"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

30 January 2019

National-Socialism vs. Libertarian Darwinism: a response to Jean-François Gariépy

In Hitler's Germany if you were an unemployed man, you could join the Reichsarbeitsdienst.

This was originally a response to some comments hostile to National-Socialism, from a video by Jean-François Gariépy. I had not yet decided to repost it here when YouTube made the decision for me by shadow-censoring it after the first thumbs-up. I am not categorically shadow-banned on YouTube; they only made this particular comment invisible. Why? Maybe some of YouTube's moderators are bigoted libertarians.

Gariépy has many interesting things to say about many things, but when questions arise about economy and how a society should be ordered, he falls into the convenient ruts of simplistic libertarian omniscience.

For one thing, he suffers from the half-baked libertarian belief that the free market is eugenic, which in turn is based on the blatantly false belief that a market is "nature." The market is not nature.



Regarding the comment at 1:20:09 -- 

It is not true that National-Socialism in Germany did not reward success. We are talking about a militaristic society surrounded with enemies. In that respect, National-Socialism was a continuation of the ancient German militaristic tradition. This is a tradition that rewards good performance of duties through promotion. You might notice that the job-creation programs in National-Socialist Germany had a quasi-military character, with the participants wearing uniforms. They did not pay people to sit around and do nothing. An army has its own evolutionary pressures, and Fascism and National-Socialism extended those pressures beyond the armed forces.

Add to this the sterilization of 400,000 genetic defectives and there is nothing to criticize about National-Socialist Germany from an evolutionary standpoint.

The libertarian faith in the eugenic effect of the free market is only somewhat valid. Economic competition weeds out the least intelligent, but it does not select for good character. The free market rewards those who aggressively seek their own advantage even at the expense of the society. Sociopaths prevail. Ultimately the nation loses its viability due to the parasites at the top. Brooks Adams' The Law of Civilization and Decay is about this. 

At the intersection of Libertarianism and Darwinism, Jewish hedge-fund managers appear as "the fittest."

"Nature has its own mechanism," says J-F at 1:39:10 -- but we do not live in a state of nature! The selective pressures of a market are not natural pressures. The selective pressures of a militaristic society struggling to survive against hostile neighboring states are more natural -- insofar as the genepool is the unit of survival -- than the pressures of a market, which reward sociopathy.

A militaristic society that systematically promotes the competently dutiful is much more eugenic, in terms of national survival, than a society that honors hucksters and speculators.

23 January 2019

The generals should have listened to Hitler!


 

It has long been a facile judgment of semi-informed people that Hitler lost the war in the east because he was a megalomaniac who would not heed the advice of his experienced Prussian generals. "Hitler should have listened to his generals!" However, as the moral obligation to find fault with Hitler fades into the past, eroded by easily available historical truth in the Age of Internet, one begins to hear more and more that wisdom was on the side of Hitler in that disagreement, that Hitler's strategic plan in Operation Barbarossa was quite sensible, and that it was the generals -- specifically Halder and Bock -- who fouled up a good plan. 

Even with flawless execution of Hitler's plan, a victory over the Soviet Union would have been remarkable, due to the enormous imbalance of quantities favoring the Soviet side, but it was some generals who made this difficult situation even worse. 

Why invade the Soviet Union at all? Contrary to what the old propaganda says, Hitler's fundamental motive in 1941 was not to gain  the Lebensraum about which he had written in 1925. To the extent that people are willing to believe that Hitler undertook an unnecessary invasion of the USSR with the war against Britain still ongoing, they have assumed that Hitler was very foolish. Hitler was not so foolish, and the invasion of the USSR in 1941 was not optional. It was necessary. It had to be done because the Red Army was deployed for attack in 1941, and the best hope for saving the situation was a war of prevention.  (See Hitler's Policy toward the USSR Justified.)