[Beren]

Why don't American Neo-Nazis understand fascism?

Because the American mindset is inherently liberal, so thus it necessarily contradicts Fascism.

[Rich]

Because the American mindset is inherently liberal, so thus it necessarily contradicts Fascism.

The early Americans were Nazis. They exterminated the Native Americans enslaved the Africans and bullied and dominated their neighbours: Mexico, Hawaii, Philippines etc. They modelled themselves on those earlier Nazis, the Ancient Israel who exterminated the Canaanites and enslaved foreigners. The United States is the greatest piece of real estate in the world. A bare acquaintance with geography is enough to realise that Russian and Australia just don't cut it as alternatives. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the British, American, French, Belgian and Dutch jack boots had ground themselves into the faces of much of the world population. They held huge estates. They were naturally fairly content with the status quo. America came to support free trade as Britain had done when it was industrially dominant. It was natural that they wear the mask of moderation and reasonableness. Property rights are attractive when you own a giant estate. Given their situation it is also hardly surprising that they weren't subject to radical plebeian takeovers as Germany and Italy were. There was just no reason for the mass of Conservatives to want to put power into the hands of energetic plebeians as happened in fascist countries.

[Beren]

The early Americans were Nazis. They exterminated the Native Americans enslaved the Africans and bullied and dominated their neighbours: Mexico, Hawaii, Philippines etc. They modelled themselves on those earlier Nazis, the Ancient Israel who exterminated the Canaanites and enslaved foreigners.

You're mistaking imperial and expansionist behaviour for Nazism, which is false.

[Potemkin]

It should also be pointed out that there is a radical political difference between America before the Revolution and America after the Revolution. The founding moment of the US as a nation was a liberal revolution. Liberalism (in its classical 18th century rationalistic guise) is in the DNA of America as a nation. Before the Revolution, the political order was imperialist and illiberal. And it should be borne in mind that expansionism and liberalism are not incompatible; after all, liberalism has aspirations to being a universalist system. Even now, it imposes itself on the world through force, as we have recently witnessed in Libya, among other places.

[Rich]

Nazi values were the norms in Ancient times. Defeat your neighbours, enslave what you can, genocide the rest. Total human sacrifice, where all the women children, babies and Animals were sacrificed to their God as described in the Bible was rare. Aristocratic dominated empires tended to be much less genocidal than plebeian city states. Plebs often want land like the early Americans. Aristocrats are normally happy to exploit everyone they conquer. Because European society had been dominated by Aristocrats for over a thousand years the plebian Nazis seemed rather shocking. The early Nazi anti Jewish laws were really treating Jews no worse than America treated its Blacks. Ethnic European Conservatism has long been very split on the question of the Jews, whether to accept them as honorary White Christians or not.

The Jewish holocaust was actually a sign of respect for the Jews by the Nazis.The Nazis knew there was no chance of keeping Jews down the way America and other ethnic European States kept Blacks down. They knew that any Jew who escaped would be a potential powerful enemy seeking vengeance against them. Although long term the Nazis planned to genocide the Ukrainians for example. There was no rush, no urgency. The Nazis didn't respect the Ukrainians in the same way. The Nazis took the common, at the time social Darwinian outlook, that their was a biological competition between peoples. From such a perspective, it was quite clear that the Jews were the master race. That they were more intelligent than other nations/ peoples/ races. that they would inevitably dominate everyone else unless they were exterminated. What the Nazis were very muddled about was whether they wanted the other non Jewish nations to sit down with them, hold hands and sing Kumbai ah together. This contradiction was at its most farcical when Himmler recruited Bosnian Muslims into the pure Aryan SS. This has led to much whining since by Nazi lovers that we British were too rough with them and didn't fight with the Nazis by lawn tennis rules.

[Rich]

It should also be pointed out that there is a radical political difference between America before the Revolution and America after the Revolution. The founding moment of the US as a nation was a liberal revolution. Liberalism (in its classical 18th century rationalistic guise) is in the DNA of America as a nation. Before the Revolution, the political order was imperialist and illiberal.

Let's not confuse form with content? The nature of America is due to geography and sociology. I don't notice any greater class boundness or deference in Australia despite its lack of a revolution. The great revolutions in the Anglo Sphere were under Henry II, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth, the English civil war period and William of Orange. In the American rebellion America inherited Britain's self image.

Henry II is particularly noteworthy because its important to recognise that liberalism is a development from European monarchical absolutism. That's why Germany was such a mess in the first half of the twentieth century, because they never had a monarchical absolutist state in Germany (at the appropriate time).

