Talk:Nazism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 16 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

I said

I said "pseudoscience" because they were fans of pseudoscience for some reason. Ask RobS, I'm sure he could tell us about it.-αmεσ (!) 21:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

For pages and pages, no less. CЯacke® 21:46, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Hitler himself was into the occult, and Nazi race ideas were based on pseudoscientific eugenics ideas. They still sucked.--PalMD^{-Berate Me} 21:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

See Godwin's Law SJG^sjg 22:01, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Definition

In the light of recent events, do we need to review our definition?--Bob^{bing up} 15:22, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

can the new definition include Zionist Jews who believe in their racial superiority over the Palestinians who they kicked out of their homeland because of a 2000 year old myth? --Choose 15:32, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

No, because that would be hyperbolic unfounded inanity. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 16:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Latest edit

A new editor has left us with this citation [1] anyone know what it is from? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 06:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I have cleaned it up a little. The writing was pretty bad. It may have been Fall down again trying to prove as long as you write conservatives are bad we wont kick you off. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 06:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Removing Extreme Wingnuttery

I could be wrong here--but something tells me that by tagging the Nazi article this way, we're (not so) indirectly making a Godwin-esque comment on other people/movements we've tagged this way--people and movements who may be wingnuts, but aren't genocidal. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see why you removed but after much thought I think we should add it. It is a right-wing extremist movement, after all. However there are different degrees of extreme wingnuttiness, which is somewhat clear in the categories. Michael Medved, though a wingnut, obviously isn't as wingnutty as David Duke, so it's already clear there are different degrees of wingnuttiness. In fairness (balance fallacy I know but still...) I have added far-left Maiosm to extreme moonbattery, which is a philosophy that killed even more people when implemented, so its clear we're not shilling for one side.ClothCoat (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually someone else added Maoism to extreme moonbattery before I even did, showing that we just call it as it is. I don't think it's right not to put it under the proper category just because idiots abuse Godwin's law. ClothCoat (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Slave religions

Hitler extended his rationalizations into religious doctrine, claiming that those who agreed with and taught his "truths," were "true" or "master" religions, because they would "create mastery" by avoiding comforting lies. Those that preach love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts," were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognizes these "truths," Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader," and those who deny it were said to be "natural slaves." "Slaves," especially intelligent ones, he claimed were always attempting to hinder masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines. [2]

Above is a quote which shows the Nazi attitude, if you don't agree with our religious ideas you're a slave, I've put it into the article. Also it's better to have other references as well as Wikipedia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Linking "far right" to "conservative" and linking socialist.

As Nazism was a sui generis political movement and as comparisons to Nazism are a common rhetorical weapon, I suggest that "conservative" in the sense that it is used today is not really applicable to this sort of genocidal, racialist ideology. Moreover, few socialists as the term is usually used would recognize much of anything they believe in in Nazi ideology. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 02:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Coconut

Allegedly (tweet from @qikipedia [The QI Elves]) the Swahili for 'coconut' is 'nazi'. Scream!! (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Type of pathogen

Is it a bacteria, a parasite, or a virus? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 19:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Viruses are parasites. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Pius XII

What's the problem with John Cornwell? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

what?--Miekal 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Swastika-wearing Dominican cab driver

I don't know why this guy doesn't want to talk about the Holocaust and whether he's an admirer of Hitler, if he's so proud of his beliefs. But I like how he defends his First Amendment right to wear whatever he wants. Kinda like what was written in American Booksellers v. Hudnut, "Bald or subtle, an idea is as powerful as the audience allows it to be. A belief may be pernicious -- the beliefs of Nazis led to the death of millions, those of the Klan to the repression of millions. A pernicious belief may prevail. Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others. One of the things that separates our society from theirs is our absolute right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even hateful." Ironically enough, the fact that he's going around with a Nazi armband, while others go around with turbans, burqas, rainbow flags, etc. shows us that freedom of speech is still alive in this country, and that therefore, Nazism or other authoritarian doctrines haven't prevailed. Landmartian (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Irony is lost on some people. They also champion to say what they wish, and associate with whom they wish, but if anyone applies it to them they get really angry. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's their right to get angry, just like we can get angry at them. Landmartian (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't their right. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said you said it wasn't their right. :) Landmartian (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, misinterpreted sorry. My opinion is that people can think/write/say whatever they want, assuming no direct threats, but they need to remember others will do the same thing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nazism belief in Aliens????

