Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,754
- Location
- Welling, London
Maybe they just don’t agree with you. Not everyone has to you know.
Is it ok to be proud to be white?
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
People like antifa call themselves "progressive". But have been seen to beat people up in the street who they don't like the look of. Much like the nazis.
Any group that has to actively try to convince people they are progressive aren't progressive.
And the Nazis liked to call themselves socialist. Doesn't mean much either.
What do you envisage socialism to mean? Nazi Germany did have a lot of Social programs
I'm not getting into a 'were Nazis socialists' tunnel of idiocy.
Snopes has a decent article on it:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
the nazi's *were* socialists as well as being nationalists in 1933 when they last held elections (until the defeat of Germany in 1945).
Socialist apologists frequently try to excuse socialism from its repeated failures by trying to claim that self declared socialist states don't measure up to the (utopian and totally unrealistic) standard set by the ideology once in power whilst conviently ignoring that it was the ideal of socialism that (at least partially) bought about whatever despotic goverment/dictatorship was responsible for the inevitable catastrophe.
I can tell the nazi's *were*, in part, relying on the ideology of socialism to gain them power via the voter share in and prior to the election of 1933 because having gained power the more nationalistic part of the party (primarily under SS rule) destroyed the more socialist part of the party (primarily under the SA) in the night of the long knives...
The Night of the Long Knives (German:
Nacht der langen Messer (help·info)), or the Röhm Purge, also called Operation Hummingbird (German: Unternehmen Kolibri), was a purge that took place in Nazi Germanyfrom June 30 to July 2, 1934, when Adolf Hitler, urged on by Hermann Göring and Heinrich Himmler, carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate his hold on power in Germany, as well as to alleviate the concerns of the German military about the role of Ernst Röhmand the Sturmabteilung (SA), the Nazis' own mass paramilitary organization. Nazi propaganda presented the murders as a preventive measure against an alleged imminent coup by the SA under Röhm – the so-called Röhm putsch.
The primary instruments of Hitler's action, who carried out most of the killings, were the Schutzstaffel (SS) paramilitary force under Himmler and its Security Service under Reinhard Heydrich, and the Gestapo, the secret police, under Göring. Göring's personal police battalion also took part in the killings. Many of those killed in the purge were leaders of the SA, the best-known being Röhm himself, the SA's chief of staff and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the leftist-leaning Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, including its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed.
Additionally, Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm's outspoken support for a "second revolution" to redistribute wealth. In Röhm's view, President Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933 had brought the Nazi Party to power, but had left unfulfilled the party's larger goals.
The primary instruments of Hitler's action, who carried out most of the killings, were the Schutzstaffel (SS) paramilitary force under Himmler and its Security Service under Reinhard Heydrich, and the Gestapo, the secret police, under Göring. Göring's personal police battalion also took part in the killings. Many of those killed in the purge were leaders of the SA, the best-known being Röhm himself, the SA's chief of staff and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the leftist-leaning Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, including its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed.
Additionally, Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm's outspoken support for a "second revolution" to redistribute wealth. In Röhm's view, President Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933 had brought the Nazi Party to power, but had left unfulfilled the party's larger goals.
The party's 'larger goals' were outlined in the nazi 25 point plan which contains many obviously socialist ideals
So the nazi's had socialist members and used socialism to gain power (in part - the also used nationalism , racial superiority claims and other ideologies) . And having gained power had an internal "ideological cleansing" where the more socialist elements of the party were either killed or removed from power.
So yet again we have people saying.. we'll the nazi's didn't act like socialists from circa July 1934 onwards much like Chavez wasn't acting much like a Socialist when he ensured his daughter ammased a $4 billion pound net worth at Venezuelas expense or that Stalin wasn't acting like a Socialist when he sent countless thousands to die in work camps in Siberia.
But this doesn't get socialism of the hook as the ideology was responsible for them being able to be in power in the first place!
Not much of a fact check, ignoring the obvious bias they conclude that Nazi Germany had Social programs just that they were restricted to non-Jews, which is pretty obvious. I don't think anyone is trying to claim they were a Liberal Socialist Paradise full of equality, they do meet the criteria of Socialism though within the context of them being a Nationalist Ethno state.
That's a **** argument, mate.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,754
- Location
- Welling, London
I feel the threads run it’s course and is descending into unintelligible petty squabbling.
You people
I'm liberal, I loathe the likes of Trump, EDL (or whatever they are called today) and all their ilk, they are the scum of the earth as judging people on race or religion is amoral and, quite frankly, moronic.
However whilst being liberal I am not an extreme and intolerant liberal and I am aware enough of life and morality to understand that just because I believe something, doesn't make it utterly and unchallengably right, unlike you. The blind fanaticism you and others at the far end of the liberal spectrum display (as similar to those on the extreme right) disgusts and amuses me and I engage in this sort of discussion to try and work out how it is you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy, is it wilful ignorance or blind ignorance. Still not sure though I tend to believe it is wilful especially for those who really engage in the practices.
In regard to Nazis I've no idea what you are talking about, I just addressed your own and Angillions argument. But per the above I loathe the far right as much as the far left so it goes without saying that any ties to Nazism is abhorrent, but I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Post "White Pride" on your Facebook wall and then go to your workplace and proclaim your pride to be white. Then let me know how it all went since my straw man argument is pathetic.
You people
I'm liberal, I loathe the likes of Trump, EDL (or whatever they are called today) and all their ilk, they are the scum of the earth as judging people on race or religion is amoral and, quite frankly, moronic.
However whilst being liberal I am not an extreme and intolerant liberal and I am aware enough of life and morality to understand that just because I believe something, doesn't make it utterly and unchallengably right, unlike you. The blind fanaticism you and others at the far end of the liberal spectrum display (as similar to those on the extreme right) disgusts and amuses me and I engage in this sort of discussion to try and work out how it is you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy, is it wilful ignorance or blind ignorance. Still not sure though I tend to believe it is wilful especially for those who really engage in the practices.
Condemning nazi slogans is not fanaticism, nor is it extreme or wrong.
You have not addressed my argument because my argument is simple, it was posted repeatedly and it has nothing to do with Angillion's ramblings on "equality by use of discrimination". The topic is "Is it ok to be proud to be white" so tell me No1newts, is it? Do you deny that "white pride" is a nazi slogan? If you do not deny it, do you not agree that using the slogan or considering it "ok", creates a tie to the nazis, consciously or unconsciously? And if you agree with this as well, how does it all translate into your self proclaimed feelings of abhorrence towards any ties with nazis?
Do try to stick to the points and avoid going on tangents, please.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
No one alive had direct involvement in it. I use "we" in reference to the nation of which I and my ancestors are part of.
I am not taking credit for it, I just don't feel any shame over it is all. It's a dog eat dog world, and I am glad we didn't get eaten. I think the fact we ended up at the top of the pile instead of the bottom is something to be proud of.
There is a case for all people to reclaim the word 'gay' as meaning happy and joyful. In this respect we could all do with being gay.
You clearly have no return argument, not a shock but that is fine as most in here have already seen that and called you out on that so let's leave that particular point as settled and done.
Since you insist let's play your game.
Yes. In a similar vein as it is fine to identify pride in any particular race. I do not particularly see the point of such self identification as it is so broad but should one choose to be proud to be white, black, asian etc than fine if that is how someone chooses to identify themselves.
I actually thought they chanted white power, but apparently they chant both, so I agree it is a slogan of the neo-nazi crowd.
It would depend, there is no clear research that points to a correlation between someone declaring their pride in their race (in this instance white) and the outcome being conscious or unconscious bias, or what your are trying to say that taking pride in being white means you are a racist.
There was a study I read ages ago (I believe it was in the New Scientist, perhaps not, if you really want I can hunt it down though I cannot particularly be bothered) in which it was found that it those who identified as being proud of their race were broadly split into two groups, one of then whom went on to be bigoted in their views and others who actually went on to be more tolerant. The determining factor was education, more highly educated people who understand nuance and had some knowledge of the past were actually a lot more open and actually promoters of diversity than those from a less educated background irrespective of declaring themselves proud of their race.
The ultimate takeaway from the study was that having a strong ethnic identiy is not enough to draw conclusions on someones standpoint on anything including diversity and equality. The conclusion said this applied to all racial groups but I cannot remember if this was just an implied conclusion or if the study was replicated across other racial groups.
So, strangely enough, back to my original point that those on the extreme such as yourself take something and drag it off into the long grass to create an extreme situation and use it as a stick to silence debate rather than engaging and accepting a more complex picture. Go figure. I would absolutely agree that some who take pride in their race and state this may have ulterior motives, but to assume that everyone does is rather silly.
One can be proud to be white, black, arab or asian and not be a racist, who would have thought that nuance exists in the world today
As an aside I am not proud to be white, I am not proud to be British I personally do not take pride in any labels around race, religion, gender, sexuality etc, I am just myself and I am not so weak willed I need a label to give myself credence. Yet equally I am not ashamed to be white, British, male or straight which seems to an angle that the far left are pushing hence, as in my previous posts that you are refusing to engage with, what you are getting is a natural reaction from the white community to a perceived attack, through affirmative action and through trying to de-legitimise other peoples heritage and trying to turn that into a form of racism. This gets back to my point on the hypocrisy of the position that people like yourself take up: that it is fine and right to be proud to be *insert whatever it is today* but equally it is not OK to be part of another group and it is wrong to attack *insert whatever it is today* but it is fine to attack another group. It is staggering hypocrisy and I will ask again, not expecting a reply, how does this sit right with you? How are you able to square this particular circle?
Again I forget the study but one of the acknowledged contributory factors to the rise in white nationalism but not just that, the growing resistance to otherwise once commonly accepted practices, such as free movement as an example, is as a reaction to affirmative action, that taking things beyond equality has, unsurprisingly, created resentment and a backlash. The extreme left current solution to this is by trying to de-legitimise people and their concerns through labelling them as racists (and not seeking to understand what it is driving the issue) is only exacerbating the problem and only hindering the efforts of decent, every day people who can operate in a world that isn't just black and white (no pun intended) and are trying to get along and deal with one another as best you can whilst the far right and far left stir up hatred on both sides just to get more power and notice. Pathetic.
Last edited: