Random Political Question - Neo Nazis

[PinkFloyd]

Alright, so I saw a post on Reddit about a Neo-Nazi election taking place in Germany and how no one showed up. That got me thinking...

What exactly do the nazis of today want? What are their goals that don't involve anything to do with violence?

[tovaris]

they vant to have shaved heads and shout „sig heil”

[CosmicNoodle]

they vant to have shaved heads and shout „sig heil”

LMFAO

I am not really sure what the Nazis want with todays world, but the likelyhood is that its just someone who wants power, and will do anything to get it. I doubt they hold the same beliefs as the Nazis of times gone bye, i think they just want power.

[gothy]

i dont know. all i know is i hate nazis more than anything.

[Donkey]

The vast majority of Neo Nazis want National Socialism based on something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgemeinschaft

A People's Community based on the idea that multiculturalism / racial integration doesn't work and nor does capitalism; it's basically a populist ideology.

[phuckphace]

National Socialism owns. it's a shame the Neo-Nazi movement had to dumb it down into what is pretty much a troupe of malcontent basement dwellers cosplaying as Schutzstaffel guards.

it's still funny to watch them piss off Green and Die Linke voters, though.

[sqishy]

Because people are getting more fed up with the incresing power of the EU over member countries, the way they see a way out is to vote for far-right parties who put their country as much more important than the EU, which is their right.

[Miserabilia]

They want a national socialist government, which indirectly would still cause violence, but yes that is what they want.

[Human]

people are voting for them in desperation to get out the EU. they are socialists, and very far right i assume, but i don't think they want another holocaust

[Jack982]

Well, on the American Nazi Party's website, it says their goals are to pull all our troops out of the middle east and put them on the border. Deport all African-Americans to Africia, Jews to Israel, Asians to Asia, you get the idea. (What about native Americans?). Granted, I don't know about the ones in Europe.

[phuckphace]

deporting blacks to Africa is a retarded idea for several reasons, and I think the way the American Nazi Party still uses this as a serious proposal shows they're more inclined toward demagoguery than they should be. if they wanted to be taken even slightly seriously it would have been a better idea to say something like "Let's take all the Deep South states, rename them to 'The African American States of America', give them 100 billion dollars and they'll run their own affairs and elect their own leaders." which is actually not a terrible idea all things considered, I think some Black nationalist figures have suggested something similar before. but yeah B2A is, unlike most of their proposals, a complete farce. a better idea would've been to never have slavery to begin with, but hey.

[Jack982]

deporting blacks to Africa is a retarded idea for several reasons, and I think the way the American Nazi Party still uses this as a serious proposal shows they're more inclined toward demagoguery than they should be. if they wanted to be taken even slightly seriously it would have been a better idea to say something like "Let's take all the Deep South states, rename them to 'The African American States of America', give them 100 billion dollars and they'll run their own affairs and elect their own leaders." which is actually not a terrible idea all things considered, I think some Black nationalist figures have suggested something similar before. but yeah B2A is, unlike most of their proposals, a complete farce. a better idea would've been to never have slavery to begin with, but hey.

Exactly! Haha, that's why I'm confidant that they'll never get anywhere except for having a rally now and than.

[Donkey]

National Socialism owns.
deporting blacks to Africa is a retarded idea for several reasons, and I think the way the American Nazi Party still uses this as a serious proposal shows they're more inclined toward demagoguery than they should be. if they wanted to be taken even slightly seriously it would have been a better idea to say something like "Let's take all the Deep South states, rename them to 'The African American States of America', give them 100 billion dollars and they'll run their own affairs and elect their own leaders." which is actually not a terrible idea all things considered, I think some Black nationalist figures have suggested something similar before. but yeah B2A is, unlike most of their proposals, a complete farce. a better idea would've been to never have slavery to begin with, but hey.

You are damn right fucking mistaken. I hope you study either Political Science or History and realise how incredibly dangerous and insane your views are.

[phuckphace]

You are damn right fucking mistaken. I hope you study either Political Science or History and realise how incredibly dangerous and insane your views are.

1.) dispense with the sanctimonious outrage. it has no place in a debate. this self-affected smugness seems to be a staple of the antifa crowd, why?
2.) I said I'm a National Socialist, which is only a certain set of economic and social policies and proposals. nowhere did I imply I admire the NSDAP or Hitler or their actions. I'm honesty sick and tired of people being unable to differentiate between endorsement of NatSoc and Hitler Worship.
3.) 10 bucks says I've studied history more thoroughly than you have. we'll just have to see!