Can you please add more evidence about the belief that the Nazis believed that the Atlanteans were from a crashed spaceship other than the the Edmund kiss reference ( I have been going crazy all over the Internet trying to find this out but I can't find anything other than "Nazi UFOs" or something.) Please add more citations for this belief. There isn't much info on Edmund Kiss other than a stubby Wikipedia page and a crank website called Atlantipedia that has a virus on it, and there is (almost, I'm sure you guys can find something) none on on the Nazi belief in aliens I hope you can find something to back this up Jakester499 (talk)

Not without reason.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Space Jews? Oy vey! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, a fellow troper has appeared!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I only lurk on that side and don't have an account. Enough of my productive time is gobbled up by the Interwebz as it is ;-) But yeah TV Tropes is a fun way to waste an afternoon (that surely turns into 3:00 am) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Okay, I'll attempt an answer. Right off the bat I think the text in that section of the RW article is wrong. While some Nazis were avid occultists, I doubt they were some kind of UFO believers. As idiosyncratic as Nazism was, I doubt that UFO religion-style beliefs would fit the ideology (clarification: Here, I'm talking about pre-WWII or "classic" Nazism, i.e. Nazism as a mass movement, not post-WWII Nazism, which, being a fringe ideology is even more rife with crank magnetism than the "classic" version). I think the text in the section might stem from misreading/-remembering something like Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity (2002). Here, the post-war connections between Nazism and UFOs (e.g. Nazi UFOs) are described alongside the various strains of Nazi occultism. So, I'll change the text in the article accordingly unless someone can come up with some actual sources for that section that says otherwise. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
PS. As for Edmund Kiss (or Edmund Kiß), several of the sources I've added have stuff about him, particularly Black Sun and the proper translation of his novel isn't Dawn in Atlantis but Spring in Atlantis (the full title is Frühling in Atlantis: Roman aus der Blütezeit des Reiches Atlantis) and it seems not to have been translated into English. So I've changed those bits as well. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

An UFO-Nazi

Who is rather well known in certain corners of the German speaking Interwebz. muss man wissen Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Occultism

We need a separate article on Nazi Occultism in order to truly discuss it. --Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 20:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Jakester499 (talk)

Religion

Some things which may/or may not be relevant:

• Significantly more Protestants voted for Hitler than Catholics (those did not have a Center party exclusively for them)
• von Galen's protest (which focused on Christian monastery persecution and T4) and Christians landing in concentration camps (like Maximilian Kolbe) may be statistically significant or they may not be
• 90+ % of the population of Nazi Germany were firm Christians and did take their faith seriously. This might be added to the "atheism" charge.
• The ideology of the RCC and Nazi Germany had some differences (racism since the noble Christians refused biology anyway, animal rights (Christians opposed it), but also some similarities (antisemitism, mindless obedience to authority, opposition to democracy, faith in salvation by a higher power, role of women, anti-communism)
• the treaty Hitler made with the Church included the state-run collection of church tax. Insanely, this system still exists in modern Germany.
• Hitler was never excommunicated. Yet Goebbels was, for the crime of marrying a Protestant.

193.62.251.21 (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The majority of what you list here is highly relevant, if not all of it. Also, something like 40% of all SS soldiers were practicing Catholics. Not one of which was excommunicated for this, nor one of which were forced to knock off praying towards Rome by the Reich officials either. It's as Hitchens points out. Gather sources on this and add to the relevant articles? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If we mention the SS, it's oath is interesting:

""What is your oath ?" - "I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders that you set for me, absolute allegiance until death. So help me God !"

"So you believe in a God ?" - "Yes, I believe in a Lord God."

"What do you think about a man who does not believe in a God ?" - "I think he is arrogant, megalomaniacal and stupid; he is not eligible for us."

