I recently made the point that, in terms of racism, white supremacism and belief in eugenics, Britain in the 1930s was “just as bad” as Germany in the 1930s. It was also just as sexist, homophobic and transphobic. The same is true of America in the 1930s. This makes it somewhat strange that Britain and America went to war with Germany supposedly to defend equality, human rights and anti-racism (answer: they didn’t), but it also explains how the contemporary Left is able to vilify 1930s Britain and America as “Nazi” even though they fought the Nazis.
Today, the Right (meaning the mainstream Right and the more milquetoast centre-right) desperately distance themselves and the 1930s Britain and America that they lionise, from racist attitudes that they have spent the last 80 years associating with 1930s Germany.
The problem is that their left-wing opponents have “realised” this fraud and begun calling it out. The further problem is that, until this fraud was called out, Britain and America continued for those 80 years with the very same racist attitudes, while claiming to be race-blind.
Let us step back and track the history.
In the first third of the 20th Century, Britain had its huge empire, America was a highly racially-segregated nation, Australia was white supremacist, and even Canada was “keeping negros out”. Meantime, the entire Anglosphere (and other white countries) was fascinated by “racial hygiene” and eugenics.
These policies were still in effect when World War II began in 1939. The reason for the Allies going to war against the Third Reich could not have been that it was racist, anti-Semitic, eugenicist or white supremacist, because so were the Allies. The other motive was supposedly the Third Reich’s imperialism - but Britain had the largest empire in the world at that time. Similar can be said of Belgium, France, the Netherlands…
World War II played out.
Seemingly immediately thereafter, some unknown thing happened in the fabric of Western societies. A new explanation for the war was dreamed up, along with a new vision for the future: equality. This happened even while the West had a new and urgent concern, the Cold War against the monolithic Soviet Union. Even with that very real thing to deal with, for some reason a tectonic shift occurred in the Western psyche, revising its previous behaviour and dictating its future behaviour.
It was decided that the Allies had declared war on Nazi Germany because, well, it was Nazi, and to be Nazi was very, very bad, because it meant being racist, anti-Semitic, imperialist and white supremacist. The fact that the Allies had themselves been all of those things was entirely forgotten, or at least forgiven.
The narrative was formed: the Allies had gone to war with the Nazis, not for mere pragmatic reasons, but ideological ones. The Allies had sacrificed millions of lives to defend equality.
It now became imperative for all political organisations all across the West to distance themselves as much and as fast as possible from the ideas that had supposedly condemned the Nazis: racism, eugenics, white supremacy, anti-Semitism, imperialism, etc. All political stripes colluded in this demonisation effort: the far-left, the Left, the centre, the Right. Only the far-right refused to take part in this, so it also would be demonised. But that goes without saying. I am more interested here in the mainstream Right.
Since the “evil” ideas were hierarchical rather than equalitarian, they could be framed as right-wing far more easily than left-wing. This meant the Right had much more to worry about than the Left. It was the Right that had to perpetually prove itself not to be secretly harbouring sympathies with Nazism.
This was extremely useful for the Left, tactically: there now began 80 years (and counting) of the Left throwing the slur “Nazi” at right-wing and centre-right policies, parties and individuals. The Right was constantly on the defensive, trying to refute any association with the Nazis. Its main way to achieve this was to adopt, one by one, every policy favoured by the Left.
But even this was not enough. Eventually the ability of the Right to refute the allegations was out-paced by the Left’s ability to produce them and, in the cultural sphere, make them seem credible. This watershed occurred in the late 1990s, probably because around that time the Left’s stranglehold on culture became so overwhelming that it could make anything it wanted seem credible, and because enough of the old generations had died off that nobody could shoot down the Left’s more insane ways of thinking.
