Why I might call someone a Nazi.

[goaded]

It will not be because they are a member of a political party that went extinct in 1945.

It will be because they share one or more of the following reprehensible opinions with them:

1. They think that some people don't deserve to live (or live near them) based on their religion (independent of whether its Jews or Muslims, they probably feel the same about both)

2. They think that there is a "White Race" that is superior to all others.

3. They want to pretend the holocaust didn't happen, or historians have inflated the death toll. (They probably think it was a good idea, and want the chance to do it again.)

4. They pretend the rise of White Nationalism is a struggle against encroaching communism, rather than an anti-democratic movement encouraged by some of the most powerful people in the world.

5. They say there's a massive Jewish conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of other races.

6. They say white people are being systemically killed, outbred and otherwise forced into a minority status.

7. They say Adolf Hitler was a great leader for the German people, despite (or because of) Nazi Germany's innumerable atrocities.

(I started writing my own list, but found the one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Nazis and borrowed some wording.)

No Anonymous opinions, because you're proud of what you believe in, right?

Nazis Raus (Nazis Out)

[OlderAndWiser]

I do not support any of those beliefs.

Will you equally condemn Muslims who think that people should not live based on their religious beliefs (Christians or Jews) or because of heir orientation (homosexuals)?

[goaded]

Muslim extremists, particularly the ones fermenting terrorism? Yes, of course, but they're not on this site, are they?

I never for a minute thought you do support any of those beliefs, reasonable people don't, but there are a lot of people on here at the moment that do.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[jacquesvol]

In April geht der Fuhrer, in Mai die Partei...

[ladsin]

Ah. One of the people in the best positions to actually comment on this topic! You definitely need to write more. As a Belgian growing up right next to and right after the fall of the Nazis do you think his points are valid enough to warrant the label?

[goaded]

@ladsin He was born after the end of the war. There's almost nobody alive who was an adult when the Nazis took power, so you're safe from the Buzz Aldrin response to denial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF_OeMkSAmg

[jacquesvol]

@ladsin Only one granny, her two sisters, an aunt and my parents survived the Nazis.

[jacquesvol]

Excellent take !

[Pamina]

Do you think one of the popular GaG Nazis will post an opinion here?

[Aguysopinion4799]

I hope not, don't want any heated arguments happening 0__0

[Pamina]

@Aguysopinion4799 There shouldn't be any arguments with them anyway. Nazi opinions need to be entirely ignored as the illegitimate trash that they are.

[Aguysopinion4799]

I hope no argumentation takes place, I will avoid any insult so as to make sure I do not receive hate comments, I will simply say that I disagree severely with all the Nazi views.

[goaded]

I doubt it, there's no anonymous posting.

What do you both think of adding "Or attempting to bring people around to those ways of thinking"?

I'm thinking in particular of this question: What's your opinion on a white minority? ↗

[Aguysopinion4799]

I prefer to stay out of the topic, it is so fragile in that the ones who:

A) Disagree with Nazi theories

B) The ones who agree with Nazi theories

The subject really heats up and can cause online violence which I try to minimise, as such I avoid the questions on it.

Only reason I answered on this post was because my answer would not have a positive or negative effect on anyone :/

[Pamina]

But GaG's Nazi users usually don't even hide themselves behind anonymity. Why would they? Their views aren't even hated on here.

[goaded]

That question I linked to has disappeared. I wish I'd made a note of who posted it.

What's your opinion on a white minority? ↗

[goaded]

Another one has gone, about Anne Frank, something like "Did Anne Frank deserve to die?". Someone suggested her death from Typhoid, while being held in a concentration camp for being Jewish and lucky enough to be 15, and not gassed immediately, had nothing to do with the Nazis.

[ladsin]

I don't know that I'm proud of what I believe, but I believe what I believe and am always open to hearing contradictory information.

You really covered quite the gambit here. From anyone who wants to kill Jews and Muslims (why I don't know as Hitler was purportedly something of a fan of Islam) to anyone that thinks white people are being maltreated in society or anyone who believes that despite being an evil man Hitler was a very potent leader. That seems quite disingenuous to me.