Well, looks like I'll source and include that tonight :)

193.62.251.21 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, just make sure to use good sources and to write your text carefully! Spellcheck it more than once, and please make sure to read our Manual of style and our help article What is a RationalWiki article?. It's very important - if the entry looks wrong or is a grammatical mess, it will likely be revoked. Also, consider registering a username on the site and getting involved for real! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nazism as Leftist

There really needs to be a debunking of the "Nazis were leftist" lunacy that's now in wide circulation among hyper-rightists.

The article attempts to address that, but then utterly flounders it...

Quote: "and that fascism is actually a lot closer to far-leftism than conservatism is to fascism. The exact same thing applies to the left. Communism and pure state-socialism are far closer to Nazism than it is to modern progressivism."

That's Horseshoe theory!

I'm putting "citation needed" tags there for now, even though I find it very doubtful that any will be found ;)

--89.247.126.102 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Make talk page, not edit war

* dons Mod Hat * 

Page temporarily locked to last uncontested version while we await the input of any member of the mob. Other mods, please unlock the page the instant consensus is achieved (as will I). Thanks in advance.

See article fossil record for context on the current editing dispute. It's really nothing major (read: we're not stooping to having an edit war over it on my watch), but in a nutshell — on a purely editorial level, I figured that this portion contained claims which were specific enough to warrant the simple insertion of a source or other (to accompany the text). Just, you know, considering the vast amount of unchecked 'Nazi policy factoids' permeating the web. *shrug* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nazism

This discussion was moved here from User_talk:Reverend_Black_Percy.

Look, for fuck's sake, I can't just guess which parts of an entire paragraph you don't agree with if you refuse to tell me. What I'm trying to do is address that common claims of "left-wing" activities by the Nazis (with some listed) are actually examples of instruments of social or economic control that happen to look fluffy. Are you saying you haven't heard of Volksgemeinschaft or the KDF? Is "Nazi Germany built autobahns" controversial? What?

I mean sure, the burden of proof is on the person making the statement, but you still have to tell that person what proof you want if you expect them to be able to go and get it for you. Otherwise it's not so much moving the goalposts as refusing to even set them up. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please calm down; I'm not trying to upset you. I just thought your claims could use an outlink or other to where you got the specifics (e.g., about the mandatory cafeterias).

Now, I hope you realize I wasn't questioning the truthfulness of your claims (per se), but simply your editorial approach. I see your edit and I sez "Great! Could use a source, though. Toss one in in <ref> tags and we're good!". If you think this highly collegial and reasonable suggestion constitutes 'bad faith editing' on my part, I'm at a loss.

I'm sure you could provide your source — I mean, you read (or viewed) this information somewhere? Just help point our readers to where, please. I'd also like to know, because I like to learn new things too. Thanks in advance! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, I was asking you to toss a citation needed tag in there for what exact claim you wanted a source for: not even on the displayed revision if you didn't want to, just for which part you were referring to. Since you just kept reverting and wikis would usually leave it up with a (cite) tag for a while, it felt like you were assuming bad faith rather than that I wanted to know where you needed me to put additional information. It's the same with your reversion to argument from fine-tuning: I'm rather at a loss for exactly what you want me to do to that, since I'm not sure which section you think is repetitious or what you mean by "nuclear." Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Did I say "nuclear"? Autocorrect, ffs... I meant to say "unclear". My bad. Oh, well — atleast I'm law-abiding. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's bedtime for me so I can't do it right now, but if you could just toss a (cite) in my revision where you want a citation and then undo it, I'll get you something when I wake up. And I'll admit I didn't even think of typo, because it sounds like one of those grammatical terms you belatedly discover everyone but you knows about, doesn't it? Nog Bogmire (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, friend! However, I'd still like to just wait and see what some other editor thinks. If nobody has weighed in by tomorrow, I'll gladly try things your way (assuming the ^{[citation needed]} portions aren't just left unfilled forever). Thanks for talking this out; I just think it's really important that we try to encourage an editing culture wherein sources — even just lazy links pasted in <ref> tags — are made more norm than exception. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll weigh in. Minor anorexia side, I think I have enough weight in the matter to say we should be doing things my way: let's leave it in the talk page, ^{[citation needed]}s and all. If Nobs' Nog's paragraph came from somewhere other than his colon, he should've been able to give a link by now, rather than continuing to nitpick that you didn't specify which sentences needed citations. (Hint: All of them.) ~ ♥ 16:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)