Nazism vs neo-Nazism

[Dr. No]

How accurately do you think neo-Nazism reflects the actual values and tenets of the historical Nazis?

I rather suspect that had the people calling themselves Nazis today been living in the Third Reich, they would've been promptly thrown into concentration camps.

[Crowley]

They would have had better examples to follow. The German leadership during Hitler's time was fairly tolerant toward its lowbrow streetfighters, so long as they were out in the street kicking commie ass. :D

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Its all part of this manipulation of terms. If anything historic NS was quite pragmatic and very adaptative to changing circumstances. To believe anyone who finds some merit in historical NS has to be day dreaming about Nurenberg marches and flag displays is very simplistic. We live in 2005 not in 1933 and if Hitler would have lived in 2005 he would not have followed the same steps of 1933.

[Vindex]

"YOU COMMIE!, ANTI SCUM! JEW AGENT! 1488!"

That is the reponse I alway got in the past when telling the nsm cult people that samething.lol

Its all part of this manipulation of terms. If anything historic NS was quite pragmatic and very adaptative to changing circumstances. To believe anyone who finds some merit in historical NS has to be day dreaming about Nurenberg marches and flag displays is very simplistic. We live in 2005 not in 1933 and if Hitler would have lived in 2005 he would not have followed the same steps of 1933.

[Uberberserker]

How accurately do you think neo-Nazism reflects the actual values and tenets of the historical Nazis?

I rather suspect that had the people calling themselves Nazis today been living in the Third Reich, they would've been promptly thrown into concentration camps.

Neo-nazism is such a broad and vague term that clearly the answer is that it doesn't in anyway reflect on the Historical National Socialists. For instance I think I once read a SPLC report which declared the late Sam Francis (or maybe it was Sobran, well same difference) was a neo-nazi! LOL! The man was clearly no more then a paleo-conservative and anyone who actually thinks Sam Francis was anything other then that is simply out of touch with Reality.

According to anti-racist types any form of pro-Whiteness or even acknowledgement that Race actually even exists is declared to be neo-nazism! Clearly these types of simplistic (and might I add delusional) views have nothing to do with Historical National Socialism.

Also when it comes to putting neo-nazis into actual National Socialist concentration camps that actually wouldn't be so bad and many neo-nazis would voluntarily go knowing full well that these so-called concentration camps were actually more akin to day-spas equipped with cinemas, swimming pools, hospitals, libraries and post offices.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Auschwitz.htm

[ironweed]

How accurately do you think neo-Nazism reflects the actual values and tenets of the historical Nazis?

What exactly were the "values and tenets" of the historical Nazis? Himmler's neopagan goobledygook? Rosenberg's painfully unreadable babbling? What is set forth in Mein Kampf? The 25 points? Crass opportunism to steal with both hands like Goering? A personality cult centered around Hitler? (As in the Goebbels diaries, or embodied by the oath of 1934 required of the armed forces). An extreme form of German nationalism, given Hitler's remarks about how National Socialism was not for export? Heck, you could even make a case for a Technocracy, as with people like Speer, or a something akin to theoretical fascism, as with the Strasser brothers. And god knows where you'd put someone like Bormann.

I rather suspect that had the people calling themselves Nazis today been living in the Third Reich, they would've been promptly thrown into concentration camps.

I don't think so, at least not most of them. Certainly I can't think of any of them that would have ever risen to prominence, then or now. But assuming they were around at the beer hall putsch they'd probably have been pushed aside by the smarter and more politically astute Speer or Heydrich types, given a small pension and trotted out once a year or so for some sort of old soldier march. Heck, even the rank and file of the SA was untouched when Roehm got his, and I'm thinking that that group probably comes the closest to the "neo-Nazis" of today. Assuming they were younger than that they'd have probably found themselves as foot soldiers sent off to die as cannon fodder.

[Dr. No]

What exactly were the "values and tenets" of the historical Nazis? Himmler's neopagan goobledygook? Rosenberg's painfully unreadable babbling? What is set forth in Mein Kampf? The 25 points? Crass opportunism to steal with both hands like Goering? A personality cult centered around Hitler? (As in the Goebbels diaries, or embodied by the oath of 1934 required of the armed forces). An extreme form of German nationalism, given Hitler's remarks about how National Socialism was not for export? Heck, you could even make a case for a Technocracy, as with people like Speer, or a something akin to theoretical fascism, as with the Strasser brothers. And god knows where you'd put someone like Bormann.

Your point seems to be that it's difficult to do a comparison, since it's difficult to define what Nazism was.

That's a good point.

[Dr. No]

Neo-nazism is such a broad and vague term that clearly the answer is that it doesn't in anyway reflect on the Historical National Socialists. For instance I think I once read a SPLC report which declared the late Sam Francis (or maybe it was Sobran, well same difference) was a neo-nazi!

To the best of my knowledge, groups like the SPLC have never attempted to define the word "neo-Nazi." They just use it as a smear term intended to put their opponents on the defensive and to trigger a conditioned emotional response in their target audience. The way they use it, one can infer that it is supposed to be synonymous with "evil," but calling someone "evil" is a moral judgement, not a definition.

Despite the SPLC's abuse of the term, I still think "neo-Nazi" is useful to have in one's vocabulary. There really are people out there who are best described as "neo-Nazis." I've tried to define the word here:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=15000&postcount=37

[RikuDrak]

It is a point that it's difficult to say exactly what historical Nazism is. Most information (at least that I've heard) about historical Nazis is only outraged witnesses and distraught people's seemingly symbolic account their "evil." I don't think I've ever seen a source that just put down historical Nazism in any type of defition based on what the ideology is supposed to be about.

I will say though, that Dr. No's linked post on a definition of Neo-Nazism is a fair one, and one I consider to be a definition of a Neo-Nazi.

I find it hard to believe that historical Nazism would resemble Neo-Nazism. Historical Nazism would have to be thought out to at least a little bit of a circular extent in order to actually have a government run on it. Neo-Nazism seems very incomplete and lacking in several areas in which a government nation would need to run. I've always thought of Neo-Nazism to be more of a reason to feel accepted in a violent or ignorant crowd who would rather blame various events that go wrong onto one group instead of logically trying to flatten out and find the source of a problem.

And I think the whole "white race" idea is a half-thought that only works in the United States. If you take, for example, Europe. There is not "one white race" because skin colour is never an accurate analysis of race. So their racial ideas lack any foundation other than the United States can no longer distginguish the origins of their European races (or if they come from elsewhere) and thus overlook a lot of details.

[Eisenhans]

I do agree-albeit if we were living in the 1930's, yes we would have been thrown into a concentration camp, but if the 3rd Reich were NOW, what we know as neo-nazism would be what we would see instead of the nazism from 1933.