Tag: national socialism

Fascism Deconstructed: The Policies of National Socialism

By TJ Roberts | United States

Fascism is a pejorative in society, but does society truly understand what it means to be a fascist? The socialists have deceived the public into believing that fascism is the most grotesque evolution of capitalism, but this simply is not the case. This article will cut through the societal definitions of the fascists, giving the true meaning of national socialism, paying attention to the philosophical, political, and economic roots of fascism. As the article lays out the totalitarian, anti-property, and subjectivist nature of fascism, it will transition into the development of a true antifascist strategy, which will include advocacy for decentralization, private property, free trade, lower taxes, the right of association and disassociation, the removal of the State from private life and the physical removal of those who would implement such an authoritarian system upon our communities.

What the Nazis have to say about Fascism

On February 24, 1920, the Nazis released their party platform. Among their 25 planks are policies such as old age pensions, the territorial expansion of the State (imperialism), universal employment (public works), the abolition of income without “labor,” the end of interest and rent, the nationalization of industry, wealth redistribution, a dedication to the common good, the provision of free higher education, and the prohibition of child labor.

Looking at the Nazi Party Platform, we can see that capitalism and small government has nothing to do with fascism. To partake in understatement, the free market, personal liberty, and self-ownership does not exist within a national socialist state. The Nazis believed that classical liberalism had failed the world, and that the State was the remedy to whatever illness the world could ever face. As the Nazi Platform shows, adherents to national socialism had no concern for the basic laws of economics (this article will soon show that the Nazis did not even believe in the laws of economics).

Perhaps most damaging is the Nazis’ dedication to the common good. As individuals become just a part of a whole, they become expendable. This dedication to violent, state-sponsored collectivism is exactly what allowed Hitler to demonize the Jews and other minorities so that he could commit the horrific acts of genocide within the Holocaust.

Fascism opposes Economics.

In a 1937 speech, Hitler stated the following:

I am not going to tell you That in place of these economic theories Of the others I am now going to put it a national Socialist economic theory. I would like to avoid the term theory altogether. Yes I would even like to say that what I am going to tell you today Is not intended to be a theory at all. Because if I recognize any dogma at all in the economic sector, then it is only the one dogma that there is no dogma in this sector, no theory at all.

In the statement, Hitler rejects the very concept of economics. He rejects supply and demand, the law of diminishing marginal returns, the socialist calculation problem, and every other insight economics has provided humanity.

This rejection of economics, however, is not original to Hitler. It largely originates from the German Historical School, spear-headed by Gustav von Schmoller. The German Historical School was of the persuasion that economic law was a sham. Rather than looking at economics as a set of universal propositions, advocates of the Historical School saw economics as a series of empirical incidents that will vary across time and place. To these individuals, there are no laws of economics that could hold back an omnipotent government.

In “The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics,” Ludwig von Mises shows how Hitler was largely inspired by the German Historical School. It makes sense that he would be, after all. Economic law inherently limits a dictator. Hitler needed to find a way to get past the basic economic laws which confine humanity, and he found a theory that rejects these limitations in the Historical School. For more information on the German Historical School, please see Dr. David Gordon’s “The Philosphical Origins of Austrian Economics.”

In Human Action, Mises discussed this anti-capitalistic mentality that intoxicated Hitler, and still continue to intoxicate the masses today:

The issue has been obfuscated by the endeavors of governments and powerful pressure groups to disparage economics and to defame the economists. Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law. Are they not the supreme legislators? Don’t they have the power to crush every opponent? No war lord is prone to acknowledge any limits other than those imposed on him by a superior armed force. Servile scribblers are always ready to foster such complacency by expounding the appropriate doctrines. They call their garbled presumptions “historical economics.” In fact, economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.

It is impossible to understand the history of economic thought if one does not pay attention to the fact that economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and demagogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his objections are well founded, the more they hate him.

If one tries to refute the devastating, criticism leveled by economics against the suitability of all these interventionist schemes, one is forced to deny the very existence—not to mention the epistemological claims—of a science of economics, and of praxeology as well. This is what all the champions of authoritarianism, government omnipotence, and “welfare” policies have always done. They blame economics for being “abstract” and advocate a “visualizing” (anschaulich) mode of dealing with the problems involved. They emphasize that matters in this field are too complicated to be described in formulas and theorems. They assert that the various nations and races are so different from one another that their actions cannot be comprehended by a uniform theory; there are as many economic theories required as there are nations and races. Others add that even within the same nation or race, economic action is different in various epochs of history. These and similar objections, often incompatible with one another, are advanced in order to discredit economics as such….

