Politics Violence against Nazis, acceptable?

[Gethelred]

It's not about a right to speak.

It's that sometimes people have the same opinion about tertiary topic agreeing.

That someone you don't like agrees with your opposition it doesn't actually make the opposition position worse, just as it doesn't make your position worse if they agree with you.

It just is.

It's high school stuff to think someone else thinking the same impacts the idea. It's used to avoid discussing the ideas.

I shouldn't have to write your argument for you, but I understand what you're saying.

You're saying it's purely co-incidental than both you and Hitler liked Monet, and you can both be right about an interpretation of - say - Ebeneezer Scrooge's transformation from miser to populist hero. You share the same opinion, even if he, you or you both are awful people.

The problem comes a little later, when the reasoning behind the ideology comes into play. You don't know how they come by their reasoning, why they feel the way they do. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who you know for a fact is a person who thinks humans should be valued based on race, that science should be used to ensure that lessers cannot breed and/or should be mass slaughtered, and that any argument or position which leads to reaching power should be utilized in the interests of doing so.

That's the issue. Not the shared opinion, but that giving of the benefit of the doubt. The reasoning behind extending the benefit of the doubt for why someone thinks what they do is because a) they could be correct, and b) in the hopes that such behaviour will be reciprocated.

A nazi is not going to reciprocate the idea that you might be correct unless it serves them, and is going to use your high minded guff to serve their ends.

 

[Seeds]

Austrian-born, yes, but as mentioned the Austrians themselves identified very closely with Germany - those in the West after the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire, anyway. There were referendums being held in Austria immediately before Germany marched in which were starting to swing in the favour of unification with Germany in 1938. A lot of those old propaganda films showing cheering crowds welcoming in German armies in Czechoslovakia and Austria, in particular, were actual film being used for propaganda purposes.
Hell, even in Russia there were a lot of western Russians who were initially quite pleased to see German troops marching in... until the Germans royally screwed their own welcome.

As for the "majority of Germans"... 37-38% is significant (that was in, when, '31/'32?). Germany was a political mess after WW1, not a small part of which was due to western allies and Russian greed. Australian governments have been elected on similar figures of "popular support", and that's in a predominantly 2-party system, which Germany did not really have. Hitler did have a significant chunk of support from a very (and justifiably) aggrieved German people, whether or not they voted for the Nazis`-`they were dispossessed, economically destroyed, and angry. Particularly after being told (and which you, apparently, still believe) it was all their fault.

The political violence in Germany, assassinations and wotnot, were conducted by both sides (including the KPD) both prior to and after the Nazi party gained power. It was not, as you're suggesting, a one-sided affair.

Also worth noting that the Nazi party had that support in the early 30's from people inside Germany, and did not take into account the Germans who were now being told they were Polish, Czech, Austrian or what have you who weren't given that vote, but might have given him support too, if it meant they could be German again.

And this:

Is just a really, really inane comment from someone who clearly doesn't have much knowledge regarding the subject.

I always find it highly amusing (and annoying) that the rabid lefties who go on about indigenous land rights and wotnot, are completely unable to fathom that Germany, and many told-they-were-no-longer-German Germans were actually in a similar situation post ww1, and that's why they can never understand how it's possible the Nazi party could gain power in the first place.

No one is going to side with Hitler or the Nazis now. But if you can't see or understand how and why he gained power, eventually came to rule, and the wealth and national pride the Nazis restored to a broken (up) Germany after he gained power and prior to world war 2, then you're a damned fool.
You want to hate the Nazis, sure - everyone does, really. But you cannot simply dismiss or lie about what actually went down back then, and why it all happened, and say people didn't support them. They did. In droves.

Because when you invade, humiliate, subjugate and steal land and culture from people, they're going to be pissed about it and vote for whoever gives them a sense of pride and a better deal economically.

I think you need a sense of perspective. But you wouldn't be alone.

sounds like you have been reading a bit too much neo nazi propoganda. There is significant twisting of truth in your post on numerous occassions.

and you can disagree with the implementation of punishment placed on germany after world war 1 but they were more responsible for that war then anyone else and deserved punishment. It was hardly a devastating punishment for losing a war they started. just look at how they were punished after world war 2 as an example of a proper punishment.

i see how he came to power. Pushed the typical fear and nationalism argument used by many others. It convinced a large minority. But not the majority. He needed a lot of luck to get leadership.

ps. Like how you compared me to the rabid lefties. Not sure how they would feel about that.

 

[Marcel Proust]

sounds like you have been reading a bit too much neo nazi propoganda. There is significant twisting of truth in your post on numerous occassions.

and you can disagree with the implementation of punishment placed on germany after world war 1 but they were more responsible for that war then anyone else and deserved punishment. It was hardly a devastating punishment for losing a war they started. just look at how they were punished after world war 2 as an example of a proper punishment.

