The eastern German clothing brand Thor Steinar has quietly become a favorite fashion statement among right-wing extremists in the country over the past decade.
Far from a mainstream label, it made news in Germany last week, when a TV documentary alleged that guards hired to oversee temporary immigrant workers had neo-Nazi sympathies. Its proof? Footage showing a couple of them in clothes allegedly from Thor Steinar.
Founded by the closely held Mediatex GmbH in 2002 in the eastern German town of Königs Wusterhausen, the brand was an instant hit in the right-wing movement because of its deliberate allusions to Nordic mythology and its original logo's similarity to symbols worn by Nazi SS officers. As a result, the logo was banned in Germany in 2004, and the company rebranded itself with a more stylish, less overtly extremist look.
The company has always denied targeting right wingers, but because of the brand's popularity with right-wing extremists, it is banned from being worn in the German Parliament building, several soccer stadiums and at least one university campus.
One wouldn't know that from its website, which describes the brand as a "unique athletic maritime lifestyle label" and shows images of rugged, Nordic-looking men in outdoor gear braving the icy tundra. The company couldn't be reached for comment.
Thor Steinar hasn't always had loyal neo-Nazi support. In 2009, its founders sold the label to a Dubai-based firm. Some right-wing extremist groups called for a boycott of the suddenly "foreign" label. A couple of years later the brand was sold to a Swiss private investor.
Though the company doesn't report sales, its is thought to generate about two and a-half million dollars in annual revenue.
Last year, it made waves again by naming a store in the eastern German town Chemnitz "Brevik," a name many saw as too familiar to the name of Norwegian right-wing extremist and mass killer Anders Behring Breivik. The firm denied a connection, but changed the name.
A 2008 article from der Spiegel makes the point more clearly:
Still, the far right isn't as recognizable as it used to be. Only old-school neo-Nazis shave their heads and tie up their black boots with white laces. Among the younger crowd, a new look is in. Even Engelmann describes Thor Steinar designs as "stylish and fitted," and sometimes its logos are all that set it apart from other casual sportswear.
So...Fred Perry , Ben Sherman and Doc Martin are "out" and this new look is "in"...Well, it's nice to know that the Lunatic fringe is staying "trendy".
I'm so not seeing it from their site. Granted:
1. I only opened the front page
2. I have zero knoweldege of Neo Nazi symbols, icons etc. etc.
3. I may have been distracted by the sudden appearance of bikinis.
Well for one thing the Thor Steinar site doesn't take forever to load. Stupid Hollister.
All I really take away from this though is that Skin heads aren't "skin heads" anymore and that they dress like everyday folks more and more. I mean, a lot of those designs on the Thor Steinar site don't seem very Nazish to me, but then I'm not from Germany and I can't read some of the stuff.
I'm not seeing the relation of the bottom to the top myself. It just looks like a really gothic style TS to me. Actually it looks a lot like tatoos I saw in LA on the vatoes. Now that would be ironic.
But again, I'm not down with the iconography. You could be right.
I remember for a while neo-Nazis were wearing "Lonsdale" apparel because they could arrange it in such a way as to make the NSDA in "Lonsdale" more prominent
The German mail-order giant Quelle has threatened to ban the British sports-wear label Lonsdale from its collection because of the brand's widespread popularity among racist and neo-Nazi groups.
The move would represent a major blow for the British boxing sportswear company, as its clothing collection would be withdrawn from the 40 million mail- order catalogues Quelle distributes to customers across Europe.
Michel Badke, Quelle's managing director, said yesterday that the measure was being considered because of growing concerns in Germany and across Europe that Lonsdale had become a favourite label among members of known neo-Nazi and racist organisations. "Quelle wants to distance itself clearly from all tendencies associated with extremism," Mr Badke said in a statement. "We want to counter any suggestion that we are supporting right-wing extremists through the sale of these goods."
Lawyers representing Lonsdale declined to comment yesterday.
Lonsdale is famous in Britain because of its boxing links. But in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, the label is associated with the extreme right. Skinhead thugs are frequently photographed in the press wearing Lonsdale bomber jackets and hooded sweatshirts.
The letters NSDA - contained in the brand's name - are taken by far-right supporters to be one letter short of the initials of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party - the National Socialist Worker's Party - or, the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP).
Members of Germany's extreme-right party, the National Democratic Party (NDP), sport Lonsdale clothing and party officials wore the label during election campaigning in Saxony in 2004, when it gained seats in the state parliament for the first time in 20 years.
A spokesman for Quelle said yesterday that the company would decide whether to implement a ban on Lonsdale clothing within days. "We are still considering the issue because, despite its image, Lonsdale is known for actively campaigning against the far right," he said.
He added that any ban would not affect customers who had already ordered Lonsdale clothing. If imposed, the label would be withdrawn from the company's next print run of mail- order catalogues: "Lonsdale products are known for their quality and removing them from our collection would result in considerable losses," he said.
It is the first time that a German company has considered action to prohibit the distribution of Lonsdale products. But in Holland, nightclubs, bars, schools and a town have launched a campaign to ban wearing the label because of its right-wing associations.
Lonsdale has in the past refused to supply German retail outlets known to be popular with far-right groups and has tried to improve its image by sponsoring immigrant and gay rights campaigns. In Holland, Lonsdale responded to the campaign by launching a publicity campaign with the slogan: "Lonsdale loves all colours."
Quelle's decision to consider exempting Lonsdale from its collection appeared to be one of the most far-reaching bans the company has ever been threatened with. In Germany alone, Quelle distributes an annual 27 million mail-order catalogues to customers.
Quelle's announcement was prompted by a youth group from Germany's Social Democratic Party, which wrote to the company's management complaining that the Lonsdale brand and its widespread use by neo-Nazis was encouraging an acceptance of views that were prohibited in Germany - where the Nazi party is banned.
"We were completely surprised by Quelle's reaction to our letter, " said Jane Kuewen, a spokesman for the Social Democrat youth group. "Quelle is showing courage. Its actions are exemplary," she added.
Frazzled wrote: I'm not seeing the relation of the bottom to the top myself. It just looks like a really gothic style TS to me. Actually it looks a lot like tatoos I saw in LA on the vatoes. Now that would be ironic.
But again, I'm not down with the iconography. You could be right.
Groups with Nazi sympathies often use runes, lightening symbols are other things with Ayrian connections to show their loyalties.
Interesting, I've been wondering for a long time when the Far Right groups would finally get their heads out of their butts and dress like normal people.
Aside from that though, Germany sounds really restrictive. You can't wear clothes from a certain clothing company? Even though the clothes in question may not have any of the questionable symbols that caused the ban in the first place?
Aside from that though, Germany sounds really restrictive. You can't wear clothes from a certain clothing company? Even though the clothes in question may not have any of the questionable symbols that caused the ban in the first place?
Yikes,
When Call of Duty first released in the country all the Swastikas had to be removed from the game (even though their presence made complete sense) or it wouldn't be allowed to be sold. Germany is really sensitive about Nazism.
I'm still not seeing the connection to the symbol noted but I see the lightning bolt so you could be right.
I'd just like the government to ban sagging pants. I saw a melatonin challenge individual walking by in Austin and started laughing. I mean he wasn't dressed appropriately at all, not like me in my heavy duty hiking trousers and bright red hawaiian shirt.
