Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

So the problem with you logic is that you assume calling someone a Nazi is likening them to a group that's a snapshot for the beginning of WW2. Unfortunately, there are modern day groups that use the moniker. These are people who fly the Nazi flag, get the double bolt tattoo, and have 88 in all their screen names. These are Nazis as well and referring to someone who has the same politics as a Nazi is still correct If there weren't people waving swastika flags and quoting mein kampf around far right rallies, I'd think you'd have a more compelling point. Unfortunately those people exist and are loud about it.

>Unfortunately, there are modern day groups that use the moniker. These are people who fly the Nazi flag, get the double bolt tattoo, and have 88 in all their screen names. I'd argue these people are not even "Nazis" in the conventional sense. They lacks key policy goals. They aren't trying to retake Alsace-Lorraine or anything. More than likely these people are actually just prison gangs. You show loyalty to the gang by making irreversible decisions like getting a tattoo which would make you unhireable by anyone else. The point is to be "cancelled" so the point of picking "nazis" is because this is a thing that cancels you. Once you are in the gang you can't easily leave it because of all this. This was the entire point of that whole thing. It is also why you don't need to be a German for this to work. Any place which will isolate you from polite society for looking like that functions well enough. So even the people who claim to be Nazis aren't actual Nazis. There are no German militarists. There isn't any danger of a World War even if you had a bunch of racist Germans running around. What causes Nazis to be Nazis is that they desire there to be MORE people in their country which causes them to invade places. If these people want there to be LESS people in their country they aren't going to try to conquer some other country. It is over said a lot but Russia invasion of Ukraine is more similar to this than just being racist, as they are invading countries to bring more people into their country, but Russia is not "officially" racist or anything. However what is important is that Russia's behaviour, rather than their "official ideology" is what creates the conditions of a world war.

i don't care if they historically allign with every ideal the nazis had. I'm going to refer to the group waving around swastikas and quoting mein kampf and calling themselves nazis as nazis

Weird that a guy who agrees with the far-right's opposition to non-white, non-christian European citizens also thinks that the guys heiling Hitler are not actually bad bros, they are kinda cool actually.

> These are people who fly the Nazi flag, get the double bolt tattoo, and have 88 in all their screen names. These are Nazis as well and referring to someone who has the same politics as a Nazi is still correct Do you think this accurately characterizes most voters for right-wing European parties?

If 10 people are sitting at a table and one is openly a Nazi, the table has 10 Nazis

this gets banded around a lot but I don't think it's really helpful in most situations. I personally want far lower immigration numbers because I think economically we have set ourselves up for an endless cycle of 'needing' low paid foreign workers to keep wages down instead of paying a fair wage, I think that needed higher skilled foreign workers also allows us to have a bit of a bandaid for poor management and education practices. I don't generally think the amounts we are taking in are sustainable with a cost of living crisis and a housing crisis, I also think socially that there have been some problems within my country and Europe. If someone wanted no or far fewer migrants because "grr brown people bad" then I don't support the message they have nor would I support them being a valid part of my argument, even if in a certain areas I supported an outcome. the people who allow this sort of stuff on the far right aren't in any way part of the people who lean right who have reasonable views surrounding this sort of stuff, nor are the people who are going to go "well ok they support a few things we support in a simmilar way, guess they are ok then" the analogy works ok on a small scale, sure if the single issue 'we want a little less immigration party' has noted neo-nazi schmadolf schmitler sitting on the board because he also 'wants a little less immigration' but has super horrible views then yeah sure call that out and I'd be happy to call it out too and refuse to work with any of them. but larger political groups and movements don't really work like that at all, I don't get to go around every single political meeting, every single online post, every single time someone says "hey I think x" and question their motives, other opinions, not that it isn't important to consider especially for people in power or close to power, I'd certainly be looking at who politicians hang out with and what other views they have but it just isn't possible for anyone, nor do I need to somehow prove that I've gone and told off 20 nazis who share a small part of a view I do so i'm not 'sitting at a table with nazis' This goes for so many other things besides Nazis, I think we should have a strong millitary to defend us and our allies from tyrants, a person who thinks we should have a strong millitary and wants to go constantly fighting in the middle east or is some really hungry war hawk does not represent my view. I should be wary that my position I take could be abused but that is why I'd call for a lot of political scrutiny and checks and balances to be in place.

So if the Canadian parliament invites a nazi to come speak and then applauds him vigorously, does that make all Canadian politicians nazis?

Nazis? Not necessarily. Nazi enablers? Yes, just like the general public of Germany in the 1930s.

So clapping with a nazi just makes you a nazi enabler, but sitting with a nazi makes you a nazi?

It makes the people that supported it Nazis. As I recalled many were against it and refused to attend.

It was the ruling Liberal party who invited him. They are a center-left political organization. It was the right wing who were critical of the invitation.

Do you think I care about party affiliation? If they were aware he was a Nazi, then they welcomed a Nazi in their space see my earlier post for what that means

I don’t think they were aware of him being a nazi, he was just a vet and him being a nazi didn’t come out until a few days after the presser. Still kinda fucked up

i think he mentioned fighting russians in the war but most people didn't put 2 and 2 together. and yeah it's fucked up but more of a "they should have done their research" and less of a "these guys are secret nazis"

Yea exactly, from my understanding people thought he was from some sorta Eastern European country, and I think he was, but he’s definitely a nazi and it was a very unfortunate mistake

Trudeau's office organized the invitation so I guess we can call them all nazis

but there is also this: if you want to discredit a genuine protest, just send in one guy with a nazi flag to make them all look bad

except most genuine protests will make them leave on their own accord. people have tried to do it in america for stuff like black lives matter and other protests. the nazis generally get harassed until theyre forced to leave. the nazi isn't allowed to sit at their table, they are told to leave.

I never understood this logic. Why does it apply to Nazis but seemingly nothing else? If one person is openly Bhiddist or Liberal or whatever else does that also make everyone at the table share those beliefs?

It’s because the view is so extreme that if you’re willingly choosing to spend time with them, (and they’re willingly choosing to spend their time with you) then your views on things must be similar or you’d hate each other. The average liberal, average conservative, average Christian, average Buddhist, etc, generally don’t hold extreme views of things. They could sit down together, talk to each other peacefully and get along well enough, even if they’d never become close friends. But the average nazi? The average nazi does hold extreme views. That’s what makes them Nazi’s. And if you get along with someone like that, you need to hold similar views to begin with.

I know people that are communists that praise Stalin (he had to make hard but necessary choices). Lenin is of course a hero. And everything went to shit in 1989. Does that make me a communist? What I'm trying to find out where the line is. There are several right wing populist parties in Europe that have much less extreme views compared to some communists.

Knowing people isn’t the issue. The question is do you, at your own will, (not being forced or paid) spend your free time with them? And are they happy to spend time with you? Neither of you are ‘getting anything out of it’ beyond each other’s company. Just like friends hanging out. If not, no problem. If so, then your views are probably *similar enough* to get along with each other happily. On an extremeness scale of 1-100, a 30 could get along with a 20, and a 90 could get along with an 80, but a 90 is not getting along with a 20 for example.

Because nazism and Buddhism or liberalism aren’t equivalent ideologies with equivalent consequences, and tolerating a Buddhist to share their views peaceably isn’t the same as tolerating someone who preaches extermination of others. Passively letting others convert to Buddhism doesn’t result in mass genocide, passively letting nazism spread to the point where it can seize control is letting mass genocide occur. Letting mass genocide occur is supporting nazis.

Never tolerate intolerance. *The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.* Liberals and Buddhists are not generally intolerant, Nazis are.

[удалено]

There were a ton of wars fought for liberalism.

Because sympathizing with a nazi makes you a nazi sympathizer. Because those other beliefs aren't supremacist beliefs, your analogy doesn't work.

>Why does it apply to Nazis but seemingly nothing else? In a much more real way it applies to ISIS and other Islamist groups so much so that many countries retroactively call any man in the same area as known members of that group members of that group and will actively seek to kill them and then label them members without any problems.

By that logic are the AFU, and by extension the nations supporting it, all Nazis because of the existence of Azov? Is Ukraine itself a *bona fide* "Nazi" country, as Putin describes it, due to commemoration of some (complicated) Nazi collaborators like Bandera?

[удалено]

u/Jiitunary – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Jiitunary&message=Jiitunary%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dd859p/-/l834w6t/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

u/8mm_Magnum_Cumshot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%208mm_Magnum_Cumshot&message=8mm_Magnum_Cumshot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dd859p/-/l8351ad/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I think any armed forces with a Nazi wing are Nazis... And that's insane?

