The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Admin: this forum header contains 3 comments.  The first two are from Joe Bloggs, and the 3rd is a long article by Paul Austin Murphy.  This has been done to allow easy location of some key info.  This forum has become a repository for info about the Fascist Left = National Socialists = Nazis.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Joe Bloggs: Etymology of the word "Nazi"

I came across this account in a book on the SS (which I picked up in a museum bookshop, and forgot to write down the details).  So, stumbling across it again today (in search for the quote about Egyptian national radio glorifying the Holocaust in the 1960s), I thought I'd record it for posterity.

“The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”.  So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves.  One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and  subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.” (Metapedia)

http://justice4germans.com/page/20/

I haven't got the time to do an assessment of either metapedia or the site where I found that quote. However, it fits exactly with my memory of what the book on the SS said about the creation and popularisation of the term "Nazi".  Every time we use "Nazi" rather than "National Socialist", we are enabling the Left to disown the collectivist genocide of jews done in the name of Socialism.

http://4freedoms.com/group/argumentation/forum/topics/why-national-...

_______________________________________________________________________________

Joe Bloggs: The True History of Germany and the 2nd World War

I think that National Socialism is going to be rehabilitated (particularly in Germany).

This book was self-published in 2009, and by 2011 the German version had gone through 11 editions.  Even the English language version is on its 6th edition. 

http://www.lulu.com/shop/gerd-schultze-rhonhof/1939-the-war-that-ha...

The internet revolution is robbing the power elite (media, academics) of their hold over information/narratives. 

A documentary of the book is available on the internet, and makes surprising viewing.  It contains a lot of information/claims about the run-up to WW2 of which I was unaware.  The documentaries shown on British TV take a very different angle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mA0kk29DBA

The bottom line is this: Germans are starting to say that blame for the causes of WW2 lie elsewhere than Hitler/Germany. When people start to realise that National Socialism was (for its time) a "progressive", socialist, redistributive, unifying ideology I can see Germans starting to find that they've been lied to for a long time. Since the modern Leftists are also jew-hating/anti-Israeli, then I can see the taint of anti-semitism being a small price for them to pay to reclaim their national pride. God help us if the Leftists embrace National Socialism rather than rejecting the cartoon version of "nazism" and fascism we've been fed for 50 years or more.  Since the muslims in Europe are leading this resurgence in neo-nazism, it could be a terrible alliance.

We are living in extraordinary times.

===========================================================================================

Paul Austin Murphy: Why National Socialists (Nazis) are Socialists & Not Patriots

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - Adolph Hitler, May 1, 1927

We will initiate massive state-subsidized work programs in order to fulfil our goal of full employment at fair and just wage… the capitalist system has created a war between the classes. The losers of this war have been the working class… the modern class structure being based largely on one’s economic prowess… The spoils of this parasitical elite class will be seized and redistributed to the people.” - Andrew Anglin, 2013, from the blog, Total Fascism

Introduction

A website commentator, by the name Jamie Clayton, once told me why he was such a fan of National Socialism. He wrote:

Under the national socialist government there was 100% employment, big business was not allowed to profit at the expense of small and the poor were valued as much as the rich...”

This is almost word for word what countless Communists/Leftists have said about Stalin's regime as well about various other Leftist states. In fact Seumas Milne, the assistant editor of the Guardian, still often waxes lyrically about how the Soviet Union (in Jamie Clayton's words) “created100% employment” and made sure that “big business was not allowed to profit at the expense of small” and “the poor were valued as much as the rich”. Or, in Seumas Milne's own words, the Soviet Union

delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment...”

The issues Seumas Milne doesn't address (except to downplay or deny them), are those of the totalitarianism, the complete annihilation of democracy, the labour and death camps, the Gestapo/KGB, the class and race 'liquidations', the war economies, the Soviet Union's imperialist empire, the deadly uniformity, etc. But who cares about all that if you have “100% employment”, “social justice” and “class equality”?

Marxist Accounts of National Socialism

There have been literally hundreds of Marxist/Leftist accounts of the nature of fascism and Nazism; as well as of the rise of the Nazis and fascists in the 1920s and 30s. (Many accounts have been Marxist even though the writers and analysts didn't necessarily see themselves as being Marxists.)

All of these accounts claim that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s socialist credentials were completely baseless.

That's strange. Mussolini started out life as a literal or explicit socialist. He spent at least twelve years of his life as a socialist activist and many of the ideas and values of socialism stayed with him throughout the rest of his life. Hitler, On the other hand, is said to have adopted socialist ideas and policies simply to serve his racial nationalism. (Why couldn't he have been both a racial nationalist and a socialist? More of which later.)

Leftists/Marxists also glibly claim that that the Nazis and fascists didn’t genuinely believe in “the common ownership of the means of production”. Perhaps not. However, not a single socialist or Communist regime in the 20th century put the means of production in the workers’ hands either. The Communist parties - or the Communist/socialist states - put the means of production into their own hands - even if “on behalf of the workers”. Not only that. Many socialists and Communist knew that this would happen - and even said this this would happen - well before they gained state power. So, in the end, the means of production, in the 20th century, were never in the hands on the workers in any country or at any time. (But, of course, come the next Leftist revolution, everything will be so much better.. and if not then, perhaps the time after that.) Consequently, from a socialist/Communist perspective, singling out the Nazis and fascists for being guilty on this count is a little rich.

As I said, some – though not all – Leftists/Marxists claim that from the very start (i.e., circa 1920), Hitler simply used socialism for his own ends. Nonetheless, Professor Rick Wilford does at least deign to cite the Nazi’s socialist ‘Twenty-Five Point programme’ of 1920 (note this academic's unacademic use of irony):

The ‘Twenty-Five Point Programme’ of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party published in 1920 included such ostensibly impeccable socialist goals as the nationalisation of large corporations, the abolition of unearned income, the confiscation of war profits and the prohibition of land speculation. But the commitment to such an agenda wore increasingly thin, albeit, albeit that Hitler was keenly aware of the need to counteract the growth of support among workers for socialism…” (page 200)

On the other hand, some Marxists have vaguely - or quietly - admitted that Hitler was indeed a socialist - of some kind - in the very early days. Nonetheless, they too claim that by the late 1920s Hitler had completely given up on socialism.

Another Marxist/Leftist claim is that Hitler “was keenly aware of the need to counteract the growth of support among the workers for socialism”. This completely overlooks or discounts the possible fusion of socialism and nationalism. That's also odd if you consider the rather obvious fact that Hitler was a National Socialist.

Specifically, Marxists/Leftists discount two things. Firstly, they discount Hitler’s fusion of national and socialism. Secondly, they also discount the possibility that German workers (even if socialist) would - or could - have quite happily accepted Hitler’s fusion of socialism and nationalism. It’s as if Leftists/Marxists simply take it for granted that nationalism and socialism could never have been fused and therefore that the German workers would never have been truly committed to Hitler’s National Socialism. Yet why couldn’t nationalism and socialism have been fused? Do Marxists think it is a conceptual or even a logical impossibility? Surely not! And why couldn’t millions of German workers have happily accepted that fusion of nationalism and socialism?

Again, Leftists/Marxists reject even the very possibility of any fusion of nationalism and socialism. That mindless assumption, or Marxist diktat, is of course believed - or simply just propagated - to distance all (international) socialists from Hitler’s (national) socialists.

Another claim is that Hitler never had the mass support of the German workers anyway. Professor Wilford writes that

[b]y the later 1920s the relative failure of the Nazi Party to secure mass support among the working class led them to re-orientate their appeal to capitalists, small businessmen, farmers and white-collar workers.”

Some historians have argued that the Nazis did, in fact, have the mass support of the workers by the late 1920s. But it all depends on what exactly 'mass support’ means (in terms of numbers). If Leftists mean that Hitler never had the support of all – literally! - the German working class; then Hitler simply wouldn't have needed that level of support to secure political victory. In fact in all kinds of democracy no party has ever needed or received such mass support in order to secure power. (England's SWP usually has a year turn-over of about 1500 members.)

