Good post, I think it’s important to try and nail down what we’re really talking about, otherwise our words can quickly becoming the meaningless Babel of the mainstream (too bad it seems like some people found it antagonistic? I guess? but don’t want to explain their beliefs - I wish discussion/text posts got an algorithmic bump, if a forum culture can’t sustain it over the junkfood of ragebait and memes).
Definitional slip is an insidious means of mass-control. Think about the slip on the definition of “vaccine” a few years ago to now include “experimental gene therapy”. If you can change the words people are using, you can change their minds, quite literally.
Tangentially from this subject, dom just wrote an interesting response to me in a dead thread, so I thought I might paste here for more eyes and discussion:
[i ask how much he differentiates between these terms which have been conflated, especially recently]
Absolutely, those are all different ideas.
National Socialism, in it's specific form is something that almost no one believes in anymore because it is a combination of Socialist Corporatist Autarkey economics, combined with the Volkish and Aryan pseudo-science/religious ideologies. It basically only exists among the mid-century Germans and wouldn't exist anywhere else, even in the US. Even within the NSDAP, some people would be pretty wishy-washy on Aryanism.
National Socialism in it's expanded form is the idea of a kind of Race Communism. It takes the Dialectical Materialism and revolutionary overtones of Marxism, and applies it to a very specific 'race' of people (some diaspora), regardless of the state boundaries, and makes that 'race' the protected proletariat class in the dialectic. The "Volksgemeinschaft". The reason I'm calling this "expanded" is because it is a good way of describing a non-Aryanist version of National Socialism. This allows us to actually include the whole of the NSDAP, as well as many National Socialist organizations out side of Germany.
White Nationalism as an ideology does not require National Socialism. The same way Scottish, Irish, or even Rhodesian Nationalism doesn't. However, Most White Nationalists are just carbon copying National Socialism anyway. They tend to use the same playbook that the National Socialists used to unify German ethnic/sub-ethnic groups under a "Volksgemeinschaft", the White Nationalists are attempting to do the same thing with white ethnicities. White Nationalism could reject Socialism and Leftist dialectics, and also not try for a kind of Pan-Europeanism unification. So for example, you could get someone saying "The Free State of Orange is a White country, and is made up of the White peoples of Africa, including English, Scotts, Americans, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Afrikaners; regardless of ethnic differences. As such, we will form a federated republic, which explicitly recognizes the white populations in the political structure of our constitution". This could easily be the statement of a non-Socialist, White Nationalist, but most Americans never really think this way. Instead, they revert back to the Leftist rhetoric of NatSocs.
White Supremacy is another ideology that can be taken two ways. It can be understood as a kind of White Nationalism that specifically mandates and enshrines the perpetual political, social, and economic power of whites in all cases whatsoever. Where White Nationalism enshrines and institutionalizes white populations within the framework of the state, White Supremacy mandates the dominance of those populations. White Nationalism could take a protectionist stance towards white populations, but White Supremacy would attack other populations.
Adolf Hitler really would have fallen under the expanded definition of National Socialism, because he really wasn't too hardcore into Aryanism. I'm not clear on how much of that he believed. He was clearly an avowed Socialist, but not clearly an self-avowed Aryanist. There was a Nazi religion that delved way more into Aryanism, but I don't think Hitler ever got very involved in that.
And just to be clear, Fascism is entirely outside of all of these.
Good post, I think it’s important to try and nail down what we’re really talking about, otherwise our words can quickly becoming the meaningless Babel of the mainstream (too bad it seems like some people found it antagonistic? I guess? but don’t want to explain their beliefs - I wish discussion/text posts got an algorithmic bump, if a forum culture can’t sustain it over the junkfood of ragebait and memes).
Definitional slip is an insidious means of mass-control. Think about the slip on the definition of “vaccine” a few years ago to now include “experimental gene therapy”. If you can change the words people are using, you can change their minds, quite literally.
Tangentially from this subject, dom just wrote an interesting response to me in a dead thread, so I thought I might paste here for more eyes and discussion:
[i ask how much he differentiates between these terms which have been conflated, especially recently]