What is a Nazi?

How much do people put "conquest and looting", literal Lebensraum into being an essential aspect of being a 'True Nazi'?

"We should organize so that we can violently take their stuff"?
 
like clockwork
fea3f2d9689b004c8e69eada56145426bb7ccf3a02d4cbc4e1caa3ca1e6c8aa9_1.jpg

One of the best memes ever.
 
The 'centre' stops listening for many reasons. It's foolish to play this game with them.

What a great idea! Don't engage with the centrists at all, simply ensure your fanatics outnumber the opposition's fanatics and viola! You win every election without those damn no good for nothing independent voters messing it up.

Congratulations you could be a politician!!
 
Like, I want to, and this goes for aelf too maybe, but is this saying that I'm a coward?

I mean maybe I am, but in this regard it more has to do with actually getting results. And I do call Nazis Nazis so idk.
It's okay to be the chill one who isn't triggering them but at the end of the day as a group we need to lead them, not wait for them to lead us to our future.
 
How much do people put "conquest and looting", literal Lebensraum into being an essential aspect of being a 'True Nazi'?

"We should organize so that we can violently take their stuff"?

Thieves have no right of possession, assuming you are talking about agrarian uprisings that try to redistribute land from the big aristocrats.
 
I wasn't. I was talking about people's conception of the term.

Invading and smashing were very large components of Hitler's policy and politics. We cannot get away from his efforts to reorganize society without knowing why he was doing so.
 
I wasn't. I was talking about people's conception of the term.

Invading and smashing were very large components of Hitler's policy and politics. We cannot get away from his efforts to reorganize society without knowing why he was doing so.

It was also pretty basic to Italian fascism too.
 
Forrest Gump is a serious comedy. My high-browmeter went off scale when I tried Tarkovsky movies.

Think I was 16 when I saw that movie the first time.

Loved it lol. It's a bit to American now but still good.
 
I wasn't. I was talking about people's conception of the term.

Invading and smashing were very large components of Hitler's policy and politics. We cannot get away from his efforts to reorganize society without knowing why he was doing so.

Yeah, the invasions of the East were basically to secure Germany against the maritime domination of the Anglo-Americans. This is because the Nazis viewed the world as, fundamentally, an arena of zero-sum violent conflict between racial groups.

One does not need particular powers of insight to see the similarity between this view of the world and Hobbes' "War of All Against All" which underlies quite a bit of liberal thinking (let alone later social darwinism and scientific racism), but we'll leave that aside for now.
 
Yeah, the invasions of the East were basically to secure Germany against the maritime domination of the Anglo-Americans. This is because the Nazis viewed the world as, fundamentally, an arena of zero-sum violent conflict between racial groups.

One does not need particular powers of insight to see the similarity between this view of the world and Hobbes' "War of All Against All" which underlies quite a bit of liberal thinking (let alone later social darwinism and scientific racism), but we'll leave that aside for now.

My personal theory is there will always be a them and an us. May not be a racial thing but political, cultural, economic, religious etc.

Under the right conditions that will escalate to violence. Lack of resources eg food and water being a basic one or I want your stuff even if the basics are covered.
 
What a great idea! Don't engage with the centrists at all, simply ensure your fanatics outnumber the opposition's fanatics and viola! You win every election without those damn no good for nothing independent voters messing it up.

Congratulations you could be a politician!!

Err, not sure if you think engagement necessarily means pandering to a group. Just giving ground isn't the way to political victory either. Look at post-Blair Labour.
 
It's okay to be the chill one who isn't triggering them but at the end of the day as a group we need to lead them, not wait for them to lead us to our future.

I'm not doing the behavior of mine because of any obligation to people's feelings. I'm doing it because I've found it works the best on a personal level. It's not because I'm sensitive to people's reactions out of courtesy, it's because I've just personally found that alienation for reasons that aren't even strictly correct is a bad strategy. It was more constructive rhetoric that convinced myself from other idiot views I used to have (luckily never fascist ones, but other hurtful beliefs). Being yelled at or even in front of turned my attention right off. So I kind of have to go by what convinced me in other areas.
EDIT: Btw, want to be clear, you're not yelling at me here. I don't mean yelling per se. It's more stuff like going "Nazis!" and inferring cowardice and such.

And in regards to actual Nazis, where I think it's appropriate to say what's going on, I call it out as is. I think that earlier point of mine about Charlottesville types was unclear there. What is Nazism, fascism, etc, I am always clear when I think it's what's going on.

I think sometimes going all in with such rhetoric is more powerful than a more mediative approach. When you're a frontsperson in mass media, you just can't be personal and here idiosyncrasy is probably a better call. I'm not enough of a public figure to really be able to gauge whether it works better with stronger wording if I were writing articles and doing interviews and such. But there I think there's a stronger argument to be more empathetic whether correct or not. But even there the word Nazi is so trite in overuse I think it's lost most of its rhetorical oomph. I have a friend who's quite public who gains traction primarily by being idiosyncratic and oftentimes poetic whether being strictly right or not, because it gets the point across and gains traction.

Also, small point. I'm only sharing what I think works due to the thread existing at all. If you feel it works to just call it what you do, go ahead, because you probably know what you're doing. The OP was quite powerful - I just think it was for reasons other than saying Nazi. But I don't live in a world where I saw the word not invoked there, so I can never know for sure.
 
Last edited:
....."We should organize so that we can violently take their stuff"?
Is that a direct quote from marx or are you just paraphrasing?
Thieves have no right of possession, assuming you are talking about agrarian uprisings that try to redistribute land from the big aristocrats.
lol
 
So, the word "organize" is so associated with Marxism that a preceding sentence literally about Nazis doesn't make people think the faux-quote is what those Nazis say to each other? Y'all read a question about Nazis, saw the word 'organize' slightly below it, and went "welp, this is obviously about Marxists".
 
both sides...many sides
Missed it on that one—it's kind of a game. There's Nazi mana, CRT mana, cancel culture mana... you blow it all and then it's gone, and the less of it you have the more of it you need for it to stick. Call someone a Nazi in 1948, them's your fightin' words. 2021? I want some stinky bum off my street and suddenly I'm Eichmann.
 
So, the word "organize" is so associated with Marxism that a preceding sentence literally about Nazis doesn't make people think the faux-quote is what those Nazis say to each other? Y'all read a question about Nazis, saw the word 'organize' slightly below it, and went "welp, this is obviously about Marxists".
Yep. The evolution of language, you know. It's like a commie dogwhistle
 
So, the word "organize" is so associated with Marxism that a preceding sentence literally about Nazis doesn't make people think the faux-quote is what those Nazis say to each other? Y'all read a question about Nazis, saw the word 'organize' slightly below it, and went "welp, this is obviously about Marxists".

Sadly, a lot of people are really into horseshoes.
Yep. The evolution of language, you know. It's like a commie dogwhistle
Except
a) commies actually don't dogwhistle. They're incredibly clear about their agenda in general. Ask a commie of their political position, vast majority are happy to inform you. The idea that they're being secretive and sneaky isn't reflected in the real world and only really propagated by far right conspiracies
b) thinking organization is reserved for communists is ridiculous and I'm clueless as to what in the world you're watching/reading to gain this - or the above - impression
 
Back
Top Bottom