to be fair i don't think that high proportion of anime watchers would support the nazis
They have their own logic for what makes media good or bad, and that logic usually doesn't leave for much of a middle ground. The only thing an anime-loving nazi is likely to budge on is whether or not
another nazi is legit.
i always viewed the use of cute anime avatars in juxtaposed to their morbid views as some sort of dark comedy.
I can say for sure i'm not a nazi
And the GOP uttered a sigh of relief. Their own personal führer just said what they've been thinking for so long, no need to hold it in anymore. How long do y'all wanna bet until the GOP and its worshipers begin calling themselves nationalists openly in the senate and in the elections, without second thought?
That goes for pretty much any bizzarly right-wing cartoon fandom. Anways funny seeing a weeb or bronie support the far right even though they'd be shoved in the oven faster than a deflating soufflé.
You have a very poor understanding of history and political terms. Your entire post is just complete falsehoods. I'd recommend learning about nationalism in the 1910s and how it caused world war one. How Hitler spoke to the hurt german nationalist pride in the 1930s to rise to power. It's a desease of humanity and never a good thing, brought only hate violence and misery to us.
You don't need blind love of nation and a cultural identity over everything else to have an healthy society, quite the opposite.
And your "it was the left that did it!!" Is laughable and a single page of 20th century history proves that wrong. The leftists were anti nationalists from the start and anti war in the 1910s, and proeminent leftists got murdered by right wingers leading up to the war for being anti war and not patriotic enough.
#notallanimays
For the record, part of my understanding of history and terms is ironically derived from those 1910s socialists you go on to cite and try to beat me over the head with, since socialism was my starting point.
Not really. History reaches past the 1910s and its relationship to anti-war socialists by the way.
The nation has been the peak level of human political development thus far, and has been an integral part of any liberal or socialist theory of history. Your idea of what caused WW1 is poor and one-dimensional, and not even consistent with what leftists who were opposed to nationalism thought at that time.
The 1910s socialists who opposed the war were opposed to nationalism, yes, and this forced a split in that movement with patriotic socialists/social-democrats which caused the failure of the second international. Jean Jaures' assassination was actually a key part of this process.
The Second International became ineffective in 1916 during World War I because the separate national parties that composed the International did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nations' role. The Secretary General of the ISB, Camille Huysmans, moved the ISB from German-occupied Brussels to The Hague in December 1914 and attempted to coordinate socialist parties from the warring states to at least July 1916.[4] French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) leader Jean Jaurès's assassination, a few days before the beginning of the war, symbolized the failure of the antimilitarist doctrine of the Second International. At the Zimmerwald Conference in 1915, anti-war socialists attempted to maintain international unity against the social patriotism of the social democratic leaders.
The radicals came to be influenced by the belief that the general theme of the time was that nationalism, liberalism, and capitalism were no longer progressive, and instead condemning humanity to endless war and imperialism.
Even they largely didn't believe that the less developed world did not need nationalism, however. Liberals are a whole different story. It took them until the 60s for this tendency to begin to rise.
I don't know what 'blind love' is supposed to be, but yes you do need cultural identity and assimilation, especially as we get more complex as a society. Class inequality, greater specialization in the division of labor, the effect of the sexual revolution and women in college/the workforce on the state of the family, influence of money on politics, greater disparity between cities/coasts and countryside, changing demographics, etc. all stipulate the need for a shared cultural identity across increasingly divergent parts of society.
Additionally, your ideas are ahistorical. Democratic history has largely been inseparable from the nation-state and there has never been a democracy based on anything but it, just empires and despotic governments. Indeed, the stalling of the democracy index is in part owed to liberalism failing to export itself to non-Western societies without much for modern national development, some places are even seeing its reversal (like in the Middle East). America's ability to absorb immigrants is historically based on moving them up from ghettoized ethnic isolation and into Middle America and its culture. Our historical spread of liberalism in Europe is connected to the formation of liberal nations in the Atlantic and their victory in wars.
All evidence seems to suggest nation matters and will continue to do so in the long run. There's little reason to believe otherwise. The question is reconciling nationalism with globalization, not trying to shoehorn it into the dustbin of history because your head is in the clouds.
Wrong. Both liberals and socialists/social-democratic movements in the 19th century and through the 1910s and beyond were by and large nationalist. You would have to go to the far-left to find individuals who weren't, although this is complicated.
Since the left has spent much of its history opposing conservative monarchies and various empires, as well as advocating progress through overcoming provincial divisions and religious sectarianism, it's largely been predisposed to nationalism. We didn't really begin to see a divergence between the left and nationalism until the 20th century, although this wasn't consistent at all and there's no reason to believe the reversal will not happen.