It largely seems to be poisoning the well. If you want to say someone is vile because of their beliefs then fine, by all means, but the Nazis were a very specific group of people and they didn't hold many of the beliefs you've espoused as giving sufficient warrant to call them such. I mean the most obvious being that Hitler and the Nazis weren't for all white people, they were for Aryans, and most of the countries they invaded were predominantly white.

I guess I'll respond to your points anyway since I'm feeling talkative today.
1) Jews and Muslims don't deserve to live, or live near you. If someone believed the former they'd certainly be reprehensible although not necessarily a Nazi. If the latter you'd have to be more specific. Does someone live in a "Christian" neighborhood and not want their next door neighbor to be a Jew or Muslim? Certainly gross, but not a Nazi. Are you talking about someone who says that we should be more careful when processing a Muslim from say Nigeria than someone from another Western nation? I don't think that's really crazy, although I'm against discriminatory practices. So if you want to have a citizenship test, or have some sort of class to explain cultural norms then I think it'd have to be given to everyone and not just people from a particular religion.

2) White race superior to all others. That makes them a white supremacist, not a Nazi. I already pointed out that Nazis were pro-Aryan not pro white. On a bit of a tangent I do find the concept of white supremacy rather humorous. I've almost never seen what I would consider a white supremacist as most white folk seem to not identify as white, but rather their nation of origin. Like if someone asked me what I was I'd just say I'm American, but if they asked further I'd say I'm mostly Irish.

3) People being skeptical of historical accounts isn't sufficient reason to call them a Nazi. I think we have a plethora of compelling evidence on the atrocities that occurred in Nazi Germany, but I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a Nazi.

4) White nationalism vs Communism/ Democracy. I'm not really aware of anyone who says this, although I admittedly don't think I listen to any White Nationalists. I think the rise of nationalism and white identity politics is a direct response to the rise of "globalism" (a perceived destruction of the nation state in preference for a global governing body like the UN) and race-based identity politics for other races. We had seen race based relations getting better and better for a few decades prior to ~2008 and since then we've actually fallen back to the perception of race relations as being as bad as the Jim Crow era, this is quite baffling to me. The first I think has some merit. The nation state is a fine tool and putting the interests of your own citizens before the interests of non-citizens is the job of the nation. It appears to me that some politicians and groups (like the UN) are seeking to supersede the rights of the nation state and dictate policies to other nations (ie Migration Compact) and that's obviously going to result in a backlash. The latter I think is gross, but completely expected. If you're going to have black/ hispanic/ Native identity politics, then white people are going to gravitate towards white identity politics as it's the group that is in their best interest.

5) Jewish conspiracy. Not exclusive to Nazis. Representative Omar (Democrat Brown Muslim) has espoused similar ideas.
--

[ladsin]

6) "White people are being systemically killed, outbred and otherwise forced into a minority status." Killed- in some places they are the Boehr's I think are an example, not in the west though. Outbred- well this is just a fact, one that's sometimes celebrated by people saying that white people will eventually be a minority. I think this is more an economic issue than race though. Poor people have more kids and affluent people have less. The same applies at the national level. This is why a lot of "white" nations are having serious problems with an aging population with no youth and having to reach out for labor. Minority status- meh, maybe. I'd need the term minority to be defined in this case. What comes to mind when I heard your comment were things like affirmative action which seek to increase diversity by providing benefits to the non-majority.

7) Hitler good leader. I think that's a hard case to make. He managed to make the Nazi party the second largest party almost overnight. He was certainly a passionate speaker who managed to play the emotions of the masses. His promise of bread and freedom to a country of people in abject poverty and misery was a beacon of hope. His destruction of the entire democratic system and expansionist policies which lead to the mass death of his own constituents as well as many others seems to me a perfectly rational reason for saying that he was not a good leader although he certainly was very successful in his campaigns.

[goaded]

I thought I'd explained clearly that I was not describing members of the NSDAP, but setting out a set of criteria (which I stand by) describing a fairly specific type of person. It's a reasonable shorthand for a person with a particular type of vile beliefs.

