By Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog
As I wrote in my previous article on this issue – the total Western failure of Russia’s “denazification” justification for its armed operation in Ukraine – Russia will lose the battle for Western hearts and minds if it fails to introduce new discussions and prolonged, patient debates about what “Nazi” means in 2022.
Some point out that Russia doesn’t have to convince anyone of anything. Sure, that’s sovereignty… but this only holds true inside of Russia.
What about in Ukraine – they don’t need to understand that they have a problem? Ukraine only needs to obey Russian force of arms and not Russian force of logic?
What about India, China, Cuba, Iran and half of Africa? All those countries which abstained in the United Nations vote on Russia’s operation: they, too, only need to obey Russian force of arms? That definitely won’t work, sorry.
What about the history books? Posterity, also, is no matter? One is either with Russia or against Russia, and thus a Nazi sympathiser who cannot be rehabilitated. Taking an intellectual page from George W. Bush would be a major downgrade in Russian diplomatic skills.
For these obvious reasons – and others in the previous article – the biggest failure of the Russian campaign is ignored at one’s own peril.
I wrote about “Nalis” – Nationalist Liberalists – in 2014, and I still like it. It combines the racism of nationalism with all the hidden oligarchy & baked-in inequality of Western Liberalism. It’s the most accurate description I have seen of the far-right paramilitaries in Ukraine, whose socialism I have not yet been presented any evidence of.
“Socialism” – there’s a term few care about explaining, either. Tarnish it anyhow you like, eh?
Socialism is not the problem in the Russia-Ukraine conflict – the problem is “Liberalism”.
As difficult as it is to get Westerners, and some Russians, to talk accurately about “Nazi” getting people to talk accurately about “Liberalism” is almost as difficult. It’s less emotional, but it requires more intellect because it requires more history: Liberalism (begun 1789) is 140 years older than Nazism, after all.
Because many right-wingers may assume “Nali” is a compliment, let’s just focus on moving past “Nazi”.
I asked in the previous article for ideas other than “denazification” and the best I found was from seemingly a Muslim poster – perhaps she understands the belligerent aspects of the Western mentality better than many Russians assume they do? She suggested “Elimination of European Terrorism’ or even ‘De-Terrorization” – either would have given Westerners pause, at least unlike “denazification”, which they received incredulously: “terrorism” has been their own justification for 20+ years. However, “terrorism” is violence committed for a political end – it doesn’t actually say anything about the actual politics at play. I like her former suggestion, and it would certainly be understood by a billion Muslims and other intelligent people, but I wonder how many Russians consider themselves “European” – many at the Kremlin probably won’t want to use it. China could use this term in the future, but I just don’t think “terrorism” is an honest word, but a fear-mongering one.
In this effort to increase understanding and diplomacy, and to get beyond the inaccurate, hyperbolic and counter-effective use of “Nazi” as regards Ukraine, may I suggest:
3rd-gen Nazis.
In a complete sentence: “It’s a denazification campaign to stop 3rd-generation Nazis, in order to prevent a 4th Reich anywhere.”
A propaganda campaign based around that sentence applied patiently and consistently, has all the elements to explain why Russia got involved in the “2014 Ukrainian Civil War” far, far better “denazification” has.
“Nazism”, “Liberalism” and now “propaganda” – which is not a disinformation campaign but a campaign in order to promote or publicize a particular political cause… I’m using so many unclear political terms!
(And yet everybody grasped “PR campaign”, eh? Fewer pica points than “propaganda” for the headline, too, but these are journalistic concerns.)
‘3rd-gen Nazis’ gives us a new plateau with which to view the ideology of Nazism
One should be able to tell from my suggested sentence: It implicitly moves us past “neo-Nazis”. We need to. We need to introduce some 21st-century relevance and intelligence regarding “Nazis”, finally!
Saying that Nazism hasn’t changed over the generations is like saying socialism, liberalism, Christianity or any other ideology hasn’t changed. It’s always “the same old Nazism”? No update necessary? Not even when generations of Nazis have come and gone, with varying levels of nefarious success?
