|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 05 2017 22:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 21:33 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 20:09 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote:If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" [...] Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. Wikipedia
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy, as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatismhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatismAs you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. The difference in your view and my view here is that you make reactionarism a political direction of its own, while I call it an extremist form of conservatism, like the classical left-right spectrum imposes (Nazis, nationalists, conservatives are all at the right side) or like even the quote Wikipedia article imposes. (if you click on the word "reactionaries" you are linked to "Ractionary" which is part on a series about conservatism) In my view reactionarism is the notion that the lack of conservatism has allowed for too much change and now you have to walk a bit backwards until you reach the best order of society again. Which is exactly what the Nazis did.
How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism.
Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum.
On January 05 2017 23:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 22:58 Sent. wrote:
Techincally it was because nazis revoked the citizenship of people who did not belong to that socio-ethnic group. Well sure, the point still remains that a socialism that divvies out benefits based on otherization and exclusion is likely not a socialism at all, though defending words in place of ideas is only so useful 
Well, then I guess USSR was in fact not socialist, they killed a bunch of people they didn't like... ;-)
On January 05 2017 23:18 TheDwf wrote:
Funny how there's always some right-winger to come and say, “oh look, there's socialism in national socialism!”
Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so?
Please...
Except that the Nazis included many actual socialist policies in their program...
|
On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 22:41 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 21:33 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 20:09 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote:If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" [...] Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. Wikipedia
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy, as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatismhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatismAs you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. The difference in your view and my view here is that you make reactionarism a political direction of its own, while I call it an extremist form of conservatism, like the classical left-right spectrum imposes (Nazis, nationalists, conservatives are all at the right side) or like even the quote Wikipedia article imposes. (if you click on the word "reactionaries" you are linked to "Ractionary" which is part on a series about conservatism) In my view reactionarism is the notion that the lack of conservatism has allowed for too much change and now you have to walk a bit backwards until you reach the best order of society again. Which is exactly what the Nazis did. How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionarism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism. Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum. Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 23:04 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2017 22:58 Sent. wrote:
Techincally it was because nazis revoked the citizenship of people who did not belong to that socio-ethnic group. Well sure, the point still remains that a socialism that divvies out benefits based on otherization and exclusion is likely not a socialism at all, though defending words in place of ideas is only so useful Well, then I guess USSR was in fact not socialist, they killed a bunch of people they didn't like... ;-) Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 23:18 TheDwf wrote:
Funny how there's always some right-winger to come and say, “oh look, there's socialism in national socialism!”
Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so?
Please... Except that the Nazis included many actual socialist policies in their program...
On the last two points:
1. Correct, the USSR was communist 
2. Every single "socialist policy" put forth by the Nazis relied on disqualifying huge numbers of people, so again, "actual socialist policies" is not an accurate label here.
You're also grossly oversimplifying Nazi ideology when you label its desires as "the new"; the backwards glance is essential to the character of volkisch thinking.
|
Usually the label extremists self-identify with is not very correct. Whether that refers mostly to the 'socialist' part or the 'nationalist' part, you can decide on yourself. Obviously the nazi's thought certain aspects of appearing to be socialist or appearing to be nationalist, would be helpful to them.
They obviously didn't call them selves the Faex; fascist extremists.
Considering the way the world 'socialist' has been used the last 100 years, do any of you really think it still means anything? If people use the same word to mean exactly opposite things?
It's like how the USSR called itself 'socialist' for the positive vibes, and the US called the USSR 'socialist' to pin negative vibes of the USSR onto socialist. In either case, it means very little. See Orwell for more info, but of course you all read that already.
|
On January 06 2017 00:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 22:41 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 21:33 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 20:09 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote:If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" [...] Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. Wikipedia
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy, as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatismhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatismAs you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. The difference in your view and my view here is that you make reactionarism a political direction of its own, while I call it an extremist form of conservatism, like the classical left-right spectrum imposes (Nazis, nationalists, conservatives are all at the right side) or like even the quote Wikipedia article imposes. (if you click on the word "reactionaries" you are linked to "Ractionary" which is part on a series about conservatism) In my view reactionarism is the notion that the lack of conservatism has allowed for too much change and now you have to walk a bit backwards until you reach the best order of society again. Which is exactly what the Nazis did. How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionarism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism. Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum. On January 05 2017 23:04 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2017 22:58 Sent. wrote:
Techincally it was because nazis revoked the citizenship of people who did not belong to that socio-ethnic group. Well sure, the point still remains that a socialism that divvies out benefits based on otherization and exclusion is likely not a socialism at all, though defending words in place of ideas is only so useful Well, then I guess USSR was in fact not socialist, they killed a bunch of people they didn't like... ;-) On January 05 2017 23:18 TheDwf wrote:
Funny how there's always some right-winger to come and say, “oh look, there's socialism in national socialism!”
Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so?
Please... Except that the Nazis included many actual socialist policies in their program... On the last two points: 1. Correct, the USSR was communist 2. Every single "socialist policy" put forth by the Nazis relied on disqualifying huge numbers of people, so again, "actual socialist policies" is not an accurate label here.
No, the official ideology of USSR was indeed communism. But the country was, as a matter of fact, socialist, only striving to become communist one day. In communism there would be no state or social classes, for example.
Many socialist countries excluded all sorts of people. The soviet bloc is a prime example of that. It exterminated or oppressed millions of people for all sorts of reasons.
You are using a no true Scotsman fallacy and arguing semantics. My point is that both Nazis and socialists used similar policies in some regards. That is a fact. Whether you'll call those policies "socialist" or not (because they excluded some people, which is still not foreign to socialists or communists), is irrelevant. I don't care about labels. People who are allergic to this are irrational. It's not like Hitler being vegetarian makes vegetarianism bad... The fact of the matter is that National Socialism took ideas from both sides of the spectrum.
|
One way or the other, coming up with a new, more persuasive terminology is going to be important for those interested in changing politics, that much is for sure.
On January 06 2017 00:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 00:34 farvacola wrote:On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 22:41 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 21:33 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 20:09 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote:If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" [...] Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. Wikipedia
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy, as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatismhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatismAs you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. The difference in your view and my view here is that you make reactionarism a political direction of its own, while I call it an extremist form of conservatism, like the classical left-right spectrum imposes (Nazis, nationalists, conservatives are all at the right side) or like even the quote Wikipedia article imposes. (if you click on the word "reactionaries" you are linked to "Ractionary" which is part on a series about conservatism) In my view reactionarism is the notion that the lack of conservatism has allowed for too much change and now you have to walk a bit backwards until you reach the best order of society again. Which is exactly what the Nazis did. How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionarism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism. Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum. On January 05 2017 23:04 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2017 22:58 Sent. wrote:
Techincally it was because nazis revoked the citizenship of people who did not belong to that socio-ethnic group. Well sure, the point still remains that a socialism that divvies out benefits based on otherization and exclusion is likely not a socialism at all, though defending words in place of ideas is only so useful Well, then I guess USSR was in fact not socialist, they killed a bunch of people they didn't like... ;-) On January 05 2017 23:18 TheDwf wrote:
Funny how there's always some right-winger to come and say, “oh look, there's socialism in national socialism!”
Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so?
Please... Except that the Nazis included many actual socialist policies in their program... On the last two points: 1. Correct, the USSR was communist 2. Every single "socialist policy" put forth by the Nazis relied on disqualifying huge numbers of people, so again, "actual socialist policies" is not an accurate label here. No, the official ideology of USSR was indeed communism. But the country was, as a matter of fact, socialist, only striving to become communist one day. In communism there would be no state or social classes, for example. Many socialist countries excluded all sorts of people. The soviet bloc is a prime example of that. It exterminated or oppressed millions of people for all sorts of reasons. You are using a no true Scotsman fallacy and arguing semantics. My point is that both Nazis and socialists used similar policies in some regards. That is a fact. Whether you'll call those policies "socialist" or not (because they excluded some people, which is still not foreign to socialists or communists), is irrelevant. I don't care about labels. People who are allergic to this are irrational. It's not like Hitler being vegetarian makes vegetarianism bad... The fact of the matter is that National Socialism took ideas from both sides of the spectrum.
You and I both live in countries where the fate of millions can hang on whether or not a sufficiently large number of people are scared of a word like "socialist" or "fascist," so no, nit-picky arguments over semantics (AKA the meaning of words and phrases) are not irrelevant at all.
That said, while I think you're making a Barrin-esque play in retreating to the realm of fallacy accusations, I'll agree that pinning down the essential socio-political character of the USSR or Nazi Germany is not really worth our time. Cheers
|
On January 06 2017 00:47 maybenexttime wrote:
No, the official ideology of USSR was indeed communism. But the country was, as a matter of fact, socialist, only striving to become communist one day. In communism there would be no state or social classes, for example.