Contradictory information is OK, but I despise disinformation. Especially when you care about the correctness of your statements but the person you're debating with doesn't care about being right, just plausible (and, in the case of the holocaust, has access to 70 years of "research" created with the explicit purpose of denying the holocaust, necessarily ignoring the evidence for it).

Does it really matter which religion you want to blame for everyone's problems? The mindset is the same. Quote - on here, from today: "it was wrong for muslims to exist from the beginning". (By someone who is definitely not a 13 year old from Egypt.)

I'd also love to hear your definitions for "great" and "potent". It seems to me that even a adequate leader should leave their country no worse off at the end of their time than at the beginning. Hitler left his country literally in ruins, split up into pieces and with over one in twelve of the population dead.

I'll get to your list of responses in a bit.

[ladsin]

Right, you're not referencing actually Nazis, rather attempting to utilize the West's instinctive disgust to the actions of the Nazis to castigate those who aren't Nazis. As soon as you label someone a Nazi no decent person wants to listen to what they're saying, rather they feel the revulsion that they should. I think that this trend of labeling everyone a Nazi or everyone Hitler is rather dangerous like the boy who cried wolf. When actual Nazis and an actual Hitler start to rise to prominence people will have been crying Nazi and Hitler for far too long for anyone to care. Trump is even a perfect example. People have been calling their political opposition Hitler-esque for so long that nobody gives a damn.

I don't like disinformation either, but I'm not going to falsely attribute beliefs to them that they don't hold just because I don't like their belief. Let's say that someone does think that the Holocaust was largely a conspiracy made by the Allied Powers to justify their attacks against Germany (laughable, but let's say), does that mean that the person supports the extermination of the Jews? No. Does that mean they're a Nazi? No. They simply could be a conspiracy theorist, "History is written by the victors."

Of course it matter which religion you're trying to discriminate against if you're going to be calling people fucking Nazis. Don't try and appropriate the suffering of other peoples. "Does it really matter what color you are? Slavery was harmful for everyone, not just the blacks." Seems rather calloused to me. If you want to say someone is an anti-muslim bigot, an anti-christian-buddhist-hindu-pagan-whatever bigot because they have bigoted ideas about that group then go right on ahead. Calling someone who wants to discriminate against Buddhists a Nazi though just seems preposterous.

I said he was a great speaker and was potent at sparking the crowd's emotions. Watch any of his speeches and that's evident. That said I'm tipsy and it's about my bedtime.

[goaded]

Wrong. I'm characterising people who walk like a Nazi and quack like a Nazi as a Nazi. I'm using the word to describe people who believe like Nazis.

Are you really saying the Trump is the first really Hitler-esque person to emerge?

By your definition, nobody, not even neo-Nazis or anyone who goes around giving Nazi salutes, talking about gassing the Jews, and shouting Heil Hitler (or "cleverly" talking about 14/88) is a Nazi. I reject your definition.

"They simply could be a conspiracy theorist", or, much more likely, they're hiding behind that claim. A bit like people who put forward the idea that the allies attacked Germany, rather than counter-attacked.

Saying Muslims are being treated like the Jews were in the 1930's is not in any way the same as saying "Does it really matter what color you are? Slavery was harmful for everyone, not just the blacks.". Slavery was harmful to the slaves. Oppression of religious minorities is harmful to the religious minority.

You said he was a potent leader, not just that he was a demagogue. Seriously, it's up there, ^, where you were sober.

Anyway, I feel that you're suggesting that the bar I'm setting out is a lot lower than the list I posted could reasonably be interpreted as meaning.

1. Why are you associating Muslims with immigrants? Half of those in the United States were born there.

2. I don't believe you don't understand. White Supremacists certainly exist, and I think accepting darker-haired/eyed people in a world of diverse skin colours is not a meaningful difference.

3. I'm talking about the people denying facts, not interpretations.

4. Did you miss this one: Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice. ↗

5. "a massive Jewish conspiracy to enrich Jews"? No. Not the same as talking about American politicians' attitudes to Israel.

6. The operative word was "forced".

7. Did that one.

How would you prefer to be described?

[FakeName123]

The boy who cried wolf. The word nazi has lost it's meaning and impact due to the inflationary and wrong use of it. It has just become one of many insults.

1. There is quite a difference between "don't deserve to live" and "don't want group X to live near me". It's not even close to being the same thing.
And yes, I don't want to have certain cultures living near me. Cultures that are backwards, archaic, that don't give women rights and try to solve all problems through impulsive violence. Nor do I want to pay for their inability through my taxes. I rather have a functioning society than a multicultural one.

2. Considering the white race is the only one in history that managed to conquer every part of earth and has contributed the most to any scienctific field while many places in Africa and Asia don't even have sewer-systems. Yes, I would say whites are objectively speaking superior on a purely darwinistic point of view.

3. The holocaust story is full of holes. Deos it mean it didn't happen? No. But if it was strong enough to hold up against any criticism, it woudn't have been made illegal to criticise in many countries. The winner writes history and in that they always favour their own side while villainising the opposition. Thus by default the holocaust story is a one-sided, biased story.

4. Because it is. I come from a former socialist country. And the parallels to what happened there to what is happening now are omnipresent. Nor does it being an anti-democratic movement encouraged the most powerful people in the world exclude itself to this current development. They both can easily go hand in hand.
And so far every communistic system has been anti-democratic. So it's perfectly in line.

5. Considering jews are overrepresented in several areas that have an impact on society (especially media. I do have a rough sketch on it how jewish individuals hold more than 60% of US media control despite being less than 5% of the population) and they've been expelled from more than 100 nations in the past, then yes - somethings certainly off. If someone goes to 100 bars and gets expelled from them, then surely the bars aren't too blame.
Not to mention the fact that communism, the bolshevik, frankfurt school and post-modern all have a mainly jewish origin. All things that have been in the past or are still now a threat to western civilisation.

6. Are white people not? In the last 50 years the African population increased by 4 times when the european population decreased due to birth rates? You don't need to be a mathematician to figure this one out.
The argument isn't if it is happening, but if it is something that is occuring by chance or a wanted development. Considering policies in western countries I am convinced it's the later.

7. Adolf Hilter was a great speaker, but I disagree fundamentally with his views and approach. Yet, not everything he did or said was bad. A lot of it was, though.

Now you are free to call me a nazi. It has no meaning to me anymore, though. Nor does it have the desired emotional blackmail. You are welcome.

[goaded]

Which is why I defined exactly when I might use it. I never have called anyone a Nazi in my life; I have drawn parallels between certain events and the Nazis of the 1930's, though.

1. Multicultural societies work, in the absence of extremists.

2. As far as I can see, China's not gone anywhere, and the invented a shed load of things before Europe.

3. It's illegal not because it didn't happen, but because it did, and because denying it is part of the path to something similar happening again. Unless you commit a murder surrounded by independent witnesses carrying video equipment, there are going to be holes in the prosecution case. Reasonable people have to decide whether that reaches the level or reasonable doubt, denialists are just emphasising the rejected areas of uncertaincy.

4. Except what you're fighting against is more socialism established and maintained under a true democratic system. The DDR (or whichever country you're talking about) wasn't exactly formed by popular vote, was it?

5. Two things:
Firstly, I doubt your "rough sketch" is correct, but even if it were, you could make a much more compelling argument about white men in the US.

Secondly, you're talking about individuals who have done well, they're not in a "conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of other races", they're capitalists, in it for themselves.

6. Like I said to Ladsin, the operative word is "forced", westerners are having fewer children because they don't need as many to ensure a comfortable old age. If you want Africans to reproduce less quickly, give them access to better water, education, ways out of poverty, and a social safety net, so they don't *need* to have so many children.

7. You're describing a demagogue. "A political orator or leader who gains favor by pandering to or exciting the passions and prejudices of the audience rather than by using rational argument."

[FakeName123]

1. Which multicultural society in the history of this earth has ever worked? And did they just "work" or did it actually improve the well-being of the people in the country? Because the most "multicultural" and functioning society I can think of are the USA. And they were still mostly white until very recently.

