Populism and Nazism

[Patroklos]

the Aryans were descended from Atlantans who came to Earth on a comet, but retreated to the icy North on contact with those who were to become the Jews et al. Those blonde-haired, blue-eyed interstellar immigrants apparently preferred Scandinavia and Northern Germany due to its similarity to a giant snowball. What is even more absurd, if one can believe it, is that manufactured ideology such as this was used to bind people together in a very real way, best seen in Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film “The Triumph of the Will”, where we can see soldiers marching in formation to stirring harmonies and Hitler claiming to be a prophet from God.

And you lost all pretext of having produced anything of merit after only the third paragraph. Without even considering that is the most laughable analysis of Nazism I have ever read, you don't even link the first and second parts of the paragraph. How is marching in formation linked to believing in comet born extraterrestrials again?

[Whaleboy]

It's an example of Nazi mythology, motivated much of their archeological efforts to find Atlantis. Germany was a young nation, like the USA it finds itself embellishing its history to make itself feel better. It's not supposed to be an all emcompassing view of the Nazi myth, is that not obvious?

[Patroklos]

Not obvious at all.

You state a semi-thesis about examining nazi history, and the first think you bring up is this. Then you contend "Triumph of the Will" is in direct support of this version of events, and given the importance of that film the backbone of Nazi ideology. Ridiculous. Are you going to mention the alien believing koolaid drinkers on your next work on America? This is just about as significant to Nazi ideology.

[Whaleboy]

WTF? The whole point is that these individual manifestations are symptomatic of something deeper (the national socialism interplay), and though they can be used as characteristic of Nazism (just as we could say high murder rates and flag ****ing are different symptoms of the same Americanism), it doesn't work the other way aorund. That was the entire point of my article, and if it's not obvious to you at the moment I suggest you read further and take each point in the context of others, not as a self-contained proposition which is an error of many people here I have noticed.

[Elok]

I always thought that the Nazis' biggest failing was in blaming complex problems on convenient, vulnerable scapegoats that they could vent their rage on without actually facing the far more nuanced reality they had to deal with.

EDIT: On reflection, my second paragraph sounds revoltingly after-school specialish.

[Spiffor]

I take it you're open to criticism, because here it comes

Basically:
1) Rant
2) Circular logic
3) Hasty generalizations
4) Belief that a "logical" conclusion is truth
5) Speculation

And this absolutely favourite of mine:

Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party – National Socialism. At last, a working definition!

More seriously, your point that populism (empowerment of the people) always leads to the singling out of enemies is wholly unconvincing. It seems to rest on an assumption that people can only be collectively moved if they are presented with scapegoats. Even though you are a mysanthropist, you can agree that this assumption is far for being proven.

Most of your arguments come from one nazi, and even worse, from wikiquotes (quotes like those kept in such directories are always an aesthetization of one's thought). That you generalize from him is as laughable as when some believer posts a gloating thread because a "leading atheist" has converted.

The point with socialism is wholly useless as well. When you compare Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, you tell us not to mind the glaring economic differences. Considering that the difference is that one country was a capitalist toalitarianism, while the other was a socialist toalitarianism, you're left with only comparing the totalitarian part, with the economic part (socialism) completely left out. Why pray tell did you bring socialism in the fray if it was useless in your argumentation? My guess is that you just wanted to rant on another ideology that you don't like.

Finally, it shows. You want to say that the BNP are nazis and that populists are nazis, because you dislike them and you want to bind these (not-intolerable) groups with the worst evil that ever befell the West. Once your desires have been set, you have rationalized your prejudices, and build an argument that was only destined to justify them.

That's what, when you speak about "understanding the BNP", I have a crooked smile. When you wish to understand something, even something you don't like, you have to accept to observe it (your only observation of BNP's behaviour is the mention that they deny their nazism and their antisemitism, which you merely brush off as an it-can't-be afterwards).
When trying to understand something, you also have to be prepared at being surprised, and not necessarily finding what your prejudices tell you (I'm having this experience right now with my uni paper). You don't show such willingness.
That's why you certainly don't contribute to the understanding of the BNP.

