Which is closer to Nazi philosophy?

The winner of the poll will go up next against the WF cadre.

There is no Nazi philosophy. Hence, Trump, who also has no clear set of principles.

That's what I would expect a Nazi to say.

On the contrary, the Nazis claimed they did have an ideology. They lied.

So they just did what they did because?...

He's a Nazi apologist. I'm surprised his government hasn't knocked down his door an arrested him yet.

Because they wanted power and wealth.

All living beings seek dominion and prosperity. Are we all Nazis then?

No. (Obvious fallacy is obvious.)

Ok.

Really? Sure seems like they had an ideology to me.

1. Profound collectivist orientation, subordinating the individual to the state
2. Absolute power vested in a visionary leader, who could not be corrupted by democracy
3. Organs of power controlled by a single party, all opposition parties suppressed
4. A society organized around racial purity, which entailed

(a) a belief in the supremacy of the 'Aryan' (i.e., Germanic) peoples
(b) Pan-Germanism (the unification of Germans in all lands of Europe)
(c) Extreme anti-Semitism (the Jews kept themselves racially pure by not intermarrying with other races, seen as a threat to the Aryan race)
(d) Social Darwinism, eugenics (the weak, the sick, the criminal, and the degenerate sapped the strength of the body politic, and so should be purged)​

5. Lebensraum (the acquisition of new lands to allow the German people to develop and prosper)
6. Anti-Marxism and anti-capitalism
7. State control and direction of the economy

This my off-the-top-of-my-head list. Doubtless it could be expanded upon.

In their writings, in their propaganda, and in their actions, they adhered to this ideology strongly.

Only they didn't. You did a great job at assembling some of the ideas they mentioned a lot; but their actual propaganda as well as their actual actions don't do your list justice. It's really worth reading Adorno's excellent criticism of the application of theories of ideology to the Nazis' policies. Echoes turn up in Orwell -- "We have always been at war with Indochina"; "Indochina shares our most basic values"; and so on.

I'll just pick the first item on your list to explain what I mean. It's true that you can find ample evidence for collectivism in Nazi propaganda (Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles!). However, the same propaganda would posit hero worship (und einer im Jahrhundert ist gesandt), extol the virtues of troublemakers (der geniale Strolch), decry the collective as stupid and derelict (das tumbe Volk, die garstige Masse), and describe Nazis themselves as a tiny minority or a vast majority, as needed.

You see, because we despise them, it's easy to just accept as a matter of course that their ideology is self-contradictory. But when you look at the historical documents -- the discourse within the propaganda ministry, the letters exchanged around Goebbels, the preparation of several versions of each poster, speech, and motif, and the way they chose which one they'd use --, you find that the answer is much simpler. Their ideology doesn't seem contradictory because it's flawed or because they were evil, as much as they obviously were both those things, but quite simply because they lied their way through each speech and day and policy.

The main reason to betray your Jewish neighbour never was that you hated his race or hoped to purify your German neighbourhood. It's because you got to keep all his nice stuff when he was gone.

The main reason to call for socialism/social democracy/whatever flavour of lefty wank is popular was never to help the less fortunate. It's because you're jealous of your hard working neighbour and want to punish him by taking his stuff.

True that is one side of the coin. The other is the self-loathing (privilege and all that) hard-working neighbors who want to punish themselves and others to make themselves feel better.
There's just a whole truckload of FAIL on the left no matter how you slice it.

Really? I think I can find ample support--in both their writing/speeches and their actions--for all of these.

All political entities are craven and have some contradictory aspects, often a public face and a private face. See Hillary Clinton's speeches to Wall Street, for example.

The existence of Nazi heroes doesn't undermine their collectivist outlook. Heroes in collectivist systems are those who sacrifice for the collective. The soldier who retreats not a single step in the face of the Red Army invading the Fatherland, the mother who has strong sons to make her country strong, that kind of thing. Even the Soviet Union--hardly a state that embraced individualism--gave out 'Hero of the Soviet Union' and 'Hero of Socialist Labor' medals and such. Also, the Nazis didn't invent 'spin;' all political movements use it.

It really isn't, no more so than any other.

But even if their ideology is self-contradictory at some level, it's still an ideology and it still gathered adherents to give it force.

Pretty standard political operating procedure. It's no different than, say, Maduro blaming the CIA for Venezuela's food shortages. When your claim to power is based on authority, your failures can't be yours.

