Nazi sympathizer profiled by NY Times says he lost his job and — soon — his home

Where is the straw? I remember back in the day that people did compare Bush to Hitler (they also compared Bush Sr to Hitler and Regan to Hitler). It has become SOP to call any Republican Hitler. And now that we have a real Hitler in power it is too late. The boy who cried Hitler will now be ignored. (Hey now I get the moral of the story the boy who cried wolf!)

I appreciate your input, but I think the "crying wolf" illustration is inapt. The wolf is real. But wolves are, at best, pests. A healthy sheepherding community has ways of handling wolves, mitigating the effects of their predation, and holding them mostly at bay. There's nothing spectacular or apocalyptic about the wolf.

What's going on here is that some people keep insisting that the wolf is a Giant Magical Space Wolf. Literally the Worst Wolf Ever. He won't just come and snatch the occasional sheep. He's here to light the entire flock on fire, and the village too, and maul all the shepherds as they flee in terror.

No wolf can live up to such hype. Each successive wolf falls far short of this perverse ideal. And yet each new wolf is heralded with the same absurd hyperbole. And the heralds steadfastly ignore the absurdity, steadfastly ignore that they've used the same tired cliches and sky-is-falling rhetoric many times before. Once you're over the top, you can't go any higher. But somehow they keep trying anyway.
 
Where is the straw? I remember back in the day that people did compare Bush to Hitler (they also compared Bush Sr to Hitler and Regan to Hitler). It has become SOP to call any Republican Hitler. And now that we have a real Hitler in power it is too late. The boy who cried Hitler will now be ignored. (Hey now I get the moral of the story the boy who cried wolf!)

There is more than one moral of that story. Remember, the townsfolk in allowing themselves to become desensitized to warnings lost a shepard and all their sheep.

It's almost like what those dismissing the very real and very major problems of Nazis and other white nationalists are doing when they dismiss these concerns because Trump isn't as smart/powerful/ideologically identical to/as Hitler are doing. Well, not almost. Almost exactly.
 
You misunderstand. I'm not characterising your argument. I'm telling you what its effect is, and how convenient it is for you. That's not what a strawman is.


The effect of denying that nazis are capable of being a serious threat despite the number of white nationalist terror attacks that take place every year has the effect of enabling nazis to commit terrorist attacks and recruit disaffected white males? Okay, I'm willing to buy that that's valid, especially since that is exactly the effect that their own propaganda manual has explicitly said they are trying to achieve. You clearly haven't read the linked article.
 
What straw? Bush = Hitler was a real idea, disseminated seriously by progressives for years. Your insistence that this time, with Trump, it's really for real, is also a real thing. I just quoted you doing it.
No you didn't. Trump = Hitler is not the same thing as...

Trump = racist/nationalist who has invigorated like-minded twits, which includes neo-Nazis.

... and your accusation is a prime example of exceedingly shallow, binary thinking.
 
The effect of denying that nazis are capable of being a serious threat

...is irrelevant because no one here said that.

has the effect of enabling nazis to commit terrorist attacks and recruit disaffected white males? Okay, I'm willing to buy that that's valid

Stop being dishonest. You know full well that I described the end results of your argument, since I said so in the post you just quoted. Stop pretending that I said anything else. Do you think that your elementary school-level antics give your claims and arguments added weight? If anything, engaging in these sorts of fallacies just shows how weak your position is, luchog.

You clearly haven't read the linked article.

My point has nothing to do with the article. Did you even read my post before replying?
 
(Nazis are a radical ultra-nationalist workers movement that is strongly anti-monarchy and anti-clerical, neo-reactionaries are traditionalists that are pro-monarchy and pro-church, but hey what the hell)


A "workers movement"? No, not really:

So seien von den 17 Millionen NS-Wählern ungefähr 7,4 Millionen von den bürgerlich-protestantischen, 2,5 Millionen von den sozialistischen Parteien und 6 Millionen von den Nichtwählern gekommen. Besonders anfällig waren protestantische Milieus und Beamte. Einigermaßen resistent gegen die Nazis waren nur das katholische Milieu und das der sozialistischen Arbeiterschaft. Allerdings hätten auch 40 Prozent der Arbeiter die Nazis gewählt, freilich kaum sozialistisch organisierte. http://www.swp.de/ulm/nachrichten/politik/das-politische-buch_-wer-waehlte-hitler_-9320562.html
Google translation:
Thus, of the 17 million Nazi voters, about 7.4 million came from the bourgeois-Protestant, 2.5 million from the socialist parties and 6 million from the non-voters. Particularly vulnerable were Protestant milieus and civil servants. Somewhat resistant to the Nazis were only the Catholic milieu and that of the socialist workers. However, even 40 percent of the workers had chosen the Nazis, admittedly hardly organized socialist.


