Why is nazism popular today?

[-1-]

Because the generations that remember are pretty much dying out.

yep, and eduction sucks - all STEM now, so no teaching of history anymore,

result is generations of fools.

Ahem... if it's all STEM, then how come 98 percent of people can't describe what 403E23 ergs of electromagnetic force of a quark can do to your hair, and why we don't eat rocks with milk and sugar for breakfast cereal.

95.4 % of all education retained and used and regurgitated in 99.5 percent of the population comes from 3.4 percent content on the Internet.

I think the more precise description of education is "herding the masses to become robots in their workplace". But that's shot to pieces, too, that routine goal. We need new goals, new heroes, new world order.

Oh, gad, I sound like Logik. I might as well slash my own throats now.

[-1-]

Why is nazism popular today?

Because of propaganda ditties, like

"Don't be stupid, be a smartie,
Come'n'join the nazi party."

It certainly rings better than "just say no" or "Fuck you, asshole", or "I'd like to teach the world to sing... a simple harmony..."

[-1-]

Because the generations that remember are pretty much dying out.

yep, and eduction sucks - all STEM now, so no teaching of history anymore,

result is generations of fools.

You're both absolutely right, but Gaffo, if you keep knocking this too hard, then they may cryogenetically freeze all grade sevens, and wake them up in the future a thousand years later when they finally figured out how to teach history properly.

[Scott Mayers]

With all the knowledge of the attrocities they committed, why is nazism becoming increasingly popular in the Western world (Europe and U.S.)?

"Nationalism" is more on a rise, not the German "Nazism", as we use to cartoon evil. The cartooned cult versions are trivial and highly non-representative of the modern politics except for the interests of some to want to keep it alive to arouse fear.

"Nationalism" has as its correlative terms, "nation" or "native", and the 'nature' of its political meaning is about the belief that "particular people own a primary genetic inheritance of the Earth or some part of it over and above others."

This 'nature' is thought of as aboriginal animals are to some geological location but also to their 'freedom' to roam in multiple places. So many treat their "Nationalism" as the tribal type that link people culturally to their genetic inheritances. They believe there is an intrinsic "nature" to people based upon their genetic inheritance as defining their environmental inheritance in sync. As such, they might believe that if someone has genetic relations to some class of people associated with certain environmental factor, like one who might associate being African-American as linked NECESSARILY to one who likes and plays basketball. The stereotypes can be based upon true statistical factors of a time and place in context but is in error when or where they transition this stereotype to one's genetic roots.

To me, an excellent example of this is how in many societies, we might legally assign one's genetic heritage of being aboriginal as sufficient to permit them unique laws of preservation or enhancement. For instance, if you are born "aboriginal" but are raised by some adopted family, many laws in our countries permit distinct status recognition of the person as 'owning' their genetic ancestor's culture, religion, or associations. They are more often restricted to 'positive' stereotypes but BEG the 'negative' ones too if stereotypes at all are justified rationally.

So before moving further, may I ask if you think that anyone has a right to "heritage" laws? I ask this because many assume this as a normal and fair 'right' WITHOUT noticing the logical connection to "nationalistic" thinking when it is significant. Ignore for the moment the historical "Nazis" as this just misappropriates the link of the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY of the particular historical kind of Nationalism of Germany and to how they caused the Holocaust with obvious negative consequences. Most might not even consider themselves "Nationalists" in the same derogatory way we perceive the WWII Nazis.

[Scott Mayers]

I think you'll find the print should be NATIONAL socialism. There's a fair gap between the forms of Socialism and national socialism is more akin to fascism than 'marxist' communism but they do share many traits.

The political extreme ideals of Communism and National Socialism are linked to an original philosophical question about whether a people's government (management system of all people by and/or for the people) could exist VOLUNTARILY. Many begun to believe that given the advancements of the "modern" era [rationalism and science era] lead also to industrial successes and invigorated/reinvigorated the hope that people could succeed better without formal management. This idea is what many people called, "anarchy", some type of society that lacks having 'authority' (arch) over each other.

Both branches of thinking believed that people COULD volunteer social cohesion if we were to let nature, as cruel as it might be, to run its course to first eliminate those who are less 'fit' to social assimilation. But the two differ on what SHOULD be done to enable this voluntary ideal. The communistic version believed that a temporary government should be set up to combine 'ownership' into a collective without bias to any specific person's genetic roots, set up a 'goal' for a future society with the voluntary sacrifice of each of ourselves in the present. The National Socialist version believed you cannot evade genetic heritage regardless because the power of common interests of those who do think strictly of their own genetic in-group heritage, will overrule those without similar group association. So the National Socialist opted to purging those who refuse to assimilate to some SPECIFIC heritage that is 'officially' formulated (whether made up or not) that discriminates most specifically to those who segregate themselves based upon a counter-heritage against that formulated one.

The National Socialists believed EMBRACING a common SPECIFIC culture of identity using a strict religious approach. The Communists believed in EMBRACING a GENERAL culture but without religion other than a secular 'heaven of progeny' (their children's future world here on Earth).

The original idea of anarchy also commingled with Darwin's work on Evolution. National Socialism would treat the TRIBE as required to be strong and cruel where needed. To do this, a myth or religious conviction is needed to be shared in common. Those NOT IN the group(s) will suffer at the expense of those IN groups regardless of universally declared intentions. Thus, they believed the Communistic ideal was a scam with some hidden agenda by some SPECIFIC group being deceptive of this assumed fact. To them, the Jews represented this kind of group intent on using Communism as a phony front to appeal to the masses only to covertly 'manage' society as their own.

This was the general background and relation of the two.

[Alizia]

With all the knowledge of the atrocities they committed, why is nazism becoming increasingly popular in the Western world (Europe and U.S.)?

It is a good question, in fact. I became curious about this phenomenon (a year or so ago) and tried to answer it. I came up with: that because 'the victors control the narrative of history', and because people have come to see that there are many different levels of lie that support our own liberal-cultural regimes, that there is an assumption that they have not received the whole truth about Germany and all the events of the world wars.

So, with a few clicks they look up webpages and videos that seem to support the view that there is an alternative history that they were not told.

There is another part, and that is the issue (the problem) of 'historical revisionism'. Long before our own day, people had questioned the 'official narratives' for different reasons and different motives. In the best case scenario one could assume that historical revision is a good faith undertaking. That new information will reveal a more truthful picture. In the worst-case, unscrupulous people will deliberately mislead others for purposes which are various.

Among those who define themselves as 'Nazis' today, I have noticed, one finds marginalized people who look for an 'identity' that suits them. But their Nazism is more like a social club than a real movement. It is based in 'tropes' about Nazism and is not really thought through. Hard to assess what these people get out of it or why they are there.

Finally, as everyone has noticed, there has relatively recently arisen a new permissiveness to delve into criticism of Jews. This has developed into a complex narrative that has different strains and levels. There is, of course, a strain that could be called Anti-Semitism. There is a strain that could be called Jewish critique. If Nazism is considered in a different light, then this often leads to different ways of looking at Jews, Judaism and of course Israel.

Finally, I think I read that rather constantly Adolf Hitler is a search term. Possibly because AH has been established as a more-or-less Satanic figure, people want to know -- need to know perhaps -- what is the real truth about him. Curiosity, the attraction of what is evil and forbidden, and then a kind of fascination for such a strange and devastating period of history that still lingers on in the imagination.

[Atla]

With all the knowledge of the attrocities they committed, why is nazism becoming increasingly popular in the Western world (Europe and U.S.)?

A big reason is that humanity only has two options: try eugenics, or accept total extinction.

Humanity has chosen death, perhaps it couldn't have done otherwise. Personally I'll never understand why people want to die so badly, as I want to live, but oh well. It's a wonder we even made it this far but I think time is running out now.

[Logik]

A big reason is that humanity only has two options: try eugenics, or accept total extinction.

Humanity has chosen death, perhaps it couldn't have done otherwise. Personally I'll never understand why people want to die so badly, as I want to live, but oh well. It's a wonder we even made it this far but I think time is running out now.

Depending on what you mean by "eugenics" it could be just another mechanism for evolutionary suicide.

If by eugenics you mean "the maximisation of desirable traits through society" we could end up just like the the banana.
A monoculture on the verge of extinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture

On the other hand - eugenics could mean "the filtering out of undesirable traits". That is already in progress.
We abort foetuses with known genetic defects.

We don't know what traits to optimise for. What we have is preferences, not knowledge.

Diversity <-> Monoculture is a continuum. And we don't know where the 'balance' is between the two.
I think it's safer to bet on diversity.

And so in that sense - I am already practicing eugenics. My wife is black. I am white. The babies are going to be caramels.
If there's such a thing as "Aryan race" it's going to come through cross-breeding, not engineering.

[Atla]

A big reason is that humanity only has two options: try eugenics, or accept total extinction.

Humanity has chosen death, perhaps it couldn't have done otherwise. Personally I'll never understand why people want to die so badly, as I want to live, but oh well. It's a wonder we even made it this far but I think time is running out now.

Depending on what you mean by "eugenics" it could be just another mechanism for evolutionary suicide.

If by eugenics you mean "the maximisation of desirable traits through society" we could end up just like the the banana.
A monoculture on the verge of extinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture

On the other hand - eugenics could mean "the filtering out of undesirable traits". That is already in progress.
We abort foetuses with known genetic defects.

We don't know what traits to optimise for. What we have is preferences, not knowledge.

Diversity <-> Monoculture is a continuum. And we don't know where the 'balance' is between the two.
I think it's safer to bet on diversity.

And so in that sense - I am already practicing eugenics. My wife is black. I am white. The babies are going to be caramels.
If there's such a thing as "Aryan race" it's going to come through cross-breeding, not engineering.

Seriously, as a clinical NPD you should never have children and your wife is a fucking idiot (in the unlikely case that you really have one and aren't just making it up).

This is the tragedy of this world, we can already tell that your children will be subject to much suffering. And there's no benevolent global eugenics program in place to prevent it.

[Logik]

Seriously, as a clinical NPD you should never have children and your wife is a fucking idiot (in the unlikely case that you really have one and aren't just making it up).

This is the tragedy of this world, we can already tell that your children will be subject to much suffering. And there's no benevolent global eugenics program in place to prevent it.

Never learned the Kansas City Shuffle, did you?

That's why you are no scientist material. Nor clinical psychologist material for that matter.

[-1-]

Because the generations that remember are pretty much dying out.

True. I am Jewish, and I was born ten years after the war. I and my Jewish friends, those who were born any time after the war, we make camp jokes*. Much like a Nazi would.

My mother survived the Holocaust, in Auschwitz and in some other forced-labour Lager, and so did many of my older family and relatives. They don't make jokes about camp life in the Lagers. Never have.

My mother died over fifty years ago. My uncle, the last surviving person who had been to Auschwitz in my family, is now 93. They never made a Holocaust joke, we never made a joke when they were present in company.

So, yes, the dying of the eyewitnesses has a lot to do with the gravity of the historical event.

-----------------------------------

[Logik]

Because the generations that remember are pretty much dying out.

True. I am Jewish, and I was born ten years after the war. I and my Jewish friends, those who were born any time after the war, we make camp jokes*. Much like a Nazi would.

My mother survived the Holocaust, in Auschwitz and in some other forced-labour Lager, and so did many of my older family and relatives. They don't make jokes about camp life in the Lagers. Never have.

My mother died over fifty years ago. My uncle, the last surviving person who had been to Auschwitz in my family, is now 93. They never made a Holocaust joke, we never made a joke when they were present in company.

So, yes, the dying of the eyewitnesses has a lot to do with the gravity of the historical event.

-----------------------------------

This is fascinating and insightful, and I have a question.

Where do you stand on proxy-outrage?

If somebody were to make camp jokes around you and in the presence of your relatives. And even rudely refuses to stop when asked to (e.g being a proper asshole) would you interfere knowing full well that you make camp jokes (albeit in a private setting)?

This is something I struggle with a lot. I have a dark sense of humour which is a coping mechanism for some dark shit I've seen in the police, but I measure my words around those who have been through hell and I would stand up for them when necessary. Even though I have no problem joking around that stuff in private.

[DPMartin]

Nazism
In today’s world might be popular in US prisons from what I understand, but that’s probably more of a survival instinct then anything. If you’re white and in prison it might be wise to associate one’s self to something that is at the least feared for undesirable consequences by those who would harm you just for fun. I’m sure there’s more to it then just that, including what the disenfranchised in seeking to belong with like minds. But that’s true with any mind set or political/social pholsophy, some are just more popular then others.

The word Nazi and how those who use it is another case, its SOP for media and the like in the U.S. to give voice to those who us Nazi practices to convince general public that those not politically affiliated to their agendas and are susceptible to being politically incorrect according to the views support, accuse such as to be Nazis or Nazi like. But it was the Nazis that subdued and oppressed any political opposition to their views, which is what media does.

For example, if a public figure was to make some comment that could be construed as racist or prejudice and it was leaked to the public via media. Said person would be fired if they didn’t let the offender go through rigorous apologies for expressing his views freely. Hence the Nazi like oppression of views not in line with theirs meaning media and those using it. And this doesn’t mean it is genuinely their views as far as media and the like are concerned, its what they want the public to see as the right thing and the wrong thing for their purposes.

Most don’t understand that media is for propaganda only, nothing more. Could be art, could be the arts could be movies, could be music, could be the news. Its media promoting what the financier/promoter of the media wants to be heard and seen. Public voice if you will, or voice to the public perceived and declared as public voice. And rest ashore, that voice is well controlled and invested in.

There are many voices out there but only a few are really heard by the many, and who is in control of that?
Another example the POTUS makes a speech they quote five words and spend anywhere from two to a round table of talking heads for 30 minutes or more telling you what it means, and what you should think of it.

Ok that rants over but in todays mud sling fest Nazism isn’t popular, its popular to declare the politically incorrect to be Nazis in an effort to use the method the Nazis used to squelch opposition to their agendas no matter how self-righteous they may seem or be. They just don’t send thugs to beat you about, they send media to destroy your life.

[-1-]

Nazism
In today’s world might be popular in US prisons from what I understand, but that’s probably more of a survival instinct then anything. If you’re white and in prison it might be wise to associate one’s self to something that is at the least feared for undesirable consequences by those who would harm you just for fun. I’m sure there’s more to it then just that, including what the disenfranchised in seeking to belong with like minds. But that’s true with any mind set or political/social pholsophy, some are just more popular then others.

The word Nazi and how those who use it is another case, its SOP for media and the like in the U.S. to give voice to those who us Nazi practices to convince general public that those not politically affiliated to their agendas and are susceptible to being politically incorrect according to the views support, accuse such as to be Nazis or Nazi like. But it was the Nazis that subdued and oppressed any political opposition to their views, which is what media does.

For example, if a public figure was to make some comment that could be construed as racist or prejudice and it was leaked to the public via media. Said person would be fired if they didn’t let the offender go through rigorous apologies for expressing his views freely. Hence the Nazi like oppression of views not in line with theirs meaning media and those using it. And this doesn’t mean it is genuinely their views as far as media and the like are concerned, its what they want the public to see as the right thing and the wrong thing for their purposes.

Most don’t understand that media is for propaganda only, nothing more. Could be art, could be the arts could be movies, could be music, could be the news. Its media promoting what the financier/promoter of the media wants to be heard and seen. Public voice if you will, or voice to the public perceived and declared as public voice. And rest ashore, that voice is well controlled and invested in.

There are many voices out there but only a few are really heard by the many, and who is in control of that?
Another example the POTUS makes a speech they quote five words and spend anywhere from two to a round table of talking heads for 30 minutes or more telling you what it means, and what you should think of it.

Ok that rants over but in todays mud sling fest Nazism isn’t popular, its popular to declare the politically incorrect to be Nazis in an effort to use the method the Nazis used to squelch opposition to their agendas no matter how self-righteous they may seem or be. They just don’t send thugs to beat you about, they send media to destroy your life.

This is true.

The media is run by the media owners, who are the richest people in America. They feed Americans whatever the heck they want to. (Or the rich of other countries feed to other countries' people what they want the other countries' people to do.) The two percent of the population who own 98 percent of all wealth, can make us think whatever they want.

Example: Trump for President. Sharia law in Islamic countries. Free sex, food, music, love, and general debouchery and marriment in Hungary. Trains running on time in Germany. Culinary delights galore in France. Teeming in China. Suicide in Sweden. ETC.

[Scott Mayers]

On a related note, maybe worth a separate thread, is that Facebook now has removed "hate speech" pages or groups, most particularly the "Nazi-like" ones. Though I'm not a member of Facebook, does anyone think this a wise move? I mean even considering the point "-1-" makes about how we use humor to laugh at ourselves within our OWN groups, how can such a move of censor (and censure) improve things when the public is not unable to judge what is or is not being removed? I'd rather KNOW who people are for what they are AND have the open capacity to challenge them for their openness of 'hate'. I'd rather have the chance to possibly affect the thinking of others as well.

Also, given most social media and search engines now narrow who can already see who the person is, this move seems even more questionable and opens the door for an acceptance of censorship as a norm by some select people we are not allowed to question. Wouldn't this very fact only rile up those groups who are presumably defaulted to believe they are targeted by a conspiracy of 'counter-haters', such as those Nazi-groups? I also question whether those groups are themselves as 'real' when I notice, as a skeptic, many apparent 'Satanist-like' groups, sites, or artists, are only cartooning the stance against the religious extremes and are themselves often 'atheists', not actual counter-religious Satanists.

Personally, I think the promotion of "Nazi" fears is itself promoting its existence. If anything, we need to limit how the platforms are permitted to falsely present what we seek for. HOW can platforms that are intricately designed to 'censor' by HOW they are able to target us for advertisers NOT able to use this data collection to seek for the terrorists by their interests? In other words why would they need public support for censoring unique groups labeled as "hate" groups when the power they have for BEING open and on record through these open platforms already make them easy to expose?

To me a 'counter-hate' hatred of groups labeled as "hate groups", begs whether those behind the curtain of power for censor are not themselves 'haters' intent on falsely misleading the public who the enemies really are. Nazism is NOT popular and the modern extremes are cartoons of the original versions.