According to me, it was a totalitarian movement in the Germany around the WWII times, and it may be also used to refer to movements that have derived from that and believe in the same things (at one point I think those were referred to as "neo-nazis").

E.g. believing in a totalitarian society, or hating jews, is not enough to make you a nazi. As said, that would make many muslim countries nazi countries by definition, and I wouldn't call them that. It would make the term meaningless in a similar way as saying that everything negative in the world is nazism. Hey, DRM is nazism. :)

YNMV (Your Nazism May Vary)

But you sure seem to have some strong opinions on its validity :)

Is it really that difficult for you to point out directly which individuals are ideologically nationalistic? I think we all know who they are, and even they would not deny it, especially if you define the term carefully... of course if you insist on calling them nazis by implication... they might get defensive...


You know babark... for someone that once had a nice talk with me about "who speaks for Islam" these fairly transparent attempts at rationalizing, or even justifying, a threat are somewhat surprising. It's one of the reasons I like talking with you. You are often surprising.

I think you are going wrong right from the start, and I apologize for kind of having encouraged you - Nazism is not really primarily an ideology. Nazism was a very specific political movement. You know, kind of like Jihadism nowadays is not identical with Islamic ideology despite sharing a lot with it.

Anyway, Nazism had several different ideological strains (fascism, ant-capitalism and anti-semitism the main three in my opinion) and it was quite short lived if you actually think about it. Let's say twenty five years in total. It was not enough to leave a coherent ideological legacy. Unlike the other main 20th century totalitarian system...

As to neo nazi groups, no one is denying they exist. As you yourself said, no one is really in any doubt as to what they are... so either they are inept at hiding, or they actually are not really trying to hide. Can't be both. You say you don't know enough about them, and I also know little, but maybe take it from me that neo-nazis are not seriously trying to hide their nazism. You can let nazis tell you they are nazis, which is pretty much what they are doing anyway, despite regulatory constraints preventing them to be even more overt.

Ideologically I already answered you on what to me defines nazism. Politically the call to violence is indeed very important IMO. That is a reason why despite ideologies that are farther from the historical roots, you will find most people nowadays consider regimes where the political call to violence is much more overt to be closer to nazism than nationalist isolationist regimes. Several such "violent" oppressive / repressive regimes are Islamic ideologically... and "coincidentally" they happen to share something significant with Nazism: anti-semitism.


But back to the crux of this dialogue. The question you should be asking IMO is what was the comparison intended for. You keep trying to make this ideological, when jamys' threat was very obviously anything but - it was an emotional cry from his heart... or his bile...

If you really want to point out, productively, how any of the people in this thread seem like nazis to you - I already gave you great feedback: go deeper and use other words like totalitarian, nationalist, etc... you won't lose any precision, rather the opposite, and you will antagonize others much less... especially if they are german.


TL:DR - If you want to accuse anyone, just do it? Don't beat around the bush. ;)

The German finance minister is considering an european tax on petrol to take care of the refugee crisis.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry.....
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlingskrise-wolfgang-schaeuble-schlaegt-eu-abgabe-auf-benzin-vor-a-1072366.html

PS: BTW, what is a good English word for "welcoming"/hosting? I had trouble to pinpoint the correct English word (no trolling please

You should read the whole interview. He doesn't want the money to fund the "welcoming of refugees". In fact he wants it to secure the outer borders of the EU. Which is quite the opposite in my eyes.

You say "meanwhile", then link to an article from 2014, for a decision that was then withdrawn later: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11250643/Sharia-law-guidelines-abandoned-as-Law-Society-apologises.html.

The actual interview is behind a paywall:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/fluechtlingspolitik-schaeuble-stuetzt-kurs-der-kanzlerin-1.2821033

Anyway, I re-read the version from Liberation (French left-wing press) and yeah, I admit I went too fast with the transcript so post edited.
http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2016/01/16/schauble-propose-une-taxe-sur-l-essence-pour-financer-l-accueil-des-refugies_1426862

And in itself, it doesn't change a thing, they (German gov) ask money to "correct" the troubles they started so if they eventually asked the opinion of EU people, It would be a big "NO" from me

What about the recent 12 billions they recently "unlocked" for refugees? What about all the money they gave to Erdogan?

