4th Reich On The Rise In Europe?

One more point, re. Alexa and Grau's discussion: there is a huge difference between 'history' as written by professional historians, even the professional historians of the 'victor' sides, on the one hand, and 'history' as taught in schools and popularized on television and movies, on the other. The latter is almost always "victor's history" -- good guys (us) vs bad guys (them), with the latter de-humanized.

In the last couple of decades Hollywood has moved away, somewhat, from this sort of portrayal -- think of (conservative) Clint Eastwood's two movies about Iwo Jima, one from the American point of view, the other from the Japanese. But this is still an exception.

However, professional historians, mainly academics, are much better. There are certainly controversies among them -- if you're interested in the se issues with respect to Germany's war guilt you want to learn about the historikerstreit among German historians.

 

So what you saying. You believe the Nazs were really the good souls they tried to present at the Olympics.

 

Holy Roman Empire. Then you had the German Empire, followed by the 3rd Realm under Hitler. Post unification is the German Realm (4th Reich) though they tend to stick with Federal Republic of Germany to avoid WW2 connentations.

 

Post world war II Germany is no fourth Reich, more like a European Union vassal state pawn that has no national independence whatsoever.

 

People do speak about that. That may be a symptom of why people were psychological vulnerable for what happened but it does not change what happened.

Here's the thing Grau, your perception of adults in Germany in the 70's goes along with what the German I spent time with said and what many others in Germany said as this woman in the Guardian


My family has a Nazi past. I see that ideology returning across Europe

I am not sure what you are saying here. Do you want to explain to me why it was a beneficial to the German's to treat the Jews, Roma, Gays, Jehovah witnesses and those with alternative political view, for instance those who were social democrats the way they did. Possibly we should be encouraging this against the Palestinians.

The 1930's were similar to today. In such a time we find people who normally would tolerate liberal society looking for the strong leader they can follow - someone they will be prepared to let go of all the accepted norms of society for. We find such people rising today. I see nothing 'righteous' about it. You may feel you want to live in a society with only white people, having people as your slaves, disposing of those who you believe are beneath you but I do not see anything 'righteous' in it.

Sorry Grau there is too much which is known past dispute for me to have any sympathy for supporting what the Nazis did or those who support them and want to rewrite them as the goodies.

 

The anti fascism of both the left and right has everything to do with their classical liberalism upbringing in ideology but once you're a skeptic and critic of classical liberalism along with everything that descended from it historically fascism becomes the only third position available especially against the onslaught of communism.

Most are peculiarly interested in how an American becomes a fascist, well it's quite easily really when you grow up in a nation disillusioned with democracy, voting, so called human rights, radical individualism, multi party elections, and a so called free society.

Once you pull off the delusional thin veneer or pretense of all those things unmasking them becoming a fascist in reaction just seems appropriate and a natural response.

I do however appreciate your intellectual honesty despite us having differing irreconcilable political points of view.

 

As for the economic system of national socialist Germany one of my favorite new terms and one I would use to describe its economic system is that of social- capitalism in a political environment where democracy becomes nullified or void.

It was indeed a capitalist system but was regulated by the state and where social methods of distribution was created so that citizens could enjoy the benefits of capitalism on a more fair economic playing field of all inhabitants.

This is why the Third Reich had enormous support of the German working class.

Indeed the crony capitalism and equally crony social democracy of Weimar Germany which ultimately Hitler rise to power from reminds me of the present day United States. It is almost like an identical atmosphere.

 

No.

 

First, I'd like to explain the following:

My point was that it was not beneficial for Germany to persecute the Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays Jews etc but too many people are under the simplistic impression that minority persecution was Germany's sole means to economic recovery. If anything, persecution of minorities is an impediment to prosperity

Secondly:

I can't think of anything I've said that would lead you to believe I wanted to live in an all White society or having slaves.
I moved to, worked, and lived for 20 years in what was originally an all Black neighborhood. Because I treated my neighbors with generosity, kindness & respect, I had no trouble getting along with people of all backgrounds.

