this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32283 readers
675 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m just gonna get it out of the way up front: equating oak leaves and a symbol with, once again, its own ADL entry and many pictures of Nazis using it in tattoos, emblems and patches is absurd and can only be interpreted as providing cover and defense for nazis. Stop defending nazis.

I do have reason to believe they’re just throwing a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon: they’re at war and they want command and control of the Nazi regiment!

You said it yourself, they didn’t do the right thing because they want the Nazis fighting for them.

They didn’t denazify anything and we can both look and see by the symbols and name they used!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

equating oak leaves and a symbol with, once again, its own ADL entry

I keep bringing up those examples because you don't seem to get the point that the thing is not a Swastika. But let me come up with another example, and as the ADL is not really the best source here let's take the actual authority on the matter, the Bundesverfassungsschutz. Page 26, section 2.13, the Freiheitliche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, featuring its abbreviation "FAP" (sic) inside a cogwheel.

Does that mean that users of the Rust programming logo are now Nazis because letter in cogwheel?

And I can already anticipate the objection: The Rust community didn't start out as a Nazi org. But then on the flipside Azov got denazified. If Rust did start out as a Nazi org, would we have to get rid of the cogwheel? Or does it get a pass because you can see it used in, among other places, socialist emblems?

You said it yourself, they didn’t do the right thing because they want the Nazis fighting for them.

I didn't say that. In peace times it would have been the right thing, but Ukraine isn't at peace, and not dissolving the regiment is necessitated by the war whether the reformed Azov ended up with 80% or 20% Nazis. (According to the Ukrainian state is was something like 20%, and not the really hardcore ones. Presumably also includes Strasserites and all kinds of stuff).

I do have reason to believe they’re just throwing a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon: they’re at war and they want command and control of the Nazi regiment!

Then why go through (enough) denazification to have swathes of Nazis leave?

Also, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with Nazis dying on the front. I fundamentally oppose them running through the streets intimidating people or worse, I oppose them in any legislative capacity, but I don't mind them holding back an invader. What's there to loose? They survive and we're not worse off than before, they die, well, then that's that.

Or, put differently: Would you support sending them to the front as a penalty battalion?


Bonus: The Verfassungschutz pdf, page 38, section 2.35. The fuckers appropriated the Antifa flags of all things. If you simply outlaw everything they're using and everything that looks like something they're using they're going to appropriate absolutely everything to deny it to us. I wonder if the ADL will copy that one into their list, they're not always known for having the best of takes.


And while I'm at it, page 82, translated:

The Wolfsangel was an identifying feature of the youth organisation "Junge Front" (JF), which was banned in 1982. Its use in connection with a banned organisation is punishable by law. Independent uses, e.g. in town and club coats of arms are not punishable.

1982. It took the symbol that long to even land on the list, presumably because only then did Nazis stumble across it while looking through SS division logos.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You hear that everybody? The Nazi regiment can keep using their hate symbol! Yeah, because they denazified. How can we tell they denazified? They said so. Those are the rules. Who made the rules? The Germans, why? No we can’t trust the ADL. Who says? A German. No, they’re not on one of the .de instances, why?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They said so.

If it was Azov which said it I wouldn't even begin to trust it. But it wasn't Azov it was Ukrainian state structures.

Who made the rules? The Germans, why?

Because we know where that shit leads and are on top of it. To be on top of it, we actually understand it and don't simply play symbol association games.

No we can’t trust the ADL. Who says? A German.

That's rather harsh. But they have had quite some blunders in the past. Heart in the right place but actionist kind of stuff.

A German. No, they’re not on one of the .de instances, why?

Civis europaeus sum.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you trust the ukranian state not to be fascist so much that you’ll take their word that there aren’t any Nazis over their actions of leaving the dogwhistle symbol and very well known name.

That’s going way beyond gullible, but if you’re willing to look past the ukranian states’ past actions and take it at its word who am I to judge? I mean, as a German you definitely have plenty of success and skill in recognizing Nazis and keeping them out of power: just look at nato and the frg of olde and afd etc today! Clearly Germans can recognize Nazis and effectively keep them out of power! What was I thinking suggesting that a German was being pedantic and providing a smokescreen for Nazis? There’s no systemic historical precedent for that!

Stop defending Nazis.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

so much that you’ll take their word that there aren’t any Nazis

They never claimed that, the estimation was that about 20% of post-denazification Azov troops had an extreme right wing world view.

just look at nato

What. You might mean the CIA, the Regan administration was straight-up fash.

and the frg of olde

Yeah we had an autumn about that one.

and afd etc today

You mean the party 47% want straight outlawed? You know what's even more interesting? 10% of AfD voters want to outlaw it!

2/3rds of their poll results are protest voters not sharing their ideology and due to those 10% I think we can be sure that many of those are just doing it in opinion polls, and won't actually cast ballots for them. Those protest votes are by and large from the east which has a significantly lower precentage of people with closed right-wing world-views than the west.

