There is probably little need to give a history of where the term Nazi came from. Its origin in terms of its use to describe Hitler and the Germans is almost entirely irrelevant for this piece. 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 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, Stalin, and many others 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. 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 Holocaust. The Holodomor? Forget that. Sure, there are some things basic 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 truly is written by the victors, and the story of World War II 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 when or where 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 World War II 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 a new global super power, 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 Wiemar period in Germany with a similar Trotskyist philosophy up until the National Socialists allowed Germans to rule over themselves once again. Then, the Germans were handed an even greater defeat than had befallen them in the first World War. The German people were not only fragmented after the war, but their cities were bombed and decimated with fire, burning civilians alive across much of the country. Many German soldiers were either left to die or 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 World War II). 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 this same group of revolutionaries’ subversive academic works and intellectual movements.
The fact is, the narrative of World War II 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 Guevara portrait are not only not taboo symbols, but are actively flaunted by various political movements and college students, is simply one example of the 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 homogeneous, non-jewish, racially White group will eventual lead to another quintessentially evil event. Therefore, all ethnically homogeneous, non-jewish, racially White groups are intrinsically evil. This assumption 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.
To get a complete picture as to why the label Nazi is used against homogeneous White groups, we must first understand the reason why the Nazi’s are singled out as uniquely evil. 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. 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. This attack on the western family is an attack on the foundation of the national identity and culture of Whites. When the ties that bind a people together are undermined and weakened, they have a much harder time taking action as a group. Taking action, whether it be coordinating in an economy or fighting a war, requires that people feel a sense of group identity that distinguishes them from another people. In the same way, when a majority group is paralyzed by lack of identity, minority groups are at low risk of being brought into any kind of conflict with the majority, let alone a genocidal one like the Holocaust. In this way, we now see why jewish people see undermining White western culture and people as a vital part of maintaining their own lives and identity. By targeting the cohesion of White western society, whether that be the family, Christianity, White racial consciousness, the intellectual/scientific tradition, or any other aspect of western culture, jewish people believe they are able to insulate themselves from the possibility of another Holocaust.
Many of these leftist ideas and movements have been pushed by groups of influential jewish intellectuals for this very reason. These ideas and movments range 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 homogeneous 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.
For proof of this one needs to look no further than the fact that Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and jews are allowed to publicly create racially homogeneous and exclusive groups within White countries while Whites are not allowed to 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 are not allowed because any generic group in the US is a White group due to the country’s White majority. For instance, Black Entertainment Television is allowed to exist because all other non-racially labeled entertainment networks are assumed to be White by default, 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 groups where the opposite is true for an explicitly labeled racial group. In addition, does anyone really think that such discrimination against Whites will change once they are no longer a majority in the US? The only race not allowed to form a homogeneous group to advocate for their interests is Whites, and this is due to anti-White racial hatred on the part of those who have created these standards. Understanding the root causes of these anti-White standards does not make them any less evil. Decade after decade the anti-White rhetoric and standards become more extreme and consequential. It is not an exaggeration to say the scapegoating and dehumanization that jewish people say lead to the Holocaust is happening right now to Whites all across western nations. Although such calls for extermination aren’t quite main stream today, there are many leftists implicitly and even openly calling for the genocide of Whites. It is only a matter of time before these ideas become popular and then acted upon. If a genocide like the Holocaust is being used to undermine White people, but that undermining leads to a similar genocide, then the moral authority from which the Holocaust draws its power disappears. Whites must wake up to this reality before it is too late. Continuing down this road will lead to the complete annihilation of the European peoples.
Undermining White identity and culture is not enough to fully protect minority groups from conflict with the majority. Even if whites were completely demoralized through propaganda, there could still be a small chance that a generation comes about who resists the moral framing and self hatred being taught to Whites, and thereby come into conflict with a minority group, jewish or otherwise. In order to prevent this from happening, the myth of diversity has been created to ensure White nations accept an ever increasing number of non-White immigrants. Western nations have become global territories that belong to all the peoples of the world. Whites are no longer allowed to have homelands, while all other peoples can not only have their own nation, but also a piece of the west. This brings us to one of the biggest lies we have been led to believe in our time. This lie is the idea that political and economic ideas, (left/right, authoritarian/libertarian, capitalism/communism) are the most important factors in any society. Although these beliefs and ideas are consequential in their own right, they are a layer above a more important and foundational aspect of society, ethnicity.
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. As I explained earlier, this is the reason why jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront of undermining White consciousness and enacting open immigration policy in European countries. 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. 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 homogeneous, 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 homogeneous 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 homogeneous group defined by something other than ethnicity, 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 dream. People do not, and will not, act this way. Such a diversity utopia goes against all that we know about human nature. Not all peoples want to live the same way, and trying to force any group of people to change their culture and identity to match that of your own is going to be a difficult if not impossible process without subjugation or assimilation. There is no better example of this than the endless wars in the Middle East. The United States has ostensibly fought to bring democracy and peace to many nations in the Middle East but has always failed. This is because most of the people in these nations don’t want to live in a western society. Whether this is due to something innate in their DNA or simply a product of deeply held cultural and religious beliefs can be argued another time, but there is no denying that European style laws and government are not things these people want to adopt.
The undermining of western White nations is 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.
Diversity of European nations will eventually lead to conflict. The nature of this conflict and when it will occur is impossible to predict, but it is inevitable. In some senses this conflict has been ever present. Racial diversity has been a constant cause of conflict in the United States ever since the first Blacks were brought here as slaves from Africa. The new and expanding diversity of the last 60 years will only lead to larger and more violent conflict similar to what we’ve seen recently. Whether or not all out war is in our future is impossible to say for sure, but the chances seem likely unless something is done to reverse the undermining of White people and their nations. One of the key aspects to this undermining is the use of words like racist and Nazi to demoralize Whites and shame them for their racial heritage and cultures. This must be stopped.
Racist is a propaganda term created in the 20th century used to subvert white racial identity and culture. It is a word used to silence white people and stop us from standing up to defend our families, communities, countries, and values.
Sexist is another propaganda term created in the 20th century used to shame those who dare question sexual egalitarian ideology. At its root, the term and the ideology are anti-family, anti-human, and ultimately antagonistic towards the happiness of both men and women.
Nazi is term used to accuse anyone who is pro white, or simply proud of being white, as morally reprehensible. It is used as a specter to deter whites from having any form of in-group preference or racial consciousness. The Nazis generally, and the holocaust more specifically, are used as a subversive weapon against western nations and cultures.
Bigot is a blanket term applied to anyone who doesn't agree with the politically correct ideas of the time. Ironically, the term bigot is most often used to shame those with heterodox opinions, making bigots out of the users themselves. Taking on this contradictory meaning makes bigot similar to the word "literally" in that they are both used to mean the opposite of their standard definition.
The word homophobe is used to shame anyone who is resistant to the increasing creep towards culturally enforced homosexuality and increasing acceptance of pedophilia. Normal human sexuality is deemed sexist, while resisting degenerate, perverse, blood line ending sexuality is deemed homophobic. Transexuality and any other aspect of the LGBTQP subversion is simply a branch extending from homosexuality.