• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LGBT+ pride marches in US interrupted by neo-Nazis and stampede

Ah, so my acceptance of one's freedom of expression, and lack of being impressed by the tiny turnout...which shows just how little impact such groups really have in our society...

THAT makes it clear I am "good" with this ideology?

Well I disagree. I am simply not impressed, because they are such a minor nuisance easily dealt with when and if they ever act up. The only thing to fear is one or more "acting up" in some hate crime to gain notoriety and seem more important a threat than they really are. That's what the FBI Counter-Terrorism undercover activity is designed to discover and prevent.

Meanwhile, as a person who supported the ACLU's free expression lawsuit for the Nazis march in Skokie (by the way, even back then the number of Nazis who showed were similarly small) I can accept their free expression without meaning I support their ideology.

Excellent! Why are some who continue to make mountains out of molehills over these events such binary thinkers? I'm thinking it must be by design.
Nobody could be this stupid, could they be? :shock:
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to communicate that opinion if you have free society. What shocks me is how the concept of freedom is losing popularity around the world.

Yeah, and some of the worst offenders are right here in this country. The growing authoritarian new left are not really the liberals they purport to be.
 
You're defending an ideology that effectively seeks to dismantle that right. In order to have a tolerant society, we need to paradoxically be intolerant of genocidal ideologies. History shows that violence is the only thing that stops fascism.



You're seemingly not understanding there is a demonstrable difference between Nazism and literally everything else. Nazism isn't a weird fetish, or a diet. You're literally defending people that don't only condone the murder of millions of people, but ultimately aim to recreate it.

There is nothing tolerant in your views expressed in this thread.

Nobody here defends Nazism in practice, but we do defend Nazi's protected first amendment rights. See if you can reconcile the difference between the two.
 
LGBT+ pride marches in US interrupted by neo-Nazis and stampede | The Independent


In Detroit, an armed white supremacist group called the National Socialist Movement (NSM) descended on the annual Motor City Pride Festival, where they held placards, gave Nazi salutes and displayed armbands with swastikas.

I am without words....

I’m not surprised as an LGBT person and Pride participant and attendee of many years. These events attract all kinds. A particularly vile hate and black supremacist group called Israel United In Christ likes to set up shop at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Festival every year. It’s best to ignore them.
 
So the Neo-National Socialists had shown up at a homosexual parade. Doesn't surprise me one bit. Socialists, whether they're national or democratic (they're practically the same, except the word they use), don't like people that are different. National Socialists kept homosexuals in concentration camps, along with Jews and other people. So to see these Neo-National Socialists clash with the homosexual parades was inevitable.
 
It's like the guy in the balcony on The Muppet Show, but not funny. How sad.

You mean one of the TWO guys?

giphy.gif


laughing-muppets-zhJ55GsXRajxm
 
There is nothing tolerant in your views expressed in this thread.

Nobody here defends Nazism in practice, but we do defend Nazi's protected first amendment rights. See if you can reconcile the difference between the two.

If Nazis have protected First Amendment rights, then so do supporters of ISIS, yes?
 
Social Democrats, National Socialists, and Marxist-Leninists are all socialists

National Socialists aren't socialists, sorry...that is incorrect.
The only thing socialist about them was the label and the marketing.
 
So the Neo-National Socialists had shown up at a homosexual parade. Doesn't surprise me one bit. Socialists, whether they're national or democratic (they're practically the same, except the word they use), don't like people that are different. National Socialists kept homosexuals in concentration camps, along with Jews and other people. So to see these Neo-National Socialists clash with the homosexual parades was inevitable.

National socialists also put socialists, communists, trade unionists, etc. in the death camps. Fascism was heralded as a popular front against the left. You literally are buying into nazi propaganda. Oh btw, the nazis made many a capitalist filthy rich and did the bidding of capitalists by deposing trade unionists.
 
National Socialists aren't socialists, sorry...that is incorrect.
The only thing socialist about them was the label and the marketing.