2. Yes. Also Persians, Arabs, Japanese, etc. inveted things. But those are miniscule compared to the technological advances white people have created. Just look at all the luxury you have every day. Smartphones? Cars? Internet? Democracy? Sewersystem? Electricity? Created by whites. So on and so forth. There really isn't a competition here. It's plain and simply factual that whites contributed the most and conquered the most. That by definition makes whites superior to all other races.

And I really don't see anything bad with it. I also think I am superior to a cripple. Obviously I am. That person is incapable of living without outside help. Doesn't mean I wish him ill or want to punch him in the face.

Except of course you talk about the moral worth of a human being. That's a different discussion to have. But plain, factually and in a darwinistic sense there is no argument here.

3. So? Because it didn't happen it can't be criticised? What kind of logic is this? If it is beyond any reasonable doubt, it should be easily capable of withstanding any sort of criticism. As a result there is no point in making it illegal. I could also say water is wet and it's an undeniable fact. Thus criticising the notion that water is wet can be made illegal.

No, that's not how any scientific approach works. EVERYTHING needs to be able to be put into question. That's how we follow our pursuit of truth. Because if something can withstanding scrutiny it proves itself to be true. If it can't it deserves to be destroyed.

[FakeName123]

And to give an actually practical example: Until even after millenium historicians thought the massacre of several polish generals were perpetuated by the germans. I think it was the Katyn massacre, but don't pin me down on it. Eventually it turned out it was a false flag of the Soviets. Why did it turn out? Because people researched and pursuited for truth and questioned.

Yes, that might be the exception as most of these events still stay truthful and stable to scrutiny. But forbidding to do so is one of the worst crimes to any intellectual enlightment possible.

4. Is the current democratic system in the european union formed by popular vote? Do the people have any direct impact on the policies? How often have parties done the exact opposite of what they were voted for?

You are essentially nit-picking here. Polls regulary show people want something different than what the politicians actually do. The best example is the current state of the Brexit with over 70% of people saying: "If brexit and necessary, then just go for it with a no-deal brexit". What is May doing? Yeah, you get my point.

Furthermore I question any communistic form ever being voted as the system of choice. It is simply dysfunctional as it punishes success. A system that does so can not and will not function. There is a reason why any communist regime in history had to be authoritarian. People would just not get along otherwise.

[FakeName123]

5. You are conflating things that don't have anything to do with each other. Jewish people are a MINORITY that put out a MAJORITY of people in certain powerful positions. Whites on the other hand ARE a MAJORITY and thus naturally hold the MAJORITY in these positions.

Not to mention that the USA was created by white people. Just imagine yourself being a parent (if you don't want kids then just go with the train of thought). What would you want to do for your children? Get the best life and the best opportunities as possible. That's what every country in history has ever done. The previous generation worked hard to benefit their offspring.

And last but not least there is an issue with statistics in the US. Essentially the US statistics have no "brown" people. About 85-90% of hispanics are put into the white-label. Only recently the official agencies started to eventually separate at least hispanics from whites. Thus these statistics are always to be taken with a grain of salt. Middle eastern semites are also getting the white label.

You might want to argue why it's mostly men, though. But that's a different argument and we are arguing about race here and not sex.

"Secondly, you're talking about individuals who have done well, they're not in a "conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of other races", they're capitalists, in it for themselves."

If a minority of ~1,5% (I just quickly looked it up, so it's even less than I mentioned earlier) are holding more than 60% of people in certain positions, then something's off. There are essentially two options here. Either they simply outperformed the competition. Meaning they are SUPERIOR in at least that field. Or there is some really strong nepotism going on. Considering the average jewish IQ is NOT higher than the average white IQ I'm fairly sure it's the later - as IQ is one of the best measurements to figure out life-success.

[FakeName123]

I also recommend you reading the Torah, Talmud and eventually Kabbalah. You will realise their "faith" has a strong emphasis on nepotism embedded into it.

6. No, if we want less Africans we don't give them better water, education, ways out of poverty and social safety net. That's the exact thing we've done the past 50 years to create this issue. The African culture in terms of offspring is based on r-strategy. Meaning they procude as much offspring as possible due to the high mortality rate. If you want to stop the increase of population in Africa you have to do the exact opposite. STOP ALL THE AID. Let them figure their shit out themselves. Because as long as we give them aid we mess up the balance of birthrates to mortality rates.

Additionally all over Europe the support for having children was plain and simply decreased. Yes, it might be a choice people make. But it also has to do with options. There have been a few statistics about that showing when people have the means and ressources, the fertility rate goes up. So essentially if european countries wouldn't invest money into immigration, but into the native population - fertility rates wouldn't be a problem.

So while it is not a DIRECT force, there are indirect aspect of the environment that create a lower fertility rate. Not to mention there are several high-scale politicians all over Europe who have clearly stated they don't want a white race anymore.

[goaded]

Bored, were you? :)

1. The US is still 3/4 white.
2. The big fallacy is that any of those things had to do with those people being white. Being white didn't make them happen, being in at the Enlightenment did; pushing religion out of politics.
3. Questioning details of the holocaust is not, afaik, illegal, denial that it occurred at all is.
I looked up the Katyn massacre, it was obvious it was the soviets that did it, even back in 1943, "Unofficial or classified UK documents concluded Soviet guilt was a "near certainty", but the alliance with the Soviets was deemed to be more important than moral issues; thus the official version supported the Soviets, up to censoring any contradictory accounts".
4. Indirectly, yes. They were constructed by democratically elected representatives. I'd like a link to your brexit poll!
5. I think you underestimate the value of knowing how things work. I couldn't teach my kids how to be good business people because I don't run a business, for example. On the other hand, none of my family ever had to pack up and move with just what we could carry - something that's regularly happened to Jews in the past. You call it nepotism, I'd call it a family business, and survival. Again, I'd like to know where your 60% figure is coming from.
6. I strongly disagree with you. If the mortality rate goes down, the birth rate will, too, provided people have access to affordable birth control and education. Maybe aid could be restructured, but the worst thing to do is to tie aid to scientifically bogus sex education.
There are 7 billion people around today, estimated to rise to 11 billion in a couple of generations, when I was born, there were less than 4. We, as a species, are running out of resources.
I doubt any major European politician has said they don't want a white race, they may have said they don't want white racists.

[Izumiblu]

Ok. The only question is. How do you define white nationalism and “most powerful people in the world”

This sounds a lot like a rabbit hole...

I see people that insist a white male republican is a “white nationalist” based on the fact he is white and male and conservative. Instead of calling it white nationalist the better phrase is white supremacist but people tend to like to use white nationalist because it obfuscates and broadens the definition to be wielded against as many people as it can be used against.

[SirRexington]

Actually white supremacists were the ones who coined the term white nationalists, to "appeal" more to some.

[Izumiblu]

@SirRexington ok but it’s used very broadly and incorrectly now as I pointed out. So getting back to my question now i what do YOU mean by it.

[SirRexington]

What I personally think of when I hear white nationalist is a Richard Spencer type person. Those who are afraid of becoming a minority in America, advocate for social darwinist hierarchical systems where white people are on top or are the dominant group and class and who despise multiculturalism and immigrants because it dilutes the white ethnostate

[goaded]

"Most powerful people in the world" - say Trump and Putin?

[Izumiblu]

Yah I figured this is where you’d be going and also note the loose use of white nationalist. The rabbit hole is exactly what I pegged it to be.

[goaded]

I assume you're referring to number 4:
"They pretend the rise of White Nationalism is a struggle against encroaching communism, rather than an anti-democratic movement encouraged by some of the most powerful people in the world."

This was in particular reference to this Take: Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice. ↗

If you'd prefer I used a different title, white supremacy, or the alt-right, (which, like SirRexington said, were self-descriptions), I'd be OK with that.

I feel you disapprove of my assertion that they're being encouraged by Trump.

