[Closed] Charlottesville

ninfan - Member
your point
Well, the comment above was that the Nazis "stated primary aim is to murder large groups of people"

So, if it's not in mein kampf, then where is it stated?

Here's yer question ninfan, I answered it. Why you changing the subject?

Do you accept that Nazism is inherently about mass murder/genocide or not? a simple yes or no will do.

ninfan - Member

Are you claiming that cultural genocide isn't an inherent form of genocide?

Strawman.
No he wasn't.

It of course isn't, so you're wrong anyway.
It's often a part of genocide, but you don't have genocide without mass murder.
That's part of the definition.

Pulling down a statue does not equate to mass murder.

Again, you're ill equipped.

Are you claiming that cultural genocide isn't an inherent form of genocide? The ICC think it is: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/28/iccs-first-cultural-destruction-trial-to-open-in-the-hague

No - genocide isn't mentioned.

I don't think ninfan actually understand Nazism at all - I think he just gets a stiffy over all those jack boots & their snazzy flags!

The extent to which a large number of posters on this thread are making it about ninfan, rather than the events in Charlottesville and USA is depressing.

teamhurtmore - Member
It's called maintaining a tradition

[img] [/img]

Who's joining me in a protest march if we're forced to abandon our tradition of politics threads turning into a trollathon by ninfan?

Troll lives matter.
Troll lives matter.
Troll lives matter.

You appear to have forgotten that the removal of the statue and renaming of the park is also undeniably an act of cultural genocide as well

Do you know when this statue was elected and by whom?
Clue: it wasn't Confederates, so I'd like to know whose culture it is that you think is being eradicated?

undeniably of a genocidal nature

That wasn't the allegation though was it? It was "they are an ideology based on mass murder" which it doesn't

Am I reading this correctly? You're arguing that their ideology isn't based on mass murder, they're just a bit genocidal? So... what, that makes it all alright then, does it?

Honestly, how can you have a sensible debate with someone who will insist for six pages that something isn't black and then when presented with proof that it is actually undeniably they will proudly proclaim that it's actually obsidian?

something isn't black and then when presented with proof that it is actually undeniably they will proudly proclaim that it's actually obsidian.

I didn't know he worked for Apple 😉

There seems to be some question about what Hitler wrote. Maybe we could ask The Orange One ...

Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke.

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/07/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-prenup-marie-brenner

I can't be bothered to trawl through this thread; any chance of a recap on the core points, refutations of said points and references?

In a nutshell Cougar, in a nutshell.

Ninfan is a busted flush - even as a troll.

any chance of a recap on the core points

Jeremy Corbyn is literally Hitler.

Salient point there Dr J. When were these statues put there? I was under the impression that many were put up during the civil rights era, the same period in which the confederate flag saw a resurgence. Are people under the impression that these statues existed in place since the Civil war?

In order to understand what the statues and flag might stand for it's important to note both when and why they are deployed. They were [and are] deployed to demonstrate a resistance to equal rights legislation.

Was the Civil war truly won and lost? or was it resolved in the form of an armistice. Seeing the confederate flag and swastika together seems the most natural of alliances, for surely the confederacy was the Nazism of it's time.

Jeremy Corbyn is literally Hitler.

Decent summary from Philly D.

(Has clips from Charlottesville so swear warning obviously)

Salient point there Dr J. When were these statues put there? I was under the impression that many were put up during the civil rights era, the same period in which the confederate flag saw a resurgence. Are people under the impression that these statues existed in place since the Civil war?

You are correct, many were erected when the Jim Crow laws first started to appear. More followed after Jim Crow laws were struck down in 1954.

Was the Civil war truly won and lost? or was it resolved in the form of an armistice. Seeing the confederate flag and swastika together seems the most natural of alliances, for surely the confederacy was the Nazism of it's time.

1. The Union won the civil war decisively in 1865. They had a harder task; the CSA literally just needed to keep control of its lands and hope that the UK and France would recognise it as an independent state. There was a possibility of this happening until Lincoln finally gave the emancipation proclamation - until then the war was more about states rights (the big one being the right to slavery) after that point there was no going back. Should the union win Slavery would be gone.

2. No, the confederacy was not organized like a Fascist state - although justifications for slavery bore resemblance to arguments later used by the Nazi's. Survival of the fittest, and that it was Gods will that slavery was there. Many Confederate (General Lee himself) held views that God would free the slaves when he was good and ready. IIRC Lee even took the view that slavery did more harm to white people/culture than those that were enslaved!