[Emerald Dream]

The White Padded Room :arrow: Ramblings of the Wise

Let's leave the personal BS out of this please. That's not debating.

[Vlerchan]

What are their goals that don't involve anything to do with violence?
Whilst I'm not certain I'm sure most of them want something like:

To abolish Representative Democracy and replace it with some form of Dictatorship
To deport non-whites (or whatever the non-minority ethnic group(s) in your country is/are.)
To introduce some form of Corporatism/Neo-Corporatism/Social Democracy
which is actually not a terrible idea all things considered, I think some Black nationalist figures have suggested something similar before.
I presume you're referring to this:

1. WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.

We believe that Black and oppressed people will not be free until we are able to determine our destinies in our own communities ourselves, by fully controlling all the institutions which exist in our communities.

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm

The Black Panthers wanted some form of state-within-a-state for Blacks and not necessarily their own independent state. It's close enough to what you were saying though.

[phuckphace]

I presume you're referring to this:

1. WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.

We believe that Black and oppressed people will not be free until we are able to determine our destinies in our own communities ourselves, by fully controlling all the institutions which exist in our communities.

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm

The Black Panthers wanted some form of state-within-a-state for Blacks and not necessarily their own independent state. It's close enough to what you were saying though.

yep, that's it. I'm not necessarily advocating for this myself, mind you, but if such a thing were to ever be proposed I certainly can't say I see anything wrong with the Black Panthers' proposal from a moral or ethical standpoint. I don't understand how arguing in favor of Black self-determination makes someone a Nazi (apologies to Donkey if I have misinterpreted his feelings on the matter but I'm fairly certain that's his perception of me currently).

[Donkey]

1.) dispense with the sanctimonious outrage. it has no place in a debate. this self-affected smugness seems to be a staple of the antifa crowd, why?
2.) I said I'm a National Socialist, which is only a certain set of economic and social policies and proposals. nowhere did I imply I admire the NSDAP or Hitler or their actions. I'm honesty sick and tired of people being unable to differentiate between endorsement of NatSoc and Hitler Worship.
3.) 10 bucks says I've studied history more thoroughly than you have. we'll just have to see!

1. I'm not debating with you, merely telling you you're dangerous and ridiculous. I have no time to affiliate with anyone who tells me they believe in National Socialism, but since you are clearly misled I shall try and help you out a bit.

2. National Socialism ya? Do you realise the connotations of that term? It's almost exclusively associated with the Nazi Germany 1933-45, the NSDAP and Neo Nazi movements. If you're a socialist and a nationalist, good on you; the two are by no means mutually exclusive, but if you don't want to be associated with Nazis don't call yourself a National Socialist. The English language has a funny way of doing that kind of thing.

Here's the deal, even if you don't support Hitler your racial comments made earlier are deeply dangerous. This fantasy by some people proclaiming to be National Socialists that multiculturalism is impossible and races are for some reason best kept separate is just absurd. In any event that this any similar fascist policy has been realised, there has been human disaster.

it would have been a better idea to say something like "Let's take all the Deep South states, rename them to 'The African American States of America', give them 100 billion dollars and they'll run their own affairs and elect their own leaders." which is actually not a terrible idea all things considered, I think some Black nationalist figures have suggested something similar before

This is what I'm talking about. Let's assess some problems.

i. Why the hell make it about race? The African American States of America? African Americans are fully assimilated into the life of the vast majority of America thanks to the progress made by American liberals, stagnated by backwards Neo-Nazis like yourself.

ii. It is due to the huge crime of racial slavery in the United States that African Americans have lower levels of income, are more deprived and less educated than Non-Hispanic White and Asian Americans. Neo-segregation of this sort would obviously put African Americans at a huge disadvantage and stop them from working within American society.

iii. You obviously have no idea about the history of the civil rights movement if you want to recycle the arguments of Malcolm X and some tiny fringe black nationalists that still exist today. I like that you say you "think" "some" black nationalists may have suggested that before, despite it being the entire point of black nationalism. It happened in a different America altogether, where your ideas still had any credibility. The point is that America is moving past race! Malcolm X realised that toward the very end of his life. Read about the effect of his pilgrimage to Mecca, maybe you could learn something.

iv. America is a constitutional republic built on the ideology of classical liberalism. Any move to split the republic as you're stating would clearly contravene the 5th and 14th Amendments even at a minimal implementation, would require a new constitution (from 1789....) and for what gain? African Americans are prospering, and it is only a tiny fringe of racist lunatics that believe for some reason separating African Americans based on their ethnicity would make any sense whatsoever.

v. Ever heard of the Madagascar Plan? That's effectively the shit you're advocating.

