Like two hurricanes colliding, Theodore “Vox Day” Beale and Andrew “Daily Stormer” Anglin met in a once-in-a-lifetime event—the Fight of the Century, the Rumble in the Jungle, the Thrilla in Manila—to decide once and for all whether or not National Socialism, or Nazism, is a right- or left-wing ideology.
Anglin’s argument can be summed up as follows: 1) suggesting that the Nazis were leftists is just a “cuckservative” argument, 2) rather than celebrating individualism, rightists see individuals as part of various collectives—family, religion, nation, race, 3) the concept of “individualism” stems from Enlightenment era liberalism, and 4) that the left/right divide is also not one of economics.
Beale’s argument can be summed up as follows: 1) pushing for equal rights is leftist and the 1920 Nazi manifesto called for equal rights, 2) there have been other national socialist parties and all have been leftist, 3) national socialism is not a synonym for white nationalism, 4) individualism, political and economic, is defining for the Right and national socialists ignore the individual’s role therein, and 5) that Anglin and his ilk are left-wing because they peddle lies, for example, about Jews.
As can be seen, the somewhat loose format of the debate was not conducive to them strictly arguing point and counterpoint, and Beale was far more concerned with arguing that national socialism is a leftist ideology while Anglin admitted that, while he admires the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, he uses Nazism for its shock value. This resulted in Anglin arguing more about the left/right divide in a general sense and questioning Beale attacking him as a leftist. Still, the arguments made in the debate can be grouped into three topics: namely, 1) individualism in the left/right divide, 2) “cuckservatives” and antisemitism, and 3) Beale’s argument that national socialism is and always has been leftist.
Rightism—Individualistic or Collectivist?
Arguing over the exact nature of “left” and “right” is nothing new in American politics. For example, in 1969, David Nolan, a co-founder of the Libertarian Party, created a chart with two axes defined by more or less government control over personal and economic action, believing that “the amount of government control over human action that is advocated” is what divides political philosophies. This is similar to the popular “political compass” that uses economic and libertarian/authoritarian axes. According to the Nolan chart, the “right” is truly defined by economic freedom, and rightists can then vary on the amount of personal freedom that they support. Alisa “Ayn Rand” Rosenbaum went so far as to combine the two axes so that rightists are “predominantly in favor of individual freedom and capitalism” while leftists are “predominantly in favor of government controls and socialism.” What Rand defined as “rightist” was what Nolan’s chart would have deemed “libertarian,” a free market and no controls over private acts.
The problem with this definition of the Right is that it is ahistorical and actually runs contrary to very idea of conservatism versus liberalism. Indeed, the entire notion of capitalism stems from Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith, who wrote that it is “not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.” In other words, capitalism is economic individualism born out of the Enlightenment, a system wherein the producer and consumer bear no responsibility to anyone but themselves. Liberal theorists such as “John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill hold that ordinary people are due rights both to act on their personal concerns as well as to develop morally… [They] credit [the masses] with the ability to distinguish good from evil and lead principled lives.”
Let’s consider homosexuality within this context. Traditionally, homosexual acts were criminalized to discourage such behavior. This is why sodomy was a capital offense in England until 1861 with the last execution taking place in 1836, and it is why, in 1778, Thomas Jefferson proposed castrating men guilty of sodomy. That homosexual acts were criminalized means they were seen as acts against society, but liberalism, taken to its logical conclusion, must inevitably argue that homosexuality between consenting adults is a private matter. Does society have the right to regulate such behavior, or do individuals have the right to decide for themselves the sorts of behaviors in which they will engage? This seems like a rather blatant dividing line between the Left and Right, liberalism and conservatism. Was society more liberal by criminalizing sodomy and then became more conservative by allowing it? The mere suggestion seems patently absurd, but that is the conclusion one must reach if individualism is how one defines the Right.
