[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52670793]Good job for the people who are going to call other people nazis or side them with nazis by saying they are "defending fascism" when they actually aren't. You know the alt-right cannot be happier about people like you right? You are their main recruiters.
Who do you think Joe Shmoe is going to turn to after you call him a racist fascist nazi enough times? Hint: it's not going to be you.[/QUOTE]
You're the person I was thinking about when I added a comment about wanting to onow why saying "why don't whites deserve their own country" is not good because you've eaten up dogwhistles before but seemed to want to know more so it's sad for me that instead of learning about dogwhistling you came back with the tired old meme of the evil lefty cabal turning normal people into nazis.
:(
[QUOTE=01271;52670836]You're the person I was thinking about when I added a comment about wanting to onow why saying "why don't whites deserve their own country" is not good because you've eaten up dogwhistles before but seemed to want to know more so it's sad for me that instead of learning about dogwhistling you came back with the tired old meme of the evil lefty cabal turning normal people into nazis.
:([/QUOTE]
I understand dogwhistling and how nazis are trying to hide in suits and under PC terms.
I don't understand what does that have to do with me calling people out on how they mislabel people as nazis/fascists. Or your strawman altogether actually. Like it's really beyond me how you can draw a dependency between the two.
And I don't think "whites deserve their own country". I wouldn't even call it a dogwhistle since it's clearly racist.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52670740]Look up "identitarian" on Wikipedia and the very first line tells you they are a white nationalist movement.[/QUOTE]
That was just an example, I've never heard of them outside of this video to be honest
My point is, these belifs come in all shapes and forms, and eqating all of them to nazism is a bad idea because if you call someone facist enough times, they will start calling themselves that.
Neo-nazis in this day and age arent some kind of manipulative mastermind sociopaths ready to pull tricks and manipulate people to get political power, some of them can be smart and adapt various strategies to avoid persecution like she said in the video, but they are no longer a mainstream way for power-hungry individuals to gain power like they were in the 40s. They are not a cabal that hides in shadows to try and overtake the common man by making compromises and hiding their true ideological motives through slipper slopes, they are dumb guys who beat people on the streets, or cunning but completely incopetent internet personalities who couldnt hide the fact that they are rasists if their life depended on it. I dont mean they arent dangerous, but they are dangerous in ways that make it very apparent who they really are.
Sure, they probably /could/ gain public sympathy by abusing anti-immigrant rethoric and only "reveal their power level" once they are in power, and thats what I feel like a lot of them are trying to do, but they are way too incompetent and impatient to pull this through. There is no need for "dog whistles" (which may or may not exist only in your mind) when usually all you need to do is to read the facebook comment section of an organisations' fanpage to lear their true intentions.
They say that there is no difference between absolute caution and absolute paranoia, but I dont think that spotting a nazi on the internet is a task that requires either.
[QUOTE]. Sure, they probably /could/ gain public sympathy by abusing anti-immigrant rethoric and only "reveal their power level" once they are in power, and thats what I feel like a lot of them are trying to do, but they are way too incompetent and impatient to pull this through. There is no need for "dog whistles" (which may or may not exist only in your mind) when usually all you need to do is to read the facebook comment section of an organisations' fanpage to lear their true intentions [/QUOTE]
Most of the alt right are approachable. They don't yell scream, bully or threaten those they converse with on the net. Most of then used to be for social justice but changed sides due to how abusive the left can get.
What they do to gain sympathy is act like a normal person and point out how outrageous the left can get. Like triggerly puff.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52670888]I understand dogwhistling and how nazis are trying to hide in suits and under PC terms.
I don't understand what does that have to do with me calling people out on how they mislabel people as nazis/fascists. Or your strawman altogether actually. Like it's really beyond me how you can draw a dependency between the two.
And I don't think "whites deserve their own country". I wouldn't even call it a dogwhistle since it's clearly racist.[/QUOTE]
Well in that case I don't feel like you heard a part of the video, the part about the defense of racism a lot of the time is that it wasn't serious/was a joke/is just a meme. There's a whole segment on misrecognizing and being overeager about labeling in there too.
