Sargon of Akkad came out with a video over the weekend entitled “Nazis are Bad.” Because, apparently, we’re either going to be stuck stating the obvious since Charlottesville, or we’re going to be ignoring the bloodthirsty Commie in the room in favor of beating a dead Hun. I swear to gods, everyone is getting on a Nazi kicking spree, and yet they show little regard of actually knowing much beyond “meme history” of what Nazis actually are.

Which is probably why I find Sargon insisting society should stand staunchly in the Center and deny both “Alt-Right” and “Alt-Left” funny because, well to be frankly honest, it seems that the Nazis were the original “Alt-Center.” And no I’m not joking about. But today I want to focus on exactly why Sargon is saying “Nazis are Bad” and thankfully he even gave a list at the end of his video summarizing, so I’m going to go over that summary.

Nazis are bad
1) rejection of enlightenment
2) rejection of objective truth
3) rejection of reason
4) embracing of feelings
5) embracing of subjective truth/racial truth that are only relevant to the race in question
6) the demand for complete obedience regardless of the reason why, but preferably for absolute dedication to the cause
7) it is the moral sanctioning of violence towards anyone who might oppose these methods
8) it is unavoidable for any for any political ideology that follows these principles to avoid end up as blood/violent as the Nazis themselves.

Rejection of Enlightenment/Objective Truth/Reason/And the Embrace of Feelings.

In this regard, Sargon is correct. The Nazis did spring forth partially due to a rejection of enlightenment. Previously (by several decades), there was a move called Romanticism. Romanticism came about because after a goodly long period of the Enlightenment, with its focus on reason, objective truths, and so forth, the people who became Romantics saw the obliteration of their native traditions, folktales, customs, morals, etc. For the Enlightenment, there is only “Objective Truth,” and that Truth is Universal. No other Truth can exist in its presence. All other “truths” that are different from the Truth are falsehoods.

A good analogy of how this works is Christianity vs Paganism. If Christianity is the Truth, and the Truth is that Jesus is God, and there is only One God, then all Pagan Gods must be False Gods. And as we’ve seen historically with the “Objective Truth of Christianity,” there is no room for the existence of “False Truths” and they are purged. So too is it with the Enlightenment. All Truths that are not Objective Enlightened Truths are False Truths, and so must be purged for there can only be the Objective Truth. Or Communism, with its Objective Truth that “wealth disparity is evil and exploitative, and must be done away with.”

This, naturally, leads to a fuckton of cultural destruction and the abolition of “falsehoods.” Seeing this Cultural Destruction, Romantics rose up to do all they could to preserve these traditions. Of equal importance though, Romantics came to the conclusion that Man Cannot Live By Reason Alone (as Enlightenment dictated), but that man was as much an Emotional Creature as he was a Creature of Reason. And that there were parts of the world which could only be understood by Feelings and Emotions, which Reason and Logic were incapable of grasping.

If you’ve ever read any Nietzsche, you would know this as the struggle of the Apollonian vs the Dionysian. The Mind and its Reason over the Heart and its Madness.

Essentially, Romanticism is the Nativist, Emotional, and Culturally Diverse ideology as opposed to Enlightenment’s Universalist, Logical, and culturally homogeneous ideology.

In short, Sargon is saying the Nazis are bad because they rejected Enlightenment thinking, with its universalism and its cultural annihilation, for Romanticism and it’s emotional nativism.

Embracing of Subjective Truth/Racial Truth that are Only Relevant to the Race in Question.

“Unto Each People, Let They Create For Themselves Their Own Laws.”

There are (and have been) countless cultures in the history of Earth. Some exist today, some have died off recently, some are dying off, and some have been dead for longer than others have been alive. During all of this human history, around the world, there is one simple fact.

