ArishMell · 70-79, M
Define "Nazi".
It is a portmanteau abbreviation of the German for National Socialist, the party invented by Adolf Hitler. Although there are regimes, "Left" and "Right" as ruthless as his, and rising hard "right-wing" politics, even a very unpleasant and dangerous extremist tendency, there are no Nazi Parties in the world.
Bandying the word about willy-nilly for opposite political views, however justified the opposition might be, cheapens the terrible things the real National Socialist regime did in the 1930s-40s.
Yes, there are people who hold very harsh, anti-democratic views although so far at least they stop short of proposing mass-murder for purely ethnic or social dogma; but they should never be called "Nazi" unless only if they form a definite party under that name. Which is very unlikely because seem to distance themselves from the originals. Use the proper names for whatever party they may support, or more general terms otherwise.
Why are such parties becoming more popular?
Generally they superficially seem to offer stability, certainty and a warped, isolationist version of patriotism, even if at cost of political and social freedom - a cost unimportant or even welcome to followers of the creed. They seem to me particularly stronger in countries whose democratic systems tend to create rather wooly coalitions and blur the once-clear ideological distinctions between the old-established "mainstream" parties.
....
The majority of the followers of such parties are not physically dangerous and may be even be horrified to think they miight be thought a physical threat.
The most ruthless extremists who would not stop at gratuitous killing or other crimes, attract people who already have violent tendencies.
It's important to consider that most of those blamed for, or claiming, acting for some nasty indeology, are not drawn to that ideology then that turns them violent. Rather they are already attracted to violence and cruelty. The ideology offers support to them, making them feel part of a spurious "movement" so somehow significant. Often the attacker is not a "member" of anything, but acts individually for his interpretation of a nebulous but very antisocial idea.
That was a point I learnt only recently, described by a British academic who has studied this problem, and written on it. Speaking on the radio, she said most politicians find it hard to comprehend that you need ask if the dogma made the perpetrator violent, and usually it has attracted and encouraged one already nursing violent tendencies. The same could be true of those who merely kill for the sake of killing, even despite evidence of enjoying dangerous web-sites promoting extremist dogmas.
It is a portmanteau abbreviation of the German for National Socialist, the party invented by Adolf Hitler. Although there are regimes, "Left" and "Right" as ruthless as his, and rising hard "right-wing" politics, even a very unpleasant and dangerous extremist tendency, there are no Nazi Parties in the world.
Bandying the word about willy-nilly for opposite political views, however justified the opposition might be, cheapens the terrible things the real National Socialist regime did in the 1930s-40s.
Yes, there are people who hold very harsh, anti-democratic views although so far at least they stop short of proposing mass-murder for purely ethnic or social dogma; but they should never be called "Nazi" unless only if they form a definite party under that name. Which is very unlikely because seem to distance themselves from the originals. Use the proper names for whatever party they may support, or more general terms otherwise.
Why are such parties becoming more popular?
Generally they superficially seem to offer stability, certainty and a warped, isolationist version of patriotism, even if at cost of political and social freedom - a cost unimportant or even welcome to followers of the creed. They seem to me particularly stronger in countries whose democratic systems tend to create rather wooly coalitions and blur the once-clear ideological distinctions between the old-established "mainstream" parties.
....
The majority of the followers of such parties are not physically dangerous and may be even be horrified to think they miight be thought a physical threat.
The most ruthless extremists who would not stop at gratuitous killing or other crimes, attract people who already have violent tendencies.
It's important to consider that most of those blamed for, or claiming, acting for some nasty indeology, are not drawn to that ideology then that turns them violent. Rather they are already attracted to violence and cruelty. The ideology offers support to them, making them feel part of a spurious "movement" so somehow significant. Often the attacker is not a "member" of anything, but acts individually for his interpretation of a nebulous but very antisocial idea.
That was a point I learnt only recently, described by a British academic who has studied this problem, and written on it. Speaking on the radio, she said most politicians find it hard to comprehend that you need ask if the dogma made the perpetrator violent, and usually it has attracted and encouraged one already nursing violent tendencies. The same could be true of those who merely kill for the sake of killing, even despite evidence of enjoying dangerous web-sites promoting extremist dogmas.
View 4 more replies »
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@SatanBurger A concentration camp is simply the placing of a particular group in one space without the ability to have any freedom. It crossed my mind that this was what Guantanamo Bay was a long time ago and again when Trump mentioned it in respect of people he didn't want.
SatanBurger · 36-40, FVIP
@FreddieUK What scares me is not knowing their conditions and what they're doing to those people.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SatanBurger Trump's idea so far is simply to send the immigrants back home, or at least, back over the US border. It's hard to see how he could use Guantamano Bay for the numbers he thinks he needs deport, and I don't suppose he knows what to do with them there; kept at US taxpayers' expense..
