Jordan Gonzo

Jordan Gonzo has 7 articles published.

A Collection of Hate-Facts

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

A ‘hate-fact’ is typically defined as a matter of truth, fact, or reality that supports an argument based on stereotype or prejudice. Hate-facts are usually politically incorrect and are oft swept under the rug because they defy the Narrative. As such, these hate-facts tend to run contrary to people’s long held beliefs and, when they are expressed, can cause the listener to suffer a spate of cognitive dissonance – this is usually called a ‘triggering’.

Hate-facts are now routinely buried as “feelings trump fact” or, whatever the current mantra is. Biological differences between the sexes are discarded in favour of the ever-growing cry for ‘equality’. Evolutionary psychology has been tossed to the cosmic winds and replaced with social constructivism. Liberal free-markets are destroyed and commanded by authoritarians who seek to own trade.

Professor Robert Weissberg, in his essay ‘How Hate Facts Kill Scientific Inquiry’, describes hate-facts as “empirically established or at least highly credible truths that instigate outrage independent of whether true or false”. He goes on to comment on how, because of this, truth is actually, in a sense, subjective: “The fact is “wrong” because it is deemed offensive, not because it is factually false”; if one does not like a fact then it no longer serves as a fact.

Thankfully, reality is detached from personal fantasy, resulting in the universe carrying on irrespective of the worldview of the people who inhabit it. Below is a collection of hate-facts that show how life really does carry on without you.


US study with 14,793 participants found that approximately 70% of minority participants report “never” or “rarely” experience discrimination. See Table below for data:

Elusive DNA from Egyptian mummies reveals close relationship with Middle Easterners, not central Africans.

U.S. Race Relations Getting Better, not worse.

Implicit bias lacks ecological validity in police decisions to shoot or not-shoot suspects.

Sex & Gender:

Noticeable Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five.

Women more likely to achieve success in STEM jobs at a rate of 2 to 1, contrary to the feminist myth.

Women more likely to achieve success in philosophy job placements than men.

Women are lower in interest in ideas but higher in interest in aesthetics: both aspects of big 5 trait openness.

Biological factors and life-history affect sex differences in science and mathematics, not sexism.

Higher levels of androgens in utero causes psychological orientation to things over people.

Fewer women in top funded chair positions because fewer women apply: applicant and position numbers match.

During 1991 – 2011, women accounted for 75% of the growth in the number of workers in university-level non-scientific occupations but only 27% of the growth in the number of workers in university-level scientific occupations.

Wider sex differences is a sign a society is healthy and free.

With improved national wealth and equality of the sexes, it seems differences between men and women in personality traits do not diminish. On the contrary, the differences become conspicuously larger.

Evolutionary Psychologists Are Largely Composed of Sexist Men except many of the leading evolutionary psychologists are women.

Noticeable sex differences in frequency/severity of neuro and psych conditions; differences in age of onset less so; see table below:

Brilliant Girls Tend to Favour Non-STEM Careers.

Meta-analysis, 503,188 total respondents, men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people. Large effect size.

Sex IS a spectrum and it’s under such strong disruptive selection, a bimodal distribution of sexes evolved. See images below that explain it:

Americans still prefer a male boss than a female boss; women express this considerably more than men.

Sex differences were shown to be universal across cultures with not a single replication failure across 10 studies. Also exist if one knows where to look.

Sex differences that suggest that males are better designed for combat.

Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women.

Women living in countries with more traditional gender roles are MORE likely to major in mathematics & statistics, not less. See graph below:

Probability of choosing STEM, SEH (Social science & Humanities/Education/Health) and business, by SES and gender, in the US:

Study: 89% of colleges reported zero campus rapes in 2015, according to American Association of University Women.

Personality Traits and Gender Affects Earnings.

Universal sex differences involving cognition and mental illness, see table:

European Queens Waged More Wars than Kings.

Women kill their SO more brutally than men. Lesbian women & gay men kill their SO more brutally than straight men & women.

Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox

46% of trans-men and 42% of trans-women have attempted suicide.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men.

Domestic physical abuse among lesbian cohabiting couples is 35.4%; 21.5% for cohabitating gay men.

The feminist movement / women’s emancipation have made women miserable, worsens decade on decade.

Men are stronger than women (see here, here and here).