The real reason the Jews have been the most successful nation in history by a mile is that they had a monarchical absolutist nation state, two thousand years before Portugal.

[Beren]

And it should be borne in mind that expansionism and liberalism are not incompatible; after all, liberalism has aspirations to being a universalist system.

And they don't keep it secret at all.

The Liberal International Constitution (2005) gives its purposes as

"to win general acceptance of Liberal principles which are international in their nature throughout the world, and to foster the growth of a free society based on personal liberty, personal responsibility and social justice, and to provide the means of co-operation and interchange of information between the member organisations, and between men and women of all countries who accept these principles."

However, in my opinion all ideologies and all forms of life work like that.

[starman2003]

You're mistaking imperial and expansionist behaviour for Nazism, which is false.

Of course. Americans have generally always been individualistic and anti-statist, in sharp contrast to any real fascism.

Nazi values were the norms in ancient times.

Many Greeks were individualistic and Athens had some semblance of democracy, as did Rome. In fact Caesar was killed because he flouted the republic too openly. As for racism, the Roman Empire accepted all kinds of foreigners or provincials.

[Benjamin Noyles]

You're mistaking imperial and expansionist behaviour for Nazism, which is false.

Of course. Americans have generally always been individualistic and anti-statist, in sharp contrast to any real fascism.

Many Greeks were individualistic and Athens had some semblance of democracy, as did Rome. In fact Caesar was killed because he flouted the republic too openly. As for racism, the Roman Empire accepted all kinds of foreigners or provincials.

Because the American mindset is inherently liberal, so thus it necessarily contradicts Fascism.

It should also be pointed out that there is a radical political difference between America before the Revolution and America after the Revolution. The founding moment of the US as a nation was a liberal revolution. Liberalism (in its classical 18th century rationalistic guise) is in the DNA of America as a nation. Before the Revolution, the political order was imperialist and illiberal. And it should be borne in mind that expansionism and liberalism are not incompatible; after all, liberalism has aspirations to being a universalist system. Even now, it imposes itself on the world through force, as we have recently witnessed in Libya, among other places.

You know what I am not seeinag any of? Examples to back up all this argumentation. eg
Americans are individualistic therefore an american nazi is not a nazi.
This circular 'no black swan' fallacy is not backed up by any examples to the effect that actually shows american nazis are not nazis or even that america was/is any less racial and authoritarian than anywhere else.

[Beren]

This circular 'no black swan' fallacy is not backed up by any examples to the effect that actually shows american nazis are not nazis or even that america was/is any less racial and authoritarian than anywhere else.

Do you know anything about Central or Southern Europe, or Japan?

[Daktoria]

You know what I am not seeinag any of? Examples to back up all this argumentation. eg
Americans are individualistic therefore an american nazi is not a nazi.
This circular 'no black swan' fallacy is not backed up by any examples to the effect that actually shows american nazis are not nazis or even that america was/is any less racial and authoritarian than anywhere else.

Collectivism and authoritarianism aren't the same thing.

It's hard to be a national socialist when progressives are in power. Advocating strong government only gets you multicultural justice.

Are you saying "state rights" advocates can be authoritarian too?

[Benjamin Noyles]

Do you know anything about Central or Southern Europe, or Japan?

I dunno, you tell me seeming as you are the expert.

Collectivism and authoritarianism aren't the same thing.

Collectivism without hierachy and social structure is a new one on me.

It's hard to be a national socialist when progressives are in power. Advocating strong government only gets you multicultural justice.

See the Section of mein kampf quoted earlier in the thread.

Are you saying "state rights" advocates can be authoritarian too?

yes, it is shocking, but that is the idea - why do you think states rights is a big issue in texas, the south, arizona, and not in new york, illinois, or california? In the Turner Diaries nazis take over state power in california and proceed to exterminate and expell all non whites - as it goes that is quite authoritarian don't you agree? The fact that most secessionists are craven cowards who dont' dare make public their real views and wishes and play lip service to freedom and consitiutionalism doesn't mean they don't actually have a hidden agenda.

[Daktoria]

Collectivism without hierachy and social structure is a new one on me.

No, no, no. The other way.

Hierarchs don't have to be collectivist. They can be selfish jerks which is exactly what's happened in the redneck south. You see lots of authoritarian, abusive, and dysfunctional households who only teach their kids obedience, not discipline.

The implication is a society where people don't coalesce because from the very beginning, children are taught to be paranoid.

See the Section of mein kampf quoted earlier in the thread.

I don't really buy the argument applying to today's America. The government has a well defined structure in advocating feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism in addition to redistributive justice. Progressive government isn't just about economics. It's about social engineering as well. I suppose you would compare them to the second group described too, but they don't care if the economy stagnates as long as equality propagates.

