[EastCoastAmerican]

In another thread, "How Would Hitler be remembered if...?," I remarked upon how many American white supremacists and Neo-Nazis often cling to States' Rights, distrust of a large federal government, and other views more in common with the American far right rather than the European far right.

From what I understand of fascism and the European far right, both emphasize a citizen's loyalty to the government, advocate for the State's control in most (if not all) affairs, and a centralization of government power and resources. These things are at odds with the American far right, who often are affiliated with Patriot Militias, the Sovereign Citizens Movement, and other groups whose ideal form of government is one with a minimal presence in their own lives; it would be an America where taxes are voluntary and the government gives a free hand to private enterprise.

It seems that American Neo-Nazis' love of fascism comes not from its model of government so much as the fact its most famous proponent was a white supremacist with a murderous hatred for Jews. I get the feeling that Hitler and Mussolini would not be very fond of these "small government, States Rights" types, for their hatred of taxes, laws, and the State would be the antithesis of fascism. They seem to confuse the American Right-wing with the European Right-wing, and vice versa with the Left. The European liberals actually have a lot in common with American libertarians.

It's as though they thought "Fascism is right-wing, libertarianism is right-wing, therefore I have a lot in common with libertarians."

Thoughts?

[Daktoria]

Fascism requires organization. Neo-nazis are haters without that.

They're rednecks... come on.

It seems that American Neo-Nazis' love of fascism comes not from its model of government so much as the fact its most famous proponent was a white supremacist with a murderous hatred for Jews. I get the feeling that Hitler and Mussolini would not be very fond of these "small government, States Rights" types, for their hatred of taxes, laws, and the State would be the antithesis of fascism. They seem to confuse the American Right-wing with the European Right-wing, and vice versa with the Left. The European liberals actually have a lot in common with American libertarians.

Exactly.

When people call libertarians fascists, they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

The reason for it is libertarians support negative liberty. That means you can't use the government to do anything, so government advocates find libertarianism oppressive.

It also means strict adherence to freedom of association. That means you can't take anything for granted in assuming what other people want. For people who want entitlements to (risk) interact(ing) with others, again, this seems oppressive.

[J Oswald]

Potemkin explained it very well in another thread, which I cannot seem to find. To paraphrase him, American culture is founded on a fundamental principle of individual liberty. This principle can be found, in varying levels, in every American political grouping. American Neo-Nazis are no exception to this rule, which is why they often complain, for example, about "states' rights" and the right to gun ownership. This conflicts with the most successful forms of fascism, which were all European in origin, and which were collectivist in their outlook.

[starman2003]

From what I understand of fascism and the European far right, both emphasize a citizen's loyalty to the government, advocate for the State's control in most (if not all) affairs, and a centralization of government power and resources. These things are at odds with the American far right, who often are affiliated with Patriot Militias, the Sovereign Citizens Movement, and other groups whose ideal form of government is one with a minimal presence in their own lives; it would be an America where taxes are voluntary and the government gives a free hand to private enterprise.

It seems that American Neo-Nazis' love of fascism comes not from its model of government so much as the fact its most famous proponent was a white supremacist with a murderous hatred for Jews. I get the feeling that Hitler and Mussolini would not be very fond of these "small government, States Rights" types, for their hatred of taxes, laws, and the State would be the antithesis of fascism. They seem to confuse the American Right-wing with the European Right-wing, and vice versa with the Left. The European liberals actually have a lot in common with American libertarians.

Liberty and individualism are so ingrained even groups like Seth's (non-nazi) American Fascist Party felt compelled to espouse them. I think the problem is the lack of any major failure of the system, yet, which will force people to think. Just recently David Dunning of Cornell concluded, rather audaciously, that people are just not smart enough for democracy to flourish. This was presumably based on the record of elected morons like Bush. But few people will question the system openly like that until it really starts to crack. Then I think we'll have far more people in alternative movements that sound like alternative movements--at least privately.

[Kman]

I think most of these people who are called fascists in the US are actually not fascists, they just think they are because the braindead education system has equated anyone who believes in states right to be a racist and Nazi so these people start believing the lies.

The truth is that states rights have nothing to do with fascism, Hitler deleted all states as soon as he got into power, Hitler had no respect for any concept of state ''individuality'' or individuality in general, he was a collectivist through and through.

[Preston Cole]

American neo-Nazis aren't really even Nazis precisely because of the libertarian far-right - fascist far-right divide across the ocean. I think they're attracted to Nazism mostly as a result of their libertarian, white nationalist experiences like the KKK and the Confederacy, and they find something similar to that in Nazism.