Finally, most people are unaware that only 5% - 10% of the German population were Nazis so I also don't know why you would think I would support or sympathize with Nazism simply because I believe the official victor's narrative is bias, incomplete & in some cases, fraudulent.
I can barely imagine what the official historical narrative would be if the Allies lost WW2.
Without going into further detail, I simply don't believe that any race, nationality, religious or ethnic group has a monopoly on either good or evil.
Thanks & I hope you have an enjoyable weekend

 

Fascism was overtly anti monarchy. Boldly and overtly. It's not a continuation of the monarchy. It is a total and absolute rejection of it.
I'm pro, it's anti.

Explicitly anti aristocracy. In their manifesto to break it's power. Hitler constantly rails against them.
No bones about it.
No middle ground.
No conservatism there. Only progressives.

How you come up with this nonsense. I'll never know.
It's not from your studies.

 

Under different circumstances, which I believe are very unlikely to occur, we would be in each other's front blade sights. But now it's in our mutual interest to have a serious argument.

There are other fascists who take part in this forum, but they are usually very coy about their beliefs. Intellectual cowards, without, given the anonymity of these boards, the excuse that the American Communists I encountered in the late 50s had for hiding their beliefs and pretending to be 'progressives'.

Anyway, here's where 'fascism' goes wrong:

1. Some fascists want a racially-pure society. This is not logically part of fascism: you can in theory be a strong nationalist while still tolerating minority groups in your country -- Mussolini was an example. In fact, you can make a good argument that it's the growth of democracy in the last two centuries that has been responsible for the growth of nationalism, which is in tension, if not logically incompatible, with the idea of a multi-tribal society. The old monarchical empires were almost by necessity multi-tribal, because they had conquered a lot of tribes and wanted them to pay taxes, serve in the army, etc. The Austro-Hungarian empire is a case in point, as were the Romans, and the Persians.. But let the unwashed masses get involved in determining state policy .... and add to that the growth of serious immigration in the 20th century ... and you've got World On Fire, to quote Amy Chua's perceptive book.

Note that successful multi-tribal societies, like Singapore, always have one tribe in the dominant position, with its rule unchallenged. You are perfectly safe as a minority tribe in Singapore -- more than safe, in fact. But the Chinese run things and that's the way it's going to be. Muslims in Singapore (the Malays) live well, despite the Chinese outshining them in academic and economic achievements. But no Muslim, or so I was told there, ever gets promoted above the rank of captain in the Singapore military. The Chinese are not stupid people.

The idea of achieving racial purity in the US is, whatever the theoretical merits of the proposed outcome, impossible to achieve in practice. Peoples can separate without bloodshed: the Norwegians from the Swedes, the Czechs from the Slovaks. But in these cases, the peoples tended to each have their own geographic area. Where peoples are interpenetrated -- X's living in this village and five miles away Y's live, and then more X's ... with the cities being mixes -- then you get Yugoslavia and disintegration, massacres, etc.

You can do it without too much dislocation in some places: Cyprus is an example, where the Greek nationalists who wanted to unite their island (20% Turk) with mainland Greece ended up provoking Turkish intervention and ethnic separation. But to separate whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in the US would require forced relocation of tens of millions, and oceans of blood ... it would mean the collapse of the US as a military and economic power ...any grandchildren of the survivors of such a catastrophe would be speaking Mandarin.

I suppose people who propose such a thing are actually disguising their hope of a single state in the same geography emerging from the civil war, but one where the whites have exterminated the rest.

2. Fascists don't like liberal democracy. They want one-man rule. This is always a temptation, but .... how is the succession to be managed? This was the justification of monarchy -- no fighting over who rules when the current ruler dies. But even if your current ruler is able, genes are not THAT powerful so that his descendants are guaranteed to be.