I think that's about right, it's been 20 years since I wrote essays on the U.S. Civil War...

My view on the current US is that if they don't take care they will end up with an awful sectarianism that we can only comprehend if we think of N.Ireland.

Google 'paradox of tolerance' and also consider that antifascist is not a movement, or a collective or a political stance.
Antifascist should be your default state.
You're supposed to be antifascist...

Ask your bloody grandfather to confirm it.

But didn't lot's of the cotton produced using slavery end up in buisnesses in the north for shipping? so both the north and the south benefited from slavery.

But didn't lot's of the cotton produced using slavery end up in buisnesses in the north for shipping? so both the north and the south benefited from slavery.

Correct, as did the UK, indeed our aristocracy grew rich first from the Atlantic Slave Trade and later from the produce of slavery. You view some stately homes in a new light when you think about where the money came from to build them...

Abolishing slavery was not a war aim of the Union until Lincoln emancipation proclamation took effect in early 1863. In 1861 at the outbreak of war the aim was simply to restore the Union to what it was. Many believed slavery needed to end, but it could not happen at once because of the economic damage it would do.

To put some context into it, whatever your feelings on Brexit or Corbyn might be Southerners feelings on States Rights and Abe Lincoln (a known abolitionist) would likely have been a lot, lot stronger. Chucking a bit of Manifest Destiny and 'God is with us' sentiment and you can see why men were willing to go to war.

'paradox of tolerance'

Agreed, we know what fascism and extreme nationalism does, those who clearly want to live in a fascist state and have a racist agenda want to destroy the democracies we have built (often with blood). To ignore history and to allow them to hide behind the free-speech they would so deny others would be a failure on our part.

Freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-press are worth defending (and I gladly give to the Open Rights Group and view Reporters without Borders positively). I don't for one moment see groups like the EDL/NF/BNP as ones I would trust with doing the job.

....

World wars one and two are seen as being increasingly as part of the same conflict, the first being concluded with an armistice. An armistice is a temporary condition, essentially an extended time out and an acknowledgement that core issues have not been resolved.

Jim crow was Confederacy light, the war was never resolved and a half way solution was reached. As tempting to see the civil rights legislation as closing a chapter it was accompanied by an aesthetic and cultural accommodation where the flag and confederate 'heroes' were allowed to be burnished. At the time of Carters presidency confederate symbols that had been employed by die hards during the 60's were re-imagined and normalised by mainstream culture. Growing up I got to see swastikas on the World at War [meaning bad] and stars and bars on the Dukes of Hazard [meaning good……old boys] See also Lynrd Skynrd, Tom Petty and even Steve Earle, yes….. that Steve Earle!

In Smokey and the Bandit the confederate battle flag is prominent in the first film but entirely absent from the second film, in the space of three years it seems that the entertainment industry realised they may have let a genie out of the bottle. Since the early 80's a lot has been swept under the carpet. see how the Clintons acquiesced with the Daughters of the confederacy, and how elements of the confederate flag were included within states flags.

These symbols have existed within a certain ambiguity for the past 3 decades and now they are beginning to be seen for their true meaning [not that the meaning wasn't explicit for anyone with a brain]. Thats why I said how seeing the swastika and confederate flag together seemed so appropriate. For too long the indefensible has been defended or rationalised when in truth it was just sublimated.

@Inkster

Whilst I agree with most of what you say (esp. with the confederate flag in popular culture) this statement is just wrong:

the war was never resolved and a half way solution was reached.

I'm sure there are many that want to believe that but the Union successfully invaded the key southern states and re-integrated them back into the Union. There was no immediate implementation of Jim Crow laws as a compromise to entice southern states to rejoin - in fact there was outrage against some 'codes' that the initial reconstruction government tried to introduce to control the freed slave population. The Southern armies knew they were militarily beaten and had nothing left - unlike post WW1 Germany where many former soldiers (e.g. Hitler) felt they had never been beaten as an army and had been stabbed in the back by politicians and were up for round 2.

Jim Crow crept in later approximately between 1890-1910 once the Democrats were firmly back in control of the Southern states and their northern counterparts had mostly reconciled their differences with them in order to defeat the Republican party (the presidential election of 1876 was a mess leading to compromise a year later). There never was desire to secede and fight again, nor for any one to take up arms against Jim Crow in the South. The statue/monument building peaked towards the end of this period after 1900.

My view is the problems of today are the problems of today and the references to the nineteenth century are just flimsy excuses to cause trouble - there are few, if any, direct economic or political ties back to 1865 unlike Nazi Germany harking back to the outcome of WW1. In fact it's the opposite - we know most of the alt & far Right backed a Republican candidate in 2016. In 1876 they would have been backing a Democrat and it's doubful anyone who could properly remember Jim Crow would have been at any recent rallies. The far-right loves digging up old history to justify itself, both Mussolini and Hitler did it to great effect, a flowing narrative with goodies and baddies for simple minds is a useful tool for them.

For what it's worth some far/alt-right 'history' web-sites on the Civil War are that it was caused by Jewish immigrants profiteering from slavery and not wanting it to end ~ they probably also tie something in with there wouldn't be African-Americans if it wasn't for a Jewish conspiracy.

If anyone wants to read up on that you can google for the altrighthistoryoftheus. You will probably want a good wash afterwards. The website I scanned through is so slanted you have to wonder if it's actually antifa propaganda...

careful lads, you're in danger of turning this into a decent thread! 😆

I have one question (and yes, I could Google it but I'm seeking informed knowledge here):

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

Loose coalition of [b]Anti-Fa[/b]cists groups. Erring on the militant side.

We have them in the UK, and they usually turn up at EDL marches.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

That's because there's no such thing unless you're a fascist, nazi or apologist for such groups.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

Worth a read Cougar (from that well know fascist, nazi appologist magazine The Atlantic).

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

I just knew that link would be posted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40930831

Interesting crop on the lead photo, doesn't show that the bearded chap with the goggles and stick (Totally peaceful stick, obviously) has both arms in metal lined casts as body armour (Totally peaceful, obviously).

The Antifa movement and the white supremacist movement are like the two slices of bread on a sandwich full of shit. Vile.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

Interesting crop on the lead photo, doesn't show that the bearded chap with the goggles and stick (Totally peaceful stick, obviously) has both arms in metal lined casts as body armour (Totally peaceful, obviously).

The Antifa movement and the white supremacist movement are like the two slices of bread on a sandwich full of shit. Vile.

If this weekend has proven anything, it is that, in order to challenge Nazis, a certain level of protection is required. If you ride mountain bikes down big hills, you wear protective clothing. If your hobby is fighting nazis, a bit of armour and a big stick seem sensible precautions.

Even Luke Skywalker needed a ****ing lightsaber!

The Antifa movement and the white supremacist movement are like the two slices of bread on a sandwich full of shit. Vile.

Let's not forget Corbyn. He's part of this many sided sandwich.

[quote=BigEaredBiker ]In 1876 they would have been backing a Democrat and it's doubful anyone who could properly remember Jim Crow would have been at any recent rallies. The far-right loves digging up old history to justify itself

Just as an aside, I have a few FB friends in the US, some of which are Trump supporters, some of which are "liberals" but have lots of Trump supporting friends. Hence far from an echo chamber, I get to read lots of opinions from people who still support Trump (I'm not sure if any of them could be described as far right, but part of the core). Anyway I've seen comments quite a few times about the Democrats being the party of slavery and racism (in the context of Trump supporters being accused of being racists), as if that had some relevance to now.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

as if that had some relevance to now.

But 1930's Germany does?

I mean, if one side is allowed to cherry pick from history...

If it actually exists, was foolish to shorten the name IMO

Trump appears to be trying to brand them as "alt left", presumably to support the whole 'many sides' thing.

Not a phrase I'd heard used until he used it at the press conference.

I'm not sure being against nazis is particularly [i]alt-[/i]anything.

But 1930's Germany does?

Yes. People flying nazi flags, making nazi salutes and chanting nazi phrases makes nazism relevant.

If they start dressing as civil war Democrat slave owners then that would be more relevant.

[quote=ninfan ]

as if that had some relevance to now.

😆 nice try ninfan - sadly present day Nazis think 1930s Germany was a golden era, however present day Democrats don't share many values with 19th century Democrats. So yes 1930s Germany has a lot more relevance.

Nobody is cherry picking from history - the US political system effectively flipped, but modern Nazis have kept the same value system as in 1930s Germany.

Yay!

ninfan's back!!!

My view is the problems of today are the problems of today and the references to the nineteenth century are just flimsy excuses to cause trouble - there are few, if any, direct economic or political ties back to 1865

Seems like an odd conincidence that the former slaves acestors are all so poor and keep getting shot. Its only what 50-60 years since segregation ended.

but modern Nazis have kept the same value system as in 1930s Germany.

I'm not sure about this.