Vox Day, Andrew Anglin, and the Misunderstanding of Naziism

Colin Liddell

The recent debate between Vox Day and Andrew Anglin was an odd sort of mismatch. I don’t mean that in the sense that one of the parties was far superior to the other. In fact there was a rough equality — while Vox was clearly smarter and better educated, Anglin had more cunning. No, the mismatch I am referring to was that between two creatures that inhabit different realms and can’t really get to grips with each other in any meaningful way. On social media, I likened it to a battle between a gadfly and a tadpole.

The “debate” focused on the nature of Naziism, with Vox Day doubling down on his “Hitler was the real Commie” narrative that he tried out on Greg Johnson in an earlier debate. Anglin’s line was basically “Yeh, whatever, who cares? I just use that Nazi schtick to troll normies and shitlibs. PS I want to exterminate all Jews anyway.”

Yes, this was literally the level on which this debate happened. Anglin is essentially a pre-Nazi anti-Semite. Think medieval peasant incensed by well poisonings, who has to LARP as a (((Hollywood Nazi))) to get his memes nice and danky. Vox Day, by contrast, came across as Dinesh D’Souza. It seems these pro-Western non-Whites or partial Whites (D’Souza, Vox Day, Sargon of Assad, etc.)  are necessarily attracted to the West in the abstract and thus its liberal, atomized side.

The debate was also a good example of how retarded the conventional Left-Right ideological spectrum can be, and how incapable it is of dealing with any complexity. This was revealed especially in the complete misunderstanding by both parties of what Naziism was, something that they undoubtedly share with the vast majority of people with an opinion on the matter.

This is forgivable as most people approaching the subject tend to be thrown off either by the “National” part of Naziism or by the “Socialist” part. In truth, the term is dysfunctional and fails to describe what Naziism really was.

The term “National Socialism” is an absurdity to begin with because it was only ever about one nation, Germany.  The term “National Socialism” implies that this can be an ideology for all nations, and this is actually how some modern national socialists view it. But in its actual historical existence, this was far from the case. Nazism was all about the elevation of Germany uber alles, with an imperialistic and exterminationist character.


Europe divided into areas of settlement and exploitation.

A more accurate term would be “German socialism,” but with the emphasis on the collective rather than the egalitarian aspect of socialism. This is something that Vox Day, like many other liberals and especially American ones, fails to grasp. Socialism is a tool of power, a way of defeating enemy groups. The true genesis of European socialism was the Greek phalanx and the battalions of Frederick the Great, not some kumbaya “why can’t we all be equal and smoke weed?” session on a California beach.

The socialist unity that Hitler desired aimed at creating a collective entity powerful enough to impose the grossest inequalities on the rest of Europe. Also, it is high time that it was pointed out that Hitler was not even a racist and anti–Semite — his main enmity was directed against other Whites.

In contrast to his loathing of heavily Europeanized Ashkenazi Jews, he was constantly reaching out to actual Semites, namely the Arabs, whom he viewed as allies. Also, while hating “subhuman” Slavs because of a supposed touch of Mongol blood, he extolled the full-blooded Mongoloids, the Japanese and the Chinese. Where do you think he got that funny-looking symbol from?


Hitler hanging out with a Semite.

Hitler may in fact have been an early prototype of the White-hating White liberal, but he was certainly not a racist and anti-Semite, more an “ethnicist” who hated people racially closer to him than people racially distinct. Indeed, if Hitler had only been an actual racist, like the ruling elites of both Britain and America at the time, it is unlikely he would have faced much opposition.

Hitler’s intense “ethnicism” makes the reformulation of Nazism as “German Socialism” problematic because “German,” “Germany,” and “Germans” are by definition, quintessentially European. in fact, because of its unique history in the heart of Europe, no country is more European than Germany. But Hitler’s form of “German Socialism” was specifically anti-European, especially with regard to the Slavs.

Of course, European nations had fought each other for centuries, with much bloodshed on all sides, and even with occasional changes of population. But this was always within a context of civilisational unity, mediated by the salving influence of the Christian church. Power ebbed and flowed, but emperors and conquerors always placed themselves above petty ethnicism, happily ruling over diverse populations as opportunity provided. If the Germans had won WWI, this would probably have continued with a Wilhelmite Germany and ruling class lording it over Polish, French, and other European populations.

Although happy to wage the most terrible war ever, Kaiser Wilhelm was a true European, and would never have treated European populations the way that he treated the Herero people of Namibia, whom he massacred and genocided. “National Socialism or German Socialism — let’s just call it Hitlerism — represented a move away from this towards something essentially anti-European, something that essentially eviscerated Germany from Europe, and therefore de-Europeanized and De-Germanized it.

This should not be surprising because what Hitler was attempting to do was to recreate the British Empire in a landlocked context. This is especially clear in Hitler’s “Second Book,” where he discusses various geopolitical concerns and how to solve them. For Hitler this meant setting his version of Germany above Europe — and separating from it — creating a kind of virtual island, and then reducing the continent in subjection to it as a version of “Africa” that German colonists could reach on a sea of blood to settle or exploit. In short, he wanted to turn Poles and Russians into Hereros and Namaquas.

This was the aspirant architecture of Nazism (a sea-based empire transferred to the Continent), but to achieve this the necessary process was the isolation (meant also in its literal sense) of Germany and the Germans from Europe. This represented a complete break from Germany’s entire history as the most embedded part of a greater European civilization. Such a radical break could only be achieved by resorting to the culture of the most resolutely self-alienating minority in Europe, namely the Jews.

The best way to think of Hitlerism is as a Teutonic attempt to “appropriate” an aspect of Jewish culture, namely its ancient collective survival strategy, based on “othering” the goyim, and then mixing this with British insularity and imperialism imposed in a non-naval context. There is literally something quite insane about this.

The Nazis, as well as some of their modern day imitators and apologists, are weird echoes and incarnations of Jewish separatism and supremacy. This is the true light in which to see Nazism. It should be viewed not just as an evil because of its ill effects on modern day White and European nationalism, but as an evil in itself, a poison to the very thing it claimed to nurture. In short, it was a twisted and unholy abortion borne of two ill-matched parents, rather like any offspring that Andrew Anglin and Vox Day might produce if their incompatible essences ever achieved a bastardized union.


  • interesting article, although I disagree regarding what naziism was….I take more the viewpoint in the article called “I was hitler’s boss,” which was apparently written by karl mayr. He said hitler was non-ideological, and that he was hired to help the german army subvert growing populist leftism in germany…hitler had a talent for speaking (supposedly honed through lonely walks as a boy–he was an outcast of sorts because of a genital deformity)…his bosses told him to make jews the scapegoat because they were involved with bolshevism…he said hitler was not all there, mentally, because of nerve gas damage….he said hitler was being manipulated by others…so the reich was basically a set of manipulators using hitler…it was all about these manipulators trying to get more control and power.


  • Articles from here are usually mediocre at best. But this is by far the worst analysis of Nazism I’ve seen in awhile. It ignores Wiemar, it ignores the threat of Bolshevism, it ignores the Treaty of Versailles, and it ignores the impact of postwar reconstruction on the ethnic makeup of the peoples of Europe. We are supposed to be concerned over his attitude toward slavs when, in his defeat, all of Europe is being transformed into a third world hell hole? Only a cucked libertarian would write such drivel. I do agree that neither Vox nor Anglin is very good at articulating these things, but this author has proven himself equally as inept, if not more.


    • All the relatively minor, “basic bitch” points you make in your tedious comment and which you appear to have got from a standard school history textbook, were baked into Hitler’s wider Geopolitical vision that the article explores.

      Germany’s defeat by Britain and the power of the Royal Navy, which Hitler saw as an inevitability, was the main factor in shaping his Continental Imperialism. This meant treating Slavs, including right-wing Poles like African tribes who were in the way. Unlike you, Hitler also saw beyond the petty ideological and viewed Bolshevism for what it was — a reformulation of Slav imperialism.

      As for the transformation of Europe into a Third World hell hole, one of the people you can thank for this is Hitler, as he first envisioned Europe itself as essentially “Africa” decades before Angela Merkel did.

      Liked by 1 person

  • I have no quarrel with your description of Nazism as narrow and anti-European ethno-nationalism run amok, but I think that your comment that Bolshevism represents a Slavic version of the same is off the mark. Obviously – and I don’t mean to fall into the “Bolshevism as a Jewish plot” thing – the leadership of the Bolshevik party was heavily non-Slavic. (Stalin himself, as you will recall, was a Georgian.) So, not to quibble, but I think that Bolshevism, especially in its Stalinized “socialism in one country” version, can be better understood as civic/propositional nationalism gone wild, rather than another case of ethno-nationalism.


  • You make a point or two that is valid, but ignores (or denies outright, I can’t tell which) the reality that Christendom itself, is a ‘Jewish’ strategy of world hegemony as the ’12 Tribes’ are to -one day- rule the. [goyim, i.e., non-White] nations. This is manifestly clear in the Scriptures, and the early praxis of conversion of the European peoples. Christianity is still ‘the white man’s religion’ and it is only as Rome departed from that Orthodox consensus, that ‘reaching out’ to the heathen (Pearls before swine, seriously) to ‘convert’ them, instead of just ruling ‘benignly’ over them- in other words, ‘for their own good’ (Think of the British in India) that has muddied the waters- both ideologically, religiously, and chromasomally, since the 1400’s. So, in applying this ‘vision’ to Hitler, you call it ‘quite insane.’

    As a character in a play says, “I was never saner” – would be the more appropriate reply. Of course, the Jews (who ARE behind most everything) cannot stand that ANYONE but them would lay claim to world conquest/tikkun olam. But that’s a story for another day…..


    • I am opposed to Christianity on the basis that it is inorganic to European people even though it has been with us for up to 1700 years – rather like an extremely old heart transplant. Having said that, what do we do about it? Ripping it out may not be an option.

      I also don’t accept your obvious Jewish supremacism. Jews maximize their influence, which is not total, by working with the main trends in society. They are the noisy backseat driver, rather than the driver himself.