It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
MaGo72: The question is not if problems exist or not, the question is do we want to sacrifice part of our culture and moral values to accommodate a diametral culture heavily influenced by religion in the hope that both will meet eventually on middle ground.

And in my opinion that is a tough bet, when you put religion against rationality. We ourselves needed several hundred years for that.
youre right. i dont like brandish hitler or breivik at every occasion as well.
i have personally no problem with any culture which doesnt try change rules in europe, to change me and so on. i meet various of them in prague. but as for islam (and only islam) i have no more confidence with that obscurantism dangerous ideology.
i can even get along with concrete muslims but one never knows when some of them goes nuts, or his offspring and i cant support building mosques and masive imigration of islam cause i know that mosques built for so called moderate muslims serve after some time as base and support facility for radical ones. if you remember it was the case of germany before 11/9/2001
atacks in NY. related mosques are now facing like moderate heaven. but who knows whats up inside right now.

thanks for at least one sane reaction.. (i mean your reaction, which i reacted to, now. not any next, supposed..)
Post edited January 15, 2016 by flanner
avatar
flanner: edit: if you are still not able to catch it - terrorism is activity of some group of morons with any collective interest
avatar
PaterAlf: Like this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground
local german problem maybe induced just by islamization.
maybe even the most stupid nazi it thinks better with homeland than you. the result is crap in both cases, in my eyes. but he is probably stupid and cant get more.

in czech republic we have only very minor islam community (but even few is too many) and no problems with skinheads not taking care of much more than hooliganic football clashes. i dont remember one bomb atack.
Post edited January 15, 2016 by flanner
avatar
TStael: So you say, but there is Joachim Gauck as your Bundespredisent.

I tell you - at least up in the north, your European neighbours are envious, because this man is admirable, and if we could, we would have him.

My German is quite poor, but post the Paris attack, I went to hear how Gauck might console me. I wanted to hear it.
avatar
MaGo72: You read my post? What has Gauck to do with this? He has been a Pastor, yes. Your point being?
It might seem soft to you - but at least I, a Finn, have admiration for Gauck.

To my mind he is well known within Scandinavia, and well liked.

I should like to hear what he would say, that is all. After Paris terrorism I definitely wanted to hear Gauck, because I felt he would have both the moral gravitas and the belief in Europe.

In case u are anti-Gauck, fine - but why are you not proud to have such a statesman within Europe, technocratically?
high rated
avatar
babark: Again, I don't know of any of the historical context or any cultural connotations of some of the words used there, but isn't this what (and again, absolutely without any negative or positive connotations implied) people are propagating here?

Remove all the proper nouns, focus less on the racial aspect (although it still seems very strong in this case as well) in favour of the cultural aspect, replace judaism with islam as the "outsider culture", replace quotes from the Talmud to quotes from the Quran as the "proof" and frame it within the context of multiculturalism being a failure, all cultures are not equal, and isn't it a reasonably good descriptor?

I suppose if one were to take it in the sense that it is an accusation of "You are (like the historical) nazis!" then it is probably not a nice thing to say, but as an approximation of the ideology, is it so wholly wrong?
I would say it is not at all similar.

Hitler was a delusional maniac who sought to cleanse the world via genocide, and the group that was centermost in his ire was essentially a passive, harmless people. The Jews didn't bake the blood of gentiles into their bread, didn't poison the wells, didn't cheat and steal from native Germans as any kind of racial assault, didn't do any of the things Germanic anti-Semites had been screaming about for centuries. It was all delusional, homicidal fantasy.

The Islamic war on civilization, however, is a very real and tangible thing.

I understand that this is not an easy thing to see from Pakistan, nor is it even representative of you and yours, as the Islamic radicals are but a minority in the Muslim world... but a very real and motivated minority, who believe only that their God desires to send them on to increasingly aggressive acts of mass murder. This is no fantasy. I don't need to read anyone's Struggle to believe such a thing - I need only drive down the road to where we had our very own act of mass-murder by Daesh followers.