Certainly brought the whole "the east still has shit political representation" issue back into focus, though OTOH I just have to be a besserwessi and say that noone is fucking stopping them from representing themselves.

Oh, another tidbit: Many AfD voters are on welfare. The AfD implementing their stated policy would move wealth from that group to voters of other parties, so much so normal, but they on top of that want to disenfranchise then, tie voting rights to paying tax. If you're into psychoanalysis and its recognition of forces such as Nazis as catabolic that's like chef's kiss, the fuckers even want to eat themselves.

Also if you dislike the AfD so much why are you joining their ranks by endorsing Russian propaganda?


In any case: Azov is not a German battalion. Have a look at where Svoboda polls. Go over to youtube and watch some Dylan Burns, the man is gay and on the ground there.

Stop defending Nazis.

Stop being an actionist and base your decisions on data and analysis. How you analyse I don't really care, come up with your own yardsticks but do triple down on applying them thoroughly and consistently.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh it’s only 1/5 Nazis! In that case they get to use the wolfsangel but they can’t use the totenkopf until they hit 1/8.

This is absurd. They were Nazis, they used a symbol to appeal to Nazis. The name became synonymous with Nazis. Now the claim is they’re only 1/5 Nazis but it’s okay to use the same symbol and name.

At this point what would convince you? If their marches included the Bellamy salute? If they brought the black sun back?

You’re either so naive you can’t recognize the “new look, same great taste” strategy or you’re defending Nazis. I’ve been assuming the latter because the former is both sad and frightening.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

At this point what would convince you? If their marches included the Bellamy salute?

Unsupervised Nazis would do exactly that, yes. They don't, so their number is either diluted to a degree where they don't have cultural impact (Azov grew significantly after that 20% number) and/or the inerior ministry is keeping a lid on things by cracking down on Nazis who do Nazi things.

And I mean this is what it's about, isn't it? Whether those Nazis do Nazi things. If they're Nazis and don't do Nazi things but instead risk their neck defending the country, why the fuck would anyone be opposed.

In that vein:

You’re either so naive you can’t recognize the “new look, same great taste” strategy or you’re defending Nazis.

I think it's you who's protecting Nazis by insisting that they stay away from Russian soldiers. Why do you worry so much about their safety?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh so if they’re good Nazis it’s okay!

I see now why you’re defending them, you think it’s okay!

Stop defending Nazis!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they're bad Nazis, obviously, as all Nazis are bad. But currently they're engaged in an activity which is beneficial.

Why are you protecting Nazis from dying at the front? Why are you so worried about their well-being? Stop protecting Nazis!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh so you’re defending specifically the nazis fighting Russia.

Interesting stance for a German to take. 🤔

You can, as always, stop defending Nazis.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm also in favour of sending the proud boys to the front in case of Canada invading the US. Really, any defensive situation.

Making them fight defensive wars is the only sensible use a society can make of fascists. In more senses than one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’d have a good point if the ukranian state was doing some kind of gloryless Suicide charge with them. Based on all they’ve said they’re integrating the Nazi militia into the state to fight alongside normal people and become war heroes.

Stop finding excuses to defend Nazis.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you'd send them only on suicide missions they wouldn't cooperate. Still, each Nazi on the front is one non-Nazi not needed at the front.

As to heroes: Needs must. In Germany we're nuking Nazis in the military from orbit, we're also disallowing Nazis from fighting in Ukraine's foreign legions, because we don't want to have Nazis skilled in combat. That, however, is a secondary concern when you've got Russia invading you.

As to heroes the second: The likes of right sector are very unpopular, politically speaking, in Ukraine. There's plenty of non-Nazi war heroes -- another reason to not have Nazis fight alone, so that there's no valour that they can earn alone. They won't be able to capitalise on having fought.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See this is why I keep pushing you.

Germany would never do what the ukranian state is doing, but they need every fighting man. Never mind the fact that ukranian doctrine has been combined arms warfare with relatively small numbers of soldiers so they’re not actually in a situation where numbers are a huge benefit.

The naziism is a serious problem and it’s good that azov “denazified” but also they’re not popular and it’s no big deal.

They can’t capitalize on having fought and aren’t gaining any standing, but azov was being lauded in the press as defenders of Mariupol.

You’re just saying whatever let’s you keep defending the Nazis.

Now it could be that you want to defend the ukranian state, but you don’t need to rush to its side every time. It can be making grave mistakes and doing the wrong thing by any measure and still be a state you support. Just don’t support the Nazis, that’s all I ask.

Take a page from the communists and limit yourself to critical support.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Take a page from the communists and limit yourself to critical support.

Take a page from Antifa and not call a huge organisation Nazi because there's a couple of Nazis in there.

My main issue, here, from the beginning, has been you trivialising the term. You still do it, without reflection, in an attempt to win an argument on the internet. As if it was some two-sided partisan US politics or such.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Take that same exact page and recognize that if there’s ten liberals at the table with a Nazi there’s eleven Nazis at the table.

An organization that accepts Nazis is a Nazi organization.

I’m not trivializing the fact that the ukranian state actively welcomes Nazis. I’m responding appropriately with revulsion and disdain.

To the extent that there is any path to peace that leaves Donetsk and Luhansk in the control of the ukranian state, it does not hinge on accepting and welcoming Nazis.

If the state is doing so, it’s not out of necessity, but alignment.

There is no argument to be won here. Anyone reading this thread of comments will wonder why it’s so important that Nazis are accepted. I’m recommending you, as a person who ought to be familiar with the insidious nature of fascism, stop defending Nazis.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the state is doing so, it’s not out of necessity, but alignment.

So then you're ready to call Russia a Nazi state over fielding a fuckton of fascist regiments? Have a look at Utkin's tattoos. Everyone in Russia knew, noone higher up cared.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They’re both liberal fascist states. One was put in place by nato after they realized they couldn’t just carve it up, the other was put in place by nato to oppose the first when they denied it membership.

Stop deflecting and trying to place me in support or opposition to the members of this absolutely avoidable conflict and most importantly: stop defending nazis.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

One was put in place by nato after they realized they couldn’t just carve it up

Oh my sides I dare you to say that in Russia. Bring a stopwatch so you can time how long it takes for you to arrive in a prison camp in Siberia. The FSB doesn't suffer that kind of talk, "Russia is controlled by its enemies" (from their POV. In reality Russia has exactly one enemy: Itself).

this absolutely avoidable

Absolutely avoidable, true: Russia could stop being imperialist and, for a change, and harkening back to Lenin's times, focus on developing itself. Like Ukraine did. Which is why the Siloviki in Russia can't have that happen, it sets a bad precedent for a culturally related people to gets its shit in order, people actually getting what they want, being better off, all that kind of stuff.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay first things first, I never said Russia was controlled by its enemies, second:

This isn’t about my views on geopolitics, it’s about ohs you need to stop defending Nazis. Do that and we can have a wide ranging conversation about any number of topics.

But first, stop defending Nazis!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay first things first, I never said Russia was controlled by its enemies,

Explain that to the FSB officer.

But first, stop defending Nazis!

I never defended Nazis, and you have yet to make an argument that doesn't bog down to "I hate that /u/barsoap is right about symbols". It's you who's trivialising the term.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not trivializing anything.

You are saying that azov battalion using the wolfsangel is not a nazi symbol.

It’s a defense of Nazis because you’re providing cover for the spread of their ideology. You need to stop defending Nazis.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok you've got me. Now show me where Azov is spreading Nazi ideology. Post-2015. I'm waiting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What would you call wearing and waving a Nazi symbol?

Stop defending Nazis!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a Nazi symbol. Are Motorhead fans Nazis because they wear Iron Crosses?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What’s not a Nazi symbol, the wolfsangel (which you agreed was a Nazi symbol in the context of a right wing militia just a few days ago) or the black sun (whose removal you claimed was semiotic denazification enough)?

Instead of making me dredge up terrible things you’ve said, why not just stop defending Nazis?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Azov isn't a Nazi org any more, thus the Wolfsangel is fine. Because there was more than semiotic denazification. You also can't be publicly/actively racist or homophobic and whatever inside Azov Ukraine really cracked down on associated politics as a whole. As said: If Azov was still a Nazi org, why did so many Nazis leave?

And are you seriously asking whether the black sun is a Nazi symbol. The SS used it in an esoteric context, the only other use I'm aware of is use esotericists using it as a specific symbol of evil, "a nightmare that feels like paradise while you're asleep", but that's an obscure corner of an obscure corner. Also, based as fuck.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Of course I’m not asking. I’m responding to your assertion that after 2015 azov wasn’t spreading nazism. They clearly were both incubating and spreading it during that time. I chose the example most apropos to our discussion and brought up their semiotics. You said it (without specification) wasn’t a nazi symbol and I asked which of the two nazi symbols wasn’t one.

So, stop providing cover for the spread of Nazism. Stop defending Nazis.

Now how many Nazis can a group have before the wolfsangel is a problem? We agree that Nazis use it as a dogwhistle, we agree that in the context of a far right militia it’s clearly Nazi imagery. Is it half? If your group is half Nazis you get a pass? One quarter? One singular Nazi? I’d argue that since the context is a far right militia that just fucking last year claimed to have “denazified” the number is zero. You can’t use the same imagery you used last year to appeal to Nazis and credibly claim that it’s different now.

I say that because I’m not gullible and I don’t defend Nazis.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The only sensible use a society can make of nazis is as catapult ammunition. You DO NOT, under any circumstances, want to give fascists actual combat training and military action. That's how you get Freikorps after the war. Why would you want that?