Why is nazism popular today?

[nothing]

Nazism cannot be boiled down to superiority.

Aside from that obvious error, I have no idea what you are on about.

Perhaps you don't because your error was, you either didn't read, or can't:

...It is firmly rooted in BELIEF: to "believe" one to be superior to another. Hence: all Nazis are "BELIEVERS".
If one is not a "believer", one can not possibly "believe" to be superior to another....

You can't believe to be superior without belief. It doesn't matter what "justifies" it,
the only fundamental premise for any conceivable "us vs. them" situation is division.

That is inclusive of "believer vs. unbeliever" wherein the former are persecuting/killing the latter
while claiming/hoping "believers" will "believe" the opposite is true. Such is "belief".

[Immanuel Can]

Why are we talking about a belief system that nobody believes in anymore?

Nazism was decisively defeated in WW2. Perhaps one could argue the Southern Democrats held onto a form of its racial purity doctrine up until the end of Segregation, but nowadays, even they have given that part of Nazism up. All they retain now is the "Socialist" part.

Nazism isn't "popular today," as the OP asks us to assume. It's roaringly unpopular.

[Sculptor]

Why are we talking about a belief system that nobody believes in anymore?

Nazism was decisively defeated in WW2. Perhaps one could argue the Southern Democrats held onto a form of its racial purity doctrine up until the end of Segregation, but nowadays, even they have given that part of Nazism up. All they retain now is the "Socialist" part.

Nazism isn't "popular today," as the OP asks us to assume. It's roaringly unpopular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Why are we talking about a belief system that nobody believes in anymore?

Nazism was decisively defeated in WW2. Perhaps one could argue the Southern Democrats held onto a form of its racial purity doctrine up until the end of Segregation, but nowadays, even they have given that part of Nazism up. All they retain now is the "Socialist" part.

Nazism isn't "popular today," as the OP asks us to assume. It's roaringly unpopular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Not all terrorism or "white / racial supremacy" is necessarily "Nazi"; this as well as the term "fascist" are often merely used and abused in popular discourse.

To me, Nazism was a totalitarian, radically consequentialist ideology; while many of the people identified by the sensationalist media as "Nazis" are probably more akin to gang or tribal violence than the actual Nazi regime was. (But given that I see little to no redeeming value in Nazism or fascism I don't care to study it in anymore depth than that, the same with Communism").

I'm tempted to argue that, lately the uneducated internet "anarchists" and their affiliated internet trolls have somewhat rendered the term impotent, since to them 99.99% of "reality" has a "Nazi or "Fascist" bias. (e.x. The family - Nazis - Being patriotic - Nazi, the English Language - Nazi, the Law - Nazi - Biology - Nazi, Marriage - Nazi, Hollywood - Nazi - The Daily Show - Nazi - Europe and North America or so-called "white people" - Nazi - College and education (except for critical theory, Marx, Foucault, etc - Nazi. cis heterosexual relationships - Nazi - medical industry - Nazi - all business and companies except ones which produce far-left propaganda, or award degrees in a critical theory related field, a la Salon.com - Nazi), private property (except their computer, their anime porn collections, etc - Nazi), any meritocratic actual artist standard other than critical theory (Nazi), being able to read about a 6th grade level, or having finished a HS or GED education - Nazi. and so on - all news, entertainment, and mass media other than whatever "radical" left or critical theory source they copy and plagiarize their ideas from (Nazi) - anyone an inch to the "right" of Michel Foucault, Karl Marx, Bill Ayers, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Dennis Diderot, or Maximillian Robspierre - Nazi.

Next on the list should be the Volkswagon Beetle; It was invented in Nazi Germany, so it must automatically be "evil" and those who drive on are "Nazis".

[Immanuel Can]

Why are we talking about a belief system that nobody believes in anymore?

Nazism was decisively defeated in WW2. Perhaps one could argue the Southern Democrats held onto a form of its racial purity doctrine up until the end of Segregation, but nowadays, even they have given that part of Nazism up. All they retain now is the "Socialist" part.

Nazism isn't "popular today," as the OP asks us to assume. It's roaringly unpopular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Seriously? One loony in Norway? That's your idea of evidence that the Nazi Party is now "popular"?

Awesome. Your "logic" is more fun that a barrel o' monkeys.

[Immanuel Can]

Next on the list should be the Volkswagon Beetle; It was invented in Nazi Germany, so it must automatically be "evil" and those who drive on are "Nazis".

The "logic" of the Left on this isn't even as good as you're giving them credit for, IBB. At least we could say the Beetle originated in Germany, at least associated with Hitler. That assumes there's at least a tangential connection, and some bad reasoning behind the idea that "Nazism is popular."

There's actually no good reasoning at all. And ironically, it's the Left itself that's trying to resurrect Socialism, along with Nazi tactics, as exemplified by the ANTIFA crew.

So it just makes no sense at all. Period.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Next on the list should be the Volkswagon Beetle; It was invented in Nazi Germany, so it must automatically be "evil" and those who drive on are "Nazis".

The "logic" of the Left on this isn't even as good as you're giving them credit for, IBB. At least we could say the Beetle originated in Germany, at least associated with Hitler. That assumes there's at least a tangential connection, and some bad reasoning behind the idea that "Nazism is popular."

There's actually no good reasoning at all. And ironically, it's the Left itself that's trying to resurrect Socialism, along with Nazi tactics, as exemplified by the ANTIFA crew.

So it just makes no sense at all. Period.

I'm not sure about "socialism" since that's another word which get used and abused.

As far as having an antisocial "end justifies any and all means" worldview, they do have that much in common with the Nazis, yes.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure about "socialism" since that's another word which get used and abused.

Nazis were "National Socialists." That was their package: big government, centralized control of the economy, and racial suprematism.

The Communists were International Socialists. But their hatred of each other was only over the scope of the Socialist project, not its methods or its legitimacy. And between them, they killed well over 140 million human beings in the last century.

I'd say it's time to send Socialism as an idea packing, wouldn't you? But if anybody's keeping that legacy alive, it's the Postmodern Left.

As far as having an antisocial "end justifies any and all means" worldview, they do have that much in common with the Nazis, yes.

But what "end" did they have in view, in both cases? It was Socialism.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

I'm not sure about "socialism" since that's another word which get used and abused.

Nazis were "National Socialists." That was their package: big government, centralized control of the economy, and racial suprematism.

The Communists were International Socialists. But their hatred of each other was only over the scope of the Socialist project, not its methods or its legitimacy. And between them, they killed well over 140 million human beings in the last century.

I'd say it's time to send Socialism as an idea packing, wouldn't you? But if anybody's keeping that legacy alive, it's the Postmodern Left.

As far as having an antisocial "end justifies any and all means" worldview, they do have that much in common with the Nazis, yes.

But what "end" did they have in view, in both cases? It was Socialism.

That's conflationary, and you've yet to define "socialism", or what the absence of "socialism" is to begin with, assuming it exists except in pure abstraction.

Both were tyrannical or totalitarian governments ruled by a single leader or party with no checks and balances; that's what, they had in common; I don't particularly care to discuss the "economics" since "socialism" is another world which is used sensationally and often in ignorance of the law as it already is to begin with, in theory and practice.

[Immanuel Can]

you've yet to define "socialism"

Actually, I did...a couple of messages back. Big government, centralized control of key sectors, collectivist political ideology.

Both were tyrannical or totalitarian governments ruled by a single leader or party with no checks and balances;

That's because the whole idea of "checks and balances" comes from America, from the ideology of freedom and individualism, not from Socialism. The "checks and balances" were designed to prevent centralized control by government, abuses of power by authoritarian dictatorships, and so on -- exactly the things that Socialism has inevitably produced in every place it's been tried.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

you've yet to define "socialism"

Actually, I did...a couple of messages back. Big government, centralized control of key sectors, collectivist political ideology.

Give me specifics; "big government" and "collectivist" are just terms thrown around sensationally.

That's because the whole idea of "checks and balances" comes from America, from the ideology of freedom and individualism, not from Socialism.

Checks and balances did not originate in America.

What are you defining as "socialism"? Or "freedom and individualism" as the relate to the law, not popular or 'folk" notions; given that these ideas aren't exclusive to "America" either. "Freedom and individualism" outside of Constitutional rights, or forbidden by state law (e.x. the "freedom" to rape or murder") obviously isn't relevant to America, nor is the idea of anarchy, which makes any discussion or appeal to "America" as an ideal or institution redundant to begin with.

The "checks and balances" were designed to prevent centralized control by government, abuses of power by authoritarian dictatorships, and so on -- exactly the things that Socialism has inevitably produced in every place it's been tried.

That has nothing directly to do with "socialism", in fact I don't believe "socialism" was even a word at the time. If you're simply equating "authoritarian / totalitarian " regimes with "socialism" then I find it redundant.

The government was also and rightfully designed to prevent "mob rule" or "direct democracy".

[Immanuel Can]

you've yet to define "socialism"

Actually, I did...a couple of messages back. Big government, centralized control of key sectors, collectivist political ideology.

Give me specifics; "big government" and "collectivist" are just terms thrown around sensationally.

It's hard to be more specific, not because it's impossible for a government to be "too big," or a society to be "too Collectivist," because very obviously, it is; but because the difference these things are degrees on a scale, not points.

A government that takes over too many functions is getting too big; but there's some reasonable dispute on exactly where the line falls. It's the far ends of the scale that are super-clear: Radical Libertarianism's too 'loose" to permit society; but full-on Socialism's too "tight" to permit many essential individual freedoms.

