How are you defining "neo Nazi"?

[Uninvolved]

Of course, neo-Nazis


Do you mind giving your definition of neo-Nazi? I realize that this may pose a serious difficulty; I asked another poster about his definition of Nazi and (s)he never answered.

[Stellafane]

Do you mind giving your definition of neo-Nazi? I realize that this may pose a serious difficulty; I asked another poster about his definition of Nazi and (s)he never answered.

No serious difficulty for me at all: the original Nazis were members of the political party led by Hitler. As such, they more or less officially ended in 1945. Neo-Nazis are latter-day people who openly support, promote, apologize for, or otherwise identify with the main tenets of the original Nazi philosophy, particularly anti-Semitism. Some in fact refer to themselves as Nazis, while others only accept and promote the Nazi beliefs. You can quibble about semantics, but I think that's a reasonable working definition. At a minimum, it serves as a useful label for people to whom you'd otherwise be temnpted to refer as "you stupid, worthless piece of scum."

[Uzzy]

Do you mind giving your definition of neo-Nazi? I realize that this may pose a serious difficulty; I asked another poster about his definition of Nazi and (s)he never answered.

Use my name, Nazi.

And I had previously defined what a Nazi was. In this sense, someone who derives from the Western World and denies that the Holocaust existed is a Nazi, given that denial of the Holocaust is a means by which national socialism may be redeemed. Naturally there are some Nazis who have the balls to admit to what they did in WW2, but they are still interested in bringing back National Socialism.

[Uninvolved]

Use my name, Nazi


Is that your given name or family name?

I had previously defined what a Nazi was. In this sense


Excuse me, but what is "in this sense"? Can one be Nazi in one sense and not Nazi in another sense? Is it reasonable to use this label if its meaning is so elastic, or is that just the point, i.e. everyone can think of it whatever one wants to?

someone who derives from the Western World and denies that the Holocaust existed is a Nazi, given that denial of the Holocaust is a means by which national socialism may be redeemed


Don't you overestimate the relevance of your being a used car salesman of the mark Holocaust? Do you think Jews were the center of Nationalsozialism, not Germans?

[Foolmewunz]

Hmm, interesting that you separate Jews and Germans. It's as if being a Jew disqualified you from being a true German.

Now what other group did that?

[Uninvolved]

Neo-Nazis are latter-day people who openly support, promote, apologize for, or otherwise identify with the main tenets of the original Nazi philosophy, particularly anti-Semitism


Well, you too are suffering under the imagination, that your breed is so important as to define this group. For example in Germany, where most Neo-Nazis are supposed to be, the connection to Jewry is extremely low.


At a minimum, it serves as a useful label for people to whom you'd otherwise be temnpted to refer as "you stupid, worthless piece of scum."


Inflating a term reduces its value. This has already happened to Anti-Semite, and is happening to Nazi as well (which is, of course, practically always Neo-Nazi, for how many members of the former NSDAP do live and post on Internet?).

[woolfe99]

Don't you overestimate the relevance of your being a used car salesman of the mark Holocaust? Do you think Jews were the center of Nationalsozialism, not Germans?

Both were. In the Nazi's manichaein worldview, they were yin and yang, thesis and anti-thesis.

- woolfe

[woolfe99]

Inflating a term reduces its value. This has already happened to Anti-Semite, and is happening to Nazi as well (which is, of course, practically always Neo-Nazi, for how many members of the former NSDAP do live and post on Internet?).

The term is used to describe those of the latter day who are sympathetic to Nazi views. Hence, the prefix "neo," which sets it apart from those who were members of the actual Nazi party. It's hardly a problematical term, except to those who are trying to obfuscate by being pedantic. You do realize that if you are going to parse commonly understood words like this, sooner or later there will be no words left to communicate with.

- woolfe

[Uninvolved]

Hmm, interesting that you separate Jews and Germans. It's as if being a Jew disqualified you from being a true German.



Jew can mean a devotee of Judaism and/or a member of Jewish ascentery, i.e. ethnicity.

German can mean a member of one of the many German ethnicities, and/or a citizen of the state Germany.

Thus there is an overlap between them, but it would be ridiculous to regard Jewish citizens of the Third Reich as Germans in the context of Nationalsozialism and Holocaust. German Neo-Nazis don't make this distinction, they are concentrating on other "aliens"; just that sets them apart from the original Nazis.

Btw, the citizenship of Jews ended in 1935 anyway, i.e. there can be no mix up between the terms.

[Uninvolved]

Both were. In the Nazi's manichaein worldview, they were yin and yang, thesis and anti-thesis


This is not so. The NSDAP concentrated on nationalism, on the overriding interest of Germany and on the superiority of Aryans over others, like Slavs and Jews.

It's hardly a problematical term, except to those who are trying to obfuscate by being pedantic. You do realize that if you are going to parse commonly understood words like this, sooner or later there will be no words left to communicate with


So, you agree with using Nazi for stupid, worthless piece of scum, and still claim the strong connection to Anti-Semitism?

[woolfe99]

This is not so. The NSDAP concentrated on nationalism, on the overriding interest of Germany and on the superiority of Aryans over others, like Slavs and Jews.

Right, and the Nazi concept of nationalism - the specialness of German ethnicity - was meaningless without the denigrated other, and the principle "other," to the Nazis, was the Jews. Anti-semitism was a central component of Nazi ideology from the early 1920's onward, and was a mobilizing myth repeatedly used in Nazi propaganda from 1933 forward. German and Jewish ethnicity were two sides of the same coin.

So, you agree with using Nazi for stupid, worthless piece of scum, and still claim the strong connection to Anti-Semitism?

How you can read what I posted above as meaning that is beyond me. Just re-read what I wrote. "Neo-Nazi" is not an especially problematic term, semantically. There are many terms that present far greater definitional challenges, but are nevertheless commonly used.

Here is a better way to approach this discussion. If you feel that the term "neo-nazi" is used in an overbroad fashion, which is what you have argued, then please give us your definition of the term. I've already given you my definition, so let's see who has a more workable definition.

