>> why the brass knuckles and the many-on-one
>I can't speak for the participants but quite simply
any way you kill a
>nazi is a good way. They think people they target
are subhuman. So they
>earn subhuman treatment from the people they target.
Uh, where do I start? When you
say, "...a nazi...", how do you define a nazi? And is
it a person who actually claims to be a 'nazi', or
merely somebody that you, yourself, have labelled "...a
A person who claims to be a Nazi, albeit actions speak louder than
You've described one of their
(you claim) faults: "They think people they target are
subhuman"... So, you are labelling them as being
attackable because of what "they think..."? That's
their freedom of thought you are objecting to, even if
you are right. And you also referred to "people they
target...". What do you mean by "target"? Actually
physically attack? Or people they openly criticize? Or
people they simply don't like? Sounds like you're
saying you want to physically attack people merely for
thinking different thoughts than you, right?
No. Although anyone whose actually lived through the 3rd Reich will
tell you When they said Vernichtung no one actually thought they
meant Vernichtung and wished the response to the rise of Nazism was
If they are actually actively
physically attacking people (as opposed to defending
themselves), that sounds like it is unjustified, so you
may go ahead and defend the people attacked. But
somehow, I don't think that was what you intended to
limit yourself to.
You're right. I listened to my German Jewish elders who survived I
believe a proactive response is not only appropriate it's necessary.
Does it occur to you that if,
as you claim, it's okay for a person to attack another
simply because of what they THINK, or merely say, that
somebody reading what YOU say here might very well come
to the same conclusion: That it's okay to attack
(kill?) you simply because you say it's okay to attack
people solely because of what they thought or said.
You can THINK whatever you like. But promulgating it is not the same
as thinking it.
I think the term "slippery
slope" comes to mind.
I think recent history comes to mind and the slippery slope that led
to Vernichtung that no one believed would be Vernichtung.
"And saying that makes the
potential victim just like the victimizer is a
logical fallacy. It's also a sociological fallacy that
whose existence is threated"
Depends a lot on what you
define as "...whose existence is threated [sic]" Is
your very existence threatened merely because somebody
calls himself "a nazi", or "a fascist", etc? Is your
existence threatened merely because YOU call them those
The words Nazi and Fascist have definitions. I use them. Nazi is a
bit archaic. I prefer to refer to it as Hitler-worshiping Fascism.
" by someone whose violent will
continue to be
violent after the threat from their victimizer is
the victimizer... IF they're left to go about their way
commit another act of violence against another victim
tells them is subhuman."
You are hypothesizing a series
of continued attacks, without specific examples. How
often do such attacks actually occur? And when they do
occur, are they actually the fault of "a nazi" or "a
fascist"? Or, did they occur because somebody who
didn't like nazis or fascists decided to attack the
people they labelled as that?
The 'attack' is existential... Eternal, as Umberto Eco suggested.
You keep going back to people's so-called 'labeling'. If the label
fits the definition...
A famous incident from 1979 was
the "Greensboro Massacre", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre
, where a group of KKK/Nazis drove past a protesting
group of Communists. The Communists attacked them with
rocks and boards and guns as well, and the KKK/Nazis
then retrieved their guns from their cars' trunks, and
began to shoot the Communists. It may be supposed that
the KKK/Nazis expected to be attacked by the Communists,
but I don't think that absolves the latter of their
obvious guilt in that situation.
I also see a problem with the
labels nazi and fascist. I strongly suspect that people
who heavily use those labels use them merely to refer to
others who are:
1. Conservative or very
Conservatives aren't Fascists or Nazis, nor, according to
traditional definition of political conservative, can they be.
Fascism is extremism
2. People they desire to
attack. (It's much easier to attack people if you can
lump them with other people whose guilt or
undesirability is already establlished.)
So, is there any reliable way
to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"?
But that seems to be a circular
definition: It refers to "right-wing", but doesn't
explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is
thought to be "right wing".
I was under
the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved
government control (but not ownership) of the means of
production. But Socialism, I thought, amounted to heavy
taxation of the means of production, which is tantamount
to government control, too. And Communism might simply
be labelled a form of extreme Socialism. So why isn't
"fascism" merely seen as being another form of
Refer to Umberto Eco. Fascism is an ideology, a reactionary ideology
without politics. It 'shape-shifts'.
they illustrate that 'dictators of the right' and
'dictators of the left' tend to approach a Nolan score
of (0/0): Both don't believe in economic freedom, nor do
they believe in social freedom. That would certainly
explain why conditions in dictatorships of the left look
remarkably similar to dictatorships of the right.
Fascism can UTILIZE right or left modes of analysis, but anarchism,
despite what some might say, is in direct opposition and there can
never be anything such as "Anarcho-Fascism" because, simply, Fascism
is the 'cult of traditionalism' and Anarchy is NEVER traditionalism
that you can justify physically attacking people just
because they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you
don't like. Lest they decide that it's okay to do the
same thing to you. "Golden Rule"
My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their very existence, have
made the decision "that it's okay to do the same thing to you"...
Even if you've never had one bad thing to say about them or harmed
them in any way except their deluded self-perceived harm because,
lets say, you're black, or Jewish.