Fleeing the Nazis

There was recently some talk here in Finland when someone put a swastika flag on their balcony. Later the flag was changed to a flag with an iron cross with a small swastika.

I hate skinheads and organised nazis, I've had shouting matches with some of them and almost gotten into actual fights with some. I'm not in the habit of allowing people like that 'owning' the streets.

I have to say that I sometimes think that when I have an interest in WW2 - issues I'm kinda unknowingly taking part in the legitimization of nazi ideology. This is definitely something I'd rather not want to do.

[Kipparikalle]

Hah, I read that from the newspaper too.

This reminds me of a thing from month ago

Me and my friend got asked if we would like to join them
In Rovaniemi (I was visiting there)

We just said "Meh, no thanks mate"


I don't mind these guys as long as they aren't causing any harm to me or my friends. But damn man, are they searching for younger fellows to their "army"?

I think they are recruiting new members, they rely on the young recruits to expand. They might be targeting the smaller places in Finland because in more civilised places like Helsinki they wouldn't be allowed to exist. Wouldn't want any skinheads beating up people in Erottaja, that would give a bad impression of Finland to the outside world. And as Skybird wrote, US is pretty much the 'base' for these organisations these days, Stormfront and other similar pages are pretty free to spout racist message without any restraints.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Kipparikalle

I don't mind these guys as long as they aren't causing any harm to me or my friends. But damn man, are they searching for younger fellows to their "army"?

Young people are easy to manipulate, the recruiters will show them mostly the stuff about the Nazi's and Hitler which pictures the Ideology that you're superior then the others. They just lie to them like they did back then in the 30's - 40's.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

I do not see it as morally favourable to grant sombedody else rights and freedoms that he uses to make a society where people allowing him these freedoms would be denied these rights and even would be slaughtered. That is no sign of how morally superior such a philantropist is is, and how outstanding high developed his civilisational level is - it is pure idiotism, a sign of intellectual confusion. Reciprocity, gentleman. You want the right of free speech? Than you have to withstand from propagating ideologies that reject the right of free speech. that very simple.

Tolerance needs limits if you want to define an identity of your own. These limits decide what you do not tolerate, and what is not you. If you tolerate all and everything undiscriminatory, you do not draw a line between what is "me/us" and what is not "me!us" - andwhat "we/us" also do not wish to become or being turned into. Unlimited tolerance is a an intellectual exitus imo. Identity not only is defined by saying what one is, but also by making clear what one is NOT and what one does not wish to be. To set limits, to draw lines, to say "no!" is necessary, if you are true with wanting to show tolerance - you can only decide wqether you tolerate something foreign or not if you are sure of your own identity, your own standards, and who you yourself really are. that is neither modern, nor wanted nowadays, today every standards must be relativised until they do not mean anything anymore, every argument you give must immediately counterbalanced by you by giving the counterargument else you get labelled as "biased", and all identity must be denied and minimised so that all and everything foreign gets embraced uncritically, unchecked, and unexamined. Thus my position is under fire - but I hold this ground. the alternative is self-denial, and that I refuse to tolerate or accept as an option for myself.

Unlimited freedom is an utopia that in a world that you share with others is impossible to realise - as long as you do not accept a totalitarian collectivism where everybody is made to be equal and of the same kind so that his wishes and desires are the same like that of any other. That way, his interest cannot collide with that of others, and his usage of his freedoms cannot limit the freedoms of others. Because I strongly believe your freedom and your rights end where you start to limit the freedom of others. As long as you do not live as the only being on this planet earth, you can never have unlimited freedom. and even then you cannot have it - or are you free to breath under water or fly by the power of mind just becasue you wish you could?

A free democratic society has the right of self-defense, and for example the constitution of Germany even gives every German the right to resist even with force, if needed, to everybody who tries to overturn the constitutional order. This order is to be defended, and that is why probably not only in germany but in all countries in the West police and intelligence services, state attorneys and investigators work for protecting the constitution against people trying to violate it, ignoring it and to overturn it.

Nazism does not want to be part of the political life in this republic like any other party there is. It wants this republic not to be, and replace it with faschist tyranny, were thugs in uniform beat up or slaughter everybody not being in complinace with themselves. It uses freedom of speech to push for an order where freedom of speech is taken away from people and different opinions get crushed with violence.

Islam does not wish the constitutional order to be, it wants the ruling of sharia instead, and it demands that all other different cultures need to be killed and Judaism and christinaity needs at least to be subjugated and must accept to live as subordinates and being treated in a wanted, discriminatory fashion to let them never forget that they are subordinates to superior Islam indeed. Muslim males are not free to choose to participate in this discrimination or not - by Quran, it is mandatory for them. where they do not accept that, that speaks for them and to their advanatge as human beings, but still they are in violation of muhammad's ruling. -

Can anyone give me a good reason why I should treat these two ideologies respectful and welcoming then? why should I give them all benefits of our legal system and constitutional guarantees - if they wish to destroy this constitution and to bring people like me to silence, even to death?

For me, the case is as clear as it ever gets. It is simple, straight self-defense - not so much on a personal level (but who knows, I have already gotten threats to kill me), but on a civilisational and cultural level. This culture of ours should better not tolerate all and everything. else it raises the demons that later destroy it from within. the criterion could be wether or not some cult, group, ideology, religion, party accepts the constitutional order as is and accepts to live by the general rules it outlines, unconditionally, or not. If somebody does not fully accepts that, he has to go, better he even does not come in the first, and he has no right to demand the protection of this constitution that in the end he wishes to destroy and replace with his own ideology.

This is common sense, I would say. no legal or philosophical hairsplitting it is, but simply that: common sense. Simple, healthy reason. Don't make it more complicated than it is. I really cannot understand some complicated guys here.

Regarding Hitler, killing him early on would have prevented the NSDAP to take over Germany, for his personal charisma was a deciding factor to keep mit all together, and there was nobody able to replace him, especially early on. no taking over of Germany. no attack on Poland. No second world war. no holocaust. No dozens of million dead in Europe alone. Simple math it is. I must not think a second wether I can morally justify the assassination of people like hitler or Stalin, or not. I can, ethically, morally, religiously, and I have a clean conscience about that, absolutely. I even can agree to do it myself, with my own hands. A case of "let live or let die" cannot become any more simple than with the most of extreme examples of history like this.

I agree with SS109.xyz in that I oppose death penalty, but here the similiarity already ends again. - As I repeatedly argued, the term already is a contradiction in itself, for a penalty is sanction you impose onto somebody in order to change his future behavior and/or let him pay compensation and repair damage he did, if possible. For that, his ongoing existence is necessary precondition. Even if you want to make him object of revenge and want to see him suffer - he needs to live for that. death penalty is a no-brainer for me.

Nevertheless I can accept, in certain extreme cases, the preventive killing of extremely dangerous criminals who to put into prison would not stop them to have crimes commited in their names and by their command, crimes of a certain level of seriousness so that I rate the need to stop their ongoing as higher than the interest of the individual to live on: illegal traders with military weapons, senior drug barons, Godfathers, extremist ideological leaders, heads of groups smuggling and exploiting girls and kids and directing sexual slavery, etc. the ordinary street crimes like robbery, slaughter by passion, rape etc I do exclude, because there is no reason to assume that putting these offenders behind bars does not prevent them to continue with posing a threat to many people during or after their prison term, and sometimes people even do change and remain clean after prison. killing somebody for me never is a penalty, but eventually makes sense as a preemptive measure to prevent major ongoing harm, threat and damage to larger parts of the community or groups of people. However, it should not be a regular tool of routine, but remain reserved for the most serious cases.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

With all the recent talk about Nazis I find myself wondering if there isn't a bigger threat than a highly visible and generally disdained group of extremist hate-fanatics.

Skybird isn't going to like hearing this one bit, but I don't think the subject of nazis and nazism should be so taboo, nor should they be so dreaded.

Why is it that no one recoils in disgust when the Hammer and Sickle are displayed? What about the Rising Sun? Japan commited horrible atrocities against conquered peoples and prisoners of war. And Stalin.....

Well, Stalin leads hitler's death toll by tens of millions. Persecution of Jews? Yup.
maybe not in overall deaths of Jews, but the persecution was there.

Why is he not vilified the same way Hitler is?


Methinks that may have something to do with the fact that he was our ally in ww2. His crimes had to be downplayed greatly in both the U.S. and Britain. And many seemed not to notice that both Churchill and FDR had lambasted him and his communist state in the 1930's.


Nazis are a highly visible threat, so I do not fear them much. But what is not so visible is the threat the state poses in distorting the public perception. Few ever speak of how FDR brought this country closer to dictatorship than it has ever been. To this day he is hailed as a hero by most.