[mikema63]

^i am not in anyway racist, or associated with the KKK. that's an incredibly offensive accusation to make about an entire movement.

[EastCoastAmerican]

^i am not in anyway racist, or associated with the KKK. that's an incredibly offensive accusation to make about an entire movement.

I think Preston Cole's referring to how white supremacists find the idea of libertarianism and "small government" mantra appealing, mostly due to the Republican Party's Southern Strategy and the Democratic Party's support for civil rights and government programs associated with racial minorities (such as welfare and affirmative action). Libertarians and conservatives are opposed to such programs, although for very different reasons. White supremacists often use terms like "State's Rights" and "small government" to explain their opposition instead of just saying "I hate these programs because black people benefit from them."

Another reason is that the segregationist and white supremacist organizations in the 1960s Deep South used the States' Rights manta excessively, insisting that the large federal government had no business telling them what to do. The 1964 Civil Rights Act awakened a deep fear of a large, intrusive government. They couldn't just move to another Jim Crow state, they couldn't make laws denying people the right to vote, and all public facilities had to be integrated. It was far-reaching, nationwide, a deathblow to the old way of life.

American white supremacists and Neo-Nazis are deeply afraid of the idea of a large, over-arching government, afraid of this massive show of force demanding consequences for their racist policies. The original Nazis had no such fear, for they were in charge of the government and believed that a large government was the most efficient means of achieving societal dominance. American white supremacists continue to cling to small government mantra because it was the most efficient mean of achieving societal dominance during the Civil Rights Movement; and they hope that they can go back to that with a pure States' Rights society.

[Rich]

America! States rights? Individual liberty? They started with the declaration of Independence and they've given us two hundred and thirty five years of pure comedy gold. Jack Nicholson on Freedom

People confuse Americans attachment to the identity of liberty with a culture of liberty. So you have slave owners droning on about individual liberty. Its a pathetic farce. Compare America to the other WASP nations: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The other nations abolished the slave trade and slavery earlier had no civil war. People might not be aware but civil wars tend to be very poor environments for the the flourishing of individual liberty and respect for property rights. America's had Jim Crow, prohibition, race riots, and Mafia dominated cities. its homicide rate has been way higher, what kind of freedom do you have when you can't even walk the streets without getting killed. Even auto-mobiles, we Americans are free we could never have taxes on gas, I know lets make everyone drive around at 55 miles per hour.

If states rights was any more than empty slogan of political convenience you would have let Utah practice Polygamy. Did the South care about States right when they were forcing Northern States to return slaves who had escaped to freedom to face torture, mutilation, imprisonment and murder. It is true that the Nazis were very much the inheritors of Lincoln and Grant, of their Drang nach Western. Lincoln's original intention was to purge America of Blacks to open up settlement for sturdy Aryan farmers. Clearly Himmlers vision for the Ukraine was taken from Lincoln's vision for the Western territories. Lincoln was a Liberal moderate racist. But he was a realist. He knew that slavery could not last, that if America was to remain a White nation it had to act fast, as opposed to the cretins of the Confederacy.

[mikema63]

Lincoln's original intention was to purge America of Blacks to open up settlement for sturdy Aryan farmers. Clearly Himmlers vision for the Ukraine was taken from Lincoln's vision for the Western territories. Lincoln was a Liberal moderate racist. But he was a realist. He knew that slavery could not last, that if America was to remain a White nation it had to act fast, as opposed to the cretins of the Confederacy.

your crazy is showing

you know some people really do just believe something different than you, most aren't evil racist misogynistic troglodytes. have you ever considered the possibility that people might actually believe in the whole liberty thing?

[Rich]

most aren't evil racist misogynistic troglodytes. have you ever considered the possibility that people might actually believe in the whole liberty thing?

Yes of course lots of people believe in it, lots of people believe in an interventionist God but that doesn't make him real. Its rather like the inverse of terrorism, everyone's appears to be against terrorism until you find out that when they want to support terrorism they just define it as not terrorism. So most people are into having liberties, but so often we find out that their liberties are at someone else's expense. As to racism most ethnic Europeans were racist. Even Winston Churchill held views that would now put him on the extreme right of British politics. People are uncomfortable with the truth so they prefer to believe in historical fantasy.