Which part was wrong?

History is complex and doesn't always equate to neo Nazi propaganda.

Fwiw my understanding is several historians say it'll be seen as the same war down the track.

Very few Nazis were killed / jailed post war iirc. Germany seemed to bounce back fine from it's punishment and is smashing Europe again via economy.

Hello Greece.

 

[Dramoth]

No, because we are all capable of holding various opinions on various subjects.

If David Duke suddenly supported Biden it doesn't make 81 million people pro KKK.

Third party associations as a debate tactic is for high school bullying.

If you have one nazi, and 10 people sitting around talking and laughing with them, you in fact have 11 nazis.

German saying.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

You can actually lay a fair amount of blame for the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression firmly at the feet of the Versailles treaty.
I can't, in good conscience, refer to it as a peace treaty.

History is a strange animal. At the end of WW2, the newly created state of Israel found itself at war with an Arab country, can't remember which one off the top of my head. All of them, at one time or another.
But in this instance, the Israeli air force was equipped with Czech-manufactured Messerschmitt BF109's, under licence from Germany (wrong engine, so they weren't as good as the German ones), against Arabs flying war-surplus Spitfires.

When you stop and think about that for a while, you can't help but smile a little at how twisted everything really is. And how morality has very little to do with anything, at the end of the day when your own survival is at stake.

History in a nutshell:

 

[blackcat]

Spiderman?

Toby McGuire , geeks get gals

 

[blackcat]

If you have one nazi, and 10 people sitting around talking and laughing with them, you in fact have 11 nazis.

German saying.

Tarantino

 

[blackcat]

You can actually lay a fair amount of blame for the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression firmly at the feet of the Versailles treaty.
I can't, in good conscience, refer to it as a peace treaty.

History is a strange animal. At the end of WW2, the newly created state of Israel found itself at war with an Arab country, can't remember which one off the top of my head. All of them, at one time or another.
But in this instance, the Israeli air force was equipped with Czech-manufactured Messerschmitt BF109's, under licence from Germany (wrong engine, so they weren't as good as the German ones), against Arabs flying war-surplus Spitfires.

When you stop and think about that for a while, you can't help but smile a little at how twisted everything really is. And how morality has very little to do with anything, at the end of the day when your own survival is at stake.

History in a nutshell:
View attachment 1315667

Downing Street and the Whitehouse knew they were not getting overrun , they knew they started the c.l.e.a.n.s.i.n.g , they knew their materiel dwarfed the Arab legion , it was not a fair fight , but not for they way you tell

Israel = Downing and Whitehouse's Sherrie in the M.E. they do our bidding
#truePowerConcepts ... this thesis <= <= runs counter to the Stephen Walt John Mearsheimer tome

 

[nut]

I guess that is the crux of the question though: when you're dealing with a thoroughly undemocratic movement like the far right, whether they're Nazi dweebs or ISIS headcutters, at what point is it self defence? Is it not better to act early and prevent them taking over? This was the mistake the communists made in Germany in the 30's, they didnt take the Nazi's seriously enough and as a result gave them too much time to destroy democracy.

Hitler himself admitted the only way to stop Nazis (and ISIS are basically the same thing politically) is to act with force and act early.

It was pretty easy for the US
to stop Isis… they just stopped paying them….

 

[Ben The Donkey]

... do you not think if you find yourself on the same side as nazis - as in, plural, multiple nazis agree with you position on an issue, it's not an isolated occurrence - it might be adequate reason to reevaluate your views in that area?

To a true independent thinker, that would depend on the issue.
I would not agree that finding myself on the same side of an issue as a group of people I inherently dislike a necessary indictment on my own position on that issue, nor would I be any more inclined to re-examine that opinion if they were to do so than I would with anyone else. Maybe slightly more so than usual, but not to any major degree.

I find blind, universal moral standards incredibly limiting when it comes to clear thinking, and you're effectively advocating them - and there are a lot of folks like you around here. That isn't going to prevent me from agreeing with you some of the time on some issues, nor should it.

In mathematics, set A might be in clear conflict with set B most of the time, but intersect them and you get Set C. In Australian politics, the majority would be in set C on most issues, but it's the ones who refuse to climb into bed with C because they can't stand that some of the B's are in there that'll cause divisiveness as much as, if not more, anything else.

 

[blackcat]

It was pretty easy for the US
to stop Isis… they just stopped paying them….

Putin's military took them out in one fell swoop

 

[blackcat]

To a true independent thinker, that would depend on the issue.
I would not agree that finding myself on the same side of an issue as a group of people I inherently dislike a necessary indictment on my own position on that issue, nor would I be any more inclined to re-examine that opinion if they were to do so than I would with anyone else. Maybe slightly more so than usual, but not to any major degree.