3. I have an offer to study History at the University of Cambridge in October.

[Vlerchan]

I guess you're a fringe racist then, phuckphace.

Ever heard of the Madagascar Plan? That's effectively the shit you're advocating.
Would you mind (directly) quoting where phuckphace advocated (or suggested even) forcefully relocating non-whites to some to-be-disclosed location? I seemed to have missed it.

[Miserabilia]

National Socialism owns. it's a shame the Neo-Nazi movement had to dumb it down into what is pretty much a troupe of malcontent basement dwellers cosplaying as Schutzstaffel guards.

it's still funny to watch them piss off Green and Die Linke voters, though.

What exactly do you define under national socialism that is different from german nazisim under hitler?
Could you please define exactly what a nationalist socialist government does and how it works, that is different from facism?
Because I'm no expert on the subject and the terms aren't very spefific, I'd like to hear how your idea of national socialism differs from facism itself.

[Donkey]

I guess you're a fringe racist then, phuckphace.


Would you mind (directly) quoting where phuckphace advocated (or suggested even) forcefully relocating non-whites to some to-be-disclosed location? I seemed to have missed it.

Let me be clear: regardless of what is specifically advocated, my argument is the the fundamental principles of National Socialist ideology are dangerous. 'Self determination' based on race assumes that somehow an entire race of people is able to make one decision, and inevitable does see people forcefully relocated. Think about it carefully.

The 'African American States of America' would forcibly move white people from southern states so African Americans can 'self determine' they wish to govern themselves. If there were such 'racially pure' states (where this whole pseudoscientific Nazi bullshit comes in), inevitably many would be forcibly relocated.

Now you may retort saying no one should be forcibly moved; but the fundamental principles of what he was advocating allows for a radicalisation to take place in which that is what happens. The Nazis never openly campaigned for the industrial scale murder or relocation of Jews.

[Vlerchan]

Let me be clear: regardless of what is specifically advocated, my argument is the the fundamental principles of National Socialist ideology are dangerous.
What about what he specifically said he wasn't advocating:

I'm not necessarily advocating for this myself, mind you, but if such a thing were to ever be proposed I certainly can't say I see anything wrong with the Black Panthers' proposal from a moral or ethical standpoint.

Or where he distanced himself from the NSDAP:

I said I'm a National Socialist, which is only a certain set of economic and social policies and proposals. nowhere did I imply I admire the NSDAP or Hitler or their actions.

He's also distanced himself from the racialist aspects of National Socialism in other threads. I can grab the quotes if you want.

'Self determination' based on race assumes that somehow an entire race of people is able to make one decision, and inevitable does see people forcefully relocated. Think about it carefully.
If he's advocating self-determination then I presume he'd be in favour of the displaced minority heading north (of wherever) if it did so wish because that's what self-determination necessarily entails (though, it would be presumed that those a certain cultural and/or racial identity would prefer to reside with and be governed by those of the same cultural and/or racial identity, because historically that's been the case, and so there would be voluntary geographical shifts towards 'black'-America by blacks and vice-versa.)

People also aren't 'forcefully located' if a geographic area decides to self-determinate: those living within that geographic area just end up under the jurisdiction of another government. That's entirely different.

The 'African American States of America' would forcibly move white people from southern states so African Americans can 'self determine' they wish to govern themselves. If there were such 'racially pure' states (where this whole pseudoscientific Nazi bullshit comes in), inevitably many would be forcibly relocated.
I think your redefining the word 'self-determination' for your own benefit here: forceful relocations are the antithesis of self-determination.

[Donkey]

What about what he specifically said he wasn't advocating:



Or where he distanced himself from the NSDAP:



He's also distanced himself from the racialist aspects of National Socialism in other threads. I can grab the quotes if you want.


If he's advocating self-determination then I presume he'd be in favour of the displaced minority heading north (of wherever) if it did so wish because that's what self-determination necessarily entails (though, it would be presumed that those a certain cultural and/or racial identity would prefer to reside with and be governed by those of the same cultural and/or racial identity, because historically that's been the case, and so there would be voluntary geographical shifts towards 'black'-America by blacks and vice-versa.)

People also aren't 'forcefully located' if a geographic area decides to self-determinate: those living within that geographic area just end up under the jurisdiction of another government. That's entirely different.


I think your redefining the word 'self-determination' for your own benefit here: forceful relocations are the antithesis of self-determination.

You know splitting up my post just means your argument lacks coherent and your response is not cogent. It's lazy and unconvincing.

NB. for your first two things I've already addressed your thoughtful concerns (why you are taking to almost sycophantically defending this guy is getting the better of my curiosity). Distancing oneself from the NSDAP yet proclaiming to support National Socialism makes no sense without significant elaboration (and besides, I am concerned with the principles of National Socialism and not the NSDAP specifically - regardless of whether Nazi Germany provides good examples as to how those principles are flawed). Similarly, saying you don't necessarily advocate an idea yet saying you have no moral or ethical qualms is not adequate riposte to my suggestion the idea is flawed since clearly I have moral and ethical concerns over the aforementioned. Your argument here is pretty poor, since you seem to have just misinterpreted what I've said.

Your next incoherently placed argument is just plain bullshit. "there would be voluntary geographical shifts" - you seriously think that where African American and Non Hispanic White groups have collocated for generations, people would leave for 'self determination' voluntarily? And what if they don't? What if they like the areas where they have multicultural communities where racial groups have successfully assimilated? Los Angeles or New York for example, successful examples of diverse cities. You seriously think they would pack up their things to go to a new country just to live with people of their own race? You must live in some Amish-esque sect where these ideas have somehow been normalised in your psyche, because modern America doesn't have such a simplistic and anachronistic attitude to race.

Now I have purposefully ignored this little snippet:

People also aren't 'forcefully located' if a geographic area decides to self-determinate: those living within that geographic area just end up under the jurisdiction of another government. That's entirely different.

Now this not only makes the rest of the entire argument you have made completely logically inconsistent, with some subject to self-determination yet others self-determining that they wish not to self-determinate, but moreover you've created an ethnically pure government and you have sporadically dispersed individuals who have refused to move. Hmmmm, with a psyche of assuming homogenous ethnic communities can be successful, you seriously don't think there would be any discrimination or problems in that set up?

I think by this point I've already explained to you why your last sentence just doesn't make any sense in practice.

You know, there is a reason that National Socialism has been rejected by almost the entirety of the intellectual community. Not because the academic world is run by a worldwide international Jewry of zionist conspiracy, a thought I can sense running in your subconscious, but actually because it's just fucking retarded.

[Vlerchan]

You know splitting up my post just means your argument lacks coherent and your response is not cogent. It's lazy and unconvincing.
No. Splitting it up allows me to better and more meticulously tackle it.

NB. for your first two things I've already addressed your thoughtful concerns (why you are taking to almost sycophantically defending this guy is getting the better of my curiosity)[1]. Distancing oneself from the NSDAP yet proclaiming to support National Socialism makes no sense without significant elaboration[2] (and besides, I am concerned with the principles of National Socialism and not the NSDAP specifically - regardless of whether Nazi Germany provides good examples as to how those principles are flawed)[3]. Similarly, saying you don't necessarily advocate an idea yet saying you have no moral or ethical qualms is not adequate riposte to my suggestion the idea is flawed since clearly I have moral and ethical concerns over the aforementioned[4].
[1]: I'm bored, frankly.

[2] He supports nationalism. And he supports socialism.

[3]: Then you're talking to yourself because nobody that posts here (that I'm aware of) supports the racialists aspects of national socialism.

[4]: So you're opposed to him being on the fence about the idea? Or not holding all that much of an opinion?

Your next incoherently placed argument is just plain bullshit. "there would be voluntary geographical shifts" - you seriously think that where African American and Non Hispanic White groups have collocated for generations, people would leave for 'self determination' voluntarily?[5] And what if they don't? What if they like the areas where they have multicultural communities where racial groups have successfully assimilated?[6] Los Angeles or New York for example, successful examples of diverse cities. You seriously think they would pack up their things to go to a new country just to live with people of their own race?[7] You must live in some Amish-esque sect where these ideas have somehow been normalised in your psyche, because modern America doesn't have such a simplistic and anachronistic attitude to race.[8]
[5]: Self-Determination is by definition voluntary.

[6]: If we are all about self-determination here then I would presume they would be allowed to stay.

[7]: I have no idea. It would be up to them. That's what self-determination is about.

