Secular Satanism & the Post-War Consensus
The Inverse Boomer Truth
Before we begin
Disclaimer & Presuppositions
Before proceeding, I want to clarify my intentions and foundational assumptions to ensure my arguments are understood in the proper context and not misinterpreted.
This is not an attack on New National Socialists, but a friendly critique.
Post-War Consensus Liberalism is a secularized heresy of Christianity.
New National Socialism is an inversion of the Post-War Consensus.
National Socialists are not literal Satanists. “Satanism” is an allegory.
I am arguing the perspective of an irreligious secularist, an outsider looking in.
These points form the basis of my reasoning and the chain of logic that follows.
I wanted to comment on the recent disagreement between
and as well as a broader phenomenon I’ve observed over the last fifteen years. They both published essays attacking, and defending, the potential of national socialism and Hitler being rehabilitated into contemporary nationalism. You may find them here, and here. Being an old-head under many names and faces in the online right, I’ve seen these patterns play out time and time again. This question has been fleshed out innumerable times. With each passing year, for a great many reasons that Keith has laid out in not just one article, but two, along with the inevitable changing course of history, the answer to this question has become an increasingly loud “no.”That said, I have my own observations on this subject that I want to share.
What Are The Greatest Story Never Told and Europa: The Last Battle?
I’ll quickly explain what these documentaries are. The Greatest Story Never Told and Europa: The Last Battle are amateur documentaries from the mid-2010s that attempt to explore many lies, obfuscations, and commonly held false beliefs about the Second World War, Hitler, and the National Socialists. Common narratives that are not rooted in fact include atrocity propaganda involving soap and lampshades, as well as claims like “they were going to kill everyone without blonde hair and blue eyes.”
If you were born in the 1990s, you may have had a history teacher point to the blonde kid in class and say, “He would’ve loved you”—disregarding, of course, that this would have been an impossible standard, as two-thirds of the German population, including much of the Nazi high command, were not fair-featured.
Another widespread belief is that “we’d all be speaking German.” This is, of course, completely absurd. The Third Reich lacked the capacity to execute Operation Sea Lion, its planned amphibious invasion of the British Isles. A full-scale transatlantic campaign—crossing an ocean to confront the world’s most heavily armed regional power (Canada) and an emerging global superpower (the United States)—was utterly beyond their reach. Nonetheless, books and later TV shows like The Man in the High Castle created an aesthetically interesting but totally unrealistic view of what the world might have looked like had the Axis powers won the Second World War.
The purpose of these exhaustive documentaries—though greatly flawed and full of categorical errors—is to refute the mainstream narrative.
What Is the Boomer Truth Regime?
It was British intellectual, philosopher and influencer
who coined this term. “Regimes of truth” is a concept introduced by philosopher Michel Foucault, referring to a discourse that establishes certain things as "truths." Foucault sought to explore how knowledge and truth are produced by the power structures of society.Academic Agent, in his documentary The Boomer Truth Regime, outlines how the commonly held beliefs of the medieval era—rooted in a theologically grounded worldview and upheld by its intellectual class—were eventually displaced by liberal thinkers. These Enlightenment-era thinkers popularized and proselytized a pseudo-religious ideology of liberalism, one that succeeded Christianity as the dominant moral framework in the West. At its core was the belief that human beings are free-thinking, rational individuals, capable of self-governance. Within this framework, values such as private property rights, secularism, the rule of law, and individual rights and freedoms came to be regarded as sacred. In many ways, they still are—some roughly 250 years or more after the American and French Revolutions.
Many intellectuals have highlighted that, since liberalism emerged from a Christian culture, it retains the trappings of Christianity. Some argue that liberalism—and all progressive ideologies like communism—are secularized forms of Christianity, focusing on different aspects of it.
In my view, more accurately, these ideologies can be seen as secularized heresies of Christianity, rather than expressions of any Christian denomination itself, as a pagan, I don’t believe it would be fair to smear those traditions with them.
