NYT's Nazi Next Door lost job, fled home

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It was a real teachable moment, and the lesson was that the all the talk of Nazis not really wanting to hurt people was bunk.

Absolutely! If a member of a movement is violent, all protestations of peace from all members of that movement can be disregarded! I believe we are in complete agreement on this one.

It's not about members of the movement. It's about the movement itself.

Democrats: Stated goal, progressive reform of politics, protection of environment and human rights, social safety nets.
Republicans: Stated goal is improved economy through free markets, national strength through a well-equipped military, adherence to traditional religious values.
Nazis: Stated goal, annihilation of the "lesser races", jewish people, Romanis, homosexuals, the disabled and the retarded.

No matter how twist, no matter how cruel, no matter how wicked in execution, all these other parties and religions and groups brought up as parallels are at least, in theory, trying to accomplish something good. They have SOME core of belief, SOME underlying principle.

If you take away the genocide and bigotry from Nazism, you have nothing.

[Robovski]

Your examples don't support your thesis. There's almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Bonus: IF said supposed Nazi doesn't believe in bigotry and genocide are they really a Nazi then?

Double bonus: stop making me defend Nazis due to poor arguements and shoddy principles internet. Helluva year for people who don't think might makes right.

[Draco Dracul]

Your examples don't support your thesis. There's almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
.

I don't care for the Republican party, but I wouldn't call them all Nazis, as you just have.

Bonus: IF said supposed Nazi doesn't believe in bigotry and genocide are they really a Nazi then?
.

If a unicycle has two wheels is it a unicycle?

[Darth Wedgius]

Nazis: Stated goal, annihilation of the "lesser races", jewish people, Romanis, homosexuals, the disabled and the retarded.

Not so, at least not always. I did a little digging today, and the whole annihilation thing often isn't the stated goal nowadays. They're kinder, gentler Nazis, supposedly. Obviously that's relative, and not setting up death camps probably only gets you a very little credit. They now just preach separation of different races, America for whites, etc. That's unlikely to happen without violence in practical terms, but keeping money in banks in unlikely to happen without violence, either.

You may not believe them, and, considering they deny the holocaust happened, I think there'd grounds for you to be skeptical. But those are not always the stated goals. I didn't see them stated, in fact, though I didn't look very hard. I can't recommend browsing Nazi web sites as a hobby.

I could point toward those on the left explicitly advocating violence ("Pigs in a blanket! Fry 'em like bacon!" / "Trump must go by any means necessary!") or racism ("Rebuild New Orleans as a chocolate city" / "Gentrification? We don't want all those whites moving in!"), or that, oh yeah, I'm the one arguing for free speech and against the violent suppression of opposing points of view.

But "You too!" isn't the point. This is: if you want to fight "by any means necessary," you don't have any moral standing to complain when the opposition adopts your tactics. What are you going to say? "I knew they were purest evil, but I didn't expect them to stoop so low as to do to us what we were doing to them?"

[GandALF]

Nazism was an outgrowth of 200 years of Prussian militarism. They did not commit genocide simply because of "bigotry", the nicest, fairest, most just and liberal societies at the time still operated on some form of prejudice, a glorification and worship of violence along with a belief that might makes right was a massive, if not more important, factor. The whole "Teh Nazis r takin ovur!!1!!1" hysteria is unfounded. The Nazis had modern reinventions of old ideas, they were not kooks who think 4chan is serious and they had the competence to speak in full sentences unlike Trump.

[Madner Kami]

Nazism was an outgrowth of 200 years of Prussian militarism.

Wow, really? Where did you go to school? Nazism is a form of facism that heavily leans on ideas of racial purity and racism in general, usually under the guise of pseudo-science.

[GandALF]

Wow, really? Where did you go to school? Nazism is a form of facism that heavily leans on ideas of racial purity and racism in general, usually under the guise of pseudo-science.

My dissertation was on the views of Bismarck in the British press.

King Frederick William I espoused "Prussian Virtues" which centred on military discipline and obedience to the state. His son, Frederick the Great was idolised by Hitler for his military skill in the conquest of Silesia. German "unification" was essentially the conquest of the rest of Germany by Prussia through "blood and iron" under Bismarck. The main reason for Germany escalating (if not starting) WWI was its ambition to gain its "place in the sun" and replace Britain as the dominant empire primarily through military skill. In the Weimar republic the militarists were split between national conservatives (monarchists) who had a more "medieval" view of war i.e. to gain honour and respect as a great power, and the national socialists (fascists) who had the more "modern" view of war as a pseudo-scientific Darwinian struggle between races.

Hence why Nazi racism was so much more brutal than "white man's burden" or "separate but equal" racism, because its not just racism, its racism combined with an obsession with war and domination. That's why the idea of a Nazi takeover in the U.S. is ridiculous because it doesn't have the same history.

[Robovski]

Your examples don't support your thesis. There's almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
.

I don't care for the Republican party, but I wouldn't call them all Nazis, as you just have.

I never did, unless you consider Democrats Nazis. I said that there was almost no difference between the two parties.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Nazis: Stated goal, annihilation of the "lesser races", jewish people, Romanis, homosexuals, the disabled and the retarded.

Not so, at least not always. I did a little digging today, and the whole annihilation thing often isn't the stated goal nowadays. They're kinder, gentler Nazis, supposedly. Obviously that's relative, and not setting up death camps probably only gets you a very little credit. They now just preach separation of different races, America for whites, etc. That's unlikely to happen without violence in practical terms, but keeping money in banks in unlikely to happen without violence, either.

Well, you got me on that one. I admit I was wrong there and will have to adjust my thinking accordingly.

I could point toward those on the left explicitly advocating violence ("Pigs in a blanket! Fry 'em like bacon!" / "Trump must go by any means necessary!") or racism ("Rebuild New Orleans as a chocolate city" / "Gentrification? We don't want all those whites moving in!"), or that, oh yeah, I'm the one arguing for free speech and against the violent suppression of opposing points of view.

But "You too!" isn't the point. This is: if you want to fight "by any means necessary," you don't have any moral standing to complain when the opposition adopts your tactics. What are you going to say? "I knew they were purest evil, but I didn't expect them to stoop so low as to do to us what we were doing to them?"

How exactly is "chocolate city" or "we don't want gentrification" explicitly violent? You could interpret it that way, your could see it as a call to the community not to sell their houses to those shady "we buy any house!" flipper types or to push local ordinances and oppose the construction of expensive condos by peaceful means.

I'd also take issue with the pigs in a blanket one, since of the weapons used against police I have not seen any news incidents of them being subjected to electric shock or boiling oils.


I never said that I was going to fight by "any means necessary", nor is that view supported in the article. I also doubt that what tactics I choose to fight with will really affect what the Nazis choose.



Lets bring this back to the original topic. A man did an interview piece in a widely bought national newspaper about his Nazi ideology. As a result, he has lost his job. He has also fled his home because of his fears.

Losing your job is not a form of violence. Losing your job is consequences.

Did any part of the article say he had been subjected to actual violence, or even threatened with it? In short, nothing confirms that his decision to move was based on actual violent behavior of other people. It seems likely to me that he moved because his neighbors know he's a Nazi now, and he's terrified that non-white non-christian neighbors might do to him what he wants to do to them.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The whole "Teh Nazis r takin ovur!!1!!1" hysteria is unfounded. The Nazis had modern reinventions of old ideas, they were not kooks who think 4chan is serious and they had the competence to speak in full sentences unlike Trump.

I'm not sure I take your meaning. Could you elaborate or restate?