Literally, they've mastered the culture of compromise. Politicians are those who can bring others together. Now, they've literally made the theme and structure of their careers one and the same.

yes, it is shocking, but that is the idea - why do you think states rights is a big issue in texas, the south, arizona, and not in new york, illinois, or california? In the Turner Diaries nazis take over state power in california and proceed to exterminate and expell all non whites - as it goes that is quite authoritarian don't you agree? The fact that most secessionists are craven cowards who dont' dare make public their real views and wishes and play lip service to freedom and consitiutionalism doesn't mean they don't actually have a hidden agenda.

It's a big issue in the south because the south is unsophisticated. Literally, abolitionism, progressivism, and affirmative activism all came from the source of the triangular slave trade - New England merchant bankers. If it wasn't for the north getting the south addicted to slavery, race would have never been an issue.

Instead, southern culture was disintegrated, and they never established the sophistication required to be active on the federal level. State rights are what the south needs in order to retain political activity at the level they can handle.

[The Immortal Goon]

Fascism and American fascism are both class related issues. It's the cry of the victimized petite bourgeouis, getting crushed between an unstoppable force pushing against an inpentatrable wall. The form this takes depends on the superstructure in question, though the relation with the base is consistent.

You can find parallels; Hitler opposed a current liberal order he saw penetrating Germany from the outside. George Wallace opposed the same thing. The Nazis relied on crude nationalism resting on an idealized past, so does the KKK.

But these are aesthetic similarities. We should look at the relation of the movement to actual material things instead of whatever imaginary boogeyman and idealized solution is proposed.

[Beren]

I dunno, you tell me seeming as you are the expert.

As for Central Europe I'm somewhat an expert for sure, since I'm from there. However, you don't need to be an expert to know that those countries where any kind of Fascism became mainstream and got governmental power, such as Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., have a lot more flair for autocracy than North America has.

[Benjamin Noyles]

As for Central Europe I'm somewhat an expert for sure, since I'm from there. However, you don't need to be an expert to know that those countries where any kind of Fascism became mainstream and got governmental power, such as Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., have a lot more flair for autocracy than North America has.

Weimar was a cesspool that was drowning in it's own retrograde filth, they were arguably more far gone in some respects than we are today. It is what Habermas calls the period of sustained cultural libertine idealism and vitality from 1850 and died in 1930. Ok, so.. what germany had the Kaiser? what happened to him, the office of american president has been around over 200 years - the kaiser was loved, but no less than a wartime president like Woodrow Wilson. The United States is a nation of mass movements, of the Klu Klux klan, vidgilante organisations, and hero worship.

[Potemkin]

The United States is a nation of mass movements, of the Klu Klux klan, vidgilante organisations, and hero worship.

I would argue that the relative importance of mass movements in American history is due to the fact that America was a colonist society and (until about 1900) always had an expanding frontier. This made it difficult for the ruling class to dominate American society in the same way that, for example, the British ruling class has always dominated British society. Furthermore, the American Revolution was, for almost the first time in history, a genuinely popular uprising which sought to mobilise the masses and which depended on the support of the masses. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in Britain, by contrast, was a 'revolution from above', led by and for the ruling elite; what the masses thought about it was completely irrelevant. The mass movements in America were essentially liberal, since in the late 18th century the American elite and the mass of the American people shared essentially the same values and had essentially the same aspirations. The American masses were and are essentially liberal, just like their ruling elite. When mass movements became important in Europe in the 20th century, this was definitely not the case - liberalism by then was the ideology of the ruling class, and was inimical to the interests and outlook of the mass of the population. The European mass movements of the 20th century - Fascism and Communism - therefore took an illiberal form, something which was and is impossible in America due to its rather peculiar historical development.

[Beren]

The United States is a nation of mass movements, of the Klu Klux klan, vidgilante organisations, and hero worship.

The United States is first of all a market economy, where the government is actually inferior to the market, where the Capitolium and the White House are inferior to Wall Street. I wonder whether there is another country where people hate to be taxed by the state so much as the Americans do.

[Figlio di Moros]

I think we underestimate how libertarian the neo-nazi's are, as Noyles pointed out. Do we actually see neo-nazi's rallying for free markets and open immigration? Hell, most parties I see tend to be very supportive of welfare economics, once blacks, browns, and reds are taken care of.

[starman2003]

... an illiberal form, something which was and is impossible in America due to its rather peculiar historical development.

Peculiar yes. Impossible now yes. But tomorrow may tell a different tale. After all, recent conditions are quite different from those that fostered democracy.