Nationalist/far-right subforum?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Nazi Germany was the first country in modern times to try to eliminate smoking as a cause of lung cancer.

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

I suspect Ragin' means positives of the actual ideology of Nazism as opposed to an unintended side-effect.

 

[Kirran]

To say "commies kill people out of... thrill of power" is hardly a successful attack on communism as an ideology, being by definition an emotional response which might happen in people individually, don't you think?

 

[David1967]

With the "Alt-Right", though, should we allow "peacefully" talking about ethnic genocide?

Yes, because then we know who they are and who to beware of.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

One can argue that abortion has extinguished hundreds of millions of souls, all in the name of some made up concept of 'choice'.

One could argue that, but not very well. 99% of all abortions are done before 21 weeks, which is also before there is any normal brain function - normal brain function being function past base motor functions and involuntary bodily actions (heartbeat and such). A "soul" also cannot be scientifically quantified, but life can. A person is clinically dead when their heart stops, but they're still technically alive. They are dead when brain function stops. This is no different than when the vast majority of abortions are performed.

It is a matter of choice, there's nothing made up about it. As uncomfortable as it is, scientifically speaking a fetus at that point is nothing more than a parasite; albeit destined to become a human being. Or not, there's a myriad of complications that can arise.

One can argue that Islam is an Eastern far right ideology, which gets a lot of support from the Left.

That's argued quite often, yes. Problem being Islam is a belief, and there are degrees to it. Nazism is an ideology that uses politics and religion. They're more like ISIL, and I don't think there's much for strong arguments in their defense either.

The best argument from the Right is that the Left has caused the demographic death of the West. Extremely low birth rates,

There's a lot that goes into that, including economic factors. The Right is just as much to blame for the state of our economy as the Left. In fact, I seem to remember them shutting it all down for a period of time in a government-level temper tantrum. This, however, does not equate to Nazis.

breakdown of the family

Not true at all. In fact, Republicans have a higher divorce rate than Democrats.

and a general sort of hedonism and apathy.

The Left has always been stronger in pushing to help other groups, and taking an interest in the plights of others. The exact opposite of hedonism and apathy.[/quote]

 

[Laika]

Uhm... yes, yes it is. It is not up to an individual or a government state to determine when someone else gets to die. I don't understand how this is a serious question.

Honestly, Just Be happy for it. It's a profound and terrifying question.

The difference I see here is that far-right ideas can be seen having negative impacts in the here and now, and are manifest in practice. For example, Internet radicalisation is responsible for many far-right attacks etc.

In the present day, I am not aware of that happening much with far-leftists, although certainly there are plenty in the authoritarian left whose theories are pretty scary.

There are few, if any, far left movements or terrorist that happen these days. The far right is much stronger.

Radicalisation is caused by a multitude of factors and there is no consensus amongst psychologists as to why it happens. The simple presence of far right ideas is not enough. The problem is that we now live in a society with vast wealth inequalities that encourages social tensions. The failure of multi-cultural ism to accommodate for socio-economic segregation under capitalism, the economic insecurities that make immigrant labour cheaper and therefore threatening to the white working class, the threats to cultural identity coming from globalisation, etc all feed into far right narratives about the importance of race, nation and cultural identity.

Yes, the fact the far right is powerful is dangerous. But trying to ignore it and pretend it's not there only give them the iniative to keep exploiting the weakness of the system. It's why I think we have to give them recognition: we have to admit there is a problem before we can solve it. What we are doing now isn't working.

 

[Quetzal]

Honestly, Just Be happy for it. It's a profound and terrifying question.

How can I be happy when someone condones murder because we all die anyway? If that is the case, you should have no quarrel if someone starts taking out individuals you enjoy spending time with, right? After all, they will die anyway.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes, because then we know who they are and who to beware of.

As I already mentioned to this same sentiment, we know who they are without giving them a stage. Giving them a stage, as I see it, is permitting their views to be known. And then when they rise in power, there is no one that can deny them, because they allowed it.

 

[Rival]

In order to seize the methods of production from the bourgeoisie, yes. It doesn't mandate armed struggle against the proletarians. To do so is a corruption of Communist (specifically Marxist) ideology.

"The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
-Marx.

Terrorism. Which is exactly what the Communists did.

 

[Laika]

To say "commies kill people out of... thrill of power" is hardly a successful attack on communism as an ideology, being by definition an emotional response which might happen in people individually, don't you think?

Soviet Communism is about planning and controlling everything as the more "rational" way to run society. Being power-crazed has quite a lot to do with it comrade.