The Post-War Consensus
The Post-War Consensus is the worldview that Western civilization adopted following the defeat of the Axis powers in the Second World War. It is the foundation of Western society today, shaping our morals and culture nearly a century later. This paradigm is the main reason why nationalism, patriarchy, elitism, social conservatism, communitarianism, corporatism, Darwinism, all non-officially liberal democratic forms of government—and, more recently, even older liberal ideas like empiricism and rationalism—are now viewed as morally evil. This persists despite the fact that a commonly held belief among Western liberals is that morality is subjective—a contradiction that ultimately manifests in the left-liberal doctrine of “your own truth.”
Post-War Consensus Liberalism (PWCL). PWCL is the reason racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and xenophobia are all seen as morally “evil”, while their opposites are viewed as morally “good.” The reason Western nations are not permitted to maintain cohesive ethnic identities, to oppose multiculturalism, to acknowledge the objective biological differences between men and women, or to push back against a granular individual’s “right” to be utterly degenerate—nor even to voice disagreement without it being framed as infringing on that right—is because of the PWCL.
The Post-War Consensus is the creation myth of modern Western civilization. Year Zero is 1945. Nothing is believed to have come before creation—but if anything is acknowledged, it is seen as a time shrouded in fog, full of darkness, barbarism, and evil, until we were “educated” (revelation), and now, “we know better” (have accepted revealed truth). Before the Post-War Consensus—the “before times”—women were chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant, sexually abused by drunken White men who beat them. Racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities were ruthlessly oppressed in a White supremacist system—but were somehow always present. Racism was rampant. Grandma never loved Grandpa, and nobody was ever happy, for all eternity. He harassed her until she was coerced into marrying him. She never loved him.
These are the implicit commonly held beliefs of modern liberals—a category that increasingly includes so-called “conservatives” and populists in their contemporary forms. This consensus is often referred to as that of the transnational progressive elite: those who comprise Democrat America, Canada’s Laurentian elite, and the left-liberals of the European Union. Their worldview defines the ideological terrain in which we live today. We exist within the boundaries of a secular creation mythology, one that was exported from the United States to the Allied powers following the Second World War, coinciding with the rise of America as the global superpower.
You see this mythology echoed in popular fiction beloved by the liberal imagination—Star Wars, Marvel movies, and other modern mythmaking. You also see it play out in real life: George W. Bush or Stephen Harper likened to Hitler despite being neoliberals; Donald Trump—a mildly authoritarian 1980s-style Democrat—portrayed as a fascist threat to global democracy; and Vladimir Thanos Putler cast as the embodiment of evil, facing off against the liberal archangel Zelensky in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Francis Fukuyama, in his book The End of History and the Last Man—a vision later echoed and extended by Klaus Schwab in The Fourth Industrial Revolution, which outlines the next phase as hyper-individualist transhumanism—argued that by 1945, the Final Word had been established. The inevitable future of humanity, he claimed, was for the entire species to adopt a capitalist, progressive liberal democracy akin to Star Trek, underpinned by values such as secularism, individualism, and equality. The defeat of the Soviet Union in 1990 was seen as confirmation that all nations would eventually converge toward this Truth.
Within this framework:
Hitler is the secular Satan,
The Nazis are his defeated demons,
Whiteness is original sin,
Martin Luther King Jr. is secular Jesus,
And the Jewish people, as victims of the Holocaust, are his Apostles, who bear witness to the ultimate evil and its moral lessons.
Succeeding MLK as secular messianic figures are a pantheon of modern prophets and martyrs, each reinforcing a specific tenet of the doctrine:
Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard, prophets of LGHDTV+ sanctity, invoking collective guilt and moral urgency over homophobia;
Malala Yousafzai, the global martyr-prophet of education, feminism, and tolerance—particularly against Islamic extremism (which occupies a complex place in the hierarchy of moral evils);
Greta Thunberg, the child prophet of climate guilt, calling Western civilization to repent for its environmental sins;
And most recently, George Floyd, who has become a secular martyr—not for his individual actions, but for what his death came to symbolize: racial suffering, “systemic injustice”, and the need for ongoing “redemptive” struggle against the perceived evils of whiteness and Western institutions.