- Dave

[Stellafane]

Well, you too are suffering under the imagination, that your breed is so important as to define this group. For example in Germany, where most Neo-Nazis are supposed to be, the connection to Jewry is extremely low.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your native language, because otherwise your post is rather hard to comprehend (and those parts that are understandable are rather insulting, unintentional or not). First, you were the one who asked me to define neo-Nazi. I think most other posters had a pretty good general idea about whom I was talking without my having to spell it out. Second, I'm not sure what you mean about "my breed," although the term is at least a little disquieting. And finally, I've never thought of most neo-Nazis as being in Germany; I've always associated them with America -- where the "connection with Jewry" (by which I'm assuming you mean anti-Semitism) is, as far as I know, rather close to 100%


...Inflating a term reduces its value. This has already happened to Anti-Semite, and is happening to Nazi as well (which is, of course, practically always Neo-Nazi, for how many members of the former NSDAP do live and post on Internet?).

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about (which kind of makes your presumption to advise me on the meaning of words ring rather hollow). I don't know what you mean about "inflating a term," unless you're suggesting that my definition of neo-Nazi is broader than yours. If so, then I maintain that neo-Nazi is one of those words whose parameters are not very strictly defined. Therefore within reason both of us may have our own working definitions -- in which case, neither one of us has the luxury of telling the other his definitions is wrong. And of course, those who try to win arguments by quibbling over the meaning of words -- rather than sticking with the primary issues -- reveals one of the surest sign of an intellectually bankrupt position.

[Stellafane]

...So, you agree with using Nazi for stupid, worthless piece of scum, and still claim the strong connection to Anti-Semitism?

Now now, I was very careful to equate "neo-Nazi" (not the original models) for "stupid, worthless pieces of scum." (At least some of the original Nazis probably couldn't be called entirely stupid.) There certainly are plenty of pieces of scum that are not neo-Nazis. However, being a stupid, worthless piece of scum is probably pretty much a pre-requisite for being a neo-Nazi, wouldn't you agree?

[Uninvolved]

How you can read what I posted above as meaning that is beyond me. Just re-read what I wrote


Ok, I re-read it.

It's hardly a problematical term, except to those who are trying to obfuscate by being pedantic. You do realize that if you are going to parse commonly understood words like this, sooner or later there will be no words left to communicate with

This means, in my understanding, that I was wrong with viewing as inflation Stellafane's

[]At a minimum, it serves as a useful label for people to whom you'd otherwise be temnpted to refer as "you stupid, worthless piece of scum."[/i]

The latter has noting to do with Nationalism, nothing with Holocaust, nothing with White Supremism; generally, it has nothing to do with anything specific.

That is the inflation of the term.

The consequence of such usage is, that the term loses its relevance.

[Uninvolved]

I think most other posters had a pretty good general idea about whom I was talking without my having to spell it out


Many other posters are using it simply as an expletive - in this sense you don't have to spell it out. However, if you make a search (in Internet, not on this forum), you'll find, that there are several different interpretations of the term (beside the expletive), and most of those relate somehow to the original meaning of "Nationalsozialism".

There is a rather specific description of the Nationalsozialistic ideology; I don't say that this is the definition, but I think it is not far from that:

- murderous Antisemitism
- murderous racism
- socialdarwinismus
- eugenism and selection based on race
- police state with the concept of a dictatoric leader
- gaining Lebensraum by war in East Europe
- enslavement of Slavik people
- Aryen "Übermensch"

Although most of those, who mention "Nazi" don't think of it in this detail, they associate it with the Nationalsozialist ideology.

Anyway, this is not important here, I was only interested to see if anyone here made a thought even about this before using the term.

I've never thought of most neo-Nazis as being in Germany; I've always associated them with America -- where the "connection with Jewry" (by which I'm assuming you mean anti-Semitism) is, as far as I know, rather close to 100%


Using the term Anti-Semite, at least in North America became meaningless. Jewish "activists" and organizations have expanded its meaning so far, that it says nothing. For example Jimmy Carter, Solzhenitsyn and like became Anti-Semites; thus you declare them Nazis as well.

This is, what I call self-goal.

[DC]

Neo Nazis are Nationalists mostly hate foreigners in Switzerland, oppose immigration, would like to have a Nationalistic Socialism, would like to gain political power true right wing partys, or NPD in Germany.
They defend Nazi politics, they deny the Holocaust, some dont but glorify the Holocaust, Antisemitism in general. they have fascist wet dreams. They are also very proud to have a white skin and regard themself superior to people with any kind of color other than white.
When you talk to them, they have no clue about History or politics today, they are totaly ideologicaly driven.
But not all are wearing army boots and Landsdale sweaters. the more dangerous ones wear a suit and are doing politics.

http://is.blick.ch/img/gen/3/e/HB3eow0V_Pxgen_r_400xA.jpg

[ddt]

Well, you too are suffering under the imagination, that your breed is so important as to define this group. For example in Germany, where most Neo-Nazis are supposed to be, the connection to Jewry is extremely low.

Really? Both in Germany as well in other countries, antisemitism is still very prominent in their discourse. Of course, with the advent of millions of immigrants from outside Europe, hate against other "non-Aryans" is as prominent, but that is only logical from their Nazi ideology.

For the record, I agree with Stellafane's definition of "Neonazi" in post #2, save the last sentence. I agree with the claim that "Neonazis are scum", but it has no part in a definition.

[dtugg]

I, too, agree with Stellafane's definition. And all neo-nazis are definitely worthless scum. I don't know if they are all stupid, although it seems as though the vast majority are.

[Darat]

In the UK we have political parties/organisations that describe themselves as "Nazi", for example N9S (aka November 9th Society)/ British First Party.

[Skeptic]

- murderous Antisemitism
- murderous racism
- socialdarwinismus
- eugenism and selection based on race
- police state with the concept of a dictatoric leader
- gaining Lebensraum by war in East Europe
- enslavement of Slavik people
- Aryen "Übermensch"

Although most of those, who mention "Nazi" don't think of it in this detail, they associate it with the Nationalsozialist ideology.

Well, that's because that is the national socialist ideology, as history, to say nothing of the Nazis' own words, proves. National Socialism has no other "achievement" but the masses of dead it caused, the countries it destroyed, and the millions it enslaved.

National socialism is the only ideology that contributed literally nothing except death and destruction to civilization. As much as I hate, say, communism, it did industrialize Russia; as much as I hate Islamism, you can't say Islam has no cultural achievements, even at its worst.

But with national socialism... there isn't a single building, work of art, philosophical thesis, work of (their version of) history, "Aryan science", or novel that is supposed to show national socialism at its "best" which isn't laughable, pathetic kitsch -- the monstrous outgrowth of the kind of worthless, bad paintings the future Fuehrer used to sell to barflies in Vienna.

