Nazis at the Gates

Life in the 20-teens? Fifties? Or Thirties?

Psst—wanna read an actual white supremacist tract? A declaration of Fascist doctrine? Want to know what the neo-Nazis are really thinking?

You will be appalled.

Apparently, just such a piece was recently published by the Philadelphia Inquirer, written by two U of Pennsylvania law profs. We are talking Ivy League here; the enemy is at the gates.

A group of their colleagues, thankfully, sprang into action, and quickly published a rebuttal, actually several rebuttals, with a call that they at least be prevented from teaching first-year law courses.

“Professor Wax’s statements amount to an explicit and implicit endorsement of white supremacy,” they write. “Silence in the face of such dangerous ideas is unacceptable.” “Professor Wax’s rants are also a textbook example of how white supremacy and cultural elitism are used to denigrate the poor and sustain and justify the gross wealth inequality that defines American capitalism.” Her views are “morally toxic” and “intellectually bankrupt.”

Odd that, in something so explicit (their word), I cannot see any actual reference to “whites,” let alone to the idea that they are “supreme.”

Yet this, apparently, is as explicit as “white supremacy” ever gets. We have their word on it.

Draw your own conclusions.

Wax and her colleague Larry Alexander are advocating a return to the “bourgeois” values that were dominant in America in the 1940s and 50s.

Yes, they are aware that there were awful things in the fifties too:

“Was everything perfect during the period of bourgeois cultural hegemony? Of course not. There was racial discrimination, limited sex roles, and pockets of anti-Semitism.”

The authors further disassociate themselves from any racial implications: “They (these values) could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities.”

As of course they could. This was the essential premise on which the American system, the American nationality, and these American values were founded: the melting pot.

Accordingly, we must necessarily conclude that the position of the left now is that one’s culture is genetically determined. And this is an indisputable fact; it is “racist” and “intellectually bankrupt” to question it. You are born with a genetic imprint to speak English, drink tea, or enjoy salsa. This is not something you could, or should ever want, to change.

What could be more profoundly racist than that? You may indeed, then, be judged by the colour of your skin. It supposedly reveals the content of your character.

So what are the genetic traits that the profs who objected to Wax’s editorial—not, please note, Wax—believe are inbred in people by white, Anglo-Saxon genetics?

From her essay—this is what she advocates:

“Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”

It follows that anyone who is not a “white supremacist” must believe that all non-whites are genetically programmed to:

• have children before they get married, 
• avoid education, 
• avoid hard work, 
• prefer idleness, 
• not work hard for an employer or client, 
• have no feeling for their country, 
• be bad neighbours, 
• be selfish, 
• use coarse language in public, 
• disrespect authority, 
• abuse substances and 
• commit crimes.

And how is this not racism in its extreme form?

Among other things, it would mean that people have good reason if they redline neighbourhoods to keep out non-whites, refuse to hire African-Americans, or want to deport all Hispanic immigrants. They would be crazy not to.

Obviously, the Penn NLG claim that Wax’s views are “white supremacist” is a dodge. That is not their problem. They are the white supremacists. If they are serious, their claims are plainly hysterical. They have lost all contact with reality.

Something that seems to be seen on the left increasingly in recent days. As if a bubble is about to pop.

But their claims also presuppose something else—and this is their real problem with Wax’s views.

The problem is that they hate “conventional morality.” Any port in a storm: call it “racist” and hope that will make it go away.

They want for themselves the right, if they so choose, to have children without getting married ,and then divorce if the marriage no longer suits them. They do not want to feel any obligation to put out at their job or for their clients—students, in their case. They do not want to be constrained to not swear in public, to being polite and well-mannered, to avoiding drugs.

It is a neat smokescreen to pretend that their concerns are for others, and supposedly the oppressed, of some other race. It is for their own highly privileged selves.

If you are spoiled badly enough, you will see even the slightest constraint on your own conduct, even the constraints of morality, as Fascism.

And that is where all the Fascists and Nazis are suddenly coming from. Anyone who suggests there might actually be a smidgeon of difference between right and wrong is now a Nazi.

Ironically, because real Fascism was just such a free-for-all in which the constraints of morality were thrown off.

In just this fashion.

These are the racists. These are the white supremacists. These are the Nazis.

They are on the left.

I hope and suspect that the general public will see through their current hysteria, and we will not have to go through again the sort of thing we went through in the 30s. Or at other times in other places: the Cultural Revolution of the 70s in China, and so forth.