I maintain that my position is correct, Checkerboard Strangler. The Nazi Party long held itself out as a revolutionary racist worker's party dedicated to bringing down capitalist monied interests that were oppressing the German working people (i.e., Jews). Gregor Strasser, Hitler's party lieutenant and Nazi ideological luminary was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and wanted the Nazi Party's takeover to lead to a nationalization of the German economy. Ernst Rohm, leader of the Brownshirts, was also a bloody-knuckled revolutionary socialist who wanted the Brownshirts (SA) to take over and replace the German armed forces. Strasser, Rohm, and those Nazis who thought as they did were both socialist and racist. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler himself cared hardly one whit for the economic tenets of revolutionary socialism and the need for the Party to directly control all aspects of the economy; his main concern was always the mass-racial struggle, not the economic one. Indeed, by all accounts, discussions of economic theory that did not directly tie to the war between racial groups bored Hitler to tears.

Part of the reason Adolf Hitler had both Strasser and Rohm killed was not merely because they were extremely popular rivals for power within the Nazi Party who refused to abnegate themselves to his will as cronies like Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and Hess did, but because he feared that their constant revolutionary socialist agitation was going to lead to a coup by the German military backed by Germany's monied industrialists. By all accounts that I have read, if he had not gotten rid of them, there would have been a coup to oust Hitler from the Chancellery launched by the military. And this was more than a possibility, because President Hindenburg was still alive and Hitler's position was by no means fully secure. The Night of the Long Knives secured both Hitler's position as unquestioned master of the Nazi Party AND the loyalty of the German military. So Hitler was certainly willing to sacrifice much of the revolutionary socialist positions of the Nazi Party that he had paid lip service to in order to secure his ties with the German military and German industrialists and capitalists in order to realize his greater goals of a world-wide race war among nations, and "Judeo Bolshevism" in the East. But it does not mean the Nazi Party was not a socialist party in whole or in part prior to this betrayal and turnabout.
 
Last edited:
Part of the reason Adolf Hitler had both Strasser and Rohm killed was not merely because they were extremely popular rivals for power within the Nazi Party who refused to abnegate themselves to his will as cronies like Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and Hess did, but because he feared that their constant revolutionary socialist agitation was going to lead to a coup by the German military backed by Germany's monied industrialists.

Hitler, of course, much like today's conservatives, attacked the Weimar government as "intrusive" and "socialist", and he HATED "Bolshevism" and "social democrats" (socialists), and proclaimed it loudly on almost every page of MEIN KAMPF.

Bullock, Toland, Heisler, and hundreds of others verify that there was no nationalization in Nazi Germany, and indeed, the general trend was in the other direction. Railroads were amalgamated and standardized for military purposes, but this had been a plan for at least 80 years!

Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.):
"We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."

Nazism was NOT a socialist phenomenon. The names that totalitarian parties of left and right give themselves are aimed at power, not accurate self-description. The 1990s Russian fascist party of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, for example, called itself the Liberal Democratic Party, though it was neither liberal nor democratic.

The Nazi party was originally called the German Workers Party, and it adopted the the word "Socialist" to attract working class support through the idea of granting social welfare to Aryan Germans as a vote catcher, but the primary inspiration of its founder, Anton Drexler, was German nationalism, while later founding influences added virulent anti-semitism to the mix.

Indeed, the two Nazi electoral campaigns of 1933 were funded mainly by the industrialists of the Ruhr valley, who opened their pockets to the Nazis only after Hermann Goering personally assured them in a series of meetings that there was NOTHING socialist about National Socialism. Had there been, they would never have opened their wallets and the world might have been saved a catastrophe.

Prescott Bush and many other rightists on the international stage admired Hitler precisely because they saw him as the man to smash socialism and the left. And that he most certainly did in Germany: his first action after the Enabling Act, giving dictatorial powers, was passed in 1933 was to ban trade unions.
Over the course of his regime, it's estimated that around 2 million socialists, trade unionists, communists and other left-wingers were murdered by Hitler's regime, most of them in the death camps. Many of the victims had warned of the evils of fascism and been ignored by appeasement in Europe and North America, with much of the appeasement orchestrated by the political right.

