Results 61 to 79 of 79
i think you want to add some punctuation to that sentence
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
"Neo-Nazism" as far as I can tell is simply a term used to describe militant fascists...it's not used to describe a direct line from German National Socialists--> Neo-Nazis. Which is kind of odd, seeing as Neo-Nazi means "New Nazi", but yeah. Fascism and various tenets of traditional German national socialism (such as the defense of "blood and honor") can exist in any country...that's why it's not such a big suprise to see Russian skinheads with swastika and Hitler tattoos, even though they would've been considered sub-Aryan according to Nazi orthodoxy. I don't see why anyone should doubt their sincerity, simply because they're Asian.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Asian "neo-Nazis" objectively speaking are just largely ethnic nationalists who are fetishly attached to Hitler-style symbols, not "classical Nazis" in the Western sense. It doesn't mean they are not reactionary, of course.
European neo-nazism is not about wiping out non-aryans but to "take away non-aryans from Europe to prevent" what they call "race mixing". Modern nazism is more defensive overally than the old brand. If a nazi party won power in a European country today, it would most likely resemble Apartheid South Africa or South Rhodesia or Israel in its policies rather than Nazi Germany.
That is equally reactionary of course, but one cannot defeat an opponent without knowing their agenda.
^
Actually in that case I don't think it is equally reactionary, I think classical Nazism of Hitler's era, the one that directly slaughtered 6 million Jews in concentration camps, is not on the same level as modern European Nazism today that just aims to drive out all immigrants and non-whites from Europe.
In some cases, neo-nazis in Europe are a bit more progressive-friendly than the more "democratic" xenophobic parties. They are generally against military intervention in foreign countries for example, not out of anti-imperialism or solidarity but because they live in the delusion that "ZOG" is behind everything.
Frankly, to call neo-Nazis of any kind "progressive-friendly" is a grave political mistake.
Here is some serious news of neo-Nazi activities in Russia against the Trotskyist CWI:
http://chinaworker.info/en/content/n...sh+articles%29
Of course they are attacking real progressive movements physically. What I'm referring to is the fact that nazis in general are against the occupation of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, though for bizarre reasons.
Last autumn, Swedish nazis for example demonstrated together with Palestinian Arabs during the al-Quds day.
That's why nazis and fascists in Sweden hate one another. The fascists are Pro-Israel.
Why are some people arguing that they're not nazis?
I thought the fundamental belief of nazi morons was the 'preservation' of one's so called superior race?
^
They are not "Nazis" in the classical sense because they are not motivated by racial nationalism, but by ethnic nationalism.
Asian "neo-Nazis" do not believe that the Asian or Mongolid race is the "master race", like Nazis in the West who believe that the white race is the "master race". Mongols and Chinese are essentially the same race but Mongol "neo-Nazis" hate the Chinese more than anyone else. What motivates them is nationalism, not racialism.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
What are you on about.
whats the difference between racial and ethno-nationalism?
In addition you will be very hard pressed to find any nazis in a classical sense.
By "Nazis in the classical sense" I meant Nazis during Hitler's time, i.e. those who believed that the white or Aryan race is fundamentally and biologically superior compared with all other races.
I'm not saying today's Nazis in the West are necessarily Nazis in this classical sense. I think some modern neo-Nazis in the West may be similar to the Asian neo-Nazis in that they are also largely just ethnic nationalists.
The difference between racialism and nationalism is very clear. The former is more reactionary than the latter. Racialism believes that a particular group of humans are biologically superior than all others in an intrinsic sense due to their skin colour, hair colour, genetics, facial shape etc, and while nationalists may also be quite reactionary, they do not believe that their nation is superior in this biological sense, but only in the political or at most cultural sense. In fact, many nationalists don't think of their nation as superior at all, they just believe in absolute political loyalty to their nation, and will fight for their nation at all costs. They might even think the idea that their own nation is somehow "intrinsically" superior is a dangerous one, because it can lead to complacency and therefore political and military defeat.
Racialism is always reactionary. Nationalism can actually be left-wing and partially progressive if it is essentially a part of a national liberation movement against imperialism and colonialism.
