Why do Neo-Nazis exist?

[The Grand World Order]

Neo-nazis exist because they are plenty of ignorant racist thugs out there that have decided to swear faith to a dead ideology with practices that would never be allowed to happen again in the modern world.

Libertarianism's far from dead. Sure, the racist version of it isn't as common, but still.

Oh wait, you said what they swear faith to, not what they actually believe in...

[Orcoa]

Is it bad that every time I see A picture of a Neo-Nazi or videos of their marches....I feel a murderous rage boil in me?

[Conserative Morality]

Ah, now we decide to address the issue.

Now if I may, please provide sources like I'm going to.

Let me begin by saying while Germany WAS in debt, Hitler refused the pay reparations and U.S. banks, and nothing was done for it.

I don't see how that refutes my point. At all. In fact, I don't even see how that ADDRESSES my points.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061024182500AAbTBrL

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/02-07-2009/107924-hitler-0/

http://trhfaq.tripod.com/005.html (Again, economy improved up until the war)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111201080543AAV2LyI

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE24Dj01.html

The list goes on, in the hundreds.

Again, the economy only failed leading up the the end of WWI, and again during WWII.

Yahoo Answers is not a legitimate source.

I already addressed the efforts of Schacht 1933-1936.

I'm not sure you fully read this source.

This economy could only be viable for a limited time, and would eventually have had be to be replaced with a traditional export economy.

...

Hitler's economic program was not to provide his people with a strong economy capable of future growth, but instead, he created a war economy completely dependent on conquest, and thus tied to military achievement, not GNP. As such, it was a sham policy that led to total disaster for Germany and Europe, and led directly to the ascendancy of the USSR and the USA as world military and economic superpowers.

Conclusion: Hitler's economic policies can only be considered to have been a disastrous failure, no matter how one would care to measure it.

Again, Yahoo Answers is not a legitimate source for debates.

And your last source is absolutely riddled with inaccuracies. They seem to take WW2 era propaganda as though it were fact.

Now, for my sources...

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html This handily refutes one of your sources claims of Soviet economic superiority (The one I mocked for taking War Propaganda seriously) as well as attacking the underlying assumptions behind the 'successes' of Nazi Germany, with specific examples.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23915/1/The_Failure_of_German_Business_and_Economic_Policy_Towards_Iraq_in_the_1930s_(LSERO).pdf Pages 25+ are the relevant ones.

http://www.helium.com/items/1621746-the-failure-of-nazi-economic-policy-to-prepare-germany-for-world-war-ii

[The Grand World Order]

They're different forms of communism. Like the various branches of Christianity, I agree that they are similar, but in each one there are a few differences.
Like the whole "genocide" thing.

Yes, but you claimed that Stalin and Mao weren't Communists, and that they were respectivenamehere-ists.

Even I don't deny that Nazism was a form of Fascism, and the Fascist-Nazi association is the sole reason why Fascism's a taboo subject... even if most people actually agree with its values and methods if you simply leave out the "F" word.

[Wisconsin7]

Is it bad that every time I see A picture of a Neo-Nazi or videos of their marches....I feel a murderous rage boil in me?

No, it's not. Take that rage (and a baseball bat), find the nearest genocidal fascist, and smash his skull into bits and pieces.
Kidding. Barely.

[Wisconsin7]

They're different forms of communism. Like the various branches of Christianity, I agree that they are similar, but in each one there are a few differences.
Like the whole "genocide" thing.

Yes, but you claimed that Stalin and Mao weren't Communists, and that they were respectivenamehere-ists.

Even I don't deny that Nazism was a form of Fascism, and the Fascist-Nazi association is the sole reason why Fascism's a taboo subject... even if most people actually agree with its values and methods if you simply leave out the "F" word.

If I recall correctly, I claimed that they twisted and perverted Communism. Maybe that's not what I said, but I think it was.

[Conserative Morality]

Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Titoism, anycommieleaderhere-ism: clearly not Communism.

Of course Titoism isn't Communism. Titoism worked.

[Bosiu]

Because idiots have to congregate somewhere...

[Distruzio]

On what planet do you live where refutation = ignoring?

Again, the economy only failed leading up the the end of ... WWII.

but it was essentially Germany against the world. The economy was forced to fail.

On what planet do you live where failing to read = being right?

Trots pretty much demolished your assertions, GA.

[The Germania Alliance]

I don't see how that refutes my point. At all. In fact, I don't even see how that ADDRESSES my points.

Yahoo Answers is not a legitimate source.

I already addressed the efforts of Schacht 1933-1936.

I'm not sure you fully read this source.

Again, Yahoo Answers is not a legitimate source for debates.

And your last source is absolutely riddled with inaccuracies. They seem to take WW2 era propaganda as though it were fact.

Now, for my sources...

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html This handily refutes one of your sources claims of Soviet economic superiority (The one I mocked for taking War Propaganda seriously) as well as attacking the underlying assumptions behind the 'successes' of Nazi Germany, with specific examples.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23915/1/The_Failure_of_German_Business_and_Economic_Policy_Towards_Iraq_in_the_1930s_(LSERO).pdf Pages 25+ are the relevant ones.

http://www.helium.com/items/1621746-the-failure-of-nazi-economic-policy-to-prepare-germany-for-world-war-ii

Maybe because you were trying to win an argument with irrelevant points?

Also, if Yahoo isn't a legitimate source of information, why should I believe the sources you provided (that still don't prove me wrong) are legitimate either? I can play that game too.

I mean, let's see.

First link; Oh no, you're bringing the Soviets into this, and again bringing up the fact that the German economy would have failed after the war! I must have forgotten that the Russians somehow became a part of this argument, and I especially must have forgotten the fact that I already said the German economy was forced to fail because of the war.

Second link; Oh my God! A single German company in Iraq didn't make it! The entire economy is going to fail now because this company failed in Iraq years before WWII!

Third link; Okay, again, Germany economy failed because of WWII. Point being?

You're missing my point, time after time again. The German economy, even if it's a war economy, is still an economy and not only did it get Germany back on its feet after WWI, but Germany was a powerhouse. I'll say it again, I already said that the economy failed because of WWII. My argument never, ever included anything about a German economy succeeding after WWII. It doesn't matter which direction the economy was taking, because before the end of the war, the economy simply worked.

[Distruzio]

They're different forms of communism. Like the various branches of Christianity, I agree that they are similar, but in each one there are a few differences.
Like the whole "genocide" thing.

Yes, but you claimed that Stalin and Mao weren't Communists, and that they were respectivenamehere-ists.

Even I don't deny that Nazism was a form of Fascism, and the Fascist-Nazi association is the sole reason why Fascism's a taboo subject... even if most people actually agree with its values and methods if you simply leave out the "F" word.

In America they call it corporatism.

[The Grand World Order]

In America the call it corporatism.

I actually have yet to hear "Corporatism" used properly in discussion by non-Fascists/NSers.

[Conserative Morality]

Maybe because you were trying to win an argument with irrelevant points?

Please, explain to me which of my points where irrelevant, and why.

Also, if Yahoo isn't a legitimate source of information, why should I believe the sources you provided (that still don't prove me wrong) are legitimate either? I can play that game too.

If you can't see why Yahoo Answers is not a legitimate source, I'm not sure you understand what Yahoo Answers is.

I mean, let's see.

First link; Oh no, you're bringing the Soviets into this, and again bringing up the fact that the German economy would have failed after the war! I must have forgotten that the Russians somehow became a part of this argument, and I especially must have forgotten the fact that I already said the German economy was forced to fail because of the war.

First, I explicitly mentioned

Second, the link clearly shows the similarities between both and why they failed.

Third, the link EXPLICITLY MAKES the argument that the German economy was failing BEFORE the war.

Second link; Oh my God! A single German company in Iraq didn't make it! The entire economy is going to fail now because this company failed in Iraq years before WWII!

As I said, on pages 25+. The paper clearly makes a case for widespread mismanagement of the economy by the Nazi government.

Third link; Okay, again, Germany economy failed because of WWII. Point being?

I'm fairly sure you didn't read any of the links. Congratulations.

You're missing my point, time after time again. The German economy, even if it's a war economy, is still an economy and not only did it get Germany back on its feet after WWI, but Germany was a powerhouse.

All of my links refute such misinformed nonsense.

I'll say it again, I already said that the economy failed because of WWII.

You can repeat poorly thought out bullshit all you like, it doesn't make it true.

My argument never, ever included anything about a German economy succeeding after WWII.

Good thing that's not what the links have been arguing, huh?

It doesn't matter which direction the economy was taking, because before the end of the war, the economy simply worked.

If by "Simply worked" you mean "Floundered about inefficiently", you'd be correct.

[Bosiu]

Maybe because you were trying to win an argument with irrelevant points?

Please, explain to me which of my points where irrelevant, and why.

Also, if Yahoo isn't a legitimate source of information, why should I believe the sources you provided (that still don't prove me wrong) are legitimate either? I can play that game too.

If you can't see why Yahoo Answers is not a legitimate source, I'm not sure you understand what Yahoo Answers is.

I mean, let's see.

First link; Oh no, you're bringing the Soviets into this, and again bringing up the fact that the German economy would have failed after the war! I must have forgotten that the Russians somehow became a part of this argument, and I especially must have forgotten the fact that I already said the German economy was forced to fail because of the war.

First, I explicitly mentioned

Second, the link clearly shows the similarities between both and why they failed.

Third, the link EXPLICITLY MAKES the argument that the German economy was failing BEFORE the war.

Second link; Oh my God! A single German company in Iraq didn't make it! The entire economy is going to fail now because this company failed in Iraq years before WWII!

As I said, on pages 25+. The paper clearly makes a case for widespread mismanagement of the economy by the Nazi government.

Third link; Okay, again, Germany economy failed because of WWII. Point being?

I'm fairly sure you didn't read any of the links. Congratulations.

You're missing my point, time after time again. The German economy, even if it's a war economy, is still an economy and not only did it get Germany back on its feet after WWI, but Germany was a powerhouse.

All of my links refute such misinformed nonsense.

I'll say it again, I already said that the economy failed because of WWII.

You can repeat poorly thought out bullshit all you like, it doesn't make it true.

My argument never, ever included anything about a German economy succeeding after WWII.

Good thing that's not what the links have been arguing, huh?

It doesn't matter which direction the economy was taking, because before the end of the war, the economy simply worked.

If by "Simply worked" you mean "Floundered about inefficiently", you'd be correct.

Germany reaped what it sowed when it attempted to take over the world without mobilizing their economy huh?

[The Germania Alliance]

-snip-

1. Because when the hell did I ever bring the people and how they were treated into this before you did, a point you tried arguing with while entirely avoiding the economy?

2. If you can't see why the internet is not a legitimate source, I'm not sure you understand what the internet is. Again, I can play that game just as easily as you can. I've never heard of any of your sources, that were written by people I've never heard of. What makes you think you can lead me to believe your sources are reliable?

3. The soviets are irrelevant. Oh my God.

4. The link argues that it was DESTINED to fail. It wasn't going to fail until AFTER the war, just that it was getting ready to fail. It. Still. Worked. Not sure how much easier I can spell that out for you.

5. You're pretty much presenting nothing but bullshit at this point that are just snarky responses with irrelevant facts and matters. Nothing, and I mean nothing you have said pertains to anything I've argued other than slight resemblances. When you can stop putting words into my mouth and then proceeding to argue with yourself (because again, you've put words into MY mouth), I'd like for you to come back and try again. No, truly. I mean that.

[Distruzio]

In America the call it corporatism.

I actually have yet to hear "Corporatism" used properly in discussion by non-Fascists/NSers.

Yeah? Perhaps I could impress upon you the need for education on the subject, then? Would you care to start a thread on the subject?

[Meridiani Planum]

(Image)

I do not see how it relates.

My impression after discussing politics with a few European neo-Nazis is that they see liberal and democratic socialist society as promoting weakness of character, as disorganized, and as under threat from immigrants. They want to order society with a strong government, and they don't care how many people get hurt in the process. Basically, anyone who gets hurt mustn't be one of the people worth protecting.

[Conserative Morality]

1. Because when the hell did I ever bring the people and how they were treated into this before you did, a point you tried arguing with while entirely avoiding the economy?

Like destroying Germany's economy, tearing down the social structure of Germany, making a cult of personality around a single man of below average intelligence...?

You're wrong about all of that, except for the cult part.

Therefore, the two points YOU disputed me on were the social structure of Germany and it's economy. I've been addressing both. You've been dancing around the issue because you know very little about it but are too stubborn to admit that you haven't the slightest clue about the economic situation of Nazi Germany in the 30s. This is readily apparent both by your arguments and your refusal to read even your own sources.

2. If you can't see why the internet is not a legitimate source, I'm not sure you understand what the internet is. Again, I can play that game just as easily as you can. I've never heard of any of your sources, that were written by people I've never heard of. What makes you think you can lead me to believe your sources are reliable?

You've... Never... Heard... Of Berkeley?

In any case, the links I gave you were properly sourced.

3. The soviets are irrelevant. Oh my God.

The Soviets are not irrelevant. You would know that if you read the link. However, you find it much more amusing, apparently, to completely ignore the sources I provide because of the challenge they provide to your worldview.

4. The link argues that it was DESTINED to fail. It wasn't going to fail until AFTER the war, just that it was getting ready to fail. It. Still. Worked. Not sure how much easier I can spell that out for you.

