Idiots says the darnedest things

So i was in this heated debate with a skinhead neo nazi at a concert in Borås, Sweden. We were discussing the nazi ideology and i tried to explain to him what it was about. The guy had no clue at all and finally i got frustrated and asked:
-Have you even read Mein Kampf?
-I dont read your fucking communist literature.

True story.

:(
Nazis, however, were cool
NeoNazis are just trying to be edgy fagits

Pics or it didnt happen.

Neos just want a race war. They're not focused on politics, which is admittedly short sighted, but more power to them.

Well, i have never met a nazi nor a neo nazi that weren't crazy as shit, lacked a couple of chromosomes or was a serious case for the special classes because of stupidity. The above anecdote were an example of said observation and the purpose of this thread was to bring forth all anecdotes were similar waste of spaces confesses involuntarily that if they were the ones holocausted the human race would have benefited.

>>1
Yes in fact, just now I saw someone start a thread complaining about someone likenning the nazis to communists, when in fact the nazis werwe communists!

nazi = nationalist socialist = socialists = communists

>>6
No you got it wrong, its the other way around! The Commies are not only nazis, but jewish baby eating vampires also! Actually, jews=nazis! Antisemitism is a myth created by jews to sell more valentine cards and garner support for israel. That the nazis invaded poland etc is also a myth propagated by the jewish Bolshevik stalinists so that US land would declare war on Nazi land. Stalin was jealous you see on Adolfs grand penis! The nazi parties of today puts themselves on the far right edge but this is just because they are oblivious of the marxian input. Marx was as everybody know not only a great jew hater but also a great jew! Fucking jews and their confusing conspiracies, lets just say that everything we dont like are commie muslim negro terrorists!

Actually you've both got it wrong. Socialism refers to any act of centralised government beyond the protection of the general peace. National Socialism and Communism are two distinct types of socialism. They certainly are both bad systems, but they are distinct. Communism is basically the complete abolition of private property, collective ownership and collective work, each according to his ability and each according to his need. This punishes the hard working and rewards the unmotivated. National Socialism is actually a slightly more perfect form of control, it creates private/public partnerships in the economy that allow corporations to become governments among men, and sometimes the corporations themselves become socialist bodies when they try to act in altruistic fashions. That's basically what we've got, since the democrats keep corrupting our market with socialism, and then it's further advanced by the fact that the republicans vote for what good be proper policies under a proper free market, but since they are politicians, they do not think fundamentally enough to correct the fundamental disdain for the free market that exists in today's government as a result of the policies of the democrats. Basically, vote for me.

>>7
Hmm. Well would you agree that since they are all the same thing the words are interchangeable in any way?

>>8
I'll give you that, but bear in mind it's like talking about democracies with different bureaucracies and policies. The end result is the same, the ruling party sticks it in the nation's pooper.

>>8
Your anus is a distinct part of your brain. See, i said so, so it must be so! National socialism is socialism in name only, if see it any other way then it doesnt make sense. The nazis existed before they took the name, and they were just a nationalist fascist group. Then, to lure in the lower middle classes who voted social democrat they added socialism and had a lot of populist rhetoric. Their system of highly centralized economy were not that different from a lot of other different countries with a diverse spectrum of ideologies (eg the US). So, either one surmises that almost all countries has been socialist, which  distinctly deviates from the popular view and also render the term socialism useless, or that economy is not an good definition of ideology. What you are trying is guilt by association. You try to fool people into believing that nazi=commie=socialist=democrat, but if you just said nazi=democrat then you would have been a laughingstock. Well,your clever ruse will never work on /newpol/!

>>9
You are just an anus. Go be an hero and put a bullet in your pooper.

I never said democrats were Nazis, nor did I say that Nazis were Communists. There are many times of socialism and National Socialism was not socialism in name only. Any act of centralised economic control is an act of socialism, that's the simple definition it has had for years, and yes, every country in the world has a number of socialist measures. The only one I could think of that didn't was Hong Kong before it became a part of China again. It isn't disputed that the economic model of the democrats is Socialism, I didn't equate their type of socialism with Nazism or Communism nor would I. Certainly the jew killing had nothing to do with socialism but the economic policies of the Nazis were a form of socialism. I personally don't like socialism in any form, not in the form of the Nazis, Communists or Democrats. Not to demonize them because I disagree with their economic policy but I do happen to disagree with it, I don't associate them with each other, and if that is the impression you were left with, then you probably didn't read my post.

