It's shit like this that makes my life worse as a Eurasian because even if you look amazing you're still a subhuman because Asian women happily marry guys who look like they've been in industrial accidents over an Asian guy. It makes Asian looking males look like the worst fucking losers on earth. The guy is absolutely offensive to look at. Like his face literally makes my stomach churl because he's so ugly. I'd even be mad if he had a white girlfriend People feel they have the liberty to say of course your dad is white. Because white guys see shit like this where some fucking quasimodo looking freak can get Asian girls and they use it as ammo as to how shittyy asian guys are...
Nazi organizer did an AMA recently. Their platform was damn near a mirror of Bernie Sanders. Not surprising given that they're socialists. Except nazi guy also wanted Indian reservations, but for wypipo. No darkies allowed.
"Not all nazis want to kill people." Wait a minute. Something here is not right. I can't put my finger on it.
Depends on how you define "nazis" - is it "national socialists", or only the higher-ups and SS thugs who were perpetrating the genocide most pro-NS people didn't know about?
Is every Holocaust denier practicing taqiyya just to make another happen, or do some want to restore the official Hitler policies without the whole murder thing (that they deny happened in the first place)?
The latter camp definitely exists, but I suppose the question is if they're called nazis or something else - according to (((Wikipedia))), it's really just an abbreviation for national socialism, so who knows.
Lol, are you trying to claim your average nazi didn't know what was going on?
Do you have any idea how absurd that is? It wasn't only the higher-ups. The Nazis even got busted gassing the handicapped and Hitler had to halt the program after Catholics and other religious groups challenged them on it.
Nazism, as an ideology, is explicitly based on the extermination of inferior people. And national socialism is very clearly fascism, and there's no such thing as export brand fascism, from the anatomy of fascism:
Fascists hated liberals as much as they hated socialists, but for different reasons. For fascists, the internationalist, socialist Left was the enemy and the liberals were the enemies’ accomplices. With their hands-off government, their trust in open discussion, their weak hold over mass opinion, and their reluctance to use force, liberals were, in fascist eyes, culpably incompetent guardians of the nation against the class warfare waged by the socialists. As for beleaguered middle-class liberals themselves, fearful of a rising Left, lacking the secret of mass appeal, facing the unpalatable choices offered them by the twentieth century, they have sometimes been as ready as conservatives to cooperate with fascists. Every strategy for understanding fascism must come to terms with the wide diversity of its national cases. The major question here is whether fascisms are more disparate than the other “isms.”
This book takes the position that they are, because they reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in a Darwinian struggle for primacy. The community comes before humankind in fascist values, and respecting individual rights or due process gave way to serving the destiny of the Volk or razza. 82 Therefore each individual national fascist movement gives full expression to its own cultural particularism. Fascism, unlike the other “isms,” is not for export: each movement jealously guards its own recipe for national revival, and fascist leaders seem to feel little or no kinship with their foreign cousins. It has proved impossible to make any fascist “international” work.
So when you see someone identitfy as a nazi, they are endorsing Nazism. And because Nazism was literally based on the extermination of other people, you can't be a nazi that doesn't want to kill other people.
I don't even think the "latter camp" exists. They're just moderating their views because they know they have no power, if any of these people took power you can bet your ass "protective custody" camps would start popping up all over the place.
As for beleaguered middle-class liberals themselves, fearful of a rising Left, lacking the secret of mass appeal, facing the unpalatable choices offered them by the twentieth century, they have sometimes been as ready as conservatives to cooperate with fascists.
They were ready to cooperate with aspiring genociders?
because they reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in a Darwinian struggle for primacy.
You can "succeed" merely by pushing those "inferior people" down into the lower ranks of society - another way would be deportation.
Your excerpt doesn't support your claim that "nazism is primarily about extermination", even if it's true.
Are you saying your average nazi didn't know what was going on?
It wasn't only the higher-ups. The Nazis even got busted gassing the handicapped and Hitler had to halt the program after Catholics and other religious groups challenged him on it.
What's an "average nazi" - an average citizen, or average nsdap member, or average bright-eyed busybody?
As far as I knew, the extermination was happening in secret - but a lot of the citizens "understood on some level" what was going on, but chose to ignore it. Traudl Junge said she'd seen people being led away and thought it was "obvious" where they were going and she had no excuse lying to herself (even though she didn't know for sure).
I don't know most of the details regarding what was known to whom at what point - and distinctions have to be made between the different periods: after the NS took over and banned free speech, people were, for some reason, more willing to cooperate, shut their mouths or look the other way.
Nazism, as an ideology, is explicitly based on the extermination of inferior people.
Again - are you referring to the "real Nazis" who were schmieding their evil plans behind closed doors and coating them in propaganda, or the ideology that was sold to the common people before the regime took over and then while it was in power?
If it's the latter, the primary ideals were an authoritarian government that refused to give away its power, and the glory of the nation - disempowering the "parasites in our midsts" and the notion that they were trying to bring it down, was certainly among the central tenets; the extreme solution to that problem that they ended up going with, however, wasn't.
As for modern neonazis, that's again a different group and you need to look at their views on their own terms - what are they the "new" incarnation of? The murderous SS officers, or the common people who appreciated the national success? Something inbetween?
The people back then didn't know about the death camps, for the most part, some were undoubtedly in denial - so now these new people are also in denial, in the form of revisionism; what's the evidence for the claim that all the revisionists are secretly lying and actually aren't revisionists at heart? Are all "Islam apologists" and all tankies lying as well, or only some of them?
if any of these people took power you can bet your ass "protective custody" camps would start popping up all over the place.
This again needs to be distinguished - is this what you can naturally expect to happen if they take over (due to natural, observed human processes - mutual radicalization in an echochamber, the more vicious members swimming to the top etc.), or is it literally their conscious secret goal already now?
You can "succeed" merely by pushing those "inferior people" down into the lower ranks of society - another way would be deportation.
Incorrect, do you not know what the term "Darwinian" struggle means?
I don't know most of the details regarding what was known to whom at what point - and distinctions have to be made between the different periods: after the NS took over and banned free speech, people were, for some reason, more willing to cooperate, shut their mouths or look the other way.
They were willing to cooperate because they were far-right nationalists and more so than anything wanted to "restore Germany to greatness."
You can find letters written by people married to Jews, very upset with how they were being treated, yet still hysterical with joy at the fact Germany was taking Austria and stuff like that.
Again - are you referring to the "real Nazis" who were schmieding their evil plans behind closed doors and coating them in propaganda, or the ideology that was sold to the common people before the regime took over and then while it was in power?
Have you ever looked at Hitlers early rhetoric, have you ever read my struggle?
By the end of 1920, Hitler’s early emphasis on attacking Jewish capitalism had been modified to bring in ‘Marxism’, or in other words Social Democracy, and Bolshevism as well. The cruelties of the civil war and ‘red terror’ in Lenin’s Russia were making an impact, and Hitler could use them to lend emphasis to common far-right views of the supposedly Jewish inspiration behind the revolutionary upheavals of 1918-19 in Munich. Nazism would also have been possible, however, without the Communist threat; Hitler’s anti-Bolshevism was the product of his antisemitism and not the other way round.33 His principal political targets remained the Social Democrats and the vaguer spectre of ‘Jewish capitalism’. Borrowing the stock arguments of antisemitism from before the war, Hitler declared in numerous speeches that the Jews were a race of parasites who could only live by subverting other peoples, above all the highest and best of all races, the Aryans. Thus they divided the Aryan race against itself, both organizing capitalist exploitation on the one hand and leading the struggle against it on the other.34 The Jews, he said in a speech delivered on 6 April 1920, were ‘to be exterminated’; on 7 August the same year he told his audience that they should not believe ‘that you can fight a disease without killing the cause, without annihilating the bacillus, and do not think that you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care that the people are free of the cause of racial tuberculosis’. Annihilation meant the violent removal of the Jews from Germany by any means. The ‘solution of the Jewish question’, he told his listeners in April 1921, could only be solved by ‘brute force’. ‘We know’, he said in January 1923, ‘that if they come to power, our heads will roll in the sand; but we also know that when we get our hands on power: “Then God have mercy on you!” ’
Or:
My Struggle has been seen by some historians as a kind of blueprint for Hitler’s later actions, a dangerous and devilish book that was unfortunately ignored by those who should have known better. It was nothing of the kind. Heavily edited by Amann, Hanfstaengl and others in order to make it more literate and less incoherent than the rambling first draft, it was none the less turgid and tedious, and sold only modest numbers of copies before the Nazis achieved their electoral breakthrough in 1930. After that it became a best-seller, above all during the Third Reich, when not to own a copy was almost an act of treason. Those people who read it, probably a relatively small proportion of those who bought it, must have found it difficult to gain anything very coherent out of its confused mélange of autobiographical reminiscences and garbled political declamations. Hitler’s talent for winning hearts and minds lay in his public oratory, not in his writing. Still, no one who read the book could have been left in any doubt about the fact that Hitler considered racial conflict to be the motor, the essence of history, and the Jews to be the sworn enemy of the German race, whose historic mission it was, under the guidance of the Nazi Party, to break their international power and annihilate them entirely. ‘The nationalization of our masses’, he declared, ‘will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.’
1
If it's the latter, the primary ideals were an authoritarian government that refused to give away its power, and the glory of the nation - disempowering the "parasites in our midsts" and the notion that they were trying to bring it down, was certainly among the central tenets; the extreme solution to that problem that they ended up going with, however, wasn't.
Absolutely untrue, see above.
As for modern neonazis, that's again a different group and you need to look at their views on their own terms - what are they the "new" incarnation of? The murderous SS officers, or the common people who appreciated the national success? Something inbetween?
No, they're Nazis, and again, Nazism is absolutely based on the extermination of inferior peoples.
The people back then didn't know about the death camps, for the most part, some were undoubtedly in denial - so now these new people are also in denial, in the form of revisionism; what's the evidence for the claim that all the revisionists are secretly lying and actually aren't revisionists at heart? Are all "Islam apologists" and all tankies lying as well, or only some of them?
You realize the Nazis literally got caught gassing the handicapped, correct? This was public knowledge:
The sensation created by the sermons, not least the last of them, was enormous. Galen had them printed as a pastoral message and read out in parish churches. The British got hold of a copy, broadcast excerpts over the BBC German service, and dropped copies as leaflets over Germany as well as translating them into several other languages and distributing them in France, Holland, Poland and other parts of Europe. Copies found their way into many households. A few people protested as a result, or talked about the killings with their work colleagues; a number were arrested and put into concentration camps, including some of the priests who had duplicated and distributed the sermons. Galen’s actions emboldened other bishops, such as Antonius Hilfrich, Bishop of Limburg, who wrote a letter of protest to Justice Minister G̈rtner (himself a Catholic) on 13 August 1941 denouncing the murders as ‘an injustice that cries out to Heaven’.282 The Bishop of Mainz, Albert Stohr, sermonized against the taking of life.283 This was the strongest, most explicit and most widespread protest movement against any Nazi policy since the beginning of the Third Reich. Galen himself remained calm, resigned to martyrdom. But nothing happened. So huge was the publicity he had generated that the Nazi leaders, enraged though they were, feared to take any action against him. Regional Leader Meyer wrote to Bormann demanding that the bishop be hanged, a view in which Bormann himself readily concurred. But both Hitler and Goebbels, when told of these events by Bormann, concluded that to make Galen a martyr would only lead to further unrest, which simply could not be contemplated in the middle of a war. He would be taken care of when the war was over, said Hitler. Ordinary Party members in M̈nster were uncomprehending: why, they asked, was the bishop not imprisoned, since he was clearly a traitor?