To summarize Mises, it is the ego of a dictator and a democratic mass that endangers the public. Their blatant disregard for economic law sets a society on a path to destruction and ruin, and the history of government resoundingly proves this. Hitler’s deliberate ignorance of economics only adds to the anti-human nature of national socialism.

National Socialism Needs a Centrally Planned Economy

Hitler, when addressing the concept of economic freedom versus state planning, made the following statement:

If Germany intends to live, then it must run its whole economy in a manner that is clear and planned. We cannot manage without a plan. If we were to let things run on according to the principle that everyone may do as he likes, then in a very short time this freedom would end upIn a terrible famine. No, we have to conduct our business and run our economy according to plan. Therefore the National Socialist government cannot be dependent on any individual interests. It cannot be dependent on the city or the country, not on workers and not on employers. It cannot be dependent on industry, on the crafts, on trade or on finance. It can only accept one obligation…. The nation alone is our master, and we serve this nation to the best of our knowledge and belief.

What the following statement demonstrates is that Hitler did not see the market as the means to prosperity. Rather, he believed that the State can plan a society to create prosperity. If it was economic, Hitler believed the government could do it better than the maket could. Simply put, Hitler did not believe in economic freedom. He believed in the State.

The National Socialists Reject Honest Money

In 1939, Hitler gave his position on the gold standard:

Today we smile about a time when our political economists actually did believe that the value of a currency depended on the amount of gold and foreign currency reserves piled up in the safes of the state banks, and that it was guaranteed by these. We have learned instead of of the value of a currency lies in the production capacity of a nation, that increasing production is what holds up a currency, even revalues it under certain circumstances, whereas any declining production results must sooner or later lead to an automatic devaluation of the currency. And at a time when the financial and economic theologists in the other countries prophesied our collapse every 3 to 6 months, the National Socialist state stabilized the value of its currency by increasing production most extraordinarily. An actual relationship was created between increasing German production and the currency in circulation.

Hitler saw fiat currency as an incredible moral virtue. Such a currency would give the State massive influence over the population, which is the true defining characteristic of National Socialism. It is with all this in mind that we can see that Hitler and the Nazis clearly rejected capitalism. They did not see the free market, private property, or self-ownership as a path to prosperity. They only valued omnipotent government.

Fascism: The State Above All Else

While one may simply dismiss Hitler and the Nazis’ economic ignorance as the ramblings of a mad man, but it makes sense when you understand the philosophical aim of fascism: the State having complete and total control. Fascism placed the power of the State above all else, which explains their disregard for economic law, their admiration for central planning, and their dedication to fiat currency.

But the national socialists did not just place the State above economics. They placed the State above you.

Fascism is another Color of Socialism

In Omnipotent Government, Mises pointed out that fascism was a “third way” between capitalism and communism. While the national socialists were not communists, they were socialists. Mises expounds on German National socialism in the following:

The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) manintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer). These shop managers do the buying and selling, pay the workers, the contract debts, and pay interest and amortization. There is no labor market; wages and salaries are fixed by the government. The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell.

So, while the people owned private property according to German Law, the ownership of private property was in name and in name only.

Fascist Rejection of Private Property

Mises was not the only person to identify the lack of private property in Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis openly embraced this, and it crippled German Business. Hitler elaborated upon his views on private property here:

Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things. It orders solely the relationship of man to the state. Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people.

So, the businesses can have property by decree, but it doesn’t matter. The people are owned by the State in a National Socialist economy. In truth, Hitler’s socialism runs deeper than the socialism of the Soviet Union. It doesn’t matter if you own “private property” in a fascist state (or a state in general), for the State owns you.

Doing Business under Fascism

If the socialist lie that fascism is late stage capitalism was true, then the ease of doing business must certainly be irrefutable. This, however, is not the case. In The Vampire Economy, Gunter Reimann described what it was like to do business under the Nazis. To put it shortly, business owners did not own their businesses. Workers did not own their bargaining rights. No one but the State owned anything.