What is Satanism?
Satanism refers to a group of religious, ideological, or philosophical beliefs centred on Satan—particularly his veneration or symbolic significance. Because of its direct engagement with the Abrahamic figure of Satan, Satanism—whether theistic or symbolic—is inherently a countercultural Abrahamic religion. In my view, this characterisation is accurate. Satanism has never stood as an independent worldview with its own metaphysical foundation; rather, it functions primarily as a reactionary inversion of Christianity. At its core, Satanism exists only in opposition—its doctrines, symbols, and rituals derive their meaning from what they reject.
Satanism elevates the self over the community, pride over humility, and desire over restraint. Where Christianity upholds obedience to divine law, moral discipline, and the sanctity of self-sacrifice, Satanism celebrates defiance, transgression, and self-worship. Christian virtues such as charity, meekness, chastity, and forgiveness are not merely abandoned but often mocked—recast as weaknesses or tools of repression.
This is most vividly illustrated in rituals like the Black Mass, which is not an original spiritual expression but a deliberate parody of the Catholic Mass—desecrating its sacred elements and reversing its moral symbolism. Even in its atheistic form (e.g., LaVeyan Satanism), Satan is not believed in as a literal being but embraced as a symbol of rebellion, a stand-in for unrestrained ego, hedonism, and anti-Christian sentiment. Yet even this version remains tethered to Christianity—it must mock, oppose, and invert it to have any meaning at all.
In contrast, Christianity is a constructive metaphysical system, grounded in belief in an objective moral order, divine revelation, and the possibility of redemption. It offers a comprehensive framework for the human condition—one that begins in sin, but ends in hope. Satanism, by contrast, offers no such redemptive arc. It represents either pure negation or the worship of power for its own sake. It cannot create; it can only corrupt, parody, or destroy. This is why, both theologically and culturally, Satanism continues to exist as a shadow of Christianity—never a true alternative to it.
From the perspective of irreligious secularist agnostics and atheists, Satanism—particularly in its American form—is typically seen as little more than a hyper-individualistic affectation, diametrically opposed to the communitarian and sacrificial values of Christianity. This isn’t to deny that bizarre occult practices occur among elites—events like Bohemian Grove or “spirit cooking” clearly exist in some form. To the secular right, Satanism is generally regarded as a pathetic joke—a “fuck you, Dad”: a leftover from the era of fedora-tipping Reddit atheism, an adolescent rebellion than any serious invocation of metaphysical evil. It is not feared or respected—it’s mocked. Its relevance is entirely parasitic; it can only exist within the paradigm of Christianity. Without the Christian moral framework to invert or provoke, Satanism collapses into meaningless theatre.
In non-Abrahamic religions—such as Asatru, Hellenism, Shinto, or Hinduism—Satanism has no role and no meaning. There is no cosmic antagonist equivalent to Satan, no ontological evil figure whose rejection defines the religion. In those traditions, the very premise of Satanism is irrelevant, even incoherent. It is not some universal archetype—it is a specifically Christian and American phenomenon, born from and tethered to Christian cosmology.
Stripped of that context, Satanism is revealed for what it is: edgy, fake & gay, and contrarian for its own sake—a kind of ritualized, self-aware absurdity that appeals primarily to the spiritually rootless, culturally disaffected, or ideologically rebellious. It’s not a serious metaphysical system; it’s a provocation wearing the costume of one.
Irreligious dissidents don’t fear Satanism—they see it for what it is: reactionary performance art, designed to provoke Christian anxieties. And it works. Even intelligent Christians often take the bait. But the secular right remains immune to the spiritual angle, perceiving Satanism not as a force of darkness but at worst as an attack on their cultural heritage—a symbolic rejection of order, tradition, and identity.