What did happen, however, was that the programme was halted. A direct order from Hitler to Brandt on 24 August 1941, passed on to Bouhler and Brack, suspended the gassing of adults until further notice, though Hitler also made sure that the killing of children, which was on a much smaller and therefore much less noticeable scale, continued.286 Galen’s sermon, and the widespread public reaction it had aroused, made it difficult to continue without creating even further unrest, as the Nazi leaders reluctantly conceded. Nurses and orderlies, especially in Catholic institutions for the sick and the disabled, were beginning seriously to obstruct the process of registration. The killing programme was now public knowledge, and relatives, friends and neighbours of the victims were making their disquiet publicly felt. Moreover, they associated it clearly with the Nazi leadership and its ideology; indeed, despite the naive belief of men like Bishop Wurm that Hitler did not know about it, the danger of Hitler himself taking some of the blame was very real. By mid-1941 even Himmler and Heydrich were criticizing ‘mistakes in the implementation’ of the action. And the quota set by Hitler, of 70,000 deaths, had already been met.
Incorrect, do you not know what the term "Darwinian" struggle means? In no way, shape, or form was this what the Nazis wanted.
Not all evolution ends with death - sometimes species get split in different locations, or certain traits just become less common etc.
Weren't they talking about "deportation" all the time? Was Hitler talking about genocide before or after he was elected, was it something that the public that bought the ideology believed in?
They were willing to cooperate because they were far-right nationalists and more so than anything wanted to "restore Germany to greatness."
You can find letters written by people married to Jews, very upset with how they were being treated, yet still hysterical with joy at the fact Germany was taking Austria and stuff like that.
So they weren't behind the idea of treating Jews badly, but they cared about the glory of their nation and the Lebensraum etc. - seems like that was the primary tenet of the ideology and not the mistreatment, let alone extermination, of subgroups.
Annihilation meant the violent removal of the Jews from Germany by any means.
So "removal" it is - you just said that's not what Darwinian struggle meant, but your quote talks about removal "from Germany".
Those people who read it, probably a relatively small proportion of those who bought it
So that, once again, corroborates my "thesis" rather than yours: namely that nazism was a spectrum just like most ideologies and religions - on the one hand you've got Hitler who had been fantasizing about genocide (well, "violent removal" according to your quotes) for decades, and on the other end you've got supporting citizens who didn't even read the book where he expresses that while much more drawn by the whole glory of the nation thing.
Once again: people looking the other way was an important part of it.
If it's the latter, the primary ideals were an authoritarian government that refused to give away its power, and the glory of the nation - disempowering the "parasites in our midsts" and the notion that they were trying to bring it down, was certainly among the central tenets; the extreme solution to that problem that they ended up going with, however, wasn't.
Absolutely untrue, see above.
That was especially based on his "6. Parteitag" speech - only a few little mentions of "race views" in what is otherwise 10 minutes praising glory, success, the believing citizenry and a strong authority government; if, as you say, a tribalist spin on de Sadean libertinage was supposed to be the MAIN appeal of the ideology that's what he would've been focusing on instead - certainly could've mentioned some murder just to satisfy the audience's inherent bloodlust, but no.
No, they're Nazis, and again, Nazism is absolutely based on the extermination of inferior peoples.
Now you're just being obtuse.
You realize the Nazis literally got caught gassing the handicapped, correct? This was public knowledge:
Well you just said that in the preivous post.
The sensation created by the sermons, not least the last of them, was enormous. Galen had them printed as a pastoral message and read out in parish churches. The British got hold of a copy, broadcast excerpts over the BBC German service, and dropped copies as leaflets over Germany as well as translating them into several other languages and distributing them in France, Holland, Poland and other parts of Europe. Copies found their way into many households. A few people protested as a result, or talked about the killings with their work colleagues; a number were arrested and put into concentration camps, including some of the priests who had duplicated and distributed the sermons.
Were the only people who protested opponents of nazism to begin with?
And also, what I said earlier: with people being arrested and put in camps for criticizing the government, it's no wonder many would shut their mouths; their silence is no longer a reliable sign of agreement once free speech is banned.
The idea that Nazis didn't let people speak up is historically inaccurate. There were multiple groups in the third Reich that could say whatever they wanted because the Nazis were afraid of them.
The farmers being one of those groups, certain religious groups as well - because the amount of power they had was huge.
The Nazis weren't stupid enough to think they could violently suppress everyone.
And yet in your own very excerpt, it says that some of the protesters were put in camps and arrested - and others were on the verge of being hanged.
The less certain the retaliation by the regime is, the more brave people will speak up, but some would still understandable choose to shut their mouths - would their executions cause massive unrests? What if that scandal hadn't come out?
This was the strongest, most explicit and most widespread protest movement against any Nazi policy since the beginning of the Third Reich.
A lot of Germans (incl. party members) already hated the Kristallnacht - were they all anti-nazists or were they still ideology proponents?
Were they making any excuses for it to remain supporters?:
indeed, despite the naive belief of men like Bishop Wurm that Hitler did not know about it,
They hide it like Richard Spencer does, for example, when he talks about "peacefully removing other ethnic groups from American society."
Good example - he talks about paying people to leave. Do you have evidence that this is just taqiyya and he actually wants genocide - or even anything more malevolent than what he's officially saying?
Not all evolution ends with death - sometimes species get split in different locations, or certain traits just become less common etc.
Weren't they talking about "deportation" all the time? Was Hitler talking about genocide before or after he was elected, was it something that the public that bought the ideology believed in?
The "deportation" was only a temporary solution because they knew the war was coming, Goebbels, for example, in his diary provides a good glimpse into what they had planned to do after the war:
The Leader is convinced that the prophecy he made then in the Reichstag, that if Jewry succeded again in provoking a world war, it would end with the annihilation of the Jews, is confirming itself. It is becoming true in these weeks and months with a certainty that seems almost uncanny. The Jews are having to pay the price in the east; it has to a degree already been paid in Germany, and they will have to pay it still more in future. Their last refuge remains North America, and there in the long or short run they will one day have to pay it too.
Indeed - Hitler had choreographed what he planned to do in a public speech, he had said if the Jews started another world war, and the US intervened - then he would annihilate them in Europe.
On 30 January 1939, Hitler repeated these threats in public, and broadened them onto a European scale. Speaking to the Reichstag on the sixth anniversary of his appointment as Reich Chancellor, he said:
I have often been a prophet in my life and I was mostly laughed at. In the time of my struggle for power it was in the first place the Jewish people who received with nothing but laughter my prophecy that one day I would take over the leadership of the state and with it the whole people and then among many other things bring the Jewish problem to its solution. I believe that the roars of laughter of those days may well have suffocated in the throats of the Jews in the meantime.
The pogrom of November 1938 reflected the regime’s radicalization in the final stages of preparation for war.214 Part of this preparation in Hitler’s mind had to consist of the neutralization of what he conceived of as the Jewish threat. With a disdain for reality characteristic of paranoid antisemites, he assumed that ‘international finance’ was working together with international Communism, both steered from behind the scenes by the Jews, to broaden out this European war, which they knew Germany would win, onto a world scale, which could only mean by bringing the United States into it. This would be the only way they would stand any chance of success. By the time it happened, Germany would be master of Europe and have the vast majority of the continent’s Jews in its grasp. Anticipating this moment, therefore, Hitler was announcing that he would hold Europe’s Jews hostage as a means of deterring America from entering the war. If the USA did come in on the side of Germany’s enemies, then the Jews, not just in Germany, but in all Europe, would be killed. Nazi terrorism had now acquired an additional dimension: the practice, on the largest possible scale, of hostage-taking.
Or another example:
In the Reichstag, I prophesied to Jewry, the Jew will disappear from Europe if war is not avoided. This race of criminals has the two million dead of the [First World] war on its conscience, and now hundreds of thousands again. Nobody can tell me: But we can’t send them into the morass! For who bothers about our people? It’s good if the terror that we are exterminating Jewry goes before us.81
So they weren't behind the idea of treating Jews badly, but they cared about the glory of their nation and the Lebensraum etc. - seems like that was the primary tenet of the ideology and not the mistreatment, let alone extermination, of subgroups.
Incorrect - the letter I'm talking about wasn't kind to Jews. This woman's husband was a Jew, but they didn't associate with other jews, they supported the Nazis going after "international jewery" they just didn't believe themselves to be part of that.
I'd suggest you look into the solmitz letters, it provides an interesting look into this. Only after Nazi policy started impacting them did they care about the Jews.
So they weren't behind the idea of treating Jews badly, but they cared about the glory of their nation and the Lebensraum etc. - seems like that was the primary tenet of the ideology and not the mistreatment, let alone extermination, of subgroups.
Lebensraum entailed extermination, you know that, correct?
And for a little more, we can look at letters from a female German worker in the east during this time period:
I told myself that if the Poles were using every means in the fight not to lose that disputed eastern province which the German nation required as ‘Lebensraum’, then they remained our enemies, and I regarded it as my duty to suppress my private feelings if they conflicted with political necessity . . . A group which believes itself to be called and chosen to lead, as we did, has no inhibitions when it comes to taking territory from ‘inferior elements’.
Though she distanced herself from those Germans who had no doubt that Germans were a ‘master race’ and Poles destined to be slaves, still, she wrote later: ‘My colleagues and I felt it was an honour to be allowed to help in “conquering” this area for our own nation and for German culture. We had the arrogant enthusiasm of the “cultural missionary”.’
Maschmann and her colleagues were charged with clearing out and cleaning up Polish farms in readiness for their new German inhabitants, and took part in the SS-led expulsions without asking where the expelled Poles were going.122 She unashamedly joined in the extensive looting of Polish property during this process, as the departing Poles were obliged to leave furniture and equipment behind for the German settlers. Armed with a forged requisition order and a pistol (which she did not know how to use), she even robbed beds, cutlery and other items from Polish farmers in areas where resettlement had not begun, to give them to incoming ethnic Germans. All this she considered completely justified; the whole experience of her work was entirely positive.123 These feelings were shared by many other German women who came into the incorporated territories as volunteers or were posted there as newly qualified teachers, junior officials in Nazi women’s organizations, or aspiring civil servants. All of them, both at the time and in many cases when interviewed about their work decades later, saw their activities in occupied Poland as part of a civilizing mission and recorded their horror at the poverty and dirt they encountered in the Polish population. At the same time they enjoyed the beauty of the countryside and the sense of being on an exciting mission far from home. As middle-class women they evidently gained fulfilment from cleaning up farms left behind by deported Poles, decorating them, and creating a sense of homeliness to welcome the settlers. For virtually all of them, the suffering of Poles and Jews was either invisible or acceptable or even justified.
You'll have to give me time to respond to the rest.
The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm], English: "living space") refers to policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901, Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion. The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.
Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets.
You'll have to give me time to respond to the rest.
Alright can I just briefly bring this back to basics:
Goebbels, for example, in his diary
What this disagreement is about, is how narrowly/broadly "Nazism" is defined, and how narrow/broad the spectrum of this "Nazism" is - or maybe whether it's a spectrum or a monolithic ideology.
If the spectrum/definition is broad enough, then the murderous ones would be the "extremists" (led by those who started out with extremist intentions and carried them out when coming into power, esp. of course Hitler himself) and then other ones would be moderates - if it's narrow, then extremists simply = Nazis and then the moderates need some different name.
The amount or degree of said moderation is also in question here.
These issues apply both to the original historical nazism, and modern neonazis, separately (but connected, obviously).
I'm not sure we should even call these people Nazis. Nazism is a brand of fascism very specific to Germany that had ideological roots dating all the way back to Bismarck. Modern "neo-nazis" tend to either be Russian or American with no cultural relation to this.
