The following is a piece I wrote a few months ago in response to that same question.

I'm using it [neo-Nazi] as a descriptive term, rather than as a smear. I don't consider all, or even most, White Nationalists to be neo-Nazis.

I haven't developed a comprehensive definition of what I consider to be a neo-Nazi, but neo-Nazis generally believe the following:

1. White societies are terminally ill, and the only solution is a violent revolution to implement a "racial dictatorship." Anyone who isn't 99.99% "white" shall not be permitted to exist under this dictatorship.

2. The one and only reason white societies are terminally ill is because of "the Jew." If the Jew is removed, white societies will get better again.

3. Jews are a race. Their behavior, like that of all races, is solely determined by their genes. Therefore, the only solution to the Jewish problem is their physical extermination.

4. Whites are Aryans. Aryans are superior to every other race on the planet in every single respect. Every civilization that has ever existed has been the creation of Aryans, including the civilizations of Egypt and China. Since Aryans are the most advanced race on the planet, they have every right to exterminate inferior races to aquire living space.

That's a pretty hostile definition. Apparently, you have a contrary view. I doubt if there are many "neo-nazis" who would acribe to all or any of your enumerated descriptions wholesale.

Steele is somewhat of an enigma sometimes on an ideological level. I totally support playing devil's advocate whenever it is appropriate, as I also support tailoring a message to the audience you are aiming at. However, I do believe one must clearly ennunciate their own beliefs first and make it clear what one is doing when one is playing the devil's advocate. Alinsky wrote about how important it is to stay "within someone's experience" when trying to convince them of something; which is why it is so important to be well-versed in all sorts of existing worldviews so that one can argue the point in terms that the opponent or audience can understand.

However, I believe sometimes Steele will take things too far. Unfortunately sometimes he gets beat up because of the "All or Nothing" behavior that permeates the present movement. If Steele wants to avoid talking about Hitler for the tactical purpose of not getting dragged down into a totally unproductive WW2 debate, this is totally understandable. But one cannot evade such a debate by joining in with the anti-Hitler crowd. It is far more honest to simply point out that Hitler's movement was Hitler's movement, and that even many of the Nazi intellectuals after Hitler's time greatly altered the ideology of National Socialism. It is also VERY important to point out the atrocities of the victors since 1945 to the present- showing that there is simply no case for moral superiority. Many of the crimes the US committed in Korea for example, were identical to those which Nazis were hanged for. In some cases, such as the bombing of Korean dams vs. bombing dikes in Holland, the American crime did far more damage and killed many more people- but Nazis were hanged for destroying those dikes.

I was also disappointed to see him fall for that Neocon-invented "War on Christmas" nonsense. Many stories that were used to support that claim were in fact heavily distorted if not falsified outright.

Lastly, I cannot agree with his anti-Socialism rants. You cannot love your race and reject Socialism. How can one say they are creating a future for white children and yet reject a government that provides healthcare, good education, and economic security for those white children? Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that the world is becoming more capitalist in nature based on the West's obsession with privatization on a global scale.

Other than that, I believe he is an extremely intelligent and vital individual. Though we may disagree on some things I believe that he has a strategy and is carrying it out.

Essentially, the problem with your definition of this jew-phrase, Amalekite, is the extremism of each enumerated statement: "racial dictatorship, 99.99%, jew the ONLY cause, solely determined by their genes, the only solution, in every single respect, every civilization that ever existed, the right to exterminate," etc. If you allowed for more intelligence and complexity in your adversary (i.e., us), your definition would be more accurate.

(P.S.: WN's would not use this phrase -- so if you want us to continue to consider you a WN, you need to pretend the phrase doesn't roll naturally out of your mouth).

...You cannot love your race and reject Socialism. How can one say they are creating a future for white children and yet reject a government that provides healthcare, good education, and economic security for those white children? Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that the world is becoming more capitalist in nature based on the West's obsession with privatization on a global scale....

Definitely worth quoting.

Enkidu

I'm using it [neo-Nazi] as a descriptive term, rather than as a smear. I don't consider all, or even most, White Nationalists to be neo-Nazis.

I haven't developed a comprehensive definition of what I consider to be a neo-Nazi, but neo-Nazis generally believe the following:
First of all, many of these ideas are widely held throughout the "movement" by people that either don't identify themselves as "National Socialists" or never had any real education in National Socialism. Now in detail...

"1. White societies are terminally ill, and the only solution is a violent revolution to implement a "racial dictatorship." Anyone who isn't 99.99% "white" shall not be permitted to exist under this dictatorship."

This is wholly inaccurate. If we had the ability to enact a peaceful revolution any serious WN or National Socialist would pursue that goal as far as practical. Second, how is the current Western-style government not a dictatorship? It can only be so in the sense that it is not ruled by one man; but as we have seen for decades now- the representatives of the people are not held accountable to the people. We live in a dictatorship of many rather than one or a few. The latter is in some ways more desirable if for no other reason than the fact that culpability is easily assigned due to the number of people responsible for running the country.

An ideal government would be one where a party(this is known as a 'Centralized democracy') is designed to look after the interests of all people of the nation, based on biological grounds. Leadership should be in the hands of the select few who have proven their abilities. Authority is held in check by accountability. Also, whiteness is something determined by common sense and heritage, not some mathmatical percentage.

I'm using it [neo-Nazi] as a descriptive term, rather than as a smear. I don't consider all, or even most, White Nationalists to be neo-Nazis.