Now the Anglo-American right tries to rewrite history and pretend that they were not complicit in this appeasement, or even that the Nazism they once collaborated with so much was really a form of "socialism". It wasn't, not in any degree. If Hitler had been a socialist, he would never, ever have been bankrolled, appeased and admired by centres of conservative power in the way that he was. It is an insult to those 2 million victims of Nazism to pretend that there was anything socialist about the regime that killed them, just as it would be an insult to claim that Mao's government was conservative when it claimed to be safeguarding the revolution's values through the mass slaughter of the Cultural Revolution.

To give Hitler's real views on socialism - whether Marxist or in its reformist European social democratic type - here's the great historian of the movement and biographer of Hitler, Alan Bullock, from his magisterial and definitive book on the subject:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism".
Alan Bullock, "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny", New York: HarperCollins, 1971.
 
People here do realize that the NAZI's ( National Socialist German Workers' Party ) were not Socialists....right. Hitler hated Socialists. Hitler was a Fascist. They only put ' socialist ' into their name to appeal to German communists. Hitler was in awe of Mussolini, that he drew much of his political philosophy from him. In fact when he heard that Mussolini was executed, 3 days later he committed suicide.
 
National socialists also put socialists, communists, trade unionists, etc. in the death camps. Fascism was heralded as a popular front against the left. You literally are buying into nazi propaganda. Oh btw, the nazis made many a capitalist filthy rich and did the bidding of capitalists by deposing trade unionists.

But.. .but....the word "socialiat" is in the name! Also the Democratic People's Republic of Kirea is totally democratic. As was the German Democratic Republic.
 
Ah, so my acceptance of one's freedom of expression, and lack of being impressed by the tiny turnout...which shows just how little impact such groups really have in our society...

THAT makes it clear I am "good" with this ideology?

Well I disagree. I am simply not impressed, because they are such a minor nuisance easily dealt with when and if they ever act up. The only thing to fear is one or more "acting up" in some hate crime to gain notoriety and seem more important a threat than they really are. That's what the FBI Counter-Terrorism undercover activity is designed to discover and prevent.

Meanwhile, as a person who supported the ACLU's free expression lawsuit for the Nazis march in Skokie (by the way, even back then the number of Nazis who showed were similarly small) I can accept their free expression without meaning I support their ideology.

I would like to take this time to apologize to you. My responses the other day snarky at best and inappropriate. I was having a bit of a day but it's no excuse. I'm sorry.
 
There is nothing tolerant in your views expressed in this thread.

Nobody here defends Nazism in practice, but we do defend Nazi's protected first amendment rights. See if you can reconcile the difference between the two.

/Thread
 
I’m not surprised as an LGBT person and Pride participant and attendee of many years. These events attract all kinds. A particularly vile hate and black supremacist group called Israel United In Christ likes to set up shop at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Festival every year. It’s best to ignore them.

Some of those Black Israelite offshoot sects are particularly vile, agreed.
 
I maintain that my position is correct, Checkerboard Strangler. The Nazi Party long held itself out as a revolutionary racist worker's party dedicated to bringing down capitalist monied interests that were oppressing the German working people (i.e., Jews). Gregor Strasser, Hitler's party lieutenant and Nazi ideological luminary was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and wanted the Nazi Party's takeover to lead to a nationalization of the German economy. Ernst Rohm, leader of the Brownshirts, was also a bloody-knuckled revolutionary socialist who wanted the Brownshirts (SA) to take over and replace the German armed forces. Strasser, Rohm, and those Nazis who thought as they did were both socialist and racist. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler himself cared hardly one whit for the economic tenets of revolutionary socialism and the need for the Party to directly control all aspects of the economy; his main concern was always the mass-racial struggle, not the economic one. Indeed, by all accounts, discussions of economic theory that did not directly tie to the war between racial groups bored Hitler to tears.