You are right to a point about how the Nazis treated the Jews, as well as gypsies and homosexuals. The extermination camps' activities were hidden from the public at large. The entire pogrom was very public though, starting with propaganda, intimidation and loss of rights, work and opportunities but exploding into violence with Kristallnacht then the formation of ghettoes such as that in Warsaw.
Many thousands were killed locally. That was not in public but was otherwise open. The SS marched groups of their victims into the countryside, then ordered them to dig and stand in their own communal grave to be shot dead at point-blank range. Others were gassed in sealed vans, using the vehicle's exhaust fumes.
The "final solution" extermination camps, was a reponse to both the Hitler wanting such vast numbers of people killed, and the psychological effect of using direct shooting on the men carrying it out. I don't think the death-camps were Hitler's own idea, and they were designed by the architect Albert Speer, but one he agreed with wholeheatedly.
When the Allies liberated the extermination camps in the ending phase of WW2, in at least one case they made the inhabitants of the nearby town visit the site to learn just what had happened in there.
You are right to a point about how the Nazis treated the Jews, as well as gypsies and homosexuals. The extermination camps' activities were hidden from the public at large. The entire pogrom was very public though, starting with propaganda, intimidation and loss of rights, work and opportunities but exploding into violence with Kristallnacht then the formation of ghettoes such as that in Warsaw.
Many thousands were killed locally. That was not in public but was otherwise open. The SS marched groups of their victims into the countryside, then ordered them to dig and stand in their own communal grave to be shot dead at point-blank range. Others were gassed in sealed vans, using the vehicle's exhaust fumes.
The "final solution" extermination camps, was a reponse to both the Hitler wanting such vast numbers of people killed, and the psychological effect of using direct shooting on the men carrying it out. I don't think the death-camps were Hitler's own idea, and they were designed by the architect Albert Speer, but one he agreed with wholeheatedly.
When the Allies liberated the extermination camps in the ending phase of WW2, in at least one case they made the inhabitants of the nearby town visit the site to learn just what had happened in there.
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
Today (27th Jan2025) is Holocaust Memorial Day and the 80th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz so it would be a good time to respectfully remember what Nazism did.
It is also a good thing to be on our guard against anyone encouraging hate against particular groups as a political ploy to gain or keep power. The majority can sometimes be wrong and when they turn into a mob they are frighteningly destructive of everyone, including themselves.
It is also a good thing to be on our guard against anyone encouraging hate against particular groups as a political ploy to gain or keep power. The majority can sometimes be wrong and when they turn into a mob they are frighteningly destructive of everyone, including themselves.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
This on on the 80th Anniversary of the Red Army discovering Auschwitz - Birkenau, the largest of the extermination-camps that formed part of Hitler's "final solution" against the Jews as well as homosexuals, Roma, Russian PoWs and more or less anyone else he despised....
So, why?
Widespread ignorance of what the Nazis actually did, ancient prejudices against anyone "different", even a peculiar, growing idea particularly among younger people even in some European countries that strong, undemocratic governments are somehow better than liberal ones.
Oh - and I use democratic and liberal in their true meanings, not the warped ones of party-political slogans..
We must never forget, and this is why events like todays, in the camp now conserved as a museum and memorial to the atrocity, are so important..
Nor must we forget the victims of Stalin's rule in Russia (est. 10 Million people by famine and increasingly irrational puges), Mao's in China (est. >30M, mainly by famine but some in purges like the "Cultural Revolution"), Pol Pot's in Cambodia (about 2M, but a sizeable proportion of the population, by wilful murder, wilful destruction of medical facilities and sheer neglect).....
So, why?
Widespread ignorance of what the Nazis actually did, ancient prejudices against anyone "different", even a peculiar, growing idea particularly among younger people even in some European countries that strong, undemocratic governments are somehow better than liberal ones.
Oh - and I use democratic and liberal in their true meanings, not the warped ones of party-political slogans..
We must never forget, and this is why events like todays, in the camp now conserved as a museum and memorial to the atrocity, are so important..
Nor must we forget the victims of Stalin's rule in Russia (est. 10 Million people by famine and increasingly irrational puges), Mao's in China (est. >30M, mainly by famine but some in purges like the "Cultural Revolution"), Pol Pot's in Cambodia (about 2M, but a sizeable proportion of the population, by wilful murder, wilful destruction of medical facilities and sheer neglect).....
SatanBurger · 36-40, FVIP
There's a few things. I believe if you're not okay with your life, it can feel good having power even if you don't have money, it gives some semblance of control. I don't think these people believe in the ideology of Nazism per se but I believe that whatever went on in their lives is enough to feed their delusions of false security.
Belonging to a special group makes you feel wanted even if you're being used.
Some of these people have been disenfranchised and they most likely have personal issues. It sometimes feels good to let people manipulate your emotions so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions.
Belonging to a special group makes you feel wanted even if you're being used.
Some of these people have been disenfranchised and they most likely have personal issues. It sometimes feels good to let people manipulate your emotions so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions.
Because governments are making it normal to hate people who are marginalised.
I admit that we have always had issues with racism and ableism... but it always ramps up in the treatment that black and disabled people face when governments and the media start the rhetoric of "These people are the problem".
Members of the public then seem to think that someone died and made them immigration police/doctors overnight and they can go around demanding to see proof of nationality or disability.
No one will stand up for them when this happens because it means challenging recent indoctrination.
We talk about ISIS radicalisation - yet, we don't hold governments to account when the language they choose to use in debates creates problems for the people who they are supposed to be serving.
I admit that we have always had issues with racism and ableism... but it always ramps up in the treatment that black and disabled people face when governments and the media start the rhetoric of "These people are the problem".
Members of the public then seem to think that someone died and made them immigration police/doctors overnight and they can go around demanding to see proof of nationality or disability.
No one will stand up for them when this happens because it means challenging recent indoctrination.
We talk about ISIS radicalisation - yet, we don't hold governments to account when the language they choose to use in debates creates problems for the people who they are supposed to be serving.
KingofBones1 · 46-50, M
Honestly, I think it is because of the one world movement being forced on people by the media and the masses. People by nature want to be citizens of their own country, and when they feel either invaded or pushed upon economically socially or politically, it enrages certain extremist elements to take a radical stance.
emiliya · 22-25, F
The Nazis were extinguished in Europe and rest of the world. Are they popular? What is a Nazi to you? Maybe they are being revived, but is it a bad thing? It is what happens when people go from extreme to extreme. Germany lost their minds and invited millions of foreigners into their country, and so did other European countries. These peoples have added to the crime rates and caused other issues. In US, the migrants add to the crime rates. People want to preserve what is theirs; they don't want other tribes coming in and doing wicked things to their fellow citizen. The non-whites don't want whites doing wicked things to them, and the whites don't want the non-whites doing wicked things to them. It is not wrong to want to protect your country and fight when it is happening on your soil. A colonizer is always a colonizer, regardless of color. Is white not a color anymore?
What whites should do is keep out of other countries, and deal with the issues in their country.
What whites should do is keep out of other countries, and deal with the issues in their country.
emiliya · 22-25, F
@FreddieUK Judaism? Yes, not many people share Judaism. Not many Jews become Catholic. Not many people want to use their brains and think about things.
I could not care less what culture people have, but I do care about governments mistreating us and taking us for a ride. It matters when people do not get what they pay for. It is time the employee government got fired by its citizens and immigrants who care about their hosts.
I could not care less what culture people have, but I do care about governments mistreating us and taking us for a ride. It matters when people do not get what they pay for. It is time the employee government got fired by its citizens and immigrants who care about their hosts.
GunFinger · F
My thoughts exactly.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
FreestyleArt · 31-35, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@FreestyleArt The original National Socialist party invented by Adolf Hitler died with him, the end of WW2 and the Nuremburg Trials, but some of its basic ideology exploited prejudices that still attract gullible extremists who quite likely do not really understand the history. Or were never taught it.
GuyWithOpinions · 31-35, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@GuyWithOpinions Which "media" though? I don't know what the standard ones are like in your country, but I do know those in mine do not support extreme ideology such as espoused by Hitler's "National Socialist Party".
The media we all must really worry about are the "social-media" sites that allow anything and everything without the slightest investigation, verifying or questioning; and we do know some of the nastiest and most destabilising material on such fora is emanating from countries like Russia.
The most dangerous is not the sort of personal insult-trading we saw on this site in the USA's presidential-election campaigning. That's just childish. It is instead articles, blogs or pseudo-magazines that look like authoritative news services, but their biases are soon fairly clear on careful reading, they would fail simple integrity tests; and notably the ones I have seen at least give no office addresses, editorial names, nationality, contact details, etc.
The media we all must really worry about are the "social-media" sites that allow anything and everything without the slightest investigation, verifying or questioning; and we do know some of the nastiest and most destabilising material on such fora is emanating from countries like Russia.
The most dangerous is not the sort of personal insult-trading we saw on this site in the USA's presidential-election campaigning. That's just childish. It is instead articles, blogs or pseudo-magazines that look like authoritative news services, but their biases are soon fairly clear on careful reading, they would fail simple integrity tests; and notably the ones I have seen at least give no office addresses, editorial names, nationality, contact details, etc.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@GuyWithOpinions I think I know the incident you mean, though I have not seen any photographs of it; but unfortunately many of the media are indeed that shallow.
