You must log in or register to comment.
NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF 👊🏼
Don’t think I’ve seen a bigger oxymoron before… The definition of punk is being anti-authoritarian.
It’s in reference to the Dead Kennedys’ song with that same title. There was a rise in far right “punk music” along with early skinhead (neo-nazi) movement when the song was written. Nazi punks were trying to flood the scene and people were not letting them.
“Nazi punks” beat the oxymoron by being anti-authoritarian, just depending on who’s authority they reject.
I won’t tolerate any boot on any neck (except if there’s my foot in it)
Did you think this through? Seems pretty authoritarian to me (sounds like “nobody should rule but me”)… maybe it’s a quote so I don’t get it.
I like this bettrr: Und weil der Mensch ein Mensch ist, drum hat er Stiefel im Gesicht nicht gern! Er will unter sich keinen Sklaven seh’n und über sich keinen Herr’n.
(And because a human is a human, he doesn’t want a boot to the face! He wants no slaves under him, and no masters above!) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheitsfrontlied
This wasn’t supposed to be my opinion but a nazi punk slogan invented on the spot.
I liked the mental imagery of him attempting to put a boot to his own neck.
The Nazi punks are super into yoga
we will need them until capitalism ends
This country was built on the broken bodies of the victims of slavery, genocide, and exploitation. The soil is rotten, and the tree that grows there bears rotten fruit.
Confederate, slaver, nazi, Proud American, these are all synonyms.
That is literally every country on earth. The human condition is slavery, genocide, and exploitation, which is why we are the only species left in the genus Homo. This is not a uniquely American thing.
We are far more like ants in our eusociality, and all we can do is hopefully recognize that tribalism for what it is and try to do/be better as we move forward.
You ever see something that’s so wrong at so many points you can’t even work out where to start correcting?
She’s a Nazi, George.
Well the US was very much in love with the nazi party until it became politically inexpedient. Then they pretended they never were but didn’t actually change anything
“The US” was very much in love? NO, a lot of Americans were. But the US was NOT in love with the Nazi party. And if you mean, “when Americans realized how horrible the Nazi’s were”, instead of “politically inexpedient”, then maybe I can agree with you.
The Nazi party’s racist ideology was based off of the Eugenics movement that started in the US. Fascism has a bit of history in the US as well, besides the NYC Nazi rally.
Mussolini seemed to think that FDR was the same as him: https://italoamericano.org/the-italian-connection-roosevelt-mussolini/
Have anything to back that up?
You’re kidding, right? I mean that very sincerely, this is incredibly well documented
Teen Vogue as a resource? Seriously?
The article seems to summarize events concisely and provides links to outside references. We really shouldn’t turn our nose up to any outlet trying to share information. Even if an outlet tends to be sensationalist we should pay attention to each article as they may be breaking a story, provide more research paths, or give an insight from a point of view we miss.
With that being said I know nothing of Vogue, TeenVogue, or the author. However you never know when someone cries “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.
you never know when someone cries “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.
Do you seriously not remember the point of that story? It’s that people will stop believing you if you continually cry wolf, regardless if there is a wolf or not. That’s a cautionary tale for the kid/liar, not for the town to ALWAYS check if there is a wolf or not.
Teen Vogue has an incentive to be sensationalist. They failed as a beauty magazine around 2015, so they pivoted online to these kinds of articles, but they’re still a sensationalist magazine. The article itself still has anti-semitic undertones while arguing against American Nazis. Want to know which noun the article uses to follow ‘Jewish’ the most often? ‘Gangster’ - 10 times ‘Mobster’ - Twice But also, ‘Organized crime’, ‘mobs’, ‘underworld’, ‘radicals’, and ‘gangs’. - Each used once.
That’s not a glowing review of impartiality. They might get some facts correct, but the damage they cause along the way isn’t worth it. If you want to use their articles as a jumping-off-point, that’s fine, but don’t use them directly - use their links and sources instead.
Oh I remember the story quite well. I just read it to my kids. Yes there is the responsibility of the kid to not lie, but it also the responsibility of the town to check it out even if wolf has been called several times before. The sheep feed the town, not just the child. There are multiple morals of the story.
I’ll admit I quickly read through the article and just scanned for key points and followed the linked articles, some of which were no longer valid links. The point I was trying to make was not in the defense of Vogue themselves but in the defense of news outlets that are often ignored.
I appreciate you reading the article and providing your insight into the author’s bias. I did not wish to start an argument and I apologize if I offended.
Looking at the article it’s explicitly talking about Jewish American organised crime groups and their efforts against antisemitism in the prewar period, particularly the notorious Abner Zwillman so I’m not sure exactly what you think you are doing here. They are literally talking about Jewish American mobsters.