No one’s moral or legal codes have been exact matches of each other. What one nation might consider morally just, another will consider the height of immorality. A woman wearing a micro-mini-skirt in America would be seen as morally acceptable, but in Saudi Arabia would be grounds for her rape and execution. Similarly, a man keeping a woman as his sex slave would be morally acceptable in Iran, but the height of immorality in Ireland (or at least it would have been 20 years ago). Living under an all powerful dictator would be morally acceptable in ancient or modern China, but morally repugnant to the founding fathers of the USA. These, and millions of more examples, can be found throughout humanity.

The Enlightenment preaches that there are Objective Truths, and from this must naturally come an Objectively True Morality. Yet, even in nations built upon the Enlightenment (The USA, British Empire, Canada, Australia), there are objective differences between their legal codes, and even the morals of the people, between these nations. If Truth is indeed Objective…how can this be so? If there is Objective Truth, then there must be an Objectively True Interpretation, and thus an Objectively True Morality, and there can be only One Objective Truth/Interpretation/Morality.

Since this is clearly not the case, then what might be an explanation? Well, according to Romanticism, if different groups of people have different truths, different interpretations, and different morals, that must mean that Truth, Interpretation, and  Morality are subjective. Thus, each people has its Own Truth, its Own Interpretation, and its Own Morality. And each of these are True to their respective peoples.

According to Enlightenment, there is One Truth. Which means that either a) one of the various people’s on this world is in possession of said Truth and all others should instantly convert to this Truth, or else be living a falsehood, or b) the more likely case: no nation on earth possesses the Truth, and as soon as someone does possess the Truth, all others must either convert or be converted to the truth, lest they live in falsehood.

Romanticism says that everyone’s truth is equally true, with the caveat that it is true for them and no one else. No one need be converted to The Truth, because there is no Singular Truth. Just truth that works for each people. What is true for the Asatruar need not be true for the Jew, and vice versa.

An example in short: If Enlightenment is True, and it was proven that say the Jews had The Truth (that they are God’s chosen people and thus are superior to the Goyim), then under Enlightenment the Asatruar, the Druid, the Wiccan, and the Christian would need to submit themselves to the will of God’s Chosen People. If Romanticism is True, however, then the truth that the Jews are “God’s Chosen” has no bearing on any Asatruar, Druid, Wiccan, or Christian, because their own truths are just as valid and they are free to live by their truths just as the Jew is free to live by his.

Here, in short, Sargon is saying Nazis were bad because they believed in moral relativism between nations over the moral supremacy of any singular nation.

The Demand for Complete Obedience Regardless of the Reason Why, but Preferably for Absolute Dedication to the Cause.

Yes, the Nazis did desire the complete obedience of the Folk. In this point Sargon kind of skips over part of the issue here (at least for him). The Nazis as part of their moral relativism belived in stuff like “what is right today, may be wrong tomorrow, and should be allowed to change” as opposed to Enlightenment thinking which is “what is right today, was right yesterday, and will be right tomorrow, regardless of the situation.” Basically, the Nazis held that morality should be practical, as well as dogma, and they didn’t care if someone was a Nazi for practical reasons (because that is how you get a good job in the Reich) or dogmatic reasons (because the Reich is the salvation of the German people), though they did like it if you did both at the same time (I am a part of the Reich because it will give me a good job which I can use to be a part of the salvation of the German people).

Now, I’m going to admit that both of these attitudes…have their issues. Situations in politics and interpersonal relationships change all the time. Being able to be flexible about those changes is not a bad thing. There is something to be said about having an inflexible morality, but at the same time that can get you in, or make you cause, as much trouble as being morally flexible.

Two historical examples that run side by side of both this Enlightenment Inflexibility and Romantic Flexibility.

Before WWII started, Hitler and Germany attempted multiple times to negotiate with Poland, France, and England to find peaceful solutions to German problems. Poland being in possession of German lands, the Polish helping Bolsheviks ethnically cleans Germans in Polish Occupied Germania. All this despite England, France, and Poland literally bending Germany over the negotiating table and anally raping Germany for shits and giggles at the end of WWI. The way the Nazis saw it, just because they had been enemies in the past, didn’t mean they had to be enemies now. Friendships and Peace could be options. We’ll call this German Moral Position A.