Apparently, the workers who voted for the Nazis were mainly farm laborers:

Lediglich eine Mehrheit des „alten“ Mittelstands, also der (protestantischen) Geschäftsleute, Handwerker und Bauern votierte für die Nazis. Zusammen machte der Anteil des „alten“ und „neuen“ Mittelstands an den NSDAP-Wählern gleichwohl rund sechzig Prozent aus; doch bis zu vierzig Prozent von ihnen kamen aus Arbeiterhaushalten, wobei diese Zählung neben den zumeist gewerkschaftlich organisierten Industriearbeitern, die nur in einem geringeren Maße NSDAP wählten, die große Zahl von Landarbeitern einschloß. http://www.zeit.de/1992/13/die-erste-deutsche-volkspartei/seite-2
Google translation:
Only a majority of the "old" middle class, ie the (Protestant) businessmen, artisans and peasants voted for the Nazis. Nonetheless, the share of the "old" and "new" middle classes in the NSDAP constituents accounted for around sixty percent; but as many as forty percent of them came from working-class households, and this census, in addition to the mostly unionized industrial workers, who only to a lesser extent chose NSDAP, included the large number of farm laborers.
 
Wikipedia distinguishes between Nazis, the original Nazis in Germany, the contemporary followers of A. Hitler, and Neo-Nazis, post-WW2 Nazis, and in particular those in the USA. Same ideology, which is what defines Nazis, and when we have mentioned Nazis in this thread, the reference has mainly been to Neo-Nazis, obviously, but there is no reason to distinguish between the two unless we are talking history.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia distinguishes between Nazis, the original Nazis in Germany, the contemporary followers of A. Hitler, and Neo-Nazis, post-WW2 Nazis, and in particular those in the USA. Same ideology, which is what defines Nazis, and when we have mentioned Nazis in this thread, the reference has mainly been to Neo-Nazis, obviously, but there is no reason to distinguish between the two unless we are talking history.
Indeed


When you are discussing groups that revere Hitler, I'm not going to worry too much about their feelings of German betrayal in WWI, for example. It's only a distinction with a difference, if you are a member of the groups or interested in the evolution of their ideologies.

Otherwise, calling them Nazis seems fine to me.
 
Calling them Nazis seems fine to me, too.
Xjx388 is the one who prefers to think of German Nazis in the early 20th century and American Nazis in the early 21st as two entirely different species. I'm not sure what sadhatter's point is.

That's the reason why I felt it necessary to stress that Nazis and Neo-Nazis are basically the same thing: "Same ideology, which is what defines Nazis."
 
Calling them Nazis seems fine to me, too.

Xjx388 is the one who prefers to think of German Nazis in the early 20th century and American Nazis in the early 21st as two entirely different species. I'm not sure what sadhatter's point is.



That's the reason why I felt it necessary to stress that Nazis and Neo-Nazis are basically the same thing: "Same ideology, which is what defines Nazis."


I don’t really care what you call them. I care more about whether or not the neo-Nazis in America are in the verge of breaking through and becoming a more serious political power. They are not and that’s because contemporary America is not a favorable climate like Post WWI Germany was. Whatever flavor of Nazism they are selling (and I contend that it is not exactly the same flavor as the originals, but that’s a red herring) no one here is buying it.
 
It actually seems as if a lot of people are buying it. They aren't marginalized anymore.

And it also seems as if the guy in the White House is buying it.

You may not have noticed, but the rest of the world was pretty upset when Trump retweeted the anti-Muslim videos from Britain First. Choosing Steve Bannon as one of his advisers also doesn't indicate that "America is not a favorable climate."
What is your definition of on "the verge of breaking through and becoming a more serious political power"?

If we look at the ones that you call real Nazis, this is how popular they were in 1928:

In the German election, May 1928 the Party achieved just 12 seats (2.6% of the vote) in the Reichstag.
Wikipedia


(How many votes do you think that a coalition of real Nazis and the Bannonites would get?)

What happened in Germany only four and a half years later, in early 1933?