Another well-known Marxist commonplace is that Hitler turned his back on the workers and then embraced the ‘capitalists’ instead (in the late 1920s and early 1930s). Apart from this not be true on many historical and political accounts, Leftists imply that Hitler wouldn’t have welcomed the support of “capitalists, small businessmen, farmers and white-collar workers” in the early 1920s. That simply isn’t true either. Hitler was always a national socialist. If that were not the case, he would have simply been a socialist in the early days. But he was never a revolutionary socialist - who believed in class war - and no one has ever claimed that he was. The whole point of National Socialism, even in the early 1920s, was that it was against class conflict. It wanted to unite the classes on behalf on the nation and the German race. And there are many quotes from both Hitler and the Nazis generally which explicitly state that the uniting of the classes, although still within an explicitly socialist context, was a primary goal of National Socialism. (The Marxist “abolition of all classes” is another version of this same Nazi idea – the unification of all classes.)

So if it were the case - as on the classic Marxist account - of Hitler and the National Socialists stringing the German working class along, and then jettisoning them because of “the relative failure of the Nazi Party to secure mass support among them”, then all that doesn’t make much sense. In other words, the Nazis actually embraced ‘capitalists’ from the beginning – or at least Hitler and the ‘Right socialists’ did. Many capitalists, on the other hand, didn’t return that favour until, in actual fact, after Hitler was elected in 1933 - or at the very least immediately before. And all this despite the fact that in the Marxist version, the Nazis secured important capitalist support in the late 1920s and onwards. This is not to say that some capitalists didn’t support the Nazis before 1933 – of course they did! Nevertheless, the Marxist version has it that the capitalists exclusively helped Hitler gain power. On many other non-Marxist accounts, on the other hand, most capitalists (though it depends on which type of capitalist we are talking about) jumped ship to the Nazis just before or after the Nazis were elected (as capitalists or businessmen often do when a new party gains power).

 

Finally, Hitler's 25-point plan sums up Hitler's socialist credentials well and very explicitly. This plan is virtually indistinguishable from what, for example, the SWP/Counterfire/Respect - and many other Leftist groups - have offered over the years. However, since the plan was written in the early 1920s, it will obviously sound a little antiquated in certain respects.

Despite it various archaic phrases and policies, Hitler's socialist plan for Germany graphically demonstrates one of the biggest political lies or deceits of the 20th century: that the National Socialists were the literal opposites of the International Socialists (i.e., Communists, progressives, Trotskyists, etc.). Not surprisingly Leftists (Seumas Milne is a very good example of this) will want to keep this dirty little family secret hidden from the public at large. Indeed numerous Leftists over the years have come up with all sorts of neat little gimmicks and deceits to play down the socialist realities and credentials of the Nazi Party and of Adolph Hitler himself. But what else would you expect?

 

Why Both International Socialism & National Socialism are Totalitarian

Historically, Leftists have always claimed that “equating Stalin’s Russia with Nazi German and fascist Italy was a powerful way of demonising the communist threat to liberal democracy” (Wilford, pg. 213). Or, to quote Seumas Milne again, such “fashionable attempt[s] to equate communism and Nazism [are] moral and historical nonsense”.

Not only that. Leftists don't like the fact that the term ‘totalitarianism’ is “employed in a cavalier fashion” when applied to Communist/socialist regimes – any Communist/socialist regimes! It seems that the charge of totalitarianism cannot - by definition! - be applied to any Communist/socialist regime. Predictably, this simply means that only the Nazi and fascist regimes of the twentieth century were truly totalitarian. Well, well, who'd have thought otherwise, eh?