Frazzled wrote: I'm so not seeing it from their site. Granted:
2. I have zero knoweldege of Neo Nazi symbols, icons etc. etc.
I'll give you some right now. There's the symbols endorsed by the Nazi Party (swastika, SS bolts, Gestapo skull and bones, Hitler's face) which are pretty much automatically Nazi, except the swastika.
There are also numerological symbols. The number 14 is a well-known stand-in for a Neo-Nazi phrase, which is "we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" (14 words long).
88 stands for "heil hitler" H=eighth letter of the alphabet.
Neo-Nazi skinheads will also wear white shoelaces to show racial pride, or red shoelaces to show they have beat someone up in the name of race.
Then there's their obsession with Norse runes, which steps on the toes of other people who use those symbols. Neo-Nazis use them because Norse culture is seen as being pure aryan culture and a few Neo-Nazis are devotees of Odinism. The Valknot (sp?) is a favourite of theirs because of its relationship with going to war. That T-shaped rune on the Thor Steinar's logo is something neo-nazis might tattoo onto themselves because it is Norse.
That's something that cheeses me off about this story. Neo-Nazis (I call them racists. They are not real Nazis) hijack these nice symbols and force a racist connotation onto them so that a brand name can be associated with the far right for the cultural symbols it uses. There can be other reasons people might find those symbols appealing. They have masculine overtones and a sort of noble-savage lure to them.
Interesting. I don't get the Norse stuff though. Isn't Norse Scandinavian? I know the German Opera had similar stuff but I don't know if thats more made up or what. I know some Goth dudes had similar gods (Donner for Thor being one). But that seems to hijack more of the Swedish meatball type stuff.
Frazzled wrote: I'm so not seeing it from their site. Granted:
1. I only opened the front page
2. I have zero knoweldege of Neo Nazi symbols, icons etc. etc.
3. I may have been distracted by the sudden appearance of bikinis.
I was the same at first. It looked pretty much like the generic modern American beach/casual sportswear that a lot of labels produce these days for the youth market.
But if you keep looking you find things like these slogans:
Nordics Never Will Be Slaves.
Nordic Company Division (with skull motif) -- just looks a bit bikery without the mention of Nordics but once you plaster Nordic over everything it gets a bit strange, especially considering that Germany is not a Nordic nation, and it isn't an English speaking nation.
Dr Martens boots were tarnished by their popularity with racist skinheads in the UK, and didn't have any racist imagery in any of their products, so to include that sort of slogan and logo is rather suspicious.
Frazzled wrote: Interesting. I don't get the Norse stuff though. Isn't Norse Scandinavian? I know the German Opera had similar stuff but I don't know if thats more made up or what. I know some Goth dudes had similar gods (Donner for Thor being one). But that seems to hijack more of the Swedish meatball type stuff.
Norse is Scandanavian, but for some groups it has a certain appeal because they see it as connected to the Aryian race and their notions of racial purity.
Is this article suggesting that the US army should be dusting off it's maps of Germany?
Right-wing fringe elements always seem to get more attention than is neccesary. You only have to see the impact of the BNP in the UK. 1.2% of the national vote always sends out politicians into a panic.
Frazzled wrote: I'm so not seeing it from their site. Granted: 1. I only opened the front page 2. I have zero knoweldege of Neo Nazi symbols, icons etc. etc. 3. I may have been distracted by the sudden appearance of bikinis.
I was the same at first. It looked pretty much like the generic modern American beach/casual sportswear that a lot of labels produce these days for the youth market.
But if you keep looking you find things like these slogans:
Nordics Never Will Be Slaves. Nordic Company Division (with skull motif) -- just looks a bit bikery without the mention of Nordics but once you plaster Nordic over everything it gets a bit strange, especially considering that Germany is not a Nordic nation, and it isn't an English speaking nation.
Dr Martens boots were tarnished by their popularity with racist skinheads in the UK, and didn't have any racist imagery in any of their products, so to include that sort of slogan and logo is rather suspicious.
Frazzled wrote: Interesting. I don't get the Norse stuff though. Isn't Norse Scandinavian? I know the German Opera had similar stuff but I don't know if thats more made up or what. I know some Goth dudes had similar gods (Donner for Thor being one). But that seems to hijack more of the Swedish meatball type stuff.
Norse is Scandanavian, but for some groups it has a certain appeal because they see it as connected to the Aryian race and their notions of racial purity.
Interesting that it started in East Germany. Weren't the real deal 'aryans" actually Indian? I never looked into this stuff as the Texan in me rather just run a horse through with six guns blazing, and of course the slav in me wants to shoot at the Reichstag with an SU 152. hey its what we do...
Frazzled wrote: I'm so not seeing it from their site. Granted:
1. I only opened the front page
2. I have zero knoweldege of Neo Nazi symbols, icons etc. etc.
3. I may have been distracted by the sudden appearance of bikinis.
I was the same at first. It looked pretty much like the generic modern American beach/casual sportswear that a lot of labels produce these days for the youth market.
But if you keep looking you find things like these slogans:
Nordics Never Will Be Slaves.
Nordic Company Division (with skull motif) -- just looks a bit bikery without the mention of Nordics but once you plaster Nordic over everything it gets a bit strange, especially considering that Germany is not a Nordic nation, and it isn't an English speaking nation.
Dr Martens boots were tarnished by their popularity with racist skinheads in the UK, and didn't have any racist imagery in any of their products, so to include that sort of slogan and logo is rather suspicious.
Interesting that it started in East Germany. Weren't the real deal 'aryans" actually Indian? I never looked into this stuff as the Texan in me rather just run a horse through with six guns blazing, and of course the salv in me wants to shoot at the Reichstag with an SU 152. hey its what we do...
Indian Sanskrit word in origin and also used in Iran.
Frazzled wrote: Interesting that it started in East Germany. Weren't the real deal 'aryans" actually Indian? I never looked into this stuff as the Texan in me rather just run a horse through with six guns blazing, and of course the slav in me wants to shoot at the Reichstag with an SU 152. hey its what we do...
Aryanism developed as a racial ideology that claimed that the Aryan race was a master race. While originally meant simply as a neutral ethno-linguistic classification; by the late 19th century onwards the concept of the Aryan race was used by proponents of ideologically-motivated racism and white supremacism such as in doctrines of Nazism and neo-Nazism. . .
The ideology of Nazism was based upon the conception of the Aryan race being a master race. The Nazi conception of the Aryan race arose from earlier proponents of a supremacist conception of the race as described by racial theorist figures such as Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. The Nazis were divided on some parts of the constitution of the Aryan race.
Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther identified the Aryan race in Europe as having five subtype races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic.[40] Günther applied a Nordicist conception that Nordics were the highest in the racial hierarchy amongst these five Aryan subtype races.[41] In his book Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (1922) ("Racial Science of the German People"), Günther recognized Germans as being composed of all five Aryan subtypes, but emphasized the strong Nordic heritage amongst Germans.[42] He defined each racial subtype according to general physical appearance and their psychological qualities including their "racial soul" - referring to their emotional traits and religious beliefs, and provided detailed information on their hair, eye, and skin colours, facial structure.[42] He provided photographs of Germans identified as Nordic in places like Bedan, Stuttgart, Salzburg, and Schwaben; and provided photographs of Germans he identified as Alpine and Mediterranean types, especially in Vorarlberg, Bavaria, and the Black Forest region of Baden.[42] Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler read Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes that influenced his racial policy, and with Nazi backing, Günther attained a position in the anthropology department at the University of Jena in 1932 where Hitler attended Günther's inaugural lecture at Jena.[43]
Günther distinguished Aryans from Jews, and identified Jews as descending from non-European races, and particularly what he classified as the Near Asian race (Vorderasiatische) more commonly known as the Armenoid race, and said that such origins rendered Jews as fundamentally different and incompatible with Germans and most Europeans.[44] This association of Jews with the Armenoid type had been utilized by Zionist Jews who claimed that Jews were a group within that type.[45] He claimed that the Near Eastern race descended from the Caucasus in the fifth and fourth millennia BC, and that it had expanded into Asia Minor and Mesopotamia and eventually to the west coat of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.[46] Aside from ascribing Armenians and Jews as having Near Eastern characteristics, he ascribed them to several other contemporary peoples, including: Greeks, Turks, Syrians, and Iranians.[47] In his work Racial Characteristics of the Jewish People, he defined the racial soul of the Near Eastern race as emphasizing a "commercial spirit" (Handelgeist), and describing them as "artful traders" - a term that Gunther ascribed as being used by Jewish racial theorist Samuel Weissenberg to describe contemporary Armenians, Greeks, and Jews.[48] Günther added to that description of the Near Eastern type being commercially spirited and artful traders, that the type held strong psychological manipulation skills that aided them in trade.[49] He claimed that the Near Eastern race had been "bred not so much for the conquest and exploitation of nature as it was for the conquest and exploitation of people".[50]
Hitler's conception of the Aryan race explicitly excluded the vast majority of Slavs from being part of the master race, regarding Slavs as having dangerous Jewish and Asiatic influences, which made them belong to Jewish Bolshevism.[51] The Nazis because of this declared Slavs to be untermenschen (subhumans).[52] Exceptions were made for certain Slavs who were deemed to have sufficient Aryan characteristics.[53] Hitler described Slavs as "a mass of born slaves who feel the need of a master".[54] Hitler declared that because Slavs were subhumans that the Geneva Conventions were not applicable to them, and German soldiers in World War II were thus permitted to ignore the Geneva Conventions in regards to Slavs. [55] Hitler called Slavs "a rabbit family" meaning they were intrinsically idle and disorganized.[56] Nazi Germany's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels had media speak of Slavs as primitive animals whom were from the Siberian tundra who were like a "dark wave of filth".[57][58] The Nazi notion of Slavs being inferior was part of the agenda for creating Lebensraum ("living space") for Germans and other Germanic people in eastern Europe that was initiated during World War II under Generalplan Ost, millions of Germans and other Germanic settlers would be moved into conquered territories of Eastern Europe, while the original Slavic inhabitants were to be annihilated, removed, or enslaved.[59] Nazi Germany's ally the Independent State of Croatia rejected the common conception that Croats were primarily a Slavic people and claimed that Croats were primarily the descendents of the Germanic Goths.[60] However the Nazi regime continued to classify Croats as "subhuman" in spite of the alliance.[61] Nazi Germany's policy changed towards Slavs in response to military manpower shortages, in which it accepted Slavs to serve in its armed forces within occupied territories, in spite of them being considered subhuman, as a pragmatic means to resolve such manpower shortages.[62]
The Ahnenpass which was said to be "documented proof of one's Aryan lineage" stated that "wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian".[63] Hitler often doubted whether Czechs were Aryan or not, he said in his table talk "It is enough for a Czech to grow a moustache for anyone to see, from the way the thing droops, that his origin is Mongoloian.[64] After the occupation of Poland, most Poles were regarded as untermenschen to be used by Germany as manual labourers.[65] The question of whether Italians were Aryan enough was questioned by the Nazi racial theorists, Hitler viewed northern Italians as strongly Aryan but not southern Italians. The Nazis viewed the downfall of the Roman Empire as being the result of the pollution of blood from racial intermixing, claiming that Italians were a hybrid of races, including black African races. Hitler even mentioned his view of the presence of Negroid blood in the Mediterranean peoples during his first meeting with Mussolini in 1934.[66]
German Interior Ministry official Albert Gorter drafted an official definition of the Aryan Race for the new Civil Service Law that included European Aryans and Asian Aryans of the subtype race known as Irano-Afghan.[67] However Achim Gerke revised Gorter's draft of the Civil Service Law by removing such contemporary Asian people from the definition of the Aryan race, as they were considered too foreign to be connected with the Aryan Race as in Europe.[68]
The idea of the Northern origins of the Aryans was particularly influential in Germany. It was widely believed that the "Vedic Aryans" were ethnically identical to the Goths, Vandals and other ancient Germanic peoples of the Völkerwanderung. This idea was often intertwined with antisemitic ideas. The distinctions between the "Aryan" and "Semitic" peoples were based on the aforementioned linguistic and ethnic history. A complete, highly speculative theory of Aryan and anti-Semitic history can be found in Alfred Rosenberg's major work, The Myth of the Twentieth Century. Rosenberg's account of ancient history, melded with his racial speculations, proved to be very effective in spreading racialism among German intellectuals in the early twentieth century, especially after the First World War.
Semitic peoples came to be seen as a foreign presence within Aryan societies, and the Semitic peoples were often pointed to as the cause of conversion and destruction of social order and values leading to culture and civilization's downfall by proto-Nazi theorists such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
These and other ideas evolved into the Nazi use of the term "Aryan race" to refer to what they saw as being a master race, which was narrowly defined by the Nazis as being identical with the Nordic race, followed by other sub-races of the Aryan race. They worked to maintain the purity of this race through eugenics programs (including anti-miscegenation legislation, compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and the mentally deficient, the execution of the institutionalized mentally ill as part of a euthanasia program).
Heinrich Himmler (the Reichsführer of the SS), the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the Final Solution, or The Holocaust,[69] told his personal masseur Felix Kersten that he always carried with him a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad Gita because it relieved him of guilt about what he was doing – he felt that like the warrior Arjuna, he was simply doing his duty without attachment to his actions.[70]
Frazzled wrote: Interesting. I don't get the Norse stuff though. Isn't Norse Scandinavian? I know the German Opera had similar stuff but I don't know if thats more made up or what. I know some Goth dudes had similar gods (Donner for Thor being one). But that seems to hijack more of the Swedish meatball type stuff.
Norse is Scandanavian, but for some groups it has a certain appeal because they see it as connected to the Aryian race and their notions of racial purity.
There's a few funny things about it though.
If they accept the Asatru, then they accept Odin as the All-Father.
The All-Father created each race and is the father of all man- (and woman-) kind.
This therefore means that under Odinism and other neo-Pagan Norse religions racism is prohibited.
Frazzled wrote: Interesting. I don't get the Norse stuff though. Isn't Norse Scandinavian? I know the German Opera had similar stuff but I don't know if thats more made up or what. I know some Goth dudes had similar gods (Donner for Thor being one). But that seems to hijack more of the Swedish meatball type stuff.
Norse is Scandanavian, but for some groups it has a certain appeal because they see it as connected to the Aryian race and their notions of racial purity.
There's a few funny things about it though.
If they accept the Asatru, then they accept Odin as the All-Father.
The All-Father created each race and is the father of all man- (and woman-) kind.
This therefore means that under Odinism and other neo-Pagan Norse religions racism is prohibited.
Suck it, Neo-Nazis.
Which is why the Nazi's said the only real humans were those of pure Aryan ancestry. Everyone else were just sub-humans.
It states that because many of the gods, and the gods after Ragnarok, are/will be mixed, racial purity is total BS. If racial mixing is good enough for the gods, isn't it good enough for everyone? The site even quotes the Voluspa, so extra points there.
The issue here is normalization. Since WWII, Nazi-style nationalist-racist aesthetics and values have been firmly non-normative in the Western countries at least. There has been, to coin a phrase, a fairly strict swastika taboo. Thor Steiner shows that mainstream cultural artifacts can be "laced" with supposedly non-normative content. If Nazism can blend in so easily with mainstream culture, perhaps there is something wrong with mainstream culture. In Germany, I think this ties into the worries about inadequate de-Nazification.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is this article suggesting that the US army should be dusting off it's maps of Germany?
Right-wing fringe elements always seem to get more attention than is neccesary. You only have to see the impact of the BNP in the UK. 1.2% of the national vote always sends out politicians into a panic.
Golden dawn is a better example than BNP. GD has like 7% of the vote.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I would like to point out at that the vast majority of skinheads aren't neo facist tossers.
What? Do you mean just people with shaved heads? That I agree. But without a doubt I can say most skinheads are deplorable racist scum.
I really think this has to be a misunderstanding, as from talking to you before there's no way you're a Na-zee. But skinhead has a very specific meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I just read the Wiki. I was wrong skinheads weren't always right-wing racists. But they kinda are now. If I wear Doc Martens with my jeans tucked in with a shaved head, most people are going to think I'm a racist.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I would like to point out at that the vast majority of skinheads aren't neo facist tossers.
What? Do you mean just people with shaved heads? That I agree. But without a doubt I can say most skinheads are deplorable racist scum.
I really think this has to be a misunderstanding, as from talking to you before there's no way you're a Na-zee. But skinhead has a very specific meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I just read the Wiki. I was wrong skinheads weren't always right-wing racists. But they kinda are now. If I wear Doc Martens with my jeans tucked in with a shaved head, most people are going to think I'm a racist.
They still aren't. The Neo Nazis just get the most press.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I would like to point out at that the vast majority of skinheads aren't neo facist tossers.
What? Do you mean just people with shaved heads? That I agree. But without a doubt I can say most skinheads are deplorable racist scum.
I really think this has to be a misunderstanding, as from talking to you before there's no way you're a Na-zee. But skinhead has a very specific meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I just read the Wiki. I was wrong skinheads weren't always right-wing racists. But they kinda are now. If I wear Doc Martens with my jeans tucked in with a shaved head, most people are going to think I'm a racist.
They still aren't. The Neo Nazis just get the most press.
Which means they get the most attention. Maybe where you are is different but if I say "I'm a skinhead now!" that means one thing.
So your point is what? People have corrupted and misinterpreted a social movement? I'm actually trying to think of a social movement that didnt gak all over their political motives.
People are not necessarily neo-nazis just because they wear Thor. It's not the clothes that make the man.
Thor gets a bad rep because it is worn by neo-nazis. The men make the clothes.
You can argue the intentions of the makers/owners of Thor separately. But even if they have no feelings towards anything neo-nazis stand for the actions by those who wear the brand taints them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Watching this anti-nazi protest video that is always one of my favorites (just because I don't think I have ever seen the German Polizei draw their guns on people in 16 years that I lived there) I think the neo-nazis are wearing a certain brand of t-shirts:
Manchu wrote: Thor Steiner shows that mainstream cultural artifacts can be "laced" with supposedly non-normative content. If Nazism can blend in so easily with mainstream culture, perhaps there is something wrong with mainstream culture. In Germany, I think this ties into the worries about inadequate de-Nazification.
Could you explain what you mean here? The way it reads at first glance is that you don't feel society is knee-jerk enough when faced with anything resembling old Fascist aesthetics or iconography, or even completely unrelated aesthetics/iconography that happen to have been adopted by/become popular with universally reviled and marginalized parties or groups, but this doesn't really seem to line up with the rest of the post.
If that happened to be spot on: society is extremely knee-jerk in responding to these sorts of things, and it seems rather counter-productive to let a failed, antiquated ideology dictate what's aesthetically acceptable so strongly (if only through giving them the power to irreparably taint any given image at will). Thor Steiner seems pretty clearly involved in cultivating extremists as its primary demographic, however, though their ability to sew iconography onto modern clothing doesn't really reflect on a failing of modern clothing...
While Nazi's are scumbags, I think Germany is way too heavy handed in their attempts to suppress any and all forms of Nazisim. They're really just jumping at shadows 95% of the time.
Plus its dangerously close to freedom of speech suppression.
While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason. Simply wearing a swastika or other symbols is within reason IMO. Having a shirt with explicitly racist slurs would not be.
That video really just seemed like deliberate provocation. The protestors were deliberatly attempting to get a reaction out of those guys there, and they succeeded. Slightly disturbing is the police not attempting to diffuse the situation, but rather waiting for the nazi dudes to make a move.
Of course that could be just the way the video was filming and not showing the whole picture.
Grey Templar wrote: While Nazi's are scumbags, I think Germany is way too heavy handed in their attempts to suppress any and all forms of Nazisim. They're really just jumping at shadows 95% of the time.
Plus its dangerously close to freedom of speech suppression.
While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason. Simply wearing a swastika or other symbols is within reason IMO. Having a shirt with explicitly racist slurs would not be.
To be honest, and I say that as a German that grew up in Germany and somebody who has been exposed to all of this:
There is not really any difference between wearing a swastika in Germany and wearing a shirt that says "die in a gas chamber all you Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies and Blacks". The message is simply the same. You can argue all you want about how Hitler & Co ruined the meaning of the swastika for everyone there, but that is just how it is.
That video really just seemed like deliberate provocation. The protestors were deliberatly attempting to get a reaction out of those guys there, and they succeeded. Slightly disturbing is the police not attempting to diffuse the situation, but rather waiting for the nazi dudes to make a move.
Of course that could be just the way the video was filming and not showing the whole picture.
Well, from what I know about the story the protesters did have a permit to march on that street and since it was an anti-Nazi protest they did walk by a pro-Nazi building on purpose. They did provoke and the neo-nazis did react (imagine that provoking angry guys would result in them becoming angry). There was really nothing for the Polizei to prevent as long as the protesters were just talking and chanting, freedom of speech and all that. After the neo-nazis did try to attack and the Polizei stopped them you could hear something being thrown at the nazis and at this point the Polizei did take up position in front of the building facing the crowd (who was becoming the aggressor at this point) and telling them that they need to move along and leave.
Seriously, its been almost 70 years. Maybe its time to get over it?
And my issue is one of principle. If you truly believe in freedom of speech, you can't suppress another person's views because you disagree with them. If you start making exceptions to this freedom you can end with a slipperly slope towards totalitarianisim. "everyone has the right to freedom of speech and viewpoint, except Nazis. and Communisits. and Muslims. and Christians. and Bronies. and Rentistoodamnhigh-icrats etc..."
Who decides where that line is drawn? If it becomes a consensus of the majority it is a form or persecution that could be turned on anyone the majority feels is socially unacceptable.
Edit: Ok, as long as the police weren't taking sides.
Of course I as an issuer of the permit wouldn't permit a protest march to go along a route that would knowingly cross paths with the opposition, especially on an issue that is likely to result in violence. Thats just the height of stupidity, and could be seen as the establishment using the protest to further a political agenda(driving the Nazis away using protesters)
Seriously, its been almost 70 years. Maybe its time to get over it?
I don't even have anything. Really? Just really. Get over it? I don't even.. Stepping away before I get banned. Knock yourself out trying to defend that Grey.
What? I'm just saying Nazis have a right to their beliefs as well. Just like you and I have the right to believe that they are scum not fit to breath the same air.
Excessivly suppressing that right is somewhat hypocritical in a supposedly enlightened society that allows for freedom of expression.
Saying Nazis don't have a right to their beliefs makes you just as bad as they are IMO.
Do the Nazis have the right to act on all their beliefs? No way, just like nobody is allowed to 100% act on their beliefs(which is what Anarchy is)
Germany, and many places in the world, have supressed Nazisim to where its practically criminal to be one. Thats wrong IMO.
Watching this anti-nazi protest video that is always one of my favorites (just because I don't think I have ever seen the German Polizei draw their guns on people in 16 years that I lived there)
That video is intense! I don't think I've even seen any of the Polizei put their hand on their gun, much less actually draw. I've seen German riot police in full gear in Munich and Berlin and I knew they wouldn't mess around if the gak hit the fan, but it was always pretty low key. They pretty much just stood around and kept and eye on things. Most of the time they would just be chatting with people in the crowd. That video definitely takes the cake. It's hilarious how fast the skinheads with baseball bats back down.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Thor Steiner seems pretty clearly involved in cultivating extremists as its primary demographic, however, though their ability to sew iconography onto modern clothing doesn't really reflect on a failing of modern clothing...
They're not just slapping something clearly contradictory onto modern fashion. Modern fashion seemingly has room, as it were, for this iconography.
Because stylized images emblazoned on clothing are a common thing? I mean yeah, I think wearing clothing emblazoned with images or slogans is kind of tacky, but I can't really consider the matter a moral problem on the grounds that people might put iconography that extremist groups may or may not like on the clothing.
First, the ability to conflate brand and values, rendering complicated sensibilities as superficial and tangible as the ink on a silkscreen t-shirt, is not happenstance -- it's by design. This element of intentionality is what we mean by fashion. Second, the politicization of raiment is a trend in the fashion of totalitization. In the mode (pun on the German intended) of National Socialism, this is why swastikas were emblazoned on everything the movement considered legitimate. Fashion in the Third Reich was an agency of legitimization and de-legitimization. Some wore swastika armbands, others wore yellow Stars of David. The same logic persists in contemporary mainstream culture. This is why Thor Steiner is possible.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Because stylized images emblazoned on clothing are a common thing? I mean yeah, I think wearing clothing emblazoned with images or slogans is kind of tacky, but I can't really consider the matter a moral problem on the grounds that people might put iconography that extremist groups may or may not like on the clothing.
What matters is not what slogans or logos people might put on clothes but what they do put on clothes and what reaction it gets. Whatever signs are displayed are going to be read and interpreted.
Here we have a set of signs that appear to be neo-Nazi in inspiration. They are not nonsense like the English slogans often seen on Japanese clothes. The clothes are popular with neo-Nazi groups (apparently -- I don't have personal knowledge about this).
Manchu wrote:First, the ability to conflate brand and values, rendering complicated sensibilities as superficial and tangible as the ink on a silkscreen t-shirt, is not happenstance -- it's by design. This element of intentionality is what we mean by fashion. Second, the politicization of raiment is a trend in the fashion of totalitization. In the mode (pun on the German intended) of National Socialism, this is why swastikas were emblazoned on everything the movement considered legitimate. Fashion in the Third Reich was an agency of legitimization and de-legitimization. Some wore swastika armbands, others wore yellow Stars of David. The same logic persists in contemporary mainstream culture. This is why Thor Steiner is possible.
While what you're saying is true, I can't agree that this constitutes a moral problem with modern fashion. While the ability exists for undesirable ideologies to try to brand clothing with their symbols or messages, the whole of fashion is too dilute for this to be a legitimizing factor for them. The Nazis didn't rise to power through snappy fashion sense, it was just another tool in their arsenal once they were established power figures. That sort of power doesn't just spontaneously come to be because of iconography on clothing.
Like I said, I personally don't like the trend of clothing emblazoned with images, iconography, or slogans, but I don't see how its mere existence is a real problem in modern society.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Because stylized images emblazoned on clothing are a common thing? I mean yeah, I think wearing clothing emblazoned with images or slogans is kind of tacky, but I can't really consider the matter a moral problem on the grounds that people might put iconography that extremist groups may or may not like on the clothing.
What matters is not what slogans or logos people might put on clothes but what they do put on clothes and what reaction it gets. Whatever signs are displayed are going to be read and interpreted.
Here we have a set of signs that appear to be neo-Nazi in inspiration. They are not nonsense like the English slogans often seen on Japanese clothes. The clothes are popular with neo-Nazi groups (apparently -- I don't have personal knowledge about this).
Draw your own conclusions.
I did:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Thor Steiner seems pretty clearly involved in cultivating extremists as its primary demographic, ... though their ability to sew iconography onto modern clothing doesn't really reflect on a failing of modern clothing...
While their iconography itself generally isn't troubling (from what I've heard in this thread), their behavior and marketing strategies give away their intentional cultivation of a market base centered on neo-nazi organizations. Were they neutral and simply adopted by neo-nazis for their aesthetics, then the condemnation should fall on the neo-nazis, not the company (though culturally we'd still find the brand being tarnished through association).
I think you are really underestimating the role of aesthetics in the rise of fascism. And the toxic nature of fascist aesthetics. And the degree to which they polluted Western culture during and after WWII.
Manchu wrote: I think you are really underestimating the role of aesthetics in the rise of fascism. And the toxic nature of fascist aesthetics. And the degree to which they polluted Western culture during and after WWII.
You're making an assumption that the relevant aesthetics contain some intrinsic power to taint and poison, instead of just being tarnished because nearly a century ago some gibbering lunatics decided they looked cool and adopted them for their propaganda, architecture, and style of dress. If it actually does possess some weird, intrinsic power like that, please elaborate, because that would actually be quite interesting to read about. If it's just a matter of "they happened to have an excellent PR machine when the field of social manipulation was still its infancy, and used snazzy aesthetics as a key facet of this," well yeah, but that doesn't make the aesthetics themselves some eldritch power that's completely alien to modern aesthetics, many of which were created by similarly calculated machines, for the sake of profiting off the sale of the image, or to catch people's attention when advertising something*.
You're also not explaining how generic stylized imagery and iconography being a common clothing feature constitutes a moral issue with society. Aside from tackiness being kind of immoral in a way, I guess. Political parties are always trying to look cool and fashionable to appeal to younger people, but they invariably fall flat on their faces and just look sort of clownish and out of touch, so I don't exactly see much potential for it to help radicals gain a foothold in any first world country, where we're rather numb to the things that might have made the Nazis stand out in the '30s.
*If this is somehow your point: eh... yeah, I guess that's kind of bad in its way, but what are you gonna do? It's the way culture's gone, and we're so desensitized to propaganda these days it actually kind of works out to a positive, like an inoculation against basic propaganda campaigns.
I'm not contesting that through association with rather unpleasant groups and ideologies these aesthetics have been tainted, only the notion that they somehow possess properties that generated or contributed to the existence of said groups and ideologies, while other catchy or stylish aesthetics do not.
While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.
Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.
This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.
Bear in mind that Germany also abuses the laws that were put in place to hamstring the ability of extremists to disseminate fascist or otherwise violent ideologies in order to censor portrayals of violence or anything that happens to reference Nazis (like, say, certain notable games revolving around fighting them, for instance) whenever they feel like it, so it's not as though Germany's approach to censorship is actually sane or anything. By all means, burn the neo-nazis at the stake* as terrorists or gangsters or whatever, but realize the far-reaching ramifications of giving a parliament such extraordinary license to censor what it will.
*Rhetorical exaggeration, not literally endorsing burning at the stake, even for those lunatics.
Admittedly it's inconvenient when you buy Revell kits -- which are imported through Germany -- and the swastika markings are cut out of the decal sheet, but I wouldn't call it insane.
If anything it is a consistent approach to the issue.
The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.
Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:
You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.
When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.
d-usa wrote: The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.
Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:
You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.
When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.
Didn't the new Farcry game (or the God of War series) have boobs in it?
d-usa wrote: The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.
Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:
You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.
When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.
The US doesn't censor boobs in video games. Haven't you ever played Duke Nukem?
While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.
Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.
This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.
This is interesting coming from someone who called pro-gun Americans fantasist morons. I'm not trying to rake you over the coals for that specifically, by the way. You have your right to an opinion on the matter and I'm not going to tell you to "mind your own fething business" because you have your own reasons for disagreeing how people in another country do things. But don't you think that's just a bit hypocritical here? I mean, to disagree with the policies of one country to the point of calling people who support those policies fantasist morons, and then telling someone else who believes that everyone has the right to express their own beliefs within reason to "mind their own fething" business" seems a like you're fine with criticism of something in another country or culture, as long as it's something you personally take issue with so it's all well and good, but if someone else criticizes something you think is okay they need to "mind their own fething business."
There are those of us who actually do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinion, even if they personally disagree with it. I can see how it might be difficult for you to believe that, since you obviously don't feel the same way. Which is fine. It just comes across as a bit hypocritical in the context of some of your previous posts.
As for me, I have a hard time with the way Germany handles censorship, even of extremist groups. However, I completely understand the reason why those laws were put in place and I don't disagree with the intent of those laws (that is, to ensure that Naziism and extremism never regain power there). I just disagree with the way some of it is implemented. I think that those kind of censorship laws give an implication that some people think if Germany didn't have laws specifically banning Nazi symbols and rhetoric, Nazis would somehow be able to gain power again, which I think is a pretty condescending way to approach the German people. There isn't going to be a situation in Germany where everyone decides they want to be a Nazi, because in Germany, the overwhelming majority don't want anything to do with Nazis. This is now engrained so much on a cultural level, that censorship doesn't really strike me as all that necessary.
But still, I understand their reasoning for doing it and I agree that they have the right to do it in their own country. Whenever I'm in Germany I don't bring it up because in a lot of ways it isn't really that big of an issue and many Europeans don't understand what I admit is a rather American approach to the subject.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: You're making an assumption that the relevant aesthetics contain some intrinsic power to taint and poison
No, I am not.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: You're also not explaining how generic stylized imagery and iconography being a common clothing feature constitutes a moral issue with society.
As KK pointed out to you above, the issue is not generic stylized imagery.
d-usa wrote: The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.
Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:
You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.
When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.
Didn't the new Farcry game (or the God of War series) have boobs in it?
Lots of our games have boobs. Thats what the M rating is for.
I can't think of anything in the US game industry thats outright censored, just stuff that gets you a higher rating.
While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.
Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.
This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.
This is interesting coming from someone who called pro-gun Americans fantasist morons.
Actually, that's not strictly what I said, and it isn't what I think. If you recall, I characterised the ultra right-wing pro-gun lobby on this site as 'fantasist morons'. I stand by what I said. There is a flip-side to that particular coin: I'm not anti-gun. I'm not even anti-gun ownership. If I lived in the States I'd probably own at least one. It's the only place I've been thus far where I've felt the need to be armed, and indeed did arm myself with a knife whilst I was there. That's not a dig, it's just that personal weapons are more of a fact of life there than they are here, and that is very obvious.
I'm not trying to rake you over the coals for that specifically, by the way. You have your right to an opinion on the matter and I'm not going to tell you to "mind your own fething business" because you have your own reasons for disagreeing how people in another country do things.
Aha, but that isn't actually what's happening, is it? He didn't say 'well, in my opinion a nazi should have the same right to express his beliefs as any other person', did he? Who could have a problem with that? No, instead he made a definitive statement. He presented it as a fait accompli. It just reads as more arrogant finger-wagging from another American right-wing fundamentalist. It gets boring after a while, and sometimes you just feel like saying 'just feth off and mind your own business - it's not as if YOU guys have it all figured out!'
On a side note inspired by the pain killers I'm on, and having looked at this clothing line. i have to say I think we as a planet need to expect more from the ignorant, inbred, human slime that is the modern Neo-Nazi movement. I mean come on, the originals worse clothing designed by Hugo Boss, If you're going to imitate the worst portions of one of the most evil movements in our history, and adapt those ideals as your own, then you should dress to match. Ditch the dock martins, go pick up an expensive and well tailored suit with an armband.
d-usa wrote: The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.
Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:
You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.
When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.
Didn't the new Farcry game (or the God of War series) have boobs in it?
Lots of our games have boobs. Thats what the M rating is for.
I can't think of anything in the US game industry thats outright censored, just stuff that gets you a higher rating.
The censorship in the US also isn't a legal matter, as it is in Germany, or the UK, or Australia, it's all voluntary submission to a rating by a private organization. Its strongest impact is an unfortunate trend with console manufacturers (and their wretched walled-garden approach to entertainment) and brick and mortar retailers (who are steadily declining, if still powerful) to require a rating, specifically one of M or lower.
And it should be noted that Germany censors portrayals of violence in games, not just nazi iconography, since the law allows them to censor "encouragement of violence" and is apparently so vague that they can apply it to games.
Admittedly, it was US pressure post-WWII that drove them to enact those laws, just as US pressure drove Japan to whaling and its absurd censorship laws, but this was in the era when the pile of illegal lunacy that was the Hays Code was enforced here, too.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: On a side note inspired by the pain killers I'm on, and having looked at this clothing line. i have to say I think we as a planet need to expect more from the ignorant, inbred, human slime that is the modern Neo-Nazi movement. I mean come on, the originals worse clothing designed by Hugo Boss, If you're going to imitate the worst portions of one of the most evil movements in our history, and adapt those ideals as your own, then you should dress to match. Ditch the dock martins, go pick up an expensive and well tailored suit with an armband.
That is one thing you could say for the original Nazi party. They had fashion sense.
Admittedly, it was US pressure post-WWII that drove them to enact those laws, just as US pressure drove Japan to whaling and its absurd censorship laws, but this was in the era when the pile of illegal lunacy that was the Hays Code was enforced here, too.
Didn't all our laws have to be signed off by the allied powers back then?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: You're making an assumption that the relevant aesthetics contain some intrinsic power to taint and poison
No, I am not.
You outright said "You're really underestimating ... the toxic nature of fascist aesthetics." How am I supposed to interpret this as anything but an ascription of some special power to the aesthetics themselves? Otherwise it's just repeating part of my premise: that they've been tarnished through association with undesirable ideologies.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: You're also not explaining how generic stylized imagery and iconography being a common clothing feature constitutes a moral issue with society.
As KK pointed out to you above, the issue is not generic stylized imagery.
We're kind of running in circles here. If you're not positing that fascist aesthetics are special and fundamentally alien to acceptable aesthetics, and you're not positing that the trend of logos and stylized iconography emblazoned on clothing is a problem in general, and you're not arguing that we're not sufficiently intolerant of anything resembling fascist aesthetics (when we're extremely intolerant of such), what are we disagreeing about?
Admittedly, it was US pressure post-WWII that drove them to enact those laws, just as US pressure drove Japan to whaling and its absurd censorship laws, but this was in the era when the pile of illegal lunacy that was the Hays Code was enforced here, too.
Didn't all our laws have to be signed off by the allied powers back then?
"Our laws" as in the US'? No, where would you get that idea? We exterted significant control over the legislative process in conquered countries, and wielded significant influence elsewhere, but we weren't subject to any outside authority ourselves.
@Sir Pseudonymous: Aesthetics, fashion, sensibilities, and values are not the same thing as symbols.
what are we disagreeing about?
Honestly, I don't really care. My point is that the fascist sensibility is totalitizing where even what one wears is overtly politicized specifically via branding. This exists in contemporary fashion since the mid twentieth century. It is therefore not difficult for fascist symbols to slip back into the picture; this is their "natural habitat," after all.
"Our laws" as in the US'? No, where would you get that idea? We exterted significant control over the legislative process in conquered countries, and wielded significant influence elsewhere, but we weren't subject to any outside authority ourselves.
Sorry, I was asking as a German national there when I was saying "our".
"Our laws" as in the US'? No, where would you get that idea? We exterted significant control over the legislative process in conquered countries, and wielded significant influence elsewhere, but we weren't subject to any outside authority ourselves.
Sorry, I was asking as a German national there when I was saying "our".
Ah, the flag and location threw me. Then yes, I think that might have been the case. Whether it was a formal legal matter or not, I don't know, only that significant control and influence were exerted over the defeated countries.
You could equate the current US ratings boards with quasi-censoring material in some mediums. Getting an AO rating on your video game, almost ensures no retailer will ever carry it. I.E. no one really makes games that get AO ratings, and when they do, they tone it back to get an M. Likewise, the NC-17 rating in films is similar especially after it was changed to no one 17 and under. A lot of media networks won't show trailers for such films, or rather, back in the 90's they refused to leading film makers to stop making them. It's no government censorship, its voluntary, but the structure of the industries nearly forces this censorship on to developers and media makers.
That said though, ratings systems in the US can be quite fickle in how they rate content.
There are outlets for selling games that recieve those ratings so its not like you absolutly can't sell games above an M rating.
We can get them but those companies make those products to make money and if no retailer (specifically brick and mortar stores) will carry them, and no tv station will advertise them, you don't make much money. It's not a problem for the consumer so much as the developer and gives them a lot of incentive not to make that kind of content.
The issue of censorship by private entities in the US is extremely problematic, no one will contest that (aside from the people who are responsible for the problem in the first place), but it is a far cry from censorship instituted by a government. The vast majority of games produced in this day and age don't even bother with a rating, though the larger projects looking to sell in brick and mortar retailers are required to. Considering the massive number of independent games on Steam, they don't require an ESRB rating, though they have their own standards, which I'm not familiar with. Considering the move to digital distribution, we may yet see the death of the ESRB, just as we saw comics break away from the old comics code.
Seriously, its been almost 70 years. Maybe its time to get over it?
There are people alive today who lost their parents in death camps so it really, really fething isn't time to get over it.
And my issue is one of principle. If you truly believe in freedom of speech, you can't suppress another person's views because you disagree with them. If you start making exceptions to this freedom you can end with a slipperly slope towards totalitarianisim.
And given that Germany has applied it's blanket ban on Nazi symbols but hasn't lurched into banning other things, your principle simply isn't matching up with the real world. You really can pick out one outlying political belief, ban it, and not ban anything else. The assumption of the slippery slope, in this case, is clearly flawed.
Now, in order to comfortably say 'we can ban this and only this' I believe that thing you are banning would have really clear outlier to other political beliefs, but fortunately nazism is just that.
The fear is that it could happen, not that it is happening.
By setting a precident that it is ok in some circumstances to completely crush a certain belief system you say it can happen in certain circumstances.
What happens when people start toying with what circumstances allow you to do such an extreme thing? People will use this to further their own political agenda by turning their opponents into extremists that they can legally squash.
So yes, it is a slippery slope. It may take a long time, but its always there and something to keep in mind.
Now, in order to comfortably say 'we can ban this and only this' I believe that thing you are banning would have really clear outlier to other political beliefs, but fortunately nazism is just that.
My question would be is if it is such a clear outlier already, what is the point in banning it?
While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.
Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.
This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.
This is interesting coming from someone who called pro-gun Americans fantasist morons.
Actually, that's not strictly what I said, and it isn't what I think. If you recall, I characterised the ultra right-wing pro-gun lobby on this site as 'fantasist morons'. I stand by what I said. There is a flip-side to that particular coin: I'm not anti-gun. I'm not even anti-gun ownership. If I lived in the States I'd probably own at least one. It's the only place I've been thus far where I've felt the need to be armed, and indeed did arm myself with a knife whilst I was there. That's not a dig, it's just that personal weapons are more of a fact of life there than they are here, and that is very obvious.
Fair enough. There was something in one of your posts that made me think you were grouping all pro-gun people together as an ultra right-wing group, but it seems I misinterpreted your post (especially considering you're not anti-gun). Sorry about that!
I'm not trying to rake you over the coals for that specifically, by the way. You have your right to an opinion on the matter and I'm not going to tell you to "mind your own fething business" because you have your own reasons for disagreeing how people in another country do things.
Aha, but that isn't actually what's happening, is it? He didn't say 'well, in my opinion a nazi should have the same right to express his beliefs as any other person', did he? Who could have a problem with that? No, instead he made a definitive statement. He presented it as a fait accompli. It just reads as more arrogant finger-wagging from another American right-wing fundamentalist. It gets boring after a while, and sometimes you just feel like saying 'just feth off and mind your own business - it's not as if YOU guys have it all figured out!'
Well, do we all really have to post "In my opinion..." in front of all of our posts when we share our opinion? I wouldn't expect that a Dakkaite would be expressing someone else's opinion while making such a post. One doesn't have to be a right-wing fundamentalist to believe that everyone should enjoy the right to free speech and expression, do they?
Yeah, I mean is there really a point in saying the Nazis can't participate in the political process(or even openly sport their iconography) if they already have zero chance of doing anything besides sit in their homes brooding. No Nazi is going to win an election.
The Nazis will realistically never ever gain any political traction in the future, not in Europe or the US anyway.
Forcibly keeping them out really just turns them down to where their only options are to become even more extreme. Possibly resorting to violence, terrorist activities, and other nasty stuff. Allow them to run for office, where the voting populace will never let them win.
Better the Nazis to be a fringe party constantly running candidates with no hope of winning, and to do that for eternity, than for them to be a criminalized element drivin to only being able to communicate their beliefs with spray cans and bombs.
Grey Templar wrote: The fear is that it could happen, not that it is happening.
And part of being a human being who enjoys rationality and evolves his beliefs according to the world around him is to see something, see that what he predicted did not happen, and look to modify his political beliefs to fit the world as it actually exists.
In this instance we've seen the banning of a particular form of speach (Nazism and Nazi symbols) and we've seen that in the decades following there has been no encroachment of other speach. As such, we must reflect on our original belief that there is a slippery slope, and realise that there is sometimes a slippery slope.
Or, alternatively, we can just carry on as we always did, shouting very loudly that all speach must be protected or else we don't know what they'll ban next.
By setting a precident that it is ok in some circumstances to completely crush a certain belief system you say it can happen in certain circumstances.
Unless, of course, there is a clear identifying factor that makes this speach uniquely different to other political speach. ie this particular form of speach was part and parcel of starting a war that killed tens of millions, including many millions deliberately killed in industrialised death camps. Once you've clearly marked out those unique circumstances as justification, it becomes impossible to slippery slope your way to extending the ban to other speach.
So yes, it is a slippery slope. It may take a long time, but its always there and something to keep in mind.
Except of course, it isn't actually a slippery slope. Simply repeating that doesn't make it true. Real world observation actually matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: My question would be is if it is such a clear outlier already, what is the point in banning it?
Outlier doesn't mean political minority. It means something that stands well apart from the rest, something that is clearly and identifiably different in some way.
In this case, Nazism is an outlier because it's the political beliefset that led Germany to starting a war that killed tens of millions, and to build industrialised death camps that murdered millions. As such, saying 'we should ban this because of Hitler and WWII and all that' means the only way it can be extended to banning some other speach is if that political beliefset also sparked off a war that killed tens of millions.
Hordini wrote: My question would be is if it is such a clear outlier already, what is the point in banning it?
Outlier doesn't mean political minority. It means something that stands well apart from the rest, something that is clearly and identifiably different in some way.
In this case, Nazism is an outlier because it's the political beliefset that led Germany to starting a war that killed tens of millions, and to build industrialised death camps that murdered millions. As such, saying 'we should ban this because of Hitler and WWII and all that' means the only way it can be extended to banning some other speach is if that political beliefset also sparked off a war that killed tens of millions.
Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.
sebster wrote: In this instance we've seen the banning of a particular form of speach (Nazism and Nazi symbols) and we've seen that in the decades following there has been no encroachment of other speach. As such, we must reflect on our original belief that there is a slippery slope, and realise that there is sometimes a slippery slope.
Except we kind of have seen the very same laws used to censor games, and it's only a court ruling that "art" is protected speech that keeps them from censoring violence or depictions of Nazis in movies as well. And yes, the UK, Australia, and other countries do all of this too. None of them are in the right here either.
As much as I'd love a ban on genuinely advocating dangerous, factually flawed ideologies, there's simply no way this can be enacted in a manner which isn't a constant danger to other things that just happen to be unpopular with those in power.
Hordini wrote: Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.
The point isn't because the Nazis could one day come to power again. It's because, you know, Germany did that stuff, and they don't find it tolerable to the victims or their children to have people carrying on talking about it in public.
Now, whether that's a good reason or not is plenty debateable (I'm not sure myself), but the point is that the 'OMG slippery slope what'll they ban next?' argument just doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Except we kind of have seen the very same laws used to censor games, and it's only a court ruling that "art" is protected speech that keeps them from censoring violence or depictions of Nazis in movies as well. And yes, the UK, Australia, and other countries do all of this too. None of them are in the right here either.
One instance of the rule being used to ban depictions in media, and one instance where it wasn't applied to a form of media... doesn't do half of one gak to show the expansion of the rule outside of Nazis. And that's the whole point, unless you can somehow find a way that this law could jump from Nazis to some other group, then the slippery slope doesn't apply.
As much as I'd love a ban on genuinely advocating dangerous, factually flawed ideologies, there's simply no way this can be enacted in a manner which isn't a constant danger to other things that just happen to be unpopular with those in power.
You can't just keep saying that. I point out that the slippery slope doesn't automatically apply, and you just respond 'but my ideology says it does, so let's go with that instead'.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Except we kind of have seen the very same laws used to censor games, and it's only a court ruling that "art" is protected speech that keeps them from censoring violence or depictions of Nazis in movies as well. And yes, the UK, Australia, and other countries do all of this too. None of them are in the right here either.
One instance of the rule being used to ban depictions in media, and one instance where it wasn't applied to a form of media... doesn't do half of one gak to show the expansion of the rule outside of Nazis. And that's the whole point, unless you can somehow find a way that this law could jump from Nazis to some other group, then the slippery slope doesn't apply.
The law isn't restricted to depictions of swasticas, which is idiosyncratic enough when applied so indiscriminately, but on vague "advocation of violence", which in true form of "being used to attack something completely different that's unpopular with the ruling parties" is applied to games portraying or involving violence.
As much as I'd love a ban on genuinely advocating dangerous, factually flawed ideologies, there's simply no way this can be enacted in a manner which isn't a constant danger to other things that just happen to be unpopular with those in power.
You can't just keep saying that. I point out that the slippery slope doesn't automatically apply, and you just respond 'but my ideology says it does, so let's go with that instead'.
Actually, that's the first time I've said that here. I'm throwing my voice in with the others on this.
It's not even really a slippery slope, which implies it could possibly be expanded to undesirable levels. It's more giving a loaded gun and license to do as they wish with it to someone you can't trust not to use it frivolously, and which will be inherited by someone completely different every few years.
Hordini wrote: Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.
The point isn't because the Nazis could one day come to power again. It's because, you know, Germany did that stuff, and they don't find it tolerable to the victims or their children to have people carrying on talking about it in public.
Now, whether that's a good reason or not is plenty debateable (I'm not sure myself), but the point is that the 'OMG slippery slope what'll they ban next?' argument just doesn't work.
That might be part of the point, but I'm pretty sure another part of the point is making sure Nazis cannot regain any sort of legitimate political power. And, in the direct aftermath of WWII, simply making anything to do with the Nazis illegal was probably the best way to achieve that goal. I totally get that. I'm just not sure if in the long run, making the expression of certain ideas and opinions illegal is a good thing to do. Obviously at this point, decriminalizing something like Nazi expression in Germany would be awkward and not really worth the trouble, and I get that too. That doesn't mean I don't still think that people should have the right to express their opinions and ideas, even ones that are abhorrent and idiotic.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not arguing that it's a slippery slope. You seem to be grouping me with the posters who are making that claim.
Hordini wrote: Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.
The point isn't because the Nazis could one day come to power again. It's because, you know, Germany did that stuff, and they don't find it tolerable to the victims or their children to have people carrying on talking about it in public.
Now, whether that's a good reason or not is plenty debateable (I'm not sure myself), but the point is that the 'OMG slippery slope what'll they ban next?' argument just doesn't work.
That might be part of the point, but I'm pretty sure another part of the point is making sure Nazis cannot regain any sort of legitimate political power. And, in the direct aftermath of WWII, simply making anything to do with the Nazis illegal was probably the best way to achieve that goal. I totally get that. I'm just not sure if in the long run, making the expression of certain ideas and opinions illegal is a good thing to do. Obviously at this point, decriminalizing something like Nazi expression in Germany would be awkward and not really worth the trouble, and I get that too. That doesn't mean I don't still think that people should have the right to express their opinions and ideas, even ones that are abhorrent and idiotic.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not arguing that it's a slippery slope. You seem to be grouping me with the posters who are making that claim.
As far as my knowledge about German law goes, there is no specific "Anti-Nazi" law that is actually called so. We have laws against unconstitutionial political parties, as in, parties which try to change the German political system in such radical ways that it ignores or changes or basic constitution. Which Nazis are more or less openly trying to do. I'm sure Americans can relate that it's important to protect the constitution of a country, right?
And these laws are at least partially in place because the rise of Hitler and the NSDAP to power was possible due to THEM playing the democratic and political system back in ~1930-1939, where no kind of protective laws kept them from gaining power.