Money, Culture, Psychology & Philosophy:

5-year longitudinal study, 70,000+ participants show school & teacher variables combined predict 10% of school achievement whereas student IQ predicts 65%.

No matter how you look at it, Capitalism is great.

Micro-aggressions are not real – little to no evidence supports the concept.

Around 6% of 12 – 17 year olds have ‘self-bullied’. Teens who identified as non-heterosexual were three times more likely to bully themselves online, while victims of cyberbullying were 12 times more likely to cyberbully themselves. Proves much of the hysteria around online bullying is false and unwarranted.

Number of people in extreme poverty fell by 137,000 since yesterday, has fallen like this every day for the last 25 years. See graph below:

Research on Stereotype Threat and Implicit Attitude Task suffers from Publication Bias & other issues. See here, here, here & here.


The 45 Goals of Communism

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Student Politics by

It is oft said those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and, those who do learn from history, are doomed to play witness to those who did not. We are currently playing witness to the Left who are, as per the norm, up to the same tricks they were last century (and the century before that).

On Thursday 10th January 1963, Albert S. Herlong Jr. delivered a speech to Congress outlining what he believed to be the 45 goals of Communism. These goals came from the book “The Naked Communist” by Willard Cleon Skousen. A lot of these goals have been achieved, many are still being worked on and, thankfully, some have failed. It would be wise to consider some of these points. A lot of these points refer directly to the US and her allies but, much of the thought can be applied elsewhere, as we shall see.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

This disarmament does not necessarily have to mean the removal of the military but, the removal of arms. This can include the Repeal 2A crowd but, the manifestation that I have seen is the attack against the police service.

Many neo-Marxist and Marx-inspired groups call for the police to be disarmed, divested and destroyed. BLM, as an example, stated in their 2016 list of demands they want a “reallocation of funds at the federal, state and local level from policing and incarceration (JAG, COPS, VOCA)” and a “cut in military expenditure”. These funds are to then be directed into BLM-approved social-programmes and this solution has been “shown to improve community safety”.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up ‘as a one-world government with its own Independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by “Moscow”. Sometimes these two centres compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

This goal is more pertinent for Britons, especially now we have left the European Union. The EU, a strongly pro-Marx abomination, has been championed as the future and the only way forward, being granted more and more power in an ever-hungry growth.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

The Democrats have been captured but, more overtly, the colloquially known [in some circles] National Socialist British Labourer’s Party has been completely overrun by Marxists, see here, here, here and here.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

In the UK, around four in five of British University lecturers are left-wing and, in the US, there are 3.6 times as many self-identified Marxists in the social sciences as there are conservatives.

Schools and universities are rife with such nonsense.

Other “educational” institutions have been taken over and filled with Marxist and subjective teachings:

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

They have done this and taken control of student unions. The NUS is horrendous for pro-Marx rhetoric. [SWP associated groups heavily campaign on campuses and dominate fresher’s fayres.]

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

Many of the riots in the US, such as Seattle and Berkeley, were attended by university students and professors. For examples, see Eric “Bike Lock” Clanton and Melissa “Muscle” Click.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

The pro-AntiFa press coverage following the AntiFa assaults shows how deep and systemic the Marxist infiltration is. CNN supported AntiFa, violent thug Moldylocks was given a free platform to portray herself as some hapless victim.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

See above.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

This was initially done post Sexual Revolution but, has now turned in on itself through hate speech laws. Ironic.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

In the image below are screenshots of some of the worst offenders:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity, as “normal, natural, healthy”.

Throughout the year, our streets are disgraced with these idiotic marches known as “slut-walks” and “Pride”. As an LGBTQI360NOSCOPE+ person, my sexuality/sexual identity is used as a shield to protect and promote public displays of degeneracy. Disgraceful.

I’m sure there were no children nearby, right?

Genuinely, what the f**k?

Sex acts are to be kept behind closed doors, in the privacy of one’s own home. Heck, one can be as depraved and as perverted as one wants, so long as it is safe, legal, consensual, and behind closed doors. They are not to be performed in the street in full view of the public – at least, that’s what I assume a normal and decent person would expect.

