Is nazism a religion?

[barbarianhorde]

Does it give solace like religion does? It seems so.

[Aegean]

Nazism was religion-like. Judaism is so, Christianity….and present day American Liberalism.
Just watch how they react to Trump, or Boris Johnson, or how you had a religious fit last night when confronted by Nazism, the Satan to your God.

That's cult-like.
Emotional, irrational, vindictive, defensive...Sanctifying and Demonizing.

[surreptitious75]

Any system of belief that has a solid ideological foundation is certainly religious in principle even though it might not actually be a religion by name
And so by that criteria Nazism is definitely a religious like belief system in the same way that Fascism / Marxism / Communism / Postmodernism are

[Aegean]

Yes...and any system of beliefs that is accepted with no question, and no evidence is a religion.
The common mind need religions.
This is why occultism exists throughout time, and across racial and tribal divisions.

Presently it is vibrant and concealed in pseudo-science and pseudo-intellectualism.
The conception of equality is an example.
Superstitions and occultism are a way of manipulating the average mind of the mases. It has always been a political tool and is currently also marketing tool.

[Gloominary]

Nazism is an ideology.

Religion requires supernaturality.

[Gloominary]

I'd say ideology is a belief system about how to improve society, government and economics.

Religion is a belief system about the supernatural and its relationship with the natural.

Some religions, like Judaism and Islam, are also ideological, because they're also about how to improve SG&E, whereas other religions, like early and apolitical Christianity, and Buddhism, are more about self-improvement.
Some forms of Buddhism and Daoism don't have beliefs about the supernatural, they're more forms of philosophy or self-improvement than religions.

[Urwrongx1000]

I disagree Gloom.

"Religious" only means a routine set of activities, and instructive beliefs which are acted-upon, representing a 'code' or set of moral values.

People act religiously, without requiring a 'God' or set of superstitions or myths. The disparity between 'Religion' and social-ethnic bonds, are blurred. Even though a tribe/nation/race comes from the same stock, doesn't mean they share all the same beliefs or value the same gods, but they can act in ways morally and politically, that is somewhat religious.


This is also why Modern-Post-Modern "Liberalism" is a semi-religion. They have a routine set of activities. They have instructive beliefs which are acted-upon. They have a code and set of moral values. Etc.

[Gloominary]

Sure, if you want to define religion loosely and figuratively, liberalism, Marxism and Nazism could quality, even an exercise regimen could, but I'm looking for something stricter and more literal.

[Gloominary]

When we think of religion, what comes to mind?
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Wicca...
Liberalism, Marxism, Nazism and so on may not come to mind at all.
One of, if not the key components of Judaism and so forth is the supernatural.
Buddhism may be the least supernatural of the aforementioned religions, but from what I gather, it's still supernatural at its core.

[Urwrongx1000]

Secularism taints and attacks mass Religions.
They don't need to be negative and superstitious, necessarily, in my opinion.
However I realize my position is very rare.

As such, I see Liberalism as a form of new-religion, along with Secularist-Leftist ideology, a new version of slave-dialectic.

Religion can be defined between religious beliefs, and religious actions.

[Gloominary]

Secularism taints and attacks mass Religions.

They don't need to be negative and superstitious, necessarily, in my opinion.
However I realize my position is very rare.

There are some people who follow the ethical teachings of Jesus, Buddha or Mohammad and so on, but are either atheists, agnostics, deists, or believe in the miracle of divine inspiration, but not in other sorts of miracles (walking on water, turning water into wine, etcetera).

As such, I see Liberalism as a form of new-religion, along with Secularist-Leftist ideology, a new version of slave-dialectic.

What about classical liberalism, libertarianism, do you see it as a religion, and slave-dialectic?
Myself, I don't see slave-dialectic as necessarily a bad thing.
I think we need to find the right balance between the people and the elite, rather than extremes.

Classical liberalism = universal negative rights.
Modern liberalism = universal positive rights.

Both of them are religious, in a sense.
A lot of classical liberals believe their rights come from God, or are Euclidean.
Modern liberals believe in a sort of original rich white male sin that's inherited, passed down from generation to generation.
Rich white men can partly atone for this sin by showing kindness and generosity to poor black and brown women, but they can never fully atone for the crimes of their ancestors and contemporary rich white male supremacists, until all inequality between groups and individuals is eliminated.

Religion can be defined between religious beliefs, and religious actions.

Right, well, modern liberals can be very religious in their ethos and behavior.
A minority of them are spiritual too.
Some of those new agers, like Marianne Williamson.
They talk a lot about Gaia, mother earth.
They talk a lot about positive and negative energy.
They say we need to heal the planet by getting off fossil fuels, treating the poor, women and indigenous peoples better, etcetera.

[surreptitious75]

Modern liberals can be very dogmatic which is a trait also found in fundamentalist belief systems
Classical liberals by contrast are far less dogmatic and more accommodating of alternative views

[Gloominary]

That's true.
Altho I'm not a classical liberal, not across the board anyway, I really respect that about them.
It makes sense that classical liberals would be like that, because they believe in universal negative rights, they don't believe in forcing people to think like them, whereas modern liberals have little respect for negative rights, only positive ones (food, housing, education, healthcare, the right not to be discriminated against or offended, etcetera).
Modern liberals are more willing to intimidate and initiate violence whereas classical liberals are more defensive.

[surreptitious75]

I am socially liberal and economically conservative but quietly identify as a [ classical ] liberal

[Gloominary]

What do you think of market socialism, (social) corporatism and state capitalism?
Are they fiscally liberal or conservative?

What do you think of affirmative action, hate speech, Indian reserves, compulsory education and vaccination, gun control, planned parenthood and safe injection sites?
Are they socially liberal or conservative?

And libertarian conservatism?
Fiscally/socially liberal/conservative?

[WendyDarling]

Gloom wrote

(social) corporatism

Isn't this what the UN is a front for?

[Gloominary]

Gloom wrote

(social) corporatism

Isn't this what the UN is a front for?

Corporatism is the merger of state and corporate power.
This can be achieved in ways that exclusively benefit bureaucrats and capitalists, or exclusively benefit workers and consumers, or inclusively benefit everyone.

Corporatism can be good or bad.
Does the overclass often use it for bad?
Of course, but still, not all corporatism is bad.

I call the good kind of corporatism social corporatism.

[WendyDarling]

Gloom wrote

exclusively benefit workers and consumers

Can I get an example of this?

[Gloominary]

Gloom wrote

exclusively benefit workers and consumers

Can I get an example of this?

Off the top of my head, unfortunately not, but if you're still interested, you should do some research on the Nordic model.

[WendyDarling]

Just watched a short special on Sweden (part and parcel of the Nordic Model) discussing their socialism from the 70' and 80's which about bankrupted their government. Now everything that was government run is privatized just to keep it operating and the dirty secret is the lowest to low economic class of people pay the highest taxes, not the rich, but the poor pay the most taxes. So I'm not impressed and am not sure what is positive there

[Gloominary]

Just watched a short special on Sweden discussing their socialism from the 70' and 80's which about bankrupted their government. Now everything that was government run is privatized just to keep it operating and the dirty secret is the lowest to low economic class of people pay the highest taxes, not the rich, but the poor pay the most taxes. So I'm not impressed and am not sure what is positive there.

We should look at multiple data points from multiple sources before we form much of an opinion.

According to Wikipedia 30% of their economies are still public, and they have progressive taxation, not regressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[WendyDarling]

Wiki

In 2019, all five of the Nordic countries ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report.[9]

With the glut of immigration burdening the welfare system, the skyrocketing unemployment and the immigrants perpetuating the rape culture and no go zones there since 2015, I find it hard to believe Wiki and the 2019 World Happiness report.

Obviously there's a reason that these countries are being pushed as model countries, but I wonder if it's for aboveboard reasons.

Does privatizing everything truly make it better?

What's interesting is that you say progressive taxes, another article says flat taxes, and the interview with the Swede guy says higher taxes for the poor.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros-and-cons.asp Says flat taxes

[Gloominary]

Hungary is an interesting case.
They have free education, universal healthcare and other social services, a mixed economy, yet socially they remain nationalistic and moderately conservative.

[Gloominary]

Wiki

In 2019, all five of the Nordic countries ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report.[9]

With the glut of immigration burdening the welfare system, the skyrocketing unemployment and the immigrants perpetuating the rape culture and no go zones there since 2015, I find it hard to believe Wiki and the 2019 World Happiness report.

My argument is not that Finland and Scandinavia is a paradise, just an example that a mixed economy can work well.
I think you know me, I'm pro-free speech, gun and due process, and anti-immigration.
I also have some reservations about progressive taxation, I don't think the working and middle classes should be taxed much, if at all, and if that means we have to cut back on some social services, so be it, or alternatively, go after the richest 1 or 0.1% even harder, make sure they're not skirting around taxes.

Obviously there's a reason that these countries are being pushed as model countries, but I wonder if it's for aboveboard reasons.

I have reservations about them too, but I have reservations about ours as well, the Anglo-Saxon model, the cut taxes for the rich and spending on the poor, but bailout and subsidize private megacorporations anyway, model.

Does privatizing everything truly make it better?

I think you mean nationalizing or corporatism here.
That's not my argument.
The extreme left and right both offer simplistic solutions to complex problems.
I'm saying there's a time and place for markets, nationalization and corporatism.

What's interesting is that you say progressive taxes, another article says flat taxes, and the interview with the Swede guy says higher taxes for the poor.

It's a mix of progressive and flat taxes, I don't think there's any regressive taxes.
I'm anti-flat tax.

[WendyDarling]

What is sad is that information can no longer be trusted it seems to me. How can there be so many different "facts" regarding the same things such as tax rates?

I thought that all healthcare in Sweden was covered by taxes, but there are still charges to see physicians, for prescriptions, and dental costs. To me universal healthcare covers citizens universally and all charges universally.

The 60% tax rate in Sweden is paid by the lower income folks and that's regressive even if online materials is trying to say progressive or flat neither of which are probably true.