German newspapers wrote that, without doubt, the Hitler-led government would try to fight its political enemies (the left-wing parties), but that it would be impossible to establish a dictatorship in Germany because there was "a barrier, over which violence cannot proceed" and because of the German nation being proud of "the freedom of speech and thought". Theodor Wolff of Frankfurter Zeitung wrote:
It is a hopeless misjudgement to think that one could force a dictatorial regime upon the German nation. [...] The diversity of the German people calls for democracy.
— Theodor Wolff in Frankfurter Zeitung, Jan 1933
Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
All of which is to say that the lines drawn by politicians may end up different from the lines you would like them to draw.


No, they are different from the lines that a vast majority of the voters would like them to draw:

And it marks a significant victory for Republicans who vowed to roll back the efforts of the prior administration, despite a recent survey showing that 83 percent of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — opposed the plan.
Washington Post
 
At least one poster in this thread expressed genuine concern for their wellbeing after the election last year... and expressed genuine fear that they would be accosted in SEATTLE because suddenly one of the most LGBTQ -friendly areas in the entire country was going to lose its mind and start beating gay/trans people in the streets.

If conservatives get called "reactionaries", I'm thinking this particular flavor of liberal should get called "overreactionaries".

Seattle is also a hot spot for white supremacy as well. There are a lot of nazis there notably in the tech industry.

Why are you so stereotyping white supremacists as being a flyover state issue alone?
 
You said you agreed with Trump. Trump bases his decisions on border policies on his wild racism. Thus, if you agree with Trump, you're a racist. Maybe you should say "I want border control", and I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with you.

And you have his supporters saying he was talking about the wall as a metaphor, when Trump never uses metaphor.
 
Methinks you are oversimplifying the situation just a tad. The tech-bro culture, the insular nature of the neighborhood, gentrification . . . there are a lot of factors involved. To simply say, "it's all these racist Midwesterners coming in," is a gross oversimplification.

Given that they specifically cited russian immigrants it is not clearly all about midwesterners.
 
Where is the straw? I remember back in the day that people did compare Bush to Hitler (they also compared Bush Sr to Hitler and Regan to Hitler). It has become SOP to call any Republican Hitler. And now that we have a real Hitler in power it is too late. The boy who cried Hitler will now be ignored. (Hey now I get the moral of the story the boy who cried wolf!)

And of course Obama was also Hitler.
 
Because you're carrying water for them.


What straw? Bush = Hitler was a real idea, disseminated seriously by progressives for years. Your insistence that this time, with Trump, it's really for real, is also a real thing. I just quoted you doing it.

The question is, after decades of "conservatives are Nazis" coming from progressives, what do you have left to say, now? Where can you seriously go, regarding Trump, when you've already got "Bush = Hitler"?

And Obama = Hitler was the official view of the GOP for years. What does any of the fever dreams of the lunatic fringe in the case of the progressives or the mainstream leadership in the case of conservatives have to do with the current presidents ties to nazis and clear adoration of them?
 
Indeed, Glen Beck is a very good example.
From ponderingturtle's link:
In his first 18 months on Fox News, from early 2009 through the middle of this year, he and his guests invoked Hitler 147 times. Nazis, an additional 202 times. Fascism or fascists, 193 times. The Holocaust got 76 mentions, and Joseph Goebbels got 24.
 
Exactly Trump isn't Hitler, he is just a nazi-fanboy. Something real americans understand and accept.

Did nazis often allow their opponents to speak out against them? Cause it kind of seems you are free to make speech that is against the government.

Almost like there is a premise that is protecting you from government retribution.
 
Did nazis often allow their opponents to speak out against them? Cause it kind of seems you are free to make speech that is against the government.

Almost like there is a premise that is protecting you from government retribution.

And that negates his being a nazi fanboy how? Yes he has not managed to live up to his idols and seriously suppress dissent yet. But his desires to do so are clear and you clearly have no problem with that.

So people who oppose these nazis need to shut up until it is too late then they will have a point but no one will care and instead asking "why didn't anyone speak up?"
 
2003: Steel beams can't melt jet fuel
2009: Obama is a secret Muslim
2017: Trump is a secret Nazi
 
No, they are different from the lines that a vast majority of the voters would like them to draw:
The question was about where you would draw the line. You seem to know where politicians would draw the line. You seem to know where lots of other people would draw the line.

Do you know where you would draw the line? Do you know what policy you would advocate?
 
The question was about where you would draw the line. You seem to know where politicians would draw the line. You seem to know where lots of other people would draw the line.

Do you know where you would draw the line? Do you know what policy you would advocate?
The question was also asked of dann if vile bigots who aren't nazis merit receiving the nazi treatment, whereby their public appearances are disrupted. It appears that addressing uncomfortable questions isn't his strong suit.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom