding WWII). Half lived under the communist dictatorship they were trying to avoid, while the other half lived in a more prosperous occupied state. Either way, the German people were no longer in charge of their own destiny. And finally, after the dust settled on WWII, those same jewish revolutionaries were now influential academics in the United States. The eventual erosion of American culture epitomized by the 1960s is largely due to their subversive academic works and intellectual movements.
The fact is, the narrative of WWII has been heavily determined by those who tell it. The supposed evil of the Germans and tragedy of the holocaust is used as a rhetorical device for political purposes. I do not wish to argue the truth or authenticity of claims about the holocaust in this piece. I’m simply pointing out that the Nazis and the holocaust are chosen as political and cultural weapons for very specific reasons. The fact that the Nazi Swastika and the toothbrush mustache are still taboo symbols in almost every context, while the Soviet Hammer and Sickle and the Che Guevera portrait are not only not taboo symbols, but are actively flaunted by various political movements and college students, is simply one example of irrational perception of Nazi evil. One might argue that it is the communist ideas and symbols that are not properly maligned, rather than the Nazi symbols and ideas being unfairly maligned. My point is not to argue either way, but to simply point out the obvious discrepancy and attempt to explain the reason for this phenomenon, at least as it pertains to how the term “Nazi” is used as a political and cultural weapon. Underlying the rhetorical use of Nazism against any political or cultural movement is the assumption that any ethnically homogenous, non-jewish, racially white group will eventual lead to another quintessentially evil event. Therefore, all ethnically homogenous, non-jewish, racially white groups are intrinsically evil. This assumption obviously isn’t correct, but the jewish intellectuals who established themselves in the United States during the 20th Century have done their best to convince you otherwise.
Accusing someone of being a Nazi is a political tactic used to negatively label any right wing, nationalist, or ethnically homogenous white gentile group. This is especially true if such a group is aimed at affecting, or could eventually affect, political action. Despite the fact that blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and jews are allowed to publicly create racially homogenous and exclusive groups within white countries, the various white majority groups are not allowed to publicly create similar groups without politically motivated moral outrage that usually involves the accusation of white supremacy or Nazism. The typical subversive explanation for this double standard would be that white groups like these are not allowed because the default group is a white group due to the country’s white majority. For instance, Black Entertainment Network is allowed to exist because all other non-racially labeled entertainment networks are white, but this is just a rhetorical diversion. Not only are the non-racially labeled groups not exclusively white, but there are often racially diverse quotas legally or socially enforced on these standard non-racially labeled groups. In addition, does anyone really think that such illogical discrimination against whites will change once they are no longer a majority in the US? Regardless, logical consistency demands either ethnically homogenous groups are allowed to exist, or they are not. If one race is singled out as not being allowed to form a homogenous group, the person or persons doing the singling out can only be described as racist. Therefore, anyone who conjures up reasons as to why whites should not be allowed to form exclusive groups can refer to my piece titled “Racist,” seeing as they are now attempting to be described by the only meaningful definition of racist that exists.
To get a complete picture as to why the label Nazi is used against homogenous white groups, we must first understand the reason why Nazi is used to label authoritarian right-wing political movements despite the fact that the Nazi’s enacted what would traditionally be seen as leftists political and economic policies. (I don’t want to argue about whether or not the Nazis were on the right or the left, as any such discussion is simple misdirection of the underlying issues at hand. The right/left and authoritarian/libertarian political spectrum can be useful, but is not an end all be all for political belief despite its usefulness.) Over the past 150 years, jewish intellectuals in the west have used radical leftist political movements to combat real or perceived antisemitism. This is mainly due to these movement’s usefulness in downplaying jewish-gentile distinctions and allowing jews to maintain their strong in group preferences while criticizing similar preferences in gentiles. One example from The Frankfurt School is a piece that can be best described as propaganda disguised as research titled “The Authoritarian Personality.” In this work, Adorno et al. essentially argue that all white, western, Christian family and social structures instill a pathological authoritarianism that will inevitably lead to a right-wing authoritarian horror similar to the Nazis, and most importantly to antisemitism. They do this through a complete inversion of reality. As one example, traditionally healthy parent child relationships are diagnosed as dishonest and deeply pathological, while traditionally abusive and neglectful parent child relationships are diagnosed as realistic and healthy. My point is not to get into the weeds of all the cultural, political, and intellectual subversion that has been taking place for more than a century, as this piece would end up being much too long. The point is that leftist political perspectives have been used as a method to subvert and deconstruct white western nations for a very specific reason.