Part of the reason Adolf Hitler had both Strasser and Rohm killed was not merely because they were extremely popular rivals for power within the Nazi Party who refused to abnegate themselves to his will as cronies like Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and Hess did, but because he feared that their constant revolutionary socialist agitation was going to lead to a coup by the German military backed by Germany's monied industrialists. By all accounts that I have read, if he had not gotten rid of them, there would have been a coup to oust Hitler from the Chancellery launched by the military. And this was more than a possibility, because President Hindenburg was still alive and Hitler's position was by no means fully secure. The Night of the Long Knives secured both Hitler's position as unquestioned master of the Nazi Party AND the loyalty of the German military. So Hitler was certainly willing to sacrifice much of the revolutionary socialist positions of the Nazi Party that he had paid lip service to in order to secure his ties with the German military and German industrialists and capitalists in order to realize his greater goals of a world-wide race war among nations, and "Judeo Bolshevism" in the East. But it does not mean the Nazi Party was not a socialist party in whole or in part prior to this betrayal and turnabout.

There are plenty of other reasons why the nazi party was not a socialist party. It was hailed as a popular front against socialists and communists. They were backed by German capitalists because they knew the nazis would crush the power of organized labor. At the very least, it stopped being about socialism once hitler took over.
 
Last edited:
How many does it take you to become whelmed?

The article was written poorly and unprofessionally... ten protesters can not "descend upon" thousands. The idiot reporter makes it sound like the Nazi Army of WWII swooping in on the poor Slavic people's.
 
Nazis called themselves the 'National Socialists', and they even nicked some (incredily benign) socialist policies...It is, however, a total misnomer, it's like the World Series, or Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The Nazis were fascists. Indisputably. They drew their ideology from Italy's fascists, who arose in reaction to the Left.
The Italian Right, still mired in 19th century thought, could not tackle the explosion in left-wing organization.
Mussolini gives us the first fascist platform - national/racial superiority, rearmament & expansion, and consolidation of capital.
The Italian Fascists appropriated Roman imagery wholesale, such as the 'fasces', to evoke renewed national pride & a sense of superiority.
The Italian Fascists sought to expand & reclaim historically Italian lands (mirroring a large portion of the old Roman Empire). After nicking some socialist economic policies (public works & spending), fascist government formed corporate cartels, enriching the few. Hitler & his Deutcher Arbeiter Partei mates see this and decide that they need to steal support from actual socialists. So the DAP rebadged themselves as the NSDAP... Socialism still being a relatively new ideology. It's like adding 'new' to a product name. Otherwise, they were fascist -


1. Saw themselves as racially/nationally superior,
2. Wanted rearmament & expansion,
3. Consolidated capital.

There was a huge gap between rich & poor in Tsarist Russia. The Bolsheviks sought to eliminate this division (yes, by violent revolt). After they succeeded, the Bolsheviks wanted to take the Revolution worldwide. Heard of 'Comintern'? No race, no nations, only socialism.
As for redistribution of capital, do I really need to explain the difference between collectivization & cartels?

The Nazis were originally called the German Workers Party, and the name change to incorporate the word "socialist" was partly designed to pull in working class voters by making the party seem more caring and respectable than it actually was, because "socialism" was a good word to many idealistic people in the 1930s on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here's George Orwell, reviewing an English translation of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in March 1940, as German bombs are falling on Britain:

"It is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurst and Blackett's unexpurgated edition of ‘Mein Kampf’, published only a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obvious intention of the translator's preface and notes is to tone down the book’s ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable.
He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all".
 
And by the way, Die Sturmabeilung was DISSOLVED and REPLACED by the Schutzstaffel, the SS.
Seeing as the SA was a socialist creation, why?
By the way, Otto Strasser was executed, not exiled like his brother. Why?

Because Hitler never intended his party to actually BE socialist, he only intended for it to APPEAR to be socialist.
 
Back
Top Bottom