There are, of course, differences between Nazism and Communism/socialism. And Marxists/Leftists have fixated on these difference as a means to distance Communist/Marxist totalitarianism from Nazi/fascist totalitarianism. Nonetheless, these difference can’t - and don’t - mean that 20th century Communist/socialist regimes weren't totalitarian. For example, there are differences between democratic parliamentary parties: that doesn’t stop all of them being committed to parliamentary democracy. There were differences - some quite substantial! - between Italian fascism and German Nazism: that never stopped Marxists/Leftists from lumping them together.

Yes, Marxists/Leftists do indeed have their own quaint, insubstantial and unimportant differences in mind when they claim that no Communist/socialist regime - and even Stalin’s Soviet Union! - was ever totalitarian. Nonetheless, they are differences that don't make a difference to this issue.

So despite all the above, National Socialists are almost the exact counterparts of International Socialists. The following are just some of the many things which Leftists and Nazis believe and share:

i) A hatred of capitalism, (“capitalist”)democracy and America.

ii) The glorification - or fetishisation - of (Nazi/Leftist) state and street violence; all often in conjunction with the same - though sometimes tacit - hard-man's mantra: “By any means necessary.”

iii) Black-and-white (or Manichean) world-views with all the consequent conspiracy theories (often the same ones!) which go along with them.

iv) The promise full employment, selfless leaders, complete class equality and the annihilation of the Jews (or 'Zionists' in the case of Leftists).

That's why Leftists and Nazis need each other. They reflect each other and are fighting over the same political bones.

These two groups of socialists, both national and international, have sustained themselves on these largely unreal ideological oppositions. (Their mutual fight for political power, however, has always been very real.) Nazis would be nothing without the Marxists/Communists and vice versa. They feed off each other and would die if the other died. And that's mainly why the Inter-Nazis class everyone on the outside of their own little gang/sect as 'Nazis'; and it's equally why Nazis class everyone on the outside of their own little gang/sect as 'Marxists'/'Communists'.

After 90 years, this cartoon battle between the Reds and the Blacks has become very boring and entirely predictable. It's a pseudo-fight of supposedly “opposing ideologies” which simply disguises the fact that the Reds and Blacks are estranged brothers fighting, ultimately, for the same end – complete state power. And in order to bring that state power nearer, they promise us virtually the same economic and social prizes for our support.

 

Why National Socialists aren't Patriots

National Socialism is a biological struggle, or group evolutionary survival strategy… Nationalism can only be based on race or ethnicity. National Socialism is ultra-patriotism. - Mark Pringle

There you go again spouting you anti-nazi rhetoric! You should join Hope not Hate my leftist friend and stop playing at Nationalist politics.... a liberal piece of shit like you. Your lack of understanding of racial and ethnic dynamics is frightening. You are not part of the solution but part of the problem... what else would I expect of a liberal pretending to be a nationalist.” - Athelstan

Of course the massive differences between patriotism and National Socialism/fascism are conveniently ignored by International Socialists/Leftists (as well as by Nazis when they need to spread their word to patriots who aren't Nazis). It's very convenient for them to be able to fuse patriotism with Nazism/fascism - all the better to destroy them both. However, the terrible fact is that International Socialists share far more with National Socialists than patriots do! This shouldn't be at all surprise if you consider the fact that the two groups are both totalitarian and socialist.

 

For a start, state-worship is not the same as patriotism.

English National Socialists will of course say that they too are against the state. However, National Socialists aren’t against the state in the abstract. National Socialists are against the current state or government. Why? Because it’s not a National Socialist state.

If it were a National Socialist state, Nazis would worship it; which Nazis, historically, have always done. Indeed because Nation Socialism is essentially about the worship of the National Socialist state, Nazis wouldn’t think twice about annihilating patriots (such as “liberal nationalists”) who didn’t worship that state. They'd also annihilate all the patriots who didn't do or think the things that the Nazi state - or the Nazi Party - required of them.

Patriots, on the other hand, aren’t necessarily against the state or government; they just don’t confuse love of the state/government with love of the people and their traditions, cultures and values.

This Nazi inability to distinguish states and peoples is shown in the virulent anti-Americanism which has always been rife in Nazi movements (as it has been in Leftist and Islamist movements). I quoted Jamie Clayton early on and here again he shows his Nazi credentials with his position on America as well as his position on Israel (i.e., the Jews):

Does America sympathise with the Palestinians? Or does it despite its supposed hatred of tyranny side with the occupier rather than the occupied?”

And elsewhere he writes:

America is a bully and there is nothing more satisfying than watching a bully being beaten and humiliated by those they have spend years tormenting.”

What you have here is that because Nazis associate the people with the state, this person is failing to distinguish Americans from what various American states/governments have done. To a Nazi, the state must embody the people (or race) rather than simply be its servant. That's why you get this mindless anti-Americanism from Nazis (which goes all the way back to Hitler).

This is not to say that all American patriots will be against the state/government no matter what it does. It depends. Some American patriots, for example, are complete isolationists when it comes to foreign policy (or interventions) and some aren't. Nazis, on the other hand, are totally committed to whatever the Nazi state does and totally against whatever any non-Nazi/fascist state does (e.g., America, the UK and Israel).

And just as you can hardly expect any self-respecting Nazi to have good things to say about a capitalist democracy like America and its people (save American Nazis), so you can't expect a Nazi to support a leader who helped defeat the Nazis – Winston Churchill. Hence Jamie Clayton believes that Churchill “betrayed Britain”. And if it were up to him, “his remains would go in the same skip Jimmy Saviles grave ended up in”. Or, to put it the way Mark Pringle put it: You EDL are always going on about Churchill.”

It's also blindingly obvious that no Nazi will have any time for a constitutional monarchy, such as we have here in the UK. Despite his embarrassingly naivete about how much actual power the Queen has, and how little power the monarchy has had ('the royal prerogative' was last used, in Parliamentary terms, in 1835) in the last two hundred years or so, Clayton still feels the need to tell us that

although we are a democracy, we could easily be like Saudi Arabia if we wanted as the Queen allows us a democracy that is in no way compulsory.”

In addition to all that, you will have no doubt often heard National Socialists (along with Leftists) talking about the government/state “censoring views”, “limiting freedom of speech”, and “silencing certain opinions”. When they do so, they're exclusively talking about their own views, their own freedom of speech and their own opinions. Thus Nazis (as well as Leftists) hate the government/state not for its hatred of free speech in the abstract - but for its hatred of National Socialist free speech. If the National Socialists (or Leftists) gained power, they would censor views, limit free speech, etc. on a scale that would even make our present Government seem libertarian – as history has shown.

Finally, what I have never understood is why an English patriot would be so keen on German National Socialism - and the way the Nazis did things - in the first place. The English have their own ways of doing things. The German National Socialists - who were of a specific historical period (1921-1945) - had their own very German way of doing things. So what’s so English about German National Socialism? Why do British Nazis want to mimic German Nazis who only had political power for 12 years (a shorter period than Tony Blair's New Labour)?

The British hate Nazism and there is no British version of Nazism (or of totalitarianism). Previous English versions of Nazism were utterly indebted to foreign models: from Oswald Mosley's Italian fascism to the obsessions with German Nazism of the British National Socialist Movement (BNSM) (formerly the British Movement), Combat 18, etc.

I would say that at any one time, there are less than 1500 active Nazis in the UK, probably less. (In other words, probably less or equal to the entire membership of the SWP.) So it doesn’t matter how many juvenile and ultra-hard Nazi websites there are, or even how active some hard-core Nazis are on other people's websites or in other movements, the British are highly unlikely to buy into fascism in the near future. It’s not in our nature. However, yes, come a severe enough crisis, then people, in large numbers, may well do so. But having said that, they are just as likely to adopt revolutionary Marxism or even Islamism in such a crisis. Sometimes it doesn't really matter - to the politically and socially desperate - what extreme remedy they adopt; especially if they're being deceitfully offered an unspoken utopia by Leftists/Nazis/Islamists.

Just as Hitler's Nazis hated the English and their traditions, so too do contemporary English Nazis (as do, of course, Trotskyists/progressives and Communists). But primarily they hate English democracy. They hate it because it won't do exactly what they want it to do. And as a result of the inevitable failures (some real, some bogus) of all democracies - including our own, Nazis (as well as Leftists) must believe that all non-Nazis suffer from “false consciousness”. You see, both Nazis and Leftists believe that because the platonic Media has such a complete control of all our gullible minds and souls, then the only way we could possibly escape from its omnipresent lies would be to embrace Nazism or Leftism and thus, in the process, free ourselves from our false (i.e., non-Nazi/non-Leftist) consciousness.

The 'media', et al explain – if only to them - why the majority of English people simply won't buy their totalitarian package-deals.

The fact is that the English, on the whole, simply love their freedom too much. Consequently, the promise or bribe of “100% employment” and all the other visionary prizes (even if achievable) Leftists and Nazis offer us, simply won't sway the deal.

Tags: -, Fascism, Nazism, PAM, Socialism, and, articles, collected

Views: 1988

Replies to This Discussion

"We will initiate massive state-subsidized work programs"

Hence the slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei" on the gates of Auschwitz.  The anti-individualism of nazism/communism means that provided each individual is working for the collective that drone is free.  Even if the freedom is to be worked to death.

"The whole point of National Socialism, even in the early 1920s, was that it was against class conflict. It wanted to unite the classes on behalf on the nation and the German race. "

To unite (apparently) disparate groupings of people requires those people to identify themselves with some idea.  Even using the tripartite working, middle, upper "class" groupings is not a hard and fast group identity (many people will fall in-between those groupings); since the lower grouping will probably contain 60% (or more) of the people, there might well be people who see themselves as groups within that group.  And other "group membership identities" might transcend and cut across such a tripartite division.  So to break-down these groupings you need some other idea to unite people under.  Hitler chose "the Folk", the Germans, the Aryans - a supposedly "biological" grouping (although really those are very different groupings).  The communists choose "the working class" and must destroy all those who are not part of the working class, and must then keep those left inside the working class (and what they did was to put the Party Members above them as a super-class).

When British Nazis appeal to Nazism they are presumably working with the unifying ideal of "the Aryan race".

Having watched many documentaries about the Nazis, I'm really not at all convinced that Hitler did not see himself (and the Nazis) as revolutionary.  I think, like Trotsky, he believe in permanent revolution.  One of the explanations for the bizarre policy-making decisions in the Nazi administration was that Hitler would give multiple different independent leaders responsibility for the same outcomes.  That seemed to be a conscious decision to make for permanent struggle within his administration.

I think that the Left have so taken control of the study of the history of the Nazis, that it is hard to get to a more objective position.  The Left have no doubt done this deliberately, to obscure the similarities.  It's no accident that as soon as any schism occurs within a communist group, they start accusing each other of being fascists.  Not "liberals", not "capitalists", not "conservatives" -- but "fascists".  

It is also worth noting what Orwell says about the British Left -- as the Russian communists became more dictatorial, more murderous, more totalitarian, the British Left became more enamoured with communism.


Joe,

I think I should have been more precise when I mentioned Hitler as being a "non-revolutionary socialist". He was of course revolutionary in many ways. I just meant non-revolutionary is the specific sense of a Marxist revolutionary - that is, a believer in violently taking power from the state ("capitalists") and the instigation of class war/conflict... Even though most of the revolutionary polices/realities came after 1933, Hitler was revolutionary from the start. He hated the 'Old Order' all along; and not just because of the "Versailles betrayal". Perhaps he was wise enough (like Gramsci and at roughly the same time) to realise that the Marxist route of violent revolution, which had no success in Europe at the time, would have no success in Germany either. Hence Hitler used the Muslim Brotherhood route of using democracy in order to destroy democracy.

That's alright Paul :) I really enjoy these ruminations/analyses of yours.  I generally agree with you about 99% of the time. So, I'm not so much disagreeing, as just (hopefully) helping to refine your analysis.

"that is, a believer in violently taking power from the state ("capitalists") and the instigation of class war/conflict."