In today’s Western world, very few homophobes etc actually exist – the only people who seem to care about sexuality is the Left. Everyone else wants to get on with their lives.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture-education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

Socialists in the UK want to nationalise Greggs, a pasty shop. I wish that was fake news. Labour has vowed to nationalise railways, energy and the Royal Mail. To quote John McDonnell “we’re taking them back”. The UK health service is nationalised.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

The James Damore story should tell us all about how far neo-Marxist groups have infiltrated big business.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

In the two decades after this talk was given, the US saw a huge spike in divorce rates. This, however, was also coupled with a huge spike in marriages as well. Since the new millennium, both have dropped.

No fault divorce laws exist, these were introduced in the late sixties and early seventies.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.

See Berkeley, Seattle, Washington and Missouri for evidence of students believing violence is legitimate.

As can be seen, many of these goals have been achieved or, are being worked towards. Much of what we see happening around us has either been done before or, has been predicted/dictated long ago.

Soros-Affiliated, Radical-Feminist Organisation Wants Potentially Dangerous Female Criminals OUT of Prison

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

On my personal blog and YouTube channel, I have been running something I call the “Women Who Should Be In Prison” series which notes instances where women are let-off from prison-worthy offences because “muh, women”. Sometimes the Judges outright state their sexism, sometimes they hide it by saying they are releasing a “mother”, rather than releasing a woman. To my knowledge, no such release has been afforded to a father.

In the case of Karolina Szumko, whose offences included Racially-Motivated Abuse, Assault and Drunken & Disorderly Behaviour, she was let off because the Judge did not want to “send a lady to prison for something like this”. That is a direct quote from the judge. How is she a lady when she’s out committing very un-lady-like behaviour such as this?

Or, there’s the case of Terry Remmer, who did break into the house of an elderly man, stole his possessions and sold them on for drug money. She has a history of convictions, including shoplifting and theft. The Judge remarked: “The gravity is that if you were a man you would be going to prison today [Emphasis mine] … But I have to take into account not only your welfare but the welfare of your child.” Yes, a drug-addict kleptomaniac needs to be with her child because she is not a man.

Further to this, initiatives exist to either shut down women’s prisons or make them more hospitable for the offenders. Initiatives for men, however, are about using their children as bargaining chips, as hostages, to coerce the behaviour the system wants. Such treatment will never be used on women because the guidelines specifically prohibit it.

The Equal Treatment Bench Book, which is a guide for judges, magistrates and all other judicial office holders, specifically the section titled ‘Gender Equality’, is rife with pro-feminist propaganda and anti-male rhetoric. Such quotes are:

Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their life; they are under-represented in the judiciary, in Parliament and in senior positions across a range of jobs; and there is still a substantial pay gap between men and women.”

Stereotypes and assumptions about women’s lives can lead to unlawful discrimination.”

Women may have particular difficulties participating in the justice system, for example, because of child care issues, and courts may need to consider adjustments to enable women to participate fully.” – This is why Terry Remmer was released without a prison sentence.

And, my two personal favourites:

As judges, we can go some way to ensuring that women have confidence in the justice process and that their interests are properly and appropriately protected.”

Of course, men can suffer from gender discrimination too; this section reflects the reality that this is rarer.”

You want to know why judges are so damn lenient when presiding over cases with female perpetrators? It’s because they are guided to.

And, as if things could not get any worse, the Centre for Criminal Appeals is now seeking a Women’s Justice Advocate.

The job description states how the new recruit will seek “to use criminal appeals as impact litigation for imprisoned women who have experienced severe and multiple disadvantage” because, obviously, women are disadvantaged in the criminal justice system.

Yes, even though women are enjoying all the above privileges, given all these get-out-of-jail-free cards and the system is catered to support them, they still need a ‘justice advocate’. The female prison population currently stands at 4.5% but, organisations such as this one still push this misandrist, feminist policy of ‘no/fewer women in prison’. Justice, it seems, means nothing to these sorts.

This comes as no surprise, considering who helped set it up:

Vera Baird, former director of the organisation and one of the founding members, now current Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria, notable for her skewed (misandrist) posters on domestic violence and for claiming DV is not something done by a few cruel and unusual men and that violence in the home is 90% or more perpetrated by men against women.