If it weren't so murderous, it would be simply pathetic. Subtract the murders and genocides from Nazism, and all you have left is kitsch -- and (literally) nothing else.

[Stellafane]

Never mind -- but so long as I'm here, Hi all!

[Darat]

Please don't start to try and use sophistry to get around your Membership Agreement, whatever words you use if your intent is judged by a Mod to be an insult or a Rule 12 breach you may still be subject to moderation action. If you wish to discuss this further take it to the Forum Management section.

[DC]

Well, that's because that is the national socialist ideology, as history, to say nothing of the Nazis' own words, proves. National Socialism has no other "achievement" but the masses of dead it caused, the countries it destroyed, and the millions it enslaved.

National socialism is the only ideology that contributed literally nothing except death and destruction to civilization. As much as I hate, say, communism, it did industrialize Russia; as much as I hate Islamism, you can't say Islam has no cultural achievements, even at its worst.

But with national socialism... there isn't a single building, work of art, philosophical thesis, work of (their version of) history, "Aryan science", or novel that is supposed to show national socialism at its "best" which isn't laughable, pathetic kitsch -- the monstrous outgrowth of the kind of worthless, bad paintings the future Fuehrer used to sell to barflies in Vienna.

If it weren't so murderous, it would be simply pathetic. Subtract the murders and genocides from Nazism, and all you have left is kitsch -- and (literally) nothing else.

well i hate to say it but.
Without the Nazis, Ferdinand Porsche would not have made the Volkswagen beatle.

[Fiona]

I happen to think the OP has a point.

There are some members who use the terms "nazi" and "fascist" as boo words and sometimes I see them used interchangeably with "communist". It seems to me that it is quite important to keep these terms separate.

If what you object to is "totalitarianism", or some concept of that sort, then fair enough. I think you should stick to it: it is nearly as sexy as nazi or commie but it is little more meaningful. If we lump all these things in together we very quickly find we have no coherent analysis and little defence.

Personally I would confine the term neo-nazi to those who embrace the ideas of fascism, because I think the nazis were a variation on that theme. To qualify, in my conception of the term, the individual has to found on the supremacy of the nation or the race over all else. The individual is secondary in principle.

The things which are listed at post #15 follow from that underlying conception, IMO. But they are not the heart of the matter. The heart is the mystical personification of the nation and the race, and the implications of that for what the state may do in furthering the "manifest destiny".

In judging an ideology I find it helpful to consider what a "utopia" would look like if the proponents achieved their highest aims. That is, leaving aside what actually happens, what do they conceive as "the good society".

In the case of fascism that society would be racially pure: each individual would be committed to maintaining that purity and would find their place and their pride from being a part of the whole. Any individual would be expendable if their actions did not conform to whatever conception of national "character" was endorsed. Loyalty to any other principle, even self interest, would be detrimental and would be grounds for sanction. It is not necessary to deny that some fascists would extend the same courtesy to those they conceive of as "other" and for some the ideal world would comprise a number of races each with a homeland and each living in accord with their inherent national or racial values and capabilities. Since each of those other races is "other" it follows that they are not "us": absent an armed stand-off with mutually assured destruction; or no scarcity of resources in any of those different parts of the world; it would seem that this conception would inevitably lead to war. And in this conception there is nothing at all wrong with that.

If that is your aspiration for the world then you are a fascist, in my opinion. and the term neo-nazi is then, again in my view, the variation which elevates one "race" over all others, thus precluding the coexistence which is, at least in principle, a possibility under fascism as such

[Thunder]

Neo-Nazi= someone who believes in the values and goals of German National Socialism. someone who supports Adolf Hitler's and the Nazi's achievements and strategies in Germany and German conquered lands during WW2. someone who wishes to revive Nazism.

[Thunder]

Using the term Anti-Semite, at least in North America became meaningless. Jewish "activists" and organizations have expanded its meaning so far, that it says nothing. For example Jimmy Carter, Solzhenitsyn and like became Anti-Semites; thus you declare them Nazis as well.

This is, what I call self-goal.

Only a fool and a tool calls Jimmy Carter a Neo-Nazi. But to link all of us to such stupidity is a form of a strawman argument.

[ddt]

I happen to think the OP has a point.

There are some members who use the terms "nazi" and "fascist" as boo words and sometimes I see them used interchangeably with "communist". It seems to me that it is quite important to keep these terms separate.

While I agree with the central message of your post, Fiona, that we should be careful in applying the right label, I'm afraid you fall in the same trap.

Nazism and fascism are definitely not identical. It is hard to give a precise definition of fascism, as its founder, Mussolini, didn't put much effort in describing his ideology. It certainly entails totalitarianism, with a strong leader. It entails reverence for force and violence. It entails curtailing freedoms. Mussolini also adhered to corporatism, i.e., the structuring of society according to economic branches.

However, racism and the drive for racial purity are unique to Nazism. Mussolini had no love for the Nazi's attempt to exterminate the Jews and other "undesirables", and he adamantly refused to hand over Italian Jews to Nazi Germany. The same can be said of Franco in Spain.

You could say that Nazism is a special form of fascism, but the two are not identical.

[Darat]

I happen to think the OP has a point.

There are some members who use the terms "nazi" and "fascist" as boo words and sometimes I see them used interchangeably with "communist". It seems to me that it is quite important to keep these terms separate.

...snip...

I agree that if we are going to use a label we should use the correct label and often some labels are just used as an implied insult.


...snip...

Personally I would confine the term neo-nazi to those who embrace the ideas of fascism, because I think the nazis were a variation on that theme. To qualify, in my conception of the term, the individual has to found on the supremacy of the nation or the race over all else. The individual is secondary in principle.

...snip...

I disagree about this demarcation because there are two things to consider, one is what someone (or an organisation/party) may label themselves. For example as I mentioned above N9S describe themselves as a Nazi organisation/party. The second is that when you read what these neo-Nazi groups "stand for" it is soon quite apparent that their neo-Nazism it is about more than vanilla fascism. So I think it is necessary to have a distinct term to describe this particular ideology, and neo-Nazi seems quite a good label.

ETA: In other words what ddt said!

[Jeff Corey]

In the US, the neo-nazis seem to focus on the supremacy of the "white race". http://www.americannaziparty.com/about/index.php

[Darat]

That was funny, it tries so hard to come across as reasonable...


... including a healthy environment, children's welfare, and freedom of belief without fear of System persecution...

and

....We are looking for Men and Women, who are willing to sacrifice for the Good of the Folk, not people who are looking for aggrandizement, titillation, or simply causing undirected and useless mayhem. This is not a game or a gang....

But then right at the end they just can't help taking out a double barrelled shotgun and taking aim at their feet:

.... Download Adolf Hitler's masterpiece Mein Kampf HERE. ...

[ddt]

In the US, the neo-nazis seem to focus on the supremacy of the "white race". http://www.americannaziparty.com/about/index.php

Where "white race" is to be defined very narrowly. From their home page:
Today, according to the latest U.S. Census - only 23% of the American population under the age of 18 is WHITE. Already, four U.S. states are MAJORITY NON-WHITE, and 10% of all counties in America are MAJORITY NON-WHITE.
I haven't checked it, but the numbers suggest to me this excludes Hispanics.

And the next paragraph shows their anti-semitism:
this evil, corrupt Judeo-Capitalist system

[Foolmewunz]

I happen to think the OP has a point.

If this originated in a political thread, I'd concur. I'm constantly railing at liberals referring to conservatives as fascists or nazis and conservatives tagging liberals as socialists or communists. That's the old standard ploy in political threads.

However, context is everything, and this question is split off from a Holocaust Denial thread. I do not think anyone in that thread has the slightest confusion as to what a Nazi is/was, what a fascist is, and what a neo-nazi is.

[Fiona]

I agree, ddt. I think nazism is a subset of fascism. I am sorry if that was not clear.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

<snip>

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

<snip>

For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality



Mussolini's conception of fascism elevated the state and for me that is the primary characteristic of fascism as it is of nazism. Mussolini's attitude to race evolved, but it seems to me that we are a little blinded because italian fascism was not particularly anti-semitic in the early years: the attitude to north africa does speak to a notion of racial purity from the start, IMO, though I know others differ. They made law against intermarriage, for example. I suspect that he drew his racial lines in different places and I fully accept that racial purity was not so central to fascism as it was to nazism: the first phrase in my second last paragraph was sloppy and I apologise for that. The intent was fudged between nation and race: perhaps partly because italy was more homogenous than germany: or perhaps for other reasons.

I think there is evidence of a racial element in fascism and that this grew over time. It has been argued that this was because of Hitler's influence: that may be true but I am inclined to see that as a shift of emphasis rather than a true change.

However that may be you are correct in stating that it is a special form of fascism: that is explicitly stated in my third paragraph. I do not think we disagree. But it is important to keep our terms clear and to explore the actual aims of each ideology (muddy as the source material may be) rather than using them as generic insults. So I think, anyway

[Fiona]

If this originated in a political thread, I'd concur. I'm constantly railing at liberals referring to conservatives as fascists or nazis and conservatives tagging liberals as socialists or communists. That's the old standard ploy in political threads.

However, context is everything, and this question is split off from a Holocaust Denial thread. I do not think anyone in that thread has the slightest confusion as to what a Nazi is/was, what a fascist is, and what a neo-nazi is.

You posted while I was writing.

You are probably correct in saying that the people in the thread which gave rise to this one do know what we are talking about and I had no wish to insult anyone. I was merely responding to the OP as it stood.

While I recognise that many here are particularly well versed in the history of these ideologies (much more than I am myself); and also in the positions of the many groups which either call themselves neo-nazi or are of that persuasion more covertly I am still quite certain that some people who post on this board do not make any distinctions between various very different political (and sometimes religious) positions.

What is more important to me is that some of the adherents of those groups do not seem to understand what it is they are signing up to. The list at post #15 regrettably attracts some on particular aspects, and unless the heart of the ideology is made plain some will sign up for those who might in fact be horrified by the idea of a supreme state, for example.

In some ways it is akin to the situation with drugs, to stretch an analogy to breaking point. You cannot deal sensibly with drugs by telling people that a toke of hash will make them jump out of the window: because they know that is not true and they will laugh. But they will also dismiss anything you say which is true. And that is not good. Similarly those who bandy these terms about in the way you describe undermine the real horror of these ideologies by stripping them of meaning.

I fully accept that one can be more lax in some contexs: but I honestly think it behooves us to be careful in all cases where the doors are not closed and the audience is unknown

But maybe I am too pernickety: it would not be the first time :)

[Darat]

...snip...

What is more important to me is that some of the adherents of those groups do not seem to understand what it is they are signing up to. The list at post #15 regrettably attracts some on particular aspects, and unless the heart of the ideology is made plain some will sign up for those who might in fact be horrified by the idea of a supreme state, for example.

...snip...

That's a strong argument for not calling neo-Nazi's fascists since I think you are correct in that most followers of these groups would not support the end-point of fascism.

[Fiona]

Hmmm. You do not think that the end point of nazism is the supremacy of a personified state? If you are correct then I need to make more distinctions: I have always thought of it as a subset but I may well be wrong

[ddt]

That's a strong argument for not calling neo-Nazi's fascists since I think you are correct in that most followers of these groups would not support the end-point of fascism.

I think the leaders of these groups are well aware of the whole ideology, including the totalitarian state with a strong leader. The original Nazi supporters knew at least partly what they voted for: abolishment of democracy, Hitler as dictator. That is, in a nutshell, what the NSDAP campaigned for.

As to nowadays Neo-Nazi's, I'm not so sure. The groups are simply too fringe to do meaningful research on, I fear.

However, when more popular right-extremist groups, such as the BNP or Wilders or Vlaams Belang are any yardstick in this, I do get the definite impression that many of their voters don't realise the rest of their program besides the xenophobic parts: these parties mostly have very right-wing policies which hurt the lower classes financially - and those are the very same constituency they seek their voters in.

[Darat]

Hmmm. You do not think that the end point of nazism is the supremacy of a personified state? If you are correct then I need to make more distinctions: I have always thought of it as a subset but I may well be wrong

Certainly I think that is one of the messages promulgated by the German Nazis (whether the leaders believed it or not is another matter) but I wouldn't have said that is the case for the neo-nazis. As I think someone else has posted they seem very much "white supremacists" and it seems a stretch to state their ideology is anything more than getting rid of all the "non-Aryan/white races"

Have a read of the websites of organisations like the November 9th society and the American Nazi Party and see what you think - be interested in your views.

[Darat]

...snip...