The rally occurred when the German American Bund’s membership was dropping; Kuhn hoped that a provocative high-profile event would reverse the group’s declining fortunes.[2] The pro-Nazi Bund was unpopular in New York City, and some called for the event to be banned. Mayor Fiorello La Guardia allowed the event to go forward, correctly predicting that the Bund’s highly publicized spectacle would further discredit them in the public eye.[2]
So they were popular and then declined. Exactly what OP claimed
While Madison Square Garden had prepared itself for the presence of the German Bund, many around New York City considered the Nazi sect less welcome in their city. About 100,000 anti-Nazi protesters gathered around the arena in protest of the Bund, carrying signs stating “Smash Anti-Semitism” and “Drive the Nazis Out of New York”.[6] A total of three attempts were made to break the arm-linking lines of police, the first of these, a group of World War One Veterans, wrapped in Stars and Stripes, were held off by police on mounted horseback, the next, a “burly man carrying an American flag” and finally, a Trotskyist group known as the Socialist Workers Party, who like those before, had their efforts halted by police.[4]
If you gather a crowd of 100,000 counter-protesters, not sure how ‘popular’ you are.
Again, not popular anymore at that point.
To prove the point you seem to ba making, you’d need to find a quote that backs the notion they were never popular
At some point people gushed over Mel Gibson, then his crazy was made public and he lost favour. Could I take his popularity numbers from 5 years ago and pretend he wasn’t super famous ever?
Op claims they were popular for a while and then not. You seem to take evidence from the “then not” part of the story and seemingly use it to prove they were never popular
Again, not popular anymore at that point.
It was literally at the peak of the Bund’s popularity - which is pretty damning for anyone claiming that they were popular.
To prove the point you seem to ba making, you’d need to find a quote that backs the notion they were never popular
So when someone claims that the Bund was popular, citing an event, and I cite the actual details of that same event showing that the accusation of popularity is highly dubious, the burden of proof is on me.
Is that what you’re saying?
Op claims they were popular for a while and then not. You seem to take evidence from the “then not” part of the story and seemingly use it to prove they were never popular
I didn’t realize “When the biggest event they ever manage to have is outnumbered by counterprotesters 5-1 maybe they just aren’t that popular in the country” was such a huge leap of logic.
This is not what OP claimed.
Well the US was very much in love with the nazi party until it became politically inexpedient. Then they pretended they never were but didn’t actually change anything
While being popular and then having that popularity decline was part of it, they suggested that the reason it became unpopular was because that support became politically impractical. They also suggest that the US itself, not US citizens, were in live with the Nazi party. This may be an accident due to poor phrasing, but assuming that’s what they were going for, their sources only show of a small political activist group, not any governing body.
Also, the group, although the size isn’t actually reported anywhere among the sources I could find, was actually pretty small, and was mostly German immigrants who were torn between supporting their homeland and their new home. This was made more difficult a decision due to Amazon propaganda calling for people of German descent to stand together.
Precise membership figures are not known. Estimates range from as high as 25,000 to as low as 6,000. Historians agree that about 90 percent of Bund members were immigrants who arrived in America after 1919. In Wisconsin, the most heavily German state, the Bund seems to have mustered barely 500 members, which would rule out the possibility of anywhere near 25,000 members nationwide.
Assuming that the largest reported member count of 25,000 members was correct, that’s hardly popular. The US had a population of 139 million people in 1945. This would be 0.0018% of the population. To put that number into perspective, ~12 million Americans were in military service, about 9% of the American population at the time. So the people willing to risk their lives to kill nazis outweighed this political activist group by 5000%
How old is this picture? Those are some giant pixels
Wait till OP learns about what America did to non-white people in its’ history.
The Nuremberg race laws were inspired by JimCrow and were actually less restrictive.
Wait until ButtHurt hears that that’s literally what we’re talking about and their ‘gotcha’ is meaningless bullshit.
It sure is, buddy. /s
Are you trying to debunk the idea that Nazis are bad?
I’m trying to debunk the idea that the US is fundamentally anti-fascist.
Nobody ever said it was. This was a call for anti-fascism.
If you want to argue down a call for action against Fascism, go for it, but don’t act surprised when people call you a Fascist for it.
If there’s a real point you wish to make, it’s lost in way you’ve presented it. Instead of being a miserable scold, you could have added to the conversation, but since feel that everything you post needs to be in the form of a rebuttal, it comes across as though you are trying to completely invalidate OP’s meme rather than add little color to it.