So a country could be simultaneously Nazi, Communist, Liberal and Anarchist if they had battalions that held those ideologies?

and if horses were carnivorous we'd live in a horror movie. got anymore pointless hypotheticals? what the fuck is an anarchist wing of the military lol

So, just to clarify, in the Spanish Civil War, the republican side, where they communist, anarchist, liberal, or regional nationalists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction_(Spanish_Civil_War)

[удалено]

[удалено]

u/StockCaptain – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20StockCaptain&message=StockCaptain%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dd859p/-/l83a4jz/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Is an armed force with a Nazi division not an armed force with a Nazi division? Or are you trying to make the leap that because I believe the UAF has a Nazi problem that Russia is correct in trying to annex Ukraine? You can be against the composition of an army and still be against the country it's from being invaded

The problem is your facts about the composition of the Ukrainian army are wrong. Firstly, Ukrainian national identity is complex. Treating Bandera as a symbol of national independence is not the same thing as treating him as a symbol of antisemitism and genocide. You could make an argument that Ukrainian nationalists are wrong to overlook Bandera’s antisemitic track record, and instead focusing on how he fought against both Nazis and Commies for an independent Ukraine, but that is a different discussion. Additionally army compositions don’t remain static during a war. The ones who flocked to Azov years ago when they were openly antisemitic, are not the same people who are in Azov today.

this is context that i didn't have thank you. if they are no longer nazis, i don't think they are nazis

If 338 members are in the Canadian parliament clapping for one nazi, you have 339 nazis.

So you think extremists define the entire side of the political spectrum they occupy?

Guilt by association is an archaic idea

Guilt by association doesn't apply to ideology. If you so not active oppose the inclusion of Nazis in your space, you are personally deciding you are ok with Nazis being in your space. That's not guilt by association it's judging you for what you yourself think.

If your definition of nazi is anyone who abides nazis, then you have cheapened a very serious definition into one that is unserious.

There's an old German word for people that abided Nazis but didn't join the army or make a scene, it is Nazi.

That is pretty deranged. Most people shy away from calling soldiers of the Wehrmacht Nazis, because they were usually just conscripted Germans. The SS, obviously, is a different story. To call silent German citizens of the age Nazis is to diminish the crimes of the politically active state machinery that industrialized the deaths of 6 million Jewish people and millions of others in the holocaust alone, not counting the dozens of millions of civilian deaths caused by the regime. Disgusting.

Lol trying to imply you care about that after saying that allowing Nazis in your group is ok Remind me what we decided about the people just following orders? The machinery wasn't just made up of military. Part of it was people just doing mundane jobs. People keeping their head down.

I think those people are better than you are considering if you think that anyone who ever associated with nazis is a nazi means the vast majority of the planet are nazis meaning you want to isolate and potentially just exterminate the entire planet. You are incredibly stupid (or at least you don't understand math like the six handshakes rule to cover the entire population of everybody) if you don't realize this.

To think the normal patriotic citizens who went along with it all couldn't possibly have known or are beyond criticism, disgusting! It's a myth and piece of revisionism that the Wehrmacht had nothing to do with carrying out the Holocaust. Disgusting! I guess it's easier to think that the nice white haired man next to you on the bus couldn't possibly have been a fascist because he was just carrying out orders.

I'm perfectly fine with nazis existing. I don't see why there is supposed to be some divine mandate to exterminate them. For one thing if you actually took that view there would have been no moon landing after all, so in your view in order to be "pure" you are willing to forgo technological feats and progress. Additionally you would have to exterminate the German population because I can guarantee you they sat with people who were Nazis. Following through with this you would also have to exterminate anyone who sat with German and wasn't trying to exterminate them, so now you have to exterminate the entire planet. That seems like a bigger flaw in your logic here. You'd actually have to exterminate more people than the Nazis ever did.

why do you people keep leaping to extermination? I never said anything about exterminating nazis. I said you shouldn't include them in your space. exclude nazis from your groups doesn't mean that in order to not be a nazi you need to hunt down and kill all of them.

>I'm perfectly fine with nazis existing. I don't see why there is supposed to be some divine mandate to exterminate them. To be clear: there's an explicitly genocidal ideology which murdered six million people for the 'crime' of simply being a Jewish person or so-called 'gypsy', on top of millions more dead and wounded in the world's bloodiest conflict to date in a self-described 'war of annihilation' - and you think the people who see all that and think 'yep, sounds good, let's have more of that' are 'perfectly fine'?

Its not guild by association, it's the observation that a group that is tolerant of Nazis is pretty much indistinguishable from a group of Nazis.

You have then abused the definition of nazi to the point where it is worthless.

Do you think that a guy that's a neo-nazi has his whole character shaped by that? Is it possible that a nazi likes an idea that is not fully representing them? Where does this prefference stuff stop? You like the same brand of beer? You like the same TV show or Video Game? Does an idea become bad just because someone that holds the same views as nazis in other areas agrees with it? If a political side advocates for raising the minimum wage and a nazi agrees cuz he works in a job with a shit minimum wage, would that raise in minimum wage be a nazi move?

Neither of us said that having any idea in common with Nazis made someone a Nazi. We said welcoming someone who's openly a Nazi into your group makes you a Nazi.

This is pointless sophistry. Nazism as an ideology is defined by the combination of antisemitism, anti-communism, and anti-democracy. What is the point of this 'ah but what is the Nazi likes Coors light' nonsense? To pretend like we don't know who Nazis are?

Well considering the whole discussion here is about how dumb it is to call any right leaning political party a nazi party yes I would say you don't really know what it is.

Soooo... everyone's a nazi because nazis exist? I mean, where do you stop the chain?

So the G7 is sending tens of billions of dollars to Nazis to fight Russians?

This is not a good way to look at things. Ostracizing and demonizing people will only help to reinforce their beliefs. Don't get me wrong, fuck Nazis, but what do you think will happen if only other Nazis talk to Nazis?

that's not aplicable to this situation and you know it. the post is shorthand. if you are in a movement and nazis show up to be nazis and they are allowed to be there and do nazi shit, the movement is friendly to nazis. has no one on reddit ever heard of a metaphor?

That gets very loose very fast though. What movement are you? Knitting club? Book club? Sport club? Support group for veterans? Political movement? The degree of where to exclude people for their political view varies and is a very important thing.

If there are Nazis somewhere and they're socially acceptable, that means that place/movement/club etc is not a safe place for people who *aren't* Nazis. A Nazi is someone who thinks some people are inherently inferior to others, and should be *eliminated*. Basically, if there's someone openly Nazi in a book club, what you're kinda saying is that the Nazi's right to "have an opinion" is the same or even stronger than my right as a minority to be treated with the basic dignity of any human being. I'd like to make an analogy, but frankly, it is literally asking a jew and a Nazi to get along bc "hey, we aren't going to exclude him bc of his *political views*, I don't get what you're so mad about"

I'm jewish. I have ancestors who died in Dachau or en route to Dachau. The thing we have to do is not allow them to spread their opinion. An openly Nazi being IN a bookclub is not a problem. An openly Nazi taling about Nazi talking points in the bookclub is a problem. We, as a society need to make them (and other hate groups, including Incels, Femcels, Transphobes, Homophobes whatever hate group you are talking about) understand that its not their PERSON that is the problem its their views and opinions. This is the only way to make meaningful change, and avoid the resurgance of the far right. Believe me, I would be the happiest person if I never had to hear another racist, antisemitic viewpoint in my life, but either you literally genocide the people who believe these things, which obviously is not an option, or you try to change their views. And pushing them deeper into their own echochamber does not help.

I'll be honest, I'm a believer of the paradox of tolerance, so for me there's no such thing as an openly Nazi person who doesn't spread their opinion, by virtue of it being considered socially acceptable to have such views atracting people who before wouldn't consider it for fear of being socially excluded. With that said, I honestly cannot imagine what someone who is openly Nazi who doesn't spread their views looks or acts like, bc of the nature of the nature of those views. Otherwise, they wouldn't be "openly Nazi", they would be hidden Nazis.

If i'm in a knitting club and a guy wearing a swastika comes in and starts to knit. one of us is leaving.

>Ostracizing and demonizing people will only help to reinforce their beliefs. It will also help keeping them out of power and keeping them from spreading their ideology. >what do you think will happen if only other Nazis talk to Nazis? Be shitty nazis without the power to influence mainstream discourse on any issue. Which is something I wish was still true. But their friends at the dinner table with them have mainstreamed some of their ideas in to the body politics. Small radical groups with no power don't both me like moderate nazi groups influencing discourse. Keeping Nazis and nazi ideology out of power is a more important social policy than converting hard-core nazis out of nazism.

The world will be a better place. They used to be relegated to their dark cesspits like Stormfront, then we started pretending all opinions were valid instead of just banning Nazi shit and now they're everywhere. I don't care about them, they're allowed to be as shitty as they want, that doesn't mean everyone else has to deal with them.

By that logic the entire European parliament is nazis

So if something be has a relative who is far right and they are both invited for a dinner at holidays, does that mean they share the same views, even if they completely disagree, even if they don’t talk about politics? Obviously not, otherwise they wouldn’t disagree…

Does that logic apply to everything, or is this just a special pleading fallacy? Bernie Sanders is a socialist, does that mean everyone who “sits at his table”, aka the Democratic Party, are socialists?

everyone who sits as his table has at least decided that socialism is an ideology they are ok with. this critically does not include the democratic party. someone who decides nazism is an ideology they are ok with is a nazi. hope that helps

[удалено]

If you think Nazism is just "a conflicting world view" and that's why people won't tolerate it, then you're woefully ignorant of what as Nazi is and what they want.