Refusing to condemn murderers, when you're under pressure to do so and in a position of great power is implicit encouragement. Especially as all but one terrorist related death in the US last year were from right-wing terrorists (and that one was a confused child who'd switched over to Islamist terrorism from fascination with Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong Un htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/.../...0986286.pdf https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download ). If you disagree, please give me examples where he discouraged white nationalism, without equating them with non-murderers. Has Trump ever uttered the words "right-wing terrorism"?

Before you go there, Obama explained why he didn't use the term "Islamic terrorism", and it's essentially the same reason we wouldn't refer to right-wing terrorists in the US as "Christian terrorists" or "American terrorists".
edition.cnn.com/.../index.html

[jacquesvol]

@SirRexington Nationalists are people who think their nation is better than other nations BECAUSE they are part of it.

[Aguysopinion4799]

I would never get involved with such a person but if you wanted to get involved with it then (Based on what descriptions you have given) it would make basic sense to call them one :/

Problem is, the word is becoming less important now in that it is also used for "Grammar Nazi" but the meaning should just be made for the historical purpose.

But yes, if someone displays these opinions, I think you are well in your rights to title them as one as a Nazi was someone with these views, you are not aiming it as insult or mockery, you are simply linking them with a historical mass of opinionated peoples beliefs :/

Hope I didn't insult anyone <3

[goaded]

Thanks, I think the criteria are reasonable. I suspect I may be using the term more frequently as they become more and more obvious on here, and it may avoid having to make the same stupid arguments over and over.

[Aguysopinion4799]

Fair enough :) I have no quarrels with someone using it on someone so long as it meets the criteria that links in with a actual Nazi. :/

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know. Nazism is weird. It was first founded on this belief that the Germanic "race" was superior to all other races. But many groups have kind of changed its original intent to include other groupings. But the hatred of the Jews has remained intact. To me, that is rather fascinating.

The one thing that is weird to me is that folks who embrace Nazi ideologies really dislike being called Nazis.

Why is that?

[goaded]

Good question, answered by ladsin, who I used to respect:
"As soon as you label someone a Nazi no decent person wants to listen to what they're saying, rather they feel the revulsion that they should."

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha! Lasdin reminds me of Spock going through an issue with logic. So here is the conundrum;

He is defending the labeling of people based upon their race or their religion. But doesn't want people to be labeled on the basis of their professed BELIEFS.

And it isn't just him. It is like over half the forum. Because of the trick that racism has always used. Which is;

I don't hate you. The conclusions I have reached about you and your grouping are the only "logical", "rational" and "objective" conclusions that any reasonable person of any grouping, including your own, could ever reach.

But when you respond to me, you are just being emotional, hateful, and angry about the logical facts I have stated.

[Pamina]

Wow Roland, that last comment was perfect from beginning to end. Perfect analysis!

[RolandCuthbert]

@Pamina Oh why thank you very much. It is just amazing that most people believe racism comes from hatred. That is totally wrong. Hatred is simply a natural byproduct of racism. It is just a natural toxin that results.

Racism came from a political/social agenda. That is where it was created. Then science and logic were perverted in a way to support it. Because in order to get people to accept that this is natural and common sense, you had to invent a sort of science or logic to convince most people.

Racists always try to take the approach that they are just being "common sense", logical or scientific.

When in reality, they are not being any of those things.

[Pamina]

People who believe in pseudoscience of course believe their pseudoscience to be science. You can't argue with these people.

[Lliam]

Was this list written by a child? Was it inspired by some of the more idiotic of militant leftists who support Antifa?

I'm not criticizing everyone on the left because my own values are leftist or, at least, left libertarian. I am opposed to bigotry, authoritarianism and war, so I am about as far from Nazi as one can get.

The problem with this list is that it's too simplistic to even bother debating. It's for people whose knowledge of history and world affairs is limited to what they learned from grammar school and TV. It's for people who like to virtue signal by labeling others.

[goaded]

Ah, insults, probably lies and more insults. Clearly, this is going to be a fruitful discussion.

Why do you think most of the holocaust narrative is propaganda?

Do Kind/Good Nazis Exist? ↗

[Lliam]

I doubt if we could have a fruitful discussion. You already sound pompous, judgmental and and closed minded. Therefore, I don't think you are genuinely curious about my answer. It would be fruitless for me to humor you.