Plus: often a ruler who is smart enough to get into power, or a group which exercises power, is actually not very smart in doing other things. The Japanese Army exercised great power in pre-war Japan. Oppose their expansionist plans, and they would assassinate you -- Admiral Yamamoto supposedly even had to have a bodyguard before the war, because he, as a worldly Navy man, knew the insanity of backward Japan attacking the world's greatest economic power. But the Army only had experiences of victory in China. Too bad. And Hitler ... another time we should debate this man's military-strategic vision, which was zero. But his crazyness couldn't be opposed. At least in a democracy someone can get up in Parliament or Congress and sound a warning.

It's surprising to see an intelligent fascist claiming that Hitler was just defending himself from the aggression of Britain and France, but I suppose that's really tongue-in-cheek.

The other thing about one-man rule, as we see in the Third World, is that it is very hard to avoid corruption. The Nazis didn't rule Germany long enough for this to really take hold, but if they had, we would have seen it there on a massive scale. Instead, we had the Wirtschaftwunder.

3. Fascists tend, in practice, to mis-understand society. Again, it's not necessarily, in theory, part of fascism to do this, but many fascists -- I suppose, due to the necessity of apologizing for Hitler -- in practice swallow conspiracy theories whole. We've argued about the Jews and their role in world history before, so I won't go on about it. It's worth a separate thread. But it's a view that I have always found ridiculous, given the huge political dissension among this people, and the fact their successes are obviously mainly due to their intellectual superiority over the other tribes -- not something most of them, or most people, want to acknowledge in these egalitarian times.

Anyway, there we are. By the way, the level of argument on this thread seems to have taken a dive.

 

Agreed with all of your checks but this does not make Hillary just like Hitler ... that is preposterous fallacy.

On the other side of the coin

Trump a puppet of Big business - Check
Trump an opportunist - Check
Trump has no ideology or principles ? > (this is not a check for either Hillary or Trump)

No loyalty to anything but gaining power (Check for both).

 

If it is a fallacy, it is Alex's, not mine. In fact, that was the point of my post. These features are common to all politicians.

Right. They are politicians.

 

Against the old establishment of monarchy perhaps yes but entirely against monarchy altogether, no.

The reason that neo liberalism flourished overruling monarchy was because the monarch themselves became too decadent and corrupt impoverishing a majority of the population just as the corporate executives are doing the same thing now in so called modern western democracies or republics.

I have no doubt however that if the Third Reich or Mussolini's fascism survived unto our present we would see their sons and their sons thereafter being in control of things hereditarily just as Kim Jong-un of North Korea took over the reigns of power after the death of his father.

They both wanted to create empires or dynasties lasting two hundred years into the future and like any empire there are absolute rulers. This is why you see elements of both paying homage to the traditional aspects of the Roman empire in terms of symbols, political conceptual words, or architectural aesthetics in appearance. Adolf Hitler wanted to transform Berlin into a sort of new Rome.

Destroy the old establishment of monarchy? Absolutely. Destroy monarchy altogether, no.

I honestly don't know how you guys can see a difference between an Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, or a Julius Caesar.

With the aristocracy once again, destroy the old establishment of aristocracy not aristocracy itself. In fact in a fascist state the inner bureaucracy of the party would become the new aristocracy, a sort of state controlled corporate aristocracy.

 

Agreed ... The argument the other poster was making was fallacious nonsense.

We could however extend the list to include things that were more specific to Adolf's nature ( or the nature of authoritarian dictators in general) and see where that comparison would lead.

 

At the moment you libertarians and political conservatives are the majority where I wouldn't seek conflict with you guys anyways as we are the minority for the time being anyways.

As I was jokingly saying earlier it would be best if we separated going our own separate ways having our own independent territories should the United States split a part fragmenting into several territories something of which I believe is a very real possibility.

It should comfort you to know that I am voting republican this year not because I like you republicans by any means but because if there is anything I hate more than republicans is democrats. I'd rather have the nation economically, politically, and socially collapse on your guy's watch rather than theirs.