It's very true that the Nazi welfare state used plunder to maintain popular support, and I'm sure many Germans bought into it as long as the goods kept rolling in, but there was undeniably a strong streak of anti-Semitism in German society, long, long before the Jews were being shipped off to camps and their property "redistributed."

Sharia is a system of laws and courts, not a political movement or ideology.

Trump is a person, not a political movement or ideology.

You're comparing apples, cars, and helium atoms.

And it's interesting to note that Sharia law has some overlap with international law and "Western" law.

The law of the seas and maritime law, for example.

No doubt about that - law is complicated so that's inevitable. It's the people implementing and enforcing those laws I have a problem with! If you want to follow Sharia in your own country, cool. Just don't bring that shit across the pond. I think Democrats & Republicans can agree on that!

Definitely in their speeches, as I pointed out; but you'll find just as much evidence for the opposite, and no coherent policies along these lines in their actions.

If you truly believe that all politics is equally corrupt, you may be able to argue that none have an ideology; it will not rehabilitate the Nazis' lies that other lies have been told by other people. But that equivalence is false anyway. Take yourself. Your political outlook includes supporting the free market. I think that belief includes some contradictions. You might even consider some of your own actions to fall short of perfect adherence to your ideals; I don't know. But it is simply not true that you believe none of it, that you write letters that say that of course all talk of the free market is bullshit, or that you set apart some time every morning to decide how you'll redefine what a free market is and whom that will help you cheat.

why no "your mom" option? This poll sucks - like your mom.

I don't, only that politicians of all stripes resort to the same strategies.

I don't. I argue that their ideology is in their actions, and that their actions express their core principles.

All implementations of ideology will have some contradictory aspects because society is complex. There is no political ideology free from such contradictions. That does not mean the ideologies aren't real or genuinely held.

They do, or, at least, arguably they do. I will disagree with an anarcho-capitalist on the proper scope of the free market, even though both our ideologies include support for a free market.

All true, but, then, I'm not a politician. I'm not concerned with holding on to political legitimacy/authority.

Back to the issue of Nazi ideology...

Of the points I mentioned, I don't think you can find a major speech, writing, or act of the Nazi leadership that stands in opposition to any of them. I say these are their core beliefs, because they held to these.

You say the Nazis would cravenly say one thing one day, and another the next? Granted. As I said, they were politicians. It's kindof expected. But did the Nazis ever reverse themselves on anti-Semitism? Did they ever disavow a single Fuehrer? Did they ever switch to a democratic mode and allow opposition parties? No, they never did. Their core principles never changed.

Instead, we have Christians trying to impose their religious laws on us.

Are you kidding?

Try reading this book by a rather high ranking Nazi party official. The philosophy was expressed all too clearly.

Of the things I mentioned, what did the Nazis lie to the people about?

Were the people ever encouraged to disavow a single Fuehrer?
Were they encouraged to form opposition political parties? Or to not support the NSDAP?
Did the Nazis ever disavow Germanic superiority or racial impurity?
How about anti-Semitism?

No. Not ever. And anyone who would've made a suggestion along these lines would've been subject to immediate, brutal suppression, either shipped off to someplace like Dachau, or simply disappeared. Yes, the Nazis told the German public lots of lies, but about their core principles they never wavered. And their actions were consistent with these principles.

apples and oranges to the extreme! And the key phrase being "trying to impose". Christians can try all they want - they still have to follow the laws here in the US. And they can't impose shit except maybe to their willful participants of their religion. Any country under Sharia law means Islam (or their version of it) is THE law. No separation of church & state. Sorry but that is a very big difference between Christians in a democracy versus Muslims in a theocracy.

No, it really wasn't. The book is all over the place, especially where it treats philosophy.

All of it. To name just one obvious example, Goebbels believed that a mixture of races was superior to racial purity (see his private writings on Rheinländer, or simply his relationship with a 'half-Jewish' woman, whose mixed heritage he extolled). And that doesn't mean that this was instead his philosophy; it is as hollow and false as his public statements. There is no interest in the truth in any of this.

WF owners.

On the one hand, yes, Trump is better than Sharia.

On the other hand, "better than Sharia" is not exactly a high standard to hold ourselves to.

On the third hand, Sharia law has roughly a zero percent chance of being implemented here, and Trump has roughly a 100 percent chance of being president. So if the question is which one has the more potential to cause us harm, I'll say Trump, because Sharia ain't gonna happen. It like saying "What's worse, getting cancer or getting hit by a meteor?" Obviously getting hit by a meteor is worse, but because the odds of that are so tiny, most people would rank cancer as a much bigger concern.