Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 88 of 88

Thread: Nationalism and Nazi ideology

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaktajan View Post

    Hitler was all about taking all the hinterlands while they were statistically inhabited by rural simple folks.

    Hitler was all about Bonapartism.

    The term was used more generally for a political movement that advocated a dictatorship or
    authoritarian centralized state, with a strongman charismatic leader based on anti-elitist rhetoric,
    army support, and conservatism.

    Marxism and Leninism developed a vocabulary of political terms that included Bonapartism.

    Philosophically, Bonapartism was Napoleon's adaptation of principles of the French Revolution
    to suit his imperial form of rule. Desires for public order, French national glory, and emulation
    of the Roman Empire had combined to create a Caesarist coup d'etat for General Bonaparte
    on 18 Brumaire. Though he espoused adherence to revolutionary precedents, he "styled his
    direct and personal rule on the Old Regime monarchs."[1] For Bonapartists, the most significant
    lesson of the Revolution was that unity of government and the governed was paramount.

    Karl Marx offered this definition of and analysis of Bonapartism in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,
    written in 1852. In this document, he drew attention to what he calls the phenomenon's repetitive history
    with one of his most quoted lines, typically condensed aphoristically as: "History repeats itself,
    first as tragedy, then as farce."[9]

    Marx believed that a Bonapartist regime could exert great power, because there was no class
    with enough confidence or power to firmly establish its authority in its own name. A leader who
    appeared to stand above the class struggle could take the mantle of power. He believed that this
    was an inherently unstable situation, as the apparently all-powerful leader would be swept aside
    when the class struggle in society was resolved.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Hitler was all about the Napoleonist Syndrome

    The Napoleonist Syndrome is a psychological complex, or character disorder, underlying the attachment shown by members of a combatant country to the enemy leader, Napoleon.
    It may be extended to cover parallel switches of allegiance in more modern times.
    The common factor in that syndrome is taken to be an ambivalent relationship to the parent or parent of origins, leading to a rejection of national authority, and its projection abroad.[4] The argument is particularly convincing in the case of a group of Radicals including Leigh Hunt and William Godwin, as well as Hazlitt - all the sons of dissenting ministers, whose religious beliefs they had rejected but whose influence on them remained substantial nevertheless.[5] Their common revolt against their fathers led to a counter-identification with the heroic figure presented by Napoleon[6] - his Promethean challenge to the existing order[7] seeming to offer a stark contrast to the narrow authoritarianism represented both by their own fathers, and by the British royal family.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Definition of Promethean:
    relating to or characteristic of the demigod Prometheus, especially in being rebelliously creative and innovative.
    "the Promethean scientist who unlocked the mysteries of the cosmos"

    Willing to take risks in order to create new things or do things in new ways, like Prometheus, the ancient Greek demigod (= part human and part god) who stole fire from Mount Olympus: His life was that of a Promethean rebel.
    Simply put Napoleon was also a Nationalist.

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,846
    Thanks
    13,245
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    Simply put Napoleon was also a Nationalist.
    simply put, Buddhist monks are nationalists.......Desmund Tutu was a nationalist.......simply put, kudzu is simply kaput....

  3. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    If the shoe fits........

    Too many people on the board don't know what nationalism means and confuse it with "patriotism".
    Was Theodore Roosevelt confused when he made his "New Nationalism" speech? https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...onalism-speech

    Think Progress seems to be confused as well. https://thinkprogress.org/5-quotes-f...-a23ad0318987/

    Roosevelt defined what it was to be a progressive, and why the true nationalists and patriots were progressives — and environmentalists:
    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    This thread is just about defining terms.
    Lol, no it's not, it's about trying to paint American conservatives as Nazis.
    Every life matters

  4. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    simply put, Buddhist monks are nationalists.......Desmund Tutu was a nationalist.......simply put, kudzu is simply kaput....
    Desmond Tutu was a nationalist.. but the US isn't. Never has been.

  5. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Was Theodore Roosevelt confused when he made his "New Nationalism" speech? https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...onalism-speech

    Think Progress seems to be confused as well. https://thinkprogress.org/5-quotes-f...-a23ad0318987/





    Lol, no it's not, it's about trying to paint American conservatives as Nazis.

    First you need to know what National Socialism was and what it wasn't.