Evans:
The death of democracy in Germany was part of a much broader European pattern in the interwar years; but it also had very specific roots in German history and drew on ideas that were part of a very specific German tradition. German nationalism, the Pan-German vision of the completion through conquest in war of Bismarck’s unfinished work of bringing all Germans together in a single state, the conviction of the superiority of the Aryan race and the threat posed to it by the Jews, the belief in eugenic planning and racial hygiene, the military ideal of a society clad in uniform, regimented, obedient and ready for battle—all this and much more that came to fruition in 1933 drew on ideas that had been circulating in Germany since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Some of these ideas, in turn, had their roots in other countries or were shared by significant thinkers within them - the racism of Gobineau, the anticlericalism of Schonerer, the paganist fantasies of Lanz von Liebenfels, the pseudo-scientific population policies of Darwin’s disciples in many countries, and much more. But they came together in Germany in a uniquely poisonous mixture, rendered all the more potent by Germany’s pre-eminent position as the most advanced and most powerful state on the European Continent. In the years following the appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor, the rest of Europe, and the world, would learn just how poisonous that mixture could be.
First and foremost I'd simply consider them fascists. And I don't think fascism is an ideology that can be moderate. From Paxton's anatomy of fascism:
assumption that fascism was an “ism” like the other great political systems of the modern world: conservatism, liberalism, socialism. Usually taken for granted, that assumption is worth scrutinizing.
The other “isms” were created in an era when politics was a gentleman’s business, conducted through protracted and learned parliamentary debate among educated men who appealed to each other’s reasons as well as their sentiments. The classical “isms” rested upon coherent philosophical systems laid out in the works of systematic thinkers. It seems only natural to explain them by examining their programs and the philosophy that underpinned them.
Fascism, by contrast, was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. The role programs and doctrine play in it is, on closer inspection, fundamentally unlike the role they play in conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. It has not been given intellectual underpinnings by any system builder, like Marx, or by any major critical intelligence, like Mill, Burke, or Tocqueville.69
In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name. Fascism is “true” insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other peoples in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason. The first fascists were entirely frank about this.
We [Fascists] don’t think ideology is a problem that is resolved in such a way that truth is seated on a throne. But, in that case, does fighting for an ideology mean fighting for mere appearances? No doubt, unless one considers it according to its unique and efficacious psychological-historical value. The truth of an ideology lies in its capacity to set in motion our capacity for ideals and action. Its truth is absolute insofar as, living within us, it suffices to exhaust those capacities.70
The truth was whatever permitted the new fascist man (and woman) to dominate others, and whatever made the chosen people triumph.
Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity.71 The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics, as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience, Benjamin warned in 1936, was war.
This is why I have a hard time beliecing "moderate" wanna be nazis can exist.
Well these are the people we're talking about here all the time - maybe it's best to establish some kind of consistent system of terms that actually makes sense, and then stick with it. Especially when getting srs about who should be punched or not, who's an apologist for what etc.
This is why I have a hard time believing "moderate" wanna be nazis can exist.
Religion is irrational (and wasn't formed in philosophical discourse either), and most "ideologies" are emotional and collectivist even when they don't acknowledge it - doesn't mean they can't exist in a moderate form; in fact they always tend to exist on spctra.
The most moderate version of Islamism still means getting religion into politics and pushing it on people to some degree - cause that's the definition. A spectrum can have a defined limit on one end; however in this case the degree can vary. Salafism/Wahhabism has much tighter limits - not sure what the most moderate version of those looks like right now, except that it's less extreme than Isis.
Nothing in your excerpt confirms the notion that fascism is necessarily murderous - it's about tribal dominance, authoritarian hierarchy and some degree of totalitarianism, but the form those can take is left more open.
Is Richard Spencer a (neo)Nazi, if his idea of paying foreigners to leave is the extent of what he wants? If not, does his appropriation of some nazi imagery meanyou can carry around the swastika, say sieg heil and triumph of the will and still not be a nazi? What would he then be - a proto/almost nazi?
These terms need to be defined, and people's views accurately represented.
Religion is irrational (and wasn't formed in philosophical discourse either), and most "ideologies" are emotional and collectivist even when they don't acknowledge it - doesn't mean they can't exist in a moderate form; in fact they always tend to exist on spctra.
I completely disagree. Religion is absolutely rational, the we understand the cognitive biases that go into religion pretty well. The vast majority of religious people are no threat.
At this point I'm starting to suspect you're desperate to avoid admitting to what fascism is, the deflections to religion, or Islamism are pretty weird.
Nothing in your excerpt confirms the notion that fascism is necessarily murderous - it's about tribal dominance, authoritarian hierarchy and some degree of totalitarianism, but the form those can take is left more open.
There has never, in history, been a fascist movement that wasn't murderous, at any point. Can you show me one?
Is Richard Spencer a (neo)Nazi, if his idea of paying foreigners to leave is the extent of what he wants? If not, does his appropriation of some nazi imagery meanyou can carry around the swastika, say sieg heil and triumph of the will and still not be a nazi? What would he then be - a proto/almost nazi?
Stop believing what wanna be Nazis say, this is pure bullshit. What happens when people don't want to accept money to leave the country, which would likely be the majority of minorities? What happens then?
Do you think the wanna be Nazis just say "oh well" and call it a day? Like I said. You're walking right into the fascist trap, from anatomy of fascism:
Now I can refine the question with which we began this chapter. Can fascism still exist? Clearly Stage One movements can still be found in all major democracies. More crucially, can they reach Stage Two again by becoming rooted and influential? We need not look for exact replicas, in which fascist veterans dust off their swastikas. Collectors of Nazi paraphernalia and hard-core neo-Nazi sects are capable of provoking destructive violence and polarization. As long as they remain excluded from the alliances with the establishment necessary to join the political mainstream or share power, however, they remain more a law and order problem than a political threat. Much more likely to exert an influence are extreme Right movements that have learned to moderate their language, abandon classical fascist symbolism, and appear “normal.”
It is by understanding how past fascisms worked, and not by check-ing the color of shirts, or seeking echoes of the rhetoric of the national-syndicalist dissidents of the opening of the twentieth century, that we may be able to recognize it. The well-known warning signals—extreme nationalist propaganda and hate crimes—are important but insufficient. Know-ing what we do about the fascist cycle, we can find more ominous warning signals in situations of political deadlock in the face of crisis, threatened conservatives looking for tougher allies, ready to give up due process and the rule of law, seeking mass support by nationalist and racialist demagoguery. Fascists are close to power when conservatives begin to borrow their techniques, appeal to their “mobilizing passions,” and try to co-opt the fascist following.
There is only one fascist cycle - one, it does not end any other way. There is no such thing as a moderate fascist, only fascists trying to appear moderate to gain power, then the radicalization happens.
I completely disagree. Religion is absolutely rational, the we understand the cognitive biases that go into religion pretty well. The vast majority of religious people are no threat. There's nothing irrational about fearing death and wanting to bring order to a chaotic world.
At this point I'm starting to suspect you're desperate to avoid admitting to what fascism is, the deflections to religion, or Islamism are pretty weird.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have wasted my time on an elaborate troll - in my defense, you hadn't been giving off any signs up until this point, and this one was probably planted as well.
The fact you think I'm a troll is pretty hilarious, you don't understand the cognitive bias that goes into religion and tried to claim it was somehow irrational.
There's nothing irrational about religion really, it's the result of the way our brains work.
It's natural and completely rational to fear death.
It's rational and completely rational to want an ordered world, everything to happen for a reason.
The religion comparison you made is talked about in The third Reich trilogy too:
Nazism as an ideology was no religion, not just because Hitler said it was not, nor because it had nothing to say about the hereafter or eternity or the immortal soul, as all genuine religions do, but also, more importantly, because it was too incoherent to be one. Leading Nazis did not spend time disputing the finer points of their ideology like medieval scholastics or Marxist-Leninist philosophers, their modern equivalents. There was no sacred book of Nazism from which people took their texts for the day, like the bureaucrats of Stalin’s Russia did from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin: Hitler’s My Struggle, though everyone had to have it on their bookshelf, was too verbose, too rambling, too autobiographical to lend itself to this kind of use. Nor in the end did Nazism promise any kind of final victory to be followed by a Heaven-like stasis; rather, it was a doctrine of perpetual struggle, of conflict without end. There was nothing universal about its appeal, as there is with the great world religions, or with major political ideologies such as socialism and Communism: it directed itself only to one small segment of humanity, the Germans, and ruled everyone else ineligible for its benefits. Conservative philosophers of the mid-twentieth century commonly argued that Nazism as a political religion filled the need for religious faith felt by millions of Germans who had been left bereft by the secularism of modernity. But its appeal cannot be reduced in this way. Millions of Catholics opposed it or remained relatively immune. Millions of Protestants, including many of the most committed, such as the German Christians, did not. Millions more people resisted its ideological blandishments despite having grown up in the atheistic and anticlerical political traditions of the German labour movement.
Religion does not necessarily imply a rejection of democracy, rationality or toleration; some historians have pointed out that the labour movement too had its banners, its rituals, its dogma and its eschatology, though none of this prevented the Social Democrats from embracing democracy, rationality and toleration. Nor, finally, are dogmatism, faith in a great leader, intolerance or belief in future redemption from present ills confined to religious modes of thought and behaviour. Nazism’s use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. ‘Hitler’s studied usurpation of religious functions’, as one historian has written, ‘was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.’126 The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals. This was the sole criterion of morality, overriding the principles of love and compassion that have always formed such an important element in the beliefs of the world’s great religions.127 A conceptualization of Nazism as a political religion, finally, is not only purely descriptive but also too sweeping to be of much help; it tells us very little about how Nazism worked, or what the nature of its appeal was to different groups in German society. The failure of the Third Reich to find a substitute for Christianity, indeed the feebleness of such attempts as it did make, was nowhere more apparent than in its policy towards the youth of the country, Germany’s future.
you don't understand the cognitive bias that goes into religion and tried to claim it was somehow irrational.
Cognitive bias is a form of irrationality. "Our brains work" in irrational ways.
If you're not a troll, the only other option is that you're an insane ideologue - in either case I don't see any point in continuing to play along, considering this thread's probably on p3 somewhere now and no one's reading this anymore.
I copy pasted the argument on religion dude, feel free to go read it.
You're just making highly questionable arguments for some reason. And it all seems to come from you thinking there's such thing as a moderate fascist, when there just isn't.
Do you believe there's something irrational about fearing death?
Something irrational about wanting an ordered world?
No - but getting into the car of a stranger who tells you "I've got the solution to the fear of death and a chaotic world!" is irrational.
I don't know what kind of rock you must have been living under in order to have this weak of a response to the common widespread notion that religion = irrational.
Maybe quit trying to be an edgy internet fedora clad neckbeard
And no, frequenting message boards where atheists are called fedorafags isn't an excuse - naive religious rural people live in communities that think all atheists are blood sucking devil worshippers, and they STILL have better arguments for religion such as "look at the trees".
So you see why your comments about religion appear so bad, it's hard to believe they're not coming from a troll, right? Maybe poll r/Drama on this issue, though make sure they get it's srs lol
No - but getting into the car of a stranger who tells you "I've got the solution to the fear of death and a chaotic world!" is irrational.
This is such an absurd statement I don't even know where to start.
I don't know what kind of rock you must have been living under in order to have this weak of a response to the common widespread notion that religion = irrational.
Widespread where? Edgy fedora communities on Reddit?
And no, frequenting message boards where atheists are called fedorafags isn't an excuse - naive religious rural people live in communities that think all atheists are blood sucking devil worshippers, and they STILL have better arguments for religion such as "look at the trees".
Yeah, because clearly that's what I said, "look at the trees" is what was said. I should have probably stopped replying after I put your historically illiterate drivel in the dumpster 4 comments ago.
This is such an absurd statement I don't even know where to start.
I'm sure you don't.
Widespread where? Edgy fedora communities on Reddit? Because it sure as hell isn't the real world, considering nearly the entire human population subscribes to a religion.
Excluding edgy fedora communities on reddit and communist tyrannies, like half of Europe is non-religious, a great number of Americans are very moderately religious, and as I just said: even some of the most radical and/or clueless isolated Christians understand the claim that "religion is irrational" and have better responses to it than you do.
Yeah, because clearly that's what I said, "look at the trees" is what was said.
No, look at the trees is a MORE INTELLIGENT, AWARE RESPONSE than what you had to offer - can you even fucking read?
and they STILL have better arguments for religion such as "look at the trees".
Yeah, because clearly that's what I said, "look at the trees" is what was said.
and they STILL have better arguments for religion such as "look at the trees".
Yeah, because clearly that's what I said, "look at the trees" is what was said.
and they STILL have better arguments for religion such as "look at the trees".
Yeah, because clearly that's what I said, "look at the trees" is what was said.
Excluding edgy fedora communities on reddit and communist tyrannies, like half of Europe is non-religious, a great number of Americans are very moderately religious, and as I just said: even some of the most radical and/or clueless isolated Christians understand the claim that "religion is irrational" and have better responses to it than you do.
Are you like learning disabled? Not being religious doesn't mean you believe religion to be irrational. I'm not religious, I'm an atheist, religion, the mechanics behind it, are in fact rational.
Again - the vast majority of people do not believe what you believe, so your claim it was widespread doesn't actually hold weight.
No, look at the trees is a MORE INTELLIGENT, AWARE RESPONSE than what you had to offer - can you even fucking read?
To be clear, me saying the mechanics behind religion are not necessarily irrational is a worse argument that saying "look at the trees?"
Those fedora chambers really did a number on you, didn't they?
Are you like learning disabled? Not being religious doesn't mean you believe religion to be irrational. I'm not religious, I'm an atheist, religion, the mechanics behind it, are in fact rational. And our Biases aren't automatically irrational either, they're there for a reason.
and as I just said: even some of the most radical and/or clueless isolated Christians understand the claim that "religion is irrational" and
When I say "even some of the most radical or retarded/isolated Christians understand this notion", this obviously implies that => the enlightened urban moderates or non-religious ones sure do as well.
Yes, it is a widespread notion, however what's even more widespread are people who UNDERSTAND said notion on a basic level even if they disagree.
You don't even understand it, which makes you super retarded / hard to take at face value.
To be clear, me saying the mechanics behind religion are not necessarily irrational is a worse argument that saying "look at the trees?"
This is the first time you're trying to backtrack by adding nuances like "not necessarily".
Some people argue for the rationality of specific religious claims - that Jesus' resurrection is historically probable, that empiricism points towards creation etc.; "look at the trees" is just the lowest form of that type of argument.
However what all those people have in common is that they understand what skeptics etc. mean when they say "religion is irrational because no evidence" - so they try to offer evidence to argue that it is, in fact, a justified belief.
Your defense on the other hand was that "hey is it irrational to want to live forever"? That's like saying "what's wrong with wanting to breathe underwater? therefore believing that you can breathe underwater is totally rational!" - you don't even understand the distinction between wishful thinking and fact!
Look at the trees people do, which makes them smarter than you, in this regard.
Alright, time to prove my point, you are absolutely a stupid person.
Some people argue for the rationality of specific religious claims - that Jesus' resurrection is historically probable, that empiricism points towards creation etc.; "look at the trees" is just the lowest form of that type of argument.
At no point did I discuss the rationality of specific religious claims. At no point did I endorse an organized religion, or any religious doctrine.
I said, and very clearly, the concept of religion isn't really irrational, because it isn't irrational.
It might seem irrational to you because you don't have a firm understanding of cognitive bias (which is why you tried to claim they're irrational by default, an absurd claim.)
This is the first time you're trying to backtrack by adding nuances like "not necessarily".
No, I just decided to use different language due to your extreme illiteracy and reading comp problems.
However what all those people have in common is that they understand what skeptics etc. mean when they say "religion is irrational because no evidence" - so they try to offer evidence to argue that it is, in fact, a justified belief.
See above.
Your defense on the other hand was that "hey is it irrational to want to live forever"? That's like saying "what's wrong with wanting to breathe underwater? therefore believing that you can breathe underwater is totally rational!" - you don't even understand the distinction between wishful thinking and fact!
Look, you're very clearly a pretty uneducated person, you very clearly don't understand cognitive bias or even why religion exists.
That's made even more obvious by this bat-shit crazy comparison. You seem to be trying to argue spirituality as a whole is irrational, it's pretty irrational to think you can breathe underwater, objectively. It's not irrational to believe in an after life, or some type of higher power.
A bias shielding you from the fear of death is actually pretty rational and useful, for a number of reasons.
Alright, time to prove my point, you are absolutely a stupid person.
Some people argue for the rationality of specific religious claims - that Jesus' resurrection is historically probable, that empiricism points towards creation etc.; "look at the trees" is just the lowest form of that type of argument.
At no point did I discuss the rationality of specific religious claims. At no point did I endorse an organized religion, or any religious doctrine. I said, and very clearly, the concept of religion isn't really irrational, because it isn't irrational.
You didn't discuss the rationality of specific religious claims, but only general religious claims? What?
What I said was, the people doing those kinds of things are smarter and more aware than you - I didn't liken you to them, I said you were dumber than them.
So why are you defending yourself, saying "at no point you said x"? No you didn't - the people who say x are smarter than you. Still trouble getting it?
Why the FUCK do I need to repeat this to you. If you're this bad at reading, why should anyone waste time discussing the nuances of political ideologies with you?
It might seem irrational to you because you don't have a firm understanding of cognitive bias (which is why you tried to claim they're irrational by default, an absurd claim.)
Bias is a form of irrationality, I don't know what the fuck you were thinking. That's why it's called bias.
No, I just decided to use different language due to your extreme illiteracy and reading comp problems.
You don't even understand when I contrast you with religious apologists rather than liken you to them, and you're saying I can't raed?
However what all those people have in common is that they understand what skeptics etc. mean when they say "religion is irrational because no evidence" - so they try to offer evidence to argue that it is, in fact, a justified belief.
See above.
Yes, exactly - see above. Where I said those people are smarter than you, while you're retarded.
That's made even more obvious by this bat-shit crazy comparison. You seem to be trying to argue spirituality as a whole is irrational, it's pretty irrational to think you can breathe underwater, objectively. It's not irrational to believe in an after life, or some type of higher power.
Without evidence, uh, yes it is. What did you think?
A bias shielding you from the fear of death is actually pretty rational and useful, for a number of reasons.
A bias shielding you from the fear of reading about people drowning in water is rational and useful, for a number of reasons (as long as you don't try it yourself, of course).
A bias shielding you from the fear of death is actually pretty rational and useful, for a number of reasons.
Oh and wasn't this what one of your excerpts claimed about Nazis? That their notion of "truth" was tied to what was useful for their goals, as opposed to what was actually the case?
And now you're employing it yourself / claim religion is rational because it employs the same mechanism as the nazis (who weren't rational). Great.
Like... Do nazis really think that having an ideology that is absolutely based on racism, antisemitism, sexism, homophia, xenophobia and social darwinism (aka stuff that got millions of people killed, raped, tortured, traumatized in all of human history) is similar to being gay, aka just liking the same sex, which literally does not hurt anybody at all. Do... like... I just...
Nah, USSR for example was really big on putting women into the workforce, pretty much completely eliminating the role of the housewife right from the start. US had to follow suit after the WW2, because convincingly demonstrated 2x increased productivity was nothing to sneeze at.
Fun fact, maternity leave is called literally "decree leave" in Russian (only, of course, in Russian) because it was established on 14th (27th) of November 1917 by a decree of the Soviet of People's Commissars, first in the world btw.
I mean the USSR kind of had to since 20 or so million of their men got smoked during WW2. Gotta make babushka work in the factory after 20% of your males are dead.
Well, as I said, they were aiming for that right from the start, proof provided.
Second, they were pretty successful at that before getting killed by the bureaucracy cancer and whatnot: they won a war fought on their own territory and emerged from that with more tanks than anyone else, they were behind on the fission bomb but beat the US to the fusion bomb, and I remember reading quite a vivid explanation by Stephen King what the launch of Sputnik meant to the American public: the Russians have beaten us, and they have beaten us in developing a vehicle that can deliver a nuclear bomb to any point on the planet, like, seeing that they can give it enough kick to never land at all, and that was scary as shit apparently.
That's great and all, but the point is that wives and babies were not invented by Nazis - much as I would like to credit our progressive Aryan brothers with the invention of the family and the preservation of humanity.
Yeah, sure, "woman's place is in the kitchen and also making babies (and also praying in Church)" was not invented by the Nazis, but naturally and excitedly adopted, so it's not really all that weird to have people finding that a bit sexist.
So that's why your comment was exactly as retarded as I'd expect from an amerifat child with no knowledge about nazis or anything whatsoever tbh.
Look, I think families and children and pregnant women is a good, sexist, natural policy to pursue for any culture. It is both problematic and anti-science for you to attribute the invention of that policy to Nazis, shitlord.
On the object level: encouraging reproduction (for example by giving people with children money) and reducing women to "children, kitchen, church" are two very different things.
On the meta-level: being "why would anyone consider Nazi policies as sexist? :3", then going "that's just a good, sexist, natural policy to pursue" means that you're fucking retarded since you thought that that retarded shit was going to fly here of all places.
Nazi policy was a hell of a lot more than this. They straight up removed women from the workforce to make unemployment better and started keeping women out of college and education in general.