Mein Kampf isn't as important as you might think. Important for understanding the rise of National Socialism, yes. But Hitler wrote it early in his career and later changed his stance on many issues (something he didn't deny).

The interesting thing with Hitler's bestseller is that since the end of the war few people read it. The few remaining Nazis don't read it because they either already agree with the sentiments or consider them too dated and non-Nazis don't read it because it's very difficult to open-mindedly read something by someone so universally hated.

Discussing National Socialism in relation to contemporary poltical or philosophical movements is hopeless. It's one eternal "guilt by association" game, since obviously no one wants to be mentioned next to such a murderous regime. Thus, questions like "Was Hitler a Christian?", "Were the Nazis liberals?" and so on are best left ignored.

That said, there's no denying that both National Socialism and Fascism (which contrary to popular belief are not quite the same) originated in the socialist workers' movement. However, this connection should not be exaggerated since both ideologies would later turn less and less socialist. And of course both Hitler and Mussolini hated communism more than anything else.

>>10
I noticed someone on this forum who always talks about ass. It must be you. What is your infatuation with buttox anatomy?

ass monkey

>>14
Well, like Diogenes i am looking for humans with my torch, but all i see in the light is gaping assholes spewing diarrhea. The association is not voluntary but thrust upon me by the flabbergasting level of retardity of some people, yet by some deep rooted perversion i am titillated into debating with said excremental existences. Perhaps it is the confirmation of my own grandeur i am seeking, yet this explanation seems to arrogant to suit humble little me.

>>11
Your definition of socialism render the term meaningless unless its use is to demonize. No socialist would agree to your definition, and no economist either by the way. State control over parts of the economy has always been and will as long as there is a state. As long as a state exist people will earn wages working for the state (like politicians, police and judges) and therefore the state controls at least that part of the economy. I believe Hong Kong also had a state (they were part of the British commonwealth) so in your view they were also socialist, sorry.

>>12
Who are you arguing with?

>>13
Please tell me more of this origin of fascism. If i remember correctly were Henry Ford (not really a socialist worker imo) one of Hitlers inspirations both as a antisemite and as industrialist. While Ford and Hitler were both proponents of welfare capitalism (which is like compassionate conservatism) they were also staunch union haters. Unions and socialist workers movements are not usually seen as antagonists, but maybe history is wrong and you are right?

>>16
You forget that capitalism is a marxist concept. If you trace socialism, fascism, capitalism and communism back you finally reach Marx's ... asshole, if you will.

>>17
So? The concept is used by people who are not marxists widely today. If Hitler invented the concept asshole, would that render the term void just by guilt by association? Nice try, with a couple of more tries like this you may finally reach lvl 1! But a friendly hint, posting insights instead of truisms gives moar XP.

>>18
The concept is used to describe an entirely theoretical economic system or referring to it's effects in a restrained area, which is usually pointless.

Are you not already aware of this? It has been pretty much the same criticism of marxism and related ideas since their first conception. I bet when he was discussing it with other students in it's primordial stage people were telling him "don't you think that's a little abstract and over-simplified?".

>>19
Okay, so what economic system came after mercantilism? Or rather, have the economic system always been as it is today, if not what term should you use to describe the current system so you cant differentiate it from the one preceding it?

>>16
I'm not arguing, I was commenting the OP.. Message boards aren't all arguments, are they?

As for the origins of Fascism, they are hardly obscure. Mussolini created the Fasci Combattenti in post-war Italy as a reaction to what he considered a widespread pacifist and defeatist attitude among Italy's socialists. Henry Ford isn't mentioned in his memoirs and he didn't meet Hitler until much later.

>>20
Mercantilism wasn't an entire economic system. That's like asking "Why are you a tomato?".

"what term should you use to describe the current system so you cant differentiate it from the one preceding it?"

The manipulation of the physical world to generate goods and services of value, distribute them in a certain manner and use them.

>>22
Nifty term, sounds more like your definition of capitalism. But okay, so in your view we have had capitalism since we were able to generate goods and services and distribute them, which means that as long as humans have traded there have been capitalism. You know that this definition is both useless (since it is to wide) and that you are alone in having it. Does theory invention make you feel smart? Because it makes you look stupid. 

>>16

My definition of socialism doesn't serve to even slightly demonise it, it is the belief system of half the people in the country. I actually use a definition of socialism that was told to me by a socialist and no socialist I've spoken to has ever disagreed with it, clearly you are not one. You also clearly have no idea what my definition means if you try to say that Hong Kong was socialist, perhaps before you get into arguments about economic systems you should gain the ability to apply concepts to understanding. Obviously every country needs a government in order to stop crime and economic fraud but only a socialist government takes part in the micro-management of the economy, and no the paying of government workers is not a socialist measure nor is it a form of control over the economy, I don't even get where your logic comes from. A government needs basic provisions in order to protect the general peace, but when a government begins redistributing the wealth and offering a number of services on the budget of the people, then these are socialist measures. Not all socialist measures are bad, a capitalist system requires certain measures of socialism in order to preserve the integrity of the Capitalist ideal, a decent capitalist economy will need roads, education, and provisions that are necessary for the people to have equal capacity to the rights of the free market where the market provides no motivation for their creation. However, should a government begin to become involved in affairs that the free market already provides for and naturally does so in a much better fashion, then a government forgets its purpose and uses these socialist measures to become oppressive, at least in my opinion.

Hong Kong was under control of the British until the late 90s, but they didn't take any measures of micro-managing the economy, in fact I'm not sure they even provided them with schools, so, no, Hong Kong was not a socialist country. You stupid fuck.

in fact I'm not sure they even provided them with schools
All the schools were private?

I'm pretty sure they were. I could be wrong, but if I am it still wouldn't be a socialist country it would just have that measure.

Who is arguing that Hong Kong was socialist?

I actually use a definition of socialism in order to protect the general peace, but when a government begin to become involved in affairs that the free market already provides for and naturally does so in your view we have had capitalism since we were able to generate goods and services and distribute them, which means that as long as humans have traded there have been capitalism.

>>23
I never said it was my definition of capitalism. I am not sure what you were trying to imply. To me my term is a definition of the scope of theoretical economics rather than a particular economic system. Communism would fit in there.

>>1
Communism and Fascism are practically the same thing. Hitler was just such a good politician no one noticed it.

>>24
Your def of socialism is so wide that a Rawlsian liberal would be a socialist according to you, but whatever. Youre self seems to discovered the problem with your definition, that government interference is a continuum and it is not easy to draw a distinct line between to much interference and not to much. Just based on your definition Honk Kong would be socialist because they had an state funded police force and fire dept, something the private market could have provided. If you say that this is not enough then you are forced to change your definition, to add conditions, because at the moment socialism seems to be what you call those systems you oppose while those you support are not socialist.

HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG HONK KONG

KING KONG WAS A COMMUNIST TWAT

>>31 Yes government police and fire fighters are socialist measures, I never said they weren't. However I did clearly state that not all measures of socialism are bad, and no, the private market could not provide police officers because the private market can't provide people of legal authority, and where security measures exist that don't require people of legal authority, there are private security services that do this.

>>34
But state run firefighters are socialist, no? So Hong Kong is socialist according to your and all the socialists you knows definition, no?

State institutions have nothing to do with socialism.
Socialism is planned economy.
Police force, army, schools etc. are not part of the economy.
It's a part of the democratic system.

>>36

police force, army, schools, etc. require money to run. money need to come from somewhere... like.. taxation, taxation has an effect on the economy, thus, the institutions are part of the economy, like any other business.

>>37

Yet another fag, who doesn't know how representative democracy works.
The majority votes for those taxes.
People tell themselves, that they need schools and so they vote for someone who raises taxes.
So the majority pays voluntarily.

>>38


yes... i never said anything about them paying voluntarily or involuntarily, i myself am in favor of a large public sector, but simply because the majority agrees that this is a good thing, doesn't mean that it isn't part of the economy.