  6. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    Desmond Tutu was a nationalist.. but the US isn't. Never has been.
    Somebody better tell Obama, because this is what he said on December 6, 2011. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...watomie-kansas

    And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”
    Every life matters

  7. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    First you need to know what National Socialism was and what it wasn't.
    I thought this thread was only about defining "nationalism".
    Every life matters

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    Lightbringer (11-09-2018)

  9. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    34,335
    Thanks
    3,500
    Thanked 11,601 Times in 9,273 Posts
    Groans
    632
    Groaned 1,405 Times in 1,371 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    Desmond Tutu was a nationalist.. but the US isn't. Never has been.
    Till Trump
    AM I, I AM's,AM I.
    What day is Michaelmas on?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Mason Michaels For This Post:

    kudzu (11-12-2018)

  11. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 266 Times in 217 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 19 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    So if "Nationalists" are the so bad ... what explains these countries reasons for independence?

    "Central American Nations Declare Independence From Spain. This day in 1821 was an historic day for much of Central America as, after almost three centuries of colonial rule, the nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, gained independence from Spain."

    Even here it is difficult to understand how a Spanish "satellite" State can become free from Spain ---except if it's in regards to keeping the wealth for themselves.

    How was Hispanola a colony of Spain?

    Is Alaska a colony of the USA? Is Guam a colony of the USA?


    "When did South America become independent?
    Only in 1822 did Ecuador fully gain independence and became part of Gran Colombia, from which it withdrew in 1830. At the Battle of Pichincha, near present-day Quito, Ecuador on May 24, 1822, General Antonio José de Sucre's forces defeated a Spanish force defending Quito."

    "When did Spain recognize Nicaragua's independence?
    Nicaragua's independence became a fact in September 1821. The inhabitants of the Spanish province of Nicaragua, as well as people from other colonies in this region, felt it was time for complete independence."

    "What country owns Costa Rica?
    Costa Rica. Costa Rica (officially called Republic of Costa Rica), is a country in Central America. It is bordered by Nicaragua to the north, Panama to the southeast, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the Caribbean Sea to the east. The official language of Costa Rica is Spanish."

  12. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 266 Times in 217 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 19 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    And then there are the Satellite countries of the old Soviet Block ---where they un-patriotic?

    While the 18th century in the Balkans was dominated by the steady decline of Ottoman power, the outstanding feature of the 19th century was the creation of nation-states on what had been Ottoman territory. Because the emergence of national consciousness and the creation of nation-states were conditioned by local factors, each nation evolved in an individual way. Nevertheless, some general characteristics are discernible.

    The first is that external factors were the ultimate determinants. No Balkan people, no matter how strong their sense of national purpose, could achieve independent statehood, or even a separate administrative identity, without external support. Foreign military intervention on behalf of particular groups was common: Russia aided the Serbs and Bulgarians, while Britain, France, and Russia intervened for the Greeks. The Romanians benefited from the wars of Italian and German unification, and Albanian independence would have been impossible had the Balkan states not smashed Ottoman power in Europe in the First Balkan War (1912–13).

    Them dar DAMNED NATIONALISTS! Who did they think they were?!

  13. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    military supremacy.

    nazi ideology

    Hitler’s 1924 book Mein Kampf

    The two cornerstone documents of Nazi ideology were the NSDAP’s 25 Points (1920) and Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf (1924). Nazi ideas were also outlined or discussed, albeit briefly, in many of Hitler’s speeches. But none of these sources was constitutional in nature, nor did they offer much in the way of details or specifics about how Nazi ideas should work in practice.

    Hitler seemed to prefer that expressions of Nazi ideology were short, simple and broadly framed. At several times in the 1920s, Hitler resisted proposals to expand or re-draft the party’s 25 Points, declaring them to be “inviolable”. This was probably a deliberate strategy: because Nazi ideology was only ever outlined vaguely or in general terms, Hitler was free to interpret or re-invent it as he saw fit. Yet despite this fluidity Nazi had some core tenets that did not change:

    Authoritarianism.

    The Nazis desired strong government and extensive state power. They believed that government could not function effectively if it lacked the means to impose itself on society and enforce its policies. Decisions should be made by a leader with almost absolute power (a Fuhrer).

    All political authority and sovereignty rested with this leader, who should be trusted by the people to make important decisions on their behalf (fuhrerprinzip). No other political parties or organisations other than the NSDAP could be tolerated. Other groups with political influence, such as unions or churches, would be restricted or abolished.

    Totalitarianism.

    To the Nazis, state power had few limits and could extend into all aspects of German political, social and cultural life. They believed it was the government’s duty not just to devise policy but to shape, coordinate and regulate society, for the betterment of the nation.

    A totalitarian government must have the authority to control the press and unions; restrict civil liberties and freedoms; manage education and employ propaganda. Liberal freedoms from government power – such as civil liberties, individual rights and freedoms – were considered irrelevant and subordinate to the interests of the state.