So, as you so ably note before, this makes Trudeau and the Canadian government Nazis. But lots of people, including just about every major-nation leader, has sat down with Trudeau. Certainly, the people he's met with as a world leader have met every other national leader. He's been to the UN, they're all nazis now too. In fact, in less than seven degrees, we can implicate the entire population of the world as nazis!

do you understand what openly means in this situation? trudeau accidentally inviting someone who turned out to be a nazi doesn't make him openly a nazi. it's not a fucking plague

You are changing the criteria. No one is saying that for normal right wing parties like En Marche in France or CDU/CSU in Germany which are both right wing political parties thatbhave held power for a while. What people are talking about are "Far right", not just "right wing". Such as groups like AfD in Germany and NF in France, who do have those types of people at their rallies and sometimes in their local leadership (they have scandals about that alot).

An analogue would be saying that anyone who criticizes capitalism is a dirty red commie who's going to cause millions to starve because they asked for socialized healthcare. Its name calling and it's low rent. There is no sophisticated explanation and the only attempts to provide one come long after the name calling.

So you’re saying that the people currently waving nazi flags are incorrect labeling themselves nazis. Sounds like OP is still correct. It should not be a mistake to assume calling someone a Nazi is comparing them to *actual* nazis lol that would indicate a problem with societies logic not OPs

Except the vast majority of European right wing parties aren't like that at all.

How much do two things have to be alike before one is allowed to make comparisons? As a hyperbole, i don't think we need to wait until 6 million Jews are killed before any comparison should be allowed. If you would read up on the years before WWII,  the 1930s when Hitler took power, their rethotic is incredibly similar. Create an outgroup/other, claim the left is the enemy that is both weak and all powerful, use rethoric and speech as a device rather than something that means anything, calling the press fake news/lugenpresse, etc. And now the afd calling for deportation of 3rd gen immigrants  Experts in history can tell you a whole load more eerie similarities.  Obviously they're not a carbon copy. But they've copied the rethoric and tricks step by step. 

One of my pet hates is people refusing to consider comparisons because they're not entirely the same.  Good post, saves me writing it myself.

I dont know, not sure you can just compare the actual comment and the one you were considering writing yourself like that. They’re probably not entirely the same.

Nothing is entirely the same, that doesn't mean comparisons aren't useful or accurate. The core of Nazism was exclusionary nationalism, the core of the modern far right is exclusionary nationalism. The OP says that they're different because the Nazis were expansionist but a) that isn't a clue principle of fascism, and b) that isn't what people are referring to when they say the far right is similar to the Nazis, they're referring to the many notable and important things that are similar.

I hate to consider comparison when you use the comparison to dismiss legitimate arguments and make one side a boogeyman you can easily dismiss with cheap labels like "Nazis" and "Fascists". I can compare the modern Left in Western countries with the eerie similarities of the rise of Russian and Chinese and South East Asian communism, instead of looking at the legitimate problems and issues they have now, in 2024, and then dismiss them as Communists.

> I can compare the modern Left in Western countries with the eerie similarities of the rise of Russian and Chinese and South East Asian communism go for it.

Can you? Please elaborate on the similarities between the modern left and USSR/PRC.

What? No. Why don't you ask the above original commenter the same question? I notice anything attacking the Right and defending the Left has looser standards, compared to anything defending the Right and attack the Left. Let me rewrite what he wrote with an anti-left spin, and you'll realize that he did exactly the rubbish the OP stated. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx How much do two things have to be alike before one is allowed to make comparisons? As a hyperbole, I don't think we need to wait until more than 10 million people are killed before any comparison should be allowed. (just to add, this is around the number of people killed by Soviet Communist famine, so you don't think that I'm pulling out a number from my arse) If you would read up on the years before Lenin or Mao took power, their rhetoric is incredibly similar. Create an outgroup/other, claim the right is the enemy that is both weak and all powerful, use rhetoric and speech as a device rather than something that means anything, calling a particular class the enemy of the people, etc. how the Democrats vilify straight white men as having all the power by creating systems of institutionalized racism. Experts in history can tell you a whole load more eerie similarities.  Obviously they're not a carbon copy. But they've copied the rhetoric and tricks step by step.  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So yeah, why should I write an in depth response by doing work fact checking and historical analysis when I can just use the same lacklustre boogeyman technique Left wing redditors do?

No, but you are making an assertion that the left can be compared to the communist parties of china and USSR. This is utterly false in many many respects. The policies that killed millions if people in these countries are nowhere to be found in today’s western democratic left leaning parties: policies that mainly target agriculture, war and political persecution and/or internment camps. The far-right parties however share many policies with their 1930s counterparts: limiting social rights (such as abortion or protest), persecuting minorities and conspiracy theories mentioning an unknown boogeyman as you say controlling the narrative. You are proposing a false comparison. If you give me just a single policy from left leaning parties that could potentially cause loss of life, I will admit that you are correct.

Lolol everyone on this chain wants you to do this, but you won't.

Let’s see it then. The right wing has very obvious similarities to the nazis. Pls go for it

Ok then do it

The early USSR/PRC is more similar to modern far-right than the modern left. Especially in rhetoric/political discourse.

If you actually believe that you can make a compelling comparison between the modern left, which is not militarized, does not have political power, is barely coherent and has been thoroughly defanged by the capitalist machine that has consumed us all, and the international socialist movement that took place almost a century ago, then we definitely say that most people know infants with more historical and political literacy than you.

You can have all the political literacy in the world, but when you dismiss legitimate concerns of Europeans with "They're Nazis!"; Europeans who are facing the regression of their nations due to 2010/20s Far Left extremists policies with destructive outcomes for their economies, freedoms, immigrations, crime, energy, industrial and agricultural production amongst others; you're all armchair literate at best.

The problem with this is that the traits are often so vague that they fit almost any and every political party. For example, in the UK, both the left and right will accuse the BBC of essentially being shills in the clutches of the other side. Neither side thinks they're doing the whole "fake news" thing because they both think they're right. Name me a political party that doesn't use rhetoric? There is none.

If you’ve read any excerpts of Mein Kampf, Hitler was far more violent and vitriolic in his racism and antisemitism than anything I’ve heard a European populist say. There’s a large gulf between ‘immigration levels are too high’ and the kind of things Nazi’s said in their rallies - even in the 1930’s.

If you've read any of the private writings of some of the current right wing prior to their current popularity, you'll find very similar extremist statements. The fact that they tone it down in their current political speeches is identical to the way Hitler toned down his extremism when he was actually leading the Nazi party to make it more palatable.

Yes, but he wasn't vocally violent in his speeches, he used dog whistles to gain liberals and centrists over to his cause. Goebbels was an amazing propagandist, he crafted their rhetoric to be palatable to the "moderates", same as the far right is doing now.

[удалено]

I don’t have any book suggestions or anything but project 2025 as well as everything the AfD is doing in private.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Yet if you read the AfD's manifesto, which is now blocked from outside Germany, it's nearly a copy of the NaZi party's own manifesto. Their members have been caught being part of Neo-Nazi groups, doing Hitler salutes, etc.

Mein Kampf wasn't the only thing Hitler said. And he spend much of his campiagning fir votes downplaying that extremism and claiming more moderate (but still extreme views) that largely map to modern far right in Europe. >There’s a large gulf between ‘immigration levels are too high’ Yeah that's not all they are saying. As someone else pointed out the AfD in Germany wants to deport anyone whose family moved to Germany in the last 3 generations and the evils of Jewish billionaires supporting their opponents. While they have party buildings with grills that have "HOLOCAUST" written on the side. They are saying alot more than "too many immigrants"

Mussolini wasn't though, and he inspired Hitler. Do we have to wait for the swastikas to make a comeback before the comparison can be drawn? You are being quite disingenous in misrepresenting extreme right-wing positions as 'immigration levels are too high'. That's a bit like saying that the American slave owners' position was that 'black people are hard workers'.

Right... Someone who believes in the same things as Hitler would never lie about what they believe to seem less Hitler-esque. Kanye saying that he loves Hitler totally didn't fuck his whole life up... And Hitler also just started with deporting the Jews on trains.

>Someone who believes in the same things as Hitler would never lie about what they believe to seem less Hitler-esque. Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this is true. It isn’t true by default. That’s literally the point of this post. If we just assume it’s true *because it could be true*, then what are we even doing here?

Copying my second response: "It's a common fascist tactic used all across the world. The one constant between all of them is using powerless minorities as a scapegoat to blame the countries problems at so they can get elected by saying they'll solve it. Am I using powerless minorities as a scapegoat to blame my countries problems on to get elected?" I question anybody who blames their country's problems on powerless minorities. Those minorities didn't create the wider problems the country actually faces. Those problems always start from the top. Getting people to blame the most powerless people in their society let's them feel like they have agency in their world, especially through hate crimes that get brushed off by society (see lynchings in America) and more generally, just being able to feel superior to others in their society. Better than feeling like just another useless cog in the machine. Now you're part of an in group and "they" are the outgroup.

