Why do Neo-Nazis exist?

[Farnhamia]

No, there's a lot of evidence diversity undermines social cohesion and social trust. Robert Putnam actually did some research on this for Harvard that came to that conclusion. Although I don't really see how this isn't obvious. Look at what Scandinavia or Japan looks like then compare it to say, the US or most of Latin America or other very ethnically diverse areas. Humans have a tendency to be tribal and not trust or care about people out of their "monkey sphere." I'm not saying that can't be overcome or at least mediated somewhat (look at Singapore - very diverse yet rich and orderly). And I certainly don't condone the sort of eugenicism or state-mandated segregation WNs want. But I think it would be a mistake to say dealing with diversity isn't a challenge, let alone "our strength" or something that's intrinsically good.

Interesting (you might have linked to the Wiki article on Putnam, it's polite, you know), though that a more diverse environment leads to people sitting at home watching TV seems a stretch.

The problem I have with this theory is that it does tend to justify "segregation will make you happier" notions of social engineering. Separate, you know, but equal and all that.

Tribalism is something I think humans ought to at least try to overcome. As the theists say, human nature is what we're here to rise above.

[Ovisterra]

Don't look at me. I assume that some people think that Nazism is reasonable. If someone is doing something that seems ridiculous to you, remember that your actions likely seem the same to them. It's all relative.

[Yorick]

Anyway, to answer your question it really depends. neo-Nazis/WNs are somewhat ironically, a very diverse group. Some are unemployed and looking for a scapegoat for their problems. Some are terrified of gangs. Some notice the double standard regarding say, complaining about "white privilege" vs. pointing out jews are disproportionately represented in "the elite" and decide "anti-racism is anti-white." Some are people who read "the Bell Curve" or Steve Sailer one too many times. Some are anti-Zionists who unfortunately, turned towards just hating all jews. Some are neo-Pagans that saw something in Wotanism that they liked. And some are just attention whores.

[Yorick]

No, there's a lot of evidence diversity undermines social cohesion and social trust. Robert Putnam actually did some research on this for Harvard that came to that conclusion. Although I don't really see how this isn't obvious. Look at what Scandinavia or Japan looks like then compare it to say, the US or most of Latin America or other very ethnically diverse areas. Humans have a tendency to be tribal and not trust or care about people out of their "monkey sphere." I'm not saying that can't be overcome or at least mediated somewhat (look at Singapore - very diverse yet rich and orderly). And I certainly don't condone the sort of eugenicism or state-mandated segregation WNs want. But I think it would be a mistake to say dealing with diversity isn't a challenge, let alone "our strength" or something that's intrinsically good.

Interesting (you might have linked to the Wiki article on Putnam, it's polite, you know), though that a more diverse environment leads to people sitting at home watching TV seems a stretch.

The problem I have with this theory is that it does tend to justify "segregation will make you happier" notions of social engineering. Separate, you know, but equal and all that.

Tribalism is something I think humans ought to at least try to overcome. As the theists say, human nature is what we're here to rise above.

Ah, yes sorry about that. Unfortunately my connection over here is sort of shitty, so I've become a bit lazy with digging those things up. Anyway, yes I don't think it's an insurmountable problem. There's been societies like Austro-Hungary or Turkey or again, Singapore now that were highly diverse yet orderly (and remarkable free in the case of the first). But I don't think the standard liberal response to any of this is very productive.

[Nazis in Space]

No, there's a lot of evidence diversity undermines social cohesion and social trust. Robert Putnam actually did some research on this for Harvard that came to that conclusion. Although I don't really see how this isn't obvious. Look at what Scandinavia or Japan looks like then compare it to say, the US or most of Latin America or other very ethnically diverse areas. Humans have a tendency to be tribal and not trust or care about people out of their "monkey sphere." I'm not saying that can't be overcome or at least mediated somewhat (look at Singapore - very diverse yet rich and orderly). And I certainly don't condone the sort of eugenicism or state-mandated segregation WNs want. But I think it would be a mistake to say dealing with diversity isn't a challenge, let alone "our strength" or something that's intrinsically good.

Interesting (you might have linked to the Wiki article on Putnam, it's polite, you know), though that a more diverse environment leads to people sitting at home watching TV seems a stretch.

The problem I have with this theory is that it does tend to justify "segregation will make you happier" notions of social engineering. Separate, you know, but equal and all that.

Tribalism is something I think humans ought to at least try to overcome. As the theists say, human nature is what we're here to rise above.

Well. There's a difference between phenotypical and cultural diversity. What height, weight, skin colour and eye shape a person has doesn't matter (Well, height and weight matter for certain job qualifications, but... You get the point). What language people speak, what they believe proper gender roles and principles of law and justice to be on the other hand, very much does matter. The former is a diversity that doesn't need to be overcome beyond significant statistical divergence in terms of income, crime etc. The latter is a diversity that needs to be stamped out.

Tribalism is the fundamental result of diversity - diversity creates tribes via mutual 'Us, not them' feedback loops that end up ever more emphasising geographic, economic, phenotypical and cultural differences. Increasingly limited interaction between tribes versus increasingly active interaction within tribes cause decreasing understanding between them, breed missunderstandings, divergent cultural norms and if resource issues come into play, conflict.

But some types of tribalism are more easily eliminated than others. Mere phenotypical differences, while being particularly obvious*, are, fundamentally, nothing more than looks. Looks are important, of course, but if you do get people to talk, and it turns out that 'Those others' aren't all that different, that they actually think pretty similarly... Well, matter solved. It's of course a lot more complex in reality due to other factors coming into play, too (Irrational 'Nationalism', socio-economic conditions and such), but still.

Cultural differences are a different matter. If two cultures with fundamentally different values start interacting and talking to each other, they don't notice that the strangers are actually pretty similar to themselves, they notice that these strangers actually are different. And to change this, at least one, or possibly both cultures have to be destroyed, completely assimilated, or marginalised by a bigger, more encompassing culture. That, too, is possible - Germany solved its issues between protestants and catholics by making the state the all-powerful, all-encompassing, dominant entity, to which religion plays not even second, but third fiddle, and Singapore did pretty much exactly the same thing. Both marginalised competing cultures by creating something greater said cultures had to submit to -, but well... This does require the use of force, whereas mere phenotypical tribalism can be dealt with just by understanding (Well, it can also requires a little but of nudging on by force in some contexts).

* On a sidenote, it's worth noting that different cultural tribes sharing the same phenotype go to great lengths to differentiate themselves visually, too.

[Yorick]

^^^

And that's pretty much what I was going to say. There are other alternatives of course, you can try to establish a fairly stable aristocracy (see Austria back in the day) and take a more localized approach. But generally some sort of unifying nationalism/"official language"/etc. works best IMO. Of course, all things that horrify liberals.

[Starkindler]

This is my attept to repost this nonsense as a proper thread, as I fell it will make for an interesting discussion.

The question is, of course, why do neo-nazi groups exist? Why are there people who seem to see the Third Riech as something to be emmulated or glorified?
As we all know, the Nazi regime was an authoritarian Facsist dictatorship involving racial nationalism, a personality cult, genocide on a massive and industrialized scale, and the standard dictatorial violence.

Personally, I think that people today are attracted to Nazism for the same reasons they were then: They feel somehow let down or betrayed by society and channel that into nationalist or racist fervor.

What sayeth thee, NationStates General?

It boils down to why did the Germans actually vote on Hitler, and why to the eldest of them reminisce about Hitlerian times?
Go back to time at around 1933. Germany was badly beaten by France and the Entente in WW1. It lost all her dependencies overseas, her military was reduced to laughable numbers, and was forced to pay war reparations that she couldn't. On the other hand, the greatest economic downturn ever recorded in human history (The Great Depression) was on the country. The German Mark was worthless, as government tried to print money in order to meet Entente obligations. The Germans wanted to:

• Take revenge on France, and get back their most industrialized region, Alsace-Loitering.
• Get out of the Great Depression
• Have someone to look up to.