This was the moment when the Right had no choice but to “become” the Left. To use Britain as the example, this was the moment when the Conservative Party concluded it had to become a clone of its opposition, New Labour. John Major’s 1993 “back to basics” campaign, lauding traditional values, was now unthinkable and would never be revisited. From now on, the Right would compete with the Left to be more left-wing. On cultural issues, to be even weakly right-wing was now seen as unacceptable. To again use Britain as the example, the Conservative Party increased mass immigration from 2010, introduced gay marriage in 2013 and promulgated trans identity politics in the late 2010s.
But still this wasn’t enough. With the Right now completely castrated on cultural issues and unable to justify being in any way right-wing, it was more vulnerable, not less, to allegations that it actually was slightly right-wing. (That was the same, of course, as being a bloodthirsty tyrannical Nazi).
Since the root of this vulnerability was the fact that the Nazis had been right-wing in various key aspects, the Right now came up with a defence strategy: assert that the Nazis were actually not right-wing at all, but left-wing! However, the cultural sphere was by this time entirely controlled by the Left, so this notion never stood a chance of taking off. But still, they keep trying.
The Right was locked in a predicament. The only hope for salvation was to be as un-right-wing as possible. But it was constrained by its instinctual attachments to traditionalism, hierarchy, homeland, etc. - constraints that did not apply to the Left. As a result, the Right was still perpetually vulnerable. Emulating the Left on cultural issues, no matter how cravenly, did not remove the constant air of suspicion that hampered their every move.
Another way the Right attempted to distance itself from the Nazis was to frequently remind everyone to celebrate the Allies who had fought and defeated them. Churchill and Roosevelt, the two great men who had led two great nations to victory against sheer evil. Our finest hour, etc. Here is an attempt to distill the Right’s rhetoric on this matter:
Sure, we might be flawed, but it was us who defeated the Nazis, so we can’t be all bad. Just think how we fought against racism, and white supremacy, and imperialism! We might not be perfect but, when it counts, we fight for freedom and equality. What great reason for us to be proud, to be glad that we are British. We are a great people, so we have no need to be ashamed of ourselves and our heritage, as the Left claim.
Then the Left unveiled its next weapon: the truth.
I refer to the truth that, up till 1939, the Allies were just as racist, anti-Semitic, eugenicist, sexist and homophobic as the Nazis.
This undercuts the Right’s last remaining weapon: nostalgia for “our finest hour”. Our finest hour ceases being a great fight against evil ideas and becomes a great fight to preserve our own versions of those evil ideas. The Left will then say this leaves the actual motivation for going to war rather murky, and probably quite grubby and low-grade, to do with territory, money and imperial power. And of course, that’s exactly what the real motivation actually was. So the Left is truthful, while the Right are locked in a nexus of lies.
Whenever they try to claim “no, our 1930s ancestors were nothing like the Nazis! They abhorred racism and inequality!” the evidence for the prosecution is overwhelming.
Just look at the disgracefully racist policies around the Anglosphere before 1939 - Australia, Canada, America…
It is especially sobering to learn about the attitudes of American soldiers during World War II.
Polls of American GIs during World War II demonstrate that they were every bit as racist as the Nazis they were fighting, supposedly for being racist. One result:
A general survey found that 75 percent of soldiers from the North and 85 percent of soldiers from the South thought Blacks and Whites should train and serve separately.
Elsewhere it’s even worse:
Only 148 [3%] of the 4,793 enlisted personnel who participated in a large cross-section survey given in March 1943 thought Black and White soldiers should serve in the same outfits.
97% of American GIs opposed racial integration. Could a survey of Nazis be any worse than that…?
But that’s America. We all know America has a racism problem. What about us Brits? We’ve always been more reasonable than those silly Yanks. And what more reasonable Englishman has there ever been than the very man who led us against the evil Nazis, Winston Churchill?
Churchill advocated against native self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Caribbean, the Americas and India.
In 1902, Churchill stated that the “great barbaric nations” would “menace civilised nations”, and that “The Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.
In 1937, Churchill stated that: “I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
Oh dear. This is Social Darwinism that rivals anything said by Adolf Hiter. Ah, but then again, surely after the war Churchill realised the error of his ways?