The 1st generation of Nazis: The era of Hitler and his survivors. Those of this generation in West Germany who weren’t killed became protected by the West and partially took power, both formally and informally. Is that too controversial? To Anglophones, only. Everyone else rolls their eyes at fictions like “the Anglos beat the Nazis” and “the Anglos would never, ever work with the Nazis postwar”. This is the elderly generation.
The 2nd generation of Nazis: The European generation which includes the postwar baby boom up to around 1975. European social history, I have learned after 13 years on the ground here, is best divided into the who came of age pre- and post-Berlin Wall toppling. This 2nd generation is the middle-aged generation. It’s archetype is not the Nazi soldier but the typical “neo-nazi” – the late 1970s-influenced punk skinhead.
The 3rd generation of Nazis: We have moved past “neo-Nazi”, because “neo-Nazis” have changed; because we must mark this change; because there will be a fourth generation of Nazis if they are not openly opposed – in all ways, including in thought – better than they have recently been opposed. This generation is the generation who came of age post-Berlin wall – the youngest generation staffing the Azov Battalion.
The implication of “3rd-gen Nazi” should be clear: to remind that “Nazi” is a legacy which has been passed down from generation to generation, that this political ideology still exists in 2022, that this has translated into 14,000 deaths since 2014 in Eastern Ukraine alone so far, and that it has been given unprecedented Western protection. There was no American money, arms and CIA training for the Nazis like there was for the Azov Battalion – the West did not use arms to push Hitler to power in the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. If they had been it might have succeeded, like how Western arms and money helped the Maidan Uprising succeed in 2014.
Things change – we must mark these changes with new ideas. Political education campaigns cannot remain stuck in 1940 or else they are certain to fail to reach the youth classes, at the very least.
Who resists such changes to terminology and changes in conceptual thinking the most? Hint – Mao knew this: The elderly class. The foolish among them do not seek to update their view of the world, unlike the younger classes who simply have no choice but to try and make sense of things today. This is why Western elders probably at least paused with “denazification”, but the phrase clearly didn’t work for many young people.
Too grumpy to deal with this? Interrupting the flag-waving? Well, I have some sad news to relate: racism is not going away as easily as we had all hoped after 1945. Therefore, we must talk about the differences in racism between generations – the racism around African slavery is not the same as the racism of 2022, and it is only the people who don’t read columns like this who think it’s truly all that simple.
Allow me to introduce a fourth political term which has no accurate conception in modern Western politics: The West and Russia both need a Cultural Revolution in how “Nazi” is discussed. Because Nazism is a serious threat – because some do really want a Fourth Reich in the West – and because Russia needs something better than merely this “denazification” campaign. They already had one of those, anyway – it occurred after World War II. It would be more accurate to have called this failed intellectual campaign “re-denazification” – that would have done better, truly! Westerners would have had to at least pause and say – “Oh yeah, I guess racism didn’t actually go away after 1945? Re-denazify – I kind of get it. Now can I super-size my fries?”
In my new book on the Yellow Vests, in a chapter called “Where the West is stuck: The fascism of the 1930s and the ‘fascism’ of the 2020s” I discuss these very issues because historical misunderstanding is so very pervasive that I was forced to address it in a book about the 21st century Yellow Vests.. Briefly: My bringing up the failure of “denazification” has been deemed, quite unfairly, as a way for me to sell books. Books which I am giving away for free… by discussing an issue (Nalis) I have written about since 2014… during a period in which the book release was entirely planned to coincide with France’s current presidential election and not a conflict in Ukraine for which I had no foreknowledge…. This is the same knee-jerk logic which refuses to even consider the scope of the “denazification” propaganda campaign failure and merely shouts “tanks to ramming speed!”