Don't know. I think the USSR called itself a socialist society because of the moral values associated with socialism in those days. The USSR government likened itself as having that same moral appeal. They tried to get it through propaganda.
Many socialist countries excluded all sorts of people. The soviet bloc is a prime example of that. It exterminated or oppressed millions of people for all sorts of reasons.
Which is why I, and many others, consider the collapse of the USSR as a major victory for socialism.
You are using a no true Scotsman fallacy and arguing semantics.
That's nice. But in politics no one calls themselves by labels that accurately describe them.
On the one hand we have social and economic scholars coming up with ideas, and giving them labels like socialist, communism, capitalism.
On the other hand we have political entities using and abusing these terms for their own propaganda goals.
Yeah, true Scotsman. But is it really a fallacy in this case? I would call it the True Scotsman truism. No true Scotsman calls himself a True Scotsman.
My point is that both Nazis and socialists used similar policies in some regards.
I am sure that any government has some polities similar to those of the Nazis. Does it mean anything?
|
On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:
How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism.
Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum.
The term is usually reserved for political movements that want to restore an earlier state of society and who see contemporary society as 'degenerated', morally corrupt and so on. This is without a doubt true for Nazism. They had a huge thing for primitive ideas that predate anything modern, to the point of actually rejecting any form of civilisation or culture as "artificial".
This also included most clerical religion. Forms of paganism are definitely reactionary and the Nazis were heavily drawn to it. Italian fascism is a little harder to place.
|
On January 06 2017 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:
How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism.
Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum.
The term is usually reserved for political movements that want to restore an earlier state of society and who see contemporary society as 'degenerated', morally corrupt and so on. This is without a doubt true for Nazism. They had a huge thing for primitive ideas that predate anything modern, to the point of actually rejecting any form of civilisation or culture as "artificial". This also included most clerical religion. Forms of paganism are definitely reactionary and the Nazis were heavily drawn to it. Italian fascism is a little harder to place.
Please enlighten me about the primitive ideas that predate modern things apart from Paganism which wasnt even fully embraced by them.
|
On January 06 2017 05:58 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:
How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism.
Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum.
The term is usually reserved for political movements that want to restore an earlier state of society and who see contemporary society as 'degenerated', morally corrupt and so on. This is without a doubt true for Nazism. They had a huge thing for primitive ideas that predate anything modern, to the point of actually rejecting any form of civilisation or culture as "artificial". This also included most clerical religion. Forms of paganism are definitely reactionary and the Nazis were heavily drawn to it. Italian fascism is a little harder to place. Please enlighten me about the primitive ideas that predate modern things apart from Paganism which wasnt even fully embraced by them.
The whole 'völkisch' ideology is based on an ethnic, historical and territorial definitions of society that stands in contrast to civil society that the most modern nation states embraced. Civil society is defined through legal frameworks, actions and common interests, Völkisch society is defined through ethnic relations. Nazism explicitly rejected universal values brought about by the French Revolution.
The only thing that makes it appear modern is the revolutionary aspect, but as others have pointed out it's a revolution that moves radically backwards.
|
http://www.dw.com/en/conservative-leaks-secret-deal-on-european-parliament-succession/a-37071675 A top European conservative has leaked a 2014 agreement with the rival center-left alliance, saying a conservative should succeed Martin Schulz as European Parliament president. The liberals now see it differently. As the fight between the center-left and center-right for the top job in the European Parliament is getting increasingly heated, the conservative European People's Party (EPP) leaked a secret agreement on Tuesday - one that their rival Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) may not abide by. According to the document, the EPP and S&D coalitions in the EU parliament made a deal that the two groups "shall support each other in the election of the President of the European Parliament." Peter Müller, a journalist working for German news magazine Der Spiegel, published the leaked documents on Twitter. The document states that president Martin Schulz of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) should be succeeded by a member of the conservative European People's Party (EPP) mid-term. It was signed by Martin Schulz, who was then the head of the S&D parliamentary group, and by Manfred Weber, the head of the EPP parliamentary group, on June 24, 2014. The liberal EU coalition, the ALDE Group, also joined the agreement. The current EU parliament was elected in May 2014. The end of 2016 thus marked the middle of the 5-year parliamentary term. EU president Martin Schulz confirmed that he would step down in November 2016. + Show Spoiler +The new EU president will be voted into office on January 17. The S&D group has now designated a candidate - Gianni Pittella, the current head of the group - to run against EPP candidate Antonio Tajani. No single group in the EU parliament has a majority of the votes, so any successful candidate will need support from others. If the EPP and S&D agreed on a candidate, then his or her appointment would be guaranteed.