In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan “Keep England White” with regards to immigration from the West Indies.
Now, is there more to Churchill than this? Did he also say just as many things in the other direction? Yes. But the Left don’t care about that. They have the evidence they need, and it is irrefutable: Churchill said things which would get a man imprisoned today, and he was, whatever the nuances, a racist and a white supremacist. Given several comments he made about the Jews, he was also an anti-Semite. He was certainly an Islamophobe. Oh, and some comments he made about using poison gas against “uncivilised tribes” - well, he was a genocidal maniac as well. So what, really, is the difference between him and Adolf Hitler? While his various appalling attitudes can be excused on the basis that he was a product of his time, it is unconscionable to celebrate Churchill today as any kind of exemplar. We have to condemn him.
This destroys the Right’s claims about World War II and the “virtuous” nations that fought it to defeat the Nazis. Their motivation cannot have been anti-racism, since they, from the humble GI to the aristocratic statesman, were just as racist as their enemy.
Through decades of tumultuous post-war change, the Right has always harked back to a conservative golden age of common sense, tradition and civility. While the Left browbeat them with LGBT and multiculturalism and accuse them of being racist, the Right’s defence has always been to remind those arrant lefties of who defeated the Third Reich:
You might disrespect our nations, but look at what we did, remember we were the good guys! We defeated racism!
But now the Allies are revealed to be, themselves, the racism. This truth is undeniable, and can be exploited by the Left as often as is useful for them. And it is always useful for them.
The Right has to admit:
Yes, our countries were just as racist back then as the Third Reich - not a golden age at all.
Hoping to salvage at least something, the Right then change the argument to:
But we still fought and defeated the Third Reich!
This is true, but the moral justifications for doing so, which the Right had claimed as their own (justice, tradition, freedom) are now undercut, so they can no longer claim World War II as a victory for the Right. If anything, it was a war they were forced into against their racist preferences, presumably for base territorial reasons or something like that. So the Right moves the debate forward again:
Okay, in the ways that nowadays matter (inequality, anti-racism, anti-Semitism), we were just as bad as the bad guys. But, in the course of defeating them, we became enlightened. We learned the lessons of World War II, and thereafter we reviled racism, supremacism, Aryanism, etc.
Now the Left unveils its next weapon: the fact that the Allied countries were still racist in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s.
The evidence for this is copious. One need merely survey graphic design, advertising, film and television throughout those post-war decades, when we had supposedly become anti-racist. Across Europe and the Anglosphere, the models - and that word is significant - who appeared in media were virtually all white, and many were positively the Aryan ideal as championed by the Third Reich.
This undercuts the Right’s secondary defence. Having conceded that 1930s Britain and America were indeed racist, it moves to pleading that, after fighting the Nazis (for reasons that are now mysterious), these countries promptly became anti-racist. But this is clearly untrue, because the following decades were festooned with images of what can only be described as the Aryan ideal.
Of all the decades, the clamouring after it seems to have been most rampant and shameless in the 1980s. Just watch (if you can bear the racism) this 1989 advert for chewing gum:
Speed, skill, power, physical fitness, blue eyes, blonde hair, white skin and even whiter teeth - aesthetics worthy of Leni Riefenstahl.
To dwell unpleasantly once more on the 1980s, just look at the action heroes we celebrated:
And the singers:
Things got little better in the 1990s. To scan magazine covers from that decade is to behold a smorgasbord of Third Reich wives:
Decades of worshiping this ideal… when we had supposedly “learned the lessons of World War II”…? Clearly, we hadn’t changed, and were still in love with the Eurocentric concept of a Nordic, Aryan herrenvolk even while we claimed to be race-blind.
Only after the year 2000 can it reasonably be said that white people made a decent effort to renounce their white supremacy. But it hasn’t worked and is obviously not sincere. In truth, the Allied countries still have a lot to answer for: Brexit, Trump, white flight, white privilege, George Floyd, and the whole panoply of micro-aggressions that we now emanate in an act of socio-bacterial warfare against our coloured victims.