[QUOTE=Carlito;52670214]Post ignoring anything specific[/QUOTE]
I think if you tackled my specific examples I would be more impressed.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52670990]Most of the alt right are approachable. They don't yell scream, bully or threaten those they converse with on the net. Most of then used to be for social justice but changed sides due to how abusive the left can get.
What they do to gain sympathy is act like a normal person and point out how outrageous the left can get. Like triggerly puff.[/QUOTE]
That... really hasn't been my experience. Besides, if someone gets pushed to the alt-right and literal [I]white nationalism[/I] because "the left is abusive," they're just seeking an excuse to justify their hatred. Yes, there are many people on the left who are reactionary. There are also many on the right. Being reactionary and abusive is not a partisan thing, it's a human thing, and shitty humans can hold whatever political position they want.
In my experience, they've been wildly unapproachable. I tried posting on /r/Conservative - which isn't supposed to be an "alt-right" place - and I got banned immediately for saying that James O'Keefe is not a reliable source. /r/The_Donald bans you immediately if you have a contrary opinion. That's not what I call "approachable."
[QUOTE=01271;52671021]Well in that case I don't feel like you heard a part of the video, the part about the defense of racism a lot of the time is that it wasn't serious/was a joke/is just a meme. There's a whole segment on misrecognizing and being overeager about labeling in there too.[/QUOTE]
I have? I still do not understand what are you talking about man. I think you've read something in my post that I haven't said and we're talking about two different things, because I am taking into consideration the things you've just mentioned.
Do you think my "good job" was directed at contrapoints specifically? Perhaps you could paraphrase what you think I said please?
i wish i were as pretty as contra... and had such good points
[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;52670161][IMG]https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/dailyuw.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/f3/5f36135e-bdcb-11e6-b40e-7306885035cd/584a38df3426e.image.jpg[/IMG]
Might not be verbatim per-definition fascism. But it sure seems like the same message.[/QUOTE]
Just a heads up, Emerald City Antifa did not hang those posters up. This particular poster was probably made by /pol/acks.
Source:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/30/antifa-white-posters-seattle/[/url]
[url]https://archive.is/Du3sH[/url]
[url]http://archive.is/KLt8D#selection-2999.0-3005.22[/url]
Alt-righters have been known to create and spread fake "Antifa propaganda" in order to discredit the anti-fascist movement, including by making fake twitter accounts, memes, image macros and posters.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52671638]Just a heads up, Emerald City Antifa did not hang those posters up. This particular poster was probably made by /pol/acks.
Source:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/30/antifa-white-posters-seattle/[/url]
[url]https://archive.is/Du3sH[/url]
[url]http://archive.is/KLt8D#selection-2999.0-3005.22[/url]
Alt-righters have been known to create and spread fake "Antifa propaganda" in order to discredit the anti-fascist movement, including by making fake twitter accounts, memes, image macros and posters.[/QUOTE]
/pol/, /r/the_donald, and many other alt-right groups (even those that claim not to be alt-right!) have a well documented history of creating scare hit-pieces for left leaning groups. It's part of their playbook. If you see anything from a "leftist" that looks like it's prime material for alt-right or neoreactionary attention, it's probably actually their propaganda.
If there's one thing I genuinely admit the alt-right do well, it's information warfare. A fucking monstrous number of anti-Dem/ anti-hillary memes shared around Twitter, Facebook, etc. during the election can be traced back to /pol/ and /r/the_donald private chat rooms or threads. But these memes managed to hit massive audiences.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52671638]Just a heads up, Emerald City Antifa did not hang those posters up. This particular poster was probably made by /pol/acks.
Source:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/30/antifa-white-posters-seattle/[/url]
[url]https://archive.is/Du3sH[/url]
[url]http://archive.is/KLt8D#selection-2999.0-3005.22[/url]
Alt-righters have been known to create and spread fake "Antifa propaganda" in order to discredit the anti-fascist movement, including by making fake twitter accounts, memes, image macros and posters.[/QUOTE]
To be honest I am still absolutely amazed at how frequently this tactic is used by so many different groups. Remember the onslaught of bullshit twitter stories right after Trump was elected about how racists were popping out from the woodworks to scream at everyone ?