Things became so bad for the businessman in Nazi Germany, that they were described as “white Jews” in a letter Reimann retrieved from a German businessman. In that same letter, the businessman laments the lack of price flexibility, the increase in regulations, the increase in taxation, the confiscation of private property, and the complete revocation of the right to use your profit as you see fit.

Matters weren’t any better for the German worker either. Whereas the Nazis demanded a “fair wage,” the workers’ hours drastically increased. The workers who worked just six hours per day were forced to work anywhere from eleven to twelve hours per week. The Nazis would also force women and children into employment to make family income look even better.

Just like all socialists, fascists reject private property.

As alluded to before, the fascist’s reverence for the State led to the destruction of private property. Reimann points this out by telling the story of a German landowner known as Herr V, who was forced to even quarter German troops in his home. After having enough, Herr V decided to go to a bank to invest his funds in something the State cannot touch by purchasing a farm in West Africa. The banker informed him that the State will not allow you to leave with your property. One can “own” property in Nazi Germany, but we all know the State is the true owner under fascism.

With businesses, it was just as bad. The State had the authority to go through the books of businesses. Any errors would lead to a fine of millions of Marks. These regulations were just another means of expropriating private property from the people. In fact, the Nazi regime repealed the right to private property on February 28, 1933, with the abolition of article 153 of the Weimar Constitution.

The business owners were replaced with Betriebsführer, or business managers. Since you did not truly own your property, you were just a tenant of this “fiat” property. In other words, in order to keep “your” property, you must not only follow the law. You must be completely servile to the State. In fascism, the State owns you.

The Reality of Fascism in America

This article would seem irrelevant if we believed the only fascist regimes were those of Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Franco’s Spain. But that simply is not the case. We must accept the reality that the United States has become a fascist government.

The US has been a fascist country since FDR ushered in the administrative state through the New Deal. Under Roosevelt’s policies, businesses were directed to produce for “the common good” instead of individual profit. The welfare state grew exponentially to compel dependence upon the State from the people.

Economic law has been entirely rejected. The central banks and the bureaucracy have the authority to regulate as they see fit. Private property is a sham. The government taxes and regulated everything. On top of the welfare state is a massive warfare state.  The private sector has been cartelized, production has been heavily subsidized. The people revere the police state as the source of peace. Our rights are denied in the name of security.

Another indicator is the US’s worship of its leaders. Paul Craig Roberts identified this by saying, “Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy.” the Left has adopted this as well. Any criticism of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is seen as treason. If the people are sensitive of criticisms of Trump and Obama, they are intolerable to criticisms of individuals such as Lincoln or FDR. But if this isn’t enough, consider John Flynn’s Eight Marks of Fascist Policy.

  1. Government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its power.
  2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the Leadership Principle.
  3. Government administers a “capitalist” system with an immense bureaucracy.
  4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.
  5. Economic planning based on the principle of Autarky.
  6. Government sustains economic life by spending and borrowing.
  7. Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.
  8. The military has imperialist aims.

Toward an Antifascist Alliance

As Lew Rockwell points out in Fascism vs. Capitalism, the federal government has turned the US into a fascist nation, and therefore we must fight fascism in America. Rockwell did give us a brief word on anti-fascist strategy. In essence, we must be capitalists to fight fascism.

“I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization, those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.
It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.” Lew Rockwell, Fascism vs. Capitalism.

In other words, to fight against fascism, we must fight for freedom. One of the top flaws of fascism is its reactionary nature. It was built to stop communism but ultimately became just as bad, with an even deeper socialism in which the people become socialized. We cannot continue with negative activism. We must have a positive goal. Being in favor of freedom first inherently makes one against communism, fascism, and all other forms of statism. This is how to fight American fascism.


Originally published on freedomandeconomics.org.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Advertisements

Censoring The Alt-Right Is About As Counter-Productive As We Can Get

By Colin Louis | United States

Over the last couple of weeks, new revelations have come forward about Facebook’s use of user data. This, along with bannings on various social media platforms, has raised several questions about social media censorship.

Many supporters of censorship claim that it will prevent giving the Alt-Right a platform on social media. They may sound good in theory, but they don’t work in practice. Extremists still spread extremism online.