History is repeating itself, you can see, as if anything is wrong in the world, especially in economics, humans try to find a scapegoat for the problems. In the recent depression, it was the great brokers, the top 1%. Hitler proposed the Jews as scapegoats, and his reason behind it (not counting his insanity), was that the Jews were culturally and traditionally bankers and investors, so they should have done something to the economy. Hitler proposed to:

• Get out of the Great Depression
• Reduce Unemployment
• Eradicate Jews [the scapegoat of the Great Depression in the eyes of the Germans]
• Militarize
• Take revenge on France
• Assimilate Austria into Germany (Anschluss)

And he also had an insane plan to do this, as opposed to most of the then-current democratic parties of the Weimar Republic. He also had the power behind him to execute his actions (The SA), he was the master of propaganda and deceiving, and he was a WW1 veteran, with general trust behind him. That's why he was voted into power, and within years of him being into power, he did everything he promised, making him one of the few politicians in human history who actually kept his promises. The contemporary Germans actually liked him because of the Holocaust, and he was popular even into the war, even when Germany was losing.

---

The Neo-Nazis glorify Hitler, because they see in the Reich their warped political views:

• Politicians who are trustworthy, and actually do what they promised
• The government greatly improving the economy, which could be felt directly by the population:
  • Large public works projects
  • Tiny inflation, strong money
  • Small, even non-existent unemployment
  • High salaries
• The government, at least nominally, working for the children
• Nazi propaganda books and videos are written to have a lasting psychological effect, and Neo-Nazis could be still influenced by this
• A perfect, trustworthy leader figure which one can rely on and follow
• Reduced crime, through the elimination of scapegoat groups (Kill all afro-americans and latinos due to they falling to crime more often than caucasians, ignoring the fact that they do crime because they have to feed themselves. Or kill Jews because *insert insane conspiracy theory here*)

And because Neo-Nazis are so deeply indoctrinated, the only way to effectively fight against them would be to have the good old 'panem et circenses' approach:

• Somehow (like Theodore Roosevelt) come up with a New Deal program to revitalize the economy
• Reduce crime through frequent Police patrols, or concentrate Police in slum areas, or reduce crime through reducing unemployment
• Increase spending on Education, and bribe/blackmail statisticians who will come up with statistics saying that the State (taxpayer-funded) education system is better than the private system.
• Get less corrupt politicians, who are willing to actually work and do what they promised for their election

That's what Roosevelt and Churchill did, and that's how they became insanely popular, reinforcing democracy, and cracking down on the extremes.

[Yorick]

http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway ... onomy.html

The idea that the Nazi economy was a sustainable model or that they were efficient is laughable. The Nazis needed to go to war, just to avoid bankruptcy in the long term. Their entire economic paradigm, chronic backstabbing syndrome (at the upper levels) and anti-innovation mindset (jew science!) spelled doom.

[Nazis in Space]

It boils down to why did the Germans actually vote on Hitler, and why to the eldest of them reminisce about Hitlerian times?
Go back to time at around 1933. Germany was badly beaten by France and the Entente in WW1. It lost all her dependencies overseas, her military was reduced to laughable numbers, and was forced to pay war reparations that she couldn't. On the other hand, the greatest economic downturn ever recorded in human history (The Great Depression) was on the country. The German Mark was worthless, as government tried to print money in order to meet Entente obligations. The Germans wanted to:

• Take revenge on France, and get back their most industrialized region, Alsace-Loitering.
• Get out of the Great Depression
• Have someone to look up to.

This is all complete nonsense, starting with the suggestion that Germany still had to pay reparation in 1933 - that part of Versailles had already been declared null and void in 1932.

There was no significant revanchist movement against France, either - there was immense support for Hitler's 'Peace Forever' public relations campaigns, veterans from both sides were happily mingling and all.

However, 'Alsace-Loitering' is an absolutely hilarious spelling thereof, and I wholly approve of it~

[The Darwinian People]

I am a National Socialist. I do, however, detest Neo-Nazis; who use their own ignorant understanding of National Socialist ideology as an excuse for racism and violence. I will say that I believe National Socialism and Nazism as different entirely; Friedrich Naumann being a national socialist and Hermann Goring and Reinhardt Heydrich being Nazis. I think Neo-Nazis are simple violent racists captivated by Nazi symbolism and style; they care very little for actual National Socialist ideology. Most are not socialists, vegetarians, egalitarians or eugenicists they are simply anti-Semites that believe the holocaust is the realisation of Nazi ideology and therefore the only important doctrine to follow.

Are you from the US or some other Allie country?

Sorry I took so long to reply, and I am from England.

[The Emerald Legion]

I have a question, is it bad that somehow this thread and the disney channel merged in my mind to form an image....


NAZIS!!!... the high school drama.

Where the Nazi popular crowd/hall moniters try to get the jewish nerds club (Of totally rad and unique individuals who are being themselves and not a stereotype at all...) expelled from school. With Hitler as the principle, and the Allies as the token cool kids helping out the nerd club... America as the one rebellious jock, and england as the rich kid, and france as the kid who wavers and joins the nazis but comes back to the good side at the last minute because they were mean.

[Scholencia]

Are you from the US or some other Allie country?

Sorry I took so long to reply, and I am from England.

Double post.

[Scholencia]

Are you from the US or some other Allie country?

Sorry I took so long to reply, and I am from England.

Do you mind all the killed english soldiers in WW2? And you consider yourself to be a patriot?

[The Germania Alliance]

Sorry I took so long to reply, and I am from England.

Do you mind all the killed english soldiers in WW2? And you consider yourself to be a patriot?

Just because he believes in another form of government/economy/ideology doesn't mean he doesn't love his country and/or his troops.

He did say he detested Neo Nazis, so we can assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that he hates the actual Nazi party too.

[Scholencia]

Do you mind all the killed english soldiers in WW2? And you consider yourself to be a patriot?

Just because he believes in another form of government/economy/ideology doesn't mean he doesn't love his country and/or his troops.

He did say he detested Neo Nazis, so we can assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that he hates the actual Nazi party too.

I would not agree with you. If someone is a neonazi that means he admires Hitler conquering of Europe. If the neonazi is from England that means that he agrees with the nazi bombing of britain and killing of english civilians. And despite that he considered himself to be a english nationalists which is for me a paradox. I could understand if a neonazi is from axis countries like Hungary, Romania or Italy but not from USA or Britain.

[SaintB]

As long as people exist some of them will be dickheads. So sayeth the wise one.

[Ootsta]

I would not agree with you. If someone is a neonazi that means he admires Hitler conquering of Europe. If the neonazi is from England that means that he agrees with the nazi bombing of britain and killing of english civilians. And despite that he considered himself to be a english nationalists which is for me a paradox. I could understand if a neonazi is from axis countries like Hungary, Romania or Italy but not from USA or Britain.

I totally disagree. This is like saying Chinese people can't be Communists because of Mao's atrocities, or if you're a Communist that means you admire Stalin conquering Europe and Polish people can't be Communists because that means they agree with the Katyn massacre.

Adolf Hitler was not the only Nazi that existed, there were dozens of other senior Nazi ideologues. In fact, the Strasserist variety of Nazism is very much in vogue with a lot of "Neo-Nazis". The brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser were Nazis in the 1920s and early 1930s, until Hitler had them purged in 1934 because their version of Nazism was so different to his.

Also, Hitler only bombed England because the U.K. had declared war on him first. Hitler had no plans to invade the U.K., in fact he had great respect for the U.K. as fellow Aryans, and admired the British Empire. I'm English, and I think Hitler was right to attack England, because we attacked him first. If we'd stayed out of it, he would never have had any reason to bomb us. Just because I'm English doesn't mean I think England is always right.

[Scholencia]

I totally disagree. This is like saying Chinese people can't be Communists because of Mao's atrocities, or if you're a Communist that means you admire Stalin conquering Europe and Polish people can't be Communists because that means they agree with the Katyn massacre.

Adolf Hitler was not the only Nazi that existed, there were dozens of other senior Nazi ideologues. In fact, the Strasserist variety of Nazism is very much in vogue with a lot of "Neo-Nazis". The brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser were Nazis in the 1920s and early 1930s, until Hitler had them purged in 1934 because their version of Nazism was so different to his.