Our interests do align on certain things mainly social and cultural issues.

Our differences of belief revolves around the balance of political power and economics. This is where the bulk of conflict arrives between us.

Just so you know under a possible civil war we would temporarily side with you against the democrats before steering towards our own agenda of creating our own state. Of course I would understand if we're not exactly your ideal of an ally you would like to have nonetheless we have a common greater enemy which puts us both in a very awkward position despite not liking each other having some mutual interests. We can always fight each other afterwards when our mutual greater enemy is neutralized, so there's always that possibility also.

Is the enemy of my greater enemy a possible suitable temporary political ally? Time will tell.

1. You're right, Mussolini's fascism wasn't particularly racially exclusive however I doubt that Mussolini would promote or approve of today's global foreign immigration practices.

Undoubtedly race and ethnicity is an important to me which is why I support an ethnic based nationalism. For me the United States is inevitably going to split a part racially, ethnically, politically, and so on eventually even if this isn't obvious to everybody else presently.

Such a splitting a part of a nation ethnically or racially doesn't necessarily have to mean the extermination of all other races and a total race war. I've flirted with some ideas where everybody can reach a mutual independent separation for themselves being that geographically the United States is a very large nation encompassing a lot of territory, but of course the smaller a nation is the more problematic things become making peaceful or minimal conflict separation more untenable.

2. My idea of fascism is sort of fascist monarchical infusion where hereditary political inheritance is practiced. It once worked for thousands of years and can work again.

Another idea not exactly my favorite one is where prominent leaders of a nation vote for a dictatorial president for life. Of course absolute rule would be the same where there would be no senate, congress, or differing political parties but instead only the singular party of the nation. Just like under previous past years of monarchy where if a monarch became too unstable or corrupt there is a political coup in which they're disposed of for another one. The difference of course is that the ruler is overruled not the system itself.

3. I wouldn't say we misunderstand society, we just have a different view of society in how it should be ruled, exist, and be intervened upon.

Are you saying conspiracy theories aren't real? You know all political factions have all different kinds of conspiratorial views about each other, right? The democrats certainly have their own conspiratorial views on the republicans for instance.

 

And how is American leftism ultra-nationalistic? Aren't we all globalists who spit on the flag that we walk over at the entrance to our Communist Hall meetings? How are we authoritarian? Don't we all have orgies after the meeting? How does our being such degenerates support the "strong regimentation of society"? ( /satire)

China's form of government right now is what ever the old Chinese form that obtained until 1912 was but without the royalty. I think the actual name was Legalism, but it had strong Confucian moderations. North Korea is the last remaining outpost of Stalinism and is more an absolutist monarchy than anything else complete with hereditary leaders who are worshiped. Like Stalinism, it is socialistic only in the broadest sense imaginable.

 

Post unification, not post WW2 and Germany runs the EU.

 

Are you conflating Naziism with Fascism? I contend that is a mistake.

The first characteristic of Naziism is that it is racist; first, last and foremost that is what Naziism is all about. A lot of the things the Nazis did don't make any sense otherwise and that view is explicitly stated several times in Mein Kampf. Hitler believed that all nations are determined by their racial makeup and that the Germans were the Master Race of the entire world. Other nations were good for annihilation, like the Jews, as slaves, like the Slavs and Chinese, or as Co-existents like the "Yamato Race" of the Japanese. People exist mainly as members of their races, not as individuals and all the races are in constant conflict, though that conflict may not be overt.

Naziism frequently makes claims to be Fascist and one can say that Naziism is a type of Fascism as long as the ultra-nationalism that makes you Fascist is completely race-based.

Fascism itself did exist in a fairly benign form in Spain and Portugal into the 70's. I do not believe that their form of Fascism was race based..

 

Actually, if you think about it, what von Clausewitz wants is this:

A single-party state.