There are two ways we can take on this problem of Alt-Right online extremism; we can debate or we can ban. Censorship is not the way to go.

Let’s see who’s not being censored.

Richard Spencer, a White Supremacist and founder of the Alt-Right still has a Twitter and Instagram account.

Matthew Heimbach, a Neo-Nazi and leader of the Traditionalist Workers Party still has a YouTube account that he posts his hateful videos.

Paul Nehlen, a White Nationalist and candidate for Wisconsin’s first congressional district still has an Instagram account.

AltRight.com, the literal website for the Alt-Right is fully functional.

BloodandSoil.org, the website for the white nationalist group ‘Patriot Front’ is actively recruiting members on their website. (“Blood and Soil” was a nazi chant yelled at Charlottesville.)

Nsm88.org, the official website for the National Socialist Movement, the new American Nazi Party is still fully functional. The “88” in the website name is code for “hail Hitler,” (The 8th letter of the alphabet is H. HH is short for “hail Hitler.”)

The point is that censorship by Google, Twitter, and YouTube doesn’t work against the Alt-Right. While it’s unfortunate, regardless of if we shut them up or not hate will continue to spread and we should take a better approach to it. The Alt-Right is an ideology of hate that can only be combated with free speech.

The only solution is to debate them and prove their ideology wrong (just as one would with any other dangerous ideology).

If you want to show the world that Nazism and White Supremacy aren’t the way to go, beat them in debate and prove to the internet they are wrong. Use facts and logic as your sword, not censorship.

Even if you take away their platform racists are still going to be racist.

If you beat them on their platform you will see what little influence they have. Take Richard Spencer’s speech in Florida: almost nobody would have showed up if the Governor hadn’t declared a state of emergency. By taking their platform away they can tell people “they want to censor us because we tell the truth!”

Censoring them makes it look like they are winning. It makes the other side look scared of their arguments. It is the weak thing to do.

So, don’t use censorship to attack the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is a force of hate and ignorance, but we need to use logic to prove them wrong. Removing a couple of twitter pages won’t do anything, we need to focus our force on destroying their core philosophy.


Featured image source.

 

Why Does Socialism Starve People?

By Mason Mohon | USA

It comes up in every single debate. We see it every time we are arguing with a communist or another sort of lefty. The right-wing proponent will throw out instances like Venezuela, the Soviet Union, and other catastrophic failures of socialist economies. This is followed by the response from the left-winger that either those were not real communism/socialism, or that there are factors that the right-winger fails to realize. In reality, both of these arguments are really bad. We cannot throw out death counts and assume they are causally related to the institution of socialism. What must be explored is economic law, and we need to look at what sort of incentives a socialist economy creates, and whether or not it is compatible with human actors.

In this article, socialism and communism will be used interchangeably because they both fit the definition of a planned economy.

We must first look into how we are supposed to study economics. The beginning of all economic thought comes from logical deductions coming from the action axiom. That is, we begin all economics with the axiom that man (human) acts. It is why Mises termed his magnificent economic treatise Human Action, and it is the starting point the Austrian School of economics comes from. This article is not to explore all of the warrants behind this line of thought, though. For an in-depth explanation of praxeological reasoning, I recommend the “Chapter Zero” of Chase Rachels’s book A Spontaneous Order, which is written by Will Porter and titled Epistemology and Praxeology. Within it, it is explained why we begin here and has refutations of the opposition.

What is important, though, is that we deduce economic law logically, not through reflecting upon history. This is not to say that history is not important, for it can prove itself to be an important tool in many instances, but all too often will people interpret history one way, which goes directly against logical deductions, one example being the second industrial revolution. Economic law cannot be deduced from history, it can only be reflected on and compared.

What this means to the present situation is that it goes directly against what it means to be a student of economics to say that “the Soviet Union had starving people, and because of that socialism/communism must lead to starvation.” We cannot use a historical example as an economic law. Rather, we must look to what economic law says and the reasoning behind why it says what it says. Once we have done this, then we may say that socialism is causally related to starvation and mass death. It is simply not enough to make claims about historical repetition.

Now, we may look at the economic issues with socialism. The argument will take its form in three planks: how socialism will cause misallocation, how socialism will incentivize people to produce, and how socialism will incentivize people to climb society.

