I can only confidently guarantee that the prostitute you end up making tender love to (lol) will shower longer than she usually does after your 5 shameful minutes of disappointing her

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Wait, wtf?

I get the "everyone's a Nazi" meme and I'm not a fan of it but he's arguing that white nationalism and Neo-naziism are entirely separate things and that's just not true, there wasn't anything about political orientation and being a nazi in that comment thread.

/u/Why_We_Need_Islam

اَللّٰهُ أَكْبَر

Inshallah my reincarnated brother.

Inshallah my reincarnated brother

HAHA no!

Ehhhhh, is that a Freudian slip or do we have an actual "proud tankie" in that thread.

meme ideologies

There's definitely a distinction between nazi and white nationalist.

White nationalists are better defined as proto-nazis, they have more in common with the early movements that snowballed into nazism than the actual nazies.

Nazi as a term is just thrown around way too often by people that don't know anything about nazism. It was about a lot more than simply "racism" it was far more extreme.

If gassing /u/pizzashill is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Anti socialist
The National Socialist Program was adopted in 1920 and called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries.
The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core and he stressed the need for the party to emphasize both a proletarian and a national character.

Nazism was anti communist, not anti socialist.

Nazism was rabidly anti-socialist, actually.

I can suggest books for you to read, the third Reich trilogy is a fantastic series that soundly refutes the idea it was anything other than anti-socialist, Paxton's anatomy of fascism is a good source too.

This is a classic example of "listening to what fascists said and not what fascists did."

From the third reich trilogy:

In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the ‘stab-in-the-back’, and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on ‘Jewish’ merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up.30 Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi’, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, antisemitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.

The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of a ‘party’ suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propaganda, however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of the ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of the ‘workers’ movement’ or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of the ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labour movement, advertised its opposition to conventional politics and its intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in mid-1920: the field was bright red, the colour of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white and red, the colours of the official flag of the Bismarckian Empire. In the wake of the 1918 Revolution these came to symbolize rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German, racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

Or:

Although unemployment was above all a working-class phenomenon, economic difficulties had been wearing down the morale of other social groups as well. Well before the onset of the Depression, for instance, the drive to reduce government expenditure in the retrenchment that had to underpin the currency stabilization after 1923 led to a wave of dismissals in the state sector. Between I October 1923 and 31 March 1924, 135,000 out of 826,000 civil servants, mostly in the state railway system, the post, telegraph and Reich printing services, had been sacked, along with 30,000 out of 61,000 white-collar workers and 232,000 out of 706,000 state-employed manual labourers.30 A further wave of cuts came after 1929, with a cumulative reduction in civil service salaries of between 19 and 23 per cent between December 1930 and December 1932. Many civil servants at all levels were dismayed at the inability of their trade union representatives to stop the cuts. Their hostility to the government was obvious. Some drifted into the Nazi Party; many others were put off by the Nazis’ open threat to purge the civil service if they came to power. Nevertheless, anxiety and disillusion with the Republic became widespread in the civil service as a result of the cuts.

Many other middle-class occupations felt their economic and social position was under threat during the Weimar Republic. White-collar workers lost their jobs, or feared that they might, as banks and finance houses got into difficulties. Tourist agents, restaurants, retailing, mail-order firms, a huge variety of employers in the service sector ran into trouble as people’s purchasing power declined. The Nazi Party, now equipped with its elaborate structure of specialist subdivisions, saw this, and began to direct its appeal to the professional and propertied middle classes. All of this was anathema to those Nazis who, like Otto Strasser, brother of the Party organizer Gregor, continued to emphasize the ‘socialist’ aspect of National Socialism and felt that Hitler was betraying their ideals. Angered by the support given by Otto Strasser and his publishing house to left-wing causes such as strikes, Hitler summoned the leading men in the Party to a meeting in April 1930 and ranted against Strasser’s views. As a way of trying to neutralize Otto Strasser’s influence, he now appointed Goebbels Reich Propaganda Leader of the Party. But, to Goebbels’s annoyance, Hitler repeatedly postponed decisive action, hoping that Otto Strasser’s propaganda apparatus would still be of some use in the regional elections that took place in June 1930. Only after this, and Strasser’s publication of an unflattering account of his row with Hitler earlier in the year, did he decide to purge the party of Otto Strasser and his supporters, who pre-empted this move by resigning on 4 July 1930. The split was a serious one. Observers held their breath to see if the Party would survive this exodus of its left wing. But things had changed markedly from the days when Goebbels and his friends had revived the Party in the Ruhr with socialist slogans. The dissidents’ departure revealed that Strasser and his ideas had little support within the Party; even his brother Gregor disowned him. Otto Strasser vanished from serious politics, to spend the rest of his life in Germany, and, later, in exile, dreaming up small, sectarian organizations to propagate his views to tiny audiences of the like-minded.