What about it? Just because we already pay a lot of money (like we always do in the EU), we should pay even more? How about the rest of the countries (especially the ones that don't want to take refugees) starts being responsible and shows some solidarity. If we don't succeed to secure the outer borders again, Germany will have no choice but to close the innerones sooner or later. And that won't solve the crisis, but create a lot of new (and maybe even more severe) problemsinstead (especially for the countries along the balcan route).

Do I? I was simply discussing it. Most of the responses I've gotten here (including yours now) wish to narrow it down to specifically references to Germany in and before world war 2, with their treatment and behaviour towards jews and other non-germans front-and-centre. I'm not sure I agree with that, certainly.

Difficult? It is irrelevant. Wasn't the point of my discussion. The point of my discussion was more the incredible backlash to the accusation, as it seems to have been taken purely from a historical comparison rather than an ideological one.

Which threat am I rationalising and justifying? Is comparing someone to nazis a threat? In your previous response, with your "explanatory" example, I simply ignored it, because it didn't seem to be serious. Are you actually saying that calling someone a nazi on a gog forum would be a threat because the German police would come and take them away, and THAT'S why it is bad?
That sounds somewhat ridiculous, so I get the feeling it is not what you mean, but if not, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Wait, so comparisons to nazism are valid, or they aren't valid? Is simply being a violent ideology make you comparable to nazis? Which one do you choose? One or the other?
Wasn't there some high-ranking Nazi who had dealt with propaganda who after the war tried to claim that he never incited violence, only voiced their opinions? I don't think anyone paid attention to that explanation.

I'm very confused now...perhaps you are mixing me with someone else in this thread, or referring to another thread? This one was authored by catpower...I'm not interested in accusing anyone of anything. What purpose would that serve? Again, in case you didn't understand, My point was simply that while most seem to take accusations of being a nazi as a reference to the historic nazis and their actions, if instead it was taken as a comparison to their similarity in ideology (devoid of moral or historic connotations), there really shouldn't be any reason to be offended.

Perhaps you are right, and the word itself is too powerful and hits too close to home for some in Europe, so such a discussion isn't fruitful. Which would be a pity, if you ask me. I mean, even you seem to be coyly...attempting to accuse me of wanting to accuse someone of being a nazi?

Breaking news: many Europeans didn't vote for Juncker & co and want to put an end to the current state of EU.

(full disclosure: I'm one of them)

Well the EU have never been for the people of Europe. It's always been about trade and greasing the business wheels in any way it can. Ordinary people in Europe get fucked all the time because of that.
As a example EU doesn't mind that Sweden check identification papers at our borders because a massive immigrant wave we can't handle anymore. What they do mind is that it's a barrier for trade. Figures.

Trade is for the people of Europe.

Trading people maybe with all those open borders.
EU started as a free trade project to make it too expensive to start wars in Europe and nothing have changed since that. It's all about trade. If the consumers get shitty food filled with chemicals it's all right for EU because the bananas have the right form.

I read somewhere that a bar owner banned entry to the "orcish horde", but was punished by law. And another article on prohibition of "orcs" from entry into public swimming pools, because they started harassing women in broad daylight publicly. The last one was said to be accompanied by a political person's (of the area) public speech, on undisputed equality of sexes and this is both absolute and undeniable. I really sympathize with you, people, having a girl or even worse mature woman being touched by filthy scum instead of refined gentlemen in mutual attraction is a horrible experience...

I apologize again for those stooges pretending to rule here, even though i never voted for them. Don't worry, rest assured, here they are going to do even worse things. They already opened an illegal Mosque (muslim temple) in Lesbos, by a British muslim extremist, who made his and its photo viral, but him being dressed in army clothes and wielding a real gun.

I seriously wonder about what the future holds...