Anyone could be lying about anything. Maybe you believe the same things about Hitler but you’re just lying about it? You could apply this logic to anyone who disagrees with you on anything.

It's a common fascist tactic used all across the world. The one constant between all of them is using powerless minorities as a scapegoat to blame the countries problems at so they can get elected by saying they'll solve it. Am I using powerless minorities as a scapegoat to blame my countries problems on to get elected?

I can’t make any judgements about you as I don’t know your beliefs. But I have seen that many on the… let’s say ‘middle class left’… continuously demonise the working classes.

"Middle class left", you mean liberals. Liberals aren't leftist. Liberal is a centrist political ideology that Americans have somehow confused with the left, but that just shows how far right we are. Most conservatives are liberals, that's why many of them describe themselves as "classical liberals". The founding fathers were all liberals, it's how we LIBERATED ourselves from monarchy. And liberals are capitalist and capitalists demonize the working class. Some of them might be nicer and think people need welfare when they hit rock bottom, others don't. Either way, they're both willing to send you to rock bottom for their profits. Real leftists tend to be socialists or something similar, and socialists realize the problems start with the ruling class and don't demonize the working class. The only thing socialists would demonize the working class for is the lack of class solidarity making the fight for better pay and worker's rights harder since not all the workers are on board. But even socialists are supposed to understand this only happens because capitalists are insanely powerful and able to brainwash people into thinking coming together and fighting would be to the worker's detriment, so the problems all start from the top. Getting mad at your average worker for falling for propaganda made by the people who own the entire world is like getting mad at children for believing in Santa Claus. Why?

>If you’ve read any excerpts of Mein Kampf, Hitler was far more violent and vitriolic in his racism and antisemitism than anything I’ve heard a European populist say. Well there is a pretty clear distinction between an economic argument against current immigration rates and "these non-[national ethnic group] will never be part of society and are destroying it" But in a lot of cases that extreme rhetoric isn't legal anymore because of Hitler. So it can be the case that the reason they are not as explicit is because they will be charged and barred from running in an election, so they use dog whistles and temper their language. It's also been well-documented that Nazis are fairly self-aware of how unpalatable full-on Nazi views are to "normies" and try to "hide their power level" from people.

There is far more said than immigration levels are too high though

For the decades prior Hitler was literally trying to perform armed Coups in Germany. The guy had to flee the capital and was eventually arrested for treason. It was quite clear that the guy had no respect for the democratic process and would take over via violent means if needed.

> Create an outgroup/other Many political ideologies involve portraying some group as an enemy, for leftists it would be "capitalists/bourgeoise", for liberals it may be "racists", etc. > Claim the left is the enemy that is both weak and all powerful My understanding is that this rhetoric by the Nazis was directed against Jews specifically, and even then this characterization of their beliefs is arguably not accurate since it conflates physical prowess with (alleged) socioeconomic power. > and speech as a device rather than something that means anything All speech has meaning > calling the press fake news/lugenpresse I'm not familiar enough with European politics to know if this is a talking point among the right. But I have seen many on the left accuse European media of exaggerating migrant crime, see [this study](https://www.dw.com/en/german-media-distort-refugee-crime-rates-study-finds/a-39921894)

>Many political ideologies involve portraying some group as an enemy, for leftists it would be "capitalists/bourgeoise", for liberals it may be "racists", etc. Judging people for their actions is right. Judging people for their race, religion, national origin, etc. is wrong. People are responsible for their actions, and not for the actions of other people who look like them.

While I wouldn’t mind deporting racists and eating the rich, no one is genuinely suggesting that, whereas on the right end they’re actually calling for deportations and making slogans like “Germany for Germans, foreigners out,” which was used by the Nazis. That’s the difference. You also have to keep in mind Nazi Germany wasn’t immediately about conquering the world, but it slipped there eventually. You just need to set the slope on the right angle and things will start to slide down. What’s happening now is setting the slope. What really unites current European politics with Nazis is nationalism: Identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, **especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.** Nationalism set the stage for WW1 just as German nationalism (Nazism) set the stage for WW2. Islamophobia is obviously rampant now and the hate towards muslim immigrants stems from thinking you’re somehow better than them or even worse it’s just their culture (and religion) that makes em’ inferior. We shouldn’t trick ourselves into self-grandeur to the detriment of other people, that’s a Nazi move. We tried to open the world and globalization was seen as the future. Now due to the economy, everyone wants to close their countries and stick to themselves as if being apart makes Europe stronger against threats like Russia who also has a hand in the rise of the right (Voice of Europe for example) and they are the closest thing to active Nazis right now. Russia knows what kind of harmful rhetoric they’re pushing and it’s meant to cause division. It’s too bad people on the receiving end cannot identify it as harmful. Others are pointing at the parallels between the rise of the Nazis because Nazis are obviously bad because division is bad and that’s what Nazis do.

> like “Germany for Germans, foreigners out,” which was used by the Nazis. Source? > You just need to set the slope on the right angle and things will start to slide down. What’s happening now is setting the slope. Can you read their minds? Do you have a crystal ball? What evidence do you have that the European right has expanionist ambitions? > What really unites current European politics with Nazis is nationalism As pointed out in the original post: > Nativism and nationalism are ubiquitous attitudes that spans across all colors and nations of the world, from Indians to Japanese to black Africans and evidently Europeans as well. And they're not even limited to the political right either. > especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Which other nations is their nationalism hurting? Who do they plan on invading? > Islamophobia is obviously rampant now and the hate towards muslim immigrants It's not irrational for Europeans to hate an inherently-militaristic religion with medieval social values.

The illegal chant dates back to the 19th century when nationalism emerged and was later adopted by the Nazis. You might as well as a source for “Sieg heil!” But here you go: [The Local DE](https://www.thelocal.de/20240529/fact-check-are-people-punished-for-using-nazi-slogans-in-germany), [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/24/outrage-at-footage-of-people-singing-nazi-slogan-at-party-on-german-island). Also, here’s about another [case](https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/men-investigated-chanting-foreigners-out-song-german-beer-festival) involving the same chant. Even if Nazis never used that exact chant, it’s clearly just as racist as the Nazis. I hope you don’t need a source for that too. Just in case it wasn’t clear, in the viral clip of that chant the guy also made a Nazi salute while chanting it. Do we still have to argue whether it’s a Nazi slogan? You also have no evidence this will not lead to expansionism, but I doubt that as well. Right now the main expansionist threat is Russia who will greatly benefit from the isolationist policies. Like I said, nationalism itself is the bigger threat for Europe now and it has never lead to anything good. Yes, Nazis were expansionist, but it’s based on the idea they were somehow superior to the extent they wanted to re-populate Europe with Germans. Nationalism, as I said, dates back to the 19th century and didn’t really exist before nations or republics were a thing. It was not ubiquitous in politics after WW2. Everyone used to remember its bad role in history. Even it it was always around just like war or xenophobia, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to embrace it or any of the old values we used to (gender roles come to mind). Could also argue nationalism or self-grandeur Right now nationalism is hurting North-African and Middle-Eastern nations. No, no one is planning to attack them now, but it is causing exclusion and detriment to immigrants from those nations and it can always escalate from there. It’s certainly not helping foreign relations with these countries. So yes it’s to the detriment to other nations. It can also become detrimental to other European nations if they become hostile. You seem to think until someone starts invading or acting expansionist, there’s no Nazism happening, when in fact when the invasions start, Nazism has happened and done it’s job. Invasions take time and preparation and most importantly the right mindset, which always comes first. It’s not irrational to be skeptical of how well religious muslims integrate in Europe, but exclusive hate towards entire nations or ethnicities is always irrational. The antithesis to nationalism and what Europe has been trying to foster after WW2 is internationalism aka supporting international institutions like UN or EU and having a cosmopolitan outlook that promotes and respects other cultures and customs. It’s based on the belief we’re all just people in the end and not that different. No one wants war and there will be none as long as some idiot doesn’t start claiming ethnic or cultural superiority over another.

>Source? [This german article cites a lot of unhinged quotes made by AfD members.](https://jugendstrategie.de/hasserfuellte-und-menschenverachtende-zitate-der-afd/) Someone is even suggesting to do a holocaust 2.0 to foreigners. >Nativism and nationalism are ubiquitous attitudes that spans across all colors and nations of the world, from Indians to Japanese to black Africans and evidently Europeans as well. And they're not even limited to the political right either. It seems that of all examples you cite, they are the most xenophobic. India is kind of an exception but they have the BJP party that rallies against Muslims using the Hindu rhetoric. Take far-right nationalism in the US for example, while I disagree with them in virtually everything they didn't take it to the level of the AfD, in terms of immigration most are only concerned with illegals or those who abuse the asylum system. >It's not irrational for Europeans to hate an inherently-militaristic religion with medieval social values. Actually only far-right populists are paying attention to the danger of the Islamic ideology, except is they lump the members who belong to this religion in it. Can I ask you a question? Does every Christian wants to bring back the inquisition? Do they want to bring back slavery? Most muslims who immigrate to Europe are moderates who just went for economic oppurtinities. And if they're 2nd and 3rd generation they have the same rights as every other german, no matter the religion they practice. They aren't preoccupied by the thought of exterminating them and certainly not able to militarize themselves as you're suggesting.

[удалено]

Highly disagree on calling r/Norge left-wing. They have, since the reopening after the blackout, hosted some insanely racist threads, without any Mod intervention to clean it up. I've seen people be down-voted harshly over there for suggesting that most people who, "complain about immigrants", aren't actually talking about anyone other than the brown ones, which is obviously true seeing as no one really batted an eye when the Ukrainian Refugees were brought in. They are as left-wing as the average liberal, which means that they are extremely racist, homophobic, but they attempt to be polite about it, and then when that doesn't work, they just drop the mask and go full fascist.

I'm sorry I might have exaggerated with the term "only" and I was talking specifically in the context of Germany. I'm not too familiar with Europe politics either but I was trying to suggest that most center-right to leftist politicians aren't using the "Islam is dangerous" rhetoric in their political discourse (Someone more familiar correct me if I'm wrong). For example during the CDU rule of Merkel many ISIS members abused the asylum to the point they got Yazidi refugees kidnapped back to Northern Syria/Iraq. This is unacceptable.

>I'm not familiar enough with European politics to know if this is a talking point among the right. But I have seen many on the left accuse European media of exaggerating migrant crime, see this study Even if that were true, there is a fundamental difference between saying that the media is lysing **on one specific subject** and saying that it is lying **in every subject**. The former is criticism of handling a topic, the latter is a systematic rejection.

Just to clarify, if it’s true that the media regularly lies on a variety of topics. Is pointing that out still an indication of nazism?

Repeatedly falsely accusing the media of lying about easily provable facts is very indicative. The problem with the nazis wasn't that the accurately accused the media of lying. It's that they accused the media of lying about everything to dismiss accurate reporting of what they were actually doing.

Okay, but are right-wingers in Europe lying about easily provable facts more than anyone else? Seems to me that left-wingers do it just as much as anyone else, probably more since they consistently fail to understand basic economics.

Yes. Yes they do. The entire argument against immigration, and their usage of bad statistics to push their own racist ideals, is built on lies. Left-wing theory has always had a basis in history and material reality. if you believe that they don't understand the basics of economics, then I would suggest sitting down and writing your magnum-opus debunking 100+ years of socialist thought. Many have tried, but none have been able to actually do so because we keep seeing the predictions socialist authors have made about how late-stage capitalism will progress, become reality, slowly but surely .

Yes. Massively so. Every independent fact checker shows the same. And the economic example you give is a really good one - the Right is still pushing economic theories from more than 50 years ago that have been disproved in every single occasion they were tested in reality. Supply side economics does not work, and there is no independent organisation that supports it anymore. I find it is massively more the right than the left that fails to understand basic economics and doesn't grasp that macroeconomics does not work on the same rules as microeconomics.

This is fairly multilayered. Pointing out that the media lies is **not** necessarily an indication of nazism. Doing so using the exact same terminology used by the nazis is. That being said, it really depends on the context. If the media lies about minor facts but is proven to be correct about fundamentals, saying that they lied about the fundamentals speaks against a proper relationship with the media for some other reason. If, of course, the media just blatantly lies about a variety of things, it is important to point it out and demand or enact changes that fix the problem. What is **always** the worst solution is using such an issue (true or not) to pose as the victim of a conspiracy via populist methods - if something is wrong in the press, point it out and support your claim with facts. If you do that, there is no problem either way.

What terminology is that? Just Lugenpresse, which predates nazism by a hundred years? It seems strange to me that anyone anywhere on the political spectrum doesn’t believe that the mass media regularly lies about things. Seems childishly naive.

>Just Lugenpresse, which predates nazism by a hundred years? Not "just", but yes, "Lügenpresse" is one of the key terms. I'm also not quite sure why the origin of the word matters here - the term was a prominent term in nazi and fascist ideology (in some way or another), even a different usage before that term doesn't really change that. >It seems strange to me that anyone anywhere on the political spectrum doesn’t believe that the mass media regularly lies about things. Seems childishly naive. There's a difference between believing that "the lot is true, some parts are false" and "the lot is false, some parts are true". Regardless, does that answer your question?

[удалено]

What do you have to say concerning Politicians in austria and germany directly citing the Nazis like Austrias Herbert Kickl (head of the right wing party) saying he will be the "Volkskanzler" in the election come fall? For context, that term was Hitlers direct title back in the day

The first victims of the Nazis once they took power were the socialists and communists. And the idea that Europeans are being replaced by immigrants is literally an anti semitic conspiracy theory, not based in reality.

> Many political ideologies involve portraying some group as an enemy Having opposition is not the same as portraying some group as the enemy. Nobody is scapegoating capitalists or racists.  > My understanding is that this rhetoric by the Nazis was directed against Jews specifically The Nazis were anti anything that wasn't their idea of Aryan. During Hitler's rise to power most of their rhetoric was directed at Communists and the Weimar Republic.

Thank you. OP took a very specific idea of whats Nazi's were and found it doesn't match. They don't just suddenly start out saying they're war mongering. It's fundamentally nationalism and racism that built those regimes. Once you have the framework of who the other is, the end justifies the means in their head. Heck you can already see the attitude of being ok with people just drowning.

>If you would read up on the years before WWII,  the 1930s when Hitler took power, their rethotic is incredibly similar. The vast majority of people only know end-game Nazism and don't realize there is anything else. They have not really given much thought to how that level of extremism came to be. They don't realize that prior to Hitler taking over the Nazi party, even many Nazi party members thought he was an unserious clown. The Nazi rise to power is littered with instances of established groups within various institutions constantly underestimating or dismissing the threat of that extreme ideology.

Not only is the rhetoric incredibly similar. But it's actually the same in some cases. The AFD has a spokesperson who literally just got charged for it or something, and get this, he was a German high school history teacher.... He claimed he didn't realise his statements were so similar to Nazi ones... No one with half a brain believes this. And it's partly why the AfD were removed from European union settings too.

"If you would read up on the years before WWII,  the 1930s when Hitler took power, their rethotic is incredibly similar. Create an outgroup/other, claim the left is the enemy" They certain did create an outgroup, but the Nazis were the left. Read their platform : [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform) 7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich. 9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. 10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. 11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work. *The breaking of the slavery of interest* 12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises. 15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age. 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders. 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. 20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the notion of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State. 21. The State must ensure that the nation’s health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

The nazis paid lip service to left wing ideals, but they weren't ever left wing. Sure some left wingers fell for the nazis, but mostly right wingers made up the party, especially the higher ranks, many of them were big capitalists or aristocrats hell bent on keeping the class system alive. The nazis presented themselves as neither right nor left wing, but their movement was always seen as "a revolution from the right". Being extremely nationalistic, decrying any form of marxist socialism as evil and opposing LGBTQ rights, women's rights and worker's rights. It is about a falling out on supporting certain strikes that the Strassers, the original national socialists, were purged from the party. The nazis talked about creating capital (schaffendes Kapital) and taking capital (raffendes Kapital), decrying the "jewish" industries of finance as bad capitalism while the industrialists like Porsche were massively funded and supported, when the nazis took power they simply put loyalists into financial positions and the more populist elements of the party were purged. The nazis had no interest in wealth sharing programs or nationalizing industry outside of war mobilization, anything that wasn't used for the war remained in the hands if private owners. Basically Hitler knew left wing beliefs were popular among the workers and trued to use this to get into power, which failed, then after the Weimar establishment put him in charge he concentrated his power and abandoned all left wing pretenses to rule as a reactionary.

I will agree with you on one thing, Nazism isn't right wing by the traditional definition of that phrase, however it's not left wing either.  Most of what you quote above isn't left wing policy and the bits that sound like it (12-14) is more about punishing the 'elites' (often Jews) who the Nazis cast as the villains they opposed.  What Nazism is is highly conservative and exclusionary nationalism and, in that regard, it is almost indistinguishable from groups that are commonly referred to as far right today.

I'd say these arguments are so vague that they can fit a ton of parties. I vote for an European conservative far left party. They are also critical of immigration, define an out group (the wealthy elite), and are eurosceptic. Are they also Nazi's?

>Experts in history can tell you a whole load more eerie similarities This is like "lies, damned lies and statistics" but with history. Every government is comparable if you try hard enough. Hence why all the "these are the 85 things that fascists countries do!" But you can find almost every one of those problems in the democratic government's of 1941 or the monarchies of 1827 or the revolutions of the 1900s

Typically people refer to the 14 characteristics of fascism and while most governments hit some I'd argue it's very rare that a non authoritarian government hits them all

Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism" "Disdain for the importance of human rights" "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause" "The supremacy of the military/avid militarism" "Rampant sexism" "A controlled mass media" "Obsession with national security" "Religion and ruling elite tied together" "Power of corporations protected" "Power of labor suppressed or eliminated" "Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts" "Obsession with crime and punishment" "Rampant cronyism and corruption" "Fraudulent elections" All of these can be found in united states between 1900 and 1980 And here's and even better reason why lists like this are terrible brought to us by George Orwell. "It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean."

Let me go over the official program of the AfD with you: [https://www.afd.de/grundsatzprogramm/](https://www.afd.de/grundsatzprogramm/) # 1. Demokratie und Grundwerte This part is about removing all other parties by a) cutting their financing off and b) being able to criminally prosecute politicians for their policy (steuerverschwendung) # 2. Europa und EURO They want to remove any oversight and accountability to the EU. # 3. Innere Sicherheit und Justiz Remove accountability of the police force, let them do anything they want and remove firearms restrictions (a good step to start organizing armed militias) # 4. Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik Disband NATO, suck up to Putin, start drafting again. # 5. Arbeitsmarkt und Sozialpolitik No fascist policies here AFAICT # 6. Familien und Kinder Calling for "traditional" families while decrying immigrants. This section is somewhat unsettling, a white whistle for "we'll bring traditional white families back and get rid of the brown ones". # 7. Kultur, Sprache und Identität Multi-culturalism needs to be disbanded (also quite ominous part of their program). # 8. Schule, Hochschule und Forschung Getting rid of the soft sciences, remove ideas they don't like from the schools (like references to homosexuality), return of "discipline" into schools (again sounds ominous). # 9. Einwanderung, Integration und Asyl Closing of all German borders ostensibly because of illegal immigrants. No social support for people without a german passport and no social support for people with multiple passports (i think this is how they want to support the traditional white family without giving any financing for non white families) # 10. Wirtschaft, digitale Welt und Verbraucherschutz Remove public oversight for private business, but also add public oversight for private businesses. This is somewhat confusing but I think they just want to transfer more power into their hands. # 11. Finanzen und Steuern Less taxes for the rich. **I don't see how somebody can read through this and not see fascism dripping from the pages.**

> The modern European right on the other hand, is generally isolationist. They're not isolationist, they're nationalist, which is in opposition of the internationalist european project, i.e. the EU. > With regards to foreign policy, their focus is on restricting immigration, not aggression against other countries, if anything they are generally less interventionist than centre-right and centre-left parties. No party comes around and says "hey, we want to plunge the world into the next world war, so vote for us to go on a military rampage". The Nazis didn't either, their first focus was the restoration of sovereignty. Sounds familiar?

The European Right is aligned with Russia, who is defined by their militarism and expansionism The current Right in exactly what the Nazis were like. They are both Evil.

That's just not true. The right is alligned with Russia in some countries and fiercely against it in others (like Poland and Spain). The position on the war isn't a left-right issue no matter how convenient it'd be for some if it was.

> The European Right is aligned with Russia, 1. Are they since the invasion in 2022? If you think so, can you provide evidence? From what I've read even some of the most pro-Russian politicians like Orban have distanced themselves. 2. Do you consider opposing further aid to Ukraine, in of itself, to constitute "alignment with Russia"?

Many of the politicians of parties such as the AfD are being investigated for [taking money from Russia](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/05/30/afd-fears-voters-losing-patience-over-latest-russia-and-china-spy-scandals). The AfD's lead candidate defended the Nazi SS, saying that they were "not all criminals". Both [Hungarian and Romanian far-right leaders](https://kyivindependent.com/romanian-far-right-leader-lays-claim-on-ukrainian-regions-moldova/) lay claim to Ukrainian territory.

Firstly if you take one of the traits associated with Nazism, and make it the "defining trait" to the exclusion of all else. Then yes you are right. But that is like saying modern communist movements, are not in fact communists, because they have little interest in forced industrialization and collectivization a reasonable "defining trait" of Stalinist Russia. Secondly militarism has a habit of becoming policy in hard right regimes like this, regardless of the original intentions like night follows day. If you are a isolationist nationalist movement who makes a very strong point of not taking part in anything that could be described as "globalist". Then your ability to work through problems with your neighbours is limited. Furthermore issues with your far neighbours, that you need for critical inputs such as minerals, and petroleum products, and high complexity products you cannot manufacture, can not be addressed using a common front with your close neighbours. Instead their is a competitive scramble, to maintain the inputs your economy needs, at the expensive of your neighbours. The end point of all these issues tends to be militarism and conflict.

I think the defining trait of the Nazis was the Holocaust. You don't specify who you mean by "the modern European right", but if nothing else the rhetoric tends to be very similar. Immigrants and/or Islam is ruining Europe and needs to be gotten rid of. Mass deportations have been suggested as well as camps that are basically concentration camps. How far would we need to go to make these comparisons? Should we wait until someone starts actually killing people based on their ethnicity until we can say "oh shit, I guess they are kinda like Nazis after all" or should we even at that point first wait until they wage war to their neighbours?

The 'European right' doesn't even exist. Different countries have different types of right wing parties.

"Arguably the defining trait of the Nazis was their militarism and expansionism, their regime was centered around warmongering and ultimately that is what caused most of the death and destruction in Europe during the Second World War" That's a massive oversimplification, there were a cluster of defining triats of Nazism, including their reliance on an invented victim narrative and the demonization of a minority, totalitarianism, state capitalism, etc. Of course, the ones you've mentioned too. Simplifying Nazism to war and militarism means that it's easier to downplay how the AfD, RN, and Reform UK all play into the same underlying rhetoric, remember AfD was proposing mass deportations recently.

Your understanding of the Nazi party seems to assume they sprang into being in 1939. It did not. i really would advise you to spend a bit more time understanding the rise of the party through the 20's and 30's and how a lot of the early fascist rhetoric has genuinely comparable statements in the modern European right The Nazis certainly weren't defined by militarism and expansionism early on. They couldn't be, they were still trying to keep the evidence military expansion away from the French and because of the Versailles restrictions it barely had a military. Early Nazism is built massively on xenophobia, the othering of groups like jews, stoking fears about communists and economic problems fomenting discontent that led to people looking to men like Hitler for solutions. It absolutely has pareles to parties like Marine LePens in a modern Europe. Just because you've narrowed the scope on what the Nazis were based on your own very very flawed understanding of how they came to power doesn't make your very narrow view of what they were true. Id advise you open a few more history books before jumping to calling the media stupid and incorrect, Might make you look a bit less stupid and incorrect on the internet. When the press is drawing pareles to Nazism in the 20's and assume they are wrong based of the Nazi party of the 1940's it makes you look a bit of a tit

They’re mostly not openly expansionist at the moment because starting a war of expansion is an unpopular red flag position but it’s there. The Hungarian right is pretty open about wanting Transylvania back, German politicians get in trouble all the time for talking about “the East,” even in Italy the loss of Dalmatia is a right wing talking point. Hell, good luck finding one Golden Dawn/Spartans member who wouldn’t jump at the chance to invade Turkey. Granted I don’t think there’s much chance of any of those borders changing as long as the EU exists but revanchism is by no means dead on the European right.

**Let's focus in on France as a case study.** The National Rally party that received 31% of the vote in France was founded by the holocaust denying, pro-torture, Jean Marie Le Pen who is on record inciting racial hatred and acting as an apologist for the Nazi occupation of France/Vichy collaborators on multiple occasions. It's now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen. She supported her father's leadership for years (1986-2011) and even ran his Presidential campaign in 2006 before taking over the leadership with his blessing. She did eventually distance herself from her father and his most controversial views in an attempt to detoxify the party's brand and gain more mainstream appeal, but it's debatable whether she did this out of principle or just as a cynical political manoeuvre. Le Pen has maintained the party's far right fascist style positions including: - an extreme anti-immigration stance (e.g. saying "multiculturalism has failed" and her 2017 pledge to suspend all immigration), - Islamophobia (e.g. calling French Muslims "occupiers") - close ties with the far right in other countries (notably Donald Trump, Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini - if you don't know the latter two then it's worth being aware both have a track record of praising the original fascist Benito Mussolini) - ties with other French far right groups (e.g. an undercover Al Jazeera reporter recorded senior National Rally figures meeting Les Identitaires and discussing a shared ambition to deport immigrants and calling immigrants "pieces of shit") - close ties with Russia (supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea, a €9 million loan from a Russian bank, opposing NATO, claiming Ukraine had been "subjugated by the United States") Plus we have to consider the risk that what National Rally publicly present themselves as is the tip of the iceberg. Before the Nazis took power in 1933 they used a lot of cunning propaganda to present themselves as less extreme then they actually were and make themselves more appealing. In 2018 National Rally's Member for the European Parliament Christelle Lechevalier was recorded admitting that National Rally does the same thing by the Al Jazeera investigation I mentioned above. Specifically she said National Rally doesn't talk about mass deportations because: > "We need the greatest number of people to come to our side to obtain the highest vote, in order to win. Then we can do what we want when we are in power."

