NationStates Jolt Archive

i read that during an investigation among nazigroups they found that among all of them at least 50% of their members were former nonparlamentarlical-lefters, pretty amazing number i say

Interesting, but they could just be authoritarian left wingers who thought their party was becoming too supportive of anarchy and so they joined the Right-Wing even though they may not agree with their economic policies.

It is well recorded that Hitler was a vegetarian who love dogs.

Does that mean that all dog-loving vegetarians will become Nazis, or even have a greater chance of becoming Nazis?

Or that vegetarians are more likely to become Nazis?

Or dog-lovers?

i read that during an investigation among nazigroups they found that among all of them at least 50% of their members were former nonparlamentarlical-lefters, pretty amazing number i say

Interesting: do you have a link or a cite?

In my experience a lot of the movement is the other way: authoritarian right to libertatrian left.

It is well recorded that Hitler was a vegetarian who love dogs.

Does that mean that all dog-loving vegetarians will become Nazis, or even have a greater chance of becoming Nazis?

Or that vegetarians are more likely to become Nazis?

Or dog-lovers?

EVREUKA! it was abscence of proteins (probably not the word in english but the hell) which lead to the third reich!

seriously, i think its something which left parties should speak more about, i mean if you change color from communist to strasserist and then to nazi you havent changed so much between the steps except that you now "know" that jews are evil capitalists

Tends to be but it is better to manage it on economic policies and then on whether they are authoritarian or not.

General Pinochet (Right Wing; Free-Market supporter; Very Un-authoritarian)

Stalin(Left Wing; very Authoritarian)

Hitler (Center-Right on economic policy; very Authoratarian)


So economic policy aside; Stalin and Hitler have a lot in common.

i read that during an investigation among nazigroups they found that among all of them at least 50% of their members were former nonparlamentarlical-lefters, pretty amazing number i say

Interesting: do you have a link or a cite?

In my experience a lot of the movement is the other way: authoritarian right to libertatrian left.

no it is from a book, but ot might be at the website of the swedish newspaper aftonbladet...give me som e time...

It is well recorded that Hitler was a vegetarian who love dogs.

Does that mean that all dog-loving vegetarians will become Nazis, or even have a greater chance of becoming Nazis?

Or that vegetarians are more likely to become Nazis?

Or dog-lovers?

EVREUKA! it was abscence of proteins (probably not the word in english but the hell) which lead to the third reich!

seriously, i think its something which left parties should speak more about, i mean if you change color from communist to strasserist and then to nazi you havent changed so much between the steps except that you now "know" that jews are evil capitalists

I think the extremists on either side of the political spectrum are the ones to be feared - those prepared to sacrifice others lives in search of their own version of a paradise.

Hitler and Stalin were opposed politically, yet their methods and results were much the same.

I think the extremists on either side of the political spectrum are the ones to be feared - those prepared to sacrifice others lives in search of their own version of a paradise.

which totally ignores the basic fact that people who would be described as 'mainstream' are just as willing to use violence and kill people to achieve their ends as anyone else (though not necessarily willing to use outright genocide). see for example: george bush, bill clinton, tony blair, margaret thatcher, vladimir putin, pretty much every other political leader ever, that cop who broke the nose of a girl standing next to me at a protest, etc.

I think the extremists on either side of the political spectrum are the ones to be feared - those prepared to sacrifice others lives in search of their own version of a paradise.

which totally ignores the basic fact that people who would be described as 'mainstream' are just as willing to use violence and kill people to achieve their ends as anyone else (though not necessarily willing to use outright genocide). see for example: george bush, bill clinton, tony blair, margaret thatcher, vladimir putin, pretty much every other political leader ever, that cop who broke the nose of a girl standing next to me at a protest, etc.

Incidental violence will probably always be with us.
But for large-scale, totally brutal, piles of corpses violence you need an organisation, willing accomplices, and a belief that you act for the greater good.