"2. The one and only reason white societies are terminally ill is because of "the Jew." If the Jew is removed, white societies will get better again."

I don't think any serious racialist believes this nonsense. Granted, their are MANY WNs who DO seem to believe this, but in no way do National Socialists have a monopoly on such people. The reality is that until Aryans solve our own moral problems, we will never get rid of the Jews. What was once a parasitical relationship has become symbiotic.

"3. Jews are a race. Their behavior, like that of all races, is solely determined by their genes. Therefore, the only solution to the Jewish problem is their physical extermination."

Again, most serious WNs do not believe that Jews have some kind of genetic predisposition to say, finance. They are a sort of identity that consists of cultural, religious, and ethnic elements. And like everything else, this viewpoint is held by MANY non-National Socialists.

"4. Whites are Aryans. Aryans are superior to every other race on the planet in every single respect. Every civilization that has ever existed has been the creation of Aryans, including the civilizations of Egypt and China. Since Aryans are the most advanced race on the planet, they have every right to exterminate inferior races to aquire living space."

Once again, while the abilities of our people are apparent, the serious WN or NS knows that whatever material achievements we have are ultimately meaningless if we are not physically and mentally healthy as a society. Many of us could care less about being "superior" to other races, assuming such superiority could ever be measured by a reliable standard. Once again, many NON National Socialists believe this idea. More importantly even in the Third Reich many National Socialist leaders realized the importance of supporting independence movements for oppressed peoples under colonial rule. They supported independence for Arabs, Caucasians, Indians, and Tibetans.

I enjoy Ed's stuff. He puts time into his show. It's packed with information and insightful analysis.

His use of Hitler in this case was inappropriate (if intentional) and sloppy (if unintentional). It's easy to slip into propasphere conditioning but somehow I don't think Ed did. I think he used it as an intentional 'bad guy' prop -- which is in bad taste to say the least.

Otherwise good show.

Democracy = Decadence

That's a pretty hostile definition. Apparently, you have a contrary view. I doubt if there are many "neo-nazis" who would acribe to all or any of your enumerated descriptions wholesale.

I can assure you that there are individuals on this board who sincerely believe in each and every one of those tenets exactly as I have stated them.

There may be some hostility in there. At the time I wrote that definition, I was still reeling from some of the extreme viewpoints I had encountered here on VNNF.

First of all, many of these ideas are widely held throughout the "movement" by people that either don't identify themselves as "National Socialists" or never had any real education in National Socialism.

I didn't say "National Socialist." I said "neo-Nazi."

I didn't say "National Socialist." I said "neo-Nazi."

As you said, those people do exist, and in large numbers, but they really shouldn't be associated with National Socialism in any way, even a term like "Neo-Nazi".

As you said, those people do exist, and in large numbers, but they really shouldn't be associated with National Socialism in any way, even a term like "Neo-Nazi".

You're probably right. Whatever descriptive value a term like "neo-Nazi" might've had is mitigated by the use groups like the ADL and the SPLC have put it to. I can't think of a better word, though.

You're probably right. Whatever descriptive value a term like "neo-Nazi" might've had is lost by the use groups like the ADL and the SPLC have put it to. I can't think of a better word, though.

Based on the description you gave, we should refer to such people with terms like "baggage".

It's fun to watch a lemming squirm and give the deer-in-the-headlights look when you forcefully tell him his heroes Bush and Foxman are Nazis.

It's fun to watch a lemming squirm and give the deer-in-the-headlights look when you forcefully tell him his heroes Bush and Foxman are Nazis.

Like what exactly? Not the tv stuff, I can't take any BS people say on TV seriously. Rather, pease identify with quotes and links, exactly what he wrote that you think was ill advised.

While I can't speak for Devere, here's what I didn't care for from his "Crack of Doom" rant, and what I felt was definitely going out of his way to insult "Nazis."

All that was missing from Bush's speech last night was a rousing chorus of "Ein volk! Ein reich! Ein Fuhrer!"

Here is something that should send a chill down the spines of all who consider themselves to be either liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican: I regularly see satisfaction expressed on many hard-core, Nazi skinhead Internet forums with the progression of America ever deeper into fascism. Why should this bother you? Because they say, "Good. Now, when we come to power, the mechanisms already will be there to implement our agenda." Think about that for a moment.

Who is he talking about there? VNN?!? If so, he's full of shit, as I've never seen anyone make such statements, at least not in the way he states, envisioning some "evil Nazi", Hollywood-style, rubbing his hands together in anticipation of being able to shove more jews into the oven. Though I have stated that if we can take USZOG intact, that the NSA's Echelon may prove useful in rooting out any crypto-Jews or Jew-friendly resistance that may yet exist. He not only distances himself from National Socialists, he insults us too, perpetuating the Jew-produced imagery of "evil Nazis." I suspect that's why that kike Donny Douchebag or whatever the hell his name is, let him on his show to begin with. He reminds me of that General in Northern California in the Turner Diaries who simply seeks to restore the Constitution, and has no patience for the Organization's "Nazi agitators."

There are some other minor jabs at "Nazis" and then, he advocates democracy

Finally, Bush also stated last night that "the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East." Unlike so many, I actually think that is terrific news. If we can make democracy work elsewhere, then there is a chance, however slim, that someday we might actually give it a try here in America!

Read his book. he is not as militant, as maybe you'd like him to be. Remember he is a lawyer, and an intellectual.

Well, so am I, but I still say:

DEATH TO THE JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!