Skip to comments.In Hitler's Shadow: The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots
Posted on 02/22/2003 3:51:48 AM PST by Republican_Strategist
In Hitler's Shadow
The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots
By Elbridge Colby
|There has never been a dearth of words on the origins of Nazism, nor has Harvard been remiss in this category. In recent years, for instance, Daniel Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners, which found "eliminationist anti-Semitism" in the bosom of every German, provoked a tempest in both Europe and America. But the question of Nazi origins has not been confined to conventional scholarship quite the contrary. Instead, it has been part of American political conflicts since World War II. In this capacity it has served as the extreme of the Right, supposedly the mirror of Communism, the extreme of the Left. Indeed, this characterization has proved a useful political weapon as, for instance, when Tony Judt recently argued in the New York Times that American anti-Communism (whose very purpose was the defense against totalitarianism) was a species of nascent totalitarianism. Yet this analysis of Nazism as an outgrowth of true conservative thinking is mistaken. Nazism is instead the manifestation of the pagan, romantic forces at a time of deep, specifically German, national humiliation. As such, it has nothing in common with the political Right in America.
It is necessary first to lay out the political spectrum of Germany before the National Socialists came to power. Germany, like all polities, was not divided along a single line. The truly conservative forces among the various Germanies were the Habsburg Empire, the various principalities and their cherished independence, and the major Christian denominations, most particularly the Roman Catholic Church. The conservative ideal was that propagated by Klemens von Metternich during and after the Congress of Vienna. It entailed a balance of power in Germany between the Emperor in Vienna and the upstart King in Berlin, which therefore maintained peace in Europe by dividing the might of the Reich. Metternich's policy was diametrically opposed to nationalism and rebellion. Henry Kissinger wrote, "Oppressed by the vulnerability of its domestic structures in an age of nationalism, the polyglot Austro-Hungarian Empire insisted on a generalized right of interference to defeat social unrest wherever it occurred." Both the Catholic Church and its principal defender, the Habsburg Crown, were founded on universalist and transnational grounds, and each, along with the smaller states of the old Holy Roman Empire, found themselves assaulted in the nineteenth century.
Supported by the pan-German nationalism of 1848, the Prussian state was able to assert its centralizing, authoritarian control over the bulk of the Reich. The traditional Imperial idea of transnational lordship which had characterized the Imperial Crown from Charlemagne's time fell under the sword of Prussian aggression in 1866; shortly thereafter, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf against the Church. In response to this maneuver, which anticipated Hitler's own assault against the religious bodies, the Center Party leader Ludwig Windthorst stated succinctly the conservative position, "My loyalty to the Royal family of Hanover will last until my dying day, and nothing in the world, not even the most powerful Chancellor of Germany, will be able to make me depart from it." Conservative in Germany, as elsewhere, meant an adherence to legitimate and traditional institutions the very opposite of the Nazi ideology.
National Socialism stood in direct contravention to all that traditional Germany held dear: the Christian faith, civilization, and the ancient (and somewhat befuddled) political structure. The deep Nazi antipathy to Christianity and civilization, which, in much of Europe, meant practically the same thing, is particularly illuminating. Hitler despised these things: he said that, "Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." In fact, Hitler and the Nazis wanted nothing less than the "re-barbarization" of the German people. The esteemed German historian Hajo Holborn wrote that "Anti-Semitism was the major instrument in this policy of barbarization. Through the vilification, torture, and mass murder of the Jews the ruthlessness was produced that Hitler wanted to inculcate in his followers."
Hitler wished to undo the Romanization of Germany. He wanted, in effect, to set back up the pagan holy tree of the Saxons which St. Boniface had felled twelve hundred years before. The source for his thinking, according to Alan Bullock, was a "crude Darwinism," in which struggle was the key aspect of existence. Such thinking was the very antithesis of conservative Germany.
Also illuminating is the way in which Germans voted and acted under Nazi tyranny. The source of the Nazi electoral victories, particularly after Bruening took office as Chancellor, were the middle and lower-middle class voters of northern Germany. Many have labeled these voters "conservative." They were the support for the right-wing Nationalist Party and the anti-Weimar movement. But these were also those who had provided the backbone for the revolution in Germany which had taken place under Bismarck the defeat of the Austrians and exclusion of the Habsburgs, the reckless territorial aggrandizement against the French, and the suppression of religious liberty with the Kulturkampf. In truth, Hitler came to power on a program that might have been ripped from the pan-Germanic dreams of a 19th century liberal revolutionary. The infamous Twenty-Five Points include provisions such as unification of all Germans in Europe, land reform, the abolition of child labor, division of profits, old-age security, the replacement of the Roman with the German Law, and "the duty of the state to provide for the individual." This was clearly a challenge to the conservative institutions of German life. And when the Nazis came to power, they proved this point. The Nazi state was a highly centralized, technocratic, propagandistic, national machine. In addition to its systematic attack on the Jews, who comprised a long-standing, but abused, segment of the population, the Nazis opened a new Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church, jailing priests and deposing bishops; unlike 1874, however, Hitler also moved against the established Protestant denominations, persecuting such noble men as Dietrich Bonhoffer.