Having shed the last vestiges of ‘socialism’, Hitler now moved to build more bridges to the conservative right. In the autumn of 1931 he joined with the Nationalists in the so-called ‘Harzburg Front’, producing a joint declaration with Hugenberg at Bad Harzburg on 11 October stating their readiness to join together in ruling Prussia and the Reich. Though the Nazis emphasized their continued independence - Hitler, for example, refusing to review a march-past of the Steel Helmets - this marked a significant extension of the collaboration that had first taken place in the campaign against the Young Plan in 1929. At the same time, Hitler took serious steps to persuade industrialists that his Party posed no threat to them. His address to some 650 businessmen at the Industry Club in Düsseldorf in January 1932 appealed to his audience by denouncing Marxism as the source of Germany’s ills - he did not refer to the Jews in the speech even once - and by emphasizing his belief in the importance of private property, hard work and proper rewards for the able and the enterprising. However, the solution to the economic woes of the moment, he said, was mainly political. Idealism, patriotism and national unity would create the basis for economic revival. These would be provided by the National Socialist movement, whose members sacrificed their time and money, and risked their lives day and night, in the struggle against the Communist threat.

Or:

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements, it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[37] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”[

Seems pretty socialist to me, fam.

Yeah, I don't know how else to tell you that Wikipedia is not on par with academic research.

To give you an example of why what you just linked leaves out the facts:

How did the Third Reich deal with the unemployed and the destitute who suffered in their millions under the Depression and were still suffering when they came to power? Nazi ideology did not in principle favour the idea of social welfare. In My Struggle, Hitler, writing about the time he had spent living amongst the poor and the destitute in Vienna before the First World War, had waxed indignant about the way in which social welfare had encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and the feeble. From a Social Darwinist point of view, charity and philanthropy were evils that had to be eliminated if the German race was to be strengthened and its weakest elements weeded out in the process of natural selection.155 The Nazi Party frequently condemned the elaborate welfare system that had grown up under the Weimar Republic as bureaucratic, cumbersome and directed essentially to the wrong ends. Instead of giving support to the biologically and racially valuable, Weimar’s social state, backed by a host of private charities, was, the Nazis alleged, completely indiscriminate in its application, supporting many people who were racially inferior and would, they claimed, contribute nothing to the regeneration of the German race. This view was in some respects not too far from that of the public and private welfare bureaucracy itself, which by the early 1930s had become infused with the doctrines of racial hygiene, and also advocated the drawing of a sharp distinction between the deserving and the degenerate, although putting such a distinction into effect was not possible until 1933. At this point, welfare institutions, whose attitudes towards the destitute had become increasingly punitive in the course of the Depression, moved rapidly to bring criminal sanctions to bear on the ‘work-shy’, the down-and-out and the socially deviant. Nazi ideas on welfare were thus not wholly alien to the thinking of welfare administrators in the later stages of the Weimar Republic.156

Faced with ten million people in receipt of welfare assistance at the height of the Depression, however, it would have been political suicide for the Nazis to have written off the mass of the unemployed and destitute as not worth helping. However much the employment situation improved, or was made to look as if it improved, in the spring, summer and autumn of the Nazis’ first year in office, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels recognized that the economic situation would still be serious enough for many people to be living below the poverty line in the first full winter of the Third Reich in power. To boost the regime’s image and convince people it was doing everything it could to foster solidarity between the better-off and the worst-off amongst the Germans, he announced on 13 September 1933 that he was setting up a short-term relief programme which he called the Winter Aid Programme of the German People. This built on, formalized, co-ordinated and carried further a number of emergency relief schemes already launched by Regional Party Leaders; more importantly, it continued and expanded similar schemes that had already been mooted under the Weimar Republic and formally established in 1931 under Reich Chancellor Brüning.157 Soon, some 1.5 million volunteers and 4,000 paid workers were ladling out soup to the poor at emergency centres, taking round food parcels to the destitute, collecting and distributing clothes to the unemployed and their families, and engaging in a wide variety of other centrally directed charitable activities. When Hitler, in a widely publicized speech, urged people to contribute, two million Reichsmarks were pledged by a variety of institutions, including Nazi Party headquarters in Munich, the very next day. Donations received during the winter of 1933-4 eventually totalled 358 million Reichsmarks. Goebbels’s Propaganda Ministry blared forth its satisfaction at this evidence of a new spirit of community solidarity and mutual help amongst the German people.158 This was not charity, therefore, or state welfare, even though it was in fact run by the state, by the Propaganda Minister and by a specially appointed Reich Commissioner for Winter Aid. It was, on the contrary, Goebbels declared, a form of racial self-help run by the German people for the German people.159

Yet again the reality was different from the propaganda. For contributions to the Winter Aid were virtually compulsory for everyone from the outset. When a burly, brown-uniformed stormtrooper appeared at the door demanding a donation, few were brave enough to refuse, and those who did faced the prospect of escalating threats and intimidation until they relented and put their money in the collection box. In Bavaria it was announced that those who did not contribute would be regarded as enemies of the Fatherland; some were publicly paraded through the streets with placards round their necks advertising their sin of omission; others were even dismissed from their jobs as a result. The experience of a Reich Entailed Farmer in Franconia who had refused to contribute in 1935 can hardly have been untypical: he was informed by Party District Leader Gerstner ‘that you are not worthy to bear the honourable title of farmer in National Socialist Germany’ and warned that it would be necessary ‘to take measures to prevent public disorder being created by your attitude’ - in other words, that he could expect either removal to ‘protective custody’ in a concentration camp or face physical violence from the local SA. In one cinema in Breslau in December 1935, eight armed SS men appeared on the stage at the end of the performance and announced that the exits had all been sealed; there were enemies of the state in the auditorium, and everyone had to make a donation to the Winter Aid to prove that they were not amongst their number. As the brief announcement ended, the doors burst open and fifty stormtroopers poured in, armed with collection boxes. Across the land, workers came under pressure to allow their contributions to be automatically deducted from their wage packets at a rate of 20 per cent of the basic income tax (later reduced to 10 per cent). Those who earned too little to pay tax still had to contribute 25 pfennigs from each pay packet. In one factory in 1938, workers were told that if they did not agree to a deduction, the sum they should be paying would be added to the sums deducted from the pay packets of their fellow employees.160

Or:

By devolving welfare spending onto the (allegedly) voluntary sector, the regime was able to save official tax-based income and use it for rearmament instead. Conscription, marriage loans and other schemes to take people out of the labour market led to further reductions in the burden of benefit payments on the state and so to further savings in state expenditure that could then be turned to the purposes of military-related expenditure. Unemployment benefits had already been severely cut by governments and local authorities before the Nazis took power. The new regime lost little time in cutting them even more sharply. Voluntary Labour Service and other, similar schemes to massage the unemployment statistics downwards also had the effect of reducing the amount of unemployment benefits that had to be paid out. Unemployment, of course, as we have seen, had by no means vanished from the scene by the winter of 1935-6, but local authorities continued to drive down the level of benefit payments by whatever means they could. From October to December 1935, when the official figure of welfare unemployed rose from 336,000 to 376,000, the total benefits paid to them across the Reich actually fell from 4.7 to 3.8 million Reichsmarks. Everywhere, welfare authorities were calling in the unemployed for questioning and examination as to whether they were fit to work; those who were deemed fit were drafted into the Reich Labour Service or emergency relief schemes of one kind or another; those who failed to appear were taken off the register, and their payments stopped. Rent supplements were cut, payments to carers for the old and the sick for medication were slashed. In Cologne, a working-class woman who asked the welfare officer for help in paying for medication for her 75-year-old mother, whom she cared for at home, was told that the state would no longer pay for such people, who were nothing but a burden on the national community.167

Cutting back on welfare payments was only part of a wider strategy. Urging the German people to engage in self-help instead of relying on payouts from the state carried with it the implication that those who could not help themselves were dispensable, indeed a positive threat to the future health of the German people. The racially unsound, deviants, criminals, the ‘asocial’ and the like were to be excluded from the welfare system altogether. As we have seen, by 1937-8 members of the underclass, social deviants and petty criminals were being arrested in large numbers and put into concentration camps since they were regarded by the Nazis as being of no use to the regime. In the end, therefore, as soon as rearmament had soaked up the mass of the unemployed, the Nazis’ original scepticism about the benefits of social welfare reasserted itself in the most brutal possible way.

You dealt with one incident that my quoted text did not even talk about in the first place and ignored the parts about old age pension, unemployment benefits and so on.

You just said that the Nazis compelled with the threat of violence, donations for the welfare of the poor. If anything, they were anti socialist in rhetoric and socialist in practice.

Implying I'm an amerimutt

That's the worst insult you can use on an IRL Aryan

Did you not read anything I linked?

Look - I suggested books you can read, if you don't want to read them, that's your choice.

There's a reason no credible expert on nazism views them the same way you do. There's a reason all academic research disagrees with you.

There's a reason fascism as a whole is viewed as a right-wing counter movement to the socialist left.

I'll try one more time to get through to you, from the anatomy of fascism:

Another supposed essential character of fascism is its anticapitalist, antibourgeois animus. Early fascist movements flaunted their contempt for bourgeois values and for those who wanted only “to earn money, money, filthy money.”36 They attacked “international finance capitalism” almost as loudly as they attacked socialists. They even promised to expropriate department-store owners in favor of patriotic artisans, and large landowners in favor of peasants.

Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing to carry out these anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful propaganda images.38 Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dissolved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners’ purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfaction of employers. Faced with these conflicts between words and actions concerning capitalism, scholars have drawn opposite conclusions. Some, taking the words literally, consider fascism a form of radical anticapitalism.39 Others, and not only Marxists, take the diametrically opposite position that fascists came to the aid of capitalism in trouble, and propped up by emergency means the existing system of property distribution and social hierarchy.

This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation.40 When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history.

For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity.42 Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, 10

While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation

You just defined a social democracy with a protectionist stance.

I take the facts from academics but I like to come to my own conclusions, pizza. And the conclusions from the limited set of facts you presented me is that the Nazis

1)Started a fundraiser for welfare of the poor, backing it up with their paramilitary forces(Thus being socialistic in action but not in rhetoric).
2)Started several welfare programs in line with what social democracies across the world have today, but didn't nationalize all the industries.
3)Used rhetoric they did not believe in, like literally all other political parties to ever exist

The only real point you presented was that they did not extend these measures to invalids or other races, which a truly socialist state should have done. That bit is true, but then again, discriminating on the basis of race isn't something unique to them. The Tartars definitely didn't live the socialist dream either. Overall, however, the Nazi economic system was definitely not one based on free markets(As further shown by their emphasis on autarky) and that, combined with their social welfare programs, pushes them into the socialist camp. As for conditions for workers degrading or them attacking communist labour unions, show me one instance of labour unions getting something other than bullets in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. Whoever is in power hates unions because they reduce productivity, regardless of their political beliefs.

1)Started a fundraiser for welfare of the poor, backing it up with their paramilitary forces(Thus being socialistic in action but not in rhetoric).

No, they started a "racial self-help" drive because the political backlash would be too extreme in the event they didn't. Nazi ideology was rabidly anti-social welfare.

You just defined a social democracy with a protectionist stance.

Are you out of your fucking mind?

2)Started several welfare programs in line with what social democracies across the world have today, but didn't nationalize all the industries.

See above.

The only real point you presented was that they did not extend these measures to invalids or other races

What does the following say:

By devolving welfare spending onto the (allegedly) voluntary sector, the regime was able to save official tax-based income and use it for rearmament instead. Conscription, marriage loans and other schemes to take people out of the labour market led to further reductions in the burden of benefit payments on the state and so to further savings in state expenditure that could then be turned to the purposes of military-related expenditure. Unemployment benefits had already been severely cut by governments and local authorities before the Nazis took power. The new regime lost little time in cutting them even more sharply. Voluntary Labour Service and other, similar schemes to massage the unemployment statistics downwards also had the effect of reducing the amount of unemployment benefits that had to be paid out. Unemployment, of course, as we have seen, had by no means vanished from the scene by the winter of 1935-6, but local authorities continued to drive down the level of benefit payments by whatever means they could. From October to December 1935, when the official figure of welfare unemployed rose from 336,000 to 376,000, the total benefits paid to them across the Reich actually fell from 4.7 to 3.8 million Reichsmarks. Everywhere, welfare authorities were calling in the unemployed for questioning and examination as to whether they were fit to work; those who were deemed fit were drafted into the Reich Labour Service or emergency relief schemes of one kind or another; those who failed to appear were taken off the register, and their payments stopped. Rent supplements were cut, payments to carers for the old and the sick for medication were slashed. In Cologne, a working-class woman who asked the welfare officer for help in paying for medication for her 75-year-old mother, whom she cared for at home, was told that the state would no longer pay for such people, who were nothing but a burden on the national community.

Cutting back on welfare payments was only part of a wider strategy. Urging the German people to engage in self-help instead of relying on payouts from the state carried with it the implication that those who could not help themselves were dispensable, indeed a positive threat to the future health of the German people. The racially unsound, deviants, criminals, the ‘asocial’ and the like were to be excluded from the welfare system altogether. As we have seen, by 1937-8 members of the underclass, social deviants and petty criminals were being arrested in large numbers and put into concentration camps since they were regarded by the Nazis as being of no use to the regime. In the end, therefore, as soon as rearmament had soaked up the mass of the unemployed, the Nazis’ original scepticism about the benefits of social welfare reasserted itself in the most brutal possible way.

1

I take the facts from academics but I like to come to my own conclusions, pizza. And the conclusions from the limited set of facts you presented me is that the Nazis

That's neat, but when you come to your own conclusions, you should try this thing called "book learning" and not wikipedia. You're ignoring the vast majority of what they did to cherry pick things.

No, they started a "racial self-help" drive because the political backlash would be too extreme in the event they didn't. Nazi ideology was rabidly anti-social welfare.

"Yes, they did spend on social welfare but it's not like they wanted to".

You were the one who brought up judging on actions, not words. Why are you not judging them by their action here?

Are you out of your fucking mind?

No, allowing private ownership of means of production while spending massive amounts on social welfare is the hallmark of social democracies. They are socialist even if they aren't going on nationalization drives. That's exactly what Hitler did.

How does them scrutinizing the people who claimed welfare defeat the fact that they did pay welfare? If there were able bodied men drawing welfare, isn't it good that they were compulsorily employed, by the state?

They slashed unemployment benefits, but they still paid them, right? Then they still maintained a welfare state, yes? In fact, they instituted the system that is still in use in Germany for worker's wages negotiation, yes?

In real terms this meant that wages, working hours and general business practices were determined by worker councils (whose members ranged from 2 - 10) and employers, seeking a compromise.

A system that was therefore far more generous to the worker than the actual socialist states ever achieved, despite the welfare of workers being their primary goal?

Also

Anti intellectualism

Not taking academia at their word is anti intellectualism? I'm not just repeating myself, I'm providing points. Refute them, I'm sure you can.

Not taking academia at their word is anti intellectualism? I'm not just repeating myself, I'm providing points. Refute them, I'm sure you can.

I'm sorry, you've been dismissed. You were provided the sources explaining why you're wrong, you decided to ignore them.

You aren't educated enough on the history of Nazism, or fascism to have this discussion. This is even more hilarious given that you don't know what socialism is:

No, allowing private ownership of means of production while spending massive amounts on social welfare is the hallmark of social democracies. They are socialist even if they aren't going on nationalization drives. That's exactly what Hitler did.

No, there is no "private ownership" in socialism. Social safety nets do not = socialism. The state owning the means of production is socialism.

"social democracy" does not mean "socialism" and it requires a lot more than "welfare" you illitete ape.

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

That being said, you're dismissed. I'm not going to argue with the historically illiterate to this extent, once they ignore all academic work explaing to them why they're wrong, they're just a lost cause.

You do realize that by the purist definition of socialism, there isn't a single state that is actually socialist, except maybe Khmer Rouge's Cambodia? That even the most socialist states have left land ownership and therefore the means of production in the hands of the peasants and not the state? If you want a single instance of the Nazis nationalizing

In 1937 Hermann Göring targeted companies producing iron ore, “taking control of all privately owned steelworks and setting up a new company, known as the Hermann Göring Works.”