However, when more popular right-extremist groups, such as the BNP or Wilders or Vlaams Belang are any yardstick in this, I do get the definite impression that many of their voters don't realise the rest of their program besides the xenophobic parts: these parties mostly have very right-wing policies which hurt the lower classes financially - and those are the very same constituency they seek their voters in.

I think this is where we do have a problem about applying a label like "neo-Nazi", whilst I am sure there are many individuals who are neo-Nazis in such parties can we accurately describe the party or organisation as neo-Nazi organisations?

ETA: Or perhaps they are "neo-nazi", and neo-nazism should mean nazism minus the fascist ideology?

[drkitten]

Hmmm. You do not think that the end point of nazism is the supremacy of a personified state? If you are correct then I need to make more distinctions: I have always thought of it as a subset but I may well be wrong

I don't think you can speak about "the" end point of Nazism; I suspect that a lot of card-carrying neo-Nazi's aren't necessarily clear about their desired end point, and a lot of them are borderline anarchists as well as Nazi's. (James von Brunn, for example, the Holocaust museum gunman, was a member of the Liberty Lobby.)

[Skeptic]

Fiona -- you certainly have a point that some people call everybody who disagrees with them a "(neo-)Nazi". But here we're dealing with actual neo-nazis, so calling them that is simply the truth.

[drkitten]

I think this is where we do have a problem about applying a label like "neo-Nazi", whilst I am sure there are many individuals who are neo-Nazis in such parties can we accurately describe the party or organisation as neo-Nazi organisations?

ETA: Or perhaps they are "neo-nazi", and neo-nazism should mean nazism minus the fascist ideology?

Are we insisting that the word "neo-Nazi" is the one word in political discourse that must have a single indivisible meaning?

I think it's quite reasonable, for example, to describe the American Nazi Party as neo-Nazi, given that they self-describe as Nazis and explicitly use Nazi imagery such as the swastika (and they're obviously newer than 1945). But they rather explicitly disavow the Fuehrerprinzip : "That is why we have taken a new direction. In the American Nazi Party, you will find no uniforms or ranks, we do not engage in publicly exposing our Comrades to undo publicity through pointless and dangerous Rallies or Marches." The part of the Nazi ideology they have taken to heart is the message of racial purity and of Aryan superiority.

There are also card-carrying neo-Nazis like the Liberty Lobby and the IHR (e.g., David Irving) who are explicitly fascists and Nazi apologists.

And there are explicit fascists who reject much of the Nazi racial doctrines, such as the American Fascist Party. (http://www.geocities.com/amfascmoi/socialdoctrine) (Although it's surprising how anti-immigrant they are for claiming not to be racist. Or maybe it's not that surprising.)

While the organizations themselves are distinct, the membership is not. And it's completely reasonable to call any member of these groups a neo-Nazi -- especially the ones with strong ties in one regard to the specific policies of the German/Nazi regime as opposed to simple fascism in general such as Mussolini.

[Fiona]

Certainly I think that is one of the messages promulgated by the German Nazis (whether the leaders believed it or not is another matter) but I wouldn't have said that is the case for the neo-nazis. As I think someone else has posted they seem very much "white supremacists" and it seems a stretch to state their ideology is anything more than getting rid of all the "non-Aryan/white races"

Have a read of the websites of organisations like the November 9th society and the American Nazi Party and see what you think - be interested in your views.

Well I have now read some of the British First Party's manifesto (which seems to be another name for N9S). Apart from the fact that it is full of typos and such, it is not a very pleasant read. They do appear to be white supremacists but it is in a context of a very strong state.

Some things which caught my eye:

Foreign Policy

introduction of conscription at age 21 it will be possible to expand the armed force in size to a standing army of three million persons and similar size in regard to air power.

<snip>

A fundamental tenant of our foreign policy is to establish areas of influence in former British colonies.............<snip> we should seek to intervene in local wars were British interests are paramount. An excellent example would be the former Rhodesia now known as Zimbabwe.....<snip> We would divide the country into two federations along tribal lines along with the introduction of sterling system to provide the peg for economic stability. Rhodesia will offer the perfect example of our new enlightened colonialism with full employment, secure markets and excellent sources of raw material.

Who in their right mind would seek to challenge the new rearmed and virile nation state of Great Britain? Our plan is to transform the Commonwealth from an ad hoc social club into a force for international good, offering security through defence, trade and a true self sufficient and insulated market under British dominance

we believe non Europeans are more remote from British character than any German or Frenchman, for they are Westerners and share similar cultural and racial traits.

We aim, together with other European nations, a final solution of this vexed question by the creation of an agency to assist our non European visitor???s and those that propagate anti British sentiment safe passage back to their ancestral countries.

Law and Order

Whilst the British First Party is an ethnocentric organisation we applaud the actions of such countries as Iran which effectively challenges antisocial behaviour with a one way appointment with the hangman.

We would make the death penalty retrospective which means all current inmates serving sentences for murder or other antisocial crimes would have their sentences reviewed and where possible would be executed. We would further contemplate broadcasting these executions after 10 PM so the public can see that justice has been carried out but also as a warning to others that the state takes its role as protector of the citizen seriously.

We would establish penal colonies in such remote areas as the Falkland Islands were convicts would be transported to serve their sentences in a camp facility assisting in mine clearance and the search for natural resources.

We would introduce ???Youth Camps??? were unruly and anti social individuals under the age of 16 will be sent. These facilities will involve back breaking labour and total discipline backed up by a violent regime of corporal punishment. The facilities envisioned would be modest both in terms of accommodation as well as diet. Once you have been a guest of one of these facilities you will never re-offend again and if you do it will undoubtedly merit an appointment with hangman???s noose and as such you cease to be society???s problem for good.

Education

We would establish a ???Star Chamber??? that would exam the background and attitudes of every person involved in education. Those found wanting or lacking in a suitable British attitude would have their teaching license cancelled.

The full manifesto is not on their website but wiki adds:

It promotes a hierarchical system of leadership, repatriation, Holocaust denial and British ownership of industry; with all banking controlled by a central government bank and all media outlets becoming nationalised

If that is accurate then it does seem to me to be fascism of the nazi type

[woolfe99]

It is hard to give a precise definition of fascism, as its founder, Mussolini, didn't put much effort in describing his ideology. It certainly entails totalitarianism, with a strong leader. It entails reverence for force and violence. It entails curtailing freedoms. Mussolini also adhered to corporatism, i.e., the structuring of society according to economic branches.