Also, Hitler only bombed England because the U.K. had declared war on him first. Hitler had no plans to invade the U.K., in fact he had great respect for the U.K. as fellow Aryans, and admired the British Empire. I'm English, and I think Hitler was right to attack England, because we attacked him first. If we'd stayed out of it, he would never have had any reason to bomb us. Just because I'm English doesn't mean I think England is always right.

I tottally disagree with this all. The chinese who was vitcims of maos atrocities were not Chinese as a etnicity or race, it were his ideological foes.what the Poles goes, they considered their communist as traitors just because of katyn and the vassalage toward the USSR.When Hitler attacked Britain he attacked Britain as a state, and the british people only because they are british. Even from the british view from 1940. a british nazi would be considered as a traitor. If you were right than that would mean that there could also jewish nazis exist, which i think they dont.

You are right about different variants of nazis which are not much diferent from the main nazi ideology. gregor strassner had was one of the heading leader of the left-wing nazis.He was the main Nazi for Nord Germany and Berlin. In those regions of germany nationalistic rhetoric was useless and Gregor strassner tried to win votes with the social component of national socialism. i think it is not important for now.

Yes, Hitler had some respect toward the British but when the war broke out he stop consider the english as "fellow aryans". I am glad who see the World War 2 froma more "different angle" but britain had to declare war upon Germany in 1939. Britain in other had should not declare war upon Germany in 1914.

[Drakenwaald]

What about nwo-nazism bring revanchism to mind? They do not seem to be articulating for a renewed Reich.

Some do, some do not. But then again, we have to ask ourselves what sort of Neo-Nazi are we accosting here? Are we analyzing the Neo-Nazi who finds himself committing violence for no reason other than the aforementioned circumstances that were pressed upon them? Or, rather, are we looking into the case of the ideological Neo-Nazis, who would have subscribed to Nazi ideology regardless of the circumstance they found themselves in?

The latter is what I am describing. The latter being people like Anders Breivik, or Don Black, or Harold Covington. Revanchism influences these people in the same way that it influenced the original Nazis. Hitler, for example, wrote an entire chapter in Mein Kampf about the previous glory of the German Empire, that same glory that was ripped apart by the Allies in their treatment of Germany and her provinces succeeding the war, at Versailles. Anders Breivik wrote in his manifesto about the 'previous glory' of Europe, and more important, he used that previous glory as a justification for writing about the 'restored Europe' in his declaration. Which was the basis for his entire ideology;

http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-conte ... ndence.pdf

"If a man of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into Western Europe in the 2000s, he would hardly recognise it as the same country. He would be in immediate danger of getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that he shouldn’t go into certain parts of the city, that his car must not only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep at night without locking the windows and bolting the doors – and setting the electronic security system."

Anders later goes on to blame the 'cultural marxists' for Europe's 'problem' which is more or less defined in the beginning as being 'politically correct'. He goes as early as the 1920s and the Frankfurt School and their theories on economics and claims that they have subverted and overturned 'traditional' European systems.

"..The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat Political Correctness and retake their society from the cultural Marxists?"

Harold Covington also wrote about a similar place, only in America. I take from his website,

http://northwestfront.org/about/dear-white-american/

"Wasn’t it always like this?

No! Things have changed.

First, we have to understand the real problem. The difficulties we face are all symptoms of a single underlying sickness.

Let’s take a look backward fifty years or so. Families were anchored by a husband and wife. The husband earned a living, and the wife made the home worth living in. A high school diploma meant something, and employers were glad to add a new graduate to their payroll. Wages were sufficient for the new family to buy a house and a car and take vacations. Most people avoided debt, except for a mortgage.

Neighborhoods were safer. You could take a walk at night if you wanted. Many people didn’t bother to lock their doors. There was no foul language on radio or television, or in the movies. When someone gave you their word, it could be depended on."

Covington, like Breivik and Hitler, also follows a similar pattern. By blaming society's current problems on a scapegoat, he establishes a sense of nostalgia and a wish for things to return 'as they used to be'. For Hitler, it was the glory of the German Empire, for Covington? 1950s White Conservative Nuclear-family America. For Breivik? The same. But in Europe.

Revanchism applies to these men in the most basic terms, the definition for Revanchism being;

"..a term used since the 1870s to describe a political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement."