What is White Nationalism?
White nationalism is a distinct ideological development rooted in the legacy of Anglo-Saxon global supremacy. Its origins lie in the colonial and early republican periods of the United States, where notions of race, identity, and civilization were shaped by Protestant Anglo norms and the expansionist logic of empire.
In the 18th century, figures like Benjamin Franklin gave early expression to anxieties around non-Anglo immigration. Franklin famously warned against the influx of Southern Catholic Germans—broadly referred to as "Germans" in an ethnocultural sense—whom he described as “tawny” and culturally incompatible with what he saw as a predominantly Anglo-American (or ethnic Yankee) society. In contrast, he favoured Protestant Northern Germans and the Dutch, often referred to as “Saxons,” whom he and others linked to the ancestral stock of the English—the Anglo-Saxons. These distinctions show that racial consciousness in early America was still deeply tied to specific ethnocultural and religious affiliations, not yet fully abstracted into a broader concept of “whiteness.”
The 1790 Naturalization Act would codify this racial logic, formally limiting U.S. citizenship to “free White persons.” It set the groundwork for a white identity rooted in Anglo-Protestant ideals, even as the United States expanded across the continent and encountered Indigenous peoples, African slaves, and Hispanic mestizos. The ideological framework of classical liberalism—championing property rights, civic nationalism, and individual liberty—was paradoxically built atop a racial hierarchy that privileged Anglo identity while marginalizing others.
As the 19th century progressed, this racial structure began to shift. The American Civil War killed hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Americans, and to replenish the population and workforce, the United States opened its doors to mass waves of European immigrants. Italians, Slavs, Jews, Irish, Germans, and Scandinavians arrived in the millions, many of whom did not share the Anglo-Protestant cultural framework. Though technically “White,” these groups were often seen as racially or culturally suspect by native-born Americans.
Over time, this mass immigration forced a shift in racial thinking—from a narrow Anglo-centric identity to a broader, more amorphous “white” identity. The process was often conflict-ridden. The film Gangs of New York vividly depicts the ethnic and class violence of the 19th century, especially between Yankee Protestant nativists and Catholic Irish immigrants—despite both originating from the British Isles. In cities like Chicago, Slavs (particularly Poles) joined earlier German and Scandinavian communities in forming regional ethnic enclaves. Italians transformed the demographic makeup of the Eastern Seaboard, especially in the tri-state area. These concentrations preserved cultural traditions, but they also contributed to a patchwork identity that, over time, was subsumed under the umbrella of White.
Yet the idea of White as a unified bloc only fully took shape in the 20th century. It was propelled by racial theories imported from Europe—especially from Britain and Germany. Thinkers like Cecil Rhodes and Madison Grant envisioned Anglo-Saxon supremacy not just as a political ideal but as a biological imperative. Their vision of a racial-imperial order promoted the Anglo-Saxon—and later Germanic—peoples as a master race, destined to lead the world. At the height of the British Empire, encompassing the U.S., Canada, Australia, South Africa, and beyond, Anglo elites increasingly interpreted their dominance as proof of inherent racial superiority.
By the late 1800s and early 20th century, these racial theories migrated to Germany, where Madison Grant became a major influence on Nazi racial anthropology. The Nazis embraced the idea that Germans were the nucleus of the Germanic ethnocultural group, and that “Aryan” was synonymous with physically Nordic-featured peoples. In their racial cosmology, all of Europe’s great achievements were attributed to varying degrees of Aryan blood: the British Empire to the Anglo-Saxons, the French to the Franks, the Spanish and Portuguese to the Visigoths, and even Renaissance Italy to the Ostrogoths and Lombards—despite Italy’s alleged racial “dilution” through mixing with North Africans. Nazi ideology would even rationalize pro-German sentiment among Slavs like Ukrainians or Croats as remnants of East Germanic heritage.