In a letter to his EPP colleagues, the bloc's chairman Manfred Weber said that breaking the agreement could help anti-EU forces gain traction.
The S&D has argued that a member of their party should become president because otherwise, all three top EU positions would be filled with conservatives, with Luxembourg's Jean-Claude Juncker heading the EU commission and Polish conservative Donald Tusk heading the European Council. On top of this, the EPP's pick has courted controversy because Tajani is seen as a close ally of controversy-riddled former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
|
On January 06 2017 00:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 00:34 farvacola wrote:On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 22:41 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 21:33 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 20:09 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote:If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" [...] Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. Wikipedia
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy, as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatismhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatismAs you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. The difference in your view and my view here is that you make reactionarism a political direction of its own, while I call it an extremist form of conservatism, like the classical left-right spectrum imposes (Nazis, nationalists, conservatives are all at the right side) or like even the quote Wikipedia article imposes. (if you click on the word "reactionaries" you are linked to "Ractionary" which is part on a series about conservatism) In my view reactionarism is the notion that the lack of conservatism has allowed for too much change and now you have to walk a bit backwards until you reach the best order of society again. Which is exactly what the Nazis did. How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionarism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism. Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum. On January 05 2017 23:04 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2017 22:58 Sent. wrote:
Techincally it was because nazis revoked the citizenship of people who did not belong to that socio-ethnic group. Well sure, the point still remains that a socialism that divvies out benefits based on otherization and exclusion is likely not a socialism at all, though defending words in place of ideas is only so useful Well, then I guess USSR was in fact not socialist, they killed a bunch of people they didn't like... ;-) On January 05 2017 23:18 TheDwf wrote:
Funny how there's always some right-winger to come and say, “oh look, there's socialism in national socialism!”
Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so?
Please... Except that the Nazis included many actual socialist policies in their program... On the last two points: 1. Correct, the USSR was communist 2. Every single "socialist policy" put forth by the Nazis relied on disqualifying huge numbers of people, so again, "actual socialist policies" is not an accurate label here. No, the official ideology of USSR was indeed communism. But the country was, as a matter of fact, socialist, only striving to become communist one day. In communism there would be no state or social classes, for example. Many socialist countries excluded all sorts of people. The soviet bloc is a prime example of that. It exterminated or oppressed millions of people for all sorts of reasons. You are using a no true Scotsman fallacy and arguing semantics. My point is that both Nazis and socialists used similar policies in some regards. That is a fact. Whether you'll call those policies "socialist" or not (because they excluded some people, which is still not foreign to socialists or communists), is irrelevant. I don't care about labels. People who are allergic to this are irrational. It's not like Hitler being vegetarian makes vegetarianism bad... The fact of the matter is that National Socialism took ideas from both sides of the spectrum.
Lets be real. The USSR was never striving to be communist. No socialist country is or ever was. There will always be people on top who want two distinct social classes: the ruling class and the starving class. Communism is just a stupid fairy tail for "useful idiots" who if they ever do succeed in bringing socialism, will just be put against a wall and shot.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
USSR was socialist with the implied goal of creating communism. In the later years it started to be clear that market elements were a necessity.
There were definitely wealth classes in the USSR - it was just done through underground economies.
|
It still seems better than free market capitalism...
I think it is time to try some anarchy.
|
On January 11 2017 05:35 MyTHicaL wrote:
It still seems better than free market capitalism...
I think it is time to try some anarchy.
What seems better than free market capitalism?
|
Officials suspended shipping along Europe’s second-longest waterway as a freezing spell gripped large parts of the continent, causing hardship especially among migrants, the homeless and the elderly. The death toll rose to 61 on Tuesday, with a third of those in Poland.
Romanian police halted shipping at midday on Tuesday along 565 miles (900km) of the Danube river. Croatian and Serbian authorities also stopped river traffic on the Danube.
In Serbia shipping was banned on the river Sava because of icy conditions which claimed two lives in southern Serbia.
Authorities said an 88-year-old man and his son, 64, died from freezing temperatures in the village of Duga Poljana in the country’s south which has been hardest hit by the recent cold spell. Serbian state TV reported the two victims, discovered by a man delivering bread from a neighbouring village, were extremely poor.
Three people have been found dead in the past three days in Macedonia as temperatures plunged to -20C (-4F). One 68-year old homeless man was found frozen to death in the capital, Skopje, while a 60-year-old man died in front of his home in the southern town in Strumica. An 80-year-old woman was discovered in her home in eastern Macedonia.
Authorities urged homeless people to go to shelters and local schools, which are taking them in during the cold spell.
In Albania it snowed in the southern city of Saranda for the first time in 32 years. A homeless Albanian man was found dead in the south-eastern city of Korca, the fifth person to die in the frigid weather.
In the central town of Bulqize temperatures plummeted to -22C (-7.6F) with most rural areas cut off by snow. There were temporary power and water outages. Army helicopters were distributing aid in remote mountain areas.
Following strong criticism from aid agencies and others, authorities on the Greek island of Lesbos said they would move 250 refugees from tents at camps into vacant hotel rooms as heavy snow continued unabated around the country.
The government also said it was sending a Greek Navy ship to Lesbos, to serve as a floating shelter for residents of a snow-bound camp.
Source
|
On January 06 2017 00:47 farvacola wrote:One way or the other, coming up with a new, more persuasive terminology is going to be important for those interested in changing politics, that much is for sure. Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 00:47 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2017 00:34 farvacola wrote:On January 06 2017 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 22:41 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 21:33 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 20:09 Big J wrote:On January 05 2017 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote:If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" [...] Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. Wikipedia
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy, as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatismhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatismAs you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. The difference in your view and my view here is that you make reactionarism a political direction of its own, while I call it an extremist form of conservatism, like the classical left-right spectrum imposes (Nazis, nationalists, conservatives are all at the right side) or like even the quote Wikipedia article imposes. (if you click on the word "reactionaries" you are linked to "Ractionary" which is part on a series about conservatism) In my view reactionarism is the notion that the lack of conservatism has allowed for too much change and now you have to walk a bit backwards until you reach the best order of society again. Which is exactly what the Nazis did. How were the Nazis reactionaries? They tried to undermine the very social order that conservatives of the time tried to preserve... They tried to replace the old with the new. Reactionarism, as I understand it, means replacing the modern with what used to be before. That is not what the Nazis did. Not even in case of neo-paganism, which was loosely based on the actual German paganism. Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus where to put Nazism on that spectrum, as nobody wants to be grouped with them. They had elements of both sides of the spectrum. On January 05 2017 23:04 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2017 22:58 Sent. wrote:
Techincally it was because nazis revoked the citizenship of people who did not belong to that socio-ethnic group. Well sure, the point still remains that a socialism that divvies out benefits based on otherization and exclusion is likely not a socialism at all, though defending words in place of ideas is only so useful Well, then I guess USSR was in fact not socialist, they killed a bunch of people they didn't like... ;-) On January 05 2017 23:18 TheDwf wrote:
Funny how there's always some right-winger to come and say, “oh look, there's socialism in national socialism!”
Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so?
Please... Except that the Nazis included many actual socialist policies in their program... On the last two points: 1. Correct, the USSR was communist 2. Every single "socialist policy" put forth by the Nazis relied on disqualifying huge numbers of people, so again, "actual socialist policies" is not an accurate label here. No, the official ideology of USSR was indeed communism. But the country was, as a matter of fact, socialist, only striving to become communist one day. In communism there would be no state or social classes, for example. Many socialist countries excluded all sorts of people. The soviet bloc is a prime example of that. It exterminated or oppressed millions of people for all sorts of reasons. You are using a no true Scotsman fallacy and arguing semantics. My point is that both Nazis and socialists used similar policies in some regards. That is a fact. Whether you'll call those policies "socialist" or not (because they excluded some people, which is still not foreign to socialists or communists), is irrelevant. I don't care about labels. People who are allergic to this are irrational. It's not like Hitler being vegetarian makes vegetarianism bad... The fact of the matter is that National Socialism took ideas from both sides of the spectrum. You and I both live in countries where the fate of millions can hang on whether or not a sufficiently large number of people are scared of a word like "socialist" or "fascist," so no, nit-picky arguments over semantics (AKA the meaning of words and phrases) are not irrelevant at all. That said, while I think you're making a Barrin-esque play in retreating to the realm of fallacy accusations, I'll agree that pinning down the essential socio-political character of the USSR or Nazi Germany is not really worth our time. Cheers
to be fair to moltke he did point out hitler's disagreements with the "marxist" socialists, in his rejection of universalism, championing of individual personality, rejection of "slave morality" ala nietzsche (whose anti-socialism is always disappointing)
also fuck everyone who hates on moltke. this forum would be a lot better with more moltke not less.
