It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you define "Nazi"?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
A recurring theme in ATS political threads is the use of the term "Nazi" to label or slur people who disagree with the writer's point of view.
We know that historically, fascism was born in Italy in the 1920's as a response to the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of Communist parties in Europe, and was characterized by a nationalistic mindset that blamed ethnic or foreign groups for the economic or social ills afflicting a country's society.
In the decades that followed, anti-communists were "nazified" by the left, a form of "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality that survived the fall of the Soviet Union and is with us on a daily basis today.
Is there a new definition?




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Anyone whos political interest and opinions have a relation with facism...I guess. I try not to use the term unless referring to President George Bush or Hitler (Hey whats the difference?
)

But here you go:
absolute, authoritarian, autocratic, despotic, fascistic, monolithic, nazi, one-party, oppressive, total, totalistic, tyrannical, undemocratic
thesaurus.reference.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
Anyone whos political interest and opinions have a relation with facism...I guess. I try not to use the term unless referring to President George Bush or Hitler (Hey whats the difference?
)

But here you go:
absolute, authoritarian, autocratic, despotic, fascistic, monolithic, nazi, one-party, oppressive, total, totalistic, tyrannical, undemocratic
thesaurus.reference.com...



Ditto - but add Eugenics agenda.


.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Bingo! Please relate Adolf to George W! I see the morfing Icons and trash talk, but does Guantanimo=Buchenwald?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
"A member of the National Socialist Party" is the deff. of a NAZI.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
n. pl. Na·zis
A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.

adj.
Of, relating to, controlled by, or typical of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Agreed. So why are republicans circa 2005 "Nazis"?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Equating Dubya with the worlds greatest mass murderer, sociopath is offensive and demeaning to those who died under Hitler's reign.

You lessen the meaning when it is applied to true lunatics like Pol Pot, Stalin or Joseph Mengele. Nazi means you kill those who stand in your way, experiment on children, create concentration camps...

You show your complete ignorance of reality and the horror involoved with true Nazism when you use the term carelessly.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Agreed. The moral bankruptsy of the left defined.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
Agreed. So why are republicans circa 2005 "Nazis"?


They're fascists. And it's not consciously all Republicans. You can search ATS and find several threads as to why fascist allegations keep coming up. But be clear of the distinctions:

Comunism = extremist socialism

Nazi = Extremist fascism



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I don't think Bush models himself on Hitler that much, he lacks the intellect and especially the charisma as a speaker.

The confusion comes in, perhaps, over the neo-cons' current agenda of foreign expansion and strategic growth in the Middle East. There are certainly some parallels with another period in history as to how this is being achieved and sold in to a gullible populace.

But Bush as a Nazi? No. He tries to present as a lovable buffoon, and even in that, he fails miserably.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
There is a slight distinction between a fascist and a Nazi. Nazism is a form of fascism.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress...

This would end quite a few ATS threads with the first post.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_law



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Within logic it's a fallacy of relevance called "poisoning the well." It's an argument ad hominem, or argument against the person, that cuts off rational discourse.

Of course, someone may actually be a facist or a Nazi. But here's a statement from the Central Commitee of the Communist Party: "Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics … when obstructionists become too irritating, "label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic … Constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become 'fact' in the public mind." Just some food for thought.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
the common usage of 'nazi' nowadays is 'some one who acts like their needs are more important than anyone elses, and is willing to murder anyone, and destroy anything that stands in their way.'
the old meaning no longer really applies.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
So why are republicans circa 2005 "Nazis"?


Not that I condone calling people Nazi's, but since you brought it up...


Haven't you already answered your own question in large part?


Originally posted by Realist05
characterized by a nationalistic mindset that blamed ethnic or foreign groups for the economic or social ills afflicting a country's society.


Homophobia is all the rage now, but the irrational push for power via anger and outrage really started with Reagan's Welfare Queen Yarn.

But what isn't a huge conspiracy and looming threat to Republicans according to the propaganda? TV Screens, Hollywood, newspapers, evolution, dissent, condoms, nature, due process, the rule of law, individualism...

I give it two years until we're burning scientists at the stake for heresy.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I don't think Bush models himself on Hitler that much, he lacks the intellect and especially the charisma as a speaker.

The confusion comes in, perhaps, over the neo-cons' current agenda of foreign expansion and strategic growth in the Middle East. There are certainly some parallels with another period in history as to how this is being achieved and sold in to a gullible populace.

But Bush as a Nazi? No. He tries to present as a lovable buffoon, and even in that, he fails miserably.


There is no "agenda of foreign expansion". Liberating countries and then turning them back over to their people simply does not qualify - unless you have something against people living in freedom. Good question for you to answer, but somehow doubt you can or will.

End of (your) story.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

There is no "agenda of foreign expansion". Liberating countries and then turning them back over to their people simply does not qualify - unless you have something against people living in freedom. Good question for you to answer, but somehow doubt you can or will.

End of (your) story.


i think your helmut's on too tight. just because they didn't call it, 'an agenda for foreign expansion' does not mean that it isn't one. no country has been 'turned back to the people'. they have been 'handed to the power elite'.
nobody lives in freedom, except for the bushmen of the kalahari, or other dwindling populations of 'primitives'.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
There is no "agenda of foreign expansion". Liberating countries and then turning them back over to their people simply does not qualify - unless you have something against people living in freedom. Good question for you to answer, but somehow doubt you can or will.

End of (your) story.



No, it is not for you to censor any person in the community, as far as I am aware. Can you let me know when such authority was granted to you, and why?

The agenda for foreign expansion was published by PNAC, for all to read. The very people responsible for the forward planning for invasion of foreign countries took offices in the Whitehouse and the Executive after the 2000 election. Apparently you missed this.

"Liberating countries" is just the excuse that you choose to lap up and take comfort in.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Avatar,

You never fail to come through when baited. That's what I like about you. True, it's the only thing, what what the hey, you have to start somewhere.

And thanks, for not offering anything in the way of an answer - just as predicted.

BTW, was that because it's still empty behind the mask?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join