Reading · Adûnâi’s Substack

Calling Nazism a modernist movement is missing the point considering Christianity itself is NOT traditional. Nazism was an attempt to revive the most ancient pagan values, thus Rudyard Lynch's argument of him being a true conservative because he's Christian is missing the point. Sure, Nazism was using (biological) science and (transportarion) technology, but the target was returning to pre-Christian, animal morality. That's arguably as conservative as it gets - not their fault the world had long gone deranged with the modernizing spirit of the religion of love.

Point 1 - woke right according to me (right wingers who are woke) - anti-racist, feminist, pacifist, egalitarian

I view the term woke right as the right-wingers who exhibit the same woke morality. The classical argument (which WIAH mentions, incidentally) is "liberals are the real racists" - thus sharing the same anti-racist views, merely playing a game of hot potato. But it goes much further than that. WIAH himself shares one such point - blaming Jews for everything, the same as Marxists blame power structures, and that's the one point where we're in agreement. But I'd go much further. When Nick Fuentes unironically bemoans the deaths of 200 Iran schoolgirls, he looks exactly the same as those Jews who cry over the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust - even though Nick himself openly mocks such Jews! We can go deeper, too. When the right is up in arms about Epstein, see Devon Stack's bewilderment about fucking 14 year old girls, they behave exactly the same as woke left moral police about feminism and female rights.

What would be the proper, sovereign-morality, non-woke right's response? Gloating that those Iranian girls got murdered in cold blood. And envying Epstein for raping girls, just like the founders of Rome raped Sabine women. It is a woke instinct to weep over genocides and suffering, to turn Hitler into a Christian saint, Wholesome Chungus, who could do no Holocaust - and it is the right instinct to embrace amor fati, Eternal War, mass rape and resetting Mesopotamia with Indo-Germanics.

Point 2 - WIAH woke right is just calling a person who responds to violence with violence "a violent person"

What is "woke right" in WIAH's parlance then? He defines it as a right that's not... liberal! A right that's collectivist and racist! Because... and here I get confused as he himself later mocked the idea that "democrats are the real racists" but it's exactly the crux of his own definition? Because defining radical opposition to the woke left as "woke right" is the same as seeing a guy who got punched in face now punching the face of his attacker, and calling him "violent". If charitable, I could call it "looking into the abyss". But more realistically it's missing the point.

Even worse, because the woke left is NOT racist and NOT collectivist. Woke people hate cisgendered White males. They do not like any race in particular. They are already simply a mirror to White Supremacy. So no, being pro-White is not a mirror to anti-White because pro-White is the default position of White societies, the woke mirror reflected and distorted this self-love into self-hate (using Christianity which went into its terminal Red Giant stage as a reaction to Hitler's revolution).

And most ideologies in existence are collectivist. Hell, even Nick Fuentes' spineless Catholicism tends to view people as part of the groups they inhabit, and not even people as individuals to begin with but as family units, too. Hence calling any collectivist movement "socialist" or "woke" is bizarre. Liberalism is not the center of the world, and by far not the default position. And no, the Duke of Saxony wasn't a Miltonian either.

Point 3 - WIAH concept of Nazis as atheist and socialist is bizarre

Richard Carrier has recently gone on a tirade calling Nazis Christian. It's part of the usual game of hot potato where they try to depict Hitler as something they are not, but the point still stands. Nazis were deeply religious - the more revolutionary and young ones pagan (see Ehrenkrieg2 response to Carrier which illustrates this point beautifully), the "boomer" Nazis went Positive Christians, but calling them "atheist" is a ridiculously detached and anachronistic misnomer. Yes, Nazis were a mass movement, they used technology (to transport Jews to crematoria, not refugees to Europe), but their revolution was so much more profound than Robespierre's or Lenin's as to have nothing in common with the previous 1.5 millennia of Christianity. In fact, I agree with Tom Holland's argument that it was the Christians who in the Middle Ages invented the concepts of individual rights which have since become the foundation of modern wokism. It was the Christians who banned cousin marriage destroying the biological foundation of the European clan structure, and thus preparing the ground for modern individualism, cosmopilitanism and atomisation.

All in all, this video is a testament to WIAH as being ever more blinded by his own hysterical liberal bias as opposed to seeing the world as a fight of many forces. He's saying Socialism is a failure? Let's look at what's gonna remain of America. Increasingly I see comments that "speaking German would've been preferable to living in the woke dystopia" - that's the true legacy of Churchill.

Response to Rudyard Lynch on the woke right question

Comments