|
Since the workings of the international versions of Russian government funded media have been topical recently, here's an in depth Taylor & Francis report focusing on their activities in Sweden, and some other ways that Russia has tried to influence the Swedish media landscape
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2016.1273830
Here's an excerpt, though the whole thing is quite interesting:
+ Show Spoiler +[...] Sputnik International, which replaced Voice of Russia on 10 November 2014, launched its Swedish language version on 15 April 2015. Before the Swedish language version was terminated and removed from the web in spring 2016, we were able to collect and categorise all its articles published in 2015, in total 3963 news items. Our analysis provides the dominant Russian metanarratives towards Sweden, and possibly other Western states. From the total, we were able to categorise 3344 Sputnik articles according to ten general themes, with 619 articles being of such a unique or miscellaneous subject matter they could not be classified at all. As shown in Figure 1, the most common themes in 2015 were ‘Crisis in the West’ (705 articles), ‘Positive image of Russia’ (643) and ‘Western aggressiveness’ (499). These pervasive categories are followed, in descending order, by the themes ‘Negative image of countries perceived to be in the West’s sphere of influence’ (424), ‘West is malicious’ (309), ‘International sympathy and cooperation with Russia’ (304), ‘Western policy failures’ (112) and ‘Divisions within the Western alliance’ (72). The most frequently appearing targets in Swedish Sputnik reporting are the EU (698 articles), NATO (321) and the United States (1018). The EU is depicted as an organisation in terminal decline, beset by major crises such as the Greek economic crisis and the influx of migrants to Europe from the Middle East and Africa. European bureaucrats and decision makers are described as incompetent and puppets of the US government. NATO is described as both a US instrument of war and the chief architect of Western policy towards Russia. The encirclement hypothesis, which argues that the United States and its allies are threatening Russian security with the instalment of military bases near Russian borders, dominates as the analytical framework. The narrative of a Russia under siege is not a novel one, and recalls the Soviet critique of capitalist states encircling the ‘Socialist Fatherland’. What about Sweden? Although Sweden is referenced on several occasions (303 articles dealing mostly with migration), other countries such as Germany (390), France (360) and Finland (332) actually receive more mentions. Ukraine is referenced 882 times, almost without exception in an extremely unfavourable light (with ‘fascism’, ‘corruption’, ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘belligerence’ as some of the most recurring themes). Members of the EU and NATO, such as Germany, the United Kingdom and France, are largely portrayed as pawns of US foreign policy. Why the Swedish language Sputnik did not actually concern itself so much with Sweden per se might have different reasonable explanations. First, Sweden was simply not a priority, or the editorial team did not possess sufficient resources to cover its domestic affairs. Second, criticism of the EU and NATO – constituting circa 60% of all articles – could actually be the dominant narrative which Russia wants to communicate also to the Swedish target audience. [...]
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 12 2017 03:41 Dan HH wrote:Since the workings of the international versions of Russian government funded media have been topical recently, here's an in depth Taylor & Francis report focusing on their activities in Sweden, and some other ways that Russia has tried to influence the Swedish media landscape http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2016.1273830Here's an excerpt, though the whole thing is quite interesting: + Show Spoiler +[...] Sputnik International, which replaced Voice of Russia on 10 November 2014, launched its Swedish language version on 15 April 2015. Before the Swedish language version was terminated and removed from the web in spring 2016, we were able to collect and categorise all its articles published in 2015, in total 3963 news items. Our analysis provides the dominant Russian metanarratives towards Sweden, and possibly other Western states. From the total, we were able to categorise 3344 Sputnik articles according to ten general themes, with 619 articles being of such a unique or miscellaneous subject matter they could not be classified at all. As shown in Figure 1, the most common themes in 2015 were ‘Crisis in the West’ (705 articles), ‘Positive image of Russia’ (643) and ‘Western aggressiveness’ (499). These pervasive categories are followed, in descending order, by the themes ‘Negative image of countries perceived to be in the West’s sphere of influence’ (424), ‘West is malicious’ (309), ‘International sympathy and cooperation with Russia’ (304), ‘Western policy failures’ (112) and ‘Divisions within the Western alliance’ (72). The most frequently appearing targets in Swedish Sputnik reporting are the EU (698 articles), NATO (321) and the United States (1018). The EU is depicted as an organisation in terminal decline, beset by major crises such as the Greek economic crisis and the influx of migrants to Europe from the Middle East and Africa. European bureaucrats and decision makers are described as incompetent and puppets of the US government. NATO is described as both a US instrument of war and the chief architect of Western policy towards Russia. The encirclement hypothesis, which argues that the United States and its allies are threatening Russian security with the instalment of military bases near Russian borders, dominates as the analytical framework. The narrative of a Russia under siege is not a novel one, and recalls the Soviet critique of capitalist states encircling the ‘Socialist Fatherland’. What about Sweden? Although Sweden is referenced on several occasions (303 articles dealing mostly with migration), other countries such as Germany (390), France (360) and Finland (332) actually receive more mentions. Ukraine is referenced 882 times, almost without exception in an extremely unfavourable light (with ‘fascism’, ‘corruption’, ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘belligerence’ as some of the most recurring themes). Members of the EU and NATO, such as Germany, the United Kingdom and France, are largely portrayed as pawns of US foreign policy. Why the Swedish language Sputnik did not actually concern itself so much with Sweden per se might have different reasonable explanations. First, Sweden was simply not a priority, or the editorial team did not possess sufficient resources to cover its domestic affairs. Second, criticism of the EU and NATO – constituting circa 60% of all articles – could actually be the dominant narrative which Russia wants to communicate also to the Swedish target audience. [...]
I recall a similar Estonian language article about topics of russian media in relation to the Baltics, with almost no positive news, lots of news regarding perceived discrimination of Russians in the Baltics, and no articles regarding the arts or sciences of the region. Considering increased cybersecurity interest in the German election, we will probably see new analysis of RT Germany and Sputnik in the near future.
|
I just came back to Germany and it's quite remarkable how much the country has changed in just 18 months.
First off, there's police EVERYWHERE. That's so depressing. Up until recently, all you ever saw was the Ordnungsamt, now there's police at every corner.
For the first time I can recall, four Bundespolizisten came into the train today and wanted to see our IDs because a couple of Bahn staff were attacked and molested.
My friend, who volunteers for the THW in an emergency vehicle says they now had to hire a security company because they can't go into certain areas without protection. If they go into migrant territory to treat an emergency, the migrants attack them or try to steal equipment.
Even hospitals aren't safe anymore, Muslims frequently come in and attack doctors and nurses if they don't give preferential treatment to Muslim women. There's recently been a case in NRW where an emergency nurse (male) got beaten to a pulp because he removed a hijab to treat a woman... He was kneeling down, took her pulse and got kicked in the head. When he was on the ground, some more migrants kicked the shit out of him.
Not a day goes by without some violent crime making it into national news, 60% of people report feeling less safe in Germany, Antisemitism is on the rise again...
It all just feels like a giant net-loss to our society.
|
On January 17 2017 20:24 DickMcFanny wrote:
I just came back to Germany and it's quite remarkable how much the country has changed in just 18 months.
First off, there's police EVERYWHERE. That's so depressing. Up until recently, all you ever saw was the Ordnungsamt, now there's police at every corner.
For the first time I can recall, four Bundespolizisten came into the train today and wanted to see our IDs because a couple of Bahn staff were attacked and molested.
My friend, who volunteers for the THW in an emergency vehicle says they now had to hire a security company because they can't go into certain areas without protection. If they go into migrant territory to treat an emergency, the migrants attack them or try to steal equipment.
Even hospitals aren't safe anymore, Muslims frequently come in and attack doctors and nurses if they don't give preferential treatment to Muslim women. There's recently been a case in NRW where an emergency nurse (male) got beaten to a pulp because he removed a hijab to treat a woman... He was kneeling down, took her pulse and got kicked in the head. When he was on the ground, some more migrants kicked the shit out of him.
Not a day goes by without some violent crime making it into national news, 60% of people report feeling less safe in Germany, Antisemitism is on the rise again...
It all just feels like a giant net-loss to our society.
My gf who works in a hospital in Germany tells me pretty much the exact same thing, she's spent her entire life training to become a doctor but her life is fast becoming a misery because of things like this. It's got to the point where we have to rethink our plans we made years ago in fear of her safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