Luckily the main commercial outlets' own leanings are well-known and we can allow for them, but I don't use the newspapers or commercial broadcasters for news and current-affairs. Though in the UK the broadcasters are obliged to make it clear what is factual as far as can be determined, and what is opinion; both the BBC and commerical ones.
Sometimes a claim cannot be verified, especially in a war, and then the reporters will quote the claim but say it cannot be independently verified.
The BBC even has a verification department, and one of its tools is carefully examining background details in images from dubious sources, to see if they corroborate or deny the scene. It is not unknown for some image the creator wants us to believe, has been made artificially, far from the alleged location!
Among my own tests is to ask, "Does this source ask, read, listen to, both sides?" in a bitter trade-dispute, contentious election or indeed a war, at least as far as it reasonably can.
Another is, "Does it ask ordinary citizens, doctors, emergency and aid workers, as well as politicians or military leaders, on both sides?" Sometimes it has to be extremely careful so as to winkle out information without endangering both the interviewees and journalists.
Yet a third is "Does this service have any reason to lie or to mislead me?" I should add I do not accuse the British Press generally of downright lies, though it has been known to happen and they are caught out eventually. However, a report can be distorted subtly by being factual but carefully omitting qualifying observations or questions; or by tricks like quoting percentages without the base numbers. So you read a set of (mostly) facts but not enough of them to understand it properly and neutrally.
Luckily the main commercial outlets' own leanings are well-known and we can allow for them, but I don't use the newspapers or commercial broadcasters for news and current-affairs. Though in the UK the broadcasters are obliged to make it clear what is factual as far as can be determined, and what is opinion; both the BBC and commerical ones.
Sometimes a claim cannot be verified, especially in a war, and then the reporters will quote the claim but say it cannot be independently verified.
The BBC even has a verification department, and one of its tools is carefully examining background details in images from dubious sources, to see if they corroborate or deny the scene. It is not unknown for some image the creator wants us to believe, has been made artificially, far from the alleged location!
Among my own tests is to ask, "Does this source ask, read, listen to, both sides?" in a bitter trade-dispute, contentious election or indeed a war, at least as far as it reasonably can.
Another is, "Does it ask ordinary citizens, doctors, emergency and aid workers, as well as politicians or military leaders, on both sides?" Sometimes it has to be extremely careful so as to winkle out information without endangering both the interviewees and journalists.
Yet a third is "Does this service have any reason to lie or to mislead me?" I should add I do not accuse the British Press generally of downright lies, though it has been known to happen and they are caught out eventually. However, a report can be distorted subtly by being factual but carefully omitting qualifying observations or questions; or by tricks like quoting percentages without the base numbers. So you read a set of (mostly) facts but not enough of them to understand it properly and neutrally.
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
I mean…who knows it’s a complete mystery I guess 🙃
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
No, just more aggressive!
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@FreddieUK they all have checkpoints and guns at all their borders and none welcome immigrants. But you accept that and of course it's a non issue among the current mainstream! The results seem amusing, a genocide, a cold war... Fires! No actual infrastructure development but a festering disaster that keeps the West on fire! Well, it's not a concern n. You don't mind your results over in the mainstream! Only me! Alone, when I'm online! Isolated and pathetic while murka is greater than ever - expanding! On fire but not changing course.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@FreddieUK Just a little history for you. Putin and Zelenskyi had a peace deal worked out. Then some British guy with funny hair showed up and told Zeenskyi to ignore the deal. Zelenskyi the puppet obeyed Boris the Brit and as a result there are millions of missing and dead Ukrainians. Don't bother lecturing anyone about Nazism until you admit that the UK government and the US government has been supporting the Nazis in Ukraine. Yes Ukraine has real Nazis. Some clowns that dress up in Nazi garb. Those are real Nazis who trace their roots back to the Third Reich.
Elessar · 26-30, M
COVID fried a lot of brains
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01693-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01693-6
It's getting tougher for liberal Democrats to have their abortions on a whim, so consequently there are more Democrats.
SatanBurger · 36-40, FVIP
@RoguishEyes Abortions don't happen on a whim, that's your hyperbolic speech. Far rightists are sort of like vegans in the fact that they label meat eating as "murder," but you do the same only with abortion. You just have no argument.
joe438 · 61-69, M
The Democrats are projecting. In their efforts to exert control over people, they did and said things that reminded people of the Nazi party, so they said it was the Republicans and they projected. Now that we all know the claims were hooey, the have to double down on the “Republicans are Nazis “ mantra to try and save face- except that no one with two brain cells is buying it.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MasterLee · 56-60, M
Because anything not extreme left they call a nazi
They aren't.. they are just having the nerve now because of the antisemites coming out everywhere
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment