Saturday, January 28, 2017
An East Asian 'National Socialist' shows how it's done
Occasionally, a good article appears at Greg Johnson's Counter-Currents, and Riki Rei's 'Confessions of an East Asian National Socialist' is one. What is significant about it is that, not only is it written by an Asian, but that it does a lot better at defending Hitler's legacy than many articles and posts written by white people. In the comments section, Rei does a good job rebutting negative remarks made by the ubiquitous and inevitable Polish nationalist. In this he's done nationalism - or at least, neofascist nationalism - a service.
As to why, I'll explain in a moment. Let's deal with - in passing - the two questions, 'Did Hitler hate the Slavs?' and 'Did Hitler kill the Slavs?'.
To answer the latter: at least in the case of the Poles, Hitler didn't kill the Slavs. An excellent monograph at VHO.Org, 'Polish Population Losses During World War Two' - which uses reliable statistics - shows that the (non-Jewish) Polish population didn't go down by much after the war; perhaps only a few hundred thousand died, which is about the same as the death tolls of France, the UK, the US, Italy... Certainly, three hundred thousand doesn't equal three million - which is the number often put forward by historiographers.
As for the former question: has anyone made a serious study of what Hitler actually said on the topic of the Slavs? Do a control-F of the Hitler writings and speeches meant for public consumption - Mein Kampf and his collected speeches (a good many of them are here) - and you won't find that many denunciations of the Slavs as such: only polemics against the Czech nationalists and the 'Pan-Slavists' and multiculturalists of the Hapsburg Empire. He opines in Zweites Buch (which was unpublished in his lifetime) that the Slavs don't possess much in the way of 'stateforming' abilities, but this is in connection with a particular Slavic country - 'Slavic Russia', as he calls it. His Table Talk - which, we should note, contains statements meant for private consumption - is filled with some very low estimations of the national character of the Poles, the Russians, the Ukrainians and the Czechs (who, he assures his dining companions, aren't really Slavic - they're Mongol). (The Serbs hardly put in an appearance in either the private or public texts, which is surprising, because it is generally as assumed that Hitler was filled with a terrible hatred towards the Serbs). The Ukrainians are mentioned the most frequently, and in a negative way. Hitler regards them as a decent but childlike and dim-witted people who exist at the same level as the Australian Aboriginals and the Native American Indians during the time of their first contact with the white man. But, all in all, you don't find the wholesale animosity towards the Slavs which is attributed to him by his opponents. Indeed, such an attitude would have been impolitic. Germany relied heavily upon Slavs heavily during the war: the Slovaks helped Germany invade Poland and the USSR, for example, and perhaps the finest of all the foreign Waffen-SS divisions - the Latvian - was Slavic.
Why does any of this matter? The answer is the notion that there are great men, Hitler's doctrine of 'personality' (some may call it the cult of personality) is bound up with the fascism in an intimate way and can't be separated; therefore, by attacking Hitler (or Mussolini or Mosley or Degrelle...) you are attacking the idea that great men exist - and thereby fascism itself.
In much the same way, criticisms, attacks, slanders of the person of Muhammad constitute criticisms, attacks, slanders of Islam. Imagine that you're an Arab seventy years after the death of Muhammad; you believe that the Arab Peninsula, and the entire Middle East, should be under the rule of something very much like Islam; at the same time, you don't think much of Muhammad, his practices and his rule, and don't hesitate to tell others of your opinions - I would say that you're logically inconsistent. The biography of Muhammad (the Sira) and the practices of Muhammad (the Hadith) can't be untangled from the doctrine of Islam. In turn, the latter can't be improved upon by some later interpreter who wishes to correct the 'mistakes Muhammad made'; Islam can't be improved upon, only adapted.
Many nationalists find themselves in the same position as my hypothetical Arab: I call them the 'yellowfashies'. Greg Johnson himself serves as an example of the yellowfashie. His site makes a living off fascist - and neofascist - personages, but he himself criticises Hitler, declares that Holocaust Revisionism is a waste of time, and wants to make white nationalism 'respectable' by distinguishing it from any form of Neo-Nazism: hence his horrified reaction to the Hitler salutes at Richard Spencer's NPI conference in 2016.
Now it could be that fascism - which was crushed in 1945 - can't be brought back into the present; German National Socialism died with Hitler (and it should be noted that the German army collapsed in a matter of weeks after Hitler's death). Philip Selznick wrote in his Organizational Weapon (1952) that a good (that is, well-built) communist party can survive a bad leader; the Soviet Communist Party emerged largely unscathed after Stalin and continued on its way for forty years after his death. Institutional traditions existed in Soviet communism which preserved it. Did such traditions exist in the NSDAP and the other European fascist parties? We don't know. Works of speculative fiction, such as Philip K. Dick's Man in the High Castle (1962), attempt to answer that question.
The main thing is that the fascist doctrine - just like the communist - hasn't changed much in the past hundred or so years; both of them depend upon, as a structural support, Hitler's theory of 'personality' (the main difference being that fascism does so overtly, communism, covertly). Communism could never have gotten anywhere without its 'great men' Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Tito, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro... The same applies to fascism: without Hitler, Mussolini, and the rest, it is nothing. The corollary of this is that we won't see a revival of fascism without a revival of the theory of great men. But Hitler (and Mussolini and the others) serve as the exemplification of that theory. By denigrating them, you are undercutting the theory; and hence, fascism loses one of its key structural supports.