They even got feminists to fall in line:
After 1918, women were enfranchised and able to vote and stand for election at every level from local councils up to the Reichstag. They were formally given the right to enter the major professions, and the part they played in public life was far more prominent than it had been before the war. Correspondingly, the hostility of those male supremacists who believed that women’s place was in the home now won a much wider hearing. Their disapproval was reinforced by the far more open display of sexuality than before the war in the liberated atmosphere of the big cities. Even more shocking to conservatives was the public campaigning for gay rights by individuals such as Magnus Hirschfeld, founder of the harmless-sounding Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, in 1897. In fact, Hirschfeld was openly homosexual, and in numerous publications propagated the controversial idea that homosexuals were a ‘third sex’ whose orientation was the product of congenital rather than environmental factors. His Committee was dedicated to the abolition of Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, which outlawed ’indecent activity’ between adult males. What aroused the wrath of conservatives was the fact that in 1919 the Social Democratic state government of Prussia gave Hirschfeld a large grant to convert his informal Committee into a state-funded Institute for Sexual Science, with its premises in the grand Tiergarten district in the centre of the capital city. The Institute offered sex counselling, held popular question-and-answer sessions on topics like ‘what is the best way to have sex without making a baby?’ and campaigned for the reform of all the laws regulating sexual behaviour. Hirschfeld quickly built up a wide range of international contacts, organized in the World League for Sexual Reform, of which his Institute was the effective headquarters in the 1920s. He was the. driving force behind the spread of public and private birth control and sex counselling clinics in the Weimar Republic. Not surprisingly, he was repeatedly vilified by the Nationalists and the Nazis, whose attempt to tighten up the law still further, with the support of the Centre Party, was narrowly defeated by the votes of the Communists, Social Democrats and Democrats on the Criminal Law Reform Committee of the Reichstag in 1929.138
Nationalist hostility was driven by more than crude moral conservatism. Germany had lost 2 million men in the war, and yet the birth rate was still in rapid decline. Between 1900 and 1925, live births per thousand married women under the age of 45 fell very sharply indeed, from 280 to 146. Laws restricting the sale of condoms were eased in 1927, and by the early 1930s there were more than 1,600 vending machines in public places, with one Berlin firm alone producing 25 million condoms a year. Sex counselling centres were opened, offering contraceptive advice, and many of these, like Hirschfeld’s Institute, were funded or in some cases actually operated by the Prussian and other regional governments, to the outrage of moral conservatives. Abortion was far more controversial, not least because of the serious medical risks it entailed, but here, too, the law was relaxed, and the offence reduced in 1927 from a felony to a misdemeanour. The thundering denunciation of birth control by the Papal Encyclical Casti Connubii in December 1930 added fuel to the flames of debate, and in 1931 some 1,500 rallies and demonstrations were held in a massive Communist campaign against the evils of backstreet abortions.139
To many people, such campaigns seemed part of a deliberate plot to destroy the fertility and fecundity of the German race. Was it not, conservatives and radical nationalists asked, all the consequence of female emancipation and the morally subversive advocacy of sexuality untrammelled by any desire to procreate? To nationalists, the feminists seemed to be little better than national traitors for encouraging women to work outside the home. Yet the feminists themselves were scarcely less alarmed by the new atmosphere of sexual liberation. Most of them had castigated the double standard of sexual morality - freedom for men, purity for women - before the war, and advocated instead a single standard of sexual restraint for both sexes. Their puritanism, expressed in campaigns against pornographic books and sexually explicit films and paintings, and in denunciations of young women who preferred dance-halls to reading-groups, seemed ridiculous to many women amongst the younger generation, and by the late 1920s the traditional feminist organizations, already deprived of their principal cause by the achievement of female suffrage, were complaining of an ageing membership and a failing appeal to the young.140 Feminism was on the defensive, and the middle-class women who were the mainstay of its support were deserting their traditional liberal milieu for parties of the right. The feminist movement felt the need to defend itself against charges of undermining the German race by insisting on its support for nationalist revision of the Treaty of Versailles, for rearmament, for family values and for sexual self-restraint. As time was to show, the appeal of right-wing extremism to women proved no less potent than it was to men.141
pretty much completely eliminating the role of the housewife right from the start
Do you know how they did it? They paid everyone shitty salary. No matter how successful you were, how hard you work, you'll get fixed payment. It was so shitty that you counld't be a house wife because your husband could not make enough money if he worked alone. But when two people worked, surviving was quite possible.
They promoted the usual picture of women being the house wife, caring for the children and housework, which, as you may know, is sexist by todays standards.
By every other standard at that time. That does not mean it wasn´t sexism, it was just socially accepted sexism. Seperation was also racism, no matter how much it was accepted back in the day.
Promoting women to have a career is not the same as promoting men to just stay at home. And since women are still getting pregnant, it´s fine. You can actually manage a career and a pregnancy, which is why kindergartens are important.
Its like saying communism or capitalism were based on sexism because people who practiced those economic systems held sexist beliefs. Its just innacurate.
The Nazis promoted Kinder, Küche, Kirche and basicially took a step back with the progress that was made. If the belief of your party is that women should be housewifes, and if that is part of the ideology, which it is, then it is sexism. It was an actual part of their ideology that women should be housewifes and care about their children.
You sound like an ugly women. Why is it sexism for women to stay at home and cook, but not sexism for women to cuck men and eradicate their genes throughout thousands of years?
I'm phsyicially ugly, what does that have to do with anything. And it's not sexist to refuse sex, that is a basic human right. Called bodily autonomy. But yeah, passing on your genes is not a right, it's a privilege. And it's not sexist because women don't say "I won't have sex with you because you're a man." And since sex is just a desire and not a right, it's not sexism and not even oppressive.
Eh, I just hate Nazis since they are kind of horrible people and I would be discriminated against by them, but yeah, whatever you wanna think. And there are other groups of people I'm frustrated with, Nazis are not the only ignorant people on the world.
Do you think you're funny? Like honestly, I think you have some sort of developmental deficiency. Have you been diagnosed or were your parents scared of doctors?
You've made me realize that my posts here represent a massive decline in the quality of discourse this sub is known for. I formally retract my poop dick post. I'll think long and hard about posting here again, until I can straighten up.
I really wish I could have those brain cells back. I hope someone's just been memeing a little too hard and that there isn't someone out there going #notallnazis.
The point is - you can't fight ideologies or ideas. Like at all. You can't eradicate views, however twisted they are. It's not possible. People believe in flat earth. In god. In luxury space gay communism.
That's now how it works, so if someone wants to believe in genocide just let them do it. Preferably openly, because I don't fucking want a hidden net of people that secrety want to kill someone (just in theory). I want a fucking star on each of them, so I would know just in case something happens who might be responsible.
And stupid libtards just RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE about what they don't like and get Trump elected, and more people becoming nazis just to oppose lib madness. But hey at least they all do that openly.
Which time - when US fought communism and now commies in all universities or when europe fought nazism and they still got nazists?
You can't fight ideologies means no matter what you do there will be fans. It's like fighting gays. Christians were pretty "successful" in fighting them right?
What exactly do you mean they "have universities"? Try not to come off as stupid as you currently are.
but it's ok
You're still retardedly comparing some dumb college kids and professors to Soviet Union. If communists ltrly seized the universities, it would very much not be ok.
That won’t work though. If people avoid nazis they would become more closed and will limit their social contacts to each other and eventually radicalize even more.
What you really want is to know what they are up to.
That won’t work though. If people avoid nazis they would become more closed and will limit their social contacts to each other and eventually radicalize even more.
What you really want is to know what they are up to.
Okay, so I guess you've given up on the actual point and have decided to nitpick my wording. I won't defend my unintentional vagueness, because we all know you knew what I meant and wanted to take the low hanging fruit. If you plan to return to the topic at hand, feel free.
No I didn't miss your point. You missed mine. You seem to think advocating violence period is wrong. That's stupid. What's wrong with advocating violence against those who advocate violence? There's a reason World War 2 happened. I get the apprehension around advocating punching Nazis because it's easy to go from punching actual violent Nazis to just punching people who's politics differ from yours, but Nazis are fucking terrible people and when you walk around spreading your terrible beliefs, no one is gonna be surprised or feel particularly bad when you get punched for it.
No self-defense does not make one a murderer. We all have a right to defend ourselves, and if you're argument is that makes us no better than Nazis than you're a fool.
You have the right to defend yourselves so long as a Nazi is actually attempting violence. As long as they're merely talking about it, you cannot defend against words with violence.
Have you heard of fighting words? Words so derogatory or inflammatory that a violent response is considered legally justified? Yea telling someone you think their people should be genocided seems at least a little inflammatory, no?
With that logic, you could say that mildly negative comments indicate a repressed desire to commit murder, and cart someone away for that. If you have to assume someone's intent, then you have no proof of a crime, and despite the state of the legal system, I don't believe you should be able to take legal action for speech.
Nazis are quite explicit in their beliefs. There is no repressed desire. They are being quite honest when they say they support genocide. I'm not saying they should be arrested. They should be open and honest so people can see exactly the disgusting shit they believe. I'm just saying you can't expect people to reasonably be ok with hearing people talk about how their people should be murdered and not get violent.
I can expect people not to do the thing they're angry at others for supporting. It's pure hypocrisy, and the side that initiates the action is the one guilty of a crime. I'd rather arrest Nazis who overstep the law than the people who want to defend against them.
It's eminently clear that I'm not, if you read it at all. I'm denouncing extralegal violence against people you think are evil or inferior, or whose speech you disagree with, because even the most depraved speech is still a right as long as it's not put into action.
201 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-09-28
It's shit like this that makes my life worse as a Eurasian because even if you look amazing you're still a subhuman because Asian women happily marry guys who look like they've been in industrial accidents over an Asian guy. It makes Asian looking males look like the worst fucking losers on earth. The guy is absolutely offensive to look at. Like his face literally makes my stomach churl because he's so ugly. I'd even be mad if he had a white girlfriend People feel they have the liberty to say of course your dad is white. Because white guys see shit like this where some fucking quasimodo looking freak can get Asian girls and they use it as ammo as to how shittyy asian guys are...
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Basically_Trash 2017-09-28
It's all those jerk nazis in the 30's and 40's giving the real anime girl nazis a bad name.
1 Washington_vape 2017-09-28
Better not make fun of their waifus then they'll really show you what genocide means
1 SovietWarfare 2017-09-28
They were just a bunch of bakas!
1 Basically_Trash 2017-09-28
I-it's not like I want to kill all the jews or anything b-baka
1 Neon_needles 2017-09-28
Goku_Kamahamas_AnnFranksHouse.jpg
1 TossMeAwayToTheMount 2017-09-28
Hitler sided with Japan to conquest world with cartoons for the socially inept. Big if true
1 MrAlphonzo 2017-09-28
"Not all nazis want to kill people." Wait a minute. Something here is not right. I can't put my finger on it.
1 a_normal_human 2017-09-28
>implying jews are people
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
(((We're))) some sort of mythical creature, apparently. Just ask /u/JasonJewnova
1 JasonJewnova 2017-09-28
Gimme back my gold you curly haired devil
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
It's uh... accumulating compound interest... it'll be wayyyy more valuable in the future. Trust me!
1 JasonJewnova 2017-09-28
Wow, thanks Goldbergstein!
Btw I was thinking of converting, how soon after do I get invited to the secret meetings?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
We've been over this before, you won't give up your foreskin.
1 JasonJewnova 2017-09-28
:( you can't make an exception for me?
C'mon put in a good word for me at your next (((council meeting)))
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
https://i.imgur.com/U5mUs2N.gif
1 FolkLoki 2017-09-28
Oh, there are plenty of Nazis who don't want to kill people.
Because dead people don't want anything.
1 attaca89 2017-09-28
Nazi organizer did an AMA recently. Their platform was damn near a mirror of Bernie Sanders. Not surprising given that they're socialists. Except nazi guy also wanted Indian reservations, but for wypipo. No darkies allowed.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
So do I! I'm guessing our implementation plans are different tho.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
Depends on how you define "nazis" - is it "national socialists", or only the higher-ups and SS thugs who were perpetrating the genocide most pro-NS people didn't know about?
Is every Holocaust denier practicing taqiyya just to make another happen, or do some want to restore the official Hitler policies without the whole murder thing (that they deny happened in the first place)?
The latter camp definitely exists, but I suppose the question is if they're called nazis or something else - according to (((Wikipedia))), it's really just an abbreviation for national socialism, so who knows.
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
Lol, are you trying to claim your average nazi didn't know what was going on?
Do you have any idea how absurd that is? It wasn't only the higher-ups. The Nazis even got busted gassing the handicapped and Hitler had to halt the program after Catholics and other religious groups challenged them on it.
Nazism, as an ideology, is explicitly based on the extermination of inferior people. And national socialism is very clearly fascism, and there's no such thing as export brand fascism, from the anatomy of fascism:
So when you see someone identitfy as a nazi, they are endorsing Nazism. And because Nazism was literally based on the extermination of other people, you can't be a nazi that doesn't want to kill other people.
I don't even think the "latter camp" exists. They're just moderating their views because they know they have no power, if any of these people took power you can bet your ass "protective custody" camps would start popping up all over the place.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
They were ready to cooperate with aspiring genociders?
You can "succeed" merely by pushing those "inferior people" down into the lower ranks of society - another way would be deportation.
Your excerpt doesn't support your claim that "nazism is primarily about extermination", even if it's true.
What's an "average nazi" - an average citizen, or average nsdap member, or average bright-eyed busybody?
As far as I knew, the extermination was happening in secret - but a lot of the citizens "understood on some level" what was going on, but chose to ignore it. Traudl Junge said she'd seen people being led away and thought it was "obvious" where they were going and she had no excuse lying to herself (even though she didn't know for sure).
I don't know most of the details regarding what was known to whom at what point - and distinctions have to be made between the different periods: after the NS took over and banned free speech, people were, for some reason, more willing to cooperate, shut their mouths or look the other way.
Again - are you referring to the "real Nazis" who were schmieding their evil plans behind closed doors and coating them in propaganda, or the ideology that was sold to the common people before the regime took over and then while it was in power?
If it's the latter, the primary ideals were an authoritarian government that refused to give away its power, and the glory of the nation - disempowering the "parasites in our midsts" and the notion that they were trying to bring it down, was certainly among the central tenets; the extreme solution to that problem that they ended up going with, however, wasn't.
As for modern neonazis, that's again a different group and you need to look at their views on their own terms - what are they the "new" incarnation of? The murderous SS officers, or the common people who appreciated the national success? Something inbetween?
The people back then didn't know about the death camps, for the most part, some were undoubtedly in denial - so now these new people are also in denial, in the form of revisionism; what's the evidence for the claim that all the revisionists are secretly lying and actually aren't revisionists at heart? Are all "Islam apologists" and all tankies lying as well, or only some of them?
This again needs to be distinguished - is this what you can naturally expect to happen if they take over (due to natural, observed human processes - mutual radicalization in an echochamber, the more vicious members swimming to the top etc.), or is it literally their conscious secret goal already now?
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
Incorrect, do you not know what the term "Darwinian" struggle means?
They were willing to cooperate because they were far-right nationalists and more so than anything wanted to "restore Germany to greatness."
You can find letters written by people married to Jews, very upset with how they were being treated, yet still hysterical with joy at the fact Germany was taking Austria and stuff like that.
Have you ever looked at Hitlers early rhetoric, have you ever read my struggle?
Or:
1
Absolutely untrue, see above.
No, they're Nazis, and again, Nazism is absolutely based on the extermination of inferior peoples.
You realize the Nazis literally got caught gassing the handicapped, correct? This was public knowledge:
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
Not all evolution ends with death - sometimes species get split in different locations, or certain traits just become less common etc.
Weren't they talking about "deportation" all the time? Was Hitler talking about genocide before or after he was elected, was it something that the public that bought the ideology believed in?
So they weren't behind the idea of treating Jews badly, but they cared about the glory of their nation and the Lebensraum etc. - seems like that was the primary tenet of the ideology and not the mistreatment, let alone extermination, of subgroups.
So "removal" it is - you just said that's not what Darwinian struggle meant, but your quote talks about removal "from Germany".
So that, once again, corroborates my "thesis" rather than yours: namely that nazism was a spectrum just like most ideologies and religions - on the one hand you've got Hitler who had been fantasizing about genocide (well, "violent removal" according to your quotes) for decades, and on the other end you've got supporting citizens who didn't even read the book where he expresses that while much more drawn by the whole glory of the nation thing.
Once again: people looking the other way was an important part of it.
That was especially based on his "6. Parteitag" speech - only a few little mentions of "race views" in what is otherwise 10 minutes praising glory, success, the believing citizenry and a strong authority government; if, as you say, a tribalist spin on de Sadean libertinage was supposed to be the MAIN appeal of the ideology that's what he would've been focusing on instead - certainly could've mentioned some murder just to satisfy the audience's inherent bloodlust, but no.
Now you're just being obtuse.
Well you just said that in the preivous post.
Were the only people who protested opponents of nazism to begin with?
And also, what I said earlier: with people being arrested and put in camps for criticizing the government, it's no wonder many would shut their mouths; their silence is no longer a reliable sign of agreement once free speech is banned.
And yet in your own very excerpt, it says that some of the protesters were put in camps and arrested - and others were on the verge of being hanged.
The less certain the retaliation by the regime is, the more brave people will speak up, but some would still understandable choose to shut their mouths - would their executions cause massive unrests? What if that scandal hadn't come out?
A lot of Germans (incl. party members) already hated the Kristallnacht - were they all anti-nazists or were they still ideology proponents?
Were they making any excuses for it to remain supporters?:
Good example - he talks about paying people to leave. Do you have evidence that this is just taqiyya and he actually wants genocide - or even anything more malevolent than what he's officially saying?
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
The "deportation" was only a temporary solution because they knew the war was coming, Goebbels, for example, in his diary provides a good glimpse into what they had planned to do after the war:
Indeed - Hitler had choreographed what he planned to do in a public speech, he had said if the Jews started another world war, and the US intervened - then he would annihilate them in Europe.
Or another example:
Incorrect - the letter I'm talking about wasn't kind to Jews. This woman's husband was a Jew, but they didn't associate with other jews, they supported the Nazis going after "international jewery" they just didn't believe themselves to be part of that.
I'd suggest you look into the solmitz letters, it provides an interesting look into this. Only after Nazi policy started impacting them did they care about the Jews.
Lebensraum entailed extermination, you know that, correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
And for a little more, we can look at letters from a female German worker in the east during this time period:
You'll have to give me time to respond to the rest.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-09-28
Lebensraum
The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm], English: "living space") refers to policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901, Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion. The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.
Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
Alright can I just briefly bring this back to basics:
What this disagreement is about, is how narrowly/broadly "Nazism" is defined, and how narrow/broad the spectrum of this "Nazism" is - or maybe whether it's a spectrum or a monolithic ideology.
If the spectrum/definition is broad enough, then the murderous ones would be the "extremists" (led by those who started out with extremist intentions and carried them out when coming into power, esp. of course Hitler himself) and then other ones would be moderates - if it's narrow, then extremists simply = Nazis and then the moderates need some different name.
The amount or degree of said moderation is also in question here.
These issues apply both to the original historical nazism, and modern neonazis, separately (but connected, obviously).
So that's what the discussion's about.
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
I'm not sure we should even call these people Nazis. Nazism is a brand of fascism very specific to Germany that had ideological roots dating all the way back to Bismarck. Modern "neo-nazis" tend to either be Russian or American with no cultural relation to this.
Evans:
First and foremost I'd simply consider them fascists. And I don't think fascism is an ideology that can be moderate. From Paxton's anatomy of fascism:
This is why I have a hard time beliecing "moderate" wanna be nazis can exist.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
Well these are the people we're talking about here all the time - maybe it's best to establish some kind of consistent system of terms that actually makes sense, and then stick with it. Especially when getting srs about who should be punched or not, who's an apologist for what etc.
Religion is irrational (and wasn't formed in philosophical discourse either), and most "ideologies" are emotional and collectivist even when they don't acknowledge it - doesn't mean they can't exist in a moderate form; in fact they always tend to exist on spctra.
The most moderate version of Islamism still means getting religion into politics and pushing it on people to some degree - cause that's the definition. A spectrum can have a defined limit on one end; however in this case the degree can vary. Salafism/Wahhabism has much tighter limits - not sure what the most moderate version of those looks like right now, except that it's less extreme than Isis.
Nothing in your excerpt confirms the notion that fascism is necessarily murderous - it's about tribal dominance, authoritarian hierarchy and some degree of totalitarianism, but the form those can take is left more open.
Is Richard Spencer a (neo)Nazi, if his idea of paying foreigners to leave is the extent of what he wants? If not, does his appropriation of some nazi imagery meanyou can carry around the swastika, say sieg heil and triumph of the will and still not be a nazi? What would he then be - a proto/almost nazi?
These terms need to be defined, and people's views accurately represented.
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
I completely disagree. Religion is absolutely rational, the we understand the cognitive biases that go into religion pretty well. The vast majority of religious people are no threat.
At this point I'm starting to suspect you're desperate to avoid admitting to what fascism is, the deflections to religion, or Islamism are pretty weird.
There has never, in history, been a fascist movement that wasn't murderous, at any point. Can you show me one?
Stop believing what wanna be Nazis say, this is pure bullshit. What happens when people don't want to accept money to leave the country, which would likely be the majority of minorities? What happens then?
Do you think the wanna be Nazis just say "oh well" and call it a day? Like I said. You're walking right into the fascist trap, from anatomy of fascism:
There is only one fascist cycle - one, it does not end any other way. There is no such thing as a moderate fascist, only fascists trying to appear moderate to gain power, then the radicalization happens.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have wasted my time on an elaborate troll - in my defense, you hadn't been giving off any signs up until this point, and this one was probably planted as well.
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
The fact you think I'm a troll is pretty hilarious, you don't understand the cognitive bias that goes into religion and tried to claim it was somehow irrational.
There's nothing irrational about religion really, it's the result of the way our brains work.
It's natural and completely rational to fear death.
It's rational and completely rational to want an ordered world, everything to happen for a reason.
The religion comparison you made is talked about in The third Reich trilogy too:
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
Cognitive bias is a form of irrationality. "Our brains work" in irrational ways.
If you're not a troll, the only other option is that you're an insane ideologue - in either case I don't see any point in continuing to play along, considering this thread's probably on p3 somewhere now and no one's reading this anymore.
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
I copy pasted the argument on religion dude, feel free to go read it.
You're just making highly questionable arguments for some reason. And it all seems to come from you thinking there's such thing as a moderate fascist, when there just isn't.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
I read it.
And you just said religion was rational - that makes all your other claims that much more reliable eh
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
I said there's nothing irrational about it, because there isn't.
Do you believe there's something irrational about fearing death?
Something irrational about wanting an ordered world?
Maybe quit trying to be an edgy internet fedora clad neckbeard and realize that just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're irrational.
The same is absolutely not true for a Nazis, or fascist.
Nazies, no matter what, reject democracy and human rights. Fascists, no matter what, reject democracy and human rights.
And in the view of Weimar Nazis, they believed themselves to be rational because they believed science supported their worldview.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
No - but getting into the car of a stranger who tells you "I've got the solution to the fear of death and a chaotic world!" is irrational.
I don't know what kind of rock you must have been living under in order to have this weak of a response to the common widespread notion that religion = irrational.
And no, frequenting message boards where atheists are called fedorafags isn't an excuse - naive religious rural people live in communities that think all atheists are blood sucking devil worshippers, and they STILL have better arguments for religion such as "look at the trees".
So you see why your comments about religion appear so bad, it's hard to believe they're not coming from a troll, right? Maybe poll r/Drama on this issue, though make sure they get it's srs lol
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
This is such an absurd statement I don't even know where to start.
Widespread where? Edgy fedora communities on Reddit?
Yeah, because clearly that's what I said, "look at the trees" is what was said. I should have probably stopped replying after I put your historically illiterate drivel in the dumpster 4 comments ago.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
I'm sure you don't.
Excluding edgy fedora communities on reddit and communist tyrannies, like half of Europe is non-religious, a great number of Americans are very moderately religious, and as I just said: even some of the most radical and/or clueless isolated Christians understand the claim that "religion is irrational" and have better responses to it than you do.
No, look at the trees is a MORE INTELLIGENT, AWARE RESPONSE than what you had to offer - can you even fucking read?
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
Are you like learning disabled? Not being religious doesn't mean you believe religion to be irrational. I'm not religious, I'm an atheist, religion, the mechanics behind it, are in fact rational.
Again - the vast majority of people do not believe what you believe, so your claim it was widespread doesn't actually hold weight.
To be clear, me saying the mechanics behind religion are not necessarily irrational is a worse argument that saying "look at the trees?"
Those fedora chambers really did a number on you, didn't they?
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
When I say "even some of the most radical or retarded/isolated Christians understand this notion", this obviously implies that => the enlightened urban moderates or non-religious ones sure do as well.
Yes, it is a widespread notion, however what's even more widespread are people who UNDERSTAND said notion on a basic level even if they disagree.
You don't even understand it, which makes you super retarded / hard to take at face value.
This is the first time you're trying to backtrack by adding nuances like "not necessarily".
Some people argue for the rationality of specific religious claims - that Jesus' resurrection is historically probable, that empiricism points towards creation etc.; "look at the trees" is just the lowest form of that type of argument.
However what all those people have in common is that they understand what skeptics etc. mean when they say "religion is irrational because no evidence" - so they try to offer evidence to argue that it is, in fact, a justified belief.
Your defense on the other hand was that "hey is it irrational to want to live forever"? That's like saying "what's wrong with wanting to breathe underwater? therefore believing that you can breathe underwater is totally rational!" - you don't even understand the distinction between wishful thinking and fact!
Look at the trees people do, which makes them smarter than you, in this regard.
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
Alright, time to prove my point, you are absolutely a stupid person.
At no point did I discuss the rationality of specific religious claims. At no point did I endorse an organized religion, or any religious doctrine.
I said, and very clearly, the concept of religion isn't really irrational, because it isn't irrational.
It might seem irrational to you because you don't have a firm understanding of cognitive bias (which is why you tried to claim they're irrational by default, an absurd claim.)
No, I just decided to use different language due to your extreme illiteracy and reading comp problems.
See above.
Look, you're very clearly a pretty uneducated person, you very clearly don't understand cognitive bias or even why religion exists.
That's made even more obvious by this bat-shit crazy comparison. You seem to be trying to argue spirituality as a whole is irrational, it's pretty irrational to think you can breathe underwater, objectively. It's not irrational to believe in an after life, or some type of higher power.
A bias shielding you from the fear of death is actually pretty rational and useful, for a number of reasons.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-09-28
You didn't discuss the rationality of specific religious claims, but only general religious claims? What?
What I said was, the people doing those kinds of things are smarter and more aware than you - I didn't liken you to them, I said you were dumber than them.
So why are you defending yourself, saying "at no point you said x"? No you didn't - the people who say x are smarter than you. Still trouble getting it?
Why the FUCK do I need to repeat this to you. If you're this bad at reading, why should anyone waste time discussing the nuances of political ideologies with you?
Bias is a form of irrationality, I don't know what the fuck you were thinking. That's why it's called bias.
You don't even understand when I contrast you with religious apologists rather than liken you to them, and you're saying I can't raed?
Yes, exactly - see above. Where I said those people are smarter than you, while you're retarded.
Without evidence, uh, yes it is. What did you think?
A bias shielding you from the fear of reading about people drowning in water is rational and useful, for a number of reasons (as long as you don't try it yourself, of course).
Oh and wasn't this what one of your excerpts claimed about Nazis? That their notion of "truth" was tied to what was useful for their goals, as opposed to what was actually the case?
And now you're employing it yourself / claim religion is rational because it employs the same mechanism as the nazis (who weren't rational). Great.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Like... Do nazis really think that having an ideology that is absolutely based on racism, antisemitism, sexism, homophia, xenophobia and social darwinism (aka stuff that got millions of people killed, raped, tortured, traumatized in all of human history) is similar to being gay, aka just liking the same sex, which literally does not hurt anybody at all. Do... like... I just...
1 ligga4nife 2017-09-28
Yes
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-09-28
In 1943, the SS began to carry out Hitler's new directive: kill all women.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-09-28
You don't kill women, you big silly, you promote Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-09-28
That's what everyone promotes, though.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-09-28
Nah, USSR for example was really big on putting women into the workforce, pretty much completely eliminating the role of the housewife right from the start. US had to follow suit after the WW2, because convincingly demonstrated 2x increased productivity was nothing to sneeze at.
Fun fact, maternity leave is called literally "decree leave" in Russian (only, of course, in Russian) because it was established on 14th (27th) of November 1917 by a decree of the Soviet of People's Commissars, first in the world btw.
1 keepittropical 2017-09-28
I mean the USSR kind of had to since 20 or so million of their men got smoked during WW2. Gotta make babushka work in the factory after 20% of your males are dead.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-09-28
Well, as I said, they were aiming for that right from the start, proof provided.
Second, they were pretty successful at that before getting killed by the bureaucracy cancer and whatnot: they won a war fought on their own territory and emerged from that with more tanks than anyone else, they were behind on the fission bomb but beat the US to the fusion bomb, and I remember reading quite a vivid explanation by Stephen King what the launch of Sputnik meant to the American public: the Russians have beaten us, and they have beaten us in developing a vehicle that can deliver a nuclear bomb to any point on the planet, like, seeing that they can give it enough kick to never land at all, and that was scary as shit apparently.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-09-28
That's great and all, but the point is that wives and babies were not invented by Nazis - much as I would like to credit our progressive Aryan brothers with the invention of the family and the preservation of humanity.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-09-28
Yeah, sure, "woman's place is in the kitchen and also making babies (and also praying in Church)" was not invented by the Nazis, but naturally and excitedly adopted, so it's not really all that weird to have people finding that a bit sexist.
So that's why your comment was exactly as retarded as I'd expect from an amerifat child with no knowledge about nazis or anything whatsoever tbh.
Delete your account
please. You suck.1 BigLordShiggot 2017-09-28
Look, I think families and children and pregnant women is a good, sexist, natural policy to pursue for any culture. It is both problematic and anti-science for you to attribute the invention of that policy to Nazis, shitlord.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-09-28
On the object level: encouraging reproduction (for example by giving people with children money) and reducing women to "children, kitchen, church" are two very different things.
On the meta-level: being "why would anyone consider Nazi policies as sexist? :3", then going "that's just a good, sexist, natural policy to pursue" means that you're fucking retarded since you thought that that retarded shit was going to fly here of all places.
Keep yourself safe.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-09-28
Reported for TwoXposting, baka.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-09-28
/r/slatestarcodex's culture war threads want your seriousposting back, you rationalist retard.
1 Unironicshitpostr 2017-09-28
This but unironically
1 pizzashill 2017-09-28
Nazi policy was a hell of a lot more than this. They straight up removed women from the workforce to make unemployment better and started keeping women out of college and education in general.
They even got feminists to fall in line:
After 1918, women were enfranchised and able to vote and stand for election at every level from local councils up to the Reichstag. They were formally given the right to enter the major professions, and the part they played in public life was far more prominent than it had been before the war. Correspondingly, the hostility of those male supremacists who believed that women’s place was in the home now won a much wider hearing. Their disapproval was reinforced by the far more open display of sexuality than before the war in the liberated atmosphere of the big cities. Even more shocking to conservatives was the public campaigning for gay rights by individuals such as Magnus Hirschfeld, founder of the harmless-sounding Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, in 1897. In fact, Hirschfeld was openly homosexual, and in numerous publications propagated the controversial idea that homosexuals were a ‘third sex’ whose orientation was the product of congenital rather than environmental factors. His Committee was dedicated to the abolition of Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, which outlawed ’indecent activity’ between adult males. What aroused the wrath of conservatives was the fact that in 1919 the Social Democratic state government of Prussia gave Hirschfeld a large grant to convert his informal Committee into a state-funded Institute for Sexual Science, with its premises in the grand Tiergarten district in the centre of the capital city. The Institute offered sex counselling, held popular question-and-answer sessions on topics like ‘what is the best way to have sex without making a baby?’ and campaigned for the reform of all the laws regulating sexual behaviour. Hirschfeld quickly built up a wide range of international contacts, organized in the World League for Sexual Reform, of which his Institute was the effective headquarters in the 1920s. He was the. driving force behind the spread of public and private birth control and sex counselling clinics in the Weimar Republic. Not surprisingly, he was repeatedly vilified by the Nationalists and the Nazis, whose attempt to tighten up the law still further, with the support of the Centre Party, was narrowly defeated by the votes of the Communists, Social Democrats and Democrats on the Criminal Law Reform Committee of the Reichstag in 1929.138
1 Kekistanian9003 2017-09-28
Do you know how they did it? They paid everyone shitty salary. No matter how successful you were, how hard you work, you'll get fixed payment. It was so shitty that you counld't be a house wife because your husband could not make enough money if he worked alone. But when two people worked, surviving was quite possible.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
They promoted the usual picture of women being the house wife, caring for the children and housework, which, as you may know, is sexist by todays standards.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-09-28
But normal by every other standard and completely orthogonal to Nazism.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
By every other standard at that time. That does not mean it wasn´t sexism, it was just socially accepted sexism. Seperation was also racism, no matter how much it was accepted back in the day.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Hey at least they had acceptable birthrates.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-09-28
Women having babies is sexism. Which is why Russia's population never recovered.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
By this logic, the communists were sexist as well.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
And promoting the opposite is somehow not sexism.
But hey, less women giving birth because they want a career is what eventualy give us mayocide so I'm on board.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Promoting women to have a career is not the same as promoting men to just stay at home. And since women are still getting pregnant, it´s fine. You can actually manage a career and a pregnancy, which is why kindergartens are important.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Women already getting and idea of being a house wife sitting with kids stigmatized because apparently progressives call that an "opression".
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Welp, I´m a bastard child, bastard children are like automatic progressives
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-09-28
This is why I promote men giving birth. Mpreg will return the white race to dominance.
1 0987654231 2017-09-28
So did every other country at the time
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
It is still sexism. What is your point?
1 0987654231 2017-09-28
If you look back in time everyone looks like a Savage
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Yep, true
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Its like saying communism or capitalism were based on sexism because people who practiced those economic systems held sexist beliefs. Its just innacurate.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
The Nazis promoted Kinder, Küche, Kirche and basicially took a step back with the progress that was made. If the belief of your party is that women should be housewifes, and if that is part of the ideology, which it is, then it is sexism. It was an actual part of their ideology that women should be housewifes and care about their children.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Oh well cool. I guess since you're a Nazi I should trust your expertise on this one.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
I'm a leftie tho, not a nazi
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Weird you seem to know a lot about Nazi ideology for someone who's "not a nazi"
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
This is what they teach in history class in high school
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Course they did, Nazi
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Hey, no Need to call me a Nazi just because you didn't go to school
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Touché
1 qaswexextort 2017-09-28
You sound like an ugly women. Why is it sexism for women to stay at home and cook, but not sexism for women to cuck men and eradicate their genes throughout thousands of years?
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
I'm phsyicially ugly, what does that have to do with anything. And it's not sexist to refuse sex, that is a basic human right. Called bodily autonomy. But yeah, passing on your genes is not a right, it's a privilege. And it's not sexist because women don't say "I won't have sex with you because you're a man." And since sex is just a desire and not a right, it's not sexism and not even oppressive.
1 qaswexextort 2017-09-28
What you're saying is true, I forgot to say through deceit. That's the part I disagree with.
1 Kekistanian9003 2017-09-28
With your sperging online, it's the source of it.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Eh, I doubt saying Nazis are sexist and you're not entitled to sex makes me ugly.
1 Kekistanian9003 2017-09-28
This does though.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Welp, physicially I am. So we're back to the beginning, what does being ugly have to do with anything?
1 Kekistanian9003 2017-09-28
Constant source of your frustration.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
I rather think I'm frustrated because Nazis are stupid, but well, whatever you think
1 Kekistanian9003 2017-09-28
Nah you just need someone who you will consider worse than you to sperg on.