[goaded]

Why don't you give it a try? You might convince other people, if not closed-minded people like me who accept official narratives without question, don't study history, are incurious. Instead of curiousity, they experience defensivness [sic] when confronted by information that challenges their limited knowledge, motivated by popularity, not by ethics or reason, think that consensus = truth, see everything in black and white, good and bad, and put people in boxes and categorize everyone with labels in an attempt to virtue signal.

Please, give us some of that information that challenges my limited knowledge!

[Lliam]

After that seductive invitation? I think I'll pass.
I have better ways to spend my time than to hold a debate. It's not my job to convince anybody of anything. I encourage folks to do their own research.

[goaded]

If you don't want to defend your claim that the holocaust was mostly propaganda, how about your claim that Hitler would have been perfectly OK, if he'd just killed the jews and other so-called undesirables within his own borders, and not invaded Poland?

"Hitler did wonders for the German economy. Where he screwed up is in first invading Poland and then the USSR..."

[MrLogical]

He never defensed those things tho you retarded cunt @goaded.

Lmao how stupid are you?

[Lliam]

Because research is stifled and those who ask questions are demonized.

[goaded]

@MrLogical He did. Here: Do Kind/Good Nazis Exist? ↗

[SirRexington]

Look at you, ya damn liberal soyboy commie fuck! Declaring anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi or a fascist! The Left is so closed minded that if you don't believe exactly in Marxism then you are a right wing fascist! You're anti- America and probably hate our Lord and savior Donald Trump too! You want everyone to be poor! Ya damn socialist Democrat! You ever heard of VENEZUELA!

For any idiot confused by this, this is satire.

[goaded]

Didn't you hear? Labelling people is wrong, a gentleman who told me the holocaust never happened and can't wait to do it again told me.

[SirRexington]

Stop listening to the liberal media, #FakeNews. It's run by the Democrats who are all communists and who are backed by the Zionist regime! I'm still pro Israel though.

[Celtero]

Just call shit what it is instead of using emotionally charged language. Evil, bigoted, paranoid, etc. Having to associate someone with a political party from recent history that facilitated the slaughter of millions is just lazy and immature, and reflects the hatred you feel for the other side.

[goaded]

I think I am calling it what it is. Why should people with those views get to label everyone else (Liberal! SJW! Commie!), but get a pass from everyone else?

The only difference between them and the original Nazis is that they've not managed to take control of a major country yet, which makes them the same as the mid-1930's Nazis but worse, because this time they *know* what it leads to.

There's a great deal of care being taken to sound reasonable and concerned, while still putting forward the same Evil, bigoted, paranoid, etc. viewpoints of the Nazis.

"I can't call Hitler a great leader? OK, I'll call him a "potent" leader, instead."

"I totally used to believe in the Holocaust, but all this "evidence" from people trying to deny it has forced me to reconsider."

"(((They)))'re trying to replace us."

in my opinion, "lazy and immature" would be just going out and hitting anyone wearing a polo shirt or a MAGA hat. This is just calling a spade a spade.

[Celtero]

You wanna have an umbrella term for people who commit what you think are the worst beliefs, be my guest, but there's gonna be a lot of people rolling their eyes when you're pointing fingers screaming nazi.

[Soteris]

For me its either because they exhibit traits such as authoritarian dictatorship, racial supremacy or hatred or similar for religion.

[Waffles731]

"It will not be because they are a member of a political party that went extinct in 1945."
Neo nazi parties are a thing

[goaded]

Absolutely, but the people who like them don't want to be described that way.

[Iamagoodguy]

2. Wasn’t it just any that was not of pure enough German decent white or not they hated you

[goaded]

Honestly, I'm not sure, I haven't looked into that aspect of it in detail. I mean, Jewish people are generally white. It's the superiority based on skin colour that's the main problem.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

If anyone wants to take a stand against all the reactionary ϟhit ϟtains that has infested this site, welcome to the Iron Front of G@G.

[awesometjgreen]

Continue the greatness goaded 👍