In truth, it was the established institutions which provided the terribly small opposition to Hitler (along with the Communists, who engaged in an internecine totalitarian war with their rival National Socialists). Holborn wrote, "The challenge to the totalitarian claims of the Nazi government by the churches found the support of people who had been willing to adjust themselves to the new regime.... Conservative elements, both Catholic and Protestant, were shocked by the Nazi attacks on the churches and the Christian religion.... There were a good many liberal intellectuals who...were now attracted by the church resistance." These dissenters included Bishops Galen of Munster and Faulhaber of Munich (other bishops proved weaker) among Catholics, and Bonhoffer among Lutherans. Even the Prussian military aristocracy, an institution largely damned by its complicity with Hitler, offered substantial opposition General Beck, Admiral Canaris, and Colonel von Stauffenberg among them.
The Nazi state was an abomination almost unimaginable to those who have not endured its tortures, both subtle and overt. Like Stalinist Russia, which Hitler consciously emulated, National Socialist Germany repudiated the civilized tradition of government which had developed out of the medieval period. Hitler and his acolytes ruthlessly and maliciously employed the liberal themes of nationalism, anti-Christian secularism, and devotion to the state. To contend that Nazism was conservative is not only untrue, it is lazy and unfair.
In the United States, it is an especially ill-used label. It is not as if the Republican Party had Nazism in its closet; the very purpose for which the GOP exists is to protect the traditional apparatus of limited government and individual liberties from molestation by the state. Yet the abuse of the opprobious term "Nazi" continues in American political discourse.
Of all the words which must retain their full and horrifying meaning for the sake of our lives and liberties, "Nazi" probably ranks highest. One may fairly hold that the Republican Party is dangerous because of the fundamental distinctions between the two parties on the issues. But one may not reasonably hold that a party based on fear of the state (witness the Second Amendment controversy) could possibly lead, or be linked, to Nazism. We are fortunate enough not to have this beast threaten us; let us be wary that we do not, by cheapening its dangers, let it become acceptable.
This article presents findings from fieldwork in Africa (1998, 1999) and Germany (1994-2000). It includes a detailed discussion of Hitlers views about propaganda and his use of this instrument to seduce the masses.
The aim of my fieldwork was to collect impressions that could illuminate questions stimulated by competing interpretations of German behaviour. How did Hitler manage to incite a whole population to follow him? As Alan Jacobs puts it: Why do people join political, religious, professional, or social movements, of whatever size, and surrender so completely, giving up, in the extreme, everything; their fortunes, their, critical thinking, their political freedom, their friends, families, even their own lives? What causes people to create a system or perhaps merely follow a system that creates Auschwitz, the Lubianka, the killing fields of Cambodia (Jacobs, 1995, 1).
...In this article a further view is offered, in which social identity theory with its emphasis on the group is linked with a more individual based analysis. It suggests that ordinary Germans were ideal targets for seduction by Hitler. They went along with him, enthusiastically, although in many cases with ambivalence, because of his flattering message about themselves and Germanys future. They were also caught up in the social dynamics he created. It was attractive to share the passions of the group, to be swept up in its enthusiasm. At the same time, it was disagreeable, and increasingly dangerous, to remain isolated from that enthusiasm and group feeling (to say nothing of the dangers of active opposition).
Hitler was obviously very competent at putting into practice what he calls the correct psychology of seduction at the beginning of his career as Führer. He writes on page 165 of his book Mein Kampf (Hitler, 1999, italics added): The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and hence to the heart of the broad masses. Two pages later, he continues: The broad mass of a nation does not consist of diplomats, or even professors of political law, or even individuals capable of forming a rational opinion; The people in their overwhelming majority are so feminine by nature and attitude that sober reasoning determines their thoughts and actions far less than emotion and feeling. And this sentiment is not complicated, but very simple and all of a piece. It does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, never half this way and half that way, never partially, or that kind of thing.
For a long time, notwithstanding the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, I accepted the conventional wisdom that Communism and Nazism were opposites one on the extreme left, the other on the extreme right.