From the Left’s perspective, we’re still racist really, and secretly we want to live in white ethnostates away from the diversity we disgustingly pretend to love. Our choices in media betrayed our evil preferences, but, now that we can’t make those choices thanks to diversity casting everywhere, we express our evil preferences in other ways.
Our lifestyle choices tell a grim story. Clearly, we prefer that our friends, colleagues, employers, spouses and children also be white. We escape to “safe neighbourhoods” with “low crime” and “good schools”. We vote against mass immigration. We avoid coloured people in the staff canteen and, really, everywhere we can. Our only participation in the exotic cultures we claim to relish is when we dine out. Even when the most self-righteous of us deliberately send their children to “troubled schools”, they say they’re doing it to “hopefully improve those schools” - yet again betraying what we white people really think.
Whatever we try, everything gives us away. And the far-left never fail to make hay of it. The centre, and even the centre-left, are now learning the lesson endured by the Right since 1945: it is when you desperately claim to be “not X” that you are most vulnerable to accusations that you are, in truth, “X”, because the slightest deviation from “not X” can be regarded as proof of “X”.
But the Left need not settle for slight deviations. As shown above, everything we white people do shows us up.
So now all eras of recent white history are villainised and invalidated:
pre 20th Century: empire and slavery
1900-1939: eugenics, racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, imperialism, “racial hygiene”, segregation
World War II: we didn’t do it for equality or the Jews, we did it for territory and power
1945-1999: we were just as racist as the Nazis and continued to ape their racism and Aryan supremacy throughout the rest of the century
2000-2023: we have made some token changes, approved of a few white women pairing up with black guys… but we don’t really mean it, and it’s obvious.
Defeating the Nazis didn’t purge us of our racism. Even decades of instruction from the far-left hasn’t done it. Nothing works. We’re still as racist now as ever. You just can’t fix us. Whatever you do, we will continue to exhibit behaviours that we claim to find reprehensible.
What can be concluded from this? It’s a grim prognosis for the Right. Despite their best efforts to appease the Left by claiming we’ve changed and seen the light, the truth is… the only way for white people’s racism to be eradicated is for white people to be eradicated.
That’s what the far-left are now saying. The Right balk at the idea, of course, claiming that race doesn’t even matter. But demonstrably, it matters to white people, so I say that the far-left are correct.
In-group preference is innate and inborn in all races, including Europeans. Since you cannot rid us of our preference, you can only rid the world of us. To truly eradicate the ideas that moved the evil Nazis, you’ll have to destroy the European race, either by genocide or miscegenation or sterilisation.
Alternatively, we could admit that this has all been a mistake.
A gigantic, ill-fated, unhealthy, unfair and insane mistake.
Seems to me like an entire foundational myth came about at the end of WWII. Gee have we coined a term for that yet?
The entirety of Europe was gaslit into believing right-wing politics were bad because Mustache Man replaced Satan as the greatest evil. Because he did the 6 gorillion or something.
It's almost like he had to be made an example of by subjecting his legacy and his people to this blood libel, and then put through a humiliating and demoralizing "denazification" psyop afterwards, to put whitey in his place.
What was the difference between Churchill and Hitler?
Churchill did what the globalist bankers wanted him to do.
This is why the dissident right has been able to claim such countercultural power. Instead of responding "We're not racist!" to accusations of racism, it says "Thanks for noticing!" with a shit-eating grin on its face. The left's entire schtick relies on their marks agreeing with them that racism, sexism, and so on are bad things. If the premise is rejected they are morally defanged. Which isn't to say they don't retain coercive state power ... but by stripping their moral force from them they are forced to rely on naked force ... which strips their moral legitimacy even further, and exposes to more white people that the high ideals of anti-racism are really nothing more than resentful anti-white ethnocentrism, grounded in the same instinctive patterns of human behavior the anti-racists claim to oppose.