The "right wing" Europeans under criticism do not advocate the Nazi progroms or Final Solution. But, right or wrong - and we can all debate this - they feel it is the Islamists who are the fascists. It is Daesh, Al-Queda, Boko Haram, and all the others who are the evil; the proponents of genocide and tyranny.

Wanting to be free of fascism and evil is not advocating fascism and evil.
avatar
Schnuff: Yes. I am sure about that.
We have a law about minimum wage (8,50€/hour) but many are still paid less.

The situation atm looks grim....but my guess is that in 1 - 2 years its hell on earth.
Because than most of the people will realize that they are at the bottom of the social and economic population
without chance (legal) for improvement.
Again the past is the prove of this. Look at the immigrant people...some are 3rd generation but still not integrated.
In my mind I see a situation similar to France with suburbs out of control.
Well, only time will tell.
before we get that far I wouldn't be surprised if we see a revival of the early 90's wave of violence against immigrants.
hopefully there won't be a remake of Rostock-Lichtenhagen :/
avatar
babark: snip
I will give you the benefit of a charitable interpretation.

In Germany, where both the posters were from, Nazi carries specific connotations and legal penalties. It is in fact illegal. Imagine if another Pakistani resident posted something at you calling you gay and telling you that you will get what's coming to you. That would to me be a very obvious threat, which I would denounce. Do you agree?

Then, Nazism was indeed a set of beliefs. What you quoted is IMHO not sufficient to define them fully there is a whole aggressive aspect of Lebensraum and Blood for Soil (not sure of this last) without which Nazism would have been much less harmful for example.

Consider how much debate happens around the socialism component of National Socialism being defining or tangential to Nazism and you will notice what defines Nazism as a totalitarian system is still fluid.

TL:DR - not all nationalism is nazism, just like not all socialism is nazism, despite common elements they share. Does that help you understand better what happened here?

In practice though, kind of easier to agree on what evil was done in its name... actions being so much easier to judge than opinions and speech...
avatar
yogsloth: I would say it is not at all similar.

Hitler was a delusional maniac who sought to cleanse the world via genocide, and the group that was centermost in his ire was essentially a passive, harmless people. The Jews didn't bake the blood of gentiles into their bread, didn't poison the wells, didn't cheat and steal from native Germans as any kind of racial assault, didn't do any of the things Germanic anti-Semites had been screaming about for centuries. It was all delusional, homicidal fantasy.

The Islamic war on civilization, however, is a very real and tangible thing.

I understand that this is not an easy thing to see from Pakistan, nor is it even representative of you and yours, as the Islamic radicals are but a minority in the Muslim world... but a very real and motivated minority, who believe only that their God desires to send them on to increasingly aggressive acts of mass murder. This is no fantasy. I don't need to read anyone's Struggle to believe such a thing - I need only drive down the road to where we had our very own act of mass-murder by Daesh followers.

The "right wing" Europeans under criticism do not advocate the Nazi progroms or Final Solution. But, right or wrong - and we can all debate this - they feel it is the Islamists who are the fascists. It is Daesh, Al-Queda, Boko Haram, and all the others who are the evil; the proponents of genocide and tyranny.

Wanting to be free of fascism and evil is not advocating fascism and evil.
Well said and as we all know, such evils creates their likewise evil counterparts.
I don't want to live in a world where Europeans compromise more and more human rights to cater to backwards people and where my buddies with muslimic heritage are hunted down by locals with European heritage for their looks and by muslims as soon as those notice, that they are closet apostates. All this won't end well.
One or two years ago, my favourite drummer (born muslim) said to me after I asked him where I could get traditional Turkish shirts for the summer, that he knows a shop, but doesn't go there anymore, because the owners get more and more "religious" all the time and it's scaring him, so he rather asks his wife to make the clothes for him (she is really good at this) and waits a little longer. For me this was symbolical in many ways.
Post edited January 15, 2016 by Klumpen0815

The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and privately owned businesses.
avatar
babark: Again, I don't know of any of the historical context or any cultural connotations of some of the words used there, but isn't this what (and again, absolutely without any negative or positive connotations implied) people are propagating here?
I think when western people think about nazis, they think about the holocaust, concentration camps etc. So that's the idea: if you call someone a nazi, you are suggesting his kind will (figuratively) bring back all those atrocities to the society, rounding up and killing all the poor asylum seekers etc.