The fact that he attempt to lead a "coup" shows that he was revolutionary in the violent sense.  I'm not sure how the communists would distinguish between a "coup" and a "revolution".  I suppose they might argue that if the army is part of the "violent revolution" then it's a coup.  But if the communists had been weaker in Germany in the 1920s, perhaps Hitler would have had far more of the workers with him as well as ex-soldiers.  Hitler's attempted coup was clearly not one that was supported by the German army/police. 

If we regard Hitler's ideal as being "the Folk" as his equivalent of  "the working Class", then we can also see that he was indeed set upon "class conflict/war".  He was just drawing the boundary for his group identity (his collective) to be wider than the German working-class.  The "interNational Socialists" just choose to draw it wider still ("workers of the world"), rather like muslims do with "the Ummah".

I really like the photo that accompanies this piece.  I like how the progression from Marx to Hitler is just a procession of totalitarian socialists, distinguished only be a progressive diminution in facial hair.

Joe,

I meant that Hitler gave up on revolutionary violence after the Munich Putsch of 1923. Mussolini, as well, tried such a thing too.

I mentioned Gramsci; so I wonder exactly how soon he gave up on the possible success of violent (Marxist) revolution. I can't recall off hand.

There was also the attempted 'Sparticist' Berlin revolution of 1919 too, which also, obviously, failed.

Fact is, some revolutionaries give up on the total and immediate revolution and finally realise it's basically a no-hoper. Take Seumas Milne. He was a Communist revolutionary until, I think, the early 1990s. Then he realised, being a slow-learner, that a Communist total and violent revolution was not on the books. So he switched to supporting the Labour Party, which he realised could do far more damage to  the (reactionary) English that some fringe Leftist party like the Communist Party of Great Britain.

Like Hitler, Milne is not actually an anti-revolutionary at all, just a pragmatist or believer in realpolitik - also just like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the UK (MCB), American (CAIR) and Gaza (Hamas). As a supporter of the Labour Party, and an editor at the Guardian, he must now realise that the CPGB's revolutionary "infantilism" was pretty pointless. The Labour Party itself is full of people who have realised precisely the same thing.

One fact I always like to state is that Marxist/Leftist Jew-hatred predates the rise of the German Nazis by some sixty to seventy years. That is, it started with Marx's own philosophical and political fusion of Jews and capitalism, as well as with the many participators in the First International and other European revolutionary socialists.

The irony is, that the Marxist analysis of the rise of fascism/nazism is that these are wholly pragmatic i.e. they will say and do anything for power, and are completely unprincipled.  Which is exactly a description of the communists too.

I think this "marxist analysis of fascism"  references Marx's "18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon".  The idea being that Marx (being their new prophet) must have foreseen the advent of fascism/nazism in his prognostications and predictions.  

Paul Austin Murphy said:

Fact is, some revolutionaries give up on the total and immediate revolution and finally realise it's basically a no-hoper. Take Seumas Milne. He was a Communist revolutionary until, I think, the early 1990s. Then he realised, being a slow-learner, that a Communist total and violent revolution was not on the books. So he switched to supporting the Labour Party, which he realised could do far more damage to  the (reactionary) English that some fringe Leftist party like the Communist Party of Great Britain.

I didn't really realise that Marx himself had a specific analysis of fascism - although he clearly couldn't have used that word. Was it also a prophesy of future fascism? Marxism, being a religion, is big on prophesies and "iron laws" of history.

Some Marxists, for example the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkenhemer, etc.) trace German Nazism back to the 18th century Enlightenment and even to the beginnings of Western civilisation itself. That is, the "rationalist project" inevitably resulted, they argued, in the "ultra-rationalism" of the Nazis. What they failed to mention was that the Nazis were supreme anti-rationalists and very religious (even if pagan) in orientation and were only keen on scientific technology and then political control through science, not in the scientific spirit of questioning and experiment (as it were). As usual, the point of the Marxist analysis was to blame Nazism on Western capitalism and ultimately on the West itself. And also as usual, these outrageous and over the top Marxist theories or "analyses" had as there primary aim not truth or correctness, but the destruction of capitalism.

Also, you mention Marxists going back to the Lord Marx for the Truth on Nazism/fascism (as religious zealots always go back to religious texts), I once saw an SWP with books on 'The Marxist position on Opera' and 'The Marxist Position on Quantum Mechanics' - or words to that effect. Incidentally, many SWP and other Marxists, specifically, Chris Harmen, go back to Lenin for the Truth on Islam and Muslims because the Holy Prophet wrote on the issues and had personal experience of Muslim problems in Russia and the Soviet Union in the early 1920s and before.

Joe said:

The irony is, that the Marxist analysis of the rise of fascism/nazism is that these are wholly pragmatic i.e. they will say and do anything for power, and are completely unprincipled.  Which is exactly a description of the communists too.

I think this "marxist analysis of fascism"  references Marx's "18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon".  The idea being that Marx (being their new prophet) must have foreseen the advent of fascism/nazism in his prognostications and predictions.

If you look hard at those Nazi slogans you can see a great one, full of hope and liberal optimism.

"Everything Must Be Different".

But don't take it from me; go to the official "everything must be different" website:

http://change.gov/agenda/

If anybody out there is feeling mischievous, they should buy the domain: EveryThingMustBeDifferent.com/net/org
and point it to Change.gov. 

Its time to start making those connections, the 'progressives' so want to hide :-)

Despite it various archaic phrases and policies, Hitler's socialist plan for Germany graphically demonstrates one of the biggest political lies or deceits of the 20th century: that the National Socialists were the literal opposites of the International Socialists (i.e., Communists, progressives, Trotskyists, etc.). Not surprisingly Leftists (Seumas Milne is a very good example of this) will want to keep this dirty little family secret hidden from the public at large.

I can't make sense of this.  Do you mean to say "ideological bedfellows" instead of "literal opposites"?

The fact is that the English, on the whole, simply love their freedom too much. Consequently, the promise or bribe of “100% employment” and all the other visionary prizes (even if achievable) Leftists and Nazis offer us, simply won't sway the deal.

I don't think that's true anymore.  The English/British of today are not really aware of the precious freedoms they have inherited on the blood of their ancestors.  Therefore, those freedoms will be slowly taken away from them - by stealth Jihad, by creeping bureaucratic intrusion, by increasing welfare debt burden, by increasing street violence, by Lebanese/Iraqi level terrorism, etc.

That may be true. But you referred to "those freedoms will be slowly taken away from them - by stealth Jihad, by creeping bureaucratic intrusion". I was talking only about those groups who directly or indirectly offer revolution and overnight change today - and perhaps in ten years' time too.

I agree that slow stealth-like changes (Leftist as well as Islamic) are possible and, in fact, real. But none of that is sold as revolutionary as such.

I also referred to inevitable drastic political changes if the economic and social situation turns drastic. But isn't that obvious? When the people turn to Nazis or Leftists, they will only do so in extreme situations. However, some of the situations classed as extreme, such as riots, fairly high levels of unemployment, etc. still won't lead to people embracing Nazism/Leftism en masse. As before, I'm not saying that there necessarily won't be such a future occasion, (I'm not a futurologist.) I'm just saying the British case is different to so many others. Again, when people say that extreme political or social changes in the future will lead to extreme politics, that is effectively a truism.

Alan Lake said:

The fact is that the English, on the whole, simply love their freedom too much. Consequently, the promise or bribe of “100% employment” and all the other visionary prizes (even if achievable) Leftists and Nazis offer us, simply won't sway the deal.

I don't think that's true anymore.  The English/British of today are not really aware of the precious freedoms they have inherited on the blood of their ancestors.  Therefore, those freedoms will be slowly taken away from them - by stealth Jihad, by creeping bureaucratic intrusion, by increasing welfare debt burden, by increasing street violence, by Lebanese/Iraqi level terrorism, etc.

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service