Youths in Germany chanting right-wing slogans attack refugee children

[Seani]

Threatening Children while chanting right wing slogans, something just seems a little bit too convenient about this article.

[Forogil]

You are claiming Nazis were neither because they said so as if they were now the only political experts left on Earth.

No, I am saying that they claimed to be neither (or a combination of both) - and in facts contained elements of both. Most historians will agree (and point out that the main problem with Nazism wasn't primarily their social and economic policy - but war and genocide).

The historians will not normally say that Nazis were "right-wing" - but "far-right nationalists" (and the point is that "far-right" is used as a code for something that isn't necessarily right-wing) - and add that the left wing was decimated during the night of the long knives (during the 1930s).

I understand your analogy but I think it's misleading. It would be misuse if we had a rich spectrum of right wing parties unfortunately the AfD blew their chance to take a careful middle-stance. They have a lot of vocal members who don't even shy away from open antisemitism and revival of völkisch ideals.

You are still missing the points: stating that racism is "right-wing" is likely to cause racist parties to become more "right-wing", and instead of complaining about "racism" you are muddying the water by saying "right-wing".

That shows that it is propaganda that has backfired.

Of course, but my point was they wouldn't even declare themselves as politically neutral or left. They like to be right-wing in an attempt to appear moderate.

Why wouldn't they? Some neo-nazis declare themselves to be socialists and green.

And your use of "moderate" still betrays the propaganda.

[Ravenblade]

No, I am saying that they claimed to be neither (or a combination of both) - and in facts contained elements of both. Most historians will agree (and point out that the main problem with Nazism wasn't primarily their social and economic policy - but war and genocide).

The historians will not normally say that Nazis were "right-wing" - but "far-right nationalists" (and the point is that "far-right" is used as a code for something that isn't necessarily right-wing) - and add that the left wing was decimated during the night of the long knives (during the 1930s).

They will agree on that the underlying problem of that war and the genocide was their ideology as refined by Rosenberg later on. The problem is that the modern far right extremists are still drawing from it and it's seeping through to people who would otherwise harbour similar sentiments but only silently. They have also learned to move away from blunt slogans, they have learned to re-word them and to shift into regions which are usually burgeois and suddenly slogans become marketable.

Ultimately they will also see the NSDAP within the political spectrum at the time they got into power. They teamed up with several right-wing parties and movements even though some of them indeed were suspicious about their socialist ideas. In the end they didn't follow through that part. Much like Christian democrats are only Christian by name only due to party tradition.

You are still missing the points: stating that racism is "right-wing" is likely to cause racist parties to become more "right-wing", and instead of complaining about "racism" you are muddying the water by saying "right-wing".

That shows that it is propaganda that has backfired.

In Germany racism is usually associated with far right-wing ideologies but not actually with the political right and you are correct, that it is not limited to that. Anyone can be a racist but the highest concentration of racists are normally found among far right activists (not just oldschool neonazis though). It's all a matter of context. As I said above a lot of it has become marketable. Youths in regions with high levels of social underclasses growing up with a mindset that is common in their household has been a problem in some Eastern regions for a while, especially Saxonian regions. Usually these people would say they are not nazis at all but through their slogans and actions they are often indistinguishable from their far right counterparts. You are basically describing a chicken-egg problem: Who was first? Neonazis infiltrating civil parties like the old pre-split AfD which were politically right-wing and several movements (including PEGIDA) and selling whitewashed far right wing mindsets or politicians and media declaring anyone slowly adopting these mentalities and behaviours simply as right-wing (obviously in the context of far right)?

It's also not simply about racism. The issue is that racism itself in this context is a result of a certain mixture of underlying problematic ideologies. Stances that openly espouse anti-democratic ideals of having one strong Führer again and also again under the veil of democracy, vigilante justice against dissenters and so-called degenerates and a revival völkisch ideals now known under the moniker identitarian movement where the same cultural racism and monolithic ethnicity is employed where a German is not anyone who speaks German but "looks like one" and has a clear German ancestry. Imagine a mix of all former hardline ideologies diluted down to a level that it becomes politically marketable at grassroots level and doesn't sound so far right any more. The problem is that people declaring themselves as formally right wing but not far right wing seemingly are more and willing to slowly adopt these ideas again and it starts from there. Right-wing now becomes synonymous with racism and everyone on the right gets lumped together. The actual far right get closer to an established alternative on the right-wing spectrum. I will however agree though, there should be more of a clear distinguishing but it's a lot more difficult these days and it's not solely because the media and politicians created that, it's more that they underestimated how organized and experienced certain factions on the far right already were. It only required an event to unfold and the refugee crisis was exactly that.

Why wouldn't they? Some neo-nazis declare themselves to be socialists and green.

Saying you are socialist and/or green isn't enough, it's your stance on specific issues. Even the Greens are not necessarily left any more, they are more left-centrist by issues.

And your use of "moderate" still betrays the propaganda.

What propaganda exactly?

[Slant]

What propaganda exactly?

The propaganda where everything that disagrees with him is propaganda. See, it's become the new buzzphrase. Instead of dealing with the argument, you just scream propaganda and that's it. Makes it kinda hard to point out actual propaganda, but there you go, nothing can last, not even descriptive words or linguistic definitions. I'm waiting for the day when logic will fall into the same hole and people come back with "Pfft, you're just using logic!"

[Deleted]

Yes, because everything we do is because we like it. Not because we feel like we have to do it.

Feel like you have to do it? Why?

