This is an interesting essay by Alain De Benoist and touches on a topic I often see debated online. I pasted an excerpt be low but it's fairly short and worth reading.
---
Julliard wonders: “In what sense are criminals appealing to ‘good’ less condemnablethan criminals appealing to ‘evil’?”
22 The question is pertinent, butpoorly formulated. Nazism never “appealed to evil” any more than communismdid. It made use of ideas that one can deservedly find false, and therefore evil,which is completely different. But it is not as if the evaluation one has of oneselfcorresponded to that of other. Otherwise, one could claim that communism alsoappealed not to the good, but to evil, in proportion to the horror these ideas cansuggest. The rationale of opposing the Nazi “doctrine of hate” to the communist“ideal of human emancipation” is thus debatable. It would amount to contraposinga definition of communism by its supporters to a definition of Nazism by itsopponents. Under these conditions, it is not difficult to make the first appear asgood as the latter evil. From an artificial asymmetry, one draws a conclusion no
less artificial. This is a non sequitur.
Nazism did not pretend to promise people any less “happiness” than communism.It did not promise any less a “radiant” outlook to its supporters. To say theopposite, as David Lindenberg does, when he writes that the Nazis “gained manysupporters because of its penchant for murder,”
23 makes its appeal to the massesinexplicable. To say that a political system could generate enthusiasm by presentingitself openly as advocating a “doctrine of hate” is tantamount to saying that its
supporters were sick, mad, criminals, or perverts. Then one would have to explain
how an entire population could go crazy. If it is by nature, what does this say about
human nature? If it is by accident, how does it come about — and how can it end?
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/evil_twins.pdf