Not a fan.png
(79.4KB, 701x689) >>12727
>but it's sorta double standards
but that's sorta false equivalency
One important difference is, unlike classical fascism, anarchism and socialism, the German Nazi Party was almost completely devoid of theoretical underpinning. They mostly just made shit up as they went, under all the rhetoric, propaganda and symbolism it's little more than an artistic iteration of conservative nationalism. Even the party name, by Hitler's own admission, is a farce chosen to start conversations and leech of the popular support for socialism at the time. Name one book during or prior to . The only way to try and draw any substantial theory out of their collapse is historical forensics, looking at the corpse and imagining what it was trying to do before it died.
As a result, most (you have a point that it's not all, but we're talking 90%+) of neo-Nazis are, by their own volition, worshipping a Western interpretation of Hitler's actions. The book of choice for indoctrination, if not the poorly-written ranting autobiography Mein Kampf, is Siege (a collection of tiny essays from a magazine in the 80s which, by taking inspiration from Charles Manson, Hitler, the revolutionary anarchist Bakunin, a few anti-capitalist revolutionaries, and a schizophrenic hodgepodge other sources) also merely states that groups (le jews, cops, people who think and plan instead of just doing) and policies are hurting the white man (whoever you decide that is), and to just do shit. That's basically the conclusion chapter in a nutshell, 'just do it™'. These books are either rants or short-sighted tactical guides, and most other theory recommended by them is random stuff about le soul of the white man, not any kind of social or economic engineering but just more rationale of superiority.
[cont…]