Day of the oven when

lol tldr lol

How are social welfare programs "socialist"? By that logic fucking USA is socialist.

/u/tommy2014015 There are as many different types of Nazis as there are genders in the night sky.

I know, my point was that a lot of times white nationalists want to disassociate themselves from neo-naziism when modern white nationalism, in its purist form, is just a mutated idea of the idealized aryan myth.

The "white" man to white nationalists is indistinguishable from the aryan man so i think its in the favor of these people to use that as this pedantic sticking point to differentiate the two. This isn't the hill im going to die on but, to my eye at least, a lot of the points that white nationalists bring up sound exactly the same as nazi ideology so i dont make that distinction. But others do and that's fine, it's not a pedantic difference i'm too torn up about.

You sure spend a lot of time thinking about dead Germans from 1945.

Sure I do, I'm interested in that time in history and the echoes of that period. Is there anything wrong with that?

(((echoes)))

Your first mistake was assuming that a professional cryptohate subreddit wouldn't notice your dogwhistles.

it was a mistake commenting here lmao, i resist your user pings normally cuz nothing good ever happens in /r/drama

Hmm aye we skipped the high level talks on nazis and pedantry. Looks like you and Goroman managed to subdue that likely nazi on SRD though.

Ok I just checked out that sub. It appears to be a den of snakes, trolls, and alt right Nazis. I saw several clear violations of Reddit law. SRDines are smarter than the average cookies, they had to know we'd be on to them. Sad.

Not true, somebody actually posted bussy one time.

No your a nazi

You dont seem to understand white nationalists or naziism. I will grant you that they both make similar assumptions about the world, namely believing that races are, should work, and should be treated as distinct and collective groups. However their answers to the political questions that this assumption raises can very wildly. For instance the Nazis didnt commit all of their crimes because they were big evil meanie racists, they had a plan, a goal, namely to create a massive empire in eastern europe that would make Germany resource rich and wealthy enough to truly challenge Britain and the US on the world stage. They simply believed in this goal enough where nothing else mattered, it was ok to do all of these nasty things because the ends justify the means, in the Nazi mind they were necesary for a greater goal.

A white nationalist on the other hand can be completely different, since white nationalism is a pretty broad term. They could be a person who is content with segregation, they could be a person eho is racist but does not believe in violence (like the Ruby Ridge guy), they could be someone who is racist but also feels strongly in favor of liberal democracy (like the Confederate States of America), they could be white nationalists but not white supremacists, etc. Identifying all racists with one particular racist ideology is a bit like identifying all pizza with one type of topping, and it raises the question, if all racism is basically the same as naziism then what exactly was the difference morally between Nazi Germany and the nations it was fighting?

Save a life! Can that SRDine!

Tbh saying "I"m not a Nazi, I just want a white ethno-state" is kinda weak

Reverse Nazis.

Yeah, but it doesn't look like the guy in the SRD thread is a black separatist. I don't think it's such a ridiculous exaggeration to call this guy a Nazi, even if he isn't really a Nazi.

why though jews already have an ethno state and dont want anyone else to have one

bc one’s enough

cool lets scrap israel then its getting boring now and nobody likes it anymore

but then we'll be down to zero, that's not enough

yeah no i mean wed replace it with a proper one for white people so we could do it properly

oh ok

We need a new word for virtue signaling by the far left. I'm thinking something that combines 'peacocking' of the pua community with some sort of soy product. I just haven't hit on something with a good ring to it. What I do know is that thread's got more tofu on display than a Whole Foods.

soycocking?

that is a good sentiment bc everyone to the right of bernie is an enemy of humanity 😀⛏ altho some ppl to the left of him are basically nazis to i mean its not like bernie has come out strongly against the military & imperialism hes very pro american lol 🇱🇷

That person basically said that there isn't much of a difference between a "white nationalist" and a Nazi or Neonazi, which the thread they link kind of proves.

Also, as a German, "mass migration" my ass.

Day of the canning when?

lol idiots still think nationalism is anything like national socialism

like 90% of americans identified as nationalist in 2001, waving flags and chanting usa at everything

i swear people have the shortest memory

it's 2018 and you're on reddit, most of the people having these conversations have no conscious memory of the early 2000's.

yeah fair enough it still wigs me out that people that were literal babies after i finished high school are getting to voting age

im relating more and more to cranky old people lol