In the first place, we must look at why socialism causes misallocations. These misallocations are the causes of the shortages of food and resources we associate with socialism. It is often objected that instances where this misallocation did occur, it was “not real socialism” or “not the right brand of socialism.” The problem is that misallocations will occur in any instance where the factors of production are no longer privately owned, which is the defining characteristic of socialism. In any economy, to determine whether or not an entrepreneur or producer is engaging in fruitful, efficient, and socially productive action, they must engage in economic calculation. This is the action of seeing whether or not their initial investment has created a profit or a loss. If an entrepreneur or producer discovers they have suffered a loss (people are not buying what they are providing), they discover that it is not good for resources to go where they are putting them. In a socialist economy, no economic calculation can exist, because market prices are nonexistent. Because of this, there is no way to discover whether or not resources are going to the right places. With something like food, it is extremely important that we figure out if it is going to the right places. To read more into how entrepreneurs serve society, I recommend this article.

Now that we have established the economic law proving socialism to misallocate resources, we can look at history and the world around us to see this being reflected. Socialist commonwealths across the globe have fallen apart. It is why there was no food in the Soviet Union, and it is why Venezuela failed to properly utilize its oil, resulting in profound economic decline. Some economies may seem to be socialist and successful, but those are instances in which we are either misunderstanding what their economy is, or they are purely surviving off of luck, meaning enough resources to keep the country from collapsing have been delegated, but there is no way to know what kinds of losses this is and will be producing without economic calculation.

Furthermore, we must look at the incentives to produce that are produced by a socialist economy. In Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s critique of socialism in his book Democracy: The God That Failed, he explains the ways wealth can be created within an economy. There are three, the first of which being mixing your work with untouched land. The second is to produce the good by combining or changing resources, and the third is by transferring a good through voluntary and contractual means. If the ownership of all assets is assigned to the collective (or the state), then individuals who mix their work (or homestead) with land, individuals who produce, and individuals who exchange lose their incentive to create wealth, because anything they create they will not own, for the collective (or the state) shall assume ownership. The cost of performing fruitful tasks is raised, and those that do not act productively still benefitted, increasing the incentive to not work (to each according to his need).

Moreover, we must look at the paths available to people to get to the top of society. In a capitalist free-market society, the best way to climb to the top is by starting a business and serving consumer needs. As Dr. Hoppe said, if one “wants to increase his wealth and/or rise in social status, he can only do so by better serving the most urgent wants of voluntary consumers through the use he makes of his property.” Clearly, the way to raise your own social status in a private property order is to serve others, making selfishness ultimately selfless. A socialist order stands in stark contrast, for to rise one must appeal to the collective or whoever elects people into the state. Doing this promotes cutthroat dirty politics, and it forces one to rise through “promises, bribes, and threats.” This has clearly been reflected throughout the world of big government and socialism, for Soviet Union leadership was given to whoever could stab the most people in the back in the end.

In conclusion, it is important that we know the causes of socialist terror. It is not logical or economically sound to make quick assumptions about starvation in the past and claim socialism and communism are failures. Rather, we must make praxeological economic deductions from the basis that man acts to determine whether or not socialism will work. The results are in strong opposition to socialism, which causes misallocations, laziness, and dirty politics. In the end, the results are catastrophic, and history only stands to prove.

That “Economist” Who Wants Bitcoin Banned? He’s Full of Crap.

By Mason Mohon | USA

Joseph Stiglitz found himself being named on headlines of crypto sites across the web. The former chief economist of the World Bank released a statement or two on how he thought that Bitcoin, the world’s biggest cryptocurrency, should be banned. Honestly, we should have expected nothing less from this centralization loving bank buddy.

A Coindesk report dove into what he said in regards to cryptocurrency. “Bitcoin is successful only because of its potential for circumvention, lack of oversight,” said Stiglitz. “So it seems to me it ought to be outlawed. It doesn’t serve any socially useful function.”

This economist, though, has another thing coming. Circumvention itself is not an inherently bad thing. Food is circumvention from starvation. Bitcoin is the feed to an economically starving world. Bitcoin was created so that money could be used outside of the state, and so that we can have transactions that we trust will work in the absence of a third party. So Stiglitz is right in that Bitcoin technology is used (and proudly) to circumvent state action. When the state uses its control of money to stealthily steal our money and finance its wars under the table, I think we may have a moral obligation to circumvent it.

