American Man Gives Nazi Salute in Germany, Gets Punched in the Face - Sensationalist Headlines

I don't think embarking on a massive artificial stimulus drive through rearmament, selling off services to private companies, freezing the real wages of workers to pre-1929 levels, using slave labour, running out of money and only being saved from financial ruin by looting half of Europe is, in any sense of the phrase, 'a solid financial ideology'.

there's nothing wrong with artificial stimulus drives. we did it with the hoover dam. most of the rest of that shit came after they went broke fighting too many wars on too many fronts. the hyperaggressive expansionism (ie the reason they went broke) is one of those dim ideas I mentioned.

Stimulus is fine, yes. In the case of the Nazis, they were using that stimulus to create the army which they then used to conquer continental Europe, steal all their money, and use that to cover the costs of making the army in the first place. Which isn't fine. Also, it means that without the expansionism their economy would have collapsed. And no, all those things I listed were intrinsic to the Nazi economy. Calling it a 'solid financial ideology' that resembles modern-semi socialist economies is an entirely superficial analysis at best and utterly ignorant at worst. [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] We haven't even touched on the idea of autarky either, another key tenet of their financial ideology that would make even the dumbest economist cringe.

This is a stupid argument. Just because there's a couple diamonds in a pile of shit doesn't mean it's not still a pile of shit, and the financial aspect worked for the time. The same policies would hardly work today

they had a wonky implementation but there's nothing strictly wrong with being an autarky. it was good enough for japan for about 200 years, and one of the core features of classical greece. you know, a couple millennia before they went broke. I never said the analysis was anything more than superficial, I'm not going to write a doctoral thesis on why there were good parts. I did however say that it's a solid financial ideology once you remove the shitty parts. you're just telling me about shitty parts that I already said it'd have been better off without. [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52570961]This is a stupid argument. Just because there's a couple diamonds in a pile of shit doesn't mean it's not still a pile of shit, and the financial aspect worked for the time. The same policies would hardly work today[/QUOTE] yeah but once you remove the shit you're left with a pile of diamonds

[QUOTE=butre;52570969]they had a wonky implementation but there's nothing strictly wrong with being an autarky. it was good enough for japan for about 200 years, and one of the core features of classical greece. you know, a couple millennia before they went broke. I never said the analysis was anything more than superficial, I'm not going to write a doctoral thesis on why there were good parts. I did however say that it's a solid financial ideology once you remove the shitty parts. you're just telling me about shitty parts that I already said it'd have been better off without.[/QUOTE] Remove enough words from the Bible and you can make the sentence "god isn't real". You've made the claim National socialism is a 'solid financial ideology' and justified it by taking elements so far out of their context that you aren't actually talking about the economics of national socialism, just things you think are good. And you haven't even elaborated on those either! I'm sorry. What you said was dumb. The fact you're doubling down on a dumb claim is even worse

[QUOTE=butre;52570969] yeah but once you remove the shit you're left with a pile of diamonds[/QUOTE] doing that also requires a lot of internal tweaking because, to put it simply, everything he enacted was to make his ultimate goal possible. that includes financial policies that favored germans and drove jews into poverty, oppression, etc

[QUOTE=Araknid;52570503]Sure they're not as bad as nazis, but instead going by most communist regimes, they'll want to exterminate you for being rich, being followers of religions and not wanting to bend to communist will. What an insult to all the people who have suffered under communist regimes. Nazism as an ideology is definitely worse but they're both complete garbage and have been pretty much every single time they have been implemented.[/QUOTE] You have no idea what you are talking about and haven't read the thread up until now haven't you? Maybe you would realise your so-called communist regimes don't even qualify for the basic requirements to be called communist. [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;52570803]no, but it does mean you missed the point [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] national socialism is fine, genocide isn't. hitler had some bright moments, but he had some dim ones as well. if you take out the dim ones you're left with a pretty solid political ideology resembling modern semi-socialist countries.[/QUOTE] Germany's financial improvement came from discrimination, so even as an economic ideology it's pretty fucking shit.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;52568375]He was "severely drunk", so I don't think that was really his intention or that he's necessarily a nazi sympathiser. He may want to stay a bit more sober in the future though.[/QUOTE] words words inhibitions words words repressed actions words words jungian psychology words words closet nazi [quote] neustadt [/quote] [quote] didn't deserve it [/quote] Yeah, he kinda did. [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=eirexe;52571043]You have no idea what you are talking about and haven't read the thread up until now haven't you? Maybe you would realise your so-called communist regimes don't even qualify for the basic requirements to be called communist. [/QUOTE] Ah yes, this argument again. If the world was made up of 3000 people "pure communism" (as if such a thing would ever exist) might work. The word will never be made up of 3000 people, and people are [B]biologically[/B] impelled not to share evenly anyway. Communism has about as much chance as President Twilight Sparkle of ever being a real non-completely wishful thing and both would be soundly endorsed by the exact same people.

[QUOTE=27X;52571050]words words inhibitions words words repressed actions words words jungian psychology words words closet nazi Yeah, he kinda did. [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] Ah yes, this argument again. If the world was made up of 3000 people "pure communism" (as if such a thing would ever exist) might work. The word will never be made up of 3000 people, and people are [B]biologically[/B] impelled not to share evenly anyway. Communism has about as much chance as President Twilight Sparkle of ever being a real non-completely wishful thing and both would be soundly endorsed by the exact same people.[/QUOTE] First of all, pure communism does not exist, there are many forms of it, but they all follow the basic definition of a stateless moneyless classless society. The human nature argument is as old as air and I'm so tired of it I'm not even going to cite any paper, because you will dismiss it. I'm not going to discuss wether or not communism is viable (I am not a communist), this is not what this thread is for, you are literally stating that communists are inherently violent and that people suffered under them, and both of them are not true, those people suffered under what is basically a far right government that tries to sell itself as left to please the masses, it is not an insult to classify their governments as what they actually were, capitalism of state, it is in fact, the correct thing to do. There's no such thing as a communist state, and there will never be because communism simply doesn't have a state, period.

[QUOTE=eirexe;52571043] Maybe you would realise your so-called communist regimes don't even qualify for the basic requirements to be called communist. [/QUOTE] Yeah, same as medieval European Christianity barely had anything in common with the teachings of Jesus so must be called something else. These regimes the closest thing one will ever get to what this ideology describes, so might as well call them what their dictators chose to call them - communist regimes.

[QUOTE=gudman;52571077]Yeah, same as medieval European Christianity barely had anything in common with the teachings of Jesus so must be called something else. These regimes the closest thing one will ever get to what this ideology describes, so might as well call them what their dictators chose to call them - communist regimes.[/QUOTE] Early christians did follow jesus's teachings pretty well. The difference is that most christians accept the modern conservative approach instead of Jesus's own while most communists don't accept the USSR.

[QUOTE=butre;52570936]there's nothing wrong with artificial stimulus drives. we did it with the hoover dam. most of the rest of that shit came after they went broke fighting too many wars on too many fronts. the hyperaggressive expansionism (ie the reason they went broke) is one of those dim ideas I mentioned.[/QUOTE] Artificial stimulus is the most generous description that you could give it. Let's call it what it was: theft. They stole property from the Jews and gave it to party members in exchange for cash and services. They conned the citizens out of money with promises of socialized programs where you would pay in and recieve benefits later - most notably subsidized motor vehicles and government timeshares - then canceled those programs before they payed out and redirected the money and manufacturing torwards the war effort. The government was still completley without capital, but by conscripting laborers into the war effort at next to no pay they turned raw materials into tanks, weapons, troop carriers, and bombers and used those to lay siege to europe so they could rinse and repeat the cycle of theft and lies indefinitley. There was no responsible policy and no economic plan- just a self substaining war machine built on lies.

[QUOTE=butre;52570803] national socialism is fine, genocide isn't. hitler had some bright moments, but he had some dim ones as well. if you take out the dim ones you're left with a pretty solid political ideology resembling modern semi-socialist countries.[/QUOTE] Not trying to seem bigoted to Americans, but why is it always yanks saying this uneducated crap? The early Fascists [I]explicitly[/I] said that they sought to create totalitarian states. Nazism and its father ideology, Fascism, are inherently totalitarian, imperialist, social darwinist and violent. If you take away the extreme authoritarianism, expansionism, the mythical worship of an ancient golden age or ancestry, and the view that most life is inherently worthless, you [I]do not[/I] have Fascism. It ceases to be Fascism, as those are the core ideological aspects of it. You may have a right wing junta or some form of brutal dictatorship, but you would not have a Fascist state. I also don't get your "semi-socialist" comment. Do you mean the few social democratic states? Finland, Denmark and such. Last I checked, they hadn't declared great swathes of their own populations unfit for life as per stringent moral and physical standards (need I remind you of the euthanasia programs?), invaded their neighbors in order to fulfill fantasies of a glorious ancient golden age of war and dominance, nor had they limited free expression down to the point of even banning "foreign" parts of their own languages. Friendly reminder that Mussolini tried destroy 'un-Italian' words. That's not even going into the sheer economic differences, or how Nazi economic programs spawned the word privatization. Not exactly a thing one associates with Sweden or Norway. Does the US actually go into the Fascists when it comes to history classes, or is it only about the wars?

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52570637]My point is that people saying "wow, just talk to them and show them they're wrong!!" are being incredibly naive. People don't change easily and many will only dig their heels in if you try even if you're being totally reasonable.[/QUOTE] So accept them it is, because actually doing something non-violent against it is "naive". [QUOTE]You don't start preaching genocide because you're a great person. Someone who falls into an ideology like that is very likely to be a very bitter and hate-filled person. And someone like that is very unlikely to see the light no matter how you go about it. [/QUOTE] Still they can, by fighting against their hate with hate in return. You're just solidifying their beliefs. Then they certainly won't change. It makes it us vs. them, we are no longer the same people. Every "nazi" is aren't going to advocate genocide either, most are a little more restrained than that. When you're not assuming you're talking to a straight up holocaust supporter, things might go more smoothly. [QUOTE]Tell me, what was it that happened with the Nazis over in Charlottesville just like yesterday? Oh right. A great many of them attacked completely innocent people simply for being around and not being the same as them. What do you think the likelihood of getting attacked when doing something that might provoke them is when they're so willing to jump straight to violence when completely unprovoked? [/QUOTE] You maybe shouldn't talk with them when they are high on adrenaline and are looking to vent their anger. You talk with them when are calm and not in battlegear. Try talking to the counter-protesters about these things, I would think neither is in the mood for debate.

[QUOTE=RB33;52571359] Still they can, by fighting against their hate with hate in return. You're just solidifying their beliefs. Then they certainly won't change. It makes it us vs. them, we are no longer the same people. Every "nazi" is aren't going to advocate genocide either, most are a little more restrained than that. When you're not assuming you're talking to a straight up holocaust supporter, things might go more smoothly.[/QUOTE] Iirc, nazi ideology is [i]built[/i] around the idea of genocide. Like... that's kind of their whole deal. "Racial purity" and all that nonesense. Ergo, by being a supporter of that ideology, no matter what label you stick over the top of it, you are literally straight-up advocating for actual genocide. I always find it amusing when people insist we give nazis the "right" to "voice thier opinion" when their "opinion" amounts to [i]actual fucking genocide. [/i]

[QUOTE=Ona;52571446]Iirc, nazi ideology is [i]built[/i] around the idea of genocide. Like... that's kind of their whole deal. "Racial purity" and all that nonesense. Ergo, by being a supporter of that ideology, no matter what label you stick over the top of it, you are literally straight-up advocating for actual genocide. I always find it amusing when people insist we give nazis the "right" to "voice thier opinion" when their "opinion" amounts to [i]actual fucking genocide. [/i][/QUOTE] You will find that surprisingly few of them actually call themselves nazis (usually something similar instead), we just generalize them as nazis. They are not bound by the nazi-policies of the '40s. They are capable of stop advocating actual genocide (as many of them have certainly done), that of course doesn't turn them into good people. But it's a strawman claiming that these are all genocide supporters and using that as an excuse to not talk sense into them.

Genocide is not necessarily a part of many modern Nazi ideologies but they all include extreme nationalism and set the stage for genocide regardless. The only good Nazi is a former Nazi.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52571547]Genocide is not necessarily a part of many modern Nazi ideologies but they all include extreme nationalism and set the stage for genocide regardless. [B]The only good Nazi is a former Nazi.[/B][/QUOTE] This is exactly what we should be saying, instead of the violence-glorifying "only good nazi is a dead nazi" posts in these threads. People, you're better than wishing for the death of people as the solution.

Let me clarify: I would very much like for all of these people to take part in an open dialogue or academic debate and change their ways. Some will. Many already have. I will wholeheartedly forgive any former neo-Nazi and I encourage everyone else to be as open to them as possible. There is no reason to hold their past beliefs over their heads if they have honestly renounced them. Unfortunately, some won't. Violence will probably ultimately be necessary. The movement isn't growing, but it is getting louder. As it bleeds members, those that remain dig their heels in further and become all the more vocal and dangerous. I do not expect that this issue is going to go down quietly, certainly not with the last holdouts in a few years' time. We shouldn't rule out responding to inevitable violence with violence for the sake of keeping a moral high ground.

[QUOTE=RB33;52571536]You will find that surprisingly few of them actually call themselves nazis (usually something similar instead), we just generalize them as nazis. They are not bound by the nazi-policies of the '40s. They are capable of stop advocating actual genocide (as many of them have certainly done), that of course doesn't turn them into good people. But it's a strawman claiming that these are all genocide supporters and using that as an excuse to not talk sense into them.[/QUOTE] Honestly, the step between genocide and advocating for white supremacy isn't very big. While it's intellectually dishonest to say that all white supremacists are advocating for genocide, that's the direction they're going in and will end up with in either case. There is no realistic scenario in which white supremacists achieve their dream of a society without genocide, in one form or another. [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;52571594]This is exactly what we should be saying, instead of the violence-glorifying "only good nazi is a dead nazi" posts in these threads. People, you're better than wishing for the death of people as the solution.[/QUOTE] I can agree with this.

[QUOTE=RB33;52571594]People, you're better than wishing for the death of people as the solution.[/QUOTE] Ideally we should strive to reach this conclusion. In reality, some people just want others dead.

Still just cause you don't want to kill ppl for being nazis doesn't mean you have to nor should tolerate them and you definitely shouldn't allow them to freely say whatever they want and influence others.