Apples. Yes, the fruit. Apples have been harvested for centuries for their sweet/tart flavor. Used to make cider, sauce, flavoring additives, or even to just be eaten raw, apples are one of the more commonly consumed fruit bodies in the western world. It is estimated that in the United States alone, orchards produce some 48,000 tons of apples per year, generating billions of dollars in profit. Orchards of today exhibit a far different image of what an apple tree looks like when compared to hundreds of years ago. Research indicates that the largest apple trees can grow to over 40 feet tall, but modern apple orchards feature much smaller “dwarf” varieties that seldom reach half that height. This is done for the practical reason of being much easier to harvest and much faster to grow.
What might this have to do with anything though? What on earth could the subject of neo-nazism and how it’s depicted in contemporary society have to do with an apple produced from a dwarf apple tree? Well, they’re both, admittedly, low hanging fruit.
While the history of the apple tree and human consumption of apples goes back at least hundreds and probably thousands of years (can’t confirm, I didn’t dig that deep), the history of Nazism is far more recent. For many people, the very word “Nazi” conjures up images of Adolf Hitler standing over crowds of people, shouting angry yet captivating motivations and ideas in German. It makes us think of some of the absolute most horrible atrocities that humankind has ever committed against itself. Indeed, when one is asked who the most evil person to ever exist was, it’s a fair bet that most people are likely to respond, simply: “Hitler”.
Since WWII, the vast majority of the world has been united in its condemnation of Nazi ideas, of fascism, and of the concept of racial superiority. In the wake of the devastation caused by the “Third Reich”, Germany banned the display of most Nazi symbols and the allied powers tried and convicted numerous Nazi leaders for various crimes against humanity. Perhaps the world just didn’t have enough time to reflect on what it had just been put through, however. Immediately following WWII, the struggle between western capitalism and Soviet communism began. Further atrocities ensued (although not as dramatically), and the world moved on from the defeated* fascist threat.
To this day, you’d be hard pressed to find somebody that does not openly condemn the ideas of the former National Socialist party of Germany. Like I said, Hitler remains the most popular face of evil incarnate to most people, and the very accusation of endorsement of any Nazi ideas leads to an instant swelling of intense emotions and defensiveness. This is understandable, of course, but given the current political climate of the world, the re-emergence of far right ideas, and the election of a handful of (by definition) authoritarian leaders, would it be too bold to insinuate that proverbial cracks are starting to form? Is it fair to be afraid of the resurrection of truly fascist ideas in this day and age in which we’re seeing sweeping legalization of gay marriage, the passing of equality laws, and an intense social emphasis on individualism and freedom?
With the extreme political division we are confronted with in 2019 (and presumably continuing into 2020), words like “socialist”, “fascist”, “Nazi”, and “Marxist” have been so commonplace that the very definitions of them feel uncomfortably diluted, to be sure. What’s interesting has been witnessing the rise of self-described “independents” and “centrists/moderates” as well that are all too quick to tell the rest of the world that they need to start engaging in civilized conversation and stop calling everyone they disagree with a Nazi. I think I’d like to talk about that idea.
I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with seeking compromise and trying to find some middle ground in this hot philosophical climate. It does get stressful, after all; constantly yelling at each other, coping with the lingering existential dread and anxiety that is brought on by seeing the world collectively step backwards, from a certain perspective. It’s difficult, as well, having to feel the need to compromise some of those of personal ideas to maintain healthy relationships in your personal and professional lives. This exhaustion makes the “fuck it” attitude all that more appealing as well. Politics suck anyway, right? One has to wonder though… where can this compromise truly be found? Where is it really ethical to not have strong feelings about things like human rights, climate change, abortion, etc? Is centrism the well reasoned, level headed approach, or is it just apathy and status quo pretending to be the voice of reason?
Oops… this is awkward. I think I might have just answered my own question.
There is a meme that makes the cycles every now and again that is highly relevant to this topic. Yes, I’m citing memes now, because – like it or not – memes have become a significant part of political discourse. Let’s write that down as a topic to discuss someday soon, yeah? This meme, in question, however… Paraphrased and in simplified format:
Nazis: Let’s genocide all of these people.
Anti-Nazis: Let’s genocide none of these people.
Centrist: Guys, let’s just genocide some of these people.
Anti-Nazis: What?? No.
Nazis: Fiiiiiiiiine….
The point basically being, did taking a moderate perspective provide any hope at all of preventing Nazism from rising to power? You can argue that something like genocide is clearly absolute, but try some other hot political topics in place of that. Can we compromise on employer protections amongst different demographics? Can we compromise on life or death healthcare situations? Marriage equality? Abortion? Gun rights? I challenge people to present me with the moderate perspectives on all of these things, and to explain to me how it’s serving people rather than appeasing politics.