[8]: If we are discussing a scenario in which enough black nationalists have gained enough political power to secure half a country for themselves (or whatever) then I presume it would be okay to make the assumption that race has become an issue. I didn't think I'd have to say this because it's overwhelmingly obvious but I'll say it anyway: this is a hypothetical scenario and is in no way reflective of prevalent political opinions in America or the current political mood.

Now this not only makes the rest of the entire argument you have made completely logically inconsistent, with some subject to self-determination yet others self-determining that they wish not to self-determinate[9], but moreover you've created an ethnically pure government and you have sporadically dispersed individuals who have refused to move[10]. Hmmmm, with a psyche of assuming homogenous ethnic communities can be successful, you seriously don't think there would be any discrimination or problems in that set up?[11]
[9]: In Ireland lots of ethnic-Irish people chose (self-determinated at an individual level) to remain in England despite Ireland self-determinating and succeeding. So, yes: It's possible for some subjects to chose to remain under the jurisdiction of one government, and others to remain under the jurisdiction of another.

[10]: I've no idea where you got this bit from.

[11]: The last time I checked the minority of anglo-Irish/protestants who live as a minority in the Republic of Ireland weren't discriminated against by the government.

You know, there is a reason that National Socialism has been rejected by almost the entirety of the intellectual community. Not because the academic world is run by a worldwide international Jewry of zionist conspiracy, a thought I can sense running in your subconscious, but actually because it's just fucking retarded.
Lol. You think I'm a national-socialist now don't you.

[Donkey]

Wow I was about to say,
things are getting pretty intense in this thread.

That's because it's essentially about the Holocaust. This is the most catastrophic ideology in Western history - the results of fascism have been far more potent than Marxist-Leninism in Europe and the fact that some (if a tiny and bizarre fringe minority) young adults are giving it political purchase is deeply worrying.


I'm not going to reply to whoever that guy is who replied to me, since splitting up posts produces nothing of worth at all. You are replying to the specifics of a sentence, not the broader outline of an argument. Everything you said has been useless cyclical polemic, inviting me to respond every sentence with some kind of menial correction. At no point do you provide a convincing broader argument in defence of National Socialism, so there's really no point replying. I've got an exam on Monday so no.

I think in a lot of cases you just lack adequate knowledge to tackle the issue. If you is still having trouble with it though, I suggest you google National Socialism - it is not just a belief in socialism juxtaposed with nationalism. That'd be dandy. Similarly, your historical knowledge on ROI/Northern Ireland and the 1970s is lacking (and I can see you live in Ireland before you try to conjure that as some kind of defence). Those two things alone undermine everything you've said.

[phuckphace]

yeah sorry but I have neither the time nor inclination to drag out an exceedingly banal argument over opinions on the internet. I call myself a National Socialist, it causes butthurt, people rage, rage dies down, people move on. it's happened 100 times. No I don't support any of the Nazis' racialist ideologies and thank you Vlerchan for your eloquent defense here. this is yet another case of a hypersensitive lefty going into hysterics when opposing views are encountered. I guess it comes down to me not giving a shit what people think about my political label, I have a clear conscience about all of my beliefs and that's really the best I can do. I have a deep interest in foreign cultures and languages, so it's always a mirthful moment for me when I get called a KKK Xenophobe fascist on the internet. yes I support a nationalist government for a socialist economy...must mean I ALSO WANT TO KILL JEWS. the more it happens, the more exasperating it gets.

[Donkey]

yeah sorry but I have neither the time nor inclination to drag out an exceedingly banal argument over opinions on the internet. I call myself a National Socialist, it causes butthurt, people rage, rage dies down, people move on. it's happened 100 times. No I don't support any of the Nazis' racialist ideologies and thank you Vlerchan for your eloquent defense here. this is yet another case of a hypersensitive lefty going into hysterics when opposing views are encountered. I guess it comes down to me not giving a shit what people think about my political label, I have a clear conscience about all of my beliefs and that's really the best I can do. I have a deep interest in foreign cultures and languages, so it's always a mirthful moment for me when I get called a KKK Xenophobe fascist on the internet. yes I support a nationalist government for a socialist economy...must mean I ALSO WANT TO KILL JEWS. the more it happens, the more exasperating it gets.

Interesting how you point out I'm a 'hypersensitive lefty' and in the same paragraph refer to yourself as a socialist. Are you now a right-wing socialist too? That's almost more interesting than your non-racial National Socialist label.

If you are a socialist and a nationalist, I have no qualms. Let me repeat that again. If you are a socialist and a nationalist - it is not a problem at all! But there are different terms for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism


However the term "National Socialism" would be in misuse if you are a nationalist and a socialist not interested in racial issues.

Just have a look:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%20National%20Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism

Or socialist nationalism, social nationalism. You should probably also define your terms. Socialism is an exceptionally broad term and just like 'liberal' has a different meaning between continents (socialism in the US is often synonymous with Marxism yet is used as widely as referring to Scandinavian social democracies and even Bernie Sanders refers to himself as one, while in Europe it's really confined to statist redistribution of wealth and nationalisation)

It is almost always (and always academically) used to refer to Nazism and the creation of a People's Community based on ethnic homogeneity. Your political label is strongly affiliated with Nazism, yet you claim not to be. This is where the problem lies.

[Vlerchan]

I know I shouldn't respond to AdHom, but it's just so much more baseless that usual.

I'm also going to continue posting on a point-by-point basis. It's how I have always operated - as I said: it allows me to meticulously tackle arguments - and it is how I will continue to operate. I personally don't like the irregular AdHoms that dot your own posts, or the grievously emotional language, but I won't complain, or ask you to change anything. c:

At no point do you provide a convincing broader argument in defence of National Socialism, so there's really no point replying.
This is because my argument was never a defence of national-socialism.

If you is still having trouble with it though, I suggest you google National Socialism - it is not just a belief in socialism juxtaposed with nationalism.
I realise that the contemporary usage of the term national socialist infers ethnocentric fascism. I'm not seeing how such a correction is relevant to the points I was making however.

I've also proposed to phuckphace before that he label himself a left-nationalist or right-socialist or third positionist. If he doesn't want to however I don't see why there should be such a huge problem surrounding such a decision.

Similarly, your historical knowledge on ROI/Northern Ireland and the 1970s is lacking.
Please quote where I mentioned Northern Ireland in my argument. Thanks.

Everything I said about the ROI is entirely correct. Unless you'd like to present evidence that a) Irish people didn't continue living in England/elsewhere, and b) the ROI government set out to discriminate against the Anglo-Irish/Protestants. To use your turn of phrase: that'd be dandy.

No I don't support any of the Nazis' racialist ideologies and thank you Vlerchan for your eloquent defense here.
You'd probably be best just linking him to that post where you outlined the propositions you supported. It'd be easier on all of us.

And no bother.

[Donkey]

I know I shouldn't respond to AdHom, but it's just so much more baseless that usual.

I'm also going to continue posting on a point-by-point basis. It's how I have always operated - as I said: it allows me to meticulously tackle arguments - and it is how I will continue to operate. I personally don't like the irregular AdHoms that dot your own posts, or the grievously emotional language, but I won't complain, or ask you to change anything. c:


This is because my argument was never a defence of national-socialism.


I realise that the contemporary usage of the term national socialist infers ethnocentric fascism. I'm not seeing how such a correction is relevant to the points I was making however.

I've also proposed to phuckphace before that he label himself a left-nationalist or right-socialist or third positionist. If he doesn't want to however I don't see why there should be such a huge problem surrounding such a decision.


Please quote where I mentioned Northern Ireland in my argument. Thanks.

Everything I said about the ROI is entirely correct. Unless you'd like to present evidence that a) Irish people didn't continue living in England/elsewhere, and b) the ROI government set out to discriminate against the Anglo-Irish/Protestants. To use your turn of phrase: that'd be dandy.


You'd probably be best just linking him to that post where you outlined the propositions you supported. It'd be easier on all of us.

And no bother.

Greetings again. Sorry I did not log on yesterday.

I appreciate your concerns of ad hominem. I was criticising your style of argument, as you have mine through the aforementioned latin locution. Hence I don't really see what exactly you're trying to tell me here.

Can't you see that the first part of this sentence directly contradicts the second?

I personally don't like the irregular AdHoms that dot your own posts, or the grievously emotional language, but I won't complain

You are complaining about it, yet you will not complain. Roger that.

I still do not like the way you are responding, because I honestly think it would be interesting to talk with you if you did not split posts up in the way you do. It's almost akin to interrupting someone over and over again, which is at best bad etiquette and at worst wholly disruptive.

