London Riots - OR - What's your favourite thing about Hitler?

[Monsieur OUXX]

That's like saying that someone who argues that a certain nazi Party isn't far-right is a Neo-Nazi.

Wait ... wut?
In that case, I must also lack logic.

[InCreator]

Stop throwing "nazi" around like nationalism was bad and source of all evils. It's not.
As ideology, it's absolutely alright, and in increasingly globalizing world, we need it more every day so little nations (much like mine) wouldn't smelt in big pot of nations, those fucking flows of neverending immigrants and international unions - which would also eliminate culture and language - which is never good. Especially if you hippies all praise tolerance and multiculturalism, yet Hollywood products is only thing shown in cinemas and local cuisines are losing to hamburgers badly.

Nationalism is okay and everyone should hold to their nation and traditions, value and expand them. Why does everyone like Japan so much? Nationalism.

It's not okay if you go hitler and try to make your race and culture only one on earth. And I think WHAM is quite far from this extremity yet.
And while you're making hypocrite claims on internet forum, Russians are having genocide party in Chechnya, destroying a whole nation with everything that goes with it, same shit goes on in Darfur and where else...

[Ali]

And while you're making hypocrite claims on internet forum, Russians are having genocide party in Chechnya, destroying a whole nation with everything that goes with it, same shit goes on in Darfur and where else...

Haven't you noticed that a lot of the people committing genocide are nationalists?

[Monsieur OUXX]

Stop throwing "nazi" around like nationalism was bad and source of all evils. It's not.

Nazi is more than nationalism. It's nationalism brought to an extreme PLUS a detailed list of reasons why jews -- and all other "anti-social" people -- should be suppressed PLUS religious fanatism PLUS whacky justifications of the "white superiority".
It's not hypocrit to say that's not right.

As ideology, nationalism is absolutely alright

In theory, it would be OK to be "excessively patriotic" (another word for "nationalist") -- except for the fact 99% of times it's at the expense of other principles such as "tolerance for the other". It ends up being wrong. It's very often promoted by extreme right-wing. Which brings us back to nazism. It's still not hypocrit to say that's not right.

Russians are having genocide party in Chechnya, destroying a whole nation with everything that goes with it, same shit goes on in Darfur and where else...

Point made. thanks.
EDIT: Ali, you've been faster than me.

In conclusion: There's a HUGE difference between loving one's own country (and trying to make it better in a fair "competition"), and destroying other countries, and cultures -- and then try to blur the limit between the two by throwing in some bogus about nazism, as a diversion ("hey I'm not a nazi THEREFORE it means I'm still a reasonable nationalist").

[WHAM]

Now that my secret agendas have been so cleverly unveiled, I've decided to update my avatar temporarily.
Hope you people enjoy this. Kthxbai!

EDIT: Meh, Goebbels felt too mundane, so I decided to go with the highest military award ever presented in Finland, the Mannerheim Cross. It's got a swastika, so that CLEARLY means that all those soldiers who fought in the war and were awarded these were Nazi's and therefore EVIL, right? RIGHT!? FUCKING RIGHT!?!?!?

[NsMn]

WHAM. IS. MY. HERO.


(...that's a joke right?)

[InCreator]

For me personally, it feels terrible how hard for me is to be or even feel patriotic or nationalistic.

Our whole country is falling apart, with young people going "fuck it" and emigrating and "love for fatherland" is all-time low and decreasing.
I wish to love this country and language more, but everytime I try, I see the country giving me a big middle finger.

It's frightening. That's why we need more nationalistic people to lead and not EU/Russia-bought shitheads selling people to the slavery of swedish banks or finnish supermarkets. If Swedbank for example would declare bankruptcy, whole country would become Iceland in 0.2 seconds.

And that's why "let's be tolerant" and "nazis are bad"-choirs anger me and make me side with WHAM. I'm sure it's all different if you live in a big, rich country which actually can afford to accomodate immigrants, have history full of racist shit to make up for and share a bit of the common wealth and play the ethnics game. But that shouldn't make your words written in stone.

[Monsieur OUXX]

It's got a swastika, so that CLEARLY means that all those soldiers who fought in the war and were awarded these were Nazi's and therefore EVIL, right? RIGHT!? FUCKING RIGHT!?!?!?

Once the extreme right flood has been unleashed, there is an effect of "crowd behaviour". So even though they're still responsible for their crimes, you could say that the true culprits were the ones who first planted the seed in their heads, more or less actively.
Which is what you're doing right now, in a time of peace. That's my opinion.

[Monsieur OUXX]

And that's why (a) "let's be tolerant" and (b) "nazis are bad"-choirs anger me and make me side with WHAM.

That's the trick of extreme right.

They make you believe that (a) "excessive tolerance" and (b) "blaming it on the extreme right" are 2 opposites, to make you feel guilty of (a), hence making you choose to turn to the extreme right.
BUT your cultural disasters are actually to be blamed  on (c) the economic war -- not on (a) "excessive tolerance" nor on (b) "gullibility".

It's the economic war that crushes your culture and makes you a slave.
What I'm trying to say is: There is a 3rd option -- Promote (a) and (b) AND (c) protect your culture by protecting your economy.
Fight for tolerance AND be the best at what you're doing.

You don't need to either (a) crush other cultures or (b) live in slavery.

[NsMn]

It's the conomic war that crushes your culture and makes you a slave.

I'm not aiming at becoming the right-wing equivalent of the "nazis are bad"-people, but that sounds sucpiciously... "socialist"?

[Monsieur OUXX]

It's the conomic war that crushes your culture and makes you a slave.

I'm not aiming at becoming the right-wing equivalent of the "nazis are bad"-people, but that sounds sucpiciously... "socialist"?