Emily Bolton, former director of the organisation and one of the founders of CCA. CCA’s methodology is based on Ms Bolton’s previous project, the Innocence Project New Orleans (IPNO). Ms Bolton received a Soros Advocacy Fellowship to set-up IPNO, and has jumped back across the pond bringing her Soros-approved-and-funded ideas with her. Thus, CCA is, by extension, a George Soros project.

They cite Baroness Corston, chiefly because of her report, colloquially known as ‘The Corston Report’ which features this delightful quote “Equality does not mean treating everyone the same”. All animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

And in that line of thought, on the job listing the CCA states, without any sense of irony:

The Centre for Criminal Appeals is committed to promoting equality, diversity and to providing an inclusive and supportive environment and we seek people who share these values.

Yet, despite the prison population being overwhelmingly male, despite the Legal System being guided towards leniency for female perpetrators, despite feminist PCCs flexing their feminist (misandrist) muscles and despite the President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, pursuing ‘equality’ as her prime focus and her calling for more female judges, pressure groups such as the Centre for Criminal Appeals still feel it necessary to prioritise women over men.

This Soros-Affiliated, Radical-Feminist organisation is but another stain on our already tarnished ‘justice’ system.

BBC Propaganda: No More Boys and Girls – Part 2

in World News by

This is the second piece in a two-part review of the recent BBC documentary ‘No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?

It would appear that the documentary’s host ‘Doctor’ Javid Abdelmoneim’s doctorate is probably not in anything scientific or academic, else he would’ve noticed us humans are sexually dimorphic and this dimorphism is exacerbated following childhood thanks to a process known as puberty.

Thusly, a crash course in human sexual dimorphism and basic sex differences is warranted, I suspect. To all postmodernists, feminists, gender-socialists and any all-round idiot who may still be present, please leave. You won’t enjoy the triggering.

Women’s bodies are designed for reproduction (controversial!) and men’s bodies are designed for work (whoa!). It is no accident that male upper body strength is greater than female upper body strength or that females naturally lactate from their mammary glands and males do not (human males can, but only under certain, abnormal circumstances) or that women possess a uterus and men do not.

Men are generally better at visual-spatial reasoning (which is useful for hunting) and women are generally better at colour recognition than men (which is useful for foraging). Sex differences in mental rotation ability have been linked to differences in brain structure.

As mentioned before, our brains are different (check here for a superior discussion). As Simon Baron-Cohen would say: men are better at systemising and women are better at empathising.

Women tend to take a more cautious approach to spatial exploration so as to avoid physical harm, while males will have larger range sizes and often outperform females in navigation-related tasks. Women also exhibit greater risk aversion than men (women with higher levels of testosterone exhibit lower levels of risk aversion).

Men are, on average, fifteen percent larger than women (it varies between nine and twenty-eight percent).

These fundamental differences between men and women accumulate together and are the reasons why men and women choose different careers. It’s why they want different things in life. Yet, despite the science being very much out in the aether about this, Abdelmoneim still treats a lot of these differences as if they are socially constructed rather than inherent to our physiology.

These physiological differences helped to drive our cultural and social differences as well. We perceive men as stronger because they are. We perceive women as natural care-givers because they are.

The children in the school seem to grasp all this better than ‘Doctor’ Javid Abdelmoneim does. Maybe it’s because of his blind ignorance why he continues with his crusade to teach the children that “it doesn’t have to be this way”. How? Does he plan on physiologically engineering them as well? How else will he remove their inherent biological differences?

Still not content, Abdelmoneim ran an experiment where he dressed babies in the wrong gender’s clothing and gave them to adults, so they could play with toys together (the adults were unaware the children were not the gender they were dressed up as). Naturally, the boys dressed as girls were given dolls to play with and the girls dressed as boys were given mechanical toys to play with. What’s funny is how we can see the children either rejecting these toys in favour of the gender conforming toys or showing little signs of interest – this is not remarked on by Abdelmoneim.

One of my favourite “WTF!” moments was when he ‘researched’ gender differences in emotional health and learned men are the majority of the imprisoned, commenting “the prison numbers don’t lie … simply being born a boy means you’re much more likely to end up in prison”. I link this article here which shows how gender bias and discrimination in the so-called justice system is unjustly imprisoning men and releasing women. He also mentions the pay gap which I have gleefully tackled before.