By the Wikipedia definition, wouldn't e.g. Saudi-Arabia (and many other arabic countries) and maybe even Pakistan be nazi countries? To me it appears they are heavily on the idea of islamic state with no "foreign peoples"? As an example, how Brunei forbids visible Christmas celebration.

Not to mention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
Post edited January 15, 2016 by timppu
avatar
yogsloth:
Surely "The boogeyman is real" is not an accurate differentiator of the ideology, is it? Even in Hitler's time, I'm sure those who supported that ideology could pick on a tiny minority of jews and easily bring up real world examples of their wrongs.
Are you saying that "If the threat is real, then the ideology of those who oppose it cannot be comparable to nazism"?

avatar
Brasas:
The illegality of nazism in Germany seems much relating to its historic connotations and public displays (i.e. wearing a swastika or calling oneself a nazi) rather than the ideology itself. The ideology may be illegal as well, but it's kinda meaningless making an ideology illegal if all someone has to do to avoid that is say "No, we aren't that!". There are groups that it seems are universally considered nazi that exist in Germany today (a simple search brings up NPD, which I admit, I have no knowledge of, so I may be wrong) and they've even won seats.

So you say the definition is fluid, and not all nationalism is nazism, and not all socialism is nazism, then what is? Is it a matter of degrees? Is it the combination of the two? Is it the inclusion of a call to violence in the ideology?
I very well understand what happened here, I was just pondering on the difference if one were to look at the accusation in terms of the ideological connotations rather than the historical ones ("You appear to be espousing ideas that relate to nazism!" rather than "You are like Hitler and his followers!"). I certainly am not in a position to say which meaning was meant in this thread in the initial accusation.

avatar
timppu: By the Wikipedia definition, wouldn't e.g. Saudi-Arabia (and many other arabic countries) and maybe even Pakistan be nazi countries? To me it appears they are heavily on the idea of islamic state with no "foreign peoples"?
My point here wasn't in defending Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Brunei. So you may well be right! Are you?

If those similarities are enough to bring a comparison between Nazism and Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Brunei, are they enough to bring a comparison between Nazism and some of the views espoused in this thread?

How much nazi should a nazi nazi to be a nazi?
Post edited January 15, 2016 by babark
avatar
yogsloth: The "right wing" Europeans under criticism do not advocate the Nazi progroms or Final Solution. But, right or wrong - and we can all debate this - they feel it is the Islamists who are the fascists. It is Daesh, Al-Queda, Boko Haram, and all the others who are the evil; the proponents of genocide and tyranny.

Wanting to be free of fascism and evil is not advocating fascism and evil.
I don't have any problem to debate the problems of mass immigration, but we shouldn't glorify the right-wing scum as some kind of freedom fighters (I know it probably wasn't your intention, but your last sentence could be read this way). They are as much fascists as the people they claim to fight.

Just a few days ago 250 LEGIDA/PEGIDA hooligans vandalized a whole district in my hometown. It was nothing but luck that none of the 28 buildings they attacked with fireworks burned down to the ground.

They also attack journalists and counter-demonstrators at almost every of their demonstrations and there are serious death-threads against elected politicians and people from the left scene. In many areas of eastern Germany they already created or try to create so-called "national befreite Zonen" in which no one but "pure Germans" can walk free and where everybody who doesn't share their point of view is in severe danger. And let's not forget the 900 attacks against refugee shelters in Germany last year.