Perhaps enough time has passed to permit examination in realistic terms of these approaches to social organization, concentrating on essential characteristics and demonstrated aspirations as opposed to clichés. Decades of observation, as well as ceaseless consideration given to the core issues, compel me to look upon these seemingly opposite systems as mirror images, aspiring to a similar outcome, applying identical methods, achieving comparable subjugation of people under their control, spreading the same hopelessness in their paths. While such conclusions have certainly been reached by others, it may be less obvious that Fascism (Nazism) and Communism (Bolshevism) all share their philosophical foundations as well.
Gleichschaltung operated at once on structural and cultural levels. Structurally, the first victim was federalism: within days of Hitler's accession, the states had to cede authority to the central government. Next, the leadership and membership of every kind of organization had to become politically and racially correct. With the task of implementing structural changes assigned to a variety of agencies, as early as March 1933, a separate Cabinet Department was created for Josef Goebbels to oversee every aspect of the cultural scene, making certain that it was politically correct. Specific terms aside, the reality of all these regimes is the great flattening which is in full progress from day one. Since it is not possible to raise anyone's natural level by fiat, the alternative is to force everyone down.
It is astonishing and frightening how little time it took both in Russia and in Germany to accomplish this task. Indeed, it should be noted that demolishing what centuries had built does not require even a single generation.
The next ingredient had to do with groups. While it may appear contradictory to identify groups in a society having just experienced Gleichschaltung, contradictions do not represent obstacles in a totalitarian structure. The identity of groups was as necessary as the levelling had been in order to maintain positive and negative imaging. This constant dichotomy of egalitarianism and group hatred provided a manipulative tool as simple as it was ingenious. Hitler used race and nationality, Lenin and Stalin mostly class the outcome was the same.
One may fairly hold that the DEMOCRATIC Party is dangerous because of:
This is the same left wing myth in America that Republicans and conservatives are racists. The real racists in suits from Klan Sheets to $4,000 Suits worn in the Senate are the DemonicRats.
Thanks for posting this thread. It is very timely with the Islamofacists in charge of Iran, Iraq and Syria. They and their supporters in America are Facists.
Democrats = INTERNAL THREAT / DOMESTIC ENEMIES.
Very correct. The conservatives grossly underestimated the charisma of Hitler and the ability of his propaganga machine. Stalin ruled via brute force and massive fear. Hitler ruled with brutality but mostly with his grandiose promises to the people.
The young boy in Cabaret singing "The Future Belongs to Me!" fairly well sums up the attitude of the Germans of the 1930s.
Youre all a bunch of Fascists! At least that's what the left keeps calling everyone who attempts to reason from the classical conservative perspective. But the issue of who is a Fascist can't be addressed by any measure from the modern philosophical left because their fundamental tenet is the lie. For them, thats the first principle of the art of war. They use it, they excuse it, and they in fact worship at its feet. They are the masters of deception, the political prestidigitators of the modern age. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. And one of the truly clever feats of magic the left has perpetrated was convincing John and Jane Q. Public that Fascism is necessarily a product of the popular definition of the "far right."
Fascism: Any program for setting up and centralizing an autocratic regime with severely authoritarian politics exercising regulation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible oppression of opposition. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
Writing in The New Australian on January 24th, 1999, James Henry noted that, "The state of American education being what it is, the vast majority of people are totally incapable of recognizing a fascist economic program, even when it is used to slap them in the face. This is because they have not been taught that fascism means state direction of the economy, cradle to grave social security, complete control of education, government intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy and the belief that the individual belongs to the state."
. . .any similarlities with the goals and modus operandi of our current Left are not coincidental. . .
>>Conservative elements, both Catholic and Protestant, were shocked by the Nazi attacks on the churches and the Christian religion....<<
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party ...While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.
From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."
The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300).
Instead of using "Conservative" which implies "conserving the status quo", we should be using the word
As in, we wish to restore individual liberty and personal responsibility as embodied in the original and only interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America. We have no desire to conserve the status quo, which is nigh on democratic socialism. We desire to Restore this country to what it is supposed to be.
As in, we wish to restore individual liberty and personal responsibility as embodied in the original and only interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America.<<<<
How right you are. The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism. Robert W. Fogel Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism. Robert W. Fogel Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Robert Fogel is a Nobel prize winning economist from the University of Chicago.
Fogel's argument is that American history has seen several Great Awakenings driven by religion and based on the notion of EGALITARIANISM and that we are in the middle of the Fourth Great Awakening.
FIRST GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1730 to 1800 and led directly to the American Revolution. Movement was driven by anger over corruption and immorality of British administration.
SECOND GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1800 to 1880 and focused on the egalitarian concept of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and stress on INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. This movement led to Indians rights, temperance (against alcohol), universal education, abolition of slavery and voting rights for all adults.
THIRD GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1890 to 1960 but was based on the egalitarian concept of EQUALITY OF CONDITION. Basic human problems were taken to be the failure of society, not the individual. Poverty was taken to be not the wages of sin, but caused by society. Led to the welfare state, diversity, income tax, regulation of big business, unions, and immigration restrictions.
FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING. Started in 1960 to present. Major shift from THIRD to FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING is the return to egalitarian concept of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY and stress on INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. This change in direction runs counter to the entire Liberal agenda based on idea that society is responsible and not the individual.
What brought about the crisis that has led to the FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING? As Fogel points out, between 1890 and 1990, the increase in available wealth to the top 10% of w age earners in this country increased by a factor of four, that is, their actual wealth was multiplied four times. At the same time, the increase in available wealth to the bottom 10% of wage earners actually increased by a factor of 20! But while the multiplication of wealth has been astounding, problems such as crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, and single-parent households all INCREASED! Obviously material resources have not and will not solve the problems.
Enter the FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING. While church membership in the U.S. actually grew in the 1940s and 1950s, it fell off afterwards. Between 1970-2000, church membership in established denominations actually DECREASED by 25%. At the same time the enthusiastic religions more than doubled in the U.S. (and grew by an astounding 250,000,000 in South America and Asia).
The Moral Majority initiated the current religious awakening but was found to be too narrow in focus and intolerant. The CHRISTIAN COALITION has proven to be more flexible and political in nature, and therefore more successful. In Fogel's opinion, the Christian Coalition will dominate American politics for the next 50-60 years if they:
(1) understand they are a POLITICAL MOVEMENT~
(2) can form coalitions on key issues to move their agenda~
(3) can produce real gains for their adherents based on the concept of personal responsibility.
The LIBERALS (Fogel calls them Social Gosplers of the THIRD AWAKENING) will fight a rear guard action, especially in public education and the universities,
The truth is 'out there'; but it is not 'out there'.
Do think Conservatives in Media should take this as a challenge as well; this is a myth that should never have been allowed to become one. . .
>>>The deep Nazi antipathy to Christianity and civilization, which, in much of Europe, meant practically the same thing, is particularly illuminating. Hitler despised these things: he said that, "Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." In fact, Hitler and the Nazis wanted nothing less than the "re-barbarization" of the German people. The esteemed German historian Hajo Holborn wrote that "Anti-Semitism was the major instrument in this policy of barbarization. Through the vilification, torture, and mass murder of the Jews the ruthlessness was produced that Hitler wanted to inculcate in his followers." <<<
I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust;but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"
Hitler stands out, because his approach to solving problems was, you might say, "over-enthusiastic." He made a production out of it.
Where Stalin's forte was to kill millions by simply mowing them down, under the cover of having bothered to establish a world-wide media hegemony.
Stalin [has] had many friends willing to be his alibi, not to mention the millions vouching for his "fine character" --- most of those supporters being in high places in the West.
In the U.S.A., look around, you can still see them on the curb, protesting [too much] for Stalin.
When their depravity recognizes no difference between Stalin and Hitler.
By 1932 voters chose between the conservative nationalist Hindenburg, the Nazi Hitler, Duesterberg the right wing representative, and the communist Thaelmann.
Recall, Hitler's anti-capitilist screed utilized jealousy between the masses of unemployed against a perceived jewish leisure class. This was useful on two fronts as Hitler could also rail against the seemingly "jewish" communists. Also there was a range of what was perceived as "conservative" political opinion, the obvious supporters of the Weimar Republic, center-right moderates, and the conservative traditionalists(social).
This too is the stuff of myths....one notable industrialist..Fritz Thyssen was a Nazi sympathizer.
Before 1933 industrialist were not seen as financial backers, they were very suspicious of the NSDAP. Except for Thyssen who went on to write a book about his financial support of Hitler. Later of course if you wanted your business to survive, you certainly had to seem as if you were operating in support of the "state". The means of production on a national scale were indeed regulated by the NSDAP, those that remained viable operated for the good of the state.
In the political trenches of Germany, before Hitler came to power, there was no mistakening that both the Commies and the Nazis were vyeing for the same disgruntled kooks for their respective movements. That's why they detested each other so... cutting in on each others' "piece a dee action."
If the people who deny any connection between Nazism and German conservatives knew any German history, they'd know that, for instance, the Nazi Party was wildly popular among conservative professors and student fraternities.
Note too that Nazism had a clearly conservative component -- love of nature and mythic Teutonism. It also had a modern, progressive, technotopian component -- Nazism routinely wed contradictions (e.g., nationalism and supranationalistic racialism), which showed up among its followers.