I find blind, universal moral standards incredibly limiting when it comes to clear thinking, and you're effectively advocating them - and there are a lot of folks like you around here. That isn't going to prevent me from agreeing with you some of the time on some issues, nor should it.

In mathematics, set A might be in clear conflict with set B most of the time, but intersect them and you get Set C. In Australian politics, the majority would be in set C on most issues, but it's the ones who refuse to climb into bed with C because they can't stand that some of the B's are in there that'll cause divisiveness as much as, if not more, anything else.

a wise person can hold conflicting opinions without being mired in cognitive dissonance - #zeno's_paradox

 

[kranky al]

Austrian-born, yes, but as mentioned the Austrians themselves identified very closely with Germany - those in the West after the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire, anyway. There were referendums being held in Austria immediately before Germany marched in which were starting to swing in the favour of unification with Germany in 1938. A lot of those old propaganda films showing cheering crowds welcoming in German armies in Czechoslovakia and Austria, in particular, were actual film being used for propaganda purposes.
Hell, even in Russia there were a lot of western Russians who were initially quite pleased to see German troops marching in... until the Germans royally screwed their own welcome.

As for the "majority of Germans"... 37-38% is significant (that was in, when, '31/'32?). Germany was a political mess after WW1, not a small part of which was due to western allies and Russian greed. Australian governments have been elected on similar figures of "popular support", and that's in a predominantly 2-party system, which Germany did not really have. Hitler did have a significant chunk of support from a very (and justifiably) aggrieved German people, whether or not they voted for the Nazis`-`they were dispossessed, economically destroyed, and angry. Particularly after being told (and which you, apparently, still believe) it was all their fault.

The political violence in Germany, assassinations and wotnot, were conducted by both sides (including the KPD) both prior to and after the Nazi party gained power. It was not, as you're suggesting, a one-sided affair.

Also worth noting that the Nazi party had that support in the early 30's from people inside Germany, and did not take into account the Germans who were now being told they were Polish, Czech, Austrian or what have you who weren't given that vote, but might have given him support too, if it meant they could be German again.

And this:

Is just a really, really inane comment from someone who clearly doesn't have much knowledge regarding the subject.

I always find it highly amusing (and annoying) that the rabid lefties who go on about indigenous land rights and wotnot, are completely unable to fathom that Germany, and many told-they-were-no-longer-German Germans were actually in a similar situation post ww1, and that's why they can never understand how it's possible the Nazi party could gain power in the first place.

No one is going to side with Hitler or the Nazis now. But if you can't see or understand how and why he gained power, eventually came to rule, and the wealth and national pride the Nazis restored to a broken (up) Germany after he gained power and prior to world war 2, then you're a damned fool.
You want to hate the Nazis, sure - everyone does, really. But you cannot simply dismiss or lie about what actually went down back then, and why it all happened, and say people didn't support them. They did. In droves.

Because when you invade, humiliate, subjugate and steal land and culture from people, they're going to be pissed about it and vote for whoever gives them a sense of pride and a better deal economically.

I think you need a sense of perspective. But you wouldn't be alone.

This. Everything hes written is historically accurate.

 

[Seeds]

This. Everything hes written is historically accurate.

but taken out of context and pushed to extreme.

his whole point that hitler and the nazis was the the wests fault for treating germany poorly and completely inevitable is just rubbish.

the allies treated germany far worse after world war 2. there was no second coming of a hitler. In fact germany is now one of the leading proponents of liberalism and prosperity on the planet.

the nazis pushed nationalism and fear. They didnt just ride an existing broad sentiment that had an inevitable outcome. They pushed it. And got lucky with a great depression hitting the planet at the right time for them. And all this still wasnt enough to win an election. The rest of it they stole. No one voted for the nazi dictatorship.

 

[kranky al]

but taken out of context and pushed to extreme.

his whole point that hitler and the nazis was the the wests fault for treating germany poolry and completely inevitable is just rubbish.

the allies treated germany far worse after world war 2. there was no second coming of a hitler. In fact germany is now one of the leading proponents of liberalism and prosperity on the planet.

the nazis pushed nationalism and fear. They didnt just ride an existing broad sentiment that had an inevitable outcome. They pushed it. And got lucky with a great depression hitting the planet at the right time for them. And all this still wasnt enough to win an election. The rest of it they stole. No one voted for the nazi dictatorship.

Youve misread his post. It provided fertile ground for nationalist feeling and guaranteed a rematch of ww1.

If it werent the nazis it would be some other nationalist group.


In ww2 the americans instituted the marshall plan to stop it happening again - they essentially paid to rebuild germany - trillions in todays money.

After the ww1 treaty of versailles the germans had to pay ruinous amounts of money in reparations.

Theres a lot of resources you can read about this - jump on google and search treaty versailles leads ww2


Smarter men than me have written about it extensively.