Both Hitler and Stalin, and pretty much every other authoritarian leader ever has relied on controlling the flow of information and distorting it to suit their needs. So should we not be wary of how readily we condemn nazis in popular culture but not others, some of whom were arguably worse? And should we not also be wary of blindly condemning this group or that group when to do so makes our personal freedoms vulnerable? Is it really worth to silence a bunch of people who just make themselves look worse everytime the public eye falls upon them?

Hating Nazis is all good fun, but the real threats lay elsewhere. :hmm:

A cigar for this man.

Anyway, i spent about two years of my life actively fighting neo-nazis, both with words as well as violence, so I have the scars and broken bones that zero tolerance brings about before I realized the futility of that strugle. They are a highly visible fringe majority and because of their high profile they can not pose any real threat to society at large.

[Skybird]

The visible Nazi rallies - are just the tip of the iceberg. the real danger comes from the intellectual Nazis in business suits who push into legislation, influential business and political offices without outing themselves as Nazis. the German Verfassungsschutz rates the danger projected by these people as so much more dangerous as public rallies.

[HunterICX]

Call me crazy on this,

has anyone else gave it a thought that the (Neo-) Nazi are the Western Variant of Muslim Extremists.

if you compare them both, you'll find similarities.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Call me crazy on this,

has anyone else gave it a thought that the (Neo-) Nazi are the Western Variant of Muslim Extremists.

if you compare them both, you'll find similarities.

HunterICX

What are muslim extremists? They refer to the quran, and more rightfully than many want to see. but do Nazi refer to the basic constitutional order of western nations? Hardly. there is a huge difference here.

They both want to destroy our nations. They both are intolerant, and they both want to overthrow our constitutional order. These are the similiarities.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Call me crazy on this,

has anyone else gave it a thought that the (Neo-) Nazi are the Western Variant of Muslim Extremists.

if you compare them both, you'll find similarities.

Not really. Both tend to believe in their own superiority based on gender, race or
religion, to be aggressive and authoritarian, but thats where similarities end.
I don't think it makes sense to reduce one to a simplicity where it can be compared
to the other. You certainly can't get a better understanding of one by saying it is
like the other.

All political, social and religious groups can be made to fit into just two or three
categories if you want them too. So can most things for that matter!

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The visible Nazi rallies - are just the tip of the iceberg. the real danger comes from the intellectual Nazis in business suits who push into legislation, influential business and political offices without outing themselves as Nazis. the German Verfassungsschutz rates the danger projected by these people as so much more dangerous as public rallies.

That's very true, when a couple of years ago the "Freedom Party" reached government in Austria, I just couln't believe my eyes...We've a similar party the PNR, and every time there's a problem with the immigrant community, they put up signs and organize demonstations, and then someone makes fun of them and they get humiliatted:



"enough imigration,nationalism is the solution; Good trip; Portugal for the Portuguese"

The Response


"More imigration!The best way to pissoff foreigners is to force them to live in Portugal - Welcome! With Portuguese people only we get nowhere"


Unfortunately we have kind of an active neo-nazi cell in portugal involved in a series of robberies and drug traffic, but the PJ (it's our criminal and organized-crime investigating police) seems to be handling them...

[Letum]

We have the BNP in the UK.
it's a political group formed from a split in two of England's biggest neo-Nazi
groups when some of the members opted for being slightly less evil in an
attempt to become political.

It is the 5th largest party in England.

[SS107.9MHz]

I really think humour is a powerfull weapon against these guys, namelly the politicall branches... These groups, as any other kind of gangs, prey upon those who don't feel integrated, who feel misaligned from their local society, they offer peer support... But if those possible peers are seen as a laughing matter, it will be less probable for them to join... Avoidance of suffering is a basic psychosocial mechanism.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by SS107.9Mhz

I really think humour is a powerfull weapon against these guys, namelly the politicall branches... These groups, as any other kind of gangs, prey upon those who don't feel integrated, who feel misaligned from their local society, they offer peer support... But if those possible peers are seen as a laughing matter, it will be less probable for them to join... Avoidance of suffering is a basic psychosocial mechanism.

Also the supressive policies in our societys probably drive even some normal people over the top. These include multiculturalism and political correctness. Its only resently that other parties have started to question openly these policies and the dangers they pose. Communist are the number one supporters of these policies, it comes to mind that destabilizing societys is their game.

[SS107.9MHz]

Yeah but commies don't have a single funny bone in their bodies :p