Politics is the real keyword here too. There is a fundamental problem with how we view societal issues as political issues. There is a fundamental problem with how we leave so many topics up to debate, rather than acknowledging the basic principles that permeate throughout the very purpose of forming a civilization. This also brings us into the subject of another highly controversial word: privilege. Let’s be real though, if you’re not gay or a member of a racial minority, why should you really give a damn about what they aren’t getting as long as you’re being served yourself? Really, it’s a problem with democracy, in general, and while I find the discussion of Socratic arguments against giving the whole of all people control over government policies to be very interesting, it’s a little bit of a divergence here. Western politics are democratic – that’s reality, and all political systems possess an array of flaws that can only be mitigated to the best of our abilities.
How this bridges into the greater topic, however: the “chosen race” is the majority in the western world. So, if the next Adolf Hitler maintained that status quo or even promised sweeping societal improvements while, say… throwing minorities into camps and weakening the rights of specific demographics, why the hell should the casual, apathetic centrist really care? To them, there is a clear compromise: somebody else’s rights in exchange for improved infrastructure or a lower tax rate. I’m trying to be as subtle as I can here, but I don’t think that’s working. If it was, I just smashed that subtlety with my last sentence. Oh well. I’ll be candid then, I’m referring to the current executive leader of the United States as of December, 2019: Donald J Trump.
Now, do I believe that Trump is a Nazi that is actively seeking to exterminate specific demographics? I can safely say that I do not believe that to be a conscious goal of his. I don’t believe that to be a conscious goal of this administration either, or even necessarily the vast majority of his followers. I need to emphasize what exactly the extremes are in the United States, however. Yes, we have people that actively and openly endorse full socialism in this country. Is there any candidate/politician that embodies or is even prone to enacting those kinds of ideas though? I, personally, think not. It’s easy for victims of the red scare to see nationalized healthcare and free college as Marxist bullshit. Those same people haven’t read Marx, however, and they ignore how defensive people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren really are of capitalism. It’s fear mongering, plain and simple, and it’s a tactic that both parties utilize fully in the United States.
What about the other end of the spectrum though? What about fascism? Is the Trump administration and the new Republican party susceptible to allowing fascism to take hold again in the western world? There are a few quick facts that need to be clarified here first: Neo-nazis, just like proponents of pure socialism, exist in this country. White supremacists, identitarians, and the fundamental tenants of the alt right exist. These things have a few attributes in common: namely, their propping up of “traditional” societal norms, and their aversion to “alternative” lifestyles and ideas. These aren’t baseless assumptions about these positions, these are fact, by virtue of definition. Additionally, a recent poll conducted by Monmouth indicated that some 62% of current Trump supports will vote for Donald Trump no matter what he does right or wrong. They are locked into voting for him regardless of what actions he does or does not take. If we’re to take these statistics to heart, all while considering the fact that those deplorable stances do, in fact, exist in this country… Does the re-emergence of fascism really seem like such an unrealistic possibility?
So, I have to emphasize again, I do not believe that Trump has an ultimate planned goal of exterminating anybody. The people that do have that ultimate goal in mind, however, support Trump. If they fit into that 62% as well, then they’re going to vote for the man, no matter what he does. One could view this as lack of incentive for him to move further to the right, but that’s only one dynamic when it comes to serving your base. What about what the “left” in this country wants? Feeding into positive results is a difficult thing. There is effort involved in creating policies that engineer something: building those camps, exterminating those people. There is little effort involved in taking things away from people though. For instance, taking away things that the political left endorses/supports. We’ve seen these things occur already. Directly, we’ve seen transgender people banned from the military, the definition of who they are scrutinized by the current administration, and we’ve indirectly seen the suppression of their medical rights by allowing physicians and nurses to refuse care based on personal ideology. We’ve seen several economic regulations either dialed back or removed outright, allowing for the continued proliferation of “crony capitalism” – which was a notorious hallmark of Nazi Germany.
I’ve intentionally ignored the elephant in the room until now, however. I mentioned how challenging it is to actually create something vs taking something away. Well, look towards the southern border of the United States and explain to me how those proverbial cracks aren’t moving beyond the point of repair very quickly. I understand that a lot of the objection to those detention centers fall under the fallacious appeal to emotion. Perhaps, however… those things – for precisely what they are – invoke extreme emotions in people for a valid reason? Would I be as bold as Representative Ocasio-Cortez in calling them concentration camps? I don’t like comparing things to Nazi Germany, because I do feel that it waters down the extreme evil that was truly committed at that time. Has anybody opened up a dictionary and looked up the definition of what a concentration camp is though? Has anybody researched the history of how Hitler’s containment camps became what we refer to now as “death camps”? I wouldn’t dare claim that we’ve reached Hitler levels of abject evil, but Donald Trump’s supporters exhibit zero concern with these policies at this point. The next level is not so unbelievably far off, and amongst those that support what he has done so far, there is a vocal minority that actively would like him to push it further and do even more.