The silliness of the whole liberty meme goes to extraordinary lengths. Calling yourself the Cato institute for instance. I don't doubt Cato the younger and older both believed in liberty, but does anyone seriously deny that the Roman Republic was an out and out terror machine. So I stand by my assertion that when the German right organised in the Frei Corps they were using the term freedom in exactly the same way that the democratic Roman Senatorial faction, the American founders and the Confederate leaders used the term: freedom for themselves at the expense of others. And of course they all thought they had some God given (or Gods given in the case of Rome) right to their privileges over others.

your crazy is showing

Try watching Mel Gibson's Patriot with its message of Southern colonies inter-racial brotherly love. Mel Gibson maybe a bit of an extremist but the majority of Americans believe this sort of drivel. Or "The founders worked tirelessly to get rid of slavery" as Palin said recently. Uhm I don't think its me that's crazy.

Oh and I presume you have heard of Liberia, note the "Liber". Liberty meant send them back to Africa. I'm not saying that the send them back to Africa crew lacked any sympathy for Black people. But then why do people presume that those who want expel all Black people from Europe or the United States today hate Black people. The Nazis were plebeian they'd suffered defeat in WWI and the mass murder of the blockade which continued after Germany surrendered, the humiliation of Versailles, the crushing burden of reparations, and the mutilation of their Fatherland. Expelling Slavs from Eastern Europe obviously required a lot more force than clearing the united States of native Americans. The Nazis due to their circumstance were inevitably of a a far less pleasant temperament than Lincoln or Washington, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have the same essential vision.

[mikema63]

the world wasn't all pretty colors but you seem to have taken the assumption that before the civil rights movement every man woman and child was racist. you just compared Washington and Lincoln to a nicer Hitler how exactly is that not out of this world crazy.

i love how you laugh at this whole liberty meme thing too, its not just some excuse to justify imposing yourself on others suggesting that is also crazy. the entire idea of liberty is that it only extends to the point where its at the expense of someone elses liberty, anyone whose "liberty" is at the expense of someone elses doesn't actually believe in liberty.

oh and btw many of the founders did write about slavery and were opposed to it, it never went to the constitution because the southern states wouldn't have signed. its historical fact that many of the founders weren't just suggesting freedom for white people.

[Section Leader]

There are no American Neo-Nazis.

These people are racist libertarians who for reasons best known to themseves adopt some of the clothing of the Third Reich.

[Kman]

There are no American Neo-Nazis.

These people are racist libertarians who for reasons best known to themseves adopt some of the clothing of the Third Reich.

That is like mixing oil and water, you just cant do it.

[Section Leader]

That is like mixing oil and water, you just cant do it.

I disagree, there have been truly fascistic Americans, like Huey Long and Ezra Pound.

[Rei Murasame]

This thread is absolute gold, 100%, and I am not even being facetious. Great thread everyone.

American white supremacists and Neo-Nazis are deeply afraid of the idea of a large, over-arching government, afraid of this massive show of force demanding consequences for their racist policies. The original Nazis had no such fear, for they were in charge of the government and believed that a large government was the most efficient means of achieving societal dominance.

Exactly.

Potemkin explained it very well in another thread, which I cannot seem to find. To paraphrase him, American culture is founded on a fundamental principle of individual liberty. This principle can be found, in varying levels, in every American political grouping. American Neo-Nazis are no exception to this rule, which is why they often complain, for example, about "states' rights" and the right to gun ownership. This conflicts with the most successful forms of fascism, which were all European in origin, and which were collectivist in their outlook.

Yes.

[Benjamin Noyles]

This thread is absolute gold, 100%, and I am not even being facetious. Great thread everyone.

Mother of god. I hope you are being facetious.

Threads like these are the reason I left, this is a conspiracy of egoposting. Do I even need to point out that none of you have even cited examples of any actual groups, who are we talking about here? organisations, personalities, or just what you think these people believe?

The National Socialist movement was founded in the United States with the aim of crushing the right wing which it has suceeded in doing. Rockwell and Luther Pierce are the two most consistantly fascistic public figures of the last fifty years - prove me they are not. If we are going to get technical Fat harold and metzger are socialists, though that isn't the priority. These groups support states rights so things like immigration laws can be reimposed and welfare systems abolished, etcetera.

You presume to think Hitler would dislike these people. He would dislike the fact that their ranks are filled with degenerates and are corrupted just living in the society they do, but if you actually look at what he wrote . In regards to the concept of blind state worship.

Already in 1920–1921 certain circles belonging to the effete bourgeois class accused our
movement again and again of taking up a negative attitude towards the modern State. For
that reason the motley gang of camp followers attached to the various political parties,
representing a heterogeneous conglomeration of political views, assumed the right of
utilizing all available means to suppress the protagonists of this young movement which
was preaching a new political gospel. Our opponents deliberately ignored the fact that the
bourgeois class itself stood for no uniform opinion as to what the State really meant and
that the bourgeoisie did not and could not give any coherent definition of this institution.
Those whose duty it is to explain what is meant when we speak of the State, hold chairs
in State universities, often in the department of constitutional law, and consider it their
highest duty to find explanations and justifications for the more or less fortunate
existence of that particular form of State which provides them with their daily bread. The
more absurd such a form of State is the more obscure and artificial and incomprehensible
are the definitions which are advanced to explain the purpose of its existence. What, for
instance, could a royal and imperial university professor write about the meaning and
purpose of a State in a country whose statal form represented the greatest monstrosity of
the twentieth century? That would be a difficult undertaking indeed, in view of the fact
that the contemporary professor of constitutional law is obliged not so much to serve the
cause of truth but rather to serve a certain definite purpose. And this purpose is to defend
at all costs the existence of that monstrous human mechanism which we now call the
State. Nobody can be surprised if concrete facts are evaded as far as possible when the
problem of the State is under discussion and if professors adopt the tactics of concealing
themselves in morass of abstract values and duties and purposes which are described as
‘ethical’ and ‘moral’.

Generally speaking, these various theorists may be classed in three groups:
1. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntary association of men who have
agreed to set up and obey a ruling authority.
This is numerically the largest group. In its ranks are to be found those who worship our
present principle of legalized authority. In their eyes the will of the people has no part
whatever in the whole affair. For them the fact that the State exists is sufficient reason to
consider it sacred and inviolable. To accept this aberration of the human brain one would
have to have a sort of canine adoration for what is called the authority of the State. In the
minds of these people the means is substituted for the end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand
movement. The State no longer exists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for
the purpose of adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in its functionaries, even
down to the smallest official. So as to prevent this placid and ecstatic adoration from
changing into something that might become in any way disturbing, the authority of the
State is limited simply to the task of preserving order and tranquillity. Therewith it is no
longer either a means or an end. The State must see that public peace and order are
preserved and, in their turn, order and peace must make the existence of the State
possible. All life must move between these two poles. In Bavaria this view is upheld by
the artful politicians of the Bavarian Centre, which is called the ‘Bavarian Populist
Party’. In Austria the Black-and-Yellow legitimists adopt a similar attitude. In the Reich,
unfortunately, the so-called conservative elements follow the same line of thought.

2. The second group is somewhat smaller in numbers. It includes those who would make
the existence of the State dependent on some conditions at least. They insist that not only
should there be a uniform system of government but also, if possible, that only one
language should be used, though solely for technical reasons of administration. In this
view the authority of the State is no longer the sole and exclusive end for which the State
exists. It must also promote the good of its subjects. Ideas of ‘freedom’, mostly based on
a misunderstanding of the meaning of that word, enter into the concept of the State as it
exists in the minds of this group. The form of government is no longer considered
inviolable simply because it exists. It must submit to the test of practical efficiency. Its
venerable age no longer protects it from being criticized in the light of modern
exigencies. Moreover, in this view the first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee the
economic well-being of the individual citizens. Hence it is judged from the practical
standpoint and according to general principles based on the idea of economic returns. The
chief representatives of this theory of the State are to be found among the average
German bourgeoisie, especially our liberal democrats.

3. The third group is numerically the smallest. In the State they discover a means for the
realization of tendencies that arise from a policy of power, on the part of a people who
are ethnically homogeneous and speak the same language. But those who hold this view
are not clear about what they mean by ‘tendencies arising from a policy of power’. A
common language is postulated not only because they hope that thereby the State would
be furnished with a solid basis for the extension of its power outside its own frontiers, but
also because they think – though falling into a fundamental error by doing so – that such
a common language would enable them to carry out a process of nationalization in a
definite direction.

If you are promoting secessionism because you are giving some kind of aeisteticised intellectual defence like these national anarchists do, then yes you are an idiot. Nobody becomes a neo nazi because they are a libertarian - they are a neo-nazi because their primary concerns are racial - how does that make them fundamentally different to your nazi of 80 years ago. I really wonder what creteria we are using for 'fascism' here, I feel like everyone misses the point.