People so desperate for this big damning evidence that they're willing to fabricate it. It's like people want Watergate scandals to drop onto their lap every time they start to dislike somebody.
The worst is when those people are right and have a good point but still fuck it up by faking "damning evidence" which they did not need. At this point it's basically just [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DickDastardlyStopsToCheat]Dick Dastardly Stops to Cheat[/url].
Just a reminder to people in this thread that a popular alt-right tactic is to focus on definitions and pedantry when everyone already knows what you mean.
Did anyone in this thread believe that Nazis and Fascists were the the exact same?
Is it relevant to modern problems that 1940s Nazis called themselves socialists?
Not finger pointing, just a slightly paranoid reminder for people interested in removing fascism, no matter what name they use.
Pretty sure the only reason National Socialism was called this way initially was essentially for PR: they did not want to be put in the same ballpark as communists nor as capitalists, so they picked two terms that were opposites or at least strong adversaries to either ideologies.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52671946]Pretty sure the only reason National Socialism was called this way initially was essentially for PR: they did not want to be put in the same ballpark as communists nor as capitalists, so they picked two terms that were opposites or at least strong adversaries to either ideologies.[/QUOTE]
I be curious how you are deriving this conclusion.
Believe it or not; They chose to call themselves socialists because they believed in socialist policies. Hence why National Socialism can be on the contemporary political compass on the left or right wing depending on the bias and focus on which policies you cite.
Also Nationalism is not really right or left-wing, it is principle that can easily be upheld on both sides. In the 19th century and early 20th century Liberals were typically the biggest nationalists of the time (German Revolution, Austria-Hungary breakup, etc), there were examples of Ukrainian and Muslim communists incorporating nationalism into their ideology, and even Stalin is often seen to have differentiated himself from the Leninist-internationalist stance with the resurgence of nationalistic ties to Russian culture.
Now is nationalism not a main component of communism? Most of the time, but to say that Nazis took up there name to spite their ideological enemies sounds simpleton to me considering you could say that with every group. Do progressives throughout history choose their name to sound better than their opponents? Others might say they did, but it is also how they feel their ideology operates in context.
Nazis simply were socialists that were very nationalistic. Especially when looking at them from the surface level or low resolution branding. It isn't that hard to understand; except when you want to start talking about the details of how social darwinism, non-finance capitalism, and all the other peculiarities come into play.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52672030]I be curious how you are deriving this conclusion.
etc[/QUOTE]
My sources are the wikipedia article, written by far more competent people than you and I, which cite plenty of sources which are good on their own merits. I invite you to read it all but I've selected these parts for you :
[quote]
On 5 January 1919, Drexler created a new political party and proposed it be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP).[28] To ease concerns among potential middle-class supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported the middle-class, and that its socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race.
(...)
To increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on 24 February 1920, the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party or Nazi Party).[48][49] The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers.[50]
[/quote]
Socialism implies an effort to even out the chances and conditions of living of everyone under the same nation for a greater sense of justice. You can immediately see how the party fails to enter this definition without heavily twisting it: objectively, they are locking people out of certain rights made privileges and reserving it for a higher grade of citizens (the Aryan race). This notably translated into Eugenics, at which point the party was willing to make breeding a privilege which they would take away from those they deemed toxic to the gene pool and the well being of society.
That is some NICE fucking wallpaper, just saying..
[QUOTE=Rubs10;52671910]Is it relevant to modern problems that 1940s Nazis called themselves socialists?[/QUOTE]
It's not of practical or semantic importance, since the party under Hitler rounded up the elements which were unhappy about there being more "nationalism" than "socialism" and systematically executed them.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52671638]Just a heads up, Emerald City Antifa did not hang those posters up. This particular poster was probably made by /pol/acks.
Source:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/30/antifa-white-posters-seattle/[/url]
[url]https://archive.is/Du3sH[/url]
[url]http://archive.is/KLt8D#selection-2999.0-3005.22[/url]
Alt-righters have been known to create and spread fake "Antifa propaganda" in order to discredit the anti-fascist movement, including by making fake twitter accounts, memes, image macros and posters.[/QUOTE]
Huh, maybe I was wrong all along. Sorry dudes
As I was trying to debate Vodkavia's point that there's nothing I could gleam from /pol/, last night I did try to prove them wrong. I scoured it for a bit, and it kinda hit me.