We apply this to Breivik, Covington and Hitler. Replace the territorial losses with, perhaps, perceived moral losses, and we have a form of Revanchism that influences those who actually subscribe to Neo-Nazism's ideologies, and are not just swept up in the circumstances brought by their misfortune.

They seem, rather, to be arguing for a new racially pure State. I've never even read any literature articulating a desire for ethnic purity or anything more than coerced racial segregation.

'Coerced racial segregation' is a very interesting word. I would ask you to define the differences between 'coerced racial segregation' and 'ethnic purity'.

What brings you to this conclusion about neo-nazism and, more curiously, southrons?

Southrons specifically are a curious case. Because, make no mistake, many of the Dixie Neo Nazis do use the Confederate States of America as an example for their ideal state, correct or not. And many of them do use their defeat at the hands of the USA as casus belli to hold these beliefs.

The Klu Klux Klan, for example, is very much a Revanchist group, at least in one of its incarnations. For, as much as it is racist, it also wishes for the separation of the territorial South (or CSA), and the restoration of the original lands to the CSA. This fits the original definition in all earnest. Of course it goes without saying that Neo Nazis may be pro-South, but pro-South does not necessarily mean that you are a Neo-Nazi, nor does it mean that Revanchism is a Neo-Nazi ideology. It is however employed by Neo-Nazi ideology as a basis for goals.

[Ootsta]

The latter is what I am describing. The latter being people like Anders Breivik, or Don Black, or Harold Covington.

What's your evidence for Breivik being a Nazi?

[Drakenwaald]

The latter is what I am describing. The latter being people like Anders Breivik, or Don Black, or Harold Covington.

What's your evidence for Breivik being a Nazi?

Before I say anything, I would like to hear where you think Breivik's opinion differed from Nazism. And if there was any difference, if that difference warranted a major split from Nazism enough to become classified as different.

[New Conglomerate]

The latter is what I am describing. The latter being people like Anders Breivik, or Don Black, or Harold Covington.

What's your evidence for Breivik being a Nazi?

He had quotes from some Neo-Nazi organizations in Europe and the US about Islam, but he was mostly just really anti-immigrant.

[Drakenwaald]

What's your evidence for Breivik being a Nazi?

He had quotes from some Neo-Nazi organizations in Europe and the US about Islam, but he was mostly just really anti-immigrant.

That is a sentence made out of ignorance in complete negligence to read his manifesto or any deeper into his ideas. It's like saying that Pol Pot was anti-Laissez Faire.

You forget the part where he lists Economic Liberalists, Traditional Rightists, traditional Church Policy (he thought it was too 'soft' on Islam for its own good) in addition to anti-Colonialist as threats to his ideology.

For reading reference, you can find this in section 1.2 of his manifesto, under, "General Characteristics of European Islamic Negationism". It will be after the first ten points.

EDIT: For reference, here is the PDF file for 'European Declaration of Independence', Breivik's manifesto.

http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-conte ... ndence.pdf

[Spiritwolf]

Take a close look at the current condition of the United States and you will see the nation is ripe for National Socialist or even Communist ideology to take root and grow rapidly. Some may scoff at this suggestion but all must guard against it becoming reality nevertheless. Just ask Czar Nicholas and his family what happens when the little people of a nation get screwed over too much....... The Holocaust happened too and the idea is "Never Again".

[Ootsta]

What's your evidence for Breivik being a Nazi?

Before I say anything, I would like to hear where you think Breivik's opinion differed from Nazism. And if there was any difference, if that difference warranted a major split from Nazism enough to become classified as different.

You're already looking at this in a paradigm that any form of modern Nationalism must necessarily refer back to Nazism. You talk about a "split" from Nazism, as if all Nationalists must necessarily start from Nazism and then "split" from it. Consider the possibility that Breivik was never a Nazi and therefore never had to "split" from it. Breivik is part of the Counter-Jihad movement, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Nazism. Breivik was against Muslim influence in Europe, and allied himself with Jews. Hitler was against Jewish influence in Europe, and allied himself with Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

The onus is not on me to prove that Breivik wasn't a Nazi. You're the one who made the claim.