[Rei Murasame]

I understand your Hitler quote, but I would classify Rockwell and Pierce as Nazis and not Neo-Nazis, and thus were not within the scope of the earlier criticisms which I've endorsed.

Regarding Harold Covington (aka, Fat Harold), he is bad news and a ludicrous secessionist, is he not?

This issue has been said before by a lot of people, I'll post what I've said elsewhere about it here too:

I’ll make a disclaimer at the start that I’m not American nor am I from America, but as an outsider looking in maybe my perspective will be helpful. I’m going to try to comment on why I think that the entire Covington idea is severely flawed from the ground up,[...]

Looking at the demographic situation in the USA, it certainly looks depressing. As you all of course know, the demographic battle was never about being fair and nice to people. These cultural wars and ethnic antagonisms are about seeing who can get themselves into a position to set the standards for how people are going to behave in a civic space, even going as far as determining the relations of production (particularly when it comes to matters of gender roles, and so on).

In other words, it is a struggle, the most silent and subtle one, to control the direction of a culture’s evolution.

There’s a tipping point that comes, where if you heap up for yourself a demographic composition that does not share your vision and doesn’t care about your people, things will occur in your family and nation’s future which will not be to your liking – and it will be past the point where you will have the power to act.

If you allow the site of every ethnic tension you can imagine in the whole world to be located on your soil; if you permit operations on your culture to be carried out over and over again in your civic space, ones that are neither controlled nor mediated by you; control will slip from your hands.

You would be finding out the hard way how it is to live at the pleasure of a group that doesn’t share their social development trajectory with you in any way at all. Who would deliberately place themselves in that situation? No one, I would think.

Yet Covington’s plan involves doing nothing to halt that process. Covington’s people seem to think that they can act like the Afrikaners and just cede like five-eighths or more of their country to the new migrants, and then what, somehow later they are going to get it back? No, all you’d be doing is creating an enclave totally hostile to your interests that is bigger than you and not under your control in any way. Not only that, but you are ceding key agricultural areas, manufacturing areas, and ports to them.

This game is not worth the candle, because once you give away all of that – and worse, once you resolve in your heart to give it away – that is the beginning of your death.

If this sounds extremely similar to the criticism that Jonathan Bowden made of Covington, yes, it is similar for good reason.

[Suska]

States Rights and Naziism both address an interest in cultural separatism. Someone was calling this 'murderous racism' well - the value of that term is first of all the intention to build a community of people that share a culture. This is pretty much impossible in our federalist/corporatist environment, thus States Rights are not a violent throwback, but a rejection of the tyranny of anti-culture.

In the future many cultures will demand territorial sovereignty, after all our multicultural territorial-protection-rackets are increasingly just obsolete empires which international security associations render redundant. America is a set of legal, political, economic and military policies - it isn't a culture the way it was during the world wars. It's a machine that what's more despises culture - it despises people. It sees money and large groups of statistical citizens/consumers and it exploits them to its fullest capacity. That isn't YOU AND I building an awesome place to live, that's being conditioned to compete with everyone and hate tradition.

[Benjamin Noyles]

I understand your Hitler quote, but I would classify Rockwell and Pierce as Nazis and not Neo-Nazis, and thus were not within the scope of the earlier criticisms which I've endorsed.

then.. What is a Neo-Nazi? For someone to be a 'new nazi', they must have at least some of characteristics of a nazi, and I think one should be openly identifying as such. it imples some commitment, that is what silly uniforms are for, it is to scare people off who have political hang ups.

This thread confuses people who have principles with overly vocal internet users; politicos who hide behind libertarian mantras, but are totally horrified at the thought of ever being called a racist offline. There are dysfunctional personalities - people who have major identity problems - Yes that is really pat, on one of his many websites, He has several falangist 'organisations' which, like everything else he has taken on and off like hats he can wear. Figures like David Duke are the most unscrupulous people on the planet, everything they say is to exxploit what they believe is popular sentiment, hence; muh america, muh freedom, etc. Such people are clearly so insincere that they don't really consitute anything you can label.

Regarding Harold Covington (aka, Fat Harold), he is bad news and a ludicrous secessionist, is he not?

Harold is totally ludecrous, but by seems to be one of the few people left who is actually trying to advance a goal. seceeding is a political act - he thinks the United states is going to colapse, and that .. in his series of fantasy novels there will be a group that makes the pacific northwest ungovernable along with the rest of the country. The clever it is he is insisting all his followers move to the northwest - that invests with a full commitment. There are people who are literally insane enough to move to the NW with harold every so often.