The "checks and balances" were designed to prevent centralized control by government, abuses of power by authoritarian dictatorships, and so on -- exactly the things that Socialism has inevitably produced in every place it's been tried.

That has nothing directly to do with "socialism",

Yeah, that's what every advocate of Socialism insists. They all tell you that whatever horror show came out of the last version of Socialism, "that wasn't real Socialism." What would turn out to be "real Socialism" would be whatever cockamamie version of it that speaker thinks he would run. Of course, that's exactly what every Socialist before him also thought...and every last one of them was wrong. Fatally wrong.

If you're simply equating "authoritarian / totalitarian " regimes with "socialism" then I find it redundant.

Socialism inevitably always collapses into authoritarianism. That's what has happened in every single case where it was allowed to become the dominant political mode.

The government was also and rightfully designed to prevent "mob rule" or "direct democracy".

This is true. And this is why we can't simply say that we'll have no government at all. This is where Libertarianism goes too far. Agreed. But to give too much power to the government creates authoritarianism and tyranny. This is why the "checks and balances" were introduced...to stop government from getting too big, and taking on too much power.

But Socialists tend to surrender more and more of the economy and of private life as well, to the interference of the collective, as mediated to them through big government, and eventually, through dictators as well. They pave over all the "checks and balances," in the mistaken and suicidal belief that the only thing wrong with the current government is that it's not being allowed to do enough.

[henry quirk]

That depends on...

...the specific libertarianism you're talkin' about...

lotta thinkin', not all of it good, falls under the umbrella

...and...

...how you define society.

one man's society is another's prison

[Immanuel Can]

That depends on...

...the specific libertarianism you're talkin' about...

lotta thinkin', not all of it good, falls under the umbrella

That's certainly true.

...and...

...how you define society.

one man's society is another's prison

Can be. Soviet Russia was certainly a gulag. And Cuba is, right now. And Venezuela. And North Korea.

Hey, what have all those places got in common? Oh yeah...Socialism.

[Sculptor]

Why are we talking about a belief system that nobody believes in anymore?

Nazism was decisively defeated in WW2. Perhaps one could argue the Southern Democrats held onto a form of its racial purity doctrine up until the end of Segregation, but nowadays, even they have given that part of Nazism up. All they retain now is the "Socialist" part.

Nazism isn't "popular today," as the OP asks us to assume. It's roaringly unpopular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Not all terrorism or "white / racial supremacy" is necessarily "Nazi"; this as well as the term "fascist" are often merely used and abused in popular discourse.

Breivik self indentifies with NAZI.
That is why I linked the article.

To me, Nazism was a totalitarian, radically consequentialist ideology; while many of the people identified by the sensationalist media as "Nazis" are probably more akin to gang or tribal violence than the actual Nazi regime was. (But given that I see little to no redeeming value in Nazism or fascism I don't care to study it in anymore depth than that, the same with Communism").

Breivik goes all the way. Not a dumb twat, but a man with a clear rationalised vision, and able to cleverly articulate his position.

I'm tempted to argue that, lately the uneducated internet "anarchists" and their affiliated internet trolls have somewhat rendered the term impotent,

Possibly - but as with most terms of abuse it is an exaggeration of- that is not to say that Naziism is not alive and well. When at its height it was encouraged and persisted due to a host of morons in Germany. If you are looking for a typical Nazi, or an average Nazi, see a run of the mill patriot, just given a little more latitude by the centre.

... since to them 99.99%

99.9% of all stats are made up on the spot

of "reality" has a "Nazi or "Fascist" bias. (e.x. The family - Nazis - Being patriotic - Nazi, the English Language - Nazi, the Law - Nazi - Biology - Nazi, Marriage - Nazi, Hollywood - Nazi - The Daily Show - Nazi - Europe and North America or so-called "white people" - Nazi - College and education (except for critical theory, Marx, Foucault, etc - Nazi. cis heterosexual relationships - Nazi - medical industry - Nazi - all business and companies except ones which produce far-left propaganda, or award degrees in a critical theory related field, a la Salon.com - Nazi), private property (except their computer, their anime porn collections, etc - Nazi), any meritocratic actual artist standard other than critical theory (Nazi), being able to read about a 6th grade level, or having finished a HS or GED education - Nazi. and so on - all news, entertainment, and mass media other than whatever "radical" left or critical theory source they copy and plagiarize their ideas from (Nazi) - anyone an inch to the "right" of Michel Foucault, Karl Marx, Bill Ayers, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Dennis Diderot, or Maximillian Robspierre - Nazi.

You are exhibiting the same sort of hysterical exaggeration of those your criticise for the widening of the term Nazi.

Next on the list should be the Volkswagon Beetle; It was invented in Nazi Germany, so it must automatically be "evil" and those who drive on are "Nazis".

QED. My last comment. No one calls Beetles evil.