Norsk Nynazisme

[AnonymBruker]

13 timer siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Dette handler ikke om fordommer, men om å fordømme at noen sverger til en ideologi som innebærer utryddelse av mindreverdige mennesker.

Dette er jo bare noe du tror vi skal gjøre fordi du er hjernevasket.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

[AnonymBruker]

1 time siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Dette er jo bare noe du tror vi skal gjøre fordi du er hjernevasket.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

Kjenner du i det hele tatt til nazismens kjerneideologi? Jeg er ikke mye hjernevasket.

Anonymkode: f5a36...3f6

[AnonymBruker]

2 timer siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Kjenner du i det hele tatt til nazismens kjerneideologi? Jeg er ikke mye hjernevasket.

Anonymkode: f5a36...3f6

Ja, men det tror jeg neppe du gjør.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

[Hurepoix]

På 30.7.2017 den 20.45, AnonymBruker skrev:

Kan du slutte å tråkke på alle de som led under nazismens redsler?

Anonymkode: f5a36...3f6

Gerhardsen-regjeringen gjorde jo dette reint bokstavlig mulig, ved å asfaltere over gravene til sovjetiske krigsfanger / slavearbeidere (Operasjon Asfalt) i irrasjonell spionfrykt! Se http://forskning.no/2016/12/krigsfanger-putin/produsert-og-finansiert-av-uit

[Klossmajor]

3 timer siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Ja, men det tror jeg neppe du gjør.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

Hvis du er så godt kjent med nazismens ideologi, kan du fortelle oss hvordan du mener nazisme forholder seg til eugenikk?

[AnonymBruker]

15 timer siden, Klossmajor skrev:

Hvis du er så godt kjent med nazismens ideologi, kan du fortelle oss hvordan du mener nazisme forholder seg til eugenikk?

Du kan jo ta en kikk, eller høre, på denne:

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.no/2017/06/public-healthcare-and-forced-eugenic.html

Her er et utdrag som gir et innblikk i hvor grensen gikk (går ut i fra at det primært er det du lurer på). Det er fra Lothrop Stoddard, en amerikaner som undersøkte tyske eugenikk-rettssaker under krigen:

As the Nazis saw it, they had a two-fold task: to increase both the size and the quality of the population. Indiscriminate incentives to big families would result largely in more criminals and morons. So they coupled their encouragements to sound citizens with a drastic curb on the defective elements. That curb was the Sterilization Law. 

The object of the statute is set forth in its official title:An Act for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. The grounds for sterilization are specifically enumerated. They are: (1) Congenital Mental Deficiency; (2) Schizophrenia, or split personality; (3)Manic-Depressive Insanity; (4) Inherited Epilepsy; (5) Inherited (Huntington's) Chorea; (6) Inherited Blindness; (7) Inherited Deafness; (8) Any grave physical defect that has been inherited; (9) Chronic alcoholism, when this has been scientifically determined to be symptomatic of psychