Jump to content

Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Neo-Nazism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.102.87.141 (talk) at 04:44, 9 April 2006 (→question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPolitics NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Their supporters are frequently low-income young men who blame their or their society's problems on immigrants and a presumed Jewish conspiracy.

I have a small quibble with this. Their members are generally as described, but their supporters, both ideological and financial, are often quite wealthy and/or politically involved. -- April

I've cut : "However, more mainstreeam organisations such as the FN and Vlaams Blok strong refute this description." It was writen in the previous para. : "no political party of significant importance will describe itself as neo-nazi." I think this is somewhat redundant. Ericd 15:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've always thought that describing the Front National as neo-nazi misses the point and banalizes "nazism" up to the point where it's meaningless. Still, some people argue that they are neo-nazis, so we should mention that. David.Monniaux 15:49, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Should mention important role of neo-Nazi &c. music. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(shudder) That's going to be a fun one to write in a manner acceptable to all parties. Probably a separate article, though.
Yes; this was my thinking. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:39, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Bands who are/have been actively part of neo-Nazi culture (e.g. Skrewdriver, Fortress) vs. bands that have been accused of being neo-Nazis (e.g. Death In June, Non, Rozz Williams of all people). And labels that have been so accused (e.g. World Serpent). And bands and labels that have been so accused and sued for libel and won (I forget who off the top of my head, at least one recent case). And so on. And so forth. This is an actively contentious issue, and I shall salute anyone who can do a good job on it ... - David Gerard 15:56, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think the article should mention whether the party is openly neo-Nazi or whether its a label applied to them by their apponents. Those of you who know more about the subject please say whether the party is openly Nazi or not.

Italy

USA

UK

Other countries

Saul Taylor 07:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--*note: Very few groups, even amongst those listed, would publicly describe themselves as being neo-Nazi. Firstly and foremostly, these groups aren't stupid and they know the idea of a Nazi makes people nervous. So few, in fact, label themselves that way, that the term is almost entirely within the domain of a slur used by opponents. Furthermore, if we are to definitely describe any of the linked organizations as 'neo-Nazi', it would be pertitent to mention WHY. Many groups appear Nazi simply because they share symbolism and ideas, and depending on how it is percieved, the term 'neo-Nazi' may or may not apply correctly.

Jewwatch

I object against the inclusion of the link to the Jewwatch website. It's bad enough that these people peddle their views—linking to them just gives them wider exposure.
JFW | T@lk 10:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

You could say the same for any of the organisational sites. Even though I largely agree with your POV on their views, it's still POV - David Gerard 10:45, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Quote: "Jew Watch - This website criticizes modern 'Jewish/Zionist Supremacism'. It presents a neo-Nazi point of view." Point of view? Wouldn't "propaganda" be a better word?!--Deadworm222 00:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

-- A personal objection, I find, is not a valid reason to restrict another person(s) access to vital information. By the same logic, any given person could disallow any number of other people access to Democratic Party literature because they deem it not a point of view, but propaganda. In fact, by that logic, anyone could deny anyone access to any information. We must be responsible with free media such as the internet, because, unlike controllable media which is subject to the law of the country it is based in (in this case, the First Amendment), free media relies on the self-restrain and maturity of those involved with the production thereof.

I agree with you. --ReallyNiceGuy 16:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. If you, like me, consider their material to be depraved, then the best way to let other people know how bad it is is by letting them read it if they want to. In addition, our NPOV policy says we should provide info regardless of our emotions on the subject. — Chameleon 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in Russian

A question to the community. I have just added a long writeup about a part of the topic, the Russian neo-Nazis. I suspect that it should merit a separate page. So the question is, what exactly is our policy on splitting pages? If I put the long description into a separate article, what should I leave in this article? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Watcher 11:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it's not a problem yet. When the page starts getting really long (usually considered the 32KB warning), it might be time to split it out to a separate article with a summary paragraph in the main article - David Gerard 13:11, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

David Icke

There is a lot of data to support adding the popular new age neofascist, David Icke to this page. I have a few paragraphs of information at this point, but I want to get some feedback on this idea if possible. If anyone would like to help, that would be great, too. --Viriditas 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot of controversy over whether David Icke is anti-semitic, but it would be hard to describe him as a fascist. Townmouse 19:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
David Icke is not anti-Semitic. He denies that any of the people he names are Jewish, or indeed even people. His problem with these people's actions is that they misrepresent the bona fide Jewish people, who he has insisted on many many occasions that he has "enormous respect for". Paranoid, yes, crazy, maybe, anti-Semitic, definitely not. To allege so indicates a misunderstanding of his theories. Jdcooper 16:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Icke is antisemitic according to scholar Michael Barkun who notes that Icke promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.--Cberlet 13:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Russia

Where did the data on the Russian neo-nazis come from? It's quite striking information, but it also makes me suspicious somehow...some sources would be helpful. 137.22.1.33 11:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- I cannot provide, at the moment, any specific rock-solid references, but I know this section is largely correct. The reason it seems incredible is because in most of the West neo-Nazism is believed to be a fringe phenomenon, a bunch of cooks, if you will, and whether or not the 'common knowledge' of this matter is correct, it is a fact that in Russia neo-Nazism (at least, as defined by the article) is an extremely healthy, public movement. If one follows neo-Nazi discourse and literature, one finds that it is a very well acknowledged fact that Russia is a central piece on the neo-Nazi chess board, and an integral part of all plans for the future.

Numbers, numbers...

In the article: "claiming that the Holocaust slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews" Entire Europe had that many Jews. Is it posible that SOMEBODY survived. Have thay indeed killed everyone. 3 milions + 1 milion died from other reasons but between 1939-1945. (WWII). I hope you don't see as a Neo-Nazi... --Milant 03:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a frequent point made in Holocaust denial. The facts are clear. There were about 8 million Jews before the holocaust. [1] [2] --Viriditas 04:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
At the Wannsee Conference the Germans counted 11 million Jews [3]. Jayjg 08:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That sounds right. I seem to remember a Nizkhor page with that info but it's hard to find links on that site. I wonder why Landau quotes a source of 8 million, instead. --Viriditas 09:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How many of them moved to live in USA, Russia, Britain and other contries? Has a single one died in a battle? How many Jews still lived in Europe in 1945.? Number of 6 million slaughtered in Holocaust is not real. Milant 22:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I wonder what the use of this discussion is supposed to be. Did you have the opportunity to visit the sites? Have you personally talked to survivors (I mean people with a number tattooed on their arm)? I have had the opportunity to do both and see NO POINT whatsoever in debating whether it was 6 or 7 or 5 or 10 million. Total waste of time. Suffice it to say that my dear Germans (being one myself) almost succeeded in systematically murdering millions of people. Lion, 16 April 2005
Really, what is the point of arguing how many? Can anyone unequivacolly say what the difference between murdering a million people, or ten million, or a hundred million people is? The pointless, malicious murder of innocent people is, and always shall be, absolute evil. I usually don't believe in absolutes but that is one of the few absolutes that I believe in. Sarcastic Avenger 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the Neo-Nazi lists of political parties it has "One nation - Australia" with a link to information on the British One Nation party. Which is intended?

Neo-fascism

I'm resplitting the article, I posted warning that I was doing so before and there were no objections. Mel Etitis then reverted my changes and removed my reason why without discussing it. unsigned by user:Korhend

user:Korhend, I've moved your comment to the end of the page, where new comments go. Probably no one saw your prior comment above. When you made your split, you did not indicate your reasoning in the edit summary, as is expected. Also, please sign and date your comments by adding four tildes (~) at the end. Now then, are you contending that the Italian neo-fascists are not neo-nazis, and that there is a significant difference between the two designations? Further, do you have a source for your assertion that "Members of these groups feel that using the two as synonyms is a misnomer"? -Willmcw 22:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, the movements have moved away from each other largely, if not entirely. If you contact the American fascist movement, they will tell you just that. Most Neo-Fascist movements are avowedly anti-nazi, wanting to make such groups illegal. Even if the groups are similar, they are different enough to warrant a seperate article. Just as neo-militarists in Japan are considered a different group, the movements are largely seperate, and lack contact with one another. They should not be lumped together simply because they are both totalitarian right. Whatever similarities the regimes they are based off of had, the movements are unique and seperate enough that using them in the same article violates Non-Point of Veiw.-Korhend Apr 9

Aren't all neo-nazis neo-fascists? I see your point that the Italian neo-fascists can claim to follow a non-nazi form of fascism, but I am not sure that I see how different they are from most of the neo-nazi groups. Short of contacting the American fascist movement myself, is there any way of finding a source that complains about being lumped in with neo-nazis? I checked the http://www.fascistmovement.com/ website and didn't see anything there. Can you show us a neo-fascist website which is "avowedly anti-nazi? " Thanks -Willmcw 23:13, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

You would have to personally talk to them. However from the American Fascist parties website "We are not a neo-nazi party and we dont advocate racism or anti-semitism in any form. We are a Fascist Party and any American Citizen of whatever race, religion or creed can become members of our party. We dont say this to make good PR, this is a fact and we have many Hispanic members in our party." Though Nazis might be termed Neo-fascist if Naziism is included in the definition of Fascism, most describe themselves as Nazis and not fascists.--Korhend

Personal conversations are what we call "original research," and one oof the founding principles of this encyclopedia is wikipedia:no original research. Looking at the front page of the "NEW!- American Fascist Magazine Issue #6 is now online -NEW!" http://users.aol.com./amrfirst/index.html I see that the main article is an anti-zionist screed (Headline: Party Leader Tyrssen calls to end aid to Israel. Blasts Zionist control.) While they may claim not to be anti-semitic, their publication seems to belie that claim. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out how to read the contents. -Willmcw 23:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

If I could secure a posted statement by Seth Tyrrsen on a site, would that qualify as sufficient?

That may be sufficient in order to add a comment to some article indicating that he has made some statement, but it probably would not be sufficient to prove that he is not anti-semitic. I mean, anyone can say anything. A statement may be sufficient proof that one American neo-fasicst objects to being called a neo-nazi, but that is not enough of a reason to split the article. We can just add an aside that this or that group objects to being called neo-nazi. -Willmcw 00:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Its not enough that the founder of the largest neo-fascist movement in america objects to it? Then who exactly is large enough if anyone. As for "saying anything" doesn't that apply to any one also? Are we to assume any politician is anti-semetic until proven otherwise? How exactly can one "Prove" that they are not anti-semitic?-Korhend

If that is his statement then it would be enough to say that "the founder of a neo-fascist movement in america objects to it," but not enough to generalize beyond that. (How do we know it's the largest? How large is it?) It's very hard to prove that one is not anti-semitic while complaining about zionism. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
And it's very hard to prove that one is not anti-German while complaining about nazism. — Chameleon 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are we spelling the name of Seth Tyrrsen correctly? The leader of the "largest neo-fascist movement in america" gets only a single Google hit, to a role-playing game forum, "Legends Alliance" [4] Is this the same person? -Willmcw 02:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Can we establish the divide between neo-fascist and neo-nazi. A nazi and a fascist are not essentially the same thing. Its similiar to defining Stalinism as Communism. It is not accurate. A communist may or may not coinsider himself a Stalinist. Trotsky certainly wasn't! Likewise a fascist may or may not consider himself a Nazi.

If you can suggest two definitions that would help. The trouble is that while some neo-fascists may seek to avoid the label "neo-nazi", their actions and words sometimes blur the disctinction. (See above discussion). So theory and practice may not be the same thing. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Race: it is a feeling, not a reality; 95 percent is feeling. I don't believe on can prove biologically that a race is more or less pure. Those who proclaim the nobility of the german race are by all chance non-germans."--Benito Mussolini 1932 speaking Emil Cohn

I must apologize for the great delay for my reply, my computer wasn't working. General Francisco Franco's Falange Party was widely (and correctly) veiwed as Fascist. In america there is the American Christian Falangist party, which while racist is a pro-zionist nation. At the bottom of their page is a link to ARMDI. http://www.falangist.org/index.htm ARMDIs site describe it as "ARMDI, organized in 1940, is the exclusive fundraising organization in the United States for Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s equivalent to a Red Cross Society. ARMDI supports the MDA National Emergency Medical, Ambulance, Blood and Disaster Services which benefit Israel’s entire population." -Korhend

I took a look at the website for the American Christian Falangist party. [5] They are explicitly pro-zionism, as you say, and are don't appear to be neo-nazis. -Willmcw 20:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

One Nation is not a nazi group

One Nation may be a pack of completely racist dickheads (and that would probably apply to the damn Queenslanders that vote for them too  ;-P) but I don't think anyone seriously believes them to be neo-Nazis. Yes, they probably get called fascist Nazis by a lot of left wing voters in Australia, but that's more hyperbole than anything. Those lists need to be cleaned up.

Italy

How can Mussolini's movement be called neo-nazi, he was in power long before Hitler, or neo-fascist, as he invented fascism.A.K.A.47 21:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

They are called neo-fascist. The old movement was disbanded and this is a successor movement. -Willmcw 21:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
          I agree, One Nation is just like any other right wing political party (the republican party, for example. --60.226.247.129 09:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisit neonazism & neofascism issue

A number of scholars of the "extreme right" in Europe make distinctions regarding the differences between neonazism, neofascism, and right-wing populism. Betz and Mudde for example. Buchanan in the U.S., for example, is called neofascist by some, but not neonazi. Front National in France is another example, as is de Benoist in France. I would like to attempt to put up a page Neofascism to accompnay the new page Neofascism and religion and detail the groups that might be considered neofascist, but are not accurately called neonazi. Also, note the spelling. It is gaining currency to distinguish the trends from original Fascism and Nazism.--Cberlet 16:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And the new page on Neo-Fascism is up as a stub.--Cberlet 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

National Vanguard is now its own organization and separate from the National Alliance. --Hremmnoth 29 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Now that George W Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?

Now that George W. Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?

How is this not an example of Neo-Fascism?

June 23, 2005, marked a controversial statement from Karl Rove, when he said that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

First, this is the Neo-Nazism page, not the Neo-Fascism page. At least pay attention to such detials. Second, editors can't prove a negative. Third, you need to cite a published reputable source that says this statement is evidence of neo-fascism, And finally you need to go back to point one and contemplate the fatc that YOU ARE ON THE WRONG PAGE!--Cberlet 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Fascism&redirect=no

Proxy system

The article says:

it is often surprisingly difficult to implicate Neo-Fascists in violence or illegality in any meaningful way. This is because these groups have adopted a proxy system whereby organizations which the Nazis intend to be financially, politically and socially successful are made to be extremely professional and respectable, whereas other, less important organizations and individuals are almost always the ones responsible for intimidations, violent acts and terror tactics. This makes it extremely difficult to track neo-Nazi criminal liabilities, because the culprits are often obscure and unimportant within the larger Nazi movement, and when groups or individuals are found guilty of crimes in these cases, they are almost always of little financial or political worth to the Neo-Nazi goals. In this way, prominent neo-Nazis may inspire, incite or even order violent crimes without much fear that their involvement will be traced in any meaningful way back to an organization which has a great deal to lose.

Is this just speculation, or is there evidence of this? The article only goes on to give a "good, though fictional, example". — Matt Crypto 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I can try to find a cite, but it has been written about for years. The best example is Matt Hale in the U.S., but there are others. These neonazi leaders make public statements about what really needs to be done, and then followers, usually teenage or slightly older young men, go out and beat someone up or torch a house occupied by a Black family, or even commit murder.
I have written about this: Chip Berlet. (2001). "Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988." In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Volume 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163. But it is generally tacky to cite oneself on Wiki.
However, note that more than 90 percent of hate crimes are NOT carried out by active followers of hate groups.--Cberlet 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of Nazi-Skinheads

This merge was proposed by User:Humus_sapiens. I'm disappointed to find he has offered no rationale here, since I was hoping to rebut it.

I don't see this as a good merge because Nazi skinheads have not only a neo-fascist aspect, but a skinhead one, and the two aspects are intertwined in their identity. Although they partly share origins and early history with both skinheads and neo-fascists, they have evolved separately from either group and have developed their own distinct cultural characteristics--although the current article merely hints at this fact. As a separate article, we can hope for more detail to reveal this at some time. On the other hand, if this article were merged into either Neo-Nazism or Skinhead, exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture would seem out of place or out of balance with the article as a whole. The merge would effectively discourage potential editors from providing in-depth coverage of unique Nazi skinhead history and culture. I would rather wait a while, allowing time for the Nazi-Skinheads article to mature. --Unconventional 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I consider myself a tolerant person, but "exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture" sounds weird (maybe because I am a tolerant person?). Should we have a separate article on Nazi-Highboots, Nazi wearing red socks, Nazi owners of Volkswagen and all other important "Nazi ... subculture[s]"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The various topics seem to fill articles on their own. Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazi Skinheads are all sufficiently complicated, and documented, to merit articles of their own. As long as we don't glorify (or denigrate) these subcultures, I don't see a need to merge the articles. -Willmcw 09:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I too consider myself a tolerant person, and recognize that it takes particular dedication to that principle to be tolerant of intolerant people—perhaps this is what you mean by "sounds weird"?—but I don't see how this has any bearing on whether a topic is notable. As regards your hyperbole, when such topics start appearing widely in the news, they will become notable and will merit articles. "Nazi skinheads" has already achieved that status, obviously. --Unconventional 17:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

In one sense this is a trivial point, but the article is all over the place in how it spells the phenomenon it talks about. I noticed all of these variants: "neo-nazi", "Neo-Nazi", "neo-Nazi", and "Neo Nazi". Can someone authoritative rule on which it should be so it can be cleaned up? Metamagician3000 00:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how authoritative I am, but standard English spelling should be Neo-Nazi, as both the whole and "Nazi" are used as proper nouns.--Stephan Schulz 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Austrian Section

The Austrian section seems to be based largely on

Stiftung Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes / Anti-Defamation League (ed.): Brigitte Bailer-Galanda / Wolfgang Neugebauer, Incorrigibly Right. Right-Wing Extremists, "Revisionists" and Anti-Semites in Austrian Politics Today, Vienna-New York 1996, p. 5-21)

found online here.

Is there a copyright, or at least acknoledgement issue?

For example

Wikipedia

"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence.

In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the Neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."

ADL

"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence. In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."


I think neo-nazism is disraceful and should be outlawed from the world

Excluded Pro Patria Union (Estonia) from the Neo-Nazism In Other Countries section. (I suppose random parties get often inserted in this list by people who just don't like them and think it would be a smart place to show their disapprovement.)--Oop 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


question

There is just one thing I cannot understand.

Why do american kids think they are right for Nazism when 99% of the times they do not fit the racial standards ???


Nazism may be OK for us Europeans , but I HATE how it is spreading faster than communism !

I'd also like to add that riots caused by american "nazis" are plain stupid from a European's point of view. they dont lead anywhere. I've seen that in over a million years of history of my Continent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SS-Handzar (talk • contribs)

hehehe god how you're stupid. no offense. racial what? ups i forgot it's impossible to have white people anywhere else but germany. i'm sorry, but the racial question has been expanded since hitler died my son, there are nazis in paraguay, there are nazis in brazil, there are nazis in japan...did you know? And ahn yeah it's spreading. i don't live in an "aryan" country so im watching all this from far far away, but sweeties, the history teachers already noticed. the nazism is going to rebirth, and hitler will pass from monster->popstar->idol->hero->legend pretty soon to the mass public, because in a short timeline that it seems to have already started to burn, the world will notice that the national socialist movement it's the best way to live. that's happening already in europe and guys, that old history commie jewish teacher is kinda worried, HE noticed and told that to class, because history make loops or something like that. i think you should just stop fighting and saying offensive things to each other, sit back and watch. in 50 or 100 years it will be done and there is nothing no one can do. sorry.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive_1&oldid=47653085"