Return to Homepage.
Michael Kadish
Political Philosophy of Pluralism
6/10/99
At WWW.Nazi.org , the homepage for a political group, calling itself the "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" resides. One of its claims is that, "Our findings have led us to reject�authority as a means of accomplishing any meaningful change in our world." Clearly, they do not respect the current political system.
This group is not the American Nazi Party. They claim:
With this anarchic style, they are clearly not the prot?g?s of a militaristic, fascist Third Reich. They "are not racialists, [sic]" though they "do actively discriminate against those so foolish to admit to believership [sic] in Judaism or Christianity." They "welcome those of non-normative sexuality into our worldview and organization," i.e., they have no problem with homosexuals. They have no problem with Gypsies, "nor do we applaud the mass execution of civilians, especially homosexuals and Gypsies."
The web page does not go into it, but the organization originated as either a strong Nazi group that was to be heavily watered down, or it could just be a newly created group, that since it has anti-Semitic beliefs, borrows the title "National Socialist." It is not elaborated upon in their literature. If they evolved from a Nazi foundation, they evolved, probably, with dialogue, to come up with the multi-angled positions that they preach. It's a stretch to go from "Mein Fuhrer" to a group that rejects authority. Possibly through open-mindedness\dialogue\realizations the group realized that it did not consist of a superior race, and therefore had no urge to slow down inferior races, no feelings of chauvinistic patriotism, but was just whittled down to a hatred of Jews, Christians, and the collective governments or authority.
However, this group, which considers themselves modern at least to the extent that they can say, "We feel science is a superior answer to the questions of the universe," might be a newly created group. They feel that the superior race is a myth, "Whichever group(s) were practicing racial hygiene might be chagrined to notice that so far scientific evidence suggests a naturally-occurring chaotic pattern of even distribution of intelligence throughout the 'races.'" When it is pointed out to them that the superiority of the German race was nearly quintessential to the Nazis, they reply simply, "That is a question for the Germans; we are not an exclusively nor predominantly German institution." At the same time, this superiority charge is applied to the enemy: "We do not apologize for the work of others to exterminate a religion that believes itself to be 'the chosen race of G-d' and refers to people who are not of that religion as being of 'lower-ordered souls.'"
It may therefore seem to be a group who simply adopts an anti-Judeo-Christian belief, and therefore tacks "National Socialist" to it. However, the group does maintain some policies for America that are parallel to their Second World War predecessors.
Either, these guys are descendants of the Nazis, maintaining their hatred towards religion, and switching their patriotism to the Fatherland to patriotism for the US, or they are a conglomerate of ideas, one of which led them to call themselves (or at least their homepage) "Nazi." In either case, they seem to be a rather progressive group, with most of their desires for social change being very right wing, (National Socialist + Libertarian mixed together) but modern, and scientific as well, with the inclusion of green.
The scary problem is (scary, insomuch as the notion of a party that preaches Anti-Semitism gaining support frightens me) that pluralists would not only accept this group, it appears that the attempt has already been made.
In a very cynical interpretation, pluralism is a political approach that allows all groups to offer their own opinions, thereby creating a gridlock where directly opposed positions are left in a mortal combat. At one point, the party desires to "Ensure rights and freedom for all Americans," giving its first bullet as; "Apply First Amendment freedoms over all law." At the same time, however, they oppose freedom of religion when they talk about their predecessors by saying, "They understood the illness we as citizens of the future now suffer, and saw it begin in a demise of spirit in favor of functionality, as exhibited by the philosophies of Judeo-Christianity."
This is only one of quite a few contradictions. Their constant appeal for nihilism, coming from the Libertarian element, manages to contradict a bit with both the American patriotism of the National Socialists and the nature loving Green element. Their desire that every American should be given an assault rifle, "to prevent crime through local enforcement," would also not bode well with most environmentalists. There are other problems, certain logical ones, certain that would not hold up to argument. They claim that they, "view Christianity as a sub-sect of Judaism, as regardless of current practice, the Talmud is the origin of its morality and the development of its aesthetic purism and property-ownership justifications in Western culture." Not only would that enrage all involved, it seems that it could be proven wrong rather easily.
These however allow a better chance to be accepted by a pluralist thinker. Yes, they have contradictory views, but certainly, they will draw their own lines where they see fit. Changing the first amendment to the Constitution to read "freedom of non-antagonistic religions" may be their first start. Once they specify their beliefs, and iron out their seemingly obvious contradictions, they become nothing more than a patriotic, anti-religious group, with an urge for social change.
The fact is, that though contradictory at times, they do have a nearly legitimate political platform - the pluralists should have little problem. They are open to discussion, even accepting scientific negations to their complaints, and have their list of values ready at hand. This presents more of a problem when their values and desires, because they are such a conglomerated group, are shared with others. If in the midst of political discussion with the other political groups, the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party could easily be the party that acts as a bridge between parties, and, in effect, getting support for their own disturbing views.
This party could wind up not only being accepted by American pluralists, but an answer to prayers. A mutual understanding between environmentalist lobbies and the NRA? Nihilists coming to terms with strong patriots? The discussions would suddenly be real, encouraging, and cause for advancement.
It could get even more frightening. A story often told around Yom Hashoa, (I apologize, but have not been able to find this story in print from a citable source.) that during Hitler's rise to power, some Jews offered contributions to the Nazi party in an attempt to fight the threat of Communism. Similarly here, some Jews would vote for a party that would remove the power and threat of the Christian Coalition, whereas vehement radical Christians would support an anti-Semitic group. Latinos who might be ill at ease with the prospect at their eradication could perhaps be put enough at ease with the statement that, "As her part of the deal, America should pull her banks out of Mexico and stop allowing the process of paying them less than minimum wage for dirty work;"
The last one may be stretching the prospect of reality a bit too much, and the notion that any percentage of Jews would vote for any group with the words "National Socialist" or "Nazi" in their title during the next few hundred years seems remote. Nevertheless, as scary as it seems, pluralists should have no problem with this new "Nazi" party; it does seem to follow the outline of the pluralists, and in fact, could solve many of the political stalemates, whose very existence oppose the pluralist desires.