In many ways, it’s good that Russia brought these historical misunderstandings back to the forefront: Truly, it’s been impossible to talk about modern Western history due to the taboos and absurdities and falsehoods surrounding “Nazi”! I just hope they aren’t making it worse….
Socialist Democracy doesn’t fear honest discussions about German National Socialism – Western Liberal Democracy does
There needs to be new discussions – whether you join them or not – on terms like “Nazi”, “liberalism” and the way European fascism came to power via an open rejection and denigration of Western Liberal Democracy.
Western Liberal Democracy split from absolute monarchy in 1789, immediately failed when first applied in France in 1848, was re-installed in France at the point of a gun in 1871 by Bismarck and the colluding French 1%, which subsequently produced what I call the “Great War to Forestall Socialism” in 1914 and which then produced the economic failure that everyone calls the “Great Depression”.
Thus the rise of Nazism is unexplainable – unexplainable like “denazification”! – without admitting fascism’s successful, popular condemnation of Western Liberal Democracy. WLD-ers in the West and even Putin himself will never admit this because it would be to cede ground to an actual political rival: Socialist Democracy.
(Contrarily, the Azov Battalion came to power via Western billions, shooting both sides at Maidan Square and without any motivating political ideas other than anti-Russianism. Lumping these groups together without differentiation – facile, absurd, what a mistake and what an assist to awful Western Liberal Democracy!)
This successful condemnation is why it’s simply inaccurate and absurd to say things like the “Nazis had no socialism”. To do so is tremendously counterproductive and actually hurts Socialism more than merely explaining Nazism’s relationship with socialism – we cannot understand Western political history if we relinquish the incredibly necessary criticism of Western Liberal Democracy and Capitalism With Western Characteristics as logically implied by fascism’s rise.
Hitler, reader of Marx, summed it up himself in 1922: Without the “essential principle” – race – Nazism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground”.
Why should socialists fear admitting this? If they do it’s probably because they seek the approval of Western Liberal Democrats – talk about a waste of time….
Because by including race – this is… not really socialism, but something different.
Or when Hitler rejected the class struggle, vital to socialism, by saying: “There are no such things as classes: They cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race.” Well, Nazism may include some Marxist analyses but this is… not really socialism, but something different.
Making an alliance with corporate powers, instead of appropriating from the greedy expropriators… this is not really socialism, either.
But the rejection of Western Liberal Democracy – due to its decades of failures by an oligarchical leadership barely different from monarchy – that is the same as socialism. But the rejection of Western Liberal Democratic economics – due to the decades of failures by free market capitalism (i.e. the economic component of liberalism) – that is the same as socialism.
So it can’t be stressed enough: Socialism has nothing to fear from free, honest, patient examination of the Nazis relationship with socialism.
However, Western Liberal Democracy has much to fear regarding true discussions of their relationship with the Nazis. They, over and over, allied with fascism again socialism in the 1930s; they colluded with the Nazis after 1945; they encouraged 3rd-gen Nazis in places like Ukraine in the 21st century. See the progression and need for new terms like “3rd-gen Nazis”.
Socialists WANT to discuss Nazism – it’s Western Liberal Democrats who have to obscure, falsify and lie, just like they are doing in the causes of the Ukraine conflict.
Nobody appeased Hitler more than Western Liberal Democrats, and they leaped to their feet when he said things like: “I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.” Truly, Hitler has been allowed to do that even up until 2022, but only by Western Liberal Democrats from Washington to Moscow. And these same “democrats” kept listening when Hitler continued: “Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution.”
So it should be clear: I’m not worried about discussing to the nth degree the true amount of “socialism” in Germanic National Socialism.
What Western socialists must stress is not how we need to “re-denazify”, but how things have changed:
Nazism used to be as opposed to socialism as it was to Western Liberalism. In a reversal of this – and despite other similarities between Nazis and the Azov Battalion – Nazism TODAY is as opposed to socialism as it is ALLIED with Western Liberalism.