 

[blackcat]

Putin's military took them out in one fell swoop

Hersh brings it

Miltary2military pentagon v Kremlin equivalent

Seymour M. Hersh · Military to Military

Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel...

www.lrb.co.uk

 

[Gethelred]

To a true independent thinker, that would depend on the issue.

Of course. As I said to Taylor in my reply, you can absolutely hold similar opinions to a nazi in a variety of different positions without those positions being relevant to their nazism.

I would not agree that finding myself on the same side of an issue as a group of people I inherently dislike a necessary indictment on my own position on that issue, nor would I be any more inclined to re-examine that opinion if they were to do so than I would with anyone else. Maybe slightly more so than usual, but not to any major degree.

... so we agree, then, that if nazis agree with you on something it would cause you to reexamine your opinion.

I find blind, universal moral standards incredibly limiting when it comes to clear thinking, and you're effectively advocating them - and there are a lot of folks like you around here. That isn't going to prevent me from agreeing with you some of the time on some issues, nor should it.

Do you feel that 'nazism=evil' is a such an imposition as far as a blind, universal moral standard goes?

I'm not asking you to change your mind when I say reexamine what you think when hypothetical nazis agree with you, just that you reexamine what you think. I do not feel that this is such a high bar or a determinant of behaviour.

In mathematics, set A might be in clear conflict with set B most of the time, but intersect them and you get Set C. In Australian politics, the majority would be in set C on most issues, but it's the ones who refuse to climb into bed with C because they can't stand that some of the B's are in there that'll cause divisiveness as much as, if not more, anything else.

I actually really like this as an analysis of Australian politics. You could make the case that this holds true for the voting public or the parties themselves.

 

[Leeda]

No, because we are all capable of holding various opinions on various subjects.

If David Duke suddenly supported Biden it doesn't make 81 million people pro KKK.

Third party associations as a debate tactic is for high school bullying.

I would ask who is David Duke…but I couldn’t be less interested…

 

[Taylor]

I would ask who is David Duke…but I couldn’t be less interested…

The answer is in the question.

 

[kranky al]

No, because we are all capable of holding various opinions on various subjects.

If David Duke suddenly supported Biden it doesn't make 81 million people pro KKK.

Third party associations as a debate tactic is for high school bullying.

Ridiculous argument - david duke isnt going to ever do such a thing

Its the right who disenfranchise black people not the left.

If duke starts supporting biden its because biden has started espousing racist pos positions - in which case i would stop supporting biden.

Shitty strawman and a false equivalence taylor

Do better.

 

[Taylor]

Ridiculous argument - david duke isnt going to ever do such a thing

Its the right who disenfranchise black people not the left.

If duke starts supporting biden its because biden has started espousing racist pos positions - in which case i would stop supporting biden.

Shitty strawman and a false equivalence taylor

Do better.

... Biden has.
But that's not the point. The point was that if someone else who is deemed invalid supports the same position as you it doesn't mean your position is also invalid and it doesn't mean your opposition is more valid.

The argument that you should be guilted into shame and silence by associations is literally the stuff of children in the school yard.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Ridiculous argument - david duke isnt going to ever do such a thing

Its the right who disenfranchise black people not the left.

If duke starts supporting biden its because biden has started espousing racist pos positions - in which case i would stop supporting biden.

Shitty strawman and a false equivalence taylor

Do better.

Richard Spencer endorsed Biden...

 

[Dramoth]

Richard Spencer endorsed Biden...

Spencer is an attention whore. He'll do and say anything to get back into the spotlight after his being smacked in the head and made into, what the right wing calls, a beta cuck. Same with Milo... he's come out, said he isn't gay any more and is playing to the right wing christian audience. Just to regain some relevance.

Right wing speaking heads will say and do anything to make people pay attention to them.

 

[kranky al]

Richard Spencer endorsed Biden...

But you know what the difference is dont you?

 

[blackcat]

Do better.

I love that passive-aggression idiom

you are correct , the right don't give a $hit about black folks , but they don't give a $hit about any hue dermis , they wanna leave and let live , if you wanna talk about far-right nativists who seek only their own kin , what is that number? One thousand in Australia , we have 24million , that does not even qualify as a rounding error for GE or Bhp , or Exxon or Apple

which is what the ex-Marxist Piked!editor Brendan O'Neil whilst quoting a philosopher's work , term'ed 'moral_differentiation'and/or 'moral_discrimination' we previously have religion and places of worship (mosques/synagogues/churches) but we seek to compete for similar status and place ourselves on the same moral hierarchy

But there is a symbiosis hear the LSE political philosopher and historian Sydney's Kenneth Minogue delineates, one requires the symbiosis , the anti-racists require the racists , I see them as part of the same tree . No better nor worse , they are playing the 'game'