The Germanization of the American Mind: How the "Woke Right" is Resurrecting Hitler’s Logic to Fight Marxism

The contrasts between the German dialectical tradition (Hegel, Marx) and Anglo-American Enlightenment (Locke, Jefferson) are exemplified by their respective approaches to the Jewish experience in modernity.

1.     Conceptually:

A.    Systematic Internalization (England)

B.    Consistent Exclusion (Germany)

2.     Legally as humans:

A.    Inclusion (England)

B.    Alterity (Germany)

From Hegel’s Spirit through Marx’s Matter, Heidegger’s Being, and Hitler’s Race, the German tradition conceives of national/spiritual/existential/social emergence of the individual and the body politic as a culmination of a struggle towards realization.

On the contrary, English Enlightenment views social-national emergence and individuality as well, in a Hebraic (Puritan) prism of Image turning into Property and voluntarily developing into a societal framework.

This occurs through a process which mimics the 3 stages of the creation of the Hebrew nation.

1.     Salvation from enslavement/coercion.

2.     Receiving/embedding Universal Law.

3.     Political Consolidation.

The Construction of 1. Providence and salvation (Tom Paine).

Leads to a 2. Written Covenant emulating the call of g-d’s given word (Hamilton/Jefferson).

3. Which establishes itself into a system of law and order carried by the memory of salvation in accordance with Divine law of morality (The Republic). 

The English model, as Schmitt critiqued, is theological. History has also proved it to be more moral…

Meanwhile, the German model creates its framework of political self-actualization through a “spontaneous” negation of key categories that the ideologs themselves see, the image of God is not given – it develops itself through a process of Struggle and Becoming.

Be it Hegel with the spirit through time into the state, Marx with the workers through revolution into the Social-Man, or Hitler with the Aryans through a Blood and Soil into Racial-Rule, an act of culmination, occurring through a mystical quest defines the political-body’s emergence Versus some protagonist Other, which is deemed external to the unity striving to "become" a Statt, a class, or a Volk.

The image of man indeed exists with Hegel yet only realizes itself within the political. Post-Hegel, the image of man is suddenly less realized, it turns away to the universal givenness, it is conditioned, even with a solipsist as Nietzsche, who calls for a struggle of becoming.

One may ask as to how much the Sonderweg of the German nation is to be accounted for this – i.e. how much is the fact that the Germans themselves never reached true realization until 1871, is actually mimicked by an obsessive urge to rely the value of an individual or of societal realization via mimicking a process of struggle towards becoming – that is carried upon the wings of historical struggle (In collective systems like with Marx and Hitler) or brut power (in individualistic systems like with Nietzsche and Heidegger).

in German Idealism only after the people created themself via spirit, matter, or blood via struggle – can man reach spiritual value.

In English enlightenment all men are chosen by a divine formula uniting them as god’s property living in a republic under universal (equal) justice.

It’s that simple - Struggle VS Choseness

The tradition, grounded in Locke and the social contract, rejects the necessity of exclusion or annihilation of ‘Alterity’ needed to achieve political or cultural wholeness.

Total negation the British argue stops with revelation.

Alienation is only identified by those who without divine revelation reject the godly interface of private property as a human manifestation of the image of the lord. The German, with no external source of revelation, believes not only that Man is fulfilled through negation, but that this negation must contain the annihilation of a protagonist.  

G-d thus appears through war - not in business or prayer.

The German tradition does not only view the monotheistic path of becoming from individuals made in the image of g-d into a nation via providence and law with rejection - but also - the people who prophesized this path of nationhood (Jews) as foreign (Kant, Hegel) or an enemy (Marx, Hitler) of the very dialectic process of the struggle of becoming.

Their image develops accordingly. Being the Non-Dialectic-Abstract (Hegel) and the Pure-Concrete Immoral (Kant) – they turn more and more concrete and metarlize themselves through partial emancipation to becoming the Unjust Capitalist (Marx) or the Racial Subverter (Hitler), down to the Non-authentic Technologist (Heidegger), whatever the method towards truth, salvation, or meaning seems to be, whether for the collective, or the individual, the ‘other of becoming’, who is also the object of the struggle, perhaps except with Friedrich Nietzsche, among the most prominent German Thinkers and historically influential Ideologues, is the Jew.

That same Jew who brought the social contract via providence to a moral political order – is thus - the enemy.

As mentioned, In post-emancipatory Germany the concept of becoming shifts from the abstract to the material, and so does the Jew as an object of negation shifts himself involuntarily from being a moral abstract, that could be allowed civil rights (Hegel), into the material realm.

Yet, once he is infused into society, he is viewed not as an external alternative of universality (Kant) or method (Hegel), but as an agent subverting the process of becoming.

He is no more the conceptual or legal negator, he must be struggled with to achieve actualization via his penetration of reality (Marx, Hitler, Shmitt, Heidegger).

If Post-emancipatory Marxism saw the Jew as subverting matter and class, Post-Marxian Hitlerism and Heideggerism, saw The jew as subverting the process of the dialectics itself (and of becoming) by using (Jewish) Marx! To capture the Dialectics in the realm of Capital, contrasting the real nature of The Nation.

Hence the Jews be them as Marxist thinkers or as a Racial Category that use both Marx and English enlightenment, help define and materialize the true nature of Der Prozess of national or social becoming – by challenging it – they are the material and conceptual pharaoh, penetrating the dialectical necessity of history and nationhood, from which we can only be saved through absolute struggle.

Thus, we see, how The Jewish question varies between total conceptual-material-historical negation, in different epochs, in different methods, and in different legal realities in Germany only to persist and remain, from 1791 down to 1945 as the absolute other – Minus Nietzsche.  While in England and in America, the Jews enjoy conceptual core-acceptance by the welcoming of Hebrew notions of revelation, law, and covenant, that persist through different intellectual climates.

So follows their treatment as humans, not as The Anti-Ideal as in Germany, but as part of a society that synergizes republican and biblical ideals via universal law.

This Jewish prism in fact is a question that together with the question of property and individual rights, separates between English Enlightenment and German Idealism.

In a way the core difference is due to the different between the Puritan-English tradition and the German Lutheran-Catholic tradition.

One open to Hebraic old-testament discourse, the other two united in their common hostility to it.

The core opposing notions of these two different political and theological traditions can be illuminated by the core metaphysical and methodological differences and approaches of both weltanschauungs with regards to Jews as a nation and to the rejection or acceptance of the Hebraic - Man In The Image of God moral tradition. When one observes their place within the two modern political systems of thought.

Yet for roughly sixty years, philosophical and political-philosophical canons, including in the United States, have emphasized the works and methods of Hegel and Marx far more than those of Locke and Jefferson.

This has happened in a post-emancipatory reality, where the Jewish Anti-Dialectical (Hegel) Becomes the Jewish Anti-Social (Marx), and thus is now a legitimate object of Struggle.

Hence the Hegelian and Marxian subversion of America’s mind opened the path to a dialectical method of thought that in a post-Emancipatory reality, based on Marxist categories, will naturally become increasingly obsessed with the Jewish Other as a anti-class due to his material stature and as a concept due to his fundamental contribution to Liberalism and thus to Capitalism.

Even the idea of the “White” demiurge, so popular among Marxists, can easily, given the Hebrew roots of American Philosophy, be traced back to a form of Jewishness which supports both Property-rights and God - that has become Anglicized.

Thus, while increasingly removed from the core precepts of natural rights and property rights enshrined by America’s political philosophy – this Marxist reading, has also opened itself to a counter reaction.

This counter reaction will argue that Marxist methodology and social-construction so prevalent in America’s political and social systems, is, albeit its total guilt-discourse against Jews and Whites alike, is of “Jewish” origin.

This argument relies on the Lutheran, Kantian, Voltairean and Marxian narratives all identifying the Jew with self-interest that manifests in legality and materialism.

Thus the anti-Marxist reaction sees Marxism itself as a tool in the hands of “The Jews”, to corrupt the American nation (Just as it was A Jewish tool to corrupt Germany) the “proof” will come by the fact, not only that so many influential Marxists are of Jewish descent, but by another second “proof”, that while implemented, Marxism “spares” “Zionism” and “Jewish Capital” while The American nation is being multi-racialized and fragmented.

So they claim, even though the Marxian method is hateful of Judaism, Jews, and is by nature anti-Zionist, and despite being constructed of Non-Judaic ideas (Originating in a blend of Gnosticism and Catholicism), somehow it manages to subvert the American national body, yet spare “Jewish Ethnic Capitalistic Interests”.

This worldview, originating by seeing both Liberalism and Marxism as Jewish tools of subversion, originate in late 19th century Austria and Germany. Even if not framed via racial rhetoric, it manages to modernize the ancient trope dual loyalty, while claiming an elaborate Ideological-Material conspiracy to undermine The Nation.

The reason America has now been exposed to this insanity, is that the philosophical and moral language has been removed from an Anglo-American Axis focused on the divine and universal, to a continental process focused on struggle and becoming – thus focused on seeking a protagonist-other to battle for the purpose of reaching self-realization.

Here the Woke Right offers to kill two birds with one shot. Unlike the Woke Left, they can not only to negate Liberalism as a degenerate force, but they can also critique the Marxist response and knowing that at this stage liberalism is already too weak to respond adequately, they can use the Jews as the mutual enemy, of National Becoming be he is responsible for both liberalism and Marxism.

Thus, we answer the ideological questions not through class or capital, but through the Jews who created this equation.

Back in reality, we can now see that the Marxists may have negated Hitler with their words, but their literal condemnation of Hitlerism, especially when done in a anti-liberal suppressing fashion, only ushered Hitlerism, by enabling a dialectical playing field, a search for a protagonist, an obsession with class, and a basing of it all deep within a continental social-political world of thought that has taken over American Academia.

Which in fact sees the world in the same conspiratorial anti-liberal lens which Hitlerism and fascism do.  

While the Marxist seeks a “White man”, or “a Zionist” as the root of all concerns, the Anti-Semitic reactionary can argue, that his protagonist may be part of a very narrow demographic category (Jews), but that at least by focusing on the Jews he can offer a theoretical explanation to the motive of both the original problem (Liberalism) and its fake solution (Marxism) all while maintaining the holy dialectical method of conspiratorial gnostic critique that the German tradition is so famous for.

Thus the Marxists have not only normalized the turning away from liberal solutions or values, which created a reality of social decay, they also legitimized a mystical and hateful analysis of the world in non-liberal methods. By so, they allowed their hatred of liberalism to become part of a toolbox that does not only explain liberalism as the root evil stemming from “Jewish Capital”, as Marx says, but have also exposed themselves to the accusation that the Marxization of America in of itself a part of the interests of “Jewish Capital”.

Basically – the two sides of the continental divide blame Jewish-Liberalism, but only one of them can blame each other for being Jewish, and by that signaling him out as a non-organic part of the continental process.

The woke Left which despises the Nation-State has only one explanation for the “insanity” of free market capitalism, the woke right which pretends to love the Nation-State, and claims to save it, has an explanation for both international capitalism and anti-national Marxism – and is ready to save the nation by fighting the reason for both – the Jews.

Any wonder why so many young males in a continental discourse now drink the kool-aid?. If saving the nation, in a post-liberal reality means giving up the jews, so be it.

When you play stupid games (Continental ideas and policies), you win stupid prizes (continental solutions).

Thus, dialectical thinkers (Hegelians and Marxists), created a "continental social reality" in America, that using gnostic conspiratorial element; the need of “struggle”; “classes”; and of “becoming”; while negating Locke and Jefferson - prepared the ground for the moment where

1.     Leftist or abstract theoretical continentalism fails and is

2.     replaced with fascist continentalism

3.     once the unavoidable futility of Marxism and Theoretical-Hegelianism is proved

4.     And the social-ideological reality is too deep within continental discourse or language

5.     That any shift back to liberalism seems at this point almost impossible.

6.     And here the negation of the Jew Becomes the Aufheben of the system and nation.

That moment where leftist or abstract continental ideas fail – is the exact moment, where Hitlerism, methodologically well sounded in the dialectical field, and supposedly promising to deal with the cultural, demographic failures of both Liberalism and Marxism, will, once society is already removed from its liberal ideal, rise as the natural "conservative" antithesis to bring the process of post-liberal dialectical becoming of nation back to order.

As we all know the Hitlerian anti-thesis, is not only removed from the Hebrew-English idea of property and universal rights (like Marx) it now sees this Hebraic-English (Judeo-Christian) idea in a conspiratorial multi-dimensional fashion – and even claims explanatory power to the prevalence of Jews on both the theoretical and practical ground of liberal and Marxian policies alike (Known as the art of “counting jews”).

One may say this new reactionary shift in America is not purely Hitlerian.