The link actually argues that Nazi Germany's economy was in the shitter and was going to get flushed down the toilet if it spent the years of the war in peace. Instead, it got bombed to hell and then rebuilt by the Allies and the Sovs.

5. You're pretty much presenting nothing but bullshit at this point that are just snarky responses with irrelevant facts and matters.

Oh yes, terrible me, bringing up FACTS. How dare I.

Nothing, and I mean nothing you have said pertains to anything I've argued other than slight resemblances.

I've addressed all of your points. You've addressed none of mine. I've read your sources and mine. I'm not convinced that you've read my sources. I'm not convinced that you've read YOUR sources.

I'm not sure what more you want from me. Would you prefer I were as ignorant on this subject as you are? And just as stubborn in my ignorance?

When you can stop putting words into my mouth and then proceeding to argue with yourself (because again, you've put words into MY mouth), I'd like for you to come back and try again. No, truly. I mean that.

Accusations of strawmen are meaningless without proof. Show me where I supposedly made a strawman. Quote me. I can't wait to show you how you're wrong by quoting which of your points I was addressing.

[New Heathera]

When I think of a nazi, I think of a devilish war criminal in military uniform, a sadistic smile across their face as they witness people getting slaughtering in death camps. However, when I think of a modern neo-nazi, I think of an uneducated thug with neo-nazi symbols tattooed over their body, waving offensive flags and banners in a street rally while chanting death threats and hate. Point is: They're out there and they endorse terrible things, but beyond what the typical riot is capable of they're of little threat and concern.

[The Germania Alliance]

1. I never argued anything about the people until you brought up the cult, which I agreed with. You brought up the people in relation to the economy; I never did. So again, stop putting words into my mouth. Sure, I realize I said you were wrong about the culture, but I left it at that. I not once argued it.

2. No, I've never heard of Berkeley, and I would never have known that was even a name until today. I don't know who he is and I couldn't care less.

3. I never even mentioned the Soviets therefore they are entirely irrelevant. So is Iraq and everyone else. We're talking about the Nazis, please and thank you. I read your sources. Sure, they're relevant to Nazi economic polices, but I see nothing that defines the policy itself other than what we've already established.

4. Again, it was failing, but it still worked. You're making me sound like a broken record. I suppose this is amusing in a way.

5. Again with the snarky attitude (or is that animosity I'm detecting now?)

6. Oh, the putting the words into my mouth bit? Yeah, I must have forgotten that you get to decide what I know comes out of my mouth, or in this case, what my fingers type. I know for a fact that I never brought up the German people and their condition, considering the fact that I've been arguing about the economy. I'll say it again. I don't give a damn about how they were treated. I don't give a damn about what happened to the economy during and after WWII. The people? You brought them up. Not me. I shouldn't have to quote you if you're too lazy to just look at what you're quoting me. Like when you posted that 'economy/culture/cult' crap, which I can't be bothered to go scroll up and quote at this point.

The economy was failing. Yes. We established that. Tenfold. It was still working up until it collapsed. You may remember me mentioning the fact that you're making me sound like a broken record. Not sure if you're just trying to stoke your ego or if you're just trying to bore me. Either way, you insinuate nothing other than the fact that you like to argue. This is boring and will never go anywhere.

[Ardchoille]

While discursiveness is one of the charms of General, I think the historical approach belongs in another thread; this one's why neo-Nazis exist, not why the old ones did, m'kay?

[The Germania Alliance]

While discursiveness is one of the charms of General, I think the historical approach belongs in another thread; this one's why neo-Nazis exist, not why the old ones did, m'kay?

Alright, message received. Argument dropped.

[Conserative Morality]

1. I never argued anything about the people until you brought up the cult, which I agreed with. You brought up the people in relation to the economy; I never did. So again, stop putting words into my mouth. Sure, I realize I said you were wrong about the culture, but I left it at that. I not once argued it.

I brought up:

The economy

The people

The cult

In response to a claim that the Nazi party did good things that were not genocide.

2. No, I've never heard of Berkeley, and I would never have known that was even a name until today. I don't know who he is and I couldn't care less.

It's a University.

3. I never even mentioned the Soviets therefore they are entirely irrelevant.

First, what you mention is not the end all of this argument.

Second, one of your links mentioned the Soviets.

Third, the Soviets were used as an EXPLICIT COMPARISON TO NAZI GERMANY in my link, therefore making them relevant.

Fourth, the link was about both the Soviets AND the Nazis, but you rejected it because "Lol soviets aren't what I'm talking about"

So is Iraq and everyone else.

Again, more proof that you don't read links presented to you. The situation with Germany and Iraq was examined in detail over the first 24 pages, and after the 25th page is examined the system-wide issues with Germany's economic system.

But I suppose you couldn't POSSIBLY read an actual source, even when the relevant pages are pointed out to you.

We're talking about the Nazis, please and thank you.

One of us is discussing the Nazis. The other is dancing around the issue.

I'm sure you'd make a very fine ballet dancer, but please try to address the issue here.

I read your sources. Sure, they're relevant to Nazi economic polices, but I see nothing that defines the policy itself other than what we've already established.

What?

So let me get this straight...

You're saying that sources that claim that Nazi Germany's economy post 1936 was in a worse condition than before the Nazis were in power, do NOT contradict the claim that Nazi Germany's economy was a-okay except for the war?

What?

4. Again, it was failing, but it still worked. You're making me sound like a broken record. I suppose this is amusing in a way.

In what world is failing working?

And that wasn't your claim.

Germany's economy began to fail during WWI, and then entirely collapsed afterwards. When the Nazi party came into power, the economy began to improve, regardless of the living conditions or how the people were treated. The people had jobs and never had to worry about being laid off, the economy wasn't collapsing, and in general, people were content. Had WWII never happened, Germany's economy would have only improved.

I have addressed every one of those points with my sources.

5. Again with the snarky attitude (or is that animosity I'm detecting now?)

Frustration. I get frustrated when people don't even make an effort to read what the opposition is writing.

6. Oh, the putting the words into my mouth bit? Yeah, I must have forgotten that you get to decide what I know comes out of my mouth, or in this case, what my fingers type. I know for a fact that I never brought up the German people and their condition, considering the fact that I've been arguing about the economy. I'll say it again. I don't give a damn about how they were treated. I don't give a damn about what happened to the economy during and after WWII. The people? You brought them up. Not me.

I did bring them up. You are correct about that. You, however, disagreed with my point that they were in a poor state. Therefore, you addressed my point and opened yourself up to contradiction on that point. As shown above...

The people had jobs and never had to worry about being laid off, the economy wasn't collapsing, and in general, people were content.

You were perfectly happy with addressing the state of the people until you were proven wrong. After that?

The economy was failing. Yes. We established that. Tenfold. It was still working up until it collapsed. You may remember me mentioning the fact that you're making me sound like a broken record. Not sure if you're just trying to stoke your ego or if you're just trying to bore me. Either way, you insinuate nothing other than the fact that you like to argue. This is boring and will never go anywhere.

Except that was not your argument before. You've attempted here to claim that you've never argued what you've argued, an attempt which is as shameful as it is transparent.

[The Germania Alliance]

Again, nothing relevant and all entirely pointless or more words in my mouth.

You should heed the notice, though I suppose you just have to get the last word in. Oh well. I'm content.

Back on subject, now that the matter is resolved; touching up on my earlier posts about how there can be peaceful Neo Nazis -- Neo Nazism has given birth to a lot of gangs. While I believe that the majority of Neo Nazis are violent, there are those who... Can be saved, I suppose. Many Neo Nazis turn their backs on that ideology and attempt to return to normal society, for an innumerable number of reasons, like this guy. Now for once, I don't mean to sound rude, but it's foolish to think that all Neo Nazis are inherently crazy or violent and rude or anything.I'm going to compare Neo Nazism to... Drugs, like meth, or cocaine. Very good people can be influenced and trapped by it, and can never turn away from it again. Others struggle through it, and while they can't always get away, sometimes good people come back out of it.

[Conserative Morality]

Again, nothing relevant and all entirely pointless or more words in my mouth.

You should heed the notice, though I suppose you just have to get the last word in. Oh well. I'm content.

I didn't see the notice until after I had typed up and posted it.

Back on subject, now that the matter is resolved; touching up on my earlier posts about how there can be peaceful Neo Nazis -- Neo Nazism has given birth to a lot of gangs. While I believe that the majority of Neo Nazis are violent, there are those who... Can be saved, I suppose. Many Neo Nazis turn their backs on that ideology and attempt to return to normal society, for an innumerable number of reasons, like this guy. Now for once, I don't mean to sound rude, but it's foolish to think that all Neo Nazis are inherently crazy or violent and rude or anything.I'm going to compare Neo Nazism to... Drugs, like meth, or cocaine. Very good people can be influenced and trapped by it, and can never turn away from it again. Others struggle through it, and while they can't always get away, sometimes good people come back out of it.

You're right here. Smart people often follow very stupid ideologies.