This is not complicated, but there has been a change. There’s vital historical realities from the 1930s to discuss and demystify. The USSR and socialism stands on the right side against 1st-gen Nazism – don’t cede the ground to Western Liberal Democrats and play their game. Make them play your game, which is honesty, accuracy, progression and not regression.
I hope this article was as helpful and provoking of necessary discussion as the first article.
I think that once people get over the shock that “denazification” hasn’t worked, then they will realise that what I wrote there and here was true:
Double-down on “denazify” if you want but you will still have to patiently, methodically explain what you mean because many have not understood this unexpected and antiquated term from 80 years ago.
So the problem continues: Historical distortion, obfuscation and wilful denial of what “Nazism” was, is, and might still curdle into being. And “Liberalism” – well that’s even worse! Don’t get me started on “neoliberalism”. And what’s all this nonsense about “Cultural Revolutions” being bad? And you know “propaganda “isn’t just used in ad campaigns – it has a serious political basis!
And once we solve these, then we can use “Nalis”.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His new book is called ‘France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values’. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.
Good day Mr Ramin
I must commend your works and your vast expanse of knowledge. You are one of few who are well read and detailed in dissecting today’s sociopolitical and geopolitical events that are relevant in world’s economies. Your expertise in soft power analysis also helps in understand the goings on in the eurasian continents especially.
But to be candid I even understood your first article on denazification PR disaster than this latest one because the former was simpler. Then about “deterrorization of europe” or elimination of “3rd generation nazi” and then followed by many technical terms and definitions with which you tried to back up your points. I bet even younger generation will continue to ask more questions than pause in awe and understanding of what Putin was trying to paint.
Thanks once again for your effort though I know it takes a lot o out it all together and keep people afloat and informed, God bless you
Hi Samuel,
You are too kind, truly.
There are some kinks to work out in my new terms, LOL, indeed. It’s been said that journalists are so lucky to have the privilege of educating themselves in public – it’s very true, but people must excuse us for putting out our half-baked ideas! We do hope they become fully baked eventually!
Nali —> Naliban.
That might go over better than Nali in the West for a somewhat obvious reason, although not the one you want to highlight.
If you want to get more specific to Ukraine you could even use Nalibandera.
If either of these get any traction, then Nali could be used as an abbreviated appellation.
Those are quite good.
The flaw in “Nali” has always been that so many think Liberal Democracy is the apex of progress, when it’s Socialist Democracy which is superior. So for a liberalist like Putin to push Nali… not likely.
Nalibandera is rather excellent tho!
I just came across this superb article by Dan Cohen of Mintpress News. It sets out the sheer enormity of the scale of the PR-propaganda operation perpetrated by the Anglo-American imperialism’s alphabet soup of intel/PR/media/social media outfits on behalf of the Zelensky regime.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukraine-propaganda-war-international-pr-firms-dc-lobbyists-cia-cutouts/280012/
First let’s define what is a “Nazi”, because the word Nazi is now a loose insult that is practically used for anything. With such a history of sloppy usage the word has been stripped of it power and meaning, and cannot convince a listener to take any meaningful action.
Historically the word NAZI refers to beliefs used to divide humanity into US & THEM. The direct meaning is that “Us” are better and “Them” are inferior. But “Us” are better, not just because we have material advantages, or outside trappings. “Us” are better because we have inherent racial qualities that give us much more intelligence, and capabilities in all facets of life.
Therefore the word NAZI is a racial justification for all kinds of separation and mistreatment of “Them”, them could be basically anyone who isn’t US, as the need arises.
It is used principally as a tool to purify our race, and to purify those who live in our country or region. “Them” are relegated not only to a different race, but almost to a different species, so we are justified in eliminating them in any way that we see fit. No amount of murder or terrorism or maltreatment will be too much to ensure the erasure of this scourge of a people.