Fascism is/was in core essence anti-liberalism, "liberalism" in the sense of how it was understood in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century. It is basically opposed to all ideas of political "Enlightenment," from the French revolution onward. It differs from traditional conservatism in the sense that it does not seek to maintain old power structures based on bloodlines (i.e. monarchy), and is more populist in orientation. Also, it is not so opposed to violent upheavals as is conservatism, as such upheavals are perceived by conservatives as threatening the stability that maintains traditional power structures. Fascism is an (often) violent reaction to political and cultural modernity.

You are right to distinguish fascism and Nazism, as racism is not a necessary component of fascism, though one could say that it can be a probable outcome of it. In the case of Nazism, for example, its anti-semitism was in part based on the association (both real and perceived) between jewry on the one hand, and political/cultural modernity, on the other.

- woolfe

[Fiona]

I don't think you can speak about "the" end point of Nazism; I suspect that a lot of card-carrying neo-Nazi's aren't necessarily clear about their desired end point, and a lot of them are borderline anarchists as well as Nazi's. (James von Brunn, for example, the Holocaust museum gunman, was a member of the Liberty Lobby.)

I am not sure of your point here, drkitten. But that may be because I know nothing about liberty lobby. It appears to have been disbanded following an adverse court judgement. The wiki article is tagged neutrality disputed, but it does state quite specifically that the founder, one Willis Carto, adopted the views of one Francis Parker Yockey and the wiki article on him states he advocated pan-european fascism.


That card carrying neo nazi's do not always know what they have signed up for is part of my point. I think they should be told. In particular I think they need to know that is is not possible to be an anarchist, of any stripe, while also being a nazi or a fascist :)

[drkitten]

That card carrying neo nazi's do not always know what they have signed up for is part of my point. I think they should be told. In particular I think they need to know that is is not possible to be an anarchist, of any stripe, while also being a nazi or a fascist :)

That's the point. It is possible to be an anarchist while being a Nazi and/or a fascist; you simply have to pick and choose from among the various aspects of fascism, Nazism, and anarchism. Indeed, "anarcho-fascism (http://anarclysm.blogspot.com/2008/06/critique-of-bernard-senas-anarcho.html)" is even a well-recognized political viewpoint (albeit often laughed at, for obvious reasons).

I can even give you a straightforward and superficially sensible description of anarcho-fascism. An anarchic society can only be created through the temporary establishment of a strong central state with the power to annihilate the existing (evil, corrupt) power blocks that exist solely by infringing upon the natural rights of all personkind. In other ways, the way to break the (evil, greedy, capitalist) bankers is to nationalize the banking industry and purify it of its parasitic ways. Since the banking industry will not willingly give up its power, and because too many (sheepie) citizens are dupes of this power bloc, it is necessary for a small group of right-thinking revolutionaries to assume ultimate power in the interests of elevating and ultimately empowering the masses for their own good.

If you notice a certain similarity between the description of anarcho-fascism I gave above and the "Two Stage" process of Leninist/Stalinist communism, where a command economy was necessary to move from agrarian Czarist Russia to the post-industrial workers' paradise,.... you're right. And you can quite legitimately reject that political position,.... but you can't claim that it doesn't exist or that it is self-contradictory.

In the case of the anarchist neo-Nazis, you simply have to throw in the racist elements; instead of greedy capitalist bankers, you get the Jewish banking cartel, who are kept in power by their bread-and-circus pandering to the genetically impure underclass and immigrants (who, in turn, are used as a weapon against the true Aryan freemen to keep them from getting what is rightfully theirs).

[Fiona]

Well we will have to agree to differ, drKitten. Anarchism is incompatible with fascism and with nazism. The establishment of a totalitarian state on the way to something else is wholly at odds with fascism and nazism because the establishment and maintenance of that state is the end point of those ideologies. 1000 year reich and all that.

It does us no service to allow these terms to be conflated because it eventually dissolves into "evil" with nothing more to distinguish and no strategy for conceptual defence, IMO

[ddt]

Well we will have to agree to differ, drKitten. Anarchism is incompatible with fascism and with nazism. The establishment of a totalitarian state on the way to something else is wholly at odds with fascism and nazism because the establishment and maintenance of that state is the end point of those ideologies. 1000 year reich and all that.

It does us no service to allow these terms to be conflated because it eventually dissolves into "evil" with nothing more to distinguish and no strategy for conceptual defence, IMO

With all due respect, Fiona, but apparently such "fusions" exist. There's also a wiki article on a movement called National-Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism). You may argue that those ideologies are incompatible - and I agree with you - but these people have merged aspects of both into one new ideology. Undoubtedly, it's laughable, and undoubtedly, they've taken only aspects so that at least one of the ideologies is no longer really recognizable - I haven't even yet taken time to read the article, so I'm not sure which.

But they exist, and you can't reason against that. You could start a new thread discussing the ideology, of course. :)

[dudalb]

Then you have groups that although they basically advocate Nazi positions (White Supremacy,Anti Semitism,etc) they might not have the trappings of the "official" Nazi movement,because they realize they turn people off. I would still say they are Neo Nazi groups.
I think the term has come to meant in popular usage any group that advocates White Supremacy and Anti Semitism. You might argue that in a technical sense the KKK is not a neo Nazi group,but I think the label of Neo Nazi in general use still applies.

[dudalb]

With all due respect, Fiona, but apparently such "fusions" exist. There's also a wiki article on a movement called National-Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism). You may argue that those ideologies are incompatible - and I agree with you - but these people have merged aspects of both into one new ideology. Undoubtedly, it's laughable, and undoubtedly, they've taken only aspects so that at least one of the ideologies is no longer really recognizable - I haven't even yet taken time to read the article, so I'm not sure which.

But they exist, and you can't reason against that. You could start a new thread discussing the ideology, of course. :)

A Lot of the early Nazis..in the SA in particular...definently had strong Anarchist leanings,Rohm for example. They resented any authority, Hitler included once he took power.That was one reason for the Night of the Long Knives.

[Fiona]

With all due respect, Fiona, but apparently such "fusions" exist. There's also a wiki article on a movement called National-Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism). You may argue that those ideologies are incompatible - and I agree with you - but these people have merged aspects of both into one new ideology. Undoubtedly, it's laughable, and undoubtedly, they've taken only aspects so that at least one of the ideologies is no longer really recognizable - I haven't even yet taken time to read the article, so I'm not sure which.