England, on the other hand, had built up a massive hate boner for Germany that the anal rape party did not sate in the slightest. Churchill especially had a massive hate boner for Hitler personally, and Nazi Germany particularly. England’s position was one of Enlightened Moral Inflexibility. Germany was the villain then, Germany is the Villain Now, and Germany will be the villain until we utterly destroy Hitler and Germany (remember, at this time Hitler had done absolutely nothing internationally except peacefully negotiate). So England and France dicked around with Poland, and made sure Poland wouldn’t negotiate with Germany.

Germany, faced with ethnic cleansing, shifts their “Ethical position” from GMP A “Peaceful Negotiation is the Solution,” to GMP B “War with Poland is needed, but Peaceful Negotiation with everyone else is desired.” And they invade Poland, stop the ethnic cleansing, and watch as England and France instantly declare war on them…but don’t do jack shit other than declare.

Long story short, Germany tries to negotiate peace with the return of Polish land to Polish control except for German regions (GMP C), England and France say “Fuck you” staying in the same moral position, and prepare to invade Germany with the goal of obliterating its government, economy, and any ability to remain a functional state, forcing a couple of Neutral nations to join their efforts. Germany then goes to CMP D, “invade to the channel, then try and get  peace.” Which they do, driving the Brits, French, and allies to Dunkirk, where they let the soldiers escape and attempt to negotiate an end to hostilities. England stays on the “fuck Germany in the ass” moral position, and failing to do anything against the German military or air force, decides to go with the completely morally acceptable solution: Run night bombing campaigns to try and kill as many German Civilians as possible so they rise up and overthrow Hitler for us. That’s right, England’s moral solution to Nazism was “kill the innocent until they do the dirty job we’re to weak to do ourselves.”

Which…is kinda been the British Empire’s go to plan for centuries, actually.

And after three months of begging for peace and watching the innocence be killed, Hitler finally reaches the moral position for which he is so well known and hated GMP E: “If they’re going to murder the innocent until they over throw their leaders, then lets show them how you murder the innocent until they overthrow their leaders.”

So, really, which of these two positions is worse? Moral Relativism which in some cases will lead you to being morally flexible enough to kill the innocent, or Moral Absolutism which in some cases means being morally justified in killing the innocent from the start.

In short, Sargon is saying that the Nazis were bad because of their Moral Pragmatism/Moral Relativism, because their morality could change from “peace is desired” to “war is necessity.”

The Moral Sanctioning of Violence Towards Anyone Who Might Oppose These Methods

Are you opposed to moral relativism, a population keeping its own laws and customs and morals, people finding things through their hearts as well as their minds, the prevention of cultural destruction, and the right of a nation/people to engage in these things and their defenses? Then the nation/people has the right to engage in violence towards you for your objections.

And that’s “immoral.”

Of course the same could be said if you were opposed to moral objectivity, a population being made to abandoned their customs, laws, and morals, people using only their reason to the exclusion of their hearts, cultural destruction, and felt that a people had a right to their own defense to preserve all of the above, that the Moral authority/State engaging in those things had the right to engage in violence towards you for your objections. After all, if we take England with it’s Enlightenment as an example, they certainly felt they had the moral authority to engage in violence on behalf of their Enlightenment Objectivity.

But because its based off of Enlightened Objectivity, it’s not “immoral?”

I don’t know, arguing that violence based on objections to moral relativism is wrong while implying that violence based on objections to moral absolutism is right just seems…wrong. And I know I’m harping on England a bit here, but Sargon’s talked a lot about the need to embrace “English Enlightenment Values,” as opposed to reactionary, or emotionally charged identity politics like Nazism and its Romantic influences. But if we take England as an example of “Enlightenment Values,” then to be honest…they’ve been every bit as nasty as the Nazis were with their “moral relativism.”

Hell, Hitler got the idea for Concentration Camps from the fucking English, who used them against the Boer…their own citizens. And while everyone likes to scream about how Hitler was evil for throwing Jews into concentration camps and starving them to death…that is exactly what the British did to the Boer…round them up, and starve women and children to death in concentration camps. Hitler was opposed to night bombing raids on innocent civilians and worked to prevent their use in war before WWII. England refused to denounce the  use of night bombing raids, started off WWII by using them on innocent Germans, and previously had used night bombing campaigns to fight the Boer. This doesn’t even count the British massacring Indian men and women in India as they campaigned for more rights in their homeland. Or any of another number of atrocities the British committed. (Like provoking a war with the Zulu Empire simply because they were tired of abiding by a treaty with the Zulu that prevented them from gaining some resource or other).

Or again, look at Communism with its Universalist and “enlightened ideas.” It ethnically cleansed populations from Finland to Vietnam. It had no moral relativism, it was morally absolutist, and it justified atrocities after atrocities.

Complaining about a State being violent to those who object to its methods and power is nothing new, and certainly not limited to Nazis, nor is it because of some “moral relativism.” And yet, Sargon lists this as a reason the “Nazis were bad.”

It Is Unavoidable for any Political Ideology that Follows These Principles to Avoid Ending Up as Bloody/Violent as the Nazis Themselves.

And this is Sargon’s conclusion. The Nazis were bad because they rejected Enlightenment and Objective Truth/Morality in favor of Romanticism and Subjective Truth/Morality, and thus were inherently doomed to violence and bloodshed. And any ideology that follows this path is also doomed to be as violent and bloody as the Nazis themselves.

Of course, if we look at “Enlightened Nations,” we find…exactly the same thing. England threw the Boer in to concentration camps and starved them to death, and would bomb civilian populations until they rose up against their leaders in rebellion. The USA threw people into concentration camps (thankfully we didn’t starve them to death) and attempted to bomb civilians into rising up and overthrowing their leaders. Canada will throw you in prison if you so much as tweet in disagreement with certain ideologies. Communism is responsible fore more deaths than anything in this world, possibly including Islam. Hell, depending on your interpretations of Enlightenment and how important “Objective Truth and Inflexible Morality based on that Truth” is, you could even make the case that Islam is an Enlightened philosophy.

You know what actually leads political ideologies in to violence? Two things. 1) They feel that there is more to gain by violence than by peace. 2) They are subjected to violence until they respond with violence.

The simple fact is that no nation or ideology is more or less likely to become violent if it is Romantic or Enlightened in nature. To claim otherwise is blatant falsehood at best, and self serving delusion to justify one’s actions at worst.

Are the Nazis bad? That depends on the moral judgements we place against their actions. Is putting people into concentration camps bad? Is starving them to death bad? Is bombing civilians in the hope they overthrow their leaders bad? If the answer to these things is “Yes,” then the Nazis are bad. If the answer to these things is “No,” then the Nazis are not bad. And if the answer is “Yes when they do it, but not when we do it,” then you’re a fucking hypocrite and I don’t have to respect your moral judgement. And if your answer is “Yes, it’s bad when they did it because they were Romantics, but it’s okay that we did it because we were Enlightened,” then you can just take your moral grandstanding and shove it up your ass, along with the betrayal of your own beliefs about objective morality.

Nazis are bad, only if we consider their actions to be bad and apply that same standard to all peoples equally. They were not bad because of ideology, or being Romantics, or rejecting “enlightenment,” or any of those things. The instant we insist that “it’s bad when they did it, but it’s okay we did it/do it,” then the moral onus upon the Nazis falls apart. Because we cannot punish someone and make them a criminal for actions that are not immoral and criminal in nature, but simply because of the “Race” of the person doing them.

 

 

Hela Bless