The second way that NAZISM is used is to justify colonialism. All colonial empires, (including neo-colonialism) justify their control of the rest of the world by “OUR” superiority. Only WE know what is best for those poor beasts of lower life forms. Perhaps NAZI wasn’t a term used by these colonial powers, but it is exactly the same racism, and exactly the same methods of elimination of those foreign traditional structures in the colonies. And it was done by any means, including the most vile forms of terrorism and subjugation.
It is a tall order to find a proper substitute to the word NAZI.
✓It must include the racial division of humanity that gives a small group multiple advantages.
✓It must indicate the firm belief in a zero-sum world, that what They are deprived of becomes Ours by default.
✓And it must express our practice of repression, murder, terrorism and genocide as fully justifiable. Whatever it takes, is “on the table” for our action plan.
To find a word or phrase that satisfies those three criteria, well I have to do a lot more thinking about it.
You don’t need a new name – what you need is a good metaphor. Luckily you have one in the Harry Potter series which more than half the world will understand. The Jews are the wizard community, Goys are the Muggles and the Death Eaters are the Nazi or Zionists; part of the Jewish community but predators of those (in their own community) that they do not consider part of their royal bloodline. If you haven’t read the books or seen the movies you need to watch them. I am sure the books were written intentionally to one day help people understand this situation. Now someone needs to be brave enough to draw the analogy.
You could also take clips from the SBS documentary Hunting Hitler: The Final Chapter – Which shows how the US was captured by Nazi’s. The conclusion of this program? That the Nazi’s have fomented animosity between the USA and Russia to provoke a third world war with the goal of bringing in the 4th Reich.
This is popularly called the “the 4th industrial revolution” or “the great reset”and we are almost there. The fact that Russia is openly stating they are fighting Nazi’s shows clearly whose side Russia is on.
This conformist attitude, which keeps using contingent historical terms (like “nazism” or “fascism”) instead of theoretically consistent terms from political philosophy (like “monarchy”, “tyranny” or “dictatorship”), in order to explain nowadays situations, is wrong and counterproductive.
Trying to universalize terms that should be historically circumscribed leads to all kinds of theoretical mistakes and misunderstandings.
BUT, it can be a good propaganda weapon. So the author is basically just saying: “please, Russia, do a more effective propaganda!”.
This can only work if the population really endorse that childish and ridiculous mindset where a very limited political and social movement in history (nationalsocialism) becomes “the absolute evil”. Unfortunately, both the West and Russia share this childish mindset, which is actually dooming every possible rational analysis, theoretical consistency and historical accuracy.
What a bunch of morons.
Ever since the Kiev Nazis shot down Flight MH-17 and murdered 37 of my fellow Australian citizens I’ve opposed whatever ”Ukraine” has become. I’m not interested in people who present muddled arguments in contorted prose, trying to argue for a long-winded, complex terminology. We simply need to stick to the facts and call a spade a spade.
It may be true that the Ukraine Nazis are not socialists. But ‘liberal’ has many other associations. It won’t work in Australia for a start: our ruling right-wing Tory party has always been the ”Liberal-National Party”. So ‘liberal’ doesn’t work Down Here. Doubtless there are many other places where ‘liberal’ means nothing.
Look: if it wears an Iron Cross, waves a swastika flag and kills people — it’s a bloody NAZI.
Everyone knows what Russia means when it announces a de-Nazification campaign. Let’s just get on with it!
gnarly
/ˈnɑːli/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: gnarly; comparative adjective: gnarlier; superlative adjective: gnarliest
1.
gnarled.
“twisted trees and gnarly roots”
2.
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
difficult, dangerous, or challenging.
“he’d taken a fall during a particularly gnarly practice session”
unpleasant or unattractive.
“stations can be pretty gnarly places”
very good; excellent.
“I hope you have a wicked and totally gnarly day!”
Origin
mid 19th century: from gnarl + -y1. gnarly (sense 2) was originally surfers’ slang, perhaps from the appearance of rough sea.
And this new addition to the lexicon is pronounced how?
3. “That rad move was so nali bro.”
Are you calling me a 3rd gen Nali?