But they exist, and you can't reason against that. You could start a new thread discussing the ideology, of course. :)

Well I have read the link and I really cannot see your point, sorry.

It says:

We believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities.[14]

Southgate has also distanced himself from fascism and Communism as statist and totalitarian,[4] and rejects National Socialism as a failed dictatorship of a totalitarian government

They certainly want racial segregation and oppose intermarriage and mixed communities. It is obvious that those who criticise them as deceptive crypto fascists may well be right. But in the terms they describe their movement it does not seem to me to have anything in common with nazism or fascism. As I said it is helpful to me to envisage what any group's ideal society would look like if they did achieve their very best outcome. And in those terms this is not anything like nazism. Or am I missing something?

[drkitten]

They certainly want racial segregation and oppose intermarriage and mixed communities. It is obvious that those who criticise them as deceptive crypto fascists may well be right. But in the terms they describe their movement it does not seem to me to have anything in common with nazism or fascism. As I said it is helpful to me to envisage what any group's ideal society would look like if they did achieve their very best outcome. And in those terms this is not anything like nazism. Or am I missing something?

From the Wiki article:


A National Autonomous Zone (NAZ) may contain one or more of the following characteristics:

* a homogeneous representation of spoken language, culture, religion, and ethnicity.
* the organized delegation of tasks and economy.
* a pre-defined relationship regulating behavior with outsiders of the NAZ.
* a system of standard operating procedures for self-defense.
* collective and informal decision making processes.


The first three, and especially the second, is where the fascist-like tendencies come in. It's hard for me to interpret "organized delegation of tasks and economy" as anything other than a command economy, arranged according to "homogeneous representation of spoken language, culture, religion, and ethnicity" I.e. it's a national command state.

The key difference here is not in the degree of control, but in the source. This utopia (dystopia) is every bit as rule-bound as the traditional fascist state, but the people have internalized the rules to the point where they no longer need enforcing. You don't need secret police to round up dissenters if the population will automatically identify them and spontaneously deal with them using vigilante justice.

[woolfe99]

Well we will have to agree to differ, drKitten. Anarchism is incompatible with fascism and with nazism. The establishment of a totalitarian state on the way to something else is wholly at odds with fascism and nazism because the establishment and maintenance of that state is the end point of those ideologies. 1000 year reich and all that.

It does us no service to allow these terms to be conflated because it eventually dissolves into "evil" with nothing more to distinguish and no strategy for conceptual defence, IMO

While in a practical sense, the "state" may be a necessary tool in pursuit of fascist utopianism, the state itself is not the end point of the ideology, any more than it was for Marxism. Taking Nazism as the example, it did not glorify the state as such, but rather only the person of Hitler himself, as a kind of modern teutonic myth of the heroic aryan warrior, and of course the core concept of Aryanism. Yet to Hitler, the state and its machinery were only a necessary evil. The real goal was the social/cultural transformation of Germandom, or perhaps later, all of "Aryan" kind. In a state of absolute racial purity, the body politic, in theory, governs itself through its inherent "goodness" and cohesion. That the state itself could ever wither away once the utopian vision was realized is, of course, as absurd with fascim as it was with Marxism. Yet in neither ideology is the state an end in and of itself. Fascism necessarily entails totalitarian government, but at its core, it isn't about totalitarian government.

Hannah Arendt argues in Origins of Totalitarianism that Nazism and Stalinism subordinated the state to social-culture (Nazism) or economic (Stalinist) aims, and as such, both aimed at ultimately destroying the state.

- woolfe

[drkitten]

The real goal was the social/cultural transformation of Germandom, or perhaps later, all of "Aryan" kind. In a state of absolute racial purity, the body politic, in theory, governs itself through its inherent "goodness" and cohesion.

Which, of course, is exactly what the National-Anarchists are pushing with their NAZ concept.

[Darat]

...snip...

They certainly want racial segregation and oppose intermarriage and mixed communities. It is obvious that those who criticise them as deceptive crypto fascists may well be right. But in the terms they describe their movement it does not seem to me to have anything in common with nazism or fascism. As I said it is helpful to me to envisage what any group's ideal society would look like if they did achieve their very best outcome. And in those terms this is not anything like nazism. Or am I missing something?

I think you are. You are using evidence, reason and logic to examine these groups!

And logic and reason is not what these folks tend to use, so considering that the logical end-point of a stated ideology is what they are about misses what they are actually about. For example Stalin was a communist, he used many of communism's tropes, outward symbols and the like, but did he achieve what we would consider to be a communist society (based on the "logical" outcome of communist ideology)?

[ddt]

A Lot of the early Nazis..in the SA in particular...definently had strong Anarchist leanings,Rohm for example. They resented any authority, Hitler included once he took power.That was one reason for the Night of the Long Knives.

I was under the impression that Röhm had more socialist leanings - to put the S in NSDAP, so to say. And that, indeed, Hitler didn't like that, because he wanted to remain good friends with Krupp, Thyssen and the other German industrialists. The other big reason for Röhm's demise being that he wanted to expand the SA to a big popular army, while Hitler wanted the support of the real army.

[woolfe99]

I was under the impression that Röhm had more socialist leanings - to put the S in NSDAP, so to say. And that, indeed, Hitler didn't like that, because he wanted to remain good friends with Krupp, Thyssen and the other German industrialists. The other big reason for Röhm's demise being that he wanted to expand the SA to a big popular army, while Hitler wanted the support of the real army.

Right on both, although the second reason was almost certainly the more important of the two. At the time of the purge, Hitler had already largely pacified the industrialists by smashing organized labor.

The SA leadership itself did not really stand for "anarchy" as a political principle, so much as the SA itself behaved in an anarchical (i.e. disorderly) fashion. This was yet another reason the purge occurred and the SA was reigned in. In short, the SA itself was an offense to conservative elites because its street level rabble rousing, and its leaders' pretensions of constituting a new German army, were seen as threatening existing power and privilege (esp. the army), and since Hitler needed the support of conservative elites, the SA needed to be neutralized.

- woolfe

[dudalb]

The SA leadership itself did not really stand for "anarchy" as a political principle, so much as the SA itself behaved in an anarchical (i.e. disorderly) fashion. This was yet another reason the purge occurred and the SA was reigned in. In short, the SA itself was an offense to conservative elites because its street level rabble rousing, and its leaders' pretensions of constituting a new German army, were seen as threatening existing power and privilege (esp. the army), and since Hitler needed the support of conservative elites, the SA needed to be neutralized.

