Germany was forced to pay ridicolous compensation for WW1. As well as the occupation of the Ruhr by the French (crippling the coal trade), as well as the French seperation of East Silesia from Germany to ensure further economic difficulties fostered much trouble.
People in Germany were poor and angry. They were angry at the Emperor for getting them into the war. Angrier at the democratic government that signed the humiliating surrender. Angriest at the foreign powers such as the French that ensured that the common German person lived in such misery.

Winston Churchill predicted after hearing the clauses of the Treaty of Versaille, that another war would be imminent. The mass suffering by the German people did cause much sympathy. The Americans and British eased many restrictions and treaty clauses much to the dislike of the reluctant French.

However the damage was done. Many Germans had no faith anymore in the actions and words of the democratic government which was seen as weak and incompetent. Such as the governments inability to stand up to France's illegal occupation of the Ruhr where it killed many Germans and kicked 250,000 from their homes as well as raped the countryside there of it's resources.

This led to two factions in Germany gaining the hope of the people. The fascists and the communists. Both were seen as alternative ways. The fascists in the end won out because the unfostered anarchy of the communists, their odd ties to foreign nations such as Russia and collectivism goals swayed too many to pick the fascists. In particular the National Socialists.

All the anger from the before mentioned causes manifested itself into an ultra-nationalist party with a highly racist agenda. The distrust of the foreign powers for their unfair oppressing of Germany following WW1 meant the Germans latched themselves to their Führer. The end result was the German hatred resulted in a grand war that cost over 72 million people their lives.

“I am more and more coming to the conclusion that National Greatness Conservatism, like all quasi-fascist movements, is based on a weird romantic teenager’s fantasies about what it means to be a grown up.”

“I am more and more coming to the conclusion that National Greatness Conservatism, like all quasi-fascist movements, is based on a weird romantic teenager’s fantasies about what it means to be a grown up.”

And I also had framed prints of Labrador retrievers with dead ducks in their mouths.

And I also had framed prints of Labrador retrievers with dead ducks in their mouths.

National greatness conservatives are like alcoholics who spike the near-beer with the real stuff, worst of both worlds, so I agree with you there.

Yet just as the neocons inappropriately place private virtues in the public sphere, you seem to be doing the reverse, when you celebrate the tasteful “functionalism” of liberal individualism. It may be admirable to caution restraint in government, but I’m not sure why this is a fundamental argument rather than a practical one.

At any rate, I’m more comfortable to calls for the “fundamental decency” of liberal individualism when it comes from someone who went through that over-romantic adolescent phase. Like Shaw said (I think it was him, and not Churchill) about being a liberal at 20 and conservative at 40 (or was it 30? 50? so many different versions of that anecdote…)

Anyway, wonderfully written piece even if I have some caveats.

National greatness conservatives are like alcoholics who spike the near-beer with the real stuff, worst of both worlds, so I agree with you there.

Yet just as the neocons inappropriately place private virtues in the public sphere, you seem to be doing the reverse, when you celebrate the tasteful “functionalism” of liberal individualism. It may be admirable to caution restraint in government, but I’m not sure why this is a fundamental argument rather than a practical one.

At any rate, I’m more comfortable to calls for the “fundamental decency” of liberal individualism when it comes from someone who went through that over-romantic adolescent phase. Like Shaw said (I think it was him, and not Churchill) about being a liberal at 20 and conservative at 40 (or was it 30? 50? so many different versions of that anecdote…)

Anyway, wonderfully written piece even if I have some caveats.