One variable that Abdelmoneim appears to have overlooked, is the impact of basic in-group/out-group bias. We can see the effects of this towards the end of the show when we see across the classroom and, save for the odd exception, the children are sitting round the tables in groups of boys and girls. They are collecting together based on sex. It would appear that, despite all the social re-engineering, boys like hanging around with boys and girls like hanging around with girls. Who would’ve guessed?

In conclusion, this ‘doctor’ knows less about sex and gender than a classroom of seven year olds (Noel Edmonds, eat your heart out). He instantiates this when he says “I’m worried that all I’ve done is upset a load of kids and none of this is having a slightest effect.” I could not have put it better myself.

BBC Propaganda: No More Boys and Girls – Part 1

in World News by

There’s been quite the furore recently pertaining to gender, be it discussions about equality, differences or sameness. A recent BBC documentary (I use the word ‘documentary’ tentatively) jumps right in the middle of this debate and tries to rubbish the concept of inherent gender differences in behaviour, using children as lab rats to prove it. Who cares psychologists have a responsibility to protect their participants from harm?

The first half of the documentary, titled ‘No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?’ (could they have picked a more ominous sounding title?), aired last Wednesday and to be quite honest, it’s sixty minutes of anti-biology, cultural-Marxist, pseudoscience.

So much of the show revolves around the worrying about “women and girls”, it’s pure, unadulterated gynocentrism. They say women earn less than men, enjoy fewer career opportunities, the usual feminist clap-trap. Obviously, none of it is substantiated yet, it is pushed as part of their quest for gender neutrality.

They mention how more men named John sit as CEOs on boards than all the female CEOs combined but, no word is mentioned on the stark gender disparity in the homeless community. Funny, that.

The motivation for the show, as discussed by the host ‘Doctor’ Javid Abdelmoneim, is derived from the realisation that gender differences are caused by both our biology and our environment (imagine my shock), leading the ‘doctor’ to the belief that he can erase gender inequality if he can erase gender differences in his brave, new classroom.

Emboldened by Professor Gina Rippon from Aston University telling him there is no such thing as a male or female brain type, he sets about removing all hints of sex-differences from the classroom because sex differences are a social construct.

What the good Professor failed to tell him was that she was chatting utter nonsense, this study here (a huge meta-analysis) shows notable differences in the brains of men and women, as does this study here and this study here. It’s not just in structure but also function where we find differences.

[I feel I must note to any and all gender ideologues who read the above paragraph that, whilst the evidence does show there are sex differences in brain structure and function, it does not mean one sex is naturally better than the other – our differences are complementary. So, do not even try to use this information to “prove” such inflammatory garbage. Thanks.]

The class of seven year olds were first tested across a variety of psychological measures to quantify any and all differences; the measures were: their levels of self-esteem; their self-perceived intelligence; their understanding and levels of empathy; their assertiveness; their ability to resist impulsiveness; and their emotional vocabulary.

They found the girls underestimated their intelligence and had less self-esteem and confidence. The boys had a smaller emotional vocabulary (except for anger) – many have inappropriately referred to this as normal male alexithymia. They also found that when describing themselves, the girls used more words that referred to their appearance.

How did Javid react to these results? The differences are purely socially constructed because boys’ and girls’ brains are identical. Also, these social constructions are keeping girls down. Sigh.

He concludes this despite evidence proving that testosterone inhibits empathy (see here and here [that second study found it also altered brain connectivity]) – which shows why the boys scored lower on empathy and emotional vocabulary. And, whilst evidence does show that boys exhibit higher levels of self-esteem, the show couldn’t find a correlation between self-esteem/confidence and intellectual ability/potential (I might as well add that UCAS data shows 100,000 more women applied to university than men). Ergo, for him (or anyone) to assume girls are being held back, is inaccurate.

Following these results, he really starts to stamp out gender differences, beginning with gendered terms of endearment (love, sweet-pea, fella, mate, etc). He introduces sex neutral toilets, sex-neutral cupboards for storing bags/lunchboxes/etc, children are picked for comment/involvement via a lottery-style system … you get the picture.

Not content with stamping out gender differences in the present, Abdelmoneim wants to stamp them out for good. He does this by enquiring what jobs the children want as adults and whether these jobs are suited for men or for women. He is shocked, not just by their choices of jobs (and how they are perceived as gendered) but, how strong in their convictions the children are regarding whether these jobs are for men or for women.