Correct. I get the impression that a lot of the SA might have been emotional anarchists, though...they seemed to resent any authority except their own.

[woolfe99]

Correct. I get the impression that a lot of the SA might have been emotional anarchists, though...they seemed to resent any authority except their own.


Basically yes. They did revere Hitler as the focal point of the movement, but they viewed themselves as the grass roots center of the movement, and resented being subordinated to party and state. Nazism was originally conceived as a populist, grass roots, bottom up movement, with Hitler its spiritual/ideological motivator. When Hitler actually took power, the Nazi agenda then had to come from the top down, through a legal state apparatus, which itself entailed bringing various existing power structures in to support the new state. The SA still wanted to agitiate and carry on a social and cultural revolution whereas the Nazi leadership had gained power in the state and was trying to govern, hence the disconnect between the two. It's as if someone forgot to tell them that they won and the revolution was over, or to put it another way, they didn't want the revolution to be over because they then would lose their centrality in the movement and their very purpose.

- woolfe

[MaGZ]

Well, you too are suffering under the imagination, that your breed is so important as to define this group. For example in Germany, where most Neo-Nazis are supposed to be, the connection to Jewry is extremely low.





Inflating a term reduces its value. This has already happened to Anti-Semite, and is happening to Nazi as well (which is, of course, practically always Neo-Nazi, for how many members of the former NSDAP do live and post on Internet?).

The National Socialist revival has been influenced more by Americas than Germans. Examples: Francis Parker Yockey, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Lurther Pierce.

[Thunder]

The National Socialist revival has been influenced more by Americas than Germans. Examples: Francis Parker Yockey, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Lurther Pierce.

true National Socialists believe in no democracy, no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, and imprisonment for all those that oppose National Socialism.

they also support a national health care system, environmentalism, limits on private business ownership, direct government involvement of major industries, and all other facets of life.

does this..describe you?

if not, you are not a National Socialist, and would have been likely sent to a work camp by the Nazis. and possibly starved to death.

[MaGZ]

well i hate to say it but.
Without the Nazis, Ferdinand Porsche would not have made the Volkswagen beatle.

What have the Nazis done for us? (at takeoff from Monty Python)


Autobahn

Jet aircraft

V-1 which lead to the moon landing.

Coal gasification.

Television signals were broadcasted from the Eifel Tower in Paris showing the German Army paraded thru the city to offices clubs in Germany.

[Thunder]

What have the Nazis done for us? (at takeoff from Monty Python)


Autobahn

Jet aircraft

V-1 which lead to the moon landing.

Coal gasification.

Television signals were broadcasted from the Eifel Tower in Paris showing the German Army paraded thru the city to offices clubs in Germany.

started a war that led to the deaths of millions.

[MaGZ]

Are we insisting that the word "neo-Nazi" is the one word in political discourse that must have a single indivisible meaning?

I think it's quite reasonable, for example, to describe the American Nazi Party as neo-Nazi, given that they self-describe as Nazis and explicitly use Nazi imagery such as the swastika (and they're obviously newer than 1945). But they rather explicitly disavow the Fuehrerprinzip : "That is why we have taken a new direction. In the American Nazi Party, you will find no uniforms or ranks, we do not engage in publicly exposing our Comrades to undo publicity through pointless and dangerous Rallies or Marches." The part of the Nazi ideology they have taken to heart is the message of racial purity and of Aryan superiority.

There are also card-carrying neo-Nazis like the Liberty Lobby and the IHR (e.g., David Irving) who are explicitly fascists and Nazi apologists.

And there are explicit fascists who reject much of the Nazi racial doctrines, such as the American Fascist Party. (http://www.geocities.com/amfascmoi/socialdoctrine) (Although it's surprising how anti-immigrant they are for claiming not to be racist. Or maybe it's not that surprising.)

While the organizations themselves are distinct, the membership is not. And it's completely reasonable to call any member of these groups a neo-Nazi -- especially the ones with strong ties in one regard to the specific policies of the German/Nazi regime as opposed to simple fascism in general such as Mussolini.

It is absurd to call Liberty Lobby or IHR card carrying Nazis or neo-Nazis.

[MaGZ]

they also support a national health care system, environmentalism, limits on private business ownership, direct government involvement of major industries, and all other facets of life.


Sounds like the Obama administration

[Thunder]

Sounds like the Obama administration

oh really? Obama wants to sieze private property?

are you calling Obama a National Socialist?

you know MaGZ, Nazism and Communism are a lot a like. They both love dictatorship, they both hate freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of dissent, freedom of assembly.

Nazism in its truest form...is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted for this great land.

do you really support Nazism?

[ddt]

What have the Nazis done for us? (at takeoff from Monty Python)


Autobahn
Construction had begun already in 1928.


Jet aircraft
Hmm, have you looked at the track record of the Me-263?


V-1 which lead to the moon landing.
More like the V-2 did, but I'll grant you that.


Coal gasification.
Factories that gasified coal existed already around 1900; major Dutch cities had them.


Television signals were broadcasted from the Eifel Tower in Paris showing the German Army paraded thru the city to offices clubs in Germany.
The US also had TV broadcasting at the same time.

Do you indulge in making your posts a big fail?

[dudalb]

The National Socialist revival has been influenced more by Americas than Germans. Examples: Francis Parker Yockey, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Lurther Pierce.





What Revival?
A few nutcases that even most right wing extremist consider to be insane?
:dl:

[dudalb]

It is absurd to call Liberty Lobby or IHR card carrying Nazis or neo-Nazis.




It is absurd to deny these two groups...Liberty Lobby in pariticular..are not dedicated to white washing Nazi Germany.
They just relise that a suit and tie look better then brownshirst and swastikas. Otherwise, they and and the out and out Nazis are birds of a feather.

[drkitten]

It is absurd to call Liberty Lobby or IHR card carrying Nazis or neo-Nazis.

They describe themselves as such. (Check out the Irving trial transcripts). So, no, it's not at all absurd.

[drkitten]

It is absurd to deny these two groups...Liberty Lobby in pariticular..are not dedicated to white washing Nazi Germany.

I suspect that MaGZ is himself a member -- or at least a supporter -- of the IHR and/or the Liberty Lobby.

So of course it bothers him when we correctly identify him as a neo-Nazi.