To return to “Ayn Rand,” her definition of “rightist” included individual freedom, and she personally “opposed state intervention in sexual matters and favored the repeal of sodomy laws then on the books in most states.” Similarly, on the issue of drug use, she said, “I do not approve of any government controls over consumption, so all restrictions on drugs should be removed… adults should be free to kill themselves in any way they want.” Now, dear reader, does Rosenbaum sound like a conservative, or does she sound like another liberal justifying homosexuality and drug use as private concerns? Does she sound like the 16th century Englishmen who saw homosexuality as a treasonous act against society, or does she sound like the liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment? As we can see, it is little wonder that she also wrote, “That one word—individualism—is to be the theme song, the goal, the only aim of all my writing.”
Much of the confusion today regarding the left/right divide stems from the fact that there is really only a false dichotomy between very liberal and less liberal so that “less liberal” labels itself as Right. This false dichotomy largely revolves around the way in which these liberal philosophies wish to promote liberty. For example, the supposed “Right” believes in negative liberty—freedom from interference—while the “Left” believes in positive liberty—freedom to act. Erich Fromm of the Marxist Frankfurt School explored this distinction in his 1941 work, Fear of Freedom, and it would later be discussed by liberal theorist, Isaiah Berlin. In essence, “right liberals” believe that the best outcome is achieved by making X possible by removing governmental barriers, but “left liberals” believe that that does not go far enough because other restraints (poverty, racism, sexism, &c.) could still prevent someone from engaging in X. So, for example, the former would remove legal barriers preventing you from living in the neighborhood you want, but the latter would say you are still not truly free until societal barriers (income inequality, segregation, &c.) were also removed so that you were able to live in that neighborhood. Both sides of this supposed dichotomy seek what they see as freedom for the individual, but they disagree on how best to achieve that goal.
To further demonstrate the falseness of the 20th century American left/right divide, look at the fact that it was the Republican Party that abolished slavery—with Karl Marx praising Abraham Lincoln—and then dominated federal politics throughout the Progressive Era. It was the Republican platform of 1892 that declared the party had “always been the champion of the oppressed and recognizes the dignity of manhood, irrespective of faith, color, or nationality; it sympathizes with the cause of home rule in Ireland, and protests against the persecution of the Jews in Russia.” Compare that to the 2012 Republican platform—120 years later—which said, “we consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin unacceptable and immoral. We will strongly enforce antidiscrimination statutes and ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance.” The Libertarian platform is even more liberal—blatantly embracing homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, drugs, and unrestricted immigration—all in the name of individual and economic liberty.
Ultimately, unrestrained individualism is the core of liberalism. Individual liberals may personally see some behaviors as abuse of the freedom they espouse, but they ultimately think risking such abuses is more important than any concerns of society. If you visit any large city in America and witness all manner of disheveled and unkempt artists, hippies, LGBT, hipsters, and so on, would you consider any of them to be right-wing, conservative, &c.? Of course not. They are the epitome of individualism. They are liberalism taken to its logical conclusion—individuals doing what they want, no matter how disgusting, simply because they can, because society refused to put limits on anything. The same is true of the rampant consumerism driven by liberalism’s “economic freedom.” We live in a liberal world with all of the trash and sin that comes with it, and the liberals want even more individualism… they want harlots to be free to sleep around, they want you to stop judging pedophiles for their desires, most bestiality is legal in Canada, and even incest may not be that bad. Individualism is neither conservative nor rightist. It is the heart of liberalism, the removal of any responsibility to others, no matter how it is packaged and sold.
Consider: your family is a collective. Would you not put your spouse and children above yourself? Your religion is a collective. Your nation is a collective. Your race is a collective. Individualism is not some sort of grand freedom bestowed upon you from on high. It is you choosing to always put yourself first in all things, to ignore any shared interest you may have with others because doing so may benefit you in some way. For example, consider those whites celebrating the notion that the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, and so on are all due to become majority non-white countries in the next few decades. They do not care how that will affect others. They only care that it serves their personal politics. They shirk responsibility to others with whom they share something real and concrete. Individualistic liberalism has taught them to celebrate their circus of degeneracy, to reject loyalty owed to God, King, and Country.
Cuckservatism—Are leftists the real antisemitic fascists?
During the debate, rather than Nazism, the topic often seemed to be about Mr. Anglin personally and whether or not he is of the Right. When challenged to provide specific justification for claiming that Anglin is a leftist, Mr. Beale said that Anglin lies and is a “creature of deceit.” Again, when challenged to provide a specific example, Beale pointed to an alleged “Andrew Anglin style guide,” which he also discussed here. His point being that Anglin allegedly says to “just blame Jews for everything” because “people will become confused and disheartened if they feel there are multiple enemies,” which is dishonest in Mr. Beale’s estimation and thus a leftist tactic rather than legitimate rhetoric.
One thing that must be addressed is that Anglin and Beale were discussing very different timelines regarding Jews and liberalism during the debate. Mr. Beale was absolutely correct in stating that Jews were not at the forefront of Western liberalism in its earliest stages. For example, the abolition movement throughout the Anglosphere can be traced back to liberal Evangelicals within the Church of England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, not to any Jewish groups. Similarly, Christian Zionism can be traced to 19th century English and American Protestants, not to Jews. These facts do not necessarily refute Mr. Anglin, however, since, for good or ill, his focus is on developments of the 20th century. It is important then that we use the appropriate context to judge whether or not Anglin is being deceitful or hyperbolic.
For example, from 1881-1914, under Republican dominance, some 2.5 million Jews were allowed to enter the United States from Eastern Europe, the vast majority of whom were from Russia. Much of this was prompted by the Tsarist government clamping down on Jews following the 1881 assassination of Tsar Alexander II and attempts on the life of his son, Alexander III. The terrorist group responsible, Narodnaya Volya, or People’s Will, had been founded by Mark Natanson, a Jew, and upwards of one-third of activists involved with the group were Jewish with a particularly influential group, “centered in Ekaterinoslav and known for its uncompromising commitment to political terror,” being “more than 50 percent Jewish,” which stands out considering Jews only made up 5% of the Russian Empire’s population. In 1887, another Narodnaya Volyaplot against Alexander III failed, and all of the conspirators were hanged including Alexander Ulyanov, who was of partial Jewish ancestry as was his brother, Vladimir Lenin.
To further provide context to the Republicans condemning Russia in 1892 and then allowing mass Jewish migration, consider that Mark Natanson’s nephew, Sasha Berkman, was allowed to immigrate to the US in 1888, and he immediately joined a militant Jewish group in New York City, Pionire der Frayhayt, or Pioneers of Liberty, known for its Yiddish-language anarchist publication, Varhayt (Truth). On July 23, 1892, Berkman forced his way into the office of Henry Clay Frick of Carnegie Steel Company whereupon he shot Frick twice in the neck and then stabbed him repeatedly. Though the attack failed as Frick survived, Berkman freely admitted that he had hoped to provoke a socialist revolution. Despite Tsar Alexander II being assassinated, despite attempts on Alexander III’s life, and despite a Jewish immigrant tied to those responsible for all of the above trying to assassinate an American industrialist in 1892, Republicans in that same year chose to condemn Russia, side with the Jews, and open the floodgates to Jewish immigration.
That immigration during the Progressive Era would set the foundation for the massive changes seen in the US in the 20th century. For example, Henry Moskowitz, a Jewish immigrant, and William English Walling, an American socialist—both of whom were married to Jewish immigrants—joined with Mary Ovington, an American socialist and suffragette, to found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1908. Despite the name, the early “leaders and board members were not African Americans, but Jews,” with W.E.B. Du Bois actually being “the only black member of the original board.” Unsurprisingly, the NAACP was “supported by the Communist movement, which saw an opportunity to use blacks… to promote a socialist agenda. Du Bois himself eventually became a Communist.”