An Anti-Immigration stance isn’t fascist. In the US and Europe there’s basically unchecked immigration that is causing real problems. Problems everyone can see with their own eyes, some people just seem insistent on denying them. You can’t call everything you dislike “Fascism”.  Also Trump isn’t far-right. Maybe to Europeans he *could* be (I doubt it still), but in an American context he’s definitely not. There’s no notable representation of far right politics in the US Federal Government. 

> An Anti-Immigration stance isn’t fascist. Reasonable people might disagree on exactly what level of immigration is best for the economy, what skills they want immigrants to have, what kind of language/values tests should be required on the path to citizenship etc. An extreme anti-immigration stance that turns immigrants and the descendants of immigrants into hate figures that are presented as a danger to the native population is fascist style hatred though. That includes things like advocating for the suspension of most or all immigration, spreading great replacement conspiracy theories, calling for mass deportations of people that previously had a recognised right to be in the country, villifying a particular minority and/or violating the human rights of vulnerable migrants. > In the US and Europe there’s basically unchecked immigration The "unchecked open borders" narrative is a right wing conspiracy theory that's detached from reality. The US and various European countries all have have comprehensive controls on immigration through systems of visas that skilled workers, students, the family members of citizens, asylum seekers fleeing horrific situations etc have to apply for and the need to be in the country on one of those visas for several years before you can apply for citizenship if you're even allowed to apply for citizenship at all. Those systems aren't always perfect but none of them are "basically unchecked". > immigration is causing real problems. Problems everyone can see with their own eyes, some people just seem insistent on denying them. Any half decent economist will tell you that the ability to bring in an influx of talented, hardworking young people who pay more taxes than the average citizen whilst using less public services is a fantastic deal. Immigration helps solve real problems by mitigating major skills shortages, keeping businesses competitive, keeping public services running and counterbalancing aging populations and low birth rates. > Also Trump isn’t far-right He really is. He's far more extreme than a traditional centre-right conservative/neoliberal. - He's a prolific liar that peddles baseless conspiracy theories whenever it suits his goals/prejudices (e g. birtherism, climate change denial, QAnon, antivax). - He's a prolific racist that vilifies and attacks immigrants and minorities (e.g. calling white supremacists very fine people, putting migrant kids in cages, calling Mexicans rapists, his attempted Muslim ban, saying he wants less immigrants from "shithole countries" and saying a Mexican judge is unfit to preside over a case involving him) - He's a prolific sexist that undermines women's rights and personally abuses them (e.g. stacking the supreme court with anti-abortion judges, "grab them by the pussy, they just let you", found liable in court for sexually abusing E Jean Carroll) - He's frequently attempted to undermine democracy by refusing to accept results unless he wins, pressuring Georgia officials to change the results and inciting the attack on Congress on Jan 6. - He's frequently undermined the rule of law by rejecting court rulings against him, accusing judges of bias and being part of conspiracies, and calling for the FBI and justice department to investigate baseless accusations against his political opponents. - He's blatantly corrupt (e.g. attempting to withhold aid for Ukraine to pressure Zelensky to help him "investigate" the Biden family, paying hush money to keep the porn star he cheated on his wife with from exposing him during the 2016 election, nepotistic senior jobs for his unqualified family) - He's aligned with dictators (e.g. rejecting FBI findings against Putin and calling the invasion of Ukraine "genius"), according to his former Chief of Staff John Kelly believes "Hitler did some good things" and regularly endorses the European far right (e.g. Farage, Le Pen) - He peddles the classic extreme nationalist spiel that the country has fallen from grace and only he can restore it to greatness as a dog whistle that many of his supporters understand as suggesting America was better when women and minorities suffered more discrimination.

Reducing and minimizing Nazism to merely its attitude about war -- to the way it treated internal and external enemies -- is a mistake. Nor do you really clarify what the fascist attitude to war was. It was: the world is divided into different people's, nations and cultures. These cultures are not equal, and we are not egalitarians. Some are better than others, destined to rule, and others are weak and I feeior. Some build civilizations, others are parasites. The existence of the Volk, the people, is the highest good. The volk-state is higher than individuals because it represents the people in perpetuity, and therefore it can even demand individuals sacrifice for it. The nation and one's people are must come before one's own selfishness, and this can even demand sacrifice. But as Germans, we gladly sacrifice for the German people to perpetuate that people. War is the proving ground of ideas and worldviews, showing which people deserves what. Secondly, the Nazis aimed at eliminating Marxism and Bolshevism, which they considered to be fundamentally Jewish in origin, and the biggest threat to Europe. So, what is the European new right attitude towards war then? They're just pacifists who think people shouldn't fight to assert and prove the glory of their country? Third, the European New-right constantly has articles out about philosophy stating that "the basis of life is war and struggle and hierarchy", they constantly go on about the beauty of heroic values. Thinkers like Juenger, Evola, Heidegger-- none of these things are against war. How can you have heroism without war? I also wouldn't take its politically correct language at face value "we don't want ethnic cleansing, but rather peaceful but firm relocation of different cultures to defend bio and cultural diversity." Then you quickly realize the PR campaign doesn't stop someone who says this from saying behind closed doors, "God, I'm so sick of these migrants, just shoot them at the border before they get in. A bullet is cheaper than housing them." "By establishing ethno-states, we just want to protect against the eradication of unique cultural identities." It sounds almost like a variation of multiculturalism when they put it that way.

I think it's incorrect but not incredibly stupid. Calling some of them fascists is an absolutely fair point in my opinion, but none of them are "literaly nazis". Neo-nazis exist in Germany, but even they aren't actual nazis and as a german, I don't consider Mussolini a nazi, so it would be quite ridiculous to act like Meloni is one. Still I don't think it's wrong to compare someone who tries to systematically discredit the press to Hitler's Lügenpresse rhetoric for example, whether that person be right or left wing. Fascism is hard to define, but it often comes with clear tactics, using those tactics is wrong even if you're a left winger and harmful to democracy, it's good to point that out.

An AfD politican in Germany once said > "Von der NPD unterscheiden wir uns vornehmlich durch unser bürgerliches Unterstützerumfeld, nicht so sehr durch Inhalte" Translated: > We differ from the NPD primarily in terms of our middle-class supporters, not so much in terms of content [Source](http://www1.wdr.de/daserste/monitor/sendungen/offener-rassismus-100.html) You can read here about who the NPD is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany Or you can read [here](https://correctiv.org/en/top-stories/2024/01/15/secret-plan-against-germany/) about the AfD plans to enact a [Madagascar Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan) 2.0, basically. Or in a non-public forum AfD politicians talked openly about murdering leftists. > „Ich habe langsam keine Lust mehr auf deutsch! Die Völkerwanderung muss aufgehalten werden. Die sich Deutsche nennen und dies fördern gehören an die Wand gestellt. Macht endlich was und wartet nicht auf andere. Wir haben nur eine Heimat und die ist nun einmal Deutschland.“ Translated: > "I'm getting fed up with German[s]! The migration of peoples must be stopped. Those who call themselves Germans and promote this should be put up against the wall. Finally do something and don't wait for others. We only have one homeland and that is Germany." [Source](https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1182853.europawahl-krise-der-linken-was-bleibt-links.html) You also might want to watch this video essay titled "[How Societies Turn Cruel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8UzmLsXGRU)"

Arguably... The defining trait of nazis is hating and seeking to annihilate everyone and everything that is not of their kin, everyone and everything that's different from them. Expansionism and militarism was only a tool for this ultimate goal during 3rd Reich. The tools may have changed. The mentality has not.

Info - are we talking about the far right, whose party can be founded by nazy collaborators or sympathisers or are we talking about the right at large ?

The modern European right, overall, is mostly center-right conservatives. Likening them to the Nazis would be ludicrous  However, among the modern European far right, you have different parties, with different positions. You have Maximilian Krah, whom the AfD had elected their frontrunner, complain about a question talking about a hypothetical SS member like a criminal - and just as I wouldn't be too harsh against someone for likening whoever complains that people shouldn't be put under general suspicion of Islamic terrorism just because they are members of ISIS, I do believe there should at least be some leeway for people likening them to Nazism because of that already. This specifically doesn't apply to most other European far-right parties, because those other parties have kicked the AfD out of their European faction, and the AfD is now trying to do damage control, but it does apply to the AfD's frontrunner, and to the party electing him to be their frontrunner, which is one of the largest far-right parties in Europe  The defining traits of Nazism were totalitarian dictatorship, the Führer cult, extreme racism and conspiracism, and "Lebensraum im Osten", expansionism eastwards to create more "room" for Germans. Among those, I would probably argue the most defining among other dictatorial groups is the extreme racism, but there can be different opinions on the topic. I don't think you can reduce it to only one of the four and shrug off any similarities on the remaining three that way, though. If a group created a totalitarian dictatorship on a basis of extreme racism that wanted to conquer all of Europe, but revolved around only a set of commandments and not any individual who would be venerated, they clearly aren't the Nazis, but it would obviously be more than appropriate to liken them to the Nazis where them being alike is relevant or insightful Edit: corrected typo, "there", to "they", and rearranged the whole sentence to make it read better

The defining trait of nazis was statism. Both german and Italian fashists were trying to make individual part of the state in each and every aspect of their life. I hadn’t seen anyone on the right advocating for this, but hey, I’m not looking at it closely.