At the time of Hitler's non-elected seizure of power, conservatives spoke of a "konservative Revolution." Many conservative aristocrats thought they could pull Hitler's strings; they ended up hanging from their own.
All the weight given to Hitler's powerful propaganda explains how he seduced the German people, and got them to vote him into office -- except that they never did, and his star was actually falling, at the time he seized power. (The writer mentions "Nazi electoral victories"; what electoral victories?) Propaganda had nothing to do with Hitler's takeover; he succeeded due to organized violence, the weakness of President Paul von Hindenburg, and the lack of support for the Weimar constitution, in a "republic without republicans."
This Harvard knucklehead -- pardon the redundancy -- knows enough about German history to get himself arrested. Never does he mention the name "Hohenzollern," because then he'd have to dispense with his fictional claim that the "Reich" was "split" between Austria and Berlin. The Habsburgs were not half of a German Reich; they were the Austro-Hungarian "kaiserliche und koenigliche Monarchie" (literally, "imperial and royal monarchy"). Germany, which only came into being in 1871, was run by the Hohenzollern monarchy. They were two fully separate empires (Reiche) with little in common. For one thing, in the Reich, everyone was a German; in Austro-Hungary, only a minority of the people were Austrian (Germanic). Had the writer mentioned that the German Reich only came into being in 1871 would have raised questions which would eventually have toppled his propagandistic house of cards.
He romanticizes the role of the ("universalist") Catholic Church, as if Nazism hadn't been born and raised in Catholic Austria. Indeed, ever since the war ended, Germans have loved to claim that the Austrians were more enthusiastic Nazis than they ever were. The writer fails to mention, that Germany was split between Catholicism and Protestantism, hence the weaker Catholic influence -- not that it mattered, in the end.
And in denying (though without naming him) that Bismarck was conservative, he makes himself look laecherlich (roughly, pathetic). (The Zentrum politician he quotes, Ludwig Windthorst, as expressing his loyalty to the court of Hanover did so, because Hanover had just been annexed to Prussia, not because of some deep, philosophical position, and cetainly not because the new, evolving state lacked legitimacy. And the Prussians dominated the evolving state not because of a surge of German nationalism in 1848, but because they were the dominant military power.)
The writer misrepresents conservatism in Germany, and indeed, Germany as such, in order to make domestic political debating points. In his word games, he sounds like the New York Times, which is always ordering George W. Bush and other conservative politicians not to change the policies instituted by their socialist predecessors, because to be conservative is to preserve the status quo, and to change anything would make them "radicals." This guy's writing has as little to do with history, as does that of Harvard "historian," Daniel Jonah Goldhagen.
I doubt this, but an always willing to be shown the error of my ways. So I ask you to prove this and define conservative in the context of the Germany of the 1920s.
Note too that Nazism had a clearly conservative component -- love of nature and mythic Teutonism.
What? German conservatives were identified by their unique love of nature? Would they have joined Greenpeace? And the identification of mythic Teutonism with conservatism is bizarre.
He romanticizes the role of the ("universalist") Catholic Church, as if Nazism hadn't been born and raised in Catholic Austria.
I fail to see what this proves. Stalin was born and raised in Orthodox Russia. So?
All in all, your argument is an unpersuasive muddle of ad-hominem attacks and unsupported assertions. And, by the way, Hitler did become Chancellor legally, under the terms of the German constitution of its day, even if he did not win a majority vote. But then, neither did George Bush. Please dont use the discredited arguments of the irredentist Left.
In case you dont know the meaning of an ad-hominem attack, Ill summarize your persuasive arguments from your last paragraph: the writer knew nothing political hack You know even less political axe to grind red-bait your own incompetence? You pathetic moron. a typical multiculturalist . Ignorance political hackery noxious
Go home to mother now. Ask her to wipe the foam off your lips.
I've been noticing of late that the phenomenon of dumbing-down, which used to be seen predominantly on the left, is now a solidly bipartisan problem. If you had any sense of shame, you wouldn't have tangled with me, in the first place. With your sense of intellectual entitlement, you can go to any thread, and fantasize that you're "challenging" people, by spouting off on matters of which you know nothing. Then, when they show you up, you'll just accuse them of "ad hominem" attacks.
So far you have spouted ad hominem attacks and foamed at the mouth. Your arguments have the intellectual depth of a bumper sticker, and your resort to name-calling exposes you as a fraud.
I think there is room for discussion about the historical basis of the Nazis, what they believed and who their intellectual descendents are. From the evidence, you appear to be firmly in that camp.
Love and peace.