If you want to constructively criticise the way I am speaking, or make an emotionally charged argument, I shall see no problems with that here. If you do, that's fine but I'm not sure I'm going to take a debate about a defunct ideology seriously enough to meet the specifications of A level Critical Thinking. Nevertheless, thank you for not asking me to change anything!

Antecedent cyclical polemic continues after your first two paragraphs. I will dot around.

I am glad you acknowledge the problem of the National Socialism label and its inferences. Clearly the problem with using this label, as you have not acknowledged, is that it leads to misunderstandings as there has been. Using the term incorrectly I feel could just lead to crypto-fascism, but that is another debate all together. The point is that if I say that I am, for example, a One Nation Conservative and then go on to say I heavily support devolution across Britain, loathe Benjamin Disraeli and am actually heavily libertarian, what was the point in the label in the first place? Because I am a Conservative, and I support Britain being one nation? Taking a term literally doesn't really work, and it's not good enough defence to say you use the term because you want to. It doesn't make any sense to call yourself a National Socialist if you're not one.

Also I perhaps lacked foresight in beginning a conversation about Ireland with an Irish person - it wouldn't be the first time. My main concern was with your 11th point. Many Protestants do report discrimination in the Republic of Ireland. You are free to do your own research on this, but I shall assure it to be the case with the following links.

http://www.thejournal.ie/protestant-schools-ireland-1079571-Sep2013/
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/republics-protestant-schools-ready-for-class-war-28452114.html
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=treatment [dated, but notable]

Since you mention the government specifically, I will not use the violence of The Twelfth as evidence. But I did not mention governments specifically discriminating so the point still stands.

By the way, even taking the example of Ireland (since I may as well continue your theme of logical fallacies) is clearly massively inductive reasoning - just because I implied self-determination in practice could lead to discrimination doesn't mean I was talking about Ireland. Let's also avoid availability heuristic - just because the example of Ireland is recent and close to mind doesn't mean it is representative of the wider debate. I don't think Ireland, despite the fact that it does actually fit my argument, is the best example we can use of self-determination. Besides, as you say yourself - you did not mention Northern Ireland.

As a final note, I have had the assurance from you phuckface is not a neo-Nazi. I appreciate that, so I don't need to see an outline of his beliefs. I am still concerned with the use of the term National Socialist in this way.

[Vlerchan]

You are complaining about it, yet you will not complain. Roger that.
I was actually trying to be intentionally ironic here.

I realise that wording my complaints in such a manner is the equivalent to complaining.

I still do not like the way you are responding, because I honestly think it would be interesting to talk with you if you did not split posts up in the way you do. It's almost akin to interrupting someone over and over again, which is at best bad etiquette and at worst wholly disruptive.
On all the other boards I have ever attended (two others) splitting up posts to allow for better responses has been common practices: I realise that others (well, you: I've literally never had another complaint) may find it irritating, or whatnot, but it's a habit I've gotten into and a habit that I don't particularly feel inclined to break given that I feel it is a superior means of addressing ones argument.

I could try write out paragraphs-style answers, but it'd just drag I would feel, and take a lot more time to write.

Using the term incorrectly I feel could just lead to crypto-fascism, but that is another debate all together.
Well, phuckphace's positions would be akin to France's Front National, which are generally regarded to as crypto-fascists. Whilst not a racialist - he's a civic-nationalists as opposed to an ethnic-nationalist (though, with a strong inclination for monoculturalism), or so I've gathered - he does have quite strong views in regards to immigration, etc.

It doesn't make any sense to call yourself a National Socialist if you're not one.
To reword what I said above: whilst I understand that connotations that the descriptor National Socialist holds I don't honestly care that much how he poses to label himself. As long as he's prepared to distinguish his own personal beliefs from that of Adolf Hitler and the NDASP each times it comes up - which is tiresome I'd bet: you'd think it'd be incentive enough to take the easy 'right-socialist' route - then I can get over any inhibitions I hold towards such labelling (which are next to naught anyway).

Many Protestants do report discrimination in the Republic of Ireland. You are free to do your own research on this, but I shall assure it to be the case with the following links.
See, I come from a mixed Protestant-Catholic family, my dad's side being protestant, and have never heard once of there being any discrimination posed towards them. Especially by government - which has always been very careful to be even-handed in terms of its treatment of the Protestant minority: one of the major reasons behind the establishment of the largely government-appointed seanaid was to ensure a protestant representation in politics. However, since anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, and I realise that, I'll have a read through your links (even if one of them is written by Ian Paisley and I should be rejecting it outright. So:

Belfast Telegraph:

I don't understand how the across-the-board cutting of grants to fee paying schools can be seen as some attempt to discriminate against the protestant minority: whilst protestant schools at secondary level are mostly private (at primary level they are mostly public), this is by their own choice: the Irish state has always taken an even-handed approach to funding schools, allotting the same funds regardless of the schools creed or ethos.

As for the 'special service support grant', I'll have to look more into it (I don't have the time now) but to me it seems like it's just seems like a form of positive discrimination: protestant schools get allotted more funding because they're protestant schools. I've zero problem with this being retracted.

The Journal

“As the Heads of Agreement between Kilkenny College and the Department of Education indicate, the ethos of the school is fully recognised,” he said. “However, from now on, there are no tuition fees, only fees to cover the cost of boarding. This greatly eases the situation for parents rather than the reverse.”

Is there a problem here? I actually have cousins who attend Kilkenny college and my uncle seems overjoyed that he doesn't have to pay the exorbitant fees demanded any longer (again: anecdotal evidence - feel free to reject it).

IanPaisley.org

Yeah. That's mostly bullshit that avoids the historic realities as to why the Protestant population in Ireland has declined. Feel free to quote individual lines and I can try explain why it's wrong.

Since you mention the government specifically, I will not use the violence of The Twelfth as evidence[1]. But I did not mention governments specifically discriminating so the point still stands[11].
[1]: Could you please expand here? I don't think I'm catching you.

[11]: Ah. I misread you here. Sorry. I do disagree with the idea that national determination necessarily results in ethically or culturally pure governments: we'd a protestant as our first president, for example, and another protestant posed as our second minister for finance, the most important role in the government (and, that's only if you count Micheal Collins as a genuine minister of finance, since he didn't play much of a role in that, with the civil war ongoing and all.)

By the way, even taking the example of Ireland (since I may as well continue your theme of logical fallacies) is clearly massively inductive reasoning - just because I implied self-determination in practice could lead to discrimination doesn't mean I was talking about Ireland.
Yes. I realise this. What National Self-Determination leads to is obviously going to depend on a mixture of past historical realities and the immediate material conditions: trying to paint national self-determination as something that will ensure discrimination will occur - "Hmmmm, with a psyche of assuming homogenous ethnic communities can be successful [Vlerchan note: pursuing national self-determination doesn't necessarily infer this belief], you seriously don't think there would be any discrimination or problems in that set up?" - is fallacious. I was using Ireland as an example as it provided an insight into national self-determination done right, because it can be done right.

Besides, as you say yourself - you did not mention Northern Ireland.
Yes. Northern Ireland is obviously a different case to the ROI.

I personally hold that the tensions have their basis in economic/material realities as opposed to cultural/ideal ones. Unionists voted for the UUP (and later the DUP) because they presumed it would allow them to maintain a decent standard of living (protestants would look after protestants). Whilst many valued their sense of 'Britishness' (and still do), it was economics that attracted them to the Unionist position (despite the unionists being a centre-right party - I'll get to this in a moment). I've always seen the evidence for this in the fact that when times were at their toughest, (working class, largely) protestants would throw their lot in with primarily the NILP, though the SDLP (yes, you read that correctly) at times, and during the Great Depression there was a cross-cultural support for the radical-socialist movement - this would fetter out however whenever the Unionist would shift back towards investing in protestant job creation.

So, yes: discrimination did ensue against the minority, but not because of racialist tendencies or whatever held by Protestants and Catholics, but as a result of manipulation of the Protestant people by the Unionist political-class. This manipulation occurred because the Unionist party being what it was, a party of the upper- and middle-classes, favoured neo-classical economic policies (only grudgingly accepting the Welfare State) and needed a means to appeal to the working class protestants - of which small-state economics is entirely against their class interests. I'm not so sure that discriminating against one portion of working class people for the benefit of another would be such a reality in our proposed BP state however, the BP having always held socialist (specifically, Maoist) tendencies.

EDIT: I'm not saying that there isn't tensions stemming from cultural issues in Northern Ireland - because their quite obviously is: the current debate surrounding the flags is evidence enough of that - but rather that the conflict has been more grounded in economic/material realities than cultural/ideal ones, and that such conflict has been expanded on through the overt manipulation of the Unionist political-class. The whole Siege Mentality exists because many protestants feel that if they were to come under the governance of the Irish they would be discriminated against (economically), and from that don't want to give any ground to nationalist concerns.