Look out for part 2 of this review where we will discuss human sexual dimorphism and basic sex differences .

Shane Ridge and the Hypocrisy of British Deportation

in Brexit by

Our Government is a joke, not that it needed repeating.

Twenty-one year old Shane Ridge, from Colne in Lancashire, has been informed by the Home Office that, unless he leaves the UK, he will be hit with a £5,000 fine or potential imprisonment – even though he was born here.

Why has he been met with such hostility?

Because his Australian-born mother and British father were never married. His mother was born in Australia because her British parents were over there on holiday and she has since become a British citizen.

Yep, despite being as British as they can get, despite even being born here, he has been ordered to leave because he has “no lawful basis to be in the UK”.

In other words, you will be deported even if you have British citizen parents and are born in Britain because one of your parents was born overseas in a British Commonwealth country. Insanity.

How they never noticed before is bizarre, considering he has completed his GCSEs, has a bank account, worked here, paid taxes, has a driver’s licence and has voted.

And yet, whilst he is being threatened unless he leaves, Jihadi Islamists are allowed to stay because “muh, human rights”.

Abu Qatada managed to fight deportation for a decade arguing “human rights”, costing the UK taxpayer around £1.7 million.

In fact, according to an unpublished report delayed by the Home Office (no surprise there), more than 40 foreign terrorists have used human rights laws to remain in the UK.

A terrorist fighting deportation after a NINE YEAR PRISON SENTENCE has been given £250,000 in legal aid to help fight deportation. The terrorist cannot be named as he could argue he is in more danger at home if his identity is revealed in the media.

In fact, the process has become so expensive, Britain can only deport foreign terrorists to TWO countries at a time.

Emily Thornberry MP recently said ISIS fighters should be allowed to return to Britain because the Islamic State is not a recognised state!

The message is clear: if you are a white, educated, tax-paying, law-abiding, British Citizen … you must be deported. Yet, if you are a radical Islamist Jihadi caught either perpetrating or planning a terrorist attack … you can stay because you have human rights and we as a nation will pay for your legal defence.

This country is a joke.

The Nazis Were Left-Wing Socialists – The AntiFa Problem

in World News by

Apparently, 29% of the US population are Nazis and Nazis are neither Left nor Socialist. Think that’s a ‘woke’ take? Try this one: according to the Mainstream Media, the Nazis are Right-Wing (but, let’s be honest, they’re not).

There seems to be some contention over what constitutes a Nazi and whether or not they are socialist. Excusing the fact that it is written in the name: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – NSDAP) – many still deny they are Left-Wing socialists.

First, we should figure out what we mean when we say ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.

Honestly, such terminologies are unhelpful, it would be easier to see the political spectrum not from Left to Right but from ‘Collectivist’ to ‘Individualist’. Thus, people who are Left, when they espouse ideas such as “universal health care”, “equality” and “redistribution of wealth”, they are talking of the collective. When people who are Right speak of “private insurance”, “economic freedom” and “limited/no taxation”, they are talking of the individual.

Therefore, any and all ideologies that operate based upon groups or collectives are Left-Wing ideologies. Identity Politics, by very existence and definition, is a Left-Wing school of thought. The Nazis were inspired and driven by Identity Politics (Aryans vs Jews), believing themselves to have suffered due to a racial identity oppressing them – sound familiar?

Second, we should figure out what we mean when we say “Socialism”.

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics says a society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or co-operative enterprises. This, by definition, makes Socialism a Left-Wing ideal as it is Collectivist.

So, were the Nazis socialist?

Yes, according to Adolf Hitler himself, “[W]e are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”  Hitler spoke this to a crowd of 5000 at the Clou restaurant centre on May 1, 1927. He was paraphrasing Gregor Strasser’s one-page Nazi talking points memo from June 15, 1926.

Hitler and his National Socialist Party were not the only ones inhabiting this authoritarian segment of the Left-Wing during that era. They were ideological neighbours with Mussolini’s Fascism, Leninism and Stalinism – all were inspired by Marx.

Let’s start with Lenin as most people are already willing to associate him with Marx.

