[ SECRET POST #4207 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4207 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #602.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's useful, though.

The thing is, there are some ways in which these groups can be considered Nazis - the fact that they identify themselves as such, for instance, and that they believe in Nazi ideology, and aim themselves towards the same political ends the Nazis did. On the other hand, there are some ways in which they can't - they are different organizations, with no historical continuity between them. There's some complexity in how we use the word "Nazi."

In a historical sense, yeah, it's more accurate to distinguish them. But it's not, like, an unreasonable thing to say. And I think the importance of denouncing these groups and their Nazi ideology generally outweighs the historical accuracy.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but imo it's a divisive phrase that makes it easier for moderates to dismiss the issues at hand. Few people actually identify as nazis and the left has issues applying the phrase too broadly.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Yep, I'm a centrist/moderate, and the words nazi, white supremacist, racist, etc. have lost all meaning to me.

[(Anonymous)]

then what do you call someone who thinks white people are better than non-white people and that non-white people should leave their country/be treated as less? do you, or do you not, acknowledge this as racism?

[(Anonymous)]

The left has 30% of a problem with saying it too broadly, and the center/moderates has 30% of a problem with not acknowledging that some Nazis are Nazis (including some cases where they don't "officially" identify as such).

From where I'm sitting.

[(Anonymous)]

And if it wears a swastika? Call it what it is.

[(Anonymous)]

To split hairs, Nazi is still incorrect because Nazi was a specific political party/regime in Germany. That political ideology doesn't actually reflect any of the people we call Nazis beyond the racist/white supremacist part. Neo-Nazi works, as does just white supremacist, but these people are by definition not Nazis.

[(Anonymous)]

That political ideology doesn't actually reflect any of the people we call Nazis beyond the racist/white supremacist part. Neo-Nazi works, as does just white supremacist, but these people are by definition not Nazis.

The political ideology absolutely does reflect that. Especially in the instance of the groups that explicitly identify themselves as Nazis and use Nazi iconography. Their political ideology of those people is Naziism. Their organization, you could say, is not officially Nazi. It is true that no contemporary Nazi, fascist, or white supremacist is formally connected to the original German NSDAP, which is the most specific definition possible of the word "Nazi". But it's a stupidly limited definition to insist on, especially if you're talking specifically about their ideology.

Calling them "Nazis" is completely reasonable in many cases. There are some cases where it's just straight-up inaccurate, yes. And yes, there's some value in delineating the exact definition of radical right-wing racist ideologies. If I could control what term people used, I think "fascist" would probably be a better term in most cases. But there are many cases where "Nazis" isn't objectively unreasonable, and the specific distinction that you are using to object to it just does not matter very much.

[(Anonymous)]

first of all neo-nazis are basing their ideology, purposefully, on the "specific regime" so yes it reflects them. they ape their symbology, their language and their beliefs.

second of all no one in germany gives a ahit about your distinction we still call neo-nazis nazis because there is literally nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade nor is it worth "splitting hairs" about, you're just muddying the discussion about those dumbfucks

[(Anonymous)]

Objectively wrong. Those dumb fucks are NOT German nationalists. "Basing their ideology on Nazis" - by being racist and saying they love Hitler and using swastikas, sure. NOT about anything beyond that that comprised German nationalist politics. You're just unnecessarily conflating terms in order to make sure people know that you know who the bad guy is, as though it's not already clear. They are Neo-Nazis who probably don't know shit about World War I/II era Germany, they are by definition not Nazis.

[(Anonymous)]

Objectively wrong. Those dumb fucks are NOT German nationalists. "Basing their ideology on Nazis" - by being racist and saying they love Hitler and using swastikas, sure. NOT about anything beyond that that comprised German nationalist politics

Naziism was a pan-German nationalist movement that was committed to a fairly broad vision of "Aryan" blood. If you're an American talking about "the future of the white Aryan race" and blood and loyalty and stuff like that, that fits pretty comfortably within Nazi ideology, even if it's not explicitly German. This just isn't a contradiction in the way that you think it is.

They are Neo-Nazis who probably don't know shit about World War I/II era Germany

well, they obviously know something about WWII era Germany

[(Anonymous)]

#notallnazis

[(Anonymous)]

lmao @you thinking neo nazis are not ww2 fanboys