They're not centrists, they're not even moderate conservatives. They're full-blown crazy. I must have jumped through mental hoops trying to tie them into the thought that they were just satirical racists, as 4chan generally have always been uncouth edgelords who usually mean well. But /pol/ actually believes the crazy shit they spout.
And with trump pardoning joe arpaio, and killing net neutrality, I can't even say he's not far-right crazy as well.
I guess I just needed to sleep it over. They really did fool me with lies and conceit.
They spun the narrative that the far-left were propagating their own similar brand of racism and intolerance through violence.
All along they really had no physical proof of this. I was such a fool.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52672030]Post saying fascists are socialist[/QUOTE]
Fascists weren't socialist, they were corporatist and generally anti-unionist. Fascists use the language of socialism to convince the working class that they will aid them, but don't actually enact that. Of various fascist dictatorships that have existed, almost all involved some kind of transfer of state property to private hands, formation of corporate syndicates, and a reduction in workers rights. Union leaders and socialists were among the first to be killed by the nazis once they came into power (communists in particular were killed because most early street resistance to the rising Nazi power was from communists); the quote 'First they came for the x ...' that gets used, was originally referring to the Nazis, and includes the line 'First they came for the socialists ...' In fact, so striking and extreme was the importance of privatisation, anti-unionism, and various extreme-capitalist policies to the Nazis, that the term 'privatisation' was first used to describe the mass selling of public entities to private owners that began early in the Nazi regime. If you want further reading, I'd suggest wikipedia, as it also links to various sources that are a little easier to access. Another thing is that socialism and communism aren't inherently nationalist, whilst there are various flavours of socialism and communism that had elements of nationalism, this was more to do with the fact that the regimes were generally arising from indigenous populations that were either currently or previously under colonialist subjugation, and that the foremost component of these movements, in addition to socialism or communism, was self-determination. Generally speaking, I'd be pretty suspect of a communist regime that continued to be nationalist after it had gained power, considering that part of the end state of communist ideologies (the state also called, confusingly, Communism) was the abolishing of the state.
Also, I guess I can make an actual response to your first post, where you claimed that fascism doesn't have a racial element. I did state this before, and I'll state this again, extreme nationalism that is recurrent and necessary for fascism will inevitably lead to some kind of impasse at which point very racist things begin.
First I'll start with Mussolini, because you quoted him and devoted most of your text to him. Whilst he was in fact quoted at some times stating that race wasn't important/an actual thing, there were also plenty of times where he was in fact quite racist. But it doesn't really matter what he said, it's what he did that counts. The extreme nationalism and promotion of 'Italian identity' that was central to Mussolini's ideology was responsible for aggressive expansionist policies, where surrounding land from places such as Slovenia and Malta was forcibly taken. After the land was taken, the inhabitants were subject to 'Italianisation,' where they were forced to stop practicing their own culture and language, and from then on speak Italian and practice Italian culture. Children were also taken to be educated in being Italian, instead of their own culture. Those who refused Italianisation were persecuted. Now, the erasure of culture is generally accepted as being a core component of genocide, if not genocide in of itself, on account of the fact that there isn't at all a choice wherein someone can [I]be[/I] their own ethnicity, they have to be Italian; this whole concept of 'Italianisation' is what I was talking about when rampant nationalism leads eventually to genocide and racism. Another important consideration was the enactment of Italian Racial Law in 1938, which set racial discrimination into law; this primarily targeted Jews, preventing them from entering civil or military service, and removed their citizenship. This law is closely associated with the 'Manifesto of Race' which, as you might guess, was pretty racist. Even if there weren't actual laws enacting racial discrimination, the mere fact that Mussolini [I]actively aided[/I] the Holocaust is reason enough to suggest that the fascist regime was racist, I said this in my previous posts, and I really can't stress this enough that [I]if you participate in genocide, you are a fucking racist[/I], it really isn't too complicated. This also doesn't take into account the disgusting colonialism practised by Italy and most other European nations at the time, which was endorsed and important to the maintenance of the fascist state, again evidence of racism. I won't really go too much into the details with colonialism, because for one thing, it's pretty obvious how racist it is, and for another, there's almost too much to talk about in terms of the racial injustices and atrocities committed in the name of and as a result of colonialism.