[Whaleboy]

More seriously, your point that populism (empowerment of the people) always leads to the singling out of enemies is wholly unconvincing. It seems to rest on an assumption that people can only be collectively moved if they are presented with scapegoats. Even though you are a mysanthropist, you can agree that this assumption is far for being proven.

No, populism leads to national socialism leads to scapegoating, doesn't mean that populism has to conclude with NS which I think is your reading.

Most of your arguments come from one nazi, and even worse, from wikiquotes (quotes like those kept in such directories are always an aesthetization of one's thought). That you generalize from him is as laughable as when some believer posts a gloating thread because a "leading atheist" has converted.

You disagree with Goerings point about what is essentially exclusive socialism after a populist introduces a scapegoat? I've used his observation, not his actions as indicative. Your point is therefore useless.

The point with socialism is wholly useless as well. When you compare Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, you tell us not to mind the glaring economic differences.

Did you read my point on it? The first trial piece mentioned but accounted for it, further discussion introduced that degree of separation and in the second piece I didn't even mention it. Take the second to supercede the first. At the social economic level I still think the two are comparable, like any system capable of large works that otherwise might be called "white elephants" in a free market. Perhaps thats indistinct, it's just indicative of any system that can cause people to give up their liberties for the sake of the whole, and yes, it means national socialism applies to France too .

Finally, it shows. You want to say that the BNP are nazis and that populists are nazis, because you dislike them and you want to bind these (not-intolerable) groups with the worst evil that ever befell the West. Once your desires have been set, you have rationalized your prejudices, and build an argument that was only destined to justify them.

Ummm, you read the second one didn't you? The original thesis was national socialism = nazi (hence your earlier point that I deal with later in the argument which of course requires that you actually read it), which changes to national socialism is necessary to Nazi, not the other way around which is what you're reading. My argument is both Nazi and BNP are national socialist, but Nazi is not BNP. I would go to say in a revision I'm working on now that national socialism lead to the likes of the Holocaust. I think you're objection is simply that I'm bringing beloved socialism into this, which is causing a lot of the socialists/communists to see red. So to speak. You say that Nazi Germany was capitalist totalitarianism, pray tell, what actual power did capitalism have except when ordered by the government, and what power did capitalism have as opposed to the govt?

You don't show such willingness.

Unless the BNP are somehow an exception to humanity I see no problem whatsoever with generalising their behaviour. You say I haven't observed it, and yes I've never been a member, the only direct experience I have is their harrasment, but does that render studies of it as somehow useless now?

On the other hand, you have levelled points against my argument that are wholly irrelevant to it, I suspect you have skim read the OP and taken individual points from that you have taken exception to, and fair enough there; but you clearly haven't read the second piece nor taken account of the discussion following it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And you lost all pretext of having produced anything of merit after only the third paragraph. Without even considering that is the most laughable analysis of Nazism I have ever read, you don't even link the first and second parts of the paragraph. How is marching in formation linked to believing in comet born extraterrestrials again?

How is a mythical state of Burgundia linked to Nazism?

How is an Aryanised dechristianised church linked to Nazism ?

How is the myth of Germans being all blond Nordic types linked to Nazism ?


Easy-peasy- manufactured mythology and false history and false science. Nazi ideology encompassed the wholesale manufacturing of a bogus European history which of course downplayed the role any Semitic or Slav people may have played in teh development of European civilization.

The tripe that passed for science and history (and facts for that matter) has to be read to be guffawed at. Nonetheless, from Bayreuth to Himmler the mythos factory worked overtime.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, populism leads to national socialism leads to scapegoating, doesn't mean that populism has to conclude with NS which I think is your reading.

Then please tell me how I should read the following:
"The new enemy can then be made to appear somehow less human, less worthy, less good. Reveal that the baddies are attacking the goodies, often by amplifying a relatively small indiscretion (the more repugnant the better) into a perception of major deviancy or malevolence and the group will gladly fall into line behind their new popular champion, as revealed by the likes of Hermann Goering (2). This is the ultimate conclusion and aim of every populist."

Besides, from what I read, your argument was fairly clearly "Populism -> emphasis on an enemy.
Emphasis on an enemy -> socialism.
Emphasis on an enemy -> nationalism."
If your argument didn't follow this logic, why did you write at length about the emphasis on an enemy before making your points about socialism and nationalism?

You disagree with Goerings point about what is essentially exclusive socialism after a populist introduces a scapegoat? I've used his observation, not his actions as indicative. Your point is therefore useless.

1. I consider you can hardly use the arguments of only one person as any indicative of a group as diverse as the populists. Especially when the "arguments" you use are quotations, i.e something aesthetized, rather than something elaborated and rigorous.
2. I have yet to see the link between socialism and scapegoating. Your BAM doesn't an argument make: 2Certainly the egalitarianism with an anti-elite attitude, brutal utilitarianism never mind the good of the economy and a belief in the graciousness and superiority of the group are indicative of socialist tendencies."

Did you read my point on it? The first trial piece mentioned but accounted for it, further discussion introduced that degree of separation and in the second piece I didn't even mention it. Take the second to supercede the first. At the social economic level I still think the two are comparable, like any system capable of large works that otherwise might be called "white elephants" in a free market. Perhaps thats indistinct, it's just indicative of any system that can cause people to give up their liberties for the sake of the whole, and yes, it means national socialism applies to France too .

Ah, so I get it. The definition of a national socialist system is "any system that can cause people to give up their liberties for the sake of the whole". For example, a country that taxes you to fund the police (good of the whole) is nazi. A country that deprives you from your freedom to rape (a serial rapist is a serious thread to the good of the whole) is national socialist.
Fantastic. You have extended the definition of national socialism so that it matches any post-bronze-age society Unless the BNP were hardcore anarchists, with your definition, they are bound to be nazis like pretty much anybody else. Such an immensely broad definition is completely useless, because everybody save for fringe groups is national socialist

Ummm, you read the second one didn't you?

Nope. Only read the OP. I'll read the second one after finishing this post, but I strongly doubt your argumentation will convince me any more. I have developed a strong dislike of speculative arguments in the last few months. While speculation is fun when ranting in the OT, there's something that horribly displeases me when somebody believes to have found The Truth after a bit of "logical thinking".

I think you're objection is simply that I'm bringing beloved socialism into this, which is causing a lot of the socialists/communists to see red.

Nope. What makes me see red is that you pretend to have a solid argument when it is based on speculation, and at best on anecdotal evidence (some quote or some historical reference here and there). You don't want to verify whether what you say is true, and actually, the idea wouldn't even pass by you. You're only interested in whether your argumentation is logical, not if it is found in reality.
All of this would be well and nice. There is, after all, nothing wrong with staying in one's ivory tower (I say this despite being an "intellectual" type. You are in an ivory tower because your arguments almost entirely stems from your mind, and is useful only in your mind. The extremely tenuous connection to reality is only one ressource among others to justify your reasoning).
But when you pretend that you contribute to the understanding of the BNP, that's where I see red. Your reasoning helps nothing in understanding the BNP. It's nothing more than a rant to say "look at how evil they are".

Unless the BNP are somehow an exception to humanity I see no problem whatsoever with generalising their behaviour. You say I haven't observed it, and yes I've never been a member, the only direct experience I have is their harrasment, but does that render studies of it as somehow useless now?

Please let me make this clear:
- Studies involve observation.
- Your argument is devoid of observation.
- Studies are useful
- Your argument isn't

On the other hand, you have levelled points against my argument that are wholly irrelevant to it, I suspect you have skim read the OP and taken individual points from that you have taken exception to, and fair enough there; but you clearly haven't read the second piece nor taken account of the discussion following it.

True. You wanted the thread's readers to judge your ability to write, and so did I.

When it comes to language, BTW, I found the OP clear and quite well-written.

[Spiffor]

Oh, I'm only at page 1 of the argument, but there's something priceless that I can't let escape:

Whaleboy wrote
If your distinction between Nazism and Stalinism is that one has nationalism in the title, while both use it as a device, then we're not going to get very far. I could happily call myself Lady Marseilles XI of Benevolent Butchery, but that would no more describe me than any other name, if we are to judge on historical actions and events and not intent. Or would you say that Hitler was benevolent because that's how he described himself.

When you compare it to what was written before:

Whaleboy wrote
what was it? Perhaps looking at the word itself may provide an answer. Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party – National Socialism. At last, a working definition!

So, when you are defining a concept on the the Word it uses, it's all good (and it's actually the whole basis of the OP's argumentation). But when somebody else defines a concept through the Word it inhabits, it "doesn't go very far" Well, at least, I agree with that last statement

[Spiffor]

Just read the second article. It is much, much better than the first one. The ideas are more cohesive, and it has the added bonus of not looking like a rant, but an actual exercize of conceptualization

Besides, it has the great quality of being humble. I can remind at least one time where you write "if you accept that definition", and the overall tone makes the whole argumentation much more palatable, and actually much more acceptable.

The tone of the second article doesn't do a disservice to your allegation that we humans all have the potential to support these things that, when excessive, led to the horrors of nazi Germany (which were indeed not an historical anomaly, considering the many genocides across history).

I still think there is room for improvement. For example, for you to see if your argumentation is verified in the real world, you should develop measure instruments for your graphs, and then observe whether nazi Germany and the BNP are actually where you ascribe them. However, doing so is an excruciating work, which is more fit for a doctorate.

Overall, the second article looks like a more honest attempt at understanding deeply rooted human attitudes, and how the BNP might be pushing these attitudes to a dangerous extreme. While it's still speculative, and lacks a proper method of testing whether your assumptions are true, it does lay out the assumptions much more clearly, and in a much more acceptable fashion than the first one


Edit: If I were you, I'd edit-in the second article in the OP and the follow-up ("no takers?"), and put the first one in some other post of this thread, to which you can link at the end of the now-edited OP.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Oh, I'm only at page 1 of the argument, but there's something priceless that I can't let escape:

Whaleboy wrote
If your distinction between Nazism and Stalinism is that one has nationalism in the title, while both use it as a device, then we're not going to get very far. I could happily call myself Lady Marseilles XI of Benevolent Butchery, but that would no more describe me than any other name, if we are to judge on historical actions and events and not intent. Or would you say that Hitler was benevolent because that's how he described himself.

When you compare it to what was written before:

Whaleboy wrote
what was it? Perhaps looking at the word itself may provide an answer. Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party – National Socialism. At last, a working definition!

So, when you are defining a concept on the the Word it uses, it's all good (and it's actually the whole basis of the OP's argumentation). But when somebody else defines a concept through the Word it inhabits, it "doesn't go very far" Well, at least, I agree with that last statement

Fair enough, it wasn't too clear how I used it... the difficulty was to get from Nazism as one learns of it to a definition displaying national socialism... in that regard its just a starting point from which to explore NS.

Thanks WRT the second article ... you're right, if only there was some way to measure these things, the best I can do at the moment is "how obviously populist the BNP and all are", which is like you said still speculative... but then few would argue that parties on the 'far right' are highly populist.

And yes wrt to the OP, but I have to trudge around in the snow so i'll do it later.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Thanks WRT the second article ... you're right, if only there was some way to measure these things, the best I can do at the moment is "how obviously populist the BNP and all are", which is like you said still speculative... but then few would argue that parties on the 'far right' are highly populist.

Well, there has to be a way. After all, am easure is something artificial, i.e. attributing a value to phenomena on a systematic basis. Measuring something is highly arbitrary, especially in social sciences, where measuring tools can be so bad that the entire results of the empirical "evidence" are bunk.

However, empirical measures are rarely that catastrophic, and as long as your measuring tolls are acceptable, the empirical findings may bring further insight, to see if your assumptions go in the right direction, or if they are completely wrong.

Measuring tools of populism, nationalism and socialism have probably alread been debated by scholars, and should you be really interested with a big project about it, you should look at what these scholars say. Chances are you won't have to re-invent the wheel.

But it's the horrible social scientist in me that's speaking, so disregard me

[Whaleboy]

Well I wouldn't really be so interested in a big project because my preferred angle is philosophical and psychological, though how to do such a thing would interest me nontheless I'll give it a look.

[Kidlicious]

Psychological? Do you just think that people who disagree with your views are crazy? Are you trying to show that?