@snoopycat has done just this above.
Except he hasn't. He's gish galloping and providing no context or information for his claims.
To just shut him down fast, I'll just take one of them:
"Well, we can say for certain that he's never joined any far right hate groups with a membership comprising of Nazis. God, wrong again. He's done that too. This isn't looking good is it. "
Here he makes numerous mistakes. One of them being that joining a far right group means he somehow by association is part of whatever individual members are. It also assumes that in joining a group, you are fully well in the know of what you are getting into. Neither which are definite.
As far as his own comments on BNP:
"When questioned about this by journalist Andrew Neil in June 2013, he said that he had left after one year, saying, "I didn't know Nick Griffin was in the National Front, I didn't know non-whites couldn't join the organisation. I joined, I saw what it was about, it was not for me"
At best you can say that he made mistakes in joining a couple of organizations, but that certainly doesn't warrant the use of the term "nazi" at him. Call him a bastard, sure, but you're really looking pathetic if you try to call him a nazi.
There's further information with footnotes in the wiki about how:
Robinson denies racism and antisemitism,[20] and has declared his support for the Jewish people and Israel, calling himself a Zionist.[21] Robinson has said that his group of friends includes both black and Muslim people.[20][22]
Now, personally I feel his claim of having a group of black and muslim people weak and I would definitely count him as anti-muslim and say he has a dubious history of hooliganism. Nazi, however? Ridiculous. Again, if antisemitism should be considered, I'd be far more worried about the other board. Are they nazis? Of course not.
I cannot see this as lazy, why would I need to point out the same postings again if someone else has done this already? I agree with his valuation.
Then tell me, what are the defining features of nazism other than
- Xenophobia
- Nationalism
- self-elevation based on heritage
I mean, OK, you could add the social aspect of Nazism, where the NSDAP still had some aspects of social security in its program, whereas modern right extremists often adopt a neoliberal stance on fiscal issues, but since the minor social security advancements hardly are the issue most people have with the NSDAP, this is pretty much a moot point.
Neither of those are unique to nazism.
Xenophobia is also not necessarily an ample description, nor is it unique to a side of a political spectrum.
Nationalism is also not specific to one part of the political spectrum. Nationalism isn't even a dirty word itself, you'll find many nationalist parties across the political spectrum and it's a part of minority politics.
Self-elevation based on heritage. Really? I wonder who this doesn't account for. Or are you talking about based on genetics? If it's genetics, sure I'd agree that it's closer to nazism.
If you take general concepts that apply across the board, you're not really proving a tie to nazism. You're just showing the many aspects of nazism that apply to other things. One could also point to traditionalism, limits on private commerce in the form of regulation, glorification of "the worker", military rule, authoritarianism, etc. If nazis promote dogs or dog ownership, doesn't mean that dogs are bad.
One large defining aspect of nazism is the idea of races and a hierarchy of races. As well as a huge influence of anti-semitism. If any board represents the latter, it's definitely not this one I could tell you.
Let's cite Mr. Bachmann, now, who felt good about posting this picture of his:
Wow, this is really reaching, taking what's an apparent joke and basically what a lot of us have done at least once when shaving.
It even had a "he is back" comment attached to it, further clarifying the joke.
„Na dann sollte er wissen was für Viehzeug hier wirklich ankommt.“
"Then he should know what kind of cattle really comes here."
„ach und du glaubst der presse wenn sie um mitleid für das gelumpe heischt... (...) wie sich dieses dreckspack benimmt (...) vor dem viehzeug zu schützen (...) UND NEIN, ES GIBT KEINE ECHTEN KRIEGSFLÜCHTLINGE! Wer sich die Überfahrt/Transport leisten kann nach Europa gehört NACHWEISLICH nicht zu den wirklich bedrohten!“
"oh and you believe it when the press asks for pity for that trash... (...) how this filthy bunch behaves (...) protect from this cattle (...) AND NO, THERE ARE NO ACTUAL WAR REFUGEES! Whoever can pay for the transit to Europe is EVIDENTLY not endangered."
Not seeing the racial basis here, making nazi comparisons pretty bad. Classicism, xenophobia and cultural clash seems more fitting. He apparently doesn't seem to mind the refugees, but view the refugees as fake refugees, which makes the use of cattle seem more understandable in context. He's also referring to the many incidents that have people fired up, related to immigrants or refugees, which is also seemingly talking about culture and not race. More so, the class "refugees" is not even a cultural one itself, meaning that while you might vehemently disagree with him, using the nazi card is pretty cheap and lazy way of refuting him.
While I think he's being ridiculous and following the outrage mentality and a reductionist approach to society, I'd certainly not call someone a nazi because they're not cultural relativists. While I disagree with his fallacious assertion generalizing in regards to all refugees, based on singular instances, I really don't see the nazi mark as being justifiable here. It also makes you look weaker, because it's pretty easy to refute his argumentation.
Höcke is more educated than Bachmann, so he chooses more civil wordings, but he often gives interviews to the Junge Freiheit (Nazi newspaper), complains about Holocaust memorials, calling them "memorials of shame", asks for a more nuanced view on Hitler, demands a 180° change in terms of remembering our (Germany) history.
Ah, the good ol' "chooses more civil wordings", which is pretty much the sign of "I will interpret this in the worst possible way, to mean what's convenient for me".
To complain about Holocaust memorial should be allowed and shouldn't necessarily reflect on the person complaining, at least unless you provide further context of the complaint. We've had people whining about memorials for the victims of the 22th July terror attack. That doesn't mean they agreed with Anders Behring Breivik. We also have a similar situation with the Soviet Union in Norway, where a lot of complaints in regards to how we should deal with the Soviet Union's participation in the liberation of Norway and in regards to the Soviet Prisoners of War.
"Memorials of shame" can be an ample description, because that's kind of what they also are (and also a remembrance of the dangers of anti-semitism and a remembrance of the victims). Memory history is an interesting field within history, doing a lot of analysis what even memorials tell different groups of people. It might be a reflection from Höcke's perspective that Germany is too focused on "celebrating" shame, while history connected to Germany is far older and diverse. It's kind of hard to form an opinion if you don't provide the full context.
Asking for a more nuanced view of Hitler isn't necessarily bad in itself. In fact, that's what a lot of historians do. You see the same thing with Stalin, where you had the revisionists from the 70s onwards countering the traditionalists view on Stalin and the Soviet Union. What's the context?
What 180 degree change?
We are talking three full-on nazis here.
Except you've not provided proof and what you've provided doesn't really say what you think it says.