This was followed by the founding of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1913 by B’nai B’rith, a Jewish organization. The ADL’s first president, Sigmund Livingston, a Jewish immigrant, would go on to defend the 1914 visit to the US by Ernesto Nathan, a Jewish Freemason and Anti-Catholic who had been elected Mayor of Rome in 1907, arguing that “bigotry, intolerance and fanaticism” were “un-American with respect to Jews and Judaism.” The ADL has often found itself overlapping with organizations such as the Socialist Party of America and on the side of the likes of even the Soviet Union in court cases, having “been anti-Christian from its inception, opposing every central Christian principle.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was founded in 1920, and, of the nine co-founders of the ACLU, virtually all of them were avowed socialists, or had demonstrated such sympathies at the very least, with three being Jewish immigrants—Morris Ernst, Arthur Garfield Hays, and Felix Frankfurter—all of whom had previously served on the legal committee of the NAACP. Unsurprisingly, despite claims of defending American values, communists have been the ACLU’s “most frequent clients.”
The Institute of Social Research (ISR) was established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in 1923, and it would be impossible to overlook “the Jewish origins of key members” or the “importance of the Western Marxist-influenced approach that they created and embraced, which has come to be known as Critical Theory,” otherwise known as Frankfurt School cultural Marxism. As Max Horkheimer, one of the key Jewish figures of the ISR, would put it, “[Critical Theory seeks] to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them,” or, to put it more plainly, it is the application of Marxist theories to aspects of society other than economics. For example, it has morphed into gender theory pitting women against men, critical race theory pitting blacks against whites, queer theory pitting homosexuals against heterosexuals, &c. In other words, Critical Theory takes the Marxist framework of class struggle between oppressor and oppressed and recasts the roles based on however one defines themselves, provoking a deconstruction of established order so as to “liberate” whoever is claiming to be oppressed. Virtually every bit of leftist academia lunacy today seeking to destroy the West can be traced back to a small group of Jewish academics who fled the Nazis and found a home in Columbia University in 1934.
We can also look to the philosophical foundations of libertarianism—Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard—all of whom were Jewish. Irving Kristol, the “godfather of neoconservatism,” was the son of Jewish immigrants, and he was also the father of Bill Kristol, who himself has said “lazy” whites deserve to be replaced by “new Americans.” We can also look at the fact that US presidential candidates from both parties feel the need to pander to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) every election cycle even though AIPAC was involved in a spying scandal against the US. That is also despite the fact that Jews have disproportionately voted for the leftist candidate every election since 1916. Consider that the current US Congress is 6% Jewish (almost all leftists) and the current Supreme Court is 33% Jewish (all leftists) despite Jews only making up 2% of the general population.
Now, take all of this together. As Mr. Beale discussed here, the alleged Daily Stormer (or Anglin) style guide does say, “Prime Directive: Always Blame the Jews for Everything… As Hitler says in Mein Kampf, people will become confused and disheartened if they feel there are multiple enemies… So no blaming Enlightenment though[t], pathological altruism, technology/urbanization, etc. – just blame Jews for everything. This basically includes blaming Jews for the behavior of other non-Whites… the message should always be that if we didn’t have the Jews we could figure out how to deal with non-Whites very easily.” To this, Beale says that this is “not a question of rhetoric. Rhetoric is not intrinsically dishonest… [Anglin and his followers] are not to be trusted by anyone, ever. There is so little truth in them, and so much intentional deceit… not unlike SJWs, Swastika-Wearing Jack—es are also prone to lying.”
But is it intrinsically dishonest for Anglin to focus on Jews exclusively when discussing the myriad of problems facing the West? After all, have Jewish groups not openly and repeatedly advocated for flooding the US with Muslim refugees? Do they not also support DACA protecting illegal alien “dreamers” as well as DAPA for the parents of “anchor babies”? And eventual amnesty for the rest of the millions of illegal aliens? And the curtailing of free speech even as they bombard people with propaganda encouraging miscegenation and such? Have they not been at the forefront of advocating for “gay marriage” and “gender-neutral bathroom” policies for transsexuals? Do Jewish groups not also oppose mandatory sentencing for criminals while seeking to limit the tools police can use to prevent crime? Are we to accept that Jewish involvement with all of these leftist causes and more is just a coincidence? How many coincidences does it take before we can say it establishes a pattern?
If placed within historical context, 1880-Present, is it all that dishonest for Mr. Anglin, or anyone else, to say that rhetorically Jews should be the sole focal point of criticism of the Left? Is there a leftist cause that Jewish groups do not openly support? This is not to say that there are no Jews that support right-wing policies in the United States or elsewhere, but it is rather to acknowledge that a majority of Jews are exceedingly leftist and advocate for positions at odds with the principles and values of the far-right. If you are frustrated with some ✡Soros-funded “protest” being defended by the ✡ACLU, ✡NAACP, and media figures such as ✡Jake Tapper, ✡Dana Bash, ✡Rebecca Berg, ✡Carl Bernstein, ✡Wolf Blitzer, ✡Gloria Borger, and on, and on, is it that outlandish for your criticism to highlight the common denominator?
One can certainly argue that Anglin is wrong for dismissing the value of nuance, but that is a far cry from declaring him to be a “creature of deceit” who is inherently a leftist because he lies about Jews. Anglin has a particular target, which is not unwarranted, and he advocates for keeping the spotlight on those he sees as the primary enemy. Beale may find that distasteful for whatever reason, but labeling Anglin to be a liar unworthy of trust from anyone on the right is a bridge too far.
Is national socialism a leftist ideology?
This debate, or at least what the debate was purported to be, has raged in the West since Adolf Hitler became famous on the world stage. As with Italian Fascism, the vast majority of people do not want to be associated with Nazism in any way, shape, or form. Democrats in the US call literally everyone a “Nazi” or “fascist” for any reason, and the Republicans made the mistake of accepting that framework of debate and have spent decades responding, “Nuh uh, you are.” That is the essence of Mr. Beale’s argument: namely, national socialism is a leftist ideology so that anyone who identifies with it must be a leftist themselves. Thus, he is not “punching right” by attacking Anglin because he sees Anglin as being on the Left. This is really no different than what one would expect to hear from Dinesh D’Souza or Sean Hannity.
To begin, let’s look at Beale’s argument that the Nazis were leftists because Point 9 of the 1920 Nazi manifesto read, “All citizens must have equal rights and obligations,” which he compared to the famous Marxist slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This argument has a number of problems, however, specifically Points 4, 5, and 8 of the manifesto, which stipulated citizenship be limited to ethnic Germans, that non-Germans could only live in Germany as guests, that non-Germans who had moved there in the few years prior should be deported, and that non-German immigration should be stopped going forward. Compare this to the Founding Fathers of the United States, who limited citizenship to free whites in 1790, 1795, and 1802. Now, it is true that the idea of citizens possessing equal rights is liberal, albeit of the Enlightenment rather than Marx, and that again presents a problem for Beale since he holds up Enlightenment Era ideas of personal and economic individualism as defining the Right. If individualism is at the core of the Right, does that not then lead to discussing individual rights?
Today, let’s assume that a political party adopted a platform saying that citizenship should be limited to white Americans, that non-whites can only live in America as guests, that non-whites who have only recently entered the US must leave, and that non-white immigration will be banned going forward. Would anyone say that was a leftist platform? Would anyone say that it was liberal in nature? The idea of citizens having equal rights was a liberal idea in 1920 just as it was in 1790, but the totality of what the Nazis proposed was quite illiberal just as was the case with the Founding Fathers. Both were more liberal than royalists, but both were also far to the right of the modern Republican Party and barely in the same galaxy as the Democrats. Thus, we can safely say that the 1920 manifesto is not evidence of being on the Left.
Another of Beale’s arguments is that the Nazis gained electoral success at the expense of leftist parties, not the right, which would imply that it was leftist voters who elected them. From June 1920 to November 1932, there were seven national elections with six political parties standing out—the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), far-left Communist Party (KPD), center-right Centre Party and Bavarian People’s Party (BVP), the far-right German National People’s Party (DNVP), and then the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) with the Nazis operating as the National Socialist Freedom Movement (NSFB) in 1924. At their lowest point, the Nazis held just 2.6% of the vote in May 1928 before rising to 37.3% in July 1932 with a slight slip to 33.1% in November of that same year. According to Beale’s theory, we should see the major leftist SPD and KPD losing immensely as the Nazis gained while the rightist Centre, BVP, and DNVP should remain stable, but that is not what we see at all. Instead, the combined share of the SPD and KPD did fall by 11.1% from May 1928 to July 1932, but the share of the major right-wing parties fell by 26.9%, nearly two-and-a-half times greater than the Left. Indeed, it was the far-right DNVP that fell the hardest, from 14.2% to 5.9%, during the Nazis’ meteoric rise. Granted, that does not necessarily tell us much since there were 2-3 dozen minor parties dividing votes at any given time.
Finally, Beale offered that national socialism was actually an invention of the Chinese prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and he asserted that other national socialist parties had always been leftist in nature. Immediately, this is an odd argument because Nazism™ was defined by the Nazis themselves rather than being an ideology imported from elsewhere. Indeed, his first example—the Chinese United League, or Tongmenghui—was nothing like the Nazis. Their ideology rather revolved around the Three Principles of the People of Sun Yat-sen, which included Mínzú, Mínquán, and Mínshēng. One could treat the first principle as “nationalism” and the third as “socialism,” but that overlooks the fact that Sun Yat-sen’s concept of nationalism was wǔzú gōnghé, or “five-nationality republicanism,” incorporating the Han, Manchu, Mongols, Muslims, and Tibetans. The Tongmenghui would ultimately join with other nationalist and republican parties in 1912 to form the center-right Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party, which would fight a civil war against the Chinese Communist Party. The Kuomintang would also provide the inspiration for Mr. Beale’s second example, the Quốc Dân Đảng, or Nationalist Party of Vietnam, a right-wing party that was committed to fighting the communist threat in their country.
Obviously, these examples of “other national socialists” are beyond lacking. First, simply being a “nationalist” and a “socialist” does not mean you are a Nazi, holding to the specific ideological views and policies of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which is clearly demonstrated by the “Chinese national socialists” supporting a multiethnic civic nationalism. Secondly, pointing to groups that spent decades fighting against communists is hardly a conclusive argument for them—and, by extension, the Nazis—being leftists. Thirdly, even if the Tongmenghui or Quốc Dân Đảng were demonstrably nationalist, socialist, and leftist, what bearing would that have on the Nazis of Germany? Just as a “nationalist and a socialist” may not believe everything that a Nazi does, a Nazi may not believe everything that a “nationalist and a socialist” might believe. In other words, unrelated groups cannot be used as evidence against each other based solely on how they label themselves. After all, “republican” can mean vaguely the same thing around the world yet mean very different things in practice.
This debate could be called “the debate that wasn’t,” certainly in relation to the supposed topic: “Nazism, left or right?” Mr. Anglin is not himself a Nazi, which he said in the debate, and he had little interest in trying to defend a 70-year-old defunct political party against Mr. Beale’s accusations. Anglin was rather concerned with Mr. Beale attacking him personally, albeit that did facilitate some discussion of what exactly constitutes the left/right divide, why Beale thinks Anglin is a leftist, and, yes, Beale’s thoughts on Nazism. In the end, was there a winner? No, not really. Beale was still attacking Anglin and justifying it because they are “not on the same side,” and the arguments offered in favor of Nazism being a left-wing ideology were thoroughly unconvincing (and that is coming from a Catholic monarchist). If the right/left divide was still decided, as it once was, based on who sat where in the French National Assembly, it is hard to imagine Adolf Hitler or other prominent Nazis sitting amongst the republicans and libertines on the left, and nothing said in this debate really suggested otherwise.