It has Carl Schmitt (Pro-Dictatorship), and Christian Nationalism (Fusion of Church and state),Neo-Pagan (Pro-Racist), and even authoritarian anti constitutionalism.

Yet, Even though all the above are elements that were functionally synthesized in the Nazi state – other than the Christian element which gave way to a Neo-Pagan-Christian Religion, one can argue that we should not equate this new-right, which is woke, with the Hitlerian world only because it provides a Hitlerian reading of the Marxist-Liberal nexus.

The Jews among the woke-right (Yes there are a few), would even say, that equating them with Nazis, is just as deterministic and false, as those Nazis who equate Marxism with Judaism.

Yet, when one adds the re-emergence of a mythologization of Jewish Power.

The critique of “Jewish cultural influence”.

The focus on “Jewish Narrative construction”.

“Jewish Capitalism & Cultural Marxism as ways to serve Zionism”.

A need to suddenly re-write WW2 and rehabilitate Hitler.

It makes one wonder – whether the attempt to remove the Jews sideways, while calling for the cancellation of the constitution and the idea of private rights and private property (As the woke right calls for), is not also an attempt to erode the Conceptual Hebraic root of America.

Is it only by chance happening that in the attempt to fight institutionalized Marxism, there is also an attempt to prevent the possibility of any liberal-covenant based political theory to re-emerge by once again signaling out the Jews as enemy of a Nation?.

Perhaps this post-Marxian reaction, its focus on Judaism, and the rest of the aforementioned structural similarities, in a continental post-liberal America - are all absolutely coincidental.

But to my understanding, given the changing demographic and ideological scenery of America This can only be their way to lead to either National-Catholicism. Monarchism. Or an attempt at a hopefully non-genocidal American version of Neo-Fascism.    

Some attempt to prove that Nazism can halt itself in 1935. They believe they can talk about the Jews like Hitler did, without acting like Hitler.

But the problem is, that thinking about the Jews like Hitler, also means thinking about America as a non-protestant nation. To cleanse America from “Jewish ideas” and “Jewish influence”, would be to cleanse America from Anglo-Protestantism.

It would mean entering a new continental adventure that could start anywhere from Luther to Kant or Rousseau and end anywhere between Hitler and Horthy.

Regardless of if this will lead to Auschwitz in an American edition. In a Multi-Racial America it seems like the more realistic scenario to come from this new generation of anti-liberal and anti-Marxists Americans who see Judaism everywhere and in everything – is some fusion of Pagan-Catholic political structure mimicking protestant work ethics within a framework of continental idealism. Whatever it is – it’s not the America we knew.

Re-creating the path of exclusion that German Idealism took with regards to the Jewish Question – is the first step. They are reverting to a mix of Kantian and Hegelian intellectual antisemitism, which following with an explanation of the success of the Jews in the open-society, with a conspiratorial perspective – calling the nation to struggle and re-align itself to prevent the subversion of national progress. Because in their heads, there are no American Ideas, they can only claim to represent America, as much as the “Jewish Marxists” they hate.

What started in the 60s in America is now materializing fully with the negation of the German anti-Ideal in the Image of the Jews.

Jews will also need to ponder as to why so many of them agreed to adhere to Marxist ideas.

But surely, this should never excuse right-wing continental insanity.

The motion from an English political culture rooted in inclusion under universal rights, toward a model of identity forged through historical negation seems to formulate itself through the Jewish question once more.

Germany never had a liberal tradition. America did.

There is merit to those who say that the English accepted the Jewish ideal only because they were able, as a nation, to look at one another in the eyes of fellow man.

But America is still a nation. And that also enables us to look at one another this way – which is where my hope lies.

The “sophisticated” among the haters claim that the Jews are the one who destroyed America as a homogenic nation with their Marxism and Capitalism (the Kennedy act was a Jewish conspiracy?), and now they must not pretend when told that a classical liberal perspective is not enough to sustain the nation any longer.

“Even if we forgive you Jews for all you did to America”, they say – “we will never expose ourselves again to your ideological material manipulations”.

Let's pretend, even as a Jewish writer, that this insanity holds merit. One must ask, why counter it by undermining the national covenant (bill of rights and constitution) and replacing it with a replacement struggle-becoming theology?

What is the merit in that? Why not revert from the continental game all together?

No more bill of rights? No more transcendent-universalistic-ethics?

What is the endgame?

There is none.

And if so, one must wonder what their motivation is to keep playing this foolish game.