If you feel like helping people and want effectiveness then you should be sponsoring the refugee camps rather than taking them to your country, it's both far cheaper and far more effective - you help more people for less money since they don't have the same living standards as a first world country in a camp. They don't need first world standards either way, what they need is a safe place, which refugee camps are.

[Deleted]

Because most people don't like to see others suffer, that's what our society is basically built on.

I don't know many people who feel like they have to help others they don't even know. It's stricly restricted to people they know.

Camps where?
If you can find an effective solution that is better and cheaper: Go ahead.
Please tell our politicians, they are trying to find a solution.

Anywhere where there is a safe place. Refugees are already living in these camps but they lack funding.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Politics are exactly like newton's law. Everything that goes too far on one side is doomed to come back in strength on the other side.

[Forogil]

The propaganda where everything that disagrees with him is propaganda. See, it's become the new buzzphrase. Instead of dealing with the argument, you just scream propaganda and that's it. Makes it kinda hard to point out actual propaganda, but there you go, nothing can last, not even descriptive words or linguistic definitions. I'm waiting for the day when logic will fall into the same hole and people come back with "Pfft, you're just using logic!"

Nope, the propaganda of using "right wing slogans" instead of "racist slogans", based on the propaganda in e.g. DDR that tried to portray nazism as something really different from themselves. One of reasons for the growth of nazism in eastern Germany can likely be traced to this false propaganda.

Or just plain "slogans" - basically the word "right wing" does not clarify what slogans are used - but is used to taint all "right wing" politics.

We have nothing indicating that the attackers were "right wing" in the usual sense of being to the right economically and socially on the political spectrum.
And even if they were it is unlikely (as others have already noted) that the slogans were general "right wing".

When Syrians attack kids in Germany - shouting slogans, would you describe those slogans as Arabic, Islamic, or Jihadist (assuming they were Jihadist)? If you cannot see that using "right-wing" for "racist" slogans is even more inaccurate than "Arabic" for "Jihadist" slogans you are just blind. If you would complain for the latter case, but not the former, you are a hypocrite.

[Deleted]

I am sure YOU don't know them.

If people were so willing to help as you say they are...

Why are there beggars outside the stores with empty cups, receiving no money? Why are there homeless people? Why are people still dying from starvation in other parts of the world? Why are people dying due to lack of access to proper healthcare?

Do you want to know why? Because people do not care. Caring is mostly reserved for people close to them, people that they know, not some people on the other side of the planet or the homeless guy that they don't even know.

Where? In countries that don't want them and refuse?

Camps that already exist but lack funding.

[Ravenblade]

Nope, the propaganda of using "right wing slogans" instead of "racist slogans", based on the propaganda in e.g. DDR that tried to portray nazism as something really different from themselves. One of reasons for the growth of nazism in eastern Germany can likely be traced to this false propaganda.

During DDR times there was no differentiation between left and right wing. The party was right in everything. Fascism was declared defeated and anti-fascism declared to be the lifeblood of the DDR. End of story. Or...quite not at all! In fact during DDR times, beginning with the 80s the neonazis became a real problem to which the DDR government had no answer for. Garden-keeper unions - permitted under DDR law - often were just meeting points for Kameradschaften which kept up their traditions of 3rd Reich culture, a lot Saxonian Kameradschaften are very old due to this and they exist to this day still. In DDR legalese it was called "Rowdytum". Especially in the regions of today's Lower Brandenburg and whole of Saxony and East Thuringia this was a real problem. In fact the DDR punished punks a lot harder (throwing them in Jugendwerkhöfe roughly: Youth Operation Centers but it was more like Youth Gulags) and there were incidents where neonazis attacked punks in the open under the watchful eyes of police. They tried to combat it but the penalties were often laughable. I mean I remember when a class mate drew a large swastika during a Soviet memorial hour and yelled Heil Hitler, he had to do some social work. When the reunification happened experienced criminal police officers warned the BRD administrations about it but who would believe some ex-communist officers?

[Mayhem]

If people were so willing to help as you say they are...

Why are there beggars outside the stores with empty cups, receiving no money? Why are there homeless people? Why are people still dying from starvation in other parts of the world? Why are people dying due to lack of access to proper healthcare?

Do you want to know why? Because people do not care. Caring is mostly reserved for people close to them, people that they know, not some people on the other side of the planet or the homeless guy that they don't even know.

Going by your theory people on the streets and beggars would all starve, apparently that´s not the case so there are people that do care.

[Deleted]

Going by your theory people on the streets and beggars would all starve, apparently that´s not the case so there are people that do care.

Few people do care, they can get by day-to-day with the help of those. That bears no relation to what I said however. If people truly cared that they're suffering they would make sure they don't have to beg again, that they're not homeless. Yet you see these same people over and over again, begging, sleeping under bridges, sleeping in stairwells.

Why? If so many cared about their suffering then they wouldn't be stuck in it, you wouldn't see these same people sitting outside a store begging for money day after day, month after month, year after year.

Is your caring only limited to giving them enough money for food for the day? Do you think they're not suffering just because you gave them money for food to eat?

[Mayhem]

Few people do care, they can get by day-to-day with the help of those. That bears no relation to what I said however. If people truly cared that they're suffering they would make sure they don't have to beg again, that they're not homeless. Yet you see these same people over and over again, begging, sleeping under bridges, sleeping in stairwells.

Why? If so many cared about their suffering then they wouldn't be stuck in it, you wouldn't see these same people sitting outside a store begging for money day after day, month after month, year after year.

Is your caring only limited to giving them enough money for food for the day? Do you think they're not suffering just because you gave them money for food to eat?

What country are you from?