Right now I don't fear islamization, but I feel very much threatened by the everyday right-wing violence.
Post edited January 15, 2016 by PaterAlf
avatar
timppu: By the Wikipedia definition, wouldn't e.g. Saudi-Arabia (and many other arabic countries) and maybe even Pakistan be nazi countries? To me it appears they are heavily on the idea of islamic state with no "foreign peoples"?
avatar
babark: My point here wasn't in defending Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Brunei. So may well be right! Are you?

If those similarities are enough to bring a comparison between Nazism and Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Brunei, are they enough to bring a comparison between Nazism and some of the views espoused in this thread?
I personally wouldn't call e.g. islamistic countries as "nazi countries", because nazism is/was a specific movement with certain objectives and means. I just pointed out that you can't call everything/everyone, that happens to somehow fit that wide Wikipedia definition, a nazi. It doesn't make sense.

Now, if someone is indeed wearing a swastika T-shirt and flag and shouting "Heil Hitler!" and thinks all jews are parasites which should be killed, then yeah I consider one as a nazi. Note: even though some muslims may want to kill "all jews", that alone doesn't make them nazis either, even though it fits one part of nazism.

I consider nazism as one form of totalitarian movement. Islamists are another example of a totalitarian movement. Anarchists might not be totalitarian (anything but), but I see them negatively as well, mainly for their actions. Frankly, I'm sometimes surprised how totalitarian some anarchists behave, even though they should oppose it. They claim they are about total freedom, but sometimes they have quite a perverse idea of freedom. E.g. taking away (e.g. economical) freedom from people, claiming they might take away freedom from other people. Also, the main anarchist discussion board here is heavily moderated; how's that anarchist?
Post edited January 15, 2016 by timppu
avatar
timppu: Frankly, I'm sometimes surprised how totalitarian some anarchists behave, even though they should oppose it. They claim they are about total freedom, but sometimes they have quite a perverse idea of freedom. E.g. taking away (e.g. economical) freedom from people, claiming they might take away freedom from other people. Also, the main anarchist discussion board here is heavily moderated; how's that anarchist?
http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/80/64/d85457890c5f6baef7aaf8a7111d5f89-dont-tell-me-to-spread-anarchy.jpg
avatar
timppu: Now, if someone is indeed wearing a swastika T-shirt and flag and shouting "Heil Hitler!" and thinks all jews are parasites which should be killed, then yeah I consider one as a nazi.
So according to you, "nazism", as an ideology can ONLY exist if it is directly and clearly (and in the same order/relationships) referencing events/acts/people in Germany in the first half of the 20th century? That it is a meaningless or unapplicable term otherwise?
Post edited January 15, 2016 by babark
avatar
PaterAlf: snip......

Right now I don't fear islamization, but I feel very much threatened by the everyday right-wing violence.
mmm, that vaguely reminds me of the Vice video on the Jamel village (funny as "Jamel" is a common name in Magrheb).

The highlight of the vid was the barbecue with "Happy Holocaust" engraved on it:
https://youtu.be/hG-FLv-4u8E?t=3m21s

______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Today news in Belgium is that 3 girls (one aged 22, others two are 16y old) got sexually assaulted in the train by 3 underaged refugees from France (the oldest is 13y old while the other two are 12y old).

Of course, the law for underaged offenders already sucks in Belgium but as they're also refugees from France, it was too much hassle for the prosecutor who classified the case "without following"(in the archives thus) so she released them.....

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland/article/detail/2585732/2016/01/15/Jonge-vluchtelingen-randen-drie-meisjes-aan-in-trein.dhtml
http://www.dhnet.be/actu/faits/agressions-sexuelles-en-serie-dans-le-train-3-plaintes-contre-des-migrants-5697f32e3570ed38951af88f
Meanwhile the UK is already prepared for things to come:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/23/sharia-law-enshrined-in-uk-legal-system_n_5016396.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587215/Sharia-Law-enshrined-British-legal-lawyers-guidelines-drawing-documents-according-Islamic-rules.html