In short:
Racialism is the political belief that one's own physical race is biologically superior than other races, and therefore politically should rule over other races as the "master race".
Nationalism is the political belief that one should have absolute political loyalty to one's nation, regardless of what the nation may do in practice. It might also mean one believes that one's own nation is politically and culturally superior than other nations, but this is not necessarily the case for many nationalists.
*Fixed
How exactly is ethnic/ethno-nationalism different from racism. What would you call the BNP?
Wait a minute you were talking about ethnic nationalism in your previous post now you shifted on to nationlism.
Could you explain the difference between racialism, ethnic nationalism and nationalism?
btw, chinese and mongolian people do not have to be of the same 'race' seeing race is socially constructed and arbitrary. Using your logic i guess that hitler was not motivated by racialism but by nationalism when you killed polish people seeing as they happen to be seen as 'white'.
I know what nationalism is, but your post was in regard into ethnic nationalism which is often just racism given a different name.
One involves arguments based on physical race. (Or some sort of invented "semi-mystical" idea of "physical race") The other does not.
The BNP IMO is at the core still a classical Nazi party based on Aryanism but on the surface because such a line is too "politically incorrect" they pretend to just be an ethnic-nationalist party and even allow black and Asian people to join. But my view is "politically biased" since I'm very strongly anti-fascist so I tend to see the worst in neo-Nazi parties.
I was using ethnic-nationalism and nationalism interchangably since in practice they often mean the same kind of thing. The modern nation-state in the capitalist sense emerged around distinct ethnic groups for the most part. (There are also a few multi-ethnic nations in the world but politically they tend to be less stable)
The Nazis had a complex hierarchical theory of race. There are races and sub-races. Both Germans and Polish people belonged to the white race, but different sub-races: Germanic vs. Slavic. Hitler thought the Slavs were inferior to the Germans but as white people still superior to the Asiatics like the Mongols and Chinese, who in turn are superior to Black people.
I guess Jews are an exception because even though physically they were white they were placed at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. But for the Nazis being a Jew certainly wasn't just a cultural thing, they had physical measurement criteria for Jewish "racial phenotypes", such as having a big nose beyond a certain size for example. In practice this kind of "tests" never really worked that well since objectively the Jews never were a homogenous racial group but it shows the Nazi's racialist mentality.
Similarly, Mongols and Chinese are of the same "race" but different "sub-races".
"Race" is a social construction, but crucially it is still a social construction that pretends to be scientific and having a physical basis. Racialists would certainly never subjectively admit that they are just relying on a social construction. For them it's all physically genuine.
As I said, technically they are not the same as one is fundamentally based on some kind of idea involving physical race, while the other does not.
What?
ethno-nationalism does not have to involve arguements on 'physical race'. ethno-nationalism is a superfically term for just plain old racism. The BNP refer to themselves as ethno-nationalist so they don't scare away potenially voters.
They don't pretend to be 'ethnic-nationalist', they are ethno-nationalists(white-nationalist/neo-nazi). Sorry mate i can't believe you can not recongnise that the ethno-nationalism of the bnp is exactly the same as white-nationalism/neo-nazism. It is not rocket science why they decide to talk about ethnic british people as being celts, saxons and norse people.
So the SNP are ethnic-nationalists?
So you don't make the distintation between civic and ethnic nationalism.
So the SNP are the same as the BNP
Multi-ethnic nations tend to be less stable. Name me one nation which is not multi-ethnic?
Gosh.
Nazis did not have a 'complex hierarchial theory of race'. Aryan was what they meant by white. Unless if you read history with one eye closed you will realise that the defintion of white did not exist other in places which were settler colonies such as the USA, Austraila, Hong Kong. Hence this talk of poles being seen as white but being sub-race slav is ahistorical like the rest of your post.
Nonsense. As stated before races are socially constructed hence they differ between time and space, you may view them as the same race and part of a different 'sub-race'. But this view may be different to the view of these mongolian neo-nazis. Hence you may view polish people and german people as the same race but different sub-groups, but your view is not a view held by others such as nazis viewed them as a different race.
This makes no sense. Do you mean racists 'try to make out that races are biologically features rather than socially constructed.
I agree.
Don't think so.
I hate hearing about neo nazism.
Do you have a problem with your own first language, English?
I never said ethno-nationalism involves arguments of physical race. I said precisely the opposite, I meant that ethno-nationalism is not based on physical race, but Nazism is, which is the fundamental difference between the two.
The BNP actually has Black and Asian members. Did you know that? There is an ethnic Vietnamese member of the BNP who is a strong supporter. Ethno-nationalism isn't identical to white nationalism.
I don't disagree that deep down the BNP is a racist Nazi organisation that believes white people are superior, but that's not what they preach in public.
No because the BNP is not just ethno-nationalist. If they were they would still be reactionary but not so much. They are reactionary primarily because they are Nazis, no matter what kind of mild nationalist cover they put over their faces.
Technically the SNP is also reactionary from a Marxist perspective, but much less so. Also, compared with England, Scotland is a relatively oppressed nation (oppressed by the English), so it's somewhat different.
The majority of nation-states in the world emerged around a single dominant ethnic group. That's just world history 101. It also fits in with the Marxist theory of how capitalist nation-states developed.
Yes, the Nazis did have a hierarchical theory of race. Their ideology is actually quite complex. They utilised many pseudo-scientific methods to measure physical races.
You should not be so ignorant about the Nazis, since they are our enemy. "Know your enemy and know yourself".
The idea of "white race" and "white supremacy" did not begin with the Nazis, but much earlier. I suggest you read the excellent historical text "A People's History of the United States". Racism was used as a tool by the ruling capitalist class to artificially divide the working class along racial lines so they can't unite together to fight the capitalists.
Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Mongol neo-Nazis do not view the Chinese as a different race. Their ideology isn't even primarily based on physical race.
My point was that according to the Nazi theory of races, both Chinese and Mongols belonged to the "Asiatic" race but different sub-races. I didn't say this view is necessarily objectively correct, though genetic analysis does show that the Mongols and the Chinese are quite close to each other in terms of "genetic differentiation", not that it really matters either way.
Your grasp of the English language seems to be less than ideal. My point is that although objectively "race" is a social construction, for the Nazis it is something that is physically real.
Like I said, the point here is simply that ethno-nationalism is not based on physical race but Nazism is based on ideas about physical race.
Mate my command of the english language is fine.
It is you who fails to see that ethno-nationalism is just more of a less 'scary' of the BNP is the same as neo-nazism. I can't believe you fail to see it.
Yes i did know that, try not to be condescending when you talking out of your arse.
Just because there is this so called one vietnamese supporter of the bnp does that mean the organisation no longer ceases to be a neo-nazi/ethno-nationalist/white-nationalist party?
If they were not a white-nationalist party how come in their manifesto they seek to pay people who happen not to be white to leave britain?
Anyway do you have only prove that they have black members?
The only reason why they do admit black and asian members is because they were pressured by the courts to do so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-white-members
I agree, but the only reason why they are not preaching it in public is due to the current political climate. Hence why they have switched from speaking about jews and gays, to other issues which the media has whipped up such as islam and immigration.
Refer back to my first post.
Now your just trying to evade the question.
Are ethno-nationalism and nationalism the same thing?
Now we are talking past each other
You stated that multi-ethnic states tend to be less stable in your previous post.
I am asking you to state one nation-state that is not 'multi-ethnic'?
Coming from someone who thinks ethno-nationalism and nationalism(civic) is the same, and can't see that the BNP are a White-nationalist/neo-nazis party.
I never said that the concept of 'white' did not pre-date the nazis.
Fighting against a strawman?
If that book was written by Howard Zinn, and yes i have read that book.
Racism is does not have to be based on a 'physical race'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...olia-far-right
What the hell do you mean by physically real.
Do you mean that for nazis it is a biologically fact?
.........What are you trying to say?
Are you trying to say that ethno-nationalism is not based on physical features(such as skin colour, hair colour) and nazism is based on physical features.