David Veksler from the Foundation for Economic Education wrote about a time when he had profound trouble getting his money from himself to a friend. He tried multiple conventional methods of transfer, yet was heavily discouraged by wait times, fees, and other general issues with getting money to a friend, such as a check getting lost in the mail. In the west, we have been heavily bogged down with regulation, because “politicians want their cut, and they have no problem forcing us to use an expensive and unreliable financial system to get it.” Veksler outlined that Bitcoin allows us to circumvent these western regulations. The state has set up an economic blockade, and cryptocurrency is what we are using to get around it.

As I stated earlier, Bitcoin is food for our economic starvation, yet for some, it is food for actual starvation. A Venezuelan who wished to remain anonymous wrote about how Bitcoin is the only thing standing between their family and starvation. The writer said the following,

The economy is Venezuela is dead. My father lost his air conditioning business and people like our neighbors that were middle and upper class a few years ago can’t afford food. Thanks to the rising price of Bitcoin and its relative stability (to the Venezuelan economy), my family is part of a very small fortunate minority that can afford to help feed their community and also potentially immigrate to another country.

The writer’s entire intent in their writings was to show that Bitcoin does not exist with the sole goal of criminal circumvention for drug activity. It exists to help people in a very humanitarian way, for these people had fallen victim to a very dangerous dictator. Ironically enough, Stiglitz voiced support Venezuelan economic policies a few years ago. We see how well that’s going out.

Joseph Stiglitz has a rough track record, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s wrong about something once again. Bitcoin is not a toy for druggies to finesse their way around the government. Its uses seem to be spreading far and wide. Stiglitz needs to get with the program, or it will catch up to him.

5 Nationalist Movements to Watch

By Colin Louis | U.S.

All around the globe nationalism is on the rise. The ideas of right wing populism and nationalism are starting to grow into large movements all over the free world. People are beginning to shift to these ideas. The following five countries are turning nationalist.

5. The UK

Recently, the U.K has shown signs of shifting further to the nationalist right. The Brexit vote provided evidence that the UK is moving further towards nationalism and populism. Brexit clearly signals that nationalism and euroskepticism is on a significant rise in the U.K. The recent UKIP leadership election could help them continue this.

4. Ireland

Irish politics serves as a reminder that nationalism comes in different forms. In the case of Ireland, it’s left nationalism with much momentum. The concept of left nationalism is a form of socialism mixed with nationalism, not to be confused with National Socialism, which is a far more authoritarian belief. Sinn Féin, led by Garry Adams, won around 14% of the vote in the recent 2016 election. Sinn Féin did very well compared to its past performance and that of other less nationalist parties. 14% might not sound like much, but the ruling party, Fine Gael, only received around 36% of the vote.

3. Germany

In the most recent German elections, the new nationalist party, Alternative Für Deutschland (AFD), won a considerable amount of seats in the German parliament. This sent a signal to incumbent Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that the German people are moving further from the European Union and her administration. Germany has always attempted to stray away from their Nazi history and refrain from nationalist movements. Although the election of AFD provides evidence that Germany is losing this mindset.

2. America

The recent election of Donald Trump as President of the United States signals a shift further towards his movement of American nationalism. The policies Trump promised he would put in place, such as protectionist trade deals with China, are designed to put America over the rest of the world. The movement Trump sparked now runs rampant through the Republican Party. The Republican Party didn’t necessarily hold these views until Trump nearly hijacked the party. His America first movement destroyed the Party establishment and put these ideas into action.

1. Netherlands

The one that may surprise people the most is the Netherlands. The once center left nation recently took a swing right in the 2017 elections when Garret Wilders and the Party for Freedom ran a hard anti Islam and European Union campaign. Wilders has come out in support of banning the Koran, even going as far as to compare the book to Mein Kampf. Wilder’s Party won enough seats to place them as the opposition party in the Dutch House of Representatives. Even parties that have never run a hard line anti- Islam campaign are shifting in support of more nationalist ideas. Prime Minister Mark Rutte put out an advertisement that stated, “act normal or leave.” Rutte later said that this wasn’t meant to attack ethnic groups, but instead people who did not share their values. This signals that Wilder’s nationalist movement has spread most everywhere in the Netherlands.