Talk:Neo-Nazism

This ought to be an article. The Nazism article it redirects to doesn't even mention Neo-Nazis. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BoN rant

Why are you comparing conservatism with Neo-Nazism when many conservative Christians are very pro-Israel and very pro-Jewish, whereas Neo-Nazis are not and never will be. Conservatives favor less government, neo nazis don't. Conservatives believe in equality. Neo-Nazis don't.

Conservatives believe in freedom of choice and less restrictions on freedom, Neo Nazis don't. Stop comparing Conservatives to Nazis and American conservativism to Naziism because Nazis were not patriotic, like conservatives are who love their country and want to preserve their freedom and want to have gun ownership, something Nazis don't have.

They are not the same and never will be. They are a far-left phenomenon that hates anyone that is not one of them or a communist. Conservatives hate commies because commies want dictatorships.

Conservatives hate commies because commies want a dictatorship and want to impose strict government regulation, like Nazis do and the two just are not the same.

Stop comparing the two!^{— Unsigned, by: 71.116.34.150 / talk / contribs}

Apparently you have failed to notice that the "comparison" is explicitly put under "fallacious use" and explains that it is wrong to use it as a smear word. Did you bother to read the article at all?

As for the rest of your arguments... it is ironic that you protest the comparison and then immediately label the Nazis "far-left phenomenon".

Anyway, the presence of that section of the article itself is a strawman, though I'm not going to clean that toilet...--ZooGuard (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Nazism doesn't fit very well on the usual left/right dynamic. And since every hates the Nazis, it's a scramble to associate them with anyone and everyone you disagree with. Yeah, it's a toilet alright and not many people are up to cleaning it. ADK^{...I'll dance your clock!} 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

National-socialists were "leftists" in being, well, socialists (albeit with a highly questionable sense of who should be part of the society and what should be done with those who do not), but they were also socially conservatives (so were the communists in many places anyway). And conservatives are not exactly the poster-boys of freedom, only if within a cinically delineated sense of freedom, like you're totally free to not have sex untill you're married with someone of the opposite sex, and to not sell marijuana and get arrested for it. --Skepticool (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Nazis were not patriotic" I'm calling Poe's. Either that, or I don't want to live on this planet anymore

Fascism

Fascism was lauded as a "third way." A strong central government with great control over businesses still private alongside fierce nationalism. It was all compounded by a reckless disregard for individual rights. Fascism fits the bill of Authoritarianism on that politics chart quite well.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"racial realist atheism"?!

I don't get what "racial realism" has to do with "atheism", to me it sounds the same as speaking of "steady-state cosmology atheism", or "string theory atheism", or "neo-lamarckist atheism". To me it seems that what is really meant is that they're atheists, and their political views derive from their notions of biology. I don't think that the label "racial realist atheism" really fits here, to me it would describe an atheism whose logical wiring was something weird like "there are races, therefore there are no gods".

Furthermore, many of the non-atheist neo-nazis/similars hold similar, if not identical, biological notions, it's not all founded in the supernatural (I think it's only rarely the case). And by the way, the reasoning against their line of thinking is flawed: if all human races went extinct but one, or even 1/4 of one or so, it would not be "crippled" anymore than this sub-population is already "crippled" (and is arguable that no population is "crippled" in such way, even populations as small as one of a city or village). The "races" are not constantly intermingling (and yet remaining distinct somehow) in order to avoid extinction by "racial inbreeding"; they're effectively (or roughly) isolated (not meaning that they can't produce offspring with each other!) for thousands of years. Even the populations/races with the least genetic diversity (like Native-Americans) do not suffer from some sort of racial-level "genetic poverty" that puts their continuity at risk. So even if for some reason there was only a fraction of a single race remaining alive, it wouldn't guarantee humanity an early extinction, at least not more than the sheer number decline with more or less proportional continuity of "racial" lines. That is, if something like a large meteor hit the Earth, perhaps less numerous humankind would have reduced odds of surviving (not that a large population is not also dangerous to our long-term survival as well), but that's irrespective of the racial composition of humankind. Not that there's no relevance whatsoever, but it's more or less only that each race would be roughly more fit to survive wherever they've originated, but it's far more accurate to speak only about pigmentation than "race", since pigmentation seems to be the main selective factor (not the only, but only a handful of racial traits are products of natural selection, besides skin color, perhaps the most important is nose aperture, according to some research I recall). I think it's also troublesome to say that they all believe that whites and non-whites are different species, as that is not an universal view AFAIK. And also the refutation of not being different species is something that some of them could easily "refute" as the fertility criterion is not required for all concepts of species, there are many different species that can produce fertile offspring with other species of the same genus, and even closely-related genera.

I think that such summary of their position is bad as they can easily argue it's a straw-man. More or less the same way that more sophisticated creationists (like IDists) could take advantage of a definition of creationists that lump them all with the most naïve ones. "Hah, those evolutionists, they're so outdated on the advances of creationism. Creationism, or creation science, indeed once believed that the Earth was flat, but over the years it has been found the the Bible really says that the Earth is round. Not only that, but our argument for Design didn't stop with Paley (unlike evolutionists who are still stuck with Darwin), but as our knowledge advanced in areas such as genetics (founded by Gregor Mendel, a priest) and molecular biology (which Darwin didn't know, to be fair to him), the evidence for Design just kept piling up. And evolutionists seem to just ignore that, they're blinded in their orthodoxy..." ^{— Unsigned, by: 201.1.54.189 / talk / contribs} 20:13, 22 September 2012‎ (UTC)

...

Did you just call me a Neo-Nazi? That is unacceptable. XY007 (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What? Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 12:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Inbreeding

Isn't the proposed "Aryan" racial category basically broad enough that it includes most indigenous northern and western Europeans? I really can't see this causing significant inbreeding problems in and of itself. Consider Iceland or Mormon Utah or any of the various other experiments history has made of putting thousands of ethnically similar people in a remote location with a tendency towards breeding within their own? The "Aryan" race includes something like 300 or 400 million people globally, and considering that it formed in the first place, that either implies all indigenous people are going to be severely inbred, or that the "Aryan race" is significantly less diverse than, for example, the "Japanese race," which seems highly unlikely. What of the Australian aborigines who had essentially isolated themselves off from all outside contact for tens of thousands of years? If we brought an infant of that group into a modern Australian city, would they be limited to basic tasks due to millennia of inbreeding? I seriously doubt it. Inbreeding doesn't really cause problems for hundreds of thousands or millions of people. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.197.15.143 / talk / contribs}

You may want to look into the genetic conditions which plague Amish and old order Mennonite communities (specifically the high incidence of congenital SIDS). There are specialist clinics set up JUST to address the problems with inbreeding in these communities.

Also different definitions of Aryan exist. Originally it would include only a sub-set of Persians, but the Nazi ideal gene pool was decidedly Germanic. Hence the forced breeding programs in Northern Europe. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.145.153.190 / talk / contribs}

sure, but I'm saying white northern European because that's what neonazis want. Amish communities are something else, since we're talking about groups of tens to a few hundred people living together. Remember that in the distant past, people from vastly different parts of the world did not encounter each other. Further still, look at the number of people who's ancestry today stems from all one continent? These people aren't inbred. Norway has something like 5 million people, and even though the vast majority of Norwegians have hundreds of years of ancestry from basically just Norway, inbreeding doesn't seem to cause significant harm there, at least, not because the people are vaguely close genetically. 81.145.153.190

Remember that prehistorically, the human population was single digit millions. Nonhuman primates get along just fine with populations of tens of thousands. Of nature required billions for a species to be healthy, that species would not exist. ^{— Unsigned, by: 73.25.110.186 / talk / contribs}

Your idea that Norway has been genetically homogeneous even for the last couple of centuries is cute, but flat out wrong. There were about as many visibly "black" people in Roman Britain (probably more) as there are in Britain today. And You might remember that little episode of Norwegian history called the Viking Age? You know, with the conquering and the trading and the pillaging and the pilfering and the plundering and oh yeah - the raping. Do you really think no Viking ever went to Constantinople (where Vikings served in the Imperial Guard) and took home a beautiful woman from there? That fiction that people in ancient times sat on their cowhides and never moved either for business or pleasure is just that. Fiction. The German Kaiser had a soldier with nice last name "Sabak el Sher". His descendants proved to be a proud line of military musicians for Germany in its various political systems. They still have that last name, but they lack their ancestor's phenotypical "black" features. "Race" is more complicated than you seem to make it. And yes, there is ample genetic evidence to suggest that "mixed race" people are actually genetically advantageous. Most genetic diseases are recessive traits. Some genetic diseases (the most well known case is probably sickle cell anemia) cluster in certain regions, sometimes because they provide some benefit if only one allele is defective and the other isn't. So mixing the genes of diverse people actually has a non-negligible chance of producing offspring with a higher fitness than either parent. We know that because we observe it in plants and animals on a almost daily basis. That's what the "hybrid" in "hybrid seeds" is about.. And now you can go back to forking your second cousin to further the Aryan race. Goatspeed. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of inbreeding

Learn to sign, guys. Learn to sign. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, kind Reverend. Being able to see which random string of numbers wrote what makes it much easier on the eyes. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Somebody's gotta be the Ombudsman around these parts. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't get too Ombud, though ;-) What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 02:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't make me ask you to get off your moped and show me your license and registration. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

License? What's a license? Do you mean the bribe-wrap? I am not the Ombud's man 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nazism is caused by 4chan?

One of the reasons why neo-fascism is on the rise

Is it?

is because more kids are growing up with the internet

Are you seriously claiming that Nazism is caused by 4chan jokes? Hmmph (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello? It's the information autobahn! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And 4chan/8chan are infamous Geisterfahrer (ghost drivers)!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 02:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 02:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Germans. They are even worse than +++Nordics+++ I am not the Ombud's man 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Though I hear (((certain people))) are even worse still... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Slander! It's the Nordics, I'm tellin' ya. (BTW, this is probably getting to the territory where we might want to affix Poe's law warnings) I am not the Ombud's man 18:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Nordics are a clever ruse of the prison masters! (Yes, most likely. Is there a suitable template?) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

How about a template turning the crosses into Scandinavian flags? I am not the Ombud's man 19:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer a looping gif template where the Scandiavian flags morph into the Star of David as a reptilian H.W. Bush squirms in the background. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd thought more along the lines of a random assortment of danish, norwegian, icelandic and finnish flags... Or something. I don't know. I am not the Ombud's man 20:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism vs white nationalism

How does believing in white nationalism make you a Neo-Nazi? That doesn't make sense to me. The Nazis literally weren't white nationalists, they actively oppressed certain groups of white people. They only cared about Aryans/Nordic people.

Also, you say that you shouldn't compare people to Nazis if they don't aggresively support war and genocide, yet you call Richard Spencer a Nazi. Spencer doesn't aggressively support either of the aforementioned things. ^{— Unsigned, by: ForgettableAccount / talk / contribs}

Nazis did oppress groups that had white people in them, but the Nazis do prioritize white people over nonwhite even if they're actively killing other white people for being gay or communists. It's a pretty incoherent ideology, but I think they do follow, let's say, a tier list of people. Now, I don't think white nationalism or Neo-Nazism are interchangeable, and Neo-Nazism doesn't necessarily mean they aggressively want war or genocide. But people like Richard Spencer clearly don't like certain groups of people, and if they don't support genocide, what else do they support short of getting rid of them (i.e. genocide)? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about them oppressing white for non-racial/ethnic reasons. I was alluding to their treatment of Slavs because of their perceived inferiority. (Poles, Russians, etc). If they were white nationalists they would not have treated Slavs the way they did. There's also the fact that they didn't really want to create a white ethnostate. They tried to create an Aryan ethnostate and tried to dominate most of Europe IIRC. So Nazis would be more accurately described as Aryan supremacists/nationalists which would make them distinct from white nationalists. This would rebuke the notion that Neo-Nazism is characterized by belief in white nationalism (and the people who call you a Neo Nazi just for being alt-right or white nationalist).

As for Richard Spencer, he could be in favor of deportation and not genocide. Wanting to get rid of people doesn't necessitate supporting genocide. (not saying that forceful deportation is in any way acceptable, though). Or it could be the case that he does not want to get rid of people at all. Some alt-righters support balkanization for example.

If you recognize that white nationalism and Nazism/Neo-Nazism are distinct and not synonymous, can I ask what your definitions of these two things are and why you think that Spencer fits your definition of a Nazi? ^{— Unsigned, by: ForgettableAccount / talk / contribs}

I think even if they fit within the white category as how we see it, the Neo-Nazis just conveniently tack on traits that make them not "true" or "perfect" white people and thus is excusable to mistreat them. The term "aryan supremacist" might be technical but I don't think it's quite helpful especially when the ethnic group doesn't even exist.

Hm, that's true, the second point. But I also don't think all Nazis support genocide either but I still think sometimes it's an end goal. With Jews, they already think Jews control everything, so I don't know if Nazis think anything short of extermination will solve the problems of that conspiracy. I don't have a brain of a Nazi, I didn't drink enough glue.

I think white nationalism is the obsession of the superiority of whites and the need to create a state where whites dominate and control the population. I think Neo-Nazism is a subset of it, like a circle inside a venn diagram. Neo-Nazism has far more specific goals compared to the overall branch of white nationalism, and this includes more specific beliefs. What would make someone a white nationalist includes someone taking the white genocide conspiracy seriously, someone wanting to aggressively deport anyone that they don't think is white, someone that wants minorities to stay oppressed. A Neo-Nazi advocates those things too, but they support the Nazi ideology. They are Holocaust deniers, they talk about (((banking))) conspiracies, they talk about (((media control))), they are apologia for Hitler, they do Nazi salutes while chanting Heil, they use well-known Nazi imagery, and they encourage other more overt Neo-Nazis to hang in their platforms. Richard Spencer does come off as white nationalist immediately, but he has used Nazi language, promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories, denies the Holocaust, and he has coined the term "alt-right" for a movement he has lead that does consist of more overt Nazis.

I've had times I didn't characterize people as Neo-Nazis immediately such as Owen Benjamin and Black Pigeon Speaks, and for the latter I've actually questioned at first to label someone a Neo-Nazi, but they seemed to spout the same antisemitic conspiracy theories and nostalgic European nationalism that Neo-Nazis typically do, so I had to reevaluate the label.

In the end though, the distinction isn't important enough to me. They overlap so much these days that I don't find a problem characterizing most if not all of the alt-right figures as either white supremacist or Neo-Nazi. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Neo-nazi means new nazi. Literally that's its meaning. Neo-nazis rarely have the same beliefs as the original nazis, they just share a lot of common ideological positions. EK (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Azov battalion whitewashing.

I have a problem with the way the azov battalion are said to be in this article and I quote 'This line of thought can point to the Azov Battalion (which has — somewhat tenuous — Nazi links)' Which I heavily disagree with on the fact that they were founded by neo-nazis, wear neo-nazi symbols, and have connections with various neo-nazis groups around the globe. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:D580:5C60:C9DA:B102:3259:7619 / talk}

Recent attempts to radicalize anti zionism movvement towards Neonazism

Should we update it that recently neo nazis have been using the Israel-Gaza conflict/genocide to actively recruit and redpill impressionable youth. Take @defundisraelnow an "antizionist" "Pro-Palestine" account prior to it's suspension. It is clear that the account is not in good faith trying to resist zionism or Israel, but to radicalize impressionable and angry youth into being vulnerable to a red pill. Cladr01 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine

According to Vladimir Putin and friends, Ukraine has become a hotbed of neo-Nazism crying out to be cleansed (hence, for example, the Russian "special military operation" in Ukraine in 2022). This line of thought can point to the Azov Battalion (which has — somewhat tenuous — Nazi links), but otherwise relies largely on associating Ukrainian nationalist enthusiasm with the memory of Stepan Bandera (1909-1959),[4] who made the misstep of taking his eye off Ukrainian ultra-nationalist anti-Sovietism and alleged terrorism to flirt briefly with collaboration with Nazism (1941, 1944) during the 1941-1944 Axis occupation of Ukraine.

Ukraine has had a real problem with the far-right in their country in recent years, so to act like there isn't a problem at all is not in accordance with reality. It is propaganda to state that "Ukraine is a Nazi state," but it's also propaganda to pretend that there are no Nazis in Ukraine period. (We even cover it in our own article on Ukraine: [1])

Bandera and his followers also committed massacres of Poles and Jews, so to downplay this with "flirt briefly with collaboration with Nazism" is grossly offensive. Carthage (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And it gets complicated, because while caring about naziism is obviously a flimsy pretext on Russia's part to legitimize a war with extremely dubious grounds(as if they didn't have tons of their own ethnonationalists), the far-right militias played a crucial role in the run-up to the war in a few ways. The right wing militias were definitely involved in the overthrow of the russia-friendly maidan government, they were involved in the pre-war skirmishes attacking russian-held territory, and they were a driving political force in the bid to join NATO, all of which were probably real motivating factors for the invasion. It's hard to talk about in a fair way, because A. it's a bigger problem than most Western sources admit, and B. Russia is pumping every bit of evidence available about it for more than it's worth. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do with the paragraph in question? Carthage (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, I think it's safe to ditch the "somewhat tenuous" as prevaricating relatively sound evidence anyone can review for themselves, vis-a-vis directly using nazi iconography as a group. It's harder to take a high perspective and say "It should say [x]". I think at that high level I remain non-committal. Don't like unjustifiable weasel words though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Bandara was SS, and does not deserve an ounce of cover. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So I removed the "somewhat tenuous" bit and rewrote the sentence about Bandera. Carthage (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)