Capitalism -- most industry run by private interests, responding to the market -- but heavily supervised by the state, to make sure the non-capitalists share in the prosperity that capitalism generates.

A single race which dominates that state. Except for his view of the Jews, he doesn't seem particularly genocidal towards other races -- he just wants not to share power with them. (Interestingly, in the two times I have had extended encounters with other people whose views are similar to his, both of them seemed exclusively angry towards the Jews. One fellow was a lawyer living in LA, who had Black friends; the other was a French woman I met at a conference in New York where we were both speakers: she was utterly unconcerned about Muslim immigration to France -- her focus was the Jews. But this is a small sample size.)

Although we haven't got into this area, I would expect he would support a strong American military, which frankly puts American interests first and doesn't pretend to be spreading the American dominant ideology to other countries.

Now, when you think about it -- if you ignore the superficials -- this is a perfect description of the current Chinese state. (They pay lip-service to their national minorities - a small proportion of the population there -- as witness the 'five small stars' on the Chinese flag -- but those minorities had better not show any resistance to the Han majority.)

This goal -- a single party state administering capitalism -- complements the desire of the Far Right for a racial civil war: it's just a reflection of the far Left's infatuation with Identity Politics, seeking to open up society's fracture lines. So Far Right and Far Left share a surprising similarity of both ends, and means.

What's wrong -- not morally wrong, that's a different question -- is this: society, even when consisting of a single race, is not homogeneous. Yes, there are capitalists and workers, but also a whole spectrum of the 'middle class'; workers themselves have conflicts within their ranks, as do capitalists; geographic regions do not have entirely the same interests; nor do the sexes; nor even the generations. AND ... we're all evolving socially, due to rapid technical/economic change, which is also undermining national borders. The fascist/communist vision of the unitary society where everyone's interests are compatible is just false to fact. Even within the relatively homogeneous confines of the Nazi Party there were serious conflicts of interest, which were resolved by lethal violence.

In a one-party state, these inevitable conflicts get suppressed, and groups press for their interests surreptitiously -- thus the inevitable corruption. In a democratic state, we have -- very imperfect!!! -- methods of trying to resolve these conflicts -- every group can get some of what it wants, with their goals being expressed through competing political parties and factions within those parties. It's far from perfect: groups with lots of money, or which can mobilize large numbers of 'foot-soldiers' during elections, or which have outsized influence in our cultural apparatus -- can achieve goals which their numbers alone might not get them. And the imperfect apparatus of government can give accidental victories, sometimes, to some groups.

It was one of the great 'Austrian' economists who noted that sincere idealistic Socialists always believe their system will be run by people like themselves: selfless, devoted to the common good. But that never happens. Self-interest eventually dominates. Engineering a society which assumes human perfection is like designing an airplane with only one set of control-cables (the big jets have five independent ones), where nothing will ever go wrong. Nature isn't like that and neither are people.

Democratic capitalism is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. Its saving grace is the ability of every group to articulate its grievances out loud, and the voting system allows even the inarticulate to show their strength from time to time: thus Brexit, and Trump.

This imperfect system has brought the US and Europe to the leadership of humanity over the last two centuries. Now our species is on the cusp of a great leap forward: discoveries in genetics, which are only just beginning, are going to transform us. Capitalism is pulling the world out of poverty, changing the backward countries irreversibly. Other, currently unpredictable, advances in science and technology -- fusion power? Artificial Intelligence? -- will also drag us forward.

The system needs perfecting, even radical improvements, not a leap into the darkness of either fascism or communism, both of which proved their inadequacy in the last century.

 

Modern Germany is a pawn, the real power brokers are the banks and NATO which the United States for all intents or purposes owns.