All of these things completely ignore the mistrust in the media that he has spread to his supporters; the control of information, the denialism, the “us vs them” mentality. These are, like it or not, hallmarks of a fascist dictatorship. Again, this isn’t saying that that is, in fact, what we are under, but Donald Trump does possess those attributes, and his followers – per the numbers – would have little issue with removing the checks and balances that prevent those attributes from taking full hold.
Allow me to reel it in a little bit though. As it stands, I don’t think that the other branches of our government would allow the executive to go unchecked. I think they would stop any power grab or attempted genocidal acts as immediately as they could (mostly… you could argue that the “detention centers” are a form of genocide, but I’m talking about the casual definition here). I can respect why some might view me as being foolishly optimistic though. We have known white supremacists serving in our legislative branch (like, caught red handed), we’ve seen the senate vote in favor of emergency funds over a decidedly not emergency concern. We’re seeing an increase in hate crimes, violence against minorities, and normalization of racism and transphobia. That violence and those hate crimes are traceable. They exist in numerical form as well as in reality, and the increase in their occurrence is an undeniable thing.
Along with this we see the denial of an issue. We see continued demonization (implicit and explicit) of these vulnerable groups. What is the justification for this? “It’s just my opinion.” or “It’s just politics”, and that is where we get back to the core of this discussion on Nazism. There is a clearly defined line that divides political discourse from hate speech. Nazism falls distinctly on one side of that line, and to appease it as the political stance that it pretends to be, is to normalize it and fertilize it. Every single time one of us decides to be civil and compromise on the subject of white supremacy, identitarianism, or fascism, we open topics to debate that have no business being debated.
I’m going to invoke my psychic powers here and predict that some people reading this might be inclined to tell me that “not all Trump supporters are racists”, and I agree with that statement. All racists, however, are probably Trump supporters, so pardon me or anybody else for maybe getting a little… “intense” when we discuss this topic. We’re not all claiming to be civil or to a see a need for civil discourse. In an era in which rights are actively being stripped and the planet appears to be rotating in the opposite direction, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to believe everybody that we talk to. I’ll go on record as saying that I don’t think it’s fair or right to call the person that “wants stronger borders” or a reduction in “political correctness” a fascist or a Nazi. Can you understand why some people are perhaps a little overly emotional right now though?
While I’m going to elect to exclude exactly which demographic I fall into, I do belong to a “minority” demo in the United States. My experience has, admittedly, not been as bad as others. I came from a middle class family, I went to college and have a job that pays fairly well. I’m privileged in a lot of ways, and I don’t think anybody should be ashamed to admit that. It doesn’t make you a bad person to have some amount of privilege that others don’t. I do, however, pay attention to the experiences of other people within my demographic (and in other minority demographics). I do listen to the people that haven’t been as fortunate as myself, and I can completely understand how somebody on their particular walk of life might be quick to cry “fascist”, or might not be particularly interested in having a nuanced discussion about their rights as that minority.
It’s important to realize, however, that just because some people might be quick to jump to conclusions about people and their ideas, it doesn’t mean the problem they’re appealing do does not exist. White supremacy is back to the forefront in the United States, whether we may want to admit that or not. Discovering actual Nazis in our everyday lives is not as absurd as it used to be. These are sincere problems that a lot of people are understandably very concerned about. We’re seeing the application of these dangerous ideas materialize in the world again. People – in the United States – are being assaulted, discriminated against, and outright killed for being a part of a specific demographic. This is undeniable fact, and to pretend it’s not an issue or not “enough” of an issue is to be complicit. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. Some ideas do not deserve to be platformed or given a fair, “civil” response. At some point, we make our mind about what is and is not socially acceptable. We have made up our mind about racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and discrimination of any other flavor. It’s 2019 and the bigots have lost the cultural war. It’s time to treat those that can’t keep up with the condescending attitude they deserve.
Dwarf apple orchards started to become the norm somewhere around the year 1941. During that time, one of the greatest evils the world has ever bore witness to took ahold of central Europe and attempted to spread – like all viruses do – to every adjacent entity and beyond. The subject of whether the idea of racial purity was a worthy one or not was answered simply. It was meaningless to explain to others due to how obvious it had become. Action was the only meaningful response at that point, not civil discourse. Here we are now, roughly 80 years later. One object has remained a source of low hanging fruit to this day. Another has started growing into its primitive 40 foot self again. Casting its shadow on everything before it, becoming increasingly difficult to manage and to gain positive hindsight from.
It’s easy for somebody to say, “Not everybody you disagree with is a Nazi.” When people start saying, however, “Not every Nazi is somebody I disagree with.” then it becomes time to do as we failed to do decades ago before it was too late. There is no compromise to be had with fascism. They wouldn’t afford us the same nicety. Let’s make sure this remains a fruit that is easy to slash down.
agirlhasnoname. 