I disliked Thatcher immensely, and do not doubt that she caused tremendous suffering.

But there was no organised slaughter to compare to the Nazi extermination camps, the Stalinist gulags, the Pol Pot "year zero" or the Rawandan or Kosovo genocides. That takes a special kind of fanatic - certainly not "pretty much every other political leader ever".

Naziism is inherently a left-wing ideology, because it is a collectivist ideology.

I thought nazi's always talked about that 'third way' crap, neither left nor right wing.

"General Pinochet (Right Wing; Free-Market supporter; Very Un-authoritarian)"

Good Christ, do you want to perhaps reconsider that statement?

Naziism is inherently a left-wing ideology, because it is a collectivist ideology.Nazism is inherently a right-wing ideology, because of its restriction on the rights of its citizens for the good of the state.

See, it can be spun both ways.


The fact is that neither left nor right are appropriate for describing Nazism, as both left and right are sane choices for government, which Nazism is not.

No, neither left nor right are sane choices for government.

The only sane choice is laissez-faire. All others are irrational.

"The only sane choice is laissez-faire. All others are irrational."

Unproven. I'll try again - please at least consider the possibility that you do not know everything in absolute terms, especially at your tender age. At least attempt to justify your sweeping statements for once.

Laissez-faire capitalism is against people in general.

National Socialism.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a right wing ideology and a left wing ideology unified....

Left and right really refer to economics. They are often tied to social views, but this isn't necessarily accurate.

--------------------------
Free your mind!

National Socialism.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a right wing ideology and a left wing ideology unified....

Also Hitler was trying to appeal to many different sectors of the German public at the time. If you read the pre-32 'manifesto' there are elements of all sorts of ideology. When speaking he would pick and choose parts that he thought would be emotive for that particualr crowd. I'll try to get sonme sources but I must go now.

National Socialism.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a right wing ideology and a left wing ideology unified....

This refers to the idea that the German folk is superior. Did you ever heard of the "Volksgemeinschaft"? (special type of community) Only those who match the standards are part of the community.

sorrry about my internet, havent beeen on since yesterday, i'll check the book next time i see my friend i borrowed it from. by te way i don't think you can apply the result of this to the us (and i suspect many of you are from there) since it was made in sweden.sweden doesn't have any nazis but white powers and perhaps some third wayers, no kkk/cotc and no rightoriented survivalists. i think that te people who join them probably comes from the right

nazism is neither right, nor left, it is a third option, although it may not be that attractive for most people. it combines the nationalism of the right with the anto-globalism thoughts of the left. it wants to bring a wellfare state almost similar to a socialistic, but only for aryans.

i think you should separate between the tird reich/mussolini's italy and their ideologies, they are not the same.

Incidental violence will probably always be with us.
But for large-scale, totally brutal, piles of corpses violence you need an organisation, willing accomplices, and a belief that you act for the greater good.

I disliked Thatcher immensely, and do not doubt that she caused tremendous suffering.

But there was no organised slaughter to compare to the Nazi extermination camps, the Stalinist gulags, the Pol Pot "year zero" or the Rawandan or Kosovo genocides. That takes a special kind of fanatic - certainly not "pretty much every other political leader ever".

from where i'm standing, pretty much every political leader is responsible for a huge amount of violence, no matter how 'moderate' they are because the entire system rests on violence. and less controversially, when moderates go to war they leave gigantic piles of corpses whether they run a campaign of genocide or not. we have a couple of ridiculously high body counts (stalin, hitler, mao, chiang kai-shek, etc) but once you move out of them you'd have a fairly hard time telling the extremists from the non-extremists.

Also Hitler was trying to appeal to many different sectors of the German public at the time. If you read the pre-32 'manifesto' there are elements of all sorts of ideology. When speaking he would pick and choose parts that he thought would be emotive for that particualr crowd. I'll try to get sonme sources but I must go now.

I know. I did it in history before we broke up for Easter.