Everyone here already knows about America’s troubled history. You’re preaching to the choir. It really sounds like you’re defending Nazis by claiming that America is somehow the “real evil” when OP’s post can pretty succinctly be summarized as “Nazis Bad”.
We did fight Nazis in WWII, everything else notwithstanding, and we are going to have to do it again soon. We’re trying to figure out who is on what side, and with your attitude, you’re going to end up being an honorary fascist since you’re going to throw a semantic tantrum every time someone signals anti-fascism.
This was a call for anti-fascism.
… By way of national pride, forgetting the US’s “troubled” past. Trying to counter fascism with patriotism is a dangerous game.
Everyone here already knows about America’s troubled history. You’re preaching to the choir.
The responses seem too differ.
You’re awfully glib about a looming civil war.
Sure, the person disliking patriotism will be an “honorary fascist”. /s 🙄
forgetting the US’s “troubled” past
The Confederacy is right there. In the meme.
Are you even trying?
Like the confederacy was the only time the US was white supremacist. Ever heard of Nixon and how his war on drugs was just a strategy to criminalize black people (and leftists)?
I’m sorry the meme doesn’t acknowledge every crime of the USA in the space of one photo and three sentences?
You’ve gone way into No True Scotsman territory. Your argument is fallacious, and pro-fascist.
Classic whataboutism
How is the fact that america was built on white supremacy and literally inspired Nazi policy whataboutism?
Because that’s not what we’re talking about in this thread. You’re bringing up other atrocities and moving the spot light off of the topic at hand
The post is about the US being an antifascist nation, while it has a very fascist-adjacent history.
CIA backed coups in south America would be whataboutism. How the US inspired the Nazis: not so much.
The history of the US isn’t “fascist-adjacent;” we’ve had our heads ALL THE WAY UP THAT ASS since the beginning and ongoing. Most of the founding fathers were worried that an “excess of democracy” would be bad for business (season 4 of “Scene on Radio,” https://sceneonradio.org/category/season-4/page/2/).
The US’ crusade against all things vaguely left of center goes even deeper than I ever thought. It’s a bit surprising how many of the most dreadful dictators in the past 100 years were graduates of the School of the Americas and/or installed by the CIA. See: “The Jakarta Method” by Vincent Bevins.
Prunebutt is right here: the US was, at best, laissez-faire about Nazis until it wasn’t. Nazis were good for business. I’ve read a lot on the topic, but can’t find any good citations at the moment. This is an accessible, albeit lightweight entry point: https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/. But listen to just about year of “Behind the Bastards,” and it’s a deep rabbit hole of how closely tied to fascism the US had always been.
Prunebutt is right here: the US was, at best, laissez-faire about Nazis until it wasn’t.
Oh, I guess I must have imagined the Roosevelt administration being stridently anti-Nazi from the beginning, and the mass protests whenever Nazis showed up in the US. Silly me.
Oh, I guess I must have imagined the Roosevelt administration being stridently anti-Nazi from the beginning, and the mass protests whenever Nazis showed up in the US. Silly me.
You are correct that you are imagining this, because the US’ relationship to Germany was definitely complex. Roosevelt was far from “stridently anti-Nazi” until Kristallnacht (1938 Nov 9), at which point Roosevelt recalled the US ambassador to Germany and allowed the 12,000 visiting Germans to remain in the US. However, despite allowing those Germans to stay, he did not push to increase immigration quotas.
Prior to Kristallnacht, the Roosevelt administration, Hollywood, petroleum companies, and much of the manufacturing base were very pro-Nazi Germany. The administration assisted Germany in circumventing boycotts while US petroleum companies provided fuel and oil despite European sanctions. Sources: Robert Evans (“Behind the Bastards”), Rafael Medoff (“Roosevelt’s Pre-war Attitude Toward the Nazis”)
Oh, I guess I must have imagined
Well, I guess you must have been there, if you didn’t imagine it. /s
Clarification: that was a joke and not supposed to be a proper addition to the argument.
How the US inspired the Nazis: not so much.
…and then we fought a war over it. Do you need to be introduced to a calendar?
Half the country didn’t want to fight the war, are you daft,? It took pearl harbor to even start to change minds.
As if the US was the main character of WW2. How arrogant do you have to be?
When did operation paperclip occur, again?
Operation Paperclip: when we imported Nazis to run our government. Of course. Silly me. That’s why the civil rights movement had its greatest successes and prominence right after WW2, because of all the fascists we decided to empower.
That doesn’t make it whataboutism tho
Based
What is IE 33 ?
They want to end Edge and bring back Internet Explorer. It’ll start over at IE 33 since 33x3=88, which means Heil Hitler in super secret numerology.