In order to seize the methods of production from the bourgeoisie, yes. It doesn't mandate armed struggle against the proletarians. To do so is a corruption of Communist (specifically Marxist) ideology.




If your beliefs require you to kill proletarians because they're enemies of the people (i.e. proletarians) then you've departed somewhat from what (Marxist) Communism is really about.

(I don't agree with what is said below, but I hope it illustrates the point).

..As the communist party as the vanguard of the proletariat has to lead the workers. The party possess a scientific understanding of society and can therefore point in the right direction. If the workers don't do as they are told they will fall under the influence of capitalist propaganda and counter-revolution. The Party has to save them... From themselves!

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Nazi Germany was the first country in modern times to try to eliminate smoking as a cause of lung cancer.

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

On the surface, yes, this seems like a positive. However:

(source)
Apart from public health concerns, the Nazis were heavily influenced by ideology; specifically, the movement was influenced by concepts of racial hygiene and bodily purity. Nazi leaders believed that it was wrong for the master race to smoke and that tobacco consumption was equal to "racial degeneracy". The Nazis viewed tobacco as a "genetic poison". Racial hygienists opposed tobacco use, fearing that it would "corrupt" the "German germ plasm". Nazi anti-tobacco activists often tried to depict tobacco as a vice of the degenerate Negroes.

The Nazis claimed that the Jews were responsible for introducing tobacco and its harmful effects. The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Germany announced that smoking was an unhealthy vice spread by the Jews. Johann von Leers, editor of the Nordische Welt (Nordic World), during the opening ceremony of the Wissenschaftliches Institut zur Erforschung der Tabakgefahren in 1941, proclaimed that "Jewish capitalism" was responsible for the spread of tobacco use across Europe. He said that the first tobacco on German soil was brought by the Jews and that they controlled the tobacco industry in Amsterdam, the principal European entry point of Nicotiana.

 

[Laika]

How can I be happy when someone condones murder because we all die anyway? If that is the case, you should have no quarrel if someone starts taking out individuals you enjoy spending time with, right? After all, they will die anyway.

Yep. That's pretty much exactly what happens. People would inform on friends and family to try and save themselves. They still do in many countries round the world- North Korea especially.

For what it's worth at least you now understand why communism is such a horrific idea.

 

[Kirran]

There are few, if any, far left movements or terrorist that happen these days. The far right is much stronger.

Radicalisation is caused by a multitude of factors and there is no consensus amongst psychologists as to why it happens. The simple presence of far right ideas is not enough. The problem is that we now live in a society with vast wealth inequalities that encourages social tensions. The failure of multi-cultural ism to accommodate for socio-economic segregation under capitalism, the economic insecurities that make immigrant labour cheaper and therefore threatening to the white working class, the threats to cultural identity coming from globalisation, etc all feed into far right narratives about the importance of race, nation and cultural identity.

Yes, the fact the far right is powerful is dangerous. But trying to ignore it and pretend it's not there only give them the iniative to keep exploiting the weakness of the system. It's why I think we have to give them recognition: we have to admit there is a problem before we can solve it. What we are doing now isn't working.

I think what we're doing is working pretty damn well to reduce their strength. Allowing them to speak freely and unchallenged is putting that narrative out there to be picked up by people who are otherwise disaffected etc. The availability of the rhetoric is no doubt a factor.

I don't think we should pretend it's not there or ignore it, but to give it a platform where it can speak unencumbered seems to me to be genuinely irresponsible, much as I like to think we would censor those who were openly supporting Jihadist ideas.

 

[Kirran]

For what it's worth, the form of communism @Laika's on about isn't the only one by a long stretch.

 

[Laika]

On the surface, yes, this seems like a positive. However:

(source)
Apart from public health concerns, the Nazis were heavily influenced by ideology; specifically, the movement was influenced by concepts of racial hygiene and bodily purity. Nazi leaders believed that it was wrong for the master race to smoke and that tobacco consumption was equal to "racial degeneracy". The Nazis viewed tobacco as a "genetic poison". Racial hygienists opposed tobacco use, fearing that it would "corrupt" the "German germ plasm". Nazi anti-tobacco activists often tried to depict tobacco as a vice of the degenerate Negroes.

The Nazis claimed that the Jews were responsible for introducing tobacco and its harmful effects. The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Germany announced that smoking was an unhealthy vice spread by the Jews. Johann von Leers, editor of the Nordische Welt (Nordic World), during the opening ceremony of the Wissenschaftliches Institut zur Erforschung der Tabakgefahren in 1941, proclaimed that "Jewish capitalism" was responsible for the spread of tobacco use across Europe. He said that the first tobacco on German soil was brought by the Jews and that they controlled the tobacco industry in Amsterdam, the principal European entry point of Nicotiana.

So your arguing that a positive consequence of the ideology is still wrong because of the ideology?

Dude- that's a no win scenario because it means you'd argue against the ideology even if contrary evidence were provided.

 

[Quetzal]

Yep. That's pretty much exactly what happens. People would inform on friends and family to try and save themselves. They still do in many countries round the world- North Korea especially.

For what it's worth at least you now understand why communism is such a horrific idea.

And yet you are a communist, please help clarify why you think it is a horrific idea and yet you claim that very same title. Do you support these ideals? (A concise answer for us who might not understand otherwise would be very helpful. )

 

[Rival]

And yet you are a communist, please help clarify why you think it is a horrific idea and yet you claim that very same title. Do you support these ideals? (A concise answer for us who might not understand otherwise would be very helpful. )

Just because one finds something horrific, doesn't mean it's not true. What I wouldn't give to be a leftie like most on here, but I just can't make myself believe what they say is right. If your mind can't accept something because it appears to go against the facts as you see them, then nothing will change it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So your arguing that a positive consequence of the ideology is still wrong because of the ideology?

Dude- that's a no win scenario because it means you'd argue against the ideology even if contrary evidence were provided.

There are way better ways to attain anti-smoking than racism and fear. Anti-smoking was already in the works before Nazi Germany, it just gained a lot of ground because Hitler's hatred of it, his extreme views, and likely strict punishments for smoking. His reasons for opposing smoking were racist from the beginning; first he gave it up as it was a "waste of money", and he saw it as "the Red Man's revenge for the introduction of alcohol." Then he blamed it on the Jews.

Anti-smoking is a good thing. Blaming it on Jews, blacks and indigenous Americans is not. If a dictator outlaws murder with the ideology that "pure, white citizens do not behave as beasts" and blames murder on various other ethnic groups, is their effort good just because it outlaws murder?

 

[Quetzal]

Just because one finds something horrific, doesn't mean it's not true. What I wouldn't give to be a leftie like most on here, but I just can't make myself believe what they say is right. If your mind can't accept something because it appears to go against the facts as you see them, then nothing will change it.

Hmm, you might have misunderstood my post. I am shifting a bit to a personal scope with Laika, trying to figure out why he finds it attractive. I am not longer arguing against your point we talked about earlier today. You got me there.

 

[Laika]

And yet you are a communist, please help clarify why you think it is a horrific idea and yet you claim that very same title. Do you support these ideals? (A concise answer for us who might not understand otherwise would be very helpful. )

I'll try.

"Communism" is a philosophy known as historical materialism. It says that society is governed by objective laws of nature (or laws of history) in the same sense as the law of gravity. Gravity exists whether you want it to or not.

I "support" communism in thinking those laws of nature are real and the basic ideas of the theory are true. That's not the same as thinking it's right or moral. How I use them I still have a degree of choice over.

I.e. I think that the "objective laws of nature" means that communism leads to lots of killing. I told you because if people know that information and know how communism works/ how communists think they can decide what to do with it. It gives you the power to decide where you stand and what you would do with that information. I think that is the right thing to do with it even if the idea itself is horrendous.

Rival was right basically.

Just because one finds something horrific, doesn't mean it's not true. What I wouldn't give to be a leftie like most on here, but I just can't make myself believe what they say is right. If your mind can't accept something because it appears to go against the facts as you see them, then nothing will change it.

You too huh?

I'd love to be an objectivist and just have that sociopathic indifference to human misery. That be so liberating!

Now I feel sorry for you 'cause you share my pain.

 

[Laika]

There are way better ways to attain anti-smoking than racism and fear. Anti-smoking was already in the works before Nazi Germany, it just gained a lot of ground because Hitler's hatred of it, his extreme views, and likely strict punishments for smoking. His reasons for opposing smoking were racist from the beginning; first he gave it up as it was a "waste of money", and he saw it as "the Red Man's revenge for the introduction of alcohol." Then he blamed it on the Jews.

Anti-smoking is a good thing. Blaming it on Jews, blacks and indigenous Americans is not. If a dictator outlaws murder with the ideology that "pure, white citizens do not behave as beasts" and blames murder on various other ethnic groups, is their effort good just because it outlaws murder?

On the face of it- yeah. I'd say outlawing murder is pretty dam good whatever the reason.