This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@ArishMell I think to me, a lot of these people don't outright support Nazism but they're ignorant because a lot of the ideas floating around out there were started by literal Nazism.
Most people don't understand because they don't question the origins of their beliefs so in my opinion, they become Nazis by natural means. Their belief systems allow them to become indoctrinated even if it's against their belief system, it's by proxy.
If you go to the source of most of the people right leaners support, the leaders are almost always white nationalists. And groups too. Things like anti immigration rhetoric, the great white replacement theories, the anti LGBT communities, it's all interconnected.
White nationalist groups have a lot of money, they're not poor.
They go back to the 50s where a lot of KKK white members ran prisons. There's a lot of cops who are klan members too. A lot of lawyers and politicians whose families were directly in the KKK, it's not coincidence I believe.
White Evangelicals often parrot white nationalism and they have billions of dollars. There's been research on these groups and their pull in law from behind the scenes. Documentaries about secret cash to buy off people and sway our constitution.
So most people aren't Nazis but it becomes like that by default and what I would deem as a criteria for one being a Nazi
Most people don't understand because they don't question the origins of their beliefs so in my opinion, they become Nazis by natural means. Their belief systems allow them to become indoctrinated even if it's against their belief system, it's by proxy.
If you go to the source of most of the people right leaners support, the leaders are almost always white nationalists. And groups too. Things like anti immigration rhetoric, the great white replacement theories, the anti LGBT communities, it's all interconnected.
White nationalist groups have a lot of money, they're not poor.
They go back to the 50s where a lot of KKK white members ran prisons. There's a lot of cops who are klan members too. A lot of lawyers and politicians whose families were directly in the KKK, it's not coincidence I believe.
White Evangelicals often parrot white nationalism and they have billions of dollars. There's been research on these groups and their pull in law from behind the scenes. Documentaries about secret cash to buy off people and sway our constitution.
So most people aren't Nazis but it becomes like that by default and what I would deem as a criteria for one being a Nazi
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@ArishMell
I hate to say it but with the deportations, you don't know how they're treating the immigrants especially if Trump is talking Guantanamo Bay. He could run it in theory, like a concentration camp and we wouldn't know.
In Nazi times, it's highly doubtful that they just took Jewish people and stuck them into camps and treated them that way in front of everyone. It's more like they took them peacefully and the German citizens didn't hear anything about it except the people who have the misfortune enough to either be a German political prisoner (Jewish sympathizers) or a Jewish person.
So yeah I mean things have the ability to be that way, it's highly doubtful Trump will give these people a fair trial and we have no idea how they're being treated
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.
I hate to say it but with the deportations, you don't know how they're treating the immigrants especially if Trump is talking Guantanamo Bay. He could run it in theory, like a concentration camp and we wouldn't know.
In Nazi times, it's highly doubtful that they just took Jewish people and stuck them into camps and treated them that way in front of everyone. It's more like they took them peacefully and the German citizens didn't hear anything about it except the people who have the misfortune enough to either be a German political prisoner (Jewish sympathizers) or a Jewish person.
So yeah I mean things have the ability to be that way, it's highly doubtful Trump will give these people a fair trial and we have no idea how they're being treated
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, F
@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.