I never said that. All I did was point out its extensive left-wing history and then you immediately launched into an irrelevant tirade about about the first world war, as if a) that changed the relationship of nationalism to liberalism and socialism b) the viewpoints of the anti-war section of a split in the left define our relationship to nationalism.
You're right, it's a little more complicated than these two things. My next point is that, rather than defining yourself with these two ideas, a little nationalism on the left would allow it to shed its limited appeal and snobbish, bourgeois social character. The rise of nationalist populism in the West is connected to historical recession of the left from labor and its associated stake in the nation, as a result they have outmaneuvered the left in seizing on discontent rising with the uneven recovery and people being left behind by globalization.
100 years ago the hallowing out of the middle class and widespread loss of faith in institutions would have fueled the return of socialism. That is not happening. You should rethink your ideas as a result, rather than simply dig in heels in response to new political trends.
man the US sure is fucked up
It's interesting how in our country our PM has a chunk of her own party at her throat yet in the US the president's party seems to just be licking his shoes and defending him no matter what he does.
Its a widespread thing to be honest, like being a fascist suddenly is a thing you can genuinely be and it can be a "good thing" and it "gets things done".
like a good chunk of South America has endured a Military Regime in the last 40-50 years yet still people want a fascist authority to "fix shit".
A win's a win in their eyes.
A man whose country was destroyed by natiolism. Twice.
I thought he was Austrian?
Einstein was born in Germany.
Hitler was Austrian.
If you wanna go even deeper there's an important distinction to be made between communists and social democrats. Part of why the nationalist right wing has historically been so strong in the 20th century is because it's been unified while the left has had a lot of infighting between moderate reformists and more extreme revolutionaries, this is something Hitler exploited in the 30s.
Oh i'm so aware of the left being divisive and hating eachother even more than the right, every election we have like 2 right wing parties here and 6 different left ones who all hate eachother.
The left never accepts compromise and it's what dooms them. It's like the far left people telling you to not vote because the whole system is corrupt and doesn't actually represent the will fo the people. That's true on paper but not voting is how you get Trump and other far right in office, because the right sure doesn't concern themselves with that.
Failure of the left of being pragmatic and unite against the right allowed the right to win in so many examples in history.
I find it pretty ignorant to call Nationalism Nazism,
For it to deolve into Nazism you would need Antisemitism, Racism, Eugenics and few other bad things.
I may be pretty extremist in my beliefs but that doesn't mean I support Nazism.
Race doesn't change whether or not you are amazing person thats fun and pleasant to hang out with!
I personally prefer Communism, although we haven't had one that didn't fuck up yet,
And I believe that we need to be more advanced resources, automation and production wise before we could have chances of Communism that wouldn't backfire
Hey Loth, just a tidbit for everyone to catch, Front National actually rebranded to Rassemblement National earlier in the year. Everyone including metropolitan France is having a hard time computing this info but just so you know, it's the National Gathering now.
Great post tho, I'm glad I didn't have to type it out myself.
You're saying nonsense. Politics isn't throwing buzzwords like "nazism is a few bad things, communism didn't work but I think it's cool". This affects the lives of people.
Reminder that he picked Steve Bannon as chief executive of his campaign then appointed him chief strategist and senior counselor.
Reminder that Trump refused to condemn the unite the right rally for a week after their terrorist attack, and first blamed "the alt-left"
He just blamed the media for far right terrorist attack attemps against Soros and others political opponements.
Wether or not he fits the definition of a nazi under the third reich is meaningless. His fascist ideas and call for violence against his political opponements and counter powers are everywhere in the rhetoric he spews to his cult.
I'd rather stay emotionally detached when discussing politics rather than be biased by emotions and personal feelings.
And my post wasn't about Nazism but rather about how calling Nationalism Nazism is wrong.
My post having tone that doesn't appeal to you doesn't make my logic any less valid.
And trying to exploit that is quite petty in my opinion.
If I am saying nonsense then you're replying with nonsense.
Nationalism is one of the ideologies and factors that lead to nazism and fascism.
Nobody was saying nationalism is nazism in the thread, so that's another strawman.
It's easy to be emotionaly detached from something if you understand none of it.
Nationalism is inherently toxic and small-minded. I'm pretty sure Trump could have said "I'm a white nationalist, not a nazi, just a nationalist who's also white, believe me folks" and the political situation would remain the same.
You aren't emotionally detached.
You're intellectually detached.
You're disputing facts because your feelings are more important to you.
Stop.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