Keith Woods has rightly noted that Nazi racial theory was deeply Germanocentric, not sincerely Pan-European. The post-war claim that Nazism was a Pan-European movement is largely a dishonest revision, just as Japan’s “Co-Prosperity Sphere” and Pan-Asianism was a thinly veiled imperial project rather than a genuine pan-Asian alliance. This tension remains a persistent flaw in white nationalist ideology: it professes pan-European unity, but in practice, devolves into internal hierarchies—Mediterranean and Slavic peoples are often viewed with suspicion or disdain, unless they can “prove” Nordic ancestry through 23andMe charts and historical gymnastics. The heavy reliance on Germanic symbolism and the exclusive tie to the NSDAP further betrays the narrow roots of the movement.
The final blow to distinct European communities in America came after the Second World War. The postwar economic boom triggered a mass exodus from urban ethnic enclaves—many of which had preserved cultural identities for over a century. Mixed-use neighbourhoods in cities like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia were destroyed to make way for commercial development, displacing the communities that had sustained European diasporic culture. The explosion of the suburbs completed the transformation. Formerly communal immigrant families were deracinated into nuclear units, spread across suburban lots with white picket fences and fenced-in backyards.
This new model of the American nuclear family—far removed from the medieval and early modern Western European kinship traditions—cemented the cultural abstraction of White. Ethnic identities gave way to a bland, consumer-driven suburban whiteness that was at once homogeneous and hollow.
What began as an Anglo-Saxon cultural identity had, by the mid-20th century, become a racial bloc divorced from its original cultural or ethnic moorings, defined by its proximity to racial aliens. White nationalism today is the descendant of this evolution—a universalizing, liberal, propositional, macro-civilizational identity that attempts to universalize instincts of tribalism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia across disparate European cultures. But in doing so, it also reveals its contradictions.
The Wignat Phenomenon as Inverted Liberalism
America does not deserve to be saved. America destroyed Germany and spread the cancer of its culture around the world. You cannot escape karma. For the White race to be saved, America must dissolve into a group of sovereign entities.
— Wignat X Anon
The term wignat—a portmanteau of wigger and nationalist—is used pejoratively to describe individuals who exhibit racial consciousness with a degree of pride or exuberance perceived as vulgar, low-brow, or socially alienating. Though originally coined as an insult, the term has become diluted in meaning by 2025, often used indiscriminately like Groypers, despite themselves exhibiting wignat behaviour, frequently accuse others of being wignats.
Wignats are typically associated with the historic American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi movements, and skinhead subcultures. Traits commonly attributed to the archetype include drug use, low impulse control, alcoholism, violence, and associations with fringe or alternative cultural scenes such as biker gangs or heavy metal. In many ways, the wignat occupies a role within Western nationalisms akin to that of Archie Bunker within conservatism: a caricature that embodies contradictions and limitations of the broader movement.
Critically, the wignat is a product of the Post-War Consensus. He is simultaneously a creation of it, and an attempted rebellion against it—butone whose terms of opposition are still defined by the very system he seeks to reject. His worldview is shaped by the enemy’s framework and collapses under its contradictions. Rather than breaking from the dominant paradigm, the wignat clings to subverted icons and heretical inversions of mainstream liberal mythology.
The ideology associated with the wignat archetype may appear radical, but it replicates many of the religious and moral structures of post-war liberalism. While it disavows concepts such as egalitarianism, diversity, and globalism, it often retains their structure in reverse. The concept of original sin—central to liberal narratives of whiteness, colonialism, and privilege—is not discarded but inverted. In this schema, anti-whiteness becomes the new sin, and moral legitimacy is built upon ancestral victimhood at the hands of liberal regimes, Allied forces, or globalist powers.
This inversion leads to a shift in guilt. Rather than reckoning with the legacy of colonialism or slavery, individuals are encouraged to feel shame for their forebears’ complicity in destroying Germany or facilitating the rise of the modern West. The focus turns toward repenting for historical and contemporary harm done to pro-whites, often resulting in sympathetic or strategic alignments with former civilizational enemies. These include Indian nationalists, radical Muslims, Russo-Chinese ideologues, Palestinians, Iranians, and even North Koreans—groups united not by a shared vision of the good, but by collective resentment of the liberal West.
These are unstable and incoherent. Built on a shared antagonism rather than common goals or values, they reflect a kind of geopolitical opportunism rather than a coherent civilizational alternative. This phenomenon is most clearly expressed in the increasing popularity of Duginism among segments of the dissident right—a worldview that positions Eurasian interests as a counterforce to Western liberalism. But rather than offering a alternative, Duginism often serves as a vehicle for the interests of West's geopolitical rivals.
In this inverted framework, the liberal narrative of sin and redemption remains intact—only its moral axis has rotated. The mythos of oppression, guilt, and salvation is preserved, but its protagonists and antagonists have been reassigned. The belief persists that the destruction of anti-whiteness and the Jews will usher in a new material utopia, in which people of all colours—white, black, and brown—will unite in harmony. This utopianism mirrors the liberal vision it claims to oppose, revealing a deep structural dependency on secularized Christian morality.
The wignat represents not a break from liberalism, but a distorted reflection of it. The rhetoric of resistance masks a framework still governed by guilt, redemption, and inverted moral binaries. Far from being post-liberal, the wignat is a boomer in negative contrast—the same hardware, running the same code, with the colours inverted.
There’s a certain point where former normies fry their brains watching The Greatest Story Never Told or Europa: The Last Battle—and it one-shots them. Their liberal priors don’t disappear—they just invert. They swap White guilt for Allied guilt. They replace Hitler as Satan with Churchill as Satan. It’s still a secular religion. Still a mythos of sin, suffering, and salvation. Only the names have changed.
— Fortissax
The Inversion of the Boomer Truth Regime
The final consequence of this inversion is not simply a flipped narrative—it is the construction of an entire moral cosmos that mirrors the liberal paradigm in form, structure, and function, while claiming to oppose it in substance. This is not rebellion. It is not transcendence. It is, in essence, secular Satanism—a ritualized inversion of a sacred order that leaves the metaphysical scaffolding entirely intact.
Just as post-war liberalism functions as a secularized form of Christianity—with its own saints, sinners, prophets, and eschatology—this inverted worldview performs the role of the heretic, not the reformer. It rejects the moral content, but accepts the underlying framework. The liturgy is rewritten, the icons defaced, but the altar remains in place.
Where liberalism casts whiteness as original sin, this new paradigm designates anti-whiteness as the ultimate transgression. Where liberalism calls for repentance through activism and moral self-flagellation, the inversion demands retribution, historical reversal, and the restoration of an imagined civilizational purity. In both cases, the world is understood as fallen, corrupted, and in need of redemption through struggle. The only difference is the direction of the guilt and the target of salvation.
The structure remains identifiably Christian in form:
There is a moral elect and a damned underclass. (Whites)
There is a redemptive event (the defeat of Jewry, and anti-whiteness).
There is an apocalyptic horizon (racial holy war, collapse or revolution).
There is a martyr (Hitler, cast as the secular Christ).
There is a Satan (Churchill, liberalism, the West itself).
There is a gospel (The Greatest Story Never Told, Europa: Last Battle).
And there are rituals—memetic, aesthetic, ideological—that reinforce communal belonging and historical meaning (Black sun edits, Celtic crosses, swastikas, Nazi LARPing.
This is not accidental. It is an inversion of the Post-War Consensus in the purest theological sense: not a secular ethics built from different foundations, but an oppositional mirror image of the same metaphysical schema. The inverted Boomer Truther does not build a new moral system—he inhabits the old one backwards. Just as the Black Mass desecrates but depends upon the Catholic liturgy, this worldview parodies but remains shackled to the liberal theology it despises.