Nazis are just on the fringe of society. If they did not exist, you'd have someone else to be frustrated about.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Eh, I just hate Nazis since they are kind of horrible people and I would be discriminated against by them, but yeah, whatever you wanna think. And there are other groups of people I'm frustrated with, Nazis are not the only ignorant people on the world.
1 aqouta 2017-09-28
But gay people are icky, why should they be happy if I'm not?
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Gayness is based on sexism, filth and buttsex. It lead to millions of unborn people and millions of fucked kids.
If you think that's similar to simply being nazi, which literally does not hurt anybody at all, you are a moron.
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
I.... I can´t even tell if you´re joking or not because this sounds like an argument that a Nazi would make
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
I'm Hitler.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-09-28
No, I'm Hitler.
1 Kekistanian9003 2017-09-28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u93bhAimFFU
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-09-28
I can't tell what the fuck is up with that weird apostrophe
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
I got used to doing it like this, I dunno
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-09-28
Are you a slant eyed?
1 AceWeeaboo 2017-09-28
Nope
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-09-28
Then I don't even know how you get that weird slant apostrophe
1 Sarge_Ward 2017-09-28
Just give up by this point
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
According to reddit you can have up to 20 letters in your username, which leves me at least 999990999 more tries.
1 attaca89 2017-09-28
Sexism and racism are based in fact, tho. Faggism is just based on molested men with broken minds and a scat fetish
1 ay_what_up 2017-09-28
this sub used to be funny
1 attaca89 2017-09-28
If you don't think poop dick is funny, I don't know what to tell you.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Do you think you're funny? Like honestly, I think you have some sort of developmental deficiency. Have you been diagnosed or were your parents scared of doctors?
1 attaca89 2017-09-28
You've made me realize that my posts here represent a massive decline in the quality of discourse this sub is known for. I formally retract my poop dick post. I'll think long and hard about posting here again, until I can straighten up.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Just keep yourself safe and you'll be fine, my dude.
1 ahbslldud 2017-09-28
that's a god damn lie and you know it
1 OccasionallyClueless 2017-09-28
I really wish I could have those brain cells back. I hope someone's just been memeing a little too hard and that there isn't someone out there going #notallnazis.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
The point is - you can't fight ideologies or ideas. Like at all. You can't eradicate views, however twisted they are. It's not possible. People believe in flat earth. In god. In luxury space gay communism.
That's now how it works, so if someone wants to believe in genocide just let them do it. Preferably openly, because I don't fucking want a hidden net of people that secrety want to kill someone (just in theory). I want a fucking star on each of them, so I would know just in case something happens who might be responsible.
And stupid libtards just RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE about what they don't like and get Trump elected, and more people becoming nazis just to oppose lib madness. But hey at least they all do that openly.
1 ay_what_up 2017-09-28
too long, downvoted, ur gay
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Worked last time.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Which time - when US fought communism and now commies in all universities or when europe fought nazism and they still got nazists?
You can't fight ideologies means no matter what you do there will be fans. It's like fighting gays. Christians were pretty "successful" in fighting them right?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
When we fought Nazis and they no longer hold power anywhere.
Last I checked there's not a Soviet Union anymore.
You can fight things and lose. Christians weren't fabulous enough to win.
You can't annihilate an ideology, but you sure as hell can keep it from regrouping into a coherent threat.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Have you seen our universities and all those marxists?
Also I would very much like to know what power have nazis today that people so desperately want to punch them.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
I'd say some dirty trustafarians are far less of a threat compared to the Soviet Union.
None and it should be kept that way.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Mayocide yesterday.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Correct.
What exactly do you mean they "have universities"? Try not to come off as stupid as you currently are.
You're still retardedly comparing some dumb college kids and professors to Soviet Union. If communists ltrly seized the universities, it would very much not be ok.
Amen!
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Education Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Hire Someone Who Wansn't Educated Like Nigga Hire Migrants Haha
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Every time your username goes up a number, the quality of your shitposting drops.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
That’s just mean.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Only because I care.
1 captainpriapism 2017-09-28
the people who actually fought the nazis would get called nazis now because of their views on gender and immigration
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Anyone who called a WWII vet a Nazi would be a goddamn retard. Unless said vet was German.
Retarded like assuming all WWII vets have the same views on gender and immigration as a mouthbreather like you do.
1 Zozbot 2017-09-28
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-09-28
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-09-28
zozzle
1 captainpriapism 2017-09-28
so sort of like people who call people nazis now then
anyone who protests against trump would spaz the fuck out if they asked a ww2 vets opinions on foreigners, women, and immigration
yeah man a few generations ago was heaps progressive thats why nobody bitches about it
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
How do you manage to get dumber by the day?
1 captainpriapism 2017-09-28
you didnt actually say why any of that was wrong, so ill just assume youre lying to make yourself feel better and that you concede on all points
i know you know im right and i know how bitter it makes you, you dont have to pretend
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
you didnt actually say why any of that was right, so ill just assume youre lying to make yourself feel better and that you concede on all points
i know you know im right and i know how bitter it makes you, you dont have to pretend
1 captainpriapism 2017-09-28
lol cheers for confirming it, why dont you wear your heart on your sleeve a little more
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
lol cheers for confirming it, why dont you wear your heart on your sleeve a little more
1 captainpriapism 2017-09-28
so if anyone wanted to know how to break a jew
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
This would be a terrible example. You're low energy, famalam.
1 captainpriapism 2017-09-28
i dunno man a lot of you guys seem a little on edge lately
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Projecting
1 siempreloco31 2017-09-28
ok cletus, maybe step outside your podunk shithole sometime
1 glmox 2017-09-28
oy vey
1 Gladbach10 2017-09-28
it's annudda shoah
1 RichEvansSextape 2017-09-28
So what you're saying is we can't stop incels?
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Do we need to? They are literally mayocide.
1 ProphetRith 2017-09-28
My thoughts too tbh. It's nice when the nazis aren't afraid to speak up because then you know who to avoid
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
That won’t work though. If people avoid nazis they would become more closed and will limit their social contacts to each other and eventually radicalize even more.
What you really want is to know what they are up to.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
That won’t work though. If people avoid nazis they would become more closed and will limit their social contacts to each other and eventually radicalize even more.
What you really want is to know what they are up to.
1 niexx 2017-09-28
im thinking of starting a stuxnet style operation to delete all anime from the world, anyone interested PM me
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Anime was a mistake that should be discussed publicly.
1 shitpersonality 2017-09-28
Fuck you, reported!
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Tbh people these days are witchhunting nazis so agressively they will defenitely miss another violent cult. Yes I'm saying that as a literally Hitler.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
If only they were witch-hunted aggressively the first time. Toothbrush moustaches wouldn't be awkward anymore!
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Yeah and everyone would hate commies instead of nazis.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Sounds like a win-win to me!
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Probably Germany would be uncucked too as a bonus.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Give it up. Germany's still not gonna sleep with you.
1 RichEvansSextape 2017-09-28
What the actual fuck are you smoking?
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
I'm vegan.
1 Kekistanian9002 2017-09-28
Crack?
1 nonplussed__ 2017-09-28
gave that one another shot 35 minutes later, eh?
1 makes_people_cringe 2017-09-28
just punch both
1 sooperloopay 2017-09-28
The radicalist centrism
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Hold out your arms and fidgit spin!
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-09-28
Spin it to win it on the Day of the Horseshoe.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
/u/JackBond1234 maybe if you weren't a little Nazi, you wouldn't have to spend all your time online telling people not to punch them.
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
Only Nazis think it's okay to commit violence against people they deem inferior. I'm the only person here that least resembles a Nazi.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
That doesn't even make sense.
That's mostly to do with what generations of inbreeding has done to your Aryan genetics.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Only Nazis? I think all of human history would disagree with you.
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
Okay, so I guess you've given up on the actual point and have decided to nitpick my wording. I won't defend my unintentional vagueness, because we all know you knew what I meant and wanted to take the low hanging fruit. If you plan to return to the topic at hand, feel free.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
No I didn't miss your point. You missed mine. You seem to think advocating violence period is wrong. That's stupid. What's wrong with advocating violence against those who advocate violence? There's a reason World War 2 happened. I get the apprehension around advocating punching Nazis because it's easy to go from punching actual violent Nazis to just punching people who's politics differ from yours, but Nazis are fucking terrible people and when you walk around spreading your terrible beliefs, no one is gonna be surprised or feel particularly bad when you get punched for it.
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
Why advocate violence against those who advocate violence? If you're willing to do that, then your ideals are in line with each other.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
No self-defense does not make one a murderer. We all have a right to defend ourselves, and if you're argument is that makes us no better than Nazis than you're a fool.
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
You have the right to defend yourselves so long as a Nazi is actually attempting violence. As long as they're merely talking about it, you cannot defend against words with violence.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Have you heard of fighting words? Words so derogatory or inflammatory that a violent response is considered legally justified? Yea telling someone you think their people should be genocided seems at least a little inflammatory, no?
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
With that logic, you could say that mildly negative comments indicate a repressed desire to commit murder, and cart someone away for that. If you have to assume someone's intent, then you have no proof of a crime, and despite the state of the legal system, I don't believe you should be able to take legal action for speech.
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
Nazis are quite explicit in their beliefs. There is no repressed desire. They are being quite honest when they say they support genocide. I'm not saying they should be arrested. They should be open and honest so people can see exactly the disgusting shit they believe. I'm just saying you can't expect people to reasonably be ok with hearing people talk about how their people should be murdered and not get violent.
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
I can expect people not to do the thing they're angry at others for supporting. It's pure hypocrisy, and the side that initiates the action is the one guilty of a crime. I'd rather arrest Nazis who overstep the law than the people who want to defend against them.
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-09-28
/u/JackBond1234
1 glmox 2017-09-28
man, ive seen a lot of bad memes in my time, but that one... that one is up there
1 KingNothing305 2017-09-28
All the real Nazis are dead these are just edgy cosplayers
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
Both should be gassed tbqh
1 Bonzalez 2017-09-28
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
True
1 GuillotinesNOW 2017-09-28
Is that because you define some as non-people? Or...maybe...(((subhumans)))?
1 nonplussed__ 2017-09-28
putting aside the conversation that happens there,
that there's a corner of reddit that would 88% upvote that comic makes me wanna sign tf out
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
You checked the vote count, but not which sub it was?
1 nonplussed__ 2017-09-28
i've actually not been to that one before
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-28
It's still teenagers mocking teenagers, but it's better than /r/cringeanarchy at least.
1 strathmeyer 2017-09-28
This whole SJW thing is really the Jews' fault for peeving off Hitler so much.
1 lssah1488wiking 2017-09-28
zyklon b is highly recommended
1 TotesMessenger 2017-09-28
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 niczar 2017-09-28
With all the bad things people say about Nazis, it's no wonder they get so angry at times.
1 StingAuer 2017-09-28
/u/JackBond1234
I'm going to ask you three simple yes-or-no questions:
Do you think Nazis are bad people?
Do you think Nazis should be allowed to organize to carry out Genocide?
Do you think that people should oppose Nazism?
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
Obviously yes
Obviously not
Obviously yes within the bounds of the law.
It's pretty common sense stuff.
1 StingAuer 2017-09-28
So why are you defending Nazis?
1 JackBond1234 2017-09-28
It's eminently clear that I'm not, if you read it at all. I'm denouncing extralegal violence against people you think are evil or inferior, or whose speech you disagree with, because even the most depraved speech is still a right as long as it's not put into action.
1 Washington_vape 2017-09-28
200th comment