    Before total war, Nazism was a potpourri. Racialism and nationalism jostled shoulders with the socialistic revolutionary conservatism of many members of the Mittelstand (middle class). Romantic ideas came from right-wing youth groups. Hitler could utter the gospel of anti-capitalism to workers and the gospel of profits to businessmen. It was a rag-bag of inconsistent and incoherent ideas.

    Walter Phillips, historian

    Nationalism. Nazism was first and foremost a nationalist ideology. It was concerned only with Germany and German interests: restoring the German economy, achieving economic self-sufficiency, rebuilding its military and providing for the German people.

    The Nazis had little interest in forming or improving international relationships, except to advance German interests. They detested diplomacy and despised multilateral groups like the League of Nations. Hitler and his followers had no intention of honouring or abiding by existing foreign treaties or negotiating new ones, except where it might help them fulfil their own objectives.

    Militarism.

    Hitler and his followers believed that re-arming and expanding Germany’s armed forces was essential for the defence of the nation. Rearmament would be carried out in defiance of the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler also considered military strength essential for expanding the German state. The organisation and culture of the NSDAP were fundamentally militaristic, as evidenced by the size and popularity of the party’s paramilitary groups the Sturmabteilung (SA) and Schutzstaffel (SS).

    Expansionism. The Nazis in general and Hitler, in particular, dreamed of unifying the German-speaking Aryan peoples of Europe, into a greater German state. To achieve this, Hitler believed his regime would need to acquire lebensraum, or ‘living space’, to accommodate the needs of the new Germany.

    This ‘living space’ would be seized from the non-Aryan people of eastern Europe, in countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland and Russia. The first step to creating this greater Germany would be to achieve anschluss: the union of Germany and Austria.

    https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-ideology/
    FYI...........
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  14. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    26,116
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 5,043 Times in 3,907 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,697 Times in 1,555 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    If the shoe fits........

    Too many people on the board don't know what nationalism means and confuse it with "patriotism".

    This thread is just about defining terms.
    Saying Trump is a Nazi because he called himself a Nationalist is just as stupid as saying Bernie Sanders is a Stalinist because he calls himself a Socialist.

  15. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    Saying Trump is a Nazi because he called himself a Nationalist is just as stupid as saying Bernie Sanders is a Stalinist because he calls himself a Socialist.
    nationalism | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica.com

    Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism


    Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities; but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history.

    Because of its dynamic vitality and its all-pervading character, nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour. Actually, the American and French revolutions may be regarded as its first powerful manifestations.

    After penetrating the new countries of Latin America it spread in the early 19th century to central Europe and from there, toward the middle of the century, to eastern and southeastern Europe. At the beginning of the 20th century nationalism flowered in the ancient lands of Asia and Africa. Thus the 19th century has been called the age of nationalism in Europe, while the 20th century has witnessed the rise and struggle of powerful national movements throughout Asia and Africa.

    READ MORE ON THIS TOPIC
    Margaret Mead
    education: The influence of nationalism
    The Enlightenment was cosmopolitan in its effort to spread the light of reason, but from the very beginning of the age there were nationalistic tendencies to be seen in varying shades. Although Rousseau himself was generally concerned with universal man in such works as…

    Identification Of State And People
    Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles. In the age of nationalism, but only in the age of nationalism, the principle was generally recognized that each nationality should form a state—its state—and that the state should include all members of that nationality. Formerly states, or territories under one administration, were not delineated by nationality.

    Men did not give their loyalty to the nation-state but to other, different forms of political organization: the city-state, the feudal fief and its lord, the dynastic state, the religious group, or the sect. The nation-state was nonexistent during the greater part of history, and for a very long time it was not even regarded as an ideal. In the first 15 centuries of the Christian Era, the ideal was the universal world-state, not loyalty to any separate political entity. The Roman Empire had set the great example, which survived not only in the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages but also in the concept of the res publica christiana (“Christian republic” or community) and in its later secularized form of a united world civilization.

    As political allegiance, before the age of nationalism, was not determined by nationality, so civilization was not thought of as nationally determined. During the Middle Ages civilization was looked upon as determined religiously; for all the different nationalities of Christendom as well as for those of Islām there was but one civilization—Christian or Muslim—and but one language of culture—Latin (or Greek) or Arabic (or Persian). Later, in the periods of the Renaissance and of Classicism, it was the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations that became a universal norm, valid for all peoples and all times. Still later, French civilization was accepted throughout Europe as the valid civilization for educated people of all nationalities.

    It was only at the end of the 18th century that, for the first time, civilization was considered to be determined by nationality. It was then that the principle was put forward that a man could be educated only in his own mother tongue, not in languages of other civilizations and other times, whether they were classical languages or the literary creations of other peoples who had reached a high degree of civilization.