Looks like a Treaty between the US and Cherokee.
Surprisingly, doesn’t seem to be anything particularly controversial about it.
I’m assuming these assholes are there to shit on the Cherokee for being under US protection or something? Idk.
Where do you even get a T-shirt like that?
China. Shipping is a little more but god damn they’re cheap.
Every year, we open up a stadium for a giant Pro Slavery + Pro Nazi + Pro Confederacy rally. At the end of the rally, we lock all the doors and sell everyone in the stadium to the highest-bidding slavers.
Everyone at the rally gets to enjoy their pro-slavery desires and everyone else is rid of them. Win-win.
um… who do we sell them to? if it’s someone outside the stadium, aren’t they also pro-slavery? wouldn’t that mean they’d also be in the stadium? also, wouldn’t we, then, end up with a lot of slaves?
this seems like a bad idea for a few reasons, the least of which is the hypocrisy…
I mean fire’s always an option
Russel’s slavery paradox.
It could be solved if slaves could own slaves, but it would become circular.
Maybe a circular chain (no pun intended) of slavery can work if the circle is long enough? Each slave/slaver will get abused by their master and take out their frustration abusing their own slave. While it’s true that if you go far enough in either direction you’ll eventually reach yourself, there is not much you can do about it - even if you try to order your slave to order their slave to order their slave … to order their slave to free you, by the time that order reaches your own master the incentive to enforce it will be so diminished that they could ignore it without much consequence.
Of course, in order for this to work we need a rule that a master cannot order their slave to give them their slave. Or - to be on the safe side - a master cannot interfere with what a slave does with their own slaves.
Hmmm… it wouldn’t be circular if we had “levels” of slaves. Imagine you only directly enslaved the people in the level below you, and you were only directly enslaved by the people in the level above you. I think it would still end up circular in places, though, so maybe we should call these “classes” instead.
Wait a minute… MyGodIGetItNow.jpg
Not strong slavery. Never mention the word.
But make it so if you didn’t play along then you would be cared for if you fell ill. Or you couldn’t get food. And you could only level up if you passed the right exams.
Make sure the highest slave owner pays a different kind of tax to the others at a much lower rate.
Make sure ownership can be inherited with relative ease.
Qatar. We sell them to Qatar.
Plot twist, they find that their belief systems are extremely similar and they join forces.
That’s what i used to tell my English mom when she told me to do chores. Sorry Victoria, we had a whole war about it and I don’t have to do what you tell me.
“You’re my mom? I didn’t vote for you!”
“Some guy making love to a random woman is no system of government.”
Just because you should have been on your knees doesn’t mean I have to be.
I wonder why she’s doing that.
Infused brain rot.
“Which would you rather believe? That you belong to a community of warriors battling a secret evil, or that you’re a lonely, inconsequential nobody that no one will remember?”
Well, I know which of those is true.
You don’t get to be a proud american period, since the Confederacy lost the battle but won the war (see the thirteenth amendment) and the USA inspired and created the Nazis (Ford/Rockefeller funding for instance) and then rescued thousands of their leaders after WW2 (Operation Paperclip, Operation Bloodstone). What’s the difference between Nazis and a society that rescues them?
How is Biden different from Adolph Hitler?
This you?
Yes, can you answer the question?
There’s absolutely no difference between a Nazi and a society which rescues them. This is why the Soviets and the US immediately started shuttling Jews into death camps post-WW2.
More Jews fought for the Soviets than for any of the other allied powers. Most of the founders of the USSR were also Jewish! Try again, nazi!
Remind me, what was the USSRs role in Poland ca. WW2? How about the Balkans? The US is awful in a number of ways and are guilty of the same crimes as many other world powers; but don’t pretend your precious Soviet state wasn’t amenable to ethnic cleansings and pogroms either. You’re delusional if if you think the half dead twat currently in the oval office is even close to Hitler
It wasn’t amenable to ethnic cleansing or pogroms because it was founded by the people who were the victims of ethnic cleansing and pogroms. Maybe it’s time to take a break from CIApedia?
Two words: Lavrentiy Beria
Care to explain the entirety of that mans rise to power and how it didn’t involve ethnic cleansings of any sort?
More Jews fought for the Soviets than for any of the other allied powers. Most of the founders of the USSR were also Jewish! Try again, nazi!
lol
From your source, CIApedia:
After this period of intellectual quarantine had passed, the specialists returned to Germany between 1950 and 1958, with the majority of them until 1954.
When did the Nazis rescued by the USA return to Germany? When was the CIA punished for rescuing Nazis?
From your source, CIApedia:
lol
Evil never rests. Neither should we