How is that? Isn't that a fact?
Aren't people migrating from country to country because of excessive misery? Aren't stupid blockbusters all over the place because of the arts having been turned into an industry? Aren't languages being forgotten because everybody has to speak English to get a job? Isn't Greece currently being forced into selling everything the state owns, inluding its cultural legacy, just to repay bankers who speculated on the US debt, this being made possible only because of American and European banks having been made almighty?

It's all over the newspapers.

Oh, and by the way, it's not "suspect" to have socialist ideas. At least not in Europe, where McCarthy never got to arrest, harass or force people to exile.

[WHAM]

The fact that something is not currently "suspect" does not mean it should not be or that it will never be.
For proof, see: "Nazis", "National Socialism", "Gays"... the list goes on.

Times change and I hope they change for the better, and I will do what I can to direct my community to what I believe is the right direction.

[Calin Leafshade]

What does Nazism have in common with "Gays"?

[Monsieur OUXX]

The fact that [socialism] is not currently "suspect" does not mean it (...) will never be.

NO COMMENT.

What does Nazism have in common with "Gays"?

Also, what does it have to do with Socialism? (it's a 60 years old way of rewriting history to make people believe that Nazis were in fact connected to Socialism. They only took the name, surfing on the hype). the whole coutry actually tried to switch to the opposite of nazism, but didn't succeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919

[WHAM]

The link between all three terms is: they are all things that were at one point considered "suspect" but are such no more, or vice-versa. Opinions change as times change, and things that were once acceptable / unacceptable, might have their classification changed in the minds of men. Thus the TERMS and SYMBOLS are meaningless and should not be given a negative response beyond the time they are used in the questionable context.

I can completely understand an American man looking at a picture with a swastika in a local newspaper in 1945 and thinkig: "That is outrageous! How dare they show that here!". If another American man sees the same image in 2011 and still thinks exactly the same thing, the connection he is making is dated and irrelevant.

[Monsieur OUXX]

The link between all three terms is: they are all things that were at one point considered "suspect" but are such no more, or vice-versa. Opinions change as times change, and things that were once acceptable / unacceptable, might have their classification changed in the minds of men. Thus the TERMS and SYMBOLS are meaningless and should not be given a negative response beyond the time they are used in the questionable context.

I can completely understand an American man looking at a picture with a swastika in a local newspaper in 1945 and thinkig: "That is outrageous! How dare they show that here!". If another American man sees the same image in 2011 and still thinks exactly the same thing, the connection he is making is dated and irrelevant.

Yet again, in theory yes, but in case you didn't notice, the entire nazi ideology is based on one, poorly written, single book --Mein Kampf-- which in turn is entirely rotten (I challenge you to prove otherwise!).
As for the Swatsika is the symbol of one, single political party, which ideology hasn't moved a bit for the 20 years it was around, and was ruling only in one country.

For example it would be dishonnest to compare it to the communist symbols and ideologies and phrasings, which are around for 150 years, had hundreds of thousands of contributors (from the most brilliant minds in the world!) and variations (Western European, Eastern European, Asian, South American...), and are based on Marx's writings which are not "rotten" (whether or not one agrees with his assertions, they are still considered, even by "capitalist" economists and politologists, as "serious work").

What you're saying doesn't work for nazism. If you think otherwise, think again. "Nazism" doesn't mean several things. It means only one, terrible thing.

[Ali]

Thus the TERMS and SYMBOLS are meaningless and should not be given a negative response beyond the time they are used in the questionable context.

But we are still living in a time in which Nazi terms and symbols are used in a questionable context. For example, the questionable context in which you used "final solution".

And in the case of fascist and right wing organisations the terms and symbols are more villainous than they are questionable. Adopted because the users delight in the horrors and outrages that are connected to them.

[WHAM]

And now we come back to what makes things "questionable".

What I proposed is questionable at the moment, but may not be so in the future.

If the Germans had won "The War" we would be having this exact same conversation, except for the fact that we would replace all swastikas with "stars-and-stripes" or "hammers-and-sicles", and instead of talking about how nazi's were evil, we would be talking about how the communists and capitalists were evil.

Names change, ideas do not.

[Ali]

If the Germans had won "The War" we would be having this exact same conversation, except for the fact that we would replace all swastikas with "stars-and-stripes" or "hammers-and-sicles", and instead of talking about how nazi's were evil, we would be talking about how the communists and capitalists were evil.

No we wouldn't, because we wouldn't have unmonitored access to the internet! And that would be the least of our problems.

The Second World War was not a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, it really did matter which side won.

Are you sure you've actually heard of the Nazis?

[Snarky]

Gee, I certainly hope so, because as far as I can tell, your points amount to "I am a neo-Nazi." (Arguing that "Sieg Heil", the swastika, "Final Solution" and Hitler salute do not necessarily signify Nazism is the purest form of bullshit, and comes off as the thinnest possible excuse to keep cloaking your argument in Nazi symbols and terminology.)

That is the shittiest logic ever. That's like saying that someone who argues that a certain nazi Party isn't far-right is a Neo-Nazi.

That wasn't my logic. That was two related points. The logic was more something like:

(a) WHAM argues for policies and political solutions that amount to fascism
(b) WHAM has suggested that the bad reputation of the Nazis is just due to the victors writing history
(c) WHAM has expressed admiration for famous Nazis
(d) WHAM "jokingly" throws in Nazi slogans and symbols with his posts
(e) WHAM is currently arguing that things that are currently unacceptable (like Nazism) could become acceptable in the future

If we are to take him seriously (i.e. he's not just trolling), I would argue that the most reasonable way to interpret all of this is to conclude that WHAM has strong Nazi sympathies.