Socialist origins of Neo-Nazism

August 13, 1999

Buford Furrow’s bloody rampage is over, and now begins the
predictable propaganda campaign to score political points. With
egregious sleight of hand, the American “right wing” will be demonized.
No doubt, the media will get around to blaming talk radio and the
Internet.

Notice that some events precipitate wide-ranging discussions on
political philosophy, while others do not. After a series of school-yard
killings in which the murderers were linked to violent Satanic cults,
and even after it was shown that the deranged kids set out to kill
students who believe in God, there was no hunt for atheistic “left-wing
extremists.” That would have been an unseemly attempt to use tragedy to
advance a partisan agenda.

But Furrow, a deranged criminal, gives the media an opportunity to do
what they love best: attack those who oppose the ever-increasing
government control of our lives. Furrow, then, is being called “right
wing” because he was associated with Neo-Nazi groups that imagine
themselves as successors to Hitler. Their acts of violence are designed
to set off a domestic war that would lead to the establishment of a New
Order run by them.

But what, in Heaven’s name, does any of this have to do with
“right-wing” theory? By “right wing,” the media can mean one of these
killer Nazi thugs, or they can mean someone who believes in private
property, free enterprise, and bourgeois social norms. The blurring of
the difference — they are really polar opposites — is wildly dishonest
but obviously purposeful.

Of course, the media are free to define terms however they like, but
the fact is that the ideological origins of Nazism are with the left.
The term Nazi itself is short for the National Socialist German Workers
Party. Nazism was fashioned as a totalitarian nationalist alternative to
the totalitarian
international socialism of the Lenin model. But national or
international, the relevant word is socialist, which should be the first
tip-off to Nazism’s leftist origins.

It was no accident that the Nazi flag was a red banner; it was taken
from the flag of socialism. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn showed in his
book, “Leftism” (1974 and 1990), Hitler and all his top lieutenants were
hard-core socialists who hated everything about the old Europe,
including small
states, the monarchs, the Church, the landed aristocracy, peace, and the
free economy of the 19th century. They imagined themselves running a
centralized, protectionist, and statist Germany under the
executive-branch “leadership principle.” They talked constantly of a
proletarian revolution
that would destroy the bourgeois class.

Furthermore, as Robert Proctor showed in “Racial Hygiene: Medicine
Under the Nazis” (1988), the Nazis were health fanatics who banned
cigarette smoking, promoted vegetarianism and organic gardening, engaged
in abortion and euthanasia, frowned on all capitalist excess, and even
promoted animal rights. They were environmentalists who locked up land
from development to promote paganism.

The Nazi government introduced socialized medicine and
government-mandated vacations at government spas, imposed handgun
control, and expanded unemployment “insurance” and Social Security. The
Nazis opposed the traditional calendar and wanted to replace it with one
centered on race and nation rather than faith and family.

A new study of Nazi make-work programs of the 1930s by Dan P.
Silverman (“Hitler’s Economy,” 1998) shows that Hitler’s government
pursued a program of “public investment” even more far reaching than the
U.S. New Deal. This government imagined itself as the employer of every
citizen, the planner of every production decision, and the redistributor
of every accumulated pocket
of wealth in society. From the Nazi point of view, full glory came
during the war when they took over the economy completely, Soviet-style.

Whatever you want to call a violent movement that idealizes Hitler’s
socialist Third Reich, “right-wing” doesn’t cut it. Consider also the
politics of the Neo-Nazi novel that inspires many of these killers. It
is called the Turner Diaries. The book got a lot of attention after the
bombing of the Oklahoma federal building because it was a favorite of
Timothy McVeigh’s.

It has been said that the book advocates the killing of federal
officials. In fact, that’s just the initial hook. Conspirators wipe out
all their enemies, which include anyone who opposes their rise to total
power. After taking over, they restart the calendar at the year zero, a
goal associated with every socialist thinker from Rousseau to Pol Pot.

Also in the book, businessmen are portrayed as a greedy class that
puts money before race, and Christians are demonized as stupid and evil.
In the U.S. of the future, all free enterprise and free trade are
abolished. Instead, we get a central-planning regime that distributes
all resources, including
food, on an equal basis. The citizens are pliable subjects of the
socialist elite who exercise total power. The book ends with nuclear
bombs, the invention of the socialist FDR, destroying all of Africa,
China, and South America.

The plot, however crude, isn’t entirely unfamiliar. It is just a
version of the nightmarish dream of every variety of socialism:
millennialist imaginings of a new age of history, hatred of businessmen,
opposition to established religion, a belief in central planning, a love
of central power, and a world government that crushes all opposition to
the revolution.

No matter what they call themselves, the people who have similar
dreams of total social and economic control today are on the left, not
the right. (That there exists a venerable non-socialist tradition on the
left is another issue for another day.) The uncomfortable truth is this:
the differences between the fevered imaginings of Furrow, and those
advanced in the academic socialist literature, do not concern
ideological substance, but its particular shading and application.