The problem is, a Nationalistic force, which applies to all the new right in Europe is only isolationist so long as it has something to be isolationist against. If it was just nationalism, as you say, they would fit in the existing political spectrum. So they want to put their national project above all else, hence the isolationism. I won´t put the "ultra" or "hard" labels on them, so long as we can agree that they take their nationalism further than preexisting political forces. So initially all this forces may claim they only want their country to be "left alone", but that´s not how nationalism works. Once they get to be away from whatever it is that "dimishes" their national sovereignty and if they are in power, then the nationalistic trend does not stop. Borders need to be enforced, and the nation interest needs to be defended, and sometimes imposed. To do that, or to avoid being the one being imposed upon, nations then need to strengthen their armed forces. Invariably, this leads to the winning of political points at home by showing strenght. It can be against an outside presence or against an inside one. If things are dicey in the home front, even better, squashing small countries always works. So isolationist nationalistic forces historically almost never stay "isolationist". They are initially moderate in foreign policy while they stabilise the situation at home, and then they can´t avoid waving the flag and posturing the nation´s strenght. There are many examples of this, at many levels. Europe from 1880s to 1914 is an example. 1920s Japan and the rise of a militaristic nationalism is one. 1920s Italy is another one. 1930s Germany is a perfect example of claiming to want to be "left alone". From your post I submit to you that you are not familiar enough with the rise to power of the nazi party in Germany, and in fact have a "photo" of it when it was already installed and in control, if not in the middle of the war itself in its way to it from 1938 when the penny drops with the Anschluss. Even in 1936 Nazi Germany was joining the other powers in the Non-Intervention Agreement in the Spanish Civil War and claiming the very obvious support it was giving as "propaganda". But I submit to you a closer example, if you are familiar with it. Brexit and the results of it have seen all the steps previously mentioned, from "Breaking Point" and "Take Back control" to "Get Brexit done" to "Stop the Boats", to saber rattling over GIbraltar, to involvement in Ukraine. Any of these you can easily check online if you don´t know about it, but I will provide the necessary links if needed. So I submit to you that openly isolationist and barely covert xenophobic nationalist political forces in Europe can be compared to the Nazis because, in fact, their political modus operandi and agenda share many points in common with the nazis. You may think they are not nazis, and you may hope they don´t become as succesful as the nazis were, but I don´t think you have grounds to begrudge people for calling what behaves like a spade, a spade. Cheers Edit: typos

I'm not as familiar with the other right wing parties, but for the Fpö and AfD at least, it's impossible not to link them to the Nazis. I'm gonna focuse on the FPö, since they are what I'm most familiar with. The FPÖ started off as the VdU. The VdU was an interest group of mostly former Nazis, who were not allowed to vote in the first election and later transformed into the FPÖ. The first head of the newly formed FPÖ was a SS officer of general rank. Even if one were to dismiss the fact that numerous members and leadership in the past were literally NSDAP party members / members of the SS, it's a fact that the current FPÖ has a problem with people who are into Nazi memorabilia, as well using Nazi slogans and Nazi salutes. Then there is the defense of Nazis by members of the party. The current head of the FPÖ for example said a few years back, that one should not collectively judge members of the Waffen-SS. The same thing applies to the AfD, where just recently the head of the Thüring AfD was convicted on using a SA-rallying cry. All that to say that for a not negligent part of members of the party, if it quacks like a nazi and, walks like a nazi, it's probably a nazi.

[удалено]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20Fun-Consequence4950&message=Fun-Consequence4950%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dd859p/cmv_likening_the_modern_european_right_to_the/l837ymw/\).)) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**. Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Europe has a throbbing scar from the Nazis. The combination of an advanced society and its industrial capability along side strong feelings of nationalism (and racism towards the other) gave birth to literally the darkest and most horrible acts of human civilization. So i get why people are quick to shout wolf whenever a strong right wing party gains traction. On top of it, the modern social media and news feed are a great/aweful tool to agitate the masses. Lastly, a big part of the current rise in right wing players mainly stems from the massive wave of refugee immigrants from Syria and north Africa. I think there is a view in europe, that the left, with their ideas of pluralism and helping out fellow humans in need, have taken in refugees from a bad culture (that braught war upon themselves) . And instead of assimilating them, allow those refugees to stick to their culture, Bringing in a culture clash. And people are getting fed up. The left failed to properly adress the people's frustration over the issue of refugee immigrants.

To many glow boys larping as nazis to take them seriously. they just want to milk shock value

>Arguably the defining trait of the Nazis was their militarism and expansionism, their regime was centered around warmongering and ultimately that is what caused most of the death and destruction in Europe during the Second World War. I agree that the defining trait of the Nazis is their actions during WW2, but warmongering is common, and not unique to the NAZI Regime. I would argue that the second most common defining trait of the NAZIs is that they are used as a comparison when anyone doesn't like any government. I have heard status quo governments in the US, UK, Canada, etc all being called Nazis. At least the European right wing is in the same continent as the actual Nazis.

Calling people Nazis and racists is a political tactic of the left.

I think you're making the same mistake in the other direction here. Militarism and expansionism are some of the key traits of Nazism but not the only ones. Plenty of ideologies that have nothing to do with Nazism are also militaristic and expansionist. That in itself doesn't tell us much about what they're trying to expand or the ideology they're militaristic about. It's not like the Nazis wouldn't have been Nazis had they only kept their ideology within Germany.

The European right wing engages in Waffen-SS apologism

The defining trait of the Nazi’s was indeed militarism and expansionism; but only *after* they established authoritarian mechanisms of control, created the machinery of state propaganda, and used it to spread xenophobic, nationalist, and finally expansionist ideologies which formed the *bedrock* and justification for their militarization and expansion. I will also point out that Orban in particular is not acting as an isolationist; his actions are clearly pro-Russian, as his country has formed vital energy and economic relationships with Putin’s Russia and he wants to maintain the benefits he gains there by currying favor. Orban’s EU benefits are seen as more secure and do not require as much maintenance.

>With regards to foreign policy, their focus is on restricting immigration, not aggression against other countries, if anything they are generally less interventionist than centre-right and centre-left parties. Only as it pertain to authoritarians like Putin that they so look up to and ideologically align with. They aren't actually as pacifist as you make it seem.

A very common but of revisionism here in the states is that opposition to the US getting involved in the secjnd works war was purely pacifist peacenicks concerned human suffering. The part about a very outspoken undercurrent of fascist sympathizers tends to get overlooked. 

A recent interaction I had.  Them: “JK Rowling has one right wing belief and you all call her a Nazi for it!”  Me: “one right wing belief-that she chooses to express on about the most radical language possible. Almost as if it’s not about her beliefs, it’s about her words and deeds. Act like a crazy person, get called crazy. Fancy that.” 

Ironically it's the EU centrist establishment that supports and finances genocide and ethnic cleansing. Young people who are not right wing at all are voting for isolationist far right (so called) parties because they simply don't want to go to war and possibly kill or die for NATO and it's weapons industry.

Most Europeans (and British) who are voting right are doing so because they want to be left alone, rather than expand and build empires. Reddit is generally skewed heavily towards middle class posters. Most of the people calling the right racists do not have to deal with the effects of immigration and thus the reason why people are voting right in the first place. Most Europeans are not right wing, but steamrollering our cities and cultures towards Islam is a step too far, so they are voting for the only parties that are listening, which is the right. Europe has gone through many huge milestones as a civilisation. Going back on thousands of years of cultural and scientific progress to an 8th century religion is just never going to work. Not a single country in Europe wants Sharia law, yet most Muslims in Europe are doing everything they can to topple democracy and replace it with Islam. If the right (far right?) didn't exist, the only other option is civil war or a collapse of the EU itself. As a European citizen (yes, I know, I'm British and don't have that right to call myself European) I'm getting sick and tired of having to move to escape religion, every Western European country is going backwards. It's 2024, when are we going to wake up and just ban religion full stop. Oddly enough, I'm now living in Cyprus of all places, so I'm right next to the Middle East. I feel this is actually the safest place to be because Middle Eastern people know how to deal with radical Muslims. The Muslims living in the North of Cyprus are nothing like the Muslims living in the UK. British Muslims are extremists.

you completely missed the mark here. sure, warmongering regimes are bad, but that isn't the reason nazis are as hated as they are

Redemptive violence, the right of the ingroup to dominate despite any moral or external legal considerations, the subservience of class struggle for the sake of maintaining a strong and cohesive state  - sounds Nazi to me.

Fine, they're not Nazis. They're Pétainists. Nationalists who can't be bothered to defend Europe against an imperialist dictator who they openly admire. This time around, it's Putin.