    Cultural Nationalism
    From the end of the 18th century on, the nationalization of education and public life went hand in hand with the nationalization of states and political loyalties. Poets and scholars began to emphasize cultural nationalism first. They reformed the mother tongue, elevated it to the rank of a literary language, and delved deep into the national past. Thus they prepared the foundations for the political claims for national statehood soon to be raised by the people in whom they had kindled the spirit.

    Before the 18th century there had been evidences of national feeling among certain groups at certain periods, especially in times of stress and conflict.

    The rise of national feeling to major political importance was encouraged by a number of complex developments: the creation of large, centralized states ruled by absolute monarchs who destroyed the old feudal allegiances; the secularization of life and of education, which fostered the vernacular languages and weakened the ties of church and sect; the growth of commerce, which demanded larger territorial units to allow scope for the dynamic spirit of the rising middle classes and their capitalistic enterprise. This large, unified territorial state, with its political and economic centralization, became imbued in the 18th century with a new spirit—an emotional fervour similar to that of religious movements in earlier periods.

    Under the influence of the new theories of the sovereignty of the people and the rights of man, the people replaced the king as the centre of the nation. No longer was the king the nation or the state; the state had become the people’s state, a national state, a fatherland. State became identified with nation, as civilization became identified with national civilization.

    That development ran counter to the conceptions that had dominated political thought for the preceding 2,000 years. Hitherto man had commonly stressed the general and the universal and had regarded unity as the desirable goal. Nationalism stressed the particular and parochial, the differences, and the national individualities.

    Those tendencies became more pronounced as nationalism developed. Its less attractive characteristics were not at first apparent. In the 17th and 18th centuries the common standards of Western civilization, the regard for the universally human, the faith in reason (one and the same everywhere) as well as in common sense, the survival of Christian and Stoic traditions—all of these were still too strong to allow nationalism to develop fully and to disrupt society. Thus nationalism in its beginning was thought to be compatible with cosmopolitan convictions and with a general love of mankind, especially in western Europe and North America.

    European Nationalism
    English Puritanism and nationalism
    The first full manifestation of modern nationalism occurred in 17th-century England, in the Puritan revolution. England had become the leading nation in scientific spirit, in commercial enterprise, in political thought and activity.

    Swelled by an immense confidence in the new age, the English people felt upon their shoulders the mission of history, a sense that they were at a great turning point from which a new true reformation and a new liberty would start. In the English revolution an optimistic humanism merged with Calvinist ethics; the influence of the Old Testament gave form to the new nationalism by identifying the English people with ancient Israel.

    The new message, carried by the new people not only for England but for all mankind, was expressed in the writings of John Milton, in whose famous vision the idea of liberty was seen spreading from Britain, “celebrated for endless ages as a soil most genial to the growth of liberty,” to all the corners of the earth.

    Surrounded by congregated multitudes, I now imagine that…I behold the nations of the earth recovering that liberty which they so long had lost; and that the people of this island are…disseminating the blessings of civilization and freedom among cities, kingdoms and nations.

    English nationalism, then, was thus much nearer to its religious matrix than later nationalisms that rose after secularization had made greater progress. The nationalism of the 18th century shared with it, however, its enthusiasm for liberty, its humanitarian character, its emphasis upon the individual and his rights and upon the human community as above all national divisions.

    The rise of English nationalism coincided with the rise of the English trading middle classes. It found its final expression in John Locke’s political philosophy, and it was in that form that it influenced American and French nationalism in the following century.

    American nationalism was a typical product of the 18th century. British settlers in North America were influenced partly by the traditions of the Puritan revolution and the ideas of Locke and partly by the new rational interpretation given to English liberty by contemporary French philosophers. American settlers became a nation engaged in a fight for liberty and individual rights. They based that fight on current political thought, especially as expressed by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

    It was a liberal and humanitarian nationalism that regarded America as in the vanguard of mankind on its march to greater liberty, equality, and happiness for all. The ideas of the 18th century found their first political realization in the Declaration of Independence and in the birth of the American nation. Their deep influence was felt in the French Revolution.

    continued
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 106
    Last Post: 11-11-2017, 12:32 PM
  2. The Rise Of Nationalism, Who's Really Responsible?
    By philly rabbit in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-24-2017, 06:03 AM
  3. For Desh - Black Nationalism
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 249
    Last Post: 03-10-2016, 04:51 PM
  4. Obama follows Hoovers Lead with nationalism
    By KingCondanomation in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 01:42 PM
  5. Nationalism Needed
    By Hermes Thoth in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-18-2007, 08:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •