Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Beating Back the Nazi ‘Sickness’

Bill Clinton misdiagnoses the evil of Hitler's genocidal slave state.

by
Walter Hudson

Bio

May 2, 2013 - 11:00 am

Before “modern warfare,” we shot Nazis.

Before the Call of Duty franchise took on the subtitle Modern Warfare, it arguably reigned as the pinnacle of the World War II genre. While other first-person shooter games like those in the popular Tom Clancy series — including hit franchises like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six – offered players the ability to engage in simulated modern warfare, for much of video game history the default setting for a run-and-gun, first-person shooter was World War II.

Many factors contributed to the period’s popularity as a setting for video-game violence. Chief among them march the jackbooted villains of the era, the Nazis. No one feels bad after shooting a Nazi. In fact, their evil proves so incontestable and absolute that killing them fulfills a profound sense of justice. No doubt that moral certitude contributed to their proliferation throughout gaming. Killing Nazis invites no controversy, leaving game developers with one less thing to worry about.

While the nature of Nazi evil may seem self-evident, the recent anniversary of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., provided an occasion to demonstrate that even former United States presidents can miss the mark. The local CBS affiliate reports:

Washington has many monuments and memorials that offer something special for visitors from around the world, “but the Holocaust memorial will be our conscience,” [President] Clinton said.

Since the museum opened 20 years ago, the world has made huge scientific discoveries, including the sequencing of the human genome, which proved humans are 99.5 percent genetically the same, Clinton said.

“Every non age-related difference … is contained in one half of 1 percent of our genetic makeup, but every one of us spends too much time on that half a percent,” Clinton said. “That makes us vulnerable to the fever, the sickness that the Nazis gave to the Germans. That sickness is very alive across the world today.”

The report does not include any specific examples of what Clinton diagnoses as the Nazi “sickness.” However, we may fairly assume he was referring to any intolerance of human diversity.

While racial hatred is certainly repugnant, that alone hardly encapsulates the evil of the Nazis. Misdiagnosing their sickness as merely an attitude toward superficial differences fosters a distorted view of their offense, leaving modern evils out of focus.

Hating Jews and other minority groups was not the chief offense of the Nazis. Violating individual rights was. Racial hatred was the repugnant frosting on a vile and poisonous cake. Hating someone on account of their ethnic origins, while certainly distasteful, does not harm the hated individual. Hate alone cannot deprive someone of anything. It cannot — without further action — take life, encroach upon liberty, or seize property. Those violations can certainly be motivated by racial hatred, as was the case with the Nazis. However, motivation matters little compared to the violations themselves.

We should be concerned when someone as prominent and influential as Clinton fails to recognize such a distinction because his lack of focus mirrors that of many social-policy crusaders who believe that the greatest evil facing our world is “intolerance.” Of course, by “intolerance,” what they really mean is any politically incorrect, opposing opinion. When that becomes the standard of evil, the “sickness” which must be purged from the world, than any means becomes justified in siphoning it from the body politic. In practice, that translates to state-sanctioned rights violations in the name of promoting “tolerance.” Thus, a misdiagnosis of evil enables evil to masquerade as good.

A father of fascism, Mussolini was more than a racist.

To understand this better, we need only look closer at the Nazi menace. Racial hatred was not a primary upon which Nazism was built, but a byproduct of the underlying ideology of fascism. We often think of concentration camps and Holocaust victims when the term “fascist” is evoked. However, fascism does not require concentration camps to exist. Fascism, as described by one of its fathers, Benito Mussolini, subordinates the individual to the state:

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.

That fundamental valuation of state over individual informs the taking of lives, the deprivation of liberty, and the seizing of property. Racial hatred serves only as an effective means to foment the troops, not the means through which they are deployed in the first place. Without a state to institutionalize racial hatred, the atrocities of the Holocaust would not likely have occurred. That is why, despite the fact that Nazis still linger among us even here in the United States, we need not fear them above any common thug because our state retains some valuation of the individual.

To the extent any state subordinates individual lives, it takes on a more fascist character. Therein lies the danger of Clinton’s misdiagnosis. The real Nazi sickness is statism. Clinton would be right to point out that it remains alive across the world today, if statism was what he was referring to. Unfortunately, he was most likely referring only to racial hatred. That missed mark enables statist solutions to racial attitudes – quotas, speech codes, hate crimes, etc. Thus the cure becomes worse than the disease.

Jonah Goldberg’s tome traces the leftist roots of fascism.

Thomas Sowell had a great piece at Townhall last summer which highlighted the fundamental characteristics of fascism and how they have come to fester within American jurisprudence.

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong.

You can own your factory, but the state will tell you what you can do with it. You can keep your insurance, but the state will tell you what it has to cover. You can buy land and build a home, but the state will tell you how big it can be. You can open a business, but the state will tell you who you must employ and how much you must pay them.

All such encroachments upon the individual’s ability to act upon their own judgment in pursuit of their own happiness are manifestations of the real Nazi sickness, albeit several degrees less egregious than ghettos and concentration camps. When we misidentify racial hatred as the chief culprit, we actually enable the very evil we should seek to overcome. For if racial hatred is the primary problem, any legislation which attempts to compensate for it appears justified.

Shooting virtual Nazis feels good because the criminal institution they represent offends our objective sense of justice. In future posts, we’ll take a look at other villain archetypes who frequent our digital fantasies.

Walter Hudson advocates for individual rights, serving on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota, and as president of the Minority Liberty Alliance. He hosts a daily podcast entitled Fightin Words, proudly hosted on Twin Cities Newstalk Podcast Network. Walter is a city council member in Albertville, MN. Follow his work via Twitter and Facebook.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (30)
All Comments   (30)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
People who live in the United States complaining of 'statism' are hypocrites of the highest order. Nation States meet an instinctive need for dominance of resources for an 'in group' collective of genes superior survival chances.

Anything else is rhetoric.

City States, which are all that Europe truly represents as a relic population enablement norm going back to Classical Greece are not able to function in controlling these same resources, even if they are nominally all of a 'similar' (i.e. breeds together = shared benefts) population gene group.

Given that there were between 60 and 100 million Native Americans in 10,000 tribes in the Americas before Whites arrived and a combination of disenfranchisement and disease dropped these numbers to 1,000 and 20 million less than three centuries later (most of which occurred unwitnessed but not unknown, as Spanish colonial parties as far north as Georgia found village after village emptied of life as though ghost towns from another age, see _The Ten Thousand Year Explosion_); it is impossible to 'understate' the survival power of in-group collectivism when it comes to creating exclusive access as success in a population as culture as geneline.

We may not like what we did to the First Nations people but nor do we permit the guilt of their disenfranchisement and near genocide unto permanent POW status from allowing us to enjoy what has come since as the world's original and most capable techno-state.

Hitler, an avid fan of the Cowboy Ethic, attempted to do for Europe what Andy Jackson did with the Trail Of Tears as a means to create a continent spanning Nation State. Lacking Indians his target was the already demonized the Jews whom he disenfranchised as political bribe (look, empty land, open jobs, quick grab yours!) to bring -everyone- onboard with.

It nearly worked because Anti-Semitism was wide spread throughout Europe, long before his rise to power.

His excuse was that life is a struggle between races as population groups seeking control over resources and given the utter mess that the multicult 'inclusivism' ethic (as wage slavery of ethnic populations) has brought to a modern day Europe _still_ seeking continental nation Statism, he may well have been right.

For to override Europes innately biased in-group nationalism at the city state level has required diluting their populations with a more prolific TFR external population whose threat to jobs, culture and crime rates has been extreme.

A threat that never would have happened under Hitler's _National_ Socialist model.

And so the price of inclusivism as geographic unity may well be the replacement of Europe as we know it by an Islamic Caliphate. One where gene groups exclude each other from ever smaller pieces of the economic pie which is the sole justification for nationalism to begin with.

Since Hitler was also a very sick puppy in the literal sense, unlikely to have survived through 1955, the questions you have to ask yourself are thus:

1. Would the U.S., having lost the war in Europe and won it in the Pacific, been better off competing with an excellence seeking German population ethic rather than attempting to be 'better socialists than the Communists' as the insular Russians in the runup to the massive mistake which the 1960s relativistic revolution (representing the destruction of our genetic as moral center)?

2. Given our bloody genocidal history, do we honestly have a right to judge others in the near term, going through their own Rite Of Passage to nation statehood, so severely, that we in fact interrupt their process as our own, 19th century, equivalent was not?

If so, what does that say about our own 'anything goes' willingness to stifle a competing population by destroying it's infrastructure as foreign colonial base, entirely? For that is what WWII did to Europe.

Are we not, in fact, fulfilling Hitler's vision of a competing global population group war?

People find it easy to be horrified by remote actions as a hysteria they don't have to pay for with physical effort to sustain the hate as fear.

Yet the threat of Nazism was a threat no different from any other to our culture as gene group (Mongols, Turks, Vikings, Islam, NA Raiders) and was dealt with accordingly.

Hitler WAS NOT 'special' (read: Uniquely Diabolical).

Thus using the Reductio Ad Hitlerum (all things reduce to Hitler/Nazism) justification for 'whatever Hitler have done, do the opposite' inclusive liberalism is a dangerous miscomprehension of what that war as the attitudes that have grown from it, was and are about.

The U.S. will vanish under a tide of culture altering, superior breeding Hispanic and Black populations as surely as Europe is being overrun, from within, by South West Asian groups. Invited in because we mistakenly associate Hitler with Racial Prejudice and 'violation of individual rights' with the needs to protect the genetic population as survival mode strategy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In speaking of Bill Clinton maybe we should quantify exactly who is is.
How do you quantifiy a person who is a serial rapist and a torturer of all women of whom he ever came in contact with while not in the presence of another Male.
This is who Bill Clinton is, a brazen coward with absolutely nothing to offer the world in any manner. He is at the top of a long list of useless subhuman beings who one day will get his just rerward.
There are thousands of people who could have filled the bill for your article, next time please pick one with some moral structure.... instead of this bastard, and I use this term correctly..
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
oh- whoo! Exciting! You're talking about video games! I'll be reading!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To a Bill Clinton Nazism is only evil if he is not in charge.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bravo, Mr. Hudson, good job. Not really sure I buy the distinction between seething the hatred and acting on it, though, but it's thought-provoking. Hatred is like potential energy. All it takes is a spark and it becomes kinetic energy. Leftism focuses hatred, whereas walking with the Lord reduces its power. Leftists hate Christianity for a reason.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Haven't we got better things to do than listen to anything Bill Clinton says.

He who has not yet "come to terms" that he is yesterday's man. He who spent much energy, time and "intellect" in his "youngish" years before an impeachment committee of our "virtuous" lawmaking Congress to their delight at hisi intellect and wit in debating the meaning of the word IS?

Only then to become the "pillar of their exclusive gentlemen's club and "respected" elder statesmen, moulting his true skin as a "disgraceful" president?

How lucky we are now to have in his place his ever loving, supporting and protective spouse who "stood by her man" to become Senator for New York, a long way from Arkansas, to continue to give us all who are panting for it her wit, wisdom and great knowledge.

And what do they call it their "what difference does it make" compassionate liberalism"?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bill Clinton discussing Nazis. This reminds me of a story I read during his regime. An historian flying with Mr. Bill to the Normandy anniversary observance feverishly trying to educate the man. . . who knew absolutely nothing about WWII.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“Actions don't happen in a vacuum and your sense of love comment is simply weird.”

I disagree. Many tyrannical governments have operated under the guise of “love.” In fact, it was “love” of the German people to the exclusion of all else (carefully crafted of course) that lead to the Nazi atrocities. We may have the luxury of looking back on it now and calling hate for non-Germanic peoples, but let us not forget that it began with love of Country, neighbor and self. However, you are correct in that no action happens in a vacuum, therefore we must take care of what directs our steps.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If Hitler and the Nazis had had enough time, many of the German people themselves would have ended up in the camps. It was all dependent on how far the Nazis went with the whole blonde-haired, blue-eyed Teutonic Ideal. There is some evidence that plans were to kill off much of the European population leaving behind only the master race (though one supposes the leaders, few of whom met the standard, would be exempt).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Very well said, and a very astute analysis of how we got here. I have always wondered if this path was deliberately chosen and planned for, or it was an encompassing idea that only could take advantage of events to further its foul cause.

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to post such cogent thoughts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
*"Misdiagnosing their sickness as merely an attitude toward superficial differences fosters a distorted view of their offense, leaving modern evils out of focus."*

That is by design. It is part of the damage control engaged in by the Left in the aftermath of World War II when the horrors of National Socialism became evident.

Racism (particularly eugenics) were long associated openly with the Left prior to WWII and its horrors. (For example, Tommy Douglas, the "Greatest Canadian" and father of its socialized medical system, was a fan of eugenics, a fact gently but systematically starved of attention by the Canadian Left and media). These things were just part of the cultural wallpaper back then, opposed mainly by the individualist liberals of the day who were (and are) the Left's true enemies. The Left had no reason to oppose it, as it was a collectivist cultural factor to be exploited.

But then along came Hitler and Mussolini, who followed the collectivist road to its logical end. While the Left had successfully numbed people to similar such abuses under their third project -- Stalin's communism -- the starkness of the former two, Hitler especially, was just too much, too obvious, too clear.... they threatened to blow the entire Left sky high, destroying what was so far about a century's worth of eroding the Enlightenment and its individualist ideals.

So it was necessary to engage in some serious damage control in order to prevent this potential Great Awakening -- or barring that, to misdirect and dilute it.

This was done by epistemological means. The Left, then as (largely) now, has a near-complete monopoly on academia and the intellectual milieu. They exploited this by using an epistemological trick to disseminate the idea that the real evil of Nazism was that it really about racism, not socialism. Racism was then defined out of the Left over to what they began designating as the "right wing". Thus was born today's conventional political spectrum, which I have termed the "Ackbar Spectrum" (it's a trap!)

What was the "epistemological trick"? Definition by non-essentials. This works by substituting a superficial trait for a more fundamental one as the "defining" attribute. It relies on its victims being unaware of the fact that facts exist in a causal hierarchy, and the facts that "cause" or explain lost of other facts are the fundamental ones.

In this case, the fundamental is collectivism; the non-essential is racism, which is but one species of collectivism. By deflecting attention to one "bad" collectivism, collectivism itself -- including its other exemplars, such as communism -- can be salvaged. While racism is undoubtedly evil, the *source* of that evil is the fact that racism is a species of collectivism. Slaughtering millions on the basis of race is no more evil than slaughtering them on the basis of their bank accounts or that they are part of the "1%".... but no, communism and National Socialism are *completely* different, insist far too many people with no clue whatsoever of what is really going on at the conceptual level.

They succeeded, as is proven by how many "Che" T-shirts there are on college students these days, versus (say) Ernst Rohm or Goebbels.

There is some evidence that this old lie is fraying around the edges; that prodigal son of the Left, anti-Semitism, is starting to make itself at home again on the European Left, and what used to be seen as "extreme right-wing" conspiracy theories are pretty much indistinguishable from their "extreme" Leftist counterparts these days, as the affinity of many Ron Paulians and Zero Hedge commenters for the Occupy movement demonstrate.

But this is after eighty more years of damage from our Prussian-inspired school system... I don't know how many people are left who are capable of knowing or caring what's really going on, anymore.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Personally, I'm surprised that Hitler and the Nazis (which, contrary to what this article claims, is actually Socialist, not Facist, not that it makes much difference anyhow, nor does Nazism make much distinction from Communism of any stripe, whether it be Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, or the like) were the only ones who actually got punished and hated by all of society, even the left. The Soviets and Communist China killed far more people in both numerical total and percentage-wise than even the Nazis, yet they get pretty much a free pass in regards to their crimes. Had I been president during World War II, I'd make sure that after the Nazis and Fascist Italy were stopped, the Soviets were next in line for receiving brutal justice for war crimes, regardless of whether they were our allies or not. Pure justice sees absolutely no distinction between allies or enemies. Probably the closest we've EVER gotten to Communists actually receiving justice and public outcry for their crimes to the scale of the Nazis was Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and that's only because it became too difficult to contain. I mean, you would think the numbers and percentages in death rates alone would have been sufficient enough to persuade people that Communism, regardless of its stripes, is a very bad ideal. Heck, right now we have teachers getting away with teaching us how the god-forsaken French Revolution (which, even though it occurred long before Karl Marx, the father of Socialism, was even BORN, fit his views and teachings perfectly) was the best thing since sliced bread, and very similar to the American Revolution. I know because I personally experienced one such teacher who taught that during High School. He also pushed a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric throughout the World History course despite being an Irish Catholic himself.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I agree but FDR was dying when re-nominated in Nov. 1944 though savvy enough to dump the Stalin sympathizer Wallace as his VP. When Wallace's replacement Truman was told Hiss, the architect of the United Nations, was a Soviet Spy, and travelled to Moscow to be rewarded we assume by Stalin after Yalta, he called Whittaker Chambers reluctant charges first reported to deaf ears in 1941 "a red herring." So after 400,000 American deaths through 1945, and while Truman was forcibly throwing Russian refugees on boxcars to be shipped back to the Gulag against their will who was going to take out Stalin. Sure, with 20 million dead, and the Russians sick of Stalin, we could have walked in. But the only man who could have done it, Patton was too politically incorrect to be accepted and Truman was hand picked to be precisely who he was, a hat salesman from Missouri.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Sure, with 20 million dead, and the Russians sick of Stalin, we could have walked in."

Easy to say, not so easy to do. Napoleon thought he could walk in 1812. Hitler -- and most military experts -- thought the same in 1941.

The Red Army was a powerful, experienced force in 1945. The US Army maybe not so much. The British were war-weary after six years and out of resources. The US public was not interested in another war. The US had the airpower, sea power and logistics, but the Soviets had a larger, more experienced army, better tanks, more experienced generals, interior lines, a huge country with little infrastructure in the way of roads, a ruthless commander-in-chief and a population used to sacrifice.

I think if the US had tried to go to Moscow, they would have gotten bogged down in the vastness of Russia, tired of the bloodletting, and in the end just nuked Moscow.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Uh, did any of you guys hear about "Little Boy" and "Fat Man"? We wouldn't have needed even to walk in, just fly over.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Russians had better tanks, more arty, and more troops (we did have more and better aircraft). If the Soviets had decided to continue west, I don't know if we could have stopped them short of the Rhine, but much less invaded Russia.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I should add: I recently read that Eisenhower only repatriated the Russians, Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. back to Stalin, who did not want to serve a 10 year [death] sentence in Siberia for the "crime" of being captured by Nazis because Stalin spent the late '30's liquidating the higher echelons of Red Army officer corps and then signing a friendship pact with Hitler, because otherwise Stalin would not return certain American prisoners he was holding in the portion of Germany his troops captured. What was IKE to do? My original opinion that Ike and Truman should never have done this was somewhat mollified by the alternative that "Uncle Joe," our smiling ally, left us.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Very well said, and a very astute analysis of how we got here. I have always wondered if this path was deliberately chosen and planned for, or it was an encompassing idea that only could take advantage of events to further its foul cause.

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to post such cogent thoughts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All