The reason for taking aim at the political right is due to the different ways in which left and right ideologies lend themselves to deemphasizing or emphasizing race, respectively. The left has typically deemphasized race as a major factor in its politically ideology, instead favoring other distinctions such as class or economics. On the other hand, right wing movements have often relied on a nationalist racial solidarity as a key aspect of their political ideology. Although one might think that today’s political climate proves just the opposite, the insanity of the current left is not due to an emphasis on race, but a complete denial of its existence. Biology and genetics are routinely rejected as “social constructs” when it is politically advantageous to do so. Race is said to be the most unimportant factor of reality, possibly only tied with biological sex. It only becomes important because the current “powerful” and “privileged” white groups will not give up their status and resources. Then, race somehow becomes THE most important factor, and diversity becomes our strength. No one said this makes any coherent sense. In fact, the leftist political and philosophical ideas of the last century pride themselves in not only not making sense, but rejecting the very concept of logical consistency and sense making that has been used since the ancient Greeks. However, despite not making any sense, this form of insanity is pushed in order to combat antisemitism and prevent homogenous white groups from forming.
As I previously stated, many of these leftist ideas have been primarily pushed by groups of influential jewish intellectuals from the Boasian School of Anthropology, to Psychoanalysis, to the Frankfurt School, to the New York Intellectuals, to the Neoconservatives and more, as well as in influential political organizations such as AJCongress, AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, and others. Jews see antisemitism as much less of a threat in a multi-racial society, and therefore have played a major role in opening the United States to immigration from all over the world while also deemphasizing the importance of race in general. Given their beliefs about what happened in Nazi Germany, as well as Stalin’s removal of jews from power in the Soviet Union, it is understandable why jewish groups and the jewish people as a whole would want to support these policies and ideas. They believe that a homogenous white majority group will always pose a significant threat to the jewish diaspora. In order to prevent this threat, white identity and group cohesion must be attacked at all costs, and one of the most prominent tools used to attack and shame this group cohesion is the label Nazi.
One of the biggest lies we have been led to believe is the idea that the political spectrum, left/right and authoritarian/libertarian, is the most important factor in any political system. Although these political beliefs and ideas are consequential in their own right, they are a layer below a more important aspect of society, the level of ethnic diversity.
In order to succeed as a country, there must be a certain level of ethnic homogeneity. History has proven that diverse societies eventually devolve into violence between the various groups that are vying for power. Because of this, minority groups are always in danger of the eventual violent reaction of a strong homogenous majority. This is the reason why jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront of undermining group consciousness and strict immigration policy in European societies. Jews have lived as a distinct minority group within European societies for centuries, and as such they have often been subject to violence or forced removal from these societies. Similarly, we have seen minority white populations in various African nations fall victim to violence at the hands of majority black populations. However, such violence isn’t always limited to racial conflict. I used the word ethnic for a reason as the traditional definition of ethnicity is a combination of race and culture. Similar to racial diversity, cultural diversity will often devolve into extreme violence. This cultural conflict can be seen throughout history around the world.
The history of Britain since the fall of the Roman Empire is a perfect example of diverse cultures devolving into violence among what we would typically consider racially homogenous, or “white,” peoples. The English people did not exist during the Roman Empire. It wasn’t until after its collapse that a combination of Celts, Saxons, Angles, and Jutes violently fought for control of territory in the British Isles. After centuries of violence and assimilation, what emerged is an English people commonly referred to as Anglo-Saxons. Being still much different than their close neighbors in Ireland, these relatively small islands have a long history of continual ethnic conflict. Although today these groups would simply be considered “white,” there is still a seemingly never-ending battle between various distinct groups of peoples and those people’s distinct cultures. It has been shown, not just in this isolated location but all over the world, that when two or more fundamentally incompatible cultures are vying for resources there are only a few possible outcomes. Either one of the groups assimilates the other, or violence breaks out.
History has made it clear that a country must be composed of one nation, or a homogenous group that sees themselves as belonging together, otherwise competition for resources will eventually devolve into violence. Now, those who support the current paradigm of politically correct thought may argue, “If only we could get large groups of various races and cultures to see themselves as a homogenous group defined by their country, then we could create our diversity utopia.” Just as with every other utopian vision, this one relies on the rejection or annihilation of human nature. It doesn’t matter that we can theoretically create a society of diverse peoples living in harmony. What matters are the practical aspects of human nature and the physical limitations of the world around us. In the US, everyone from hardcore socialists to civic nationalists might want to dream of a country where all the nations of the world abandon their cultures and live under an individualistic American ideal, but such an idea is just a pipe dream. People do not, and will not, act this way. Such a diversity utopia simply goes against all that we know about human nature, and therefore, it is impossible.