Lenin was initially well respected among Nazi circles, so much so that in 1925 Joseph Goebbels saidLenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.” Hitler secretly adopted the same philosophies as Lenin, following in the footsteps of Marx: “I have learned a great deal from Marxismhe once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit“.

The main difference between Hitler’s National Socialism and Marx was that Hitler added an identitarian element. Where Marx taught the proletariat had no homeland, Hitler was infatuated with race identity. Without race, Hitler remarked, National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground“. And, as mentioned above, Identity Politics (like those based on race) are a Left-Wing/Collectivist practice.

Similarities can also be drawn between Stalinism and Hitler’s National Socialism as Hitler was aiming for the same goal. As he commented “what Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.” Hitler recognised the failures of Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism and was hoping to supersede them.

Just as Marx led to Hitler’s National Socialism, Leninism and Stalinism, so too did it inspire Fascism. Frederick Augustus Voigt remarksMarxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.” Whilst these branches did eventually become opposing to one another, they all originate from the same root.

Hitler was, without any doubt, a socialist: “[N]ot a Soviet Socialist, demonising economic groups according to Marxist principles, not Internationalist, where the workers of the world unite, but a National Socialist, demonising ethnic groups according to nationalist principles. The communal social ties of Russia was replaced by the volkish blood-ties of Germany.” Hitler applied Marxist-Socialist teachings to Germany on a Nationalist level.

Yes, all these ideologies had their differences, some quite substantial, but that does not detract from the fact that they all share the same root ideology: Marxism. This is not a contentious argument, no matter how much the ideological Left may try to bury it.

Thus, it is fair to argue that the horseshoe theory is false because it implies these ideologies are of polar opposites and it is through them becoming extreme that they become similar. This is nonsense as they are not polar opposite ideologies, just different variants of the same ideology.

So this historical context leads us to the modern-day and demands we ask: what about the political groups who are active now? What about the Neo-Nazis? What about AntiFa?

Again, just as they were some eighty years ago, they are more similar than they are different.

The Neo-Nazis are arguing based on the grounds of racial supremacy (for whites) whilst claiming they are downtrodden by other racial groups (Jews and Blacks).

AntiFa are arguing based on the grounds of racial supremacy (non-whites) whilst claiming they are downtrodden by other groups which are recognised by biological traits (Whites, Straights, Cisgenders). The difference with AntiFa is they have transcended above discriminating based on ‘Race’ alone, they now include traits such as Gender Identity, Sexuality, Wealth, etc.

These groups, whilst sharing similar ideals, fight because they are so indoctrinated and committed that they search for the slightest deviation so as to be able to claim moral supremacy – this happens to near all Collectivist ideologies. Look at Intersectional Feminism, which has now all but removed White Feminism. They’re now turning their guns onto ‘light-skinned people of colour, arguing they should ‘voluntarily’ exclude themselves from people of colour spaces. It’s the one-drop rule again but this time for white blood.

It’s also why AntiFa and BLM fightin fact, BLM has asked 4chan of all people to help them defeat AntiFa. It’s also why BLM has been disrupting Pride events (most recently they disrupted Montreal Pride during a moment of silence for victims of AIDS and Hate Crimes). They all claim to be oppressed by the ‘straight, white man’ yet, would rather fight with their allies than join them.

They’re all Social Justice Warriors, all of them (AntiFa, BLM, neo-Nazis, etc).

Compare Nazis of old to modern day SJWs.

    SJWs blame [insert biological trait here]. Nazis blamed Blacks and Jews.

    SJWs want to destroy Capitalism. Nazis wanted to destroy Capitalism.

    SJWs preach Marx. Nazis were inspired by Marx.

    SJWs are subjective. Nazis were subjective.

    SJWs reject rational thought. Nazis rejected rational thought.

    SJWs are Nazis.

They have the same practices, they’ve just shifted the ideologies around. You can also lump the alt-right in there as well except the alt-right rejects Marx rather than preaching it.

In summation, the Nazis were Left-Wing Socialists.

Also, the Nazis have not gone away, no matter how much we would like them to. They will not go away until Socialism in all its forms is rejected. You don’t kill a weed by cutting of its head, you kill a weed by poisoning the root. Destroy Socialism: no more Nazis. I think we can all agree that is an outcome we all want.

Go to Top