As for the Falangists in Spain, they were racist. They believed racism was a legitimate construct, and that each race was, well, as race. A belief which is still racist. Had their expansionist beliefs been allowed to be put into proper practice, there'd probably be similar activities to Mussolini's Italianisation. It was also documented that they entertained the notion of the 'Jewish Question' and that Jews would have to be forcibly converted to Catholics in order to remain in Spain. Again, Spain also was colonialist at the time and participated in various colonialist atrocities during their period of colonialism.
To be honest at this point I can't be bothered going through your other examples, because this should be enough to establish the pattern that nationalism leads to systemic racism and genocide, and that fascism, with its rampant and necessary nationalism, will eventually result in genocide.
[QUOTE]Now will you find cases of racism happening in those countries? For sure, even the most social justice of governments still have racism happening in them, but this idea of inherent racial ideology and genocide is not accurate at all. Would be more accurate to say that just like Communism, there is a human nature for ideologies that require homogenous opinions to be full realized make people be extremist against groups who oppose them, and sometimes that category is racially, but it can often be class, nationality, or any other factor that prevents their utopia.[/QUOTE]
As for this statement, most of it is a little difficult to parse. But what it seems that your getting at is that racism could still exist in fascist societies without the regime being racist, much like how racism exists in modern societies that do not have an inherently racist government. To that I'd say fair enough, except for the part where many governments that profit from imperialism and former colonialist operations are still generally quite racist, although in a much less overt and somewhat more insidious way; I'd also add that, like I've said earlier both in this post and others, that rampant, unrestricted nationalism that is core to fascist ideology does in fact lead to genocide, especially once expansionist policies are pursued and enacted. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 'human nature' bit, I think what you're trying to say is that due to the extremism of fascism and the necessity for homogenous individual ideologies in such a regime, it can appear that attempts to homogenise thought through force can appear racist or genocidal. To that I'd say that if such a homogenisation requires purging or persecuting people of other races, that's racist; if it requires purging or persecuting people of other nationalities, that's also racist; and even if it doesn't, the whole ideology is still deplorable and shouldn't have a place in society.
In the end, I do agree with other posters saying that getting into semantics over fascism is exactly what fascists want, and jokes on me for taking that bait.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;52671910]Just a reminder to people in this thread that a popular alt-right tactic is to focus on definitions and pedantry when everyone already knows what you mean.
Did anyone in this thread believe that Nazis and Fascists were the the exact same?
Is it relevant to modern problems that 1940s Nazis called themselves socialists?
Not finger pointing, just a slightly paranoid reminder for people interested in removing fascism, no matter what name they use.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone here is trying to rebut the OP with those arguments man. The discussion they are having is more of a offtopic than an attempt at a retort.
If you'd stumble upon two people arguing whether or not nazis were socialists would you assume that at least one of them is a nazi/altright?
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52675681]Nazi-socialist association is not a widely held belief, to little surprise. The people who want to draw that comparison possess, more often than not, more radical than usual opinions you can call right wing, people who have something to gain from detaching nazism from right wing and associating it with the left. "I am this much on the right but you cant call me a Nazi because Nazis were actually leftists! HA!"
Others are usually people who buy these people's narratives.
So, I'd say there is a good chance such a person is at least flirting with the alt-right. You know, where there is smoke.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah definitely if it's anything like "you can't call me a Nazi because Nazis were leftists and I'm on the right" or anything like that or if someone wants to argue this as a rebuttal to similar arguments that contrapoints made it's pretty clear.
But like I said if I'd stumble upon two people arguing whether or not nazis were socialists (and neither of them would argue in reference of themselves) I wouldn't assume that at least one of them is a nazi/altright. I would as soon as one of them would say "therefore you can't call me a nazi" though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