So, why should we be so concerned about whites being politically and morally discouraged from forming ethnically homogenous groups? Well, whites should care because other groups and cultures are much less individualistic than whites. Ironically, this individuality is precisely why white countries are being slowly diversified. Whites are much more prone to adopt universalists moral and political ideas that don’t change based on group member status. In contrast, most other groups develop moral and political systems that change based on group membership, and jews are a prime example. Although it can be argued that this individualist mentality is part of what caused western white nations to create such advanced civilizations, this individualism can also lead to the extinction of whites if all traditionally white territories are ceded to other groups.
On the other hand, what about if you’re not white? Should you still care about this issue? Well, other than the fact that denying white’s ability to create homogenous groups while maintaining your own is not only contradictory and racist, non-whites living in white majority nations should be very concerned. Just ask the jewish neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatism was started by a new generation of US born jewish intellectuals starting in the 1960s. This new group rejected their parent’s radical leftist and socialist ideas, instead opting to view the US as a military force through which jews could protect Israel and further their goals in the middle east. One impetus for this change in perspective is the idea that cultural and ethnic subversion would produce an antisemitic backlash from the white majority rather than a perfect diversity utopia. Neocons opposed the undermining of traditional western European values because they saw how Germany, and eventually Russia, reacted to such undermining. The short-term results of trying to spread such radical ideas may have been a successful subversion of the culture, but the minority jewish diaspora in these nations suffered the consequences in the long run. Similarly, all minority ethnicities residing within any country must be concerned about an eventual negative reaction on the part of the majority. Especially if the minority has not assimilated and continues to grow and expand their wealth, power, and territory. In this way, the diversity of white western countries that has come about only through the exploitation of white individualism, cultural subversion, and moral shaming will inevitable cause violent conflict. Even if European whites are theoretically removed from the equation, the remaining diversity in Europe and America will head toward violent ethnic conflict.
The undermining of western white nations is not only racist, but foolishly dangerous and immensely evil. Among other things, the power of the US military has been used to wreak havoc on countless nations around the world, the cultures of white nations have been subverted to the detriment of all who belong to them, and white countries have been dangerously opened to the eventual violence of ethnic conflict. None of this has been done in the interest of the American or European peoples, but in the interest of an influential foreign elite. Nazi is one of the key terms of propaganda used to instill fear and shame in anyone who dares question or speak out against the diversity dogma. Anyone who opposes the undermining of European nations against their own interests is labeled a Nazi, especially if someone tries to suggest that European nations have the same moral right to exist as any other nation of people.
In this way, Nazi can be described as a racist slur against whites. Just think for a second about one of the most prominent and supposedly evil slogans of Nazis, the 14 words. If you don’t know these words then you may be surprised to find how mild they really are. In fact, replace the word “white” with any other racial group, or even with the last name of your family, and you would find this phrase is not only not the epitome of evil, but is something any sensible parent would wish for their family. The phrase is, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” The fact that this slogan is in any way associated with moral evil is a sure sign that we are living in times of incredible inversion of truth. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Diversity is Our Strength. Whites Have No Rights to Exist.
Racist has lost its original meaning. It is now a newspeak word used to discredit those speaking about or commenting on percieved or real differences between groups of people.
Sexist is a label thrown at men, and occasionally women, who dare question sexual egalitarian dogma. At its root, the term and the dogma are anti-family, anti-human, and ultimately antagonistic towards the happiness of both men and women.
Calling someone a Nazi is a quick way to accuse anyone with different political views of being morally reprehensible. Nazism is also used as a spectre to deter whites from having any form of ingroup preferance or conciousness. In general, the Nazis are used as a shortcute for pure evil despite many apt examples such as Holodomor, the Soviet Gulags, or Mao's China.
Bigot is a form of Newspeak used to attack those commiting Wrongthink and not adhereing to the politially accepted dogma of the time. Ironically, the term bigot is most often used by bigots themselves to silence differeing opinions.
The word homophobe or homophobic is used to shame anyone who is resistant to the increasing creep towards enforced homosexuality and broad exceptance of pedophilia.