 

When people look at my beliefs, ideology, or perception of national socialism they shouldn't think it is entirely identical to the Third Reich of Germany, how could it be when the Third Reich was destroyed in Germany? I view myself as a modern day reformist with my own set of ideas or beliefs for a new vision of national socialism in that I take some of its old ideas mixing it with new ideas creating my own brand or version of it. So of course many of my ideas or beliefs won't be one hundred percent identical to national socialist Germany and I have no intention of recreating it in the same manner anyways.

I don't like the word racist or racism because it invokes negative connotations, instead I like to describe myself as an ethnic or racial preservationist and protectionist.

I don't believe in a master race or racial supremacy despite what leftists might say of my beliefs calling it white supremacy which is just ridiculous. I don't seek supremacy over anybody, if anything I am a race realist and in some ways a race relativist. I don't hate any particular race of people where I believe every race has the right to determine its own fate independently of others. I don't believe in the domination of others but what I do believe is the right for Europeans and European identity to exist free from all others. I don't believe in slavery and find the practice of slavery morally abhorrent. Slavs I'm fine with and I include them as being European peoples. I very much like Slavs, Eastern Europeans, and Russians. I don't want conflict with other races of people, I just want my race to be left alone and have independence within our own sovereign separate state. I am very ultra nationalistic in that I believe in a racial and ethnic form of nationalism. For me nationalism cannot exist without race or ethnicity as both are paramount to it. Of course German national socialism was for Germans but my variation of national socialism is pan- European. This works out in European colonial nations, I'm not exactly sure if that is compatible or incompatible concerning national socialists of modern day continental Europe however.

There's probably only one race of people I despise and that is Jews but that is a conversation for another time not to detract from the current subject of this thread.

 

Yes, I'm very much a one party enthusiast and view multiple political parties as chaotic, inefficient, polarizing, and disruptive to society.

Yes, I firmly do believe in a regulatory state supervised variant of capitalism but more importantly I believe in social capitalism meaning a capitalism where there is equal opportunity for all which I believe is completely lacking in the west now with its crony capitalism. Another difference also is that I believe in universal healthcare and education which I believe the state should provide for all its citizens.

In order to understand what I mean when I say social capitalism I mean something like Rhine Capitalism or Welfare Capitalism since public welfare is a very important belief of mine and no, it doesn't mean everybody getting everything for free either. In order to enjoy the safety net of public welfare people must labor, participate, and work.

I'm a racial and ethnic separatist also, I imagine when the United States splits a part on ideological, political, racial, or ethnic grounds all races including nonwhites will gravitate towards this naturally. Imagine also my state bordering other sovereign independent territories of other races and ethnicities. One of my ideas is independent sovereign states for African Americans, native Americans, Asians, Mexicans, and Latin Americans where each one of those groups have their own independent governments to manage in self ruling themselves. I imagine all the states of the United States being divided this way where mine would be called something like,"The European American Federation or Coalition."

In this theoretical idea of mine as hostilities diminish overtime there is no reason why these separate differing independent ethnic or racial entities can't be friendly towards each other concerning trade, commerce, cooperation, and diplomacy. Naturally under such a scenario it would take some time for friendly relations to be established because I don't believe the initial territorial separations will be entirely peaceful ones. There undoubtedly will be anger, rage, and negative reactions initially but for the long run of history I believe everybody will be better off overall ruling themselves.

I very much believe in a strong military but it would be entirely for defensive purposes in that once again I don't believe in world domination or international imperialism. I believe in national empire of course but it is detrimental to any nation over expanding itself around the world. I'm an isolationist and protectionist which means military is specifically for defense only.

No quite the opposite, I'm a firm believer in homogeneity, pan- European homogeneity.

For me democratic crony capitalism is coming to end where it will destroy itself, I obviously don't share your enthusiasm for it.

 

That man from Luxembourg is still no match with Alexander Gauland.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/10/...echoing-hitler-in-attack-on-globalized-class/

If the fourth Reich will emerge the Muslims will take the role of the Jews before during the third Reich.

 

You are not speaking of anything new. You are simply speaking of reformist nazism as expressed at Stormfront.