The liberal order is no longer simply misguided or flawed—it is evil incarnate. It is Rome, Babylon, the Beast. It is that which crucified the old world and crowned the lie. America is no longer the shining city on a hill, but the necropolis that destroyed Europe, enthroned the merchant, and replaced blood with finance. The West is cast not as the steward of civilization, but as the usurper of it. And thus, salvation must come not through reform, but through fire.
This is why the movement finds itself aesthetically fixated on apocalyptic imagery of the Turner Diaries, on collapse, on purging, on martyrdom. It inherits the eschatological logic of the post-war liberal order, with new villains and new saints. And like all eschatological frameworks, it cannot tolerate ambiguity or compromise. It demands purification. It requires enemies. It feeds on myth. It offers no escape. Liberalism had its secular gospel of equality; the inversion offers a counter-gospel of hierarchy. Liberalism worshipped the individual; the inversion worships the Volk. Liberalism demands sacrifice for universal justice; the inversion demands sacrifice for particular vengeance. Both assign cosmic weight to human history, both interpret politics as metaphysics, both elevate the symbolic over the real.
This inversion cannot generate meaning on its own. It derives all significance from negation. It cannot construct a moral architecture rooted in nature, tradition, or metaphysical truth—it can only negate the dominant frame. It is reactionary in the purest sense: incapable of creation, only capable of subversion.
Where post-war liberalism is a secularized Christianity, the inverted mythos is a parody of that parody—a heresy of a heresy. It does not challenge the sacred form. It merely reassigns the sacred roles. And like all great inversions, it believes that by turning the cross upside down, it has done something radical. In reality, it has only reaffirmed that the cross still rules the world.
The final irony of the Boomer Truth Inversion: that it sees itself as Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods—when in truth, it is Lucifer, mistaking rebellion for freedom while remaining chained to the throne it hates. The myth persists. The altar stands. And the old religion continues to govern the soul of the West.
Beyond the Inversion
Nationalism does not need to rehabilitate Hitler or National Socialism—because the post-war consensus is already collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. It is not our task to tear it down; time is doing that for us.
Within our lifetimes, it will be a full century since the Second World War. Its moral narratives, its political mythology, its entire symbolic universe will be as distant from the living memory of future generations as the First World War was by 2014. And like the Napoleonic Wars, the Second World War and the Holocaust will eventually become little more than a historical abstraction—drained of existential significance, stripped of moral immediacy. That is the inevitable fate of all hegemonic mythologies: not to be defeated in open battle, but to fade into irrelevance.
So why anchor ourselves to it? Why define ourselves in opposition to its fading gods? Why insist on fighting over its corpses—over Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, over battles fought by dead men in a dead century? To do so is to slow the collapse of the very structure we claim to oppose. It is to preserve the battlefield long after the war has ended. By continuing to frame nationalism through the lens of that era—by casting ourselves as rebels within its moral schema—we only extend its life. We remain its dependents. We speak its language. We play its roles. In doing so, we grant it the power to shape our future, when it no longer deserves a say.
The post-war consensus should be bypassed, not mirrored. It should be forgotten, not immortalized through inversion. Nationalism, if it is to mean anything in the 21st century and beyond, must break free of the gravitational pull of mid-century trauma. It must reject the temptation to become an anti-liberal liberalism, a heretical or “Satanic” mirror of the secularized Christianity it seeks to overthrow.
We are nearly a quarter of a century past the 20th century. Its moral coordinates are not timeless—they are expiring. Its institutions are rotting. Its vision of humanity is no longer compatible with the world we live in. The future will not be built by those who linger in the ruins, but by those who move beyond them.
"inverted mythos is a parody of that parody"
Metapostmodernism
https://open.substack.com/pub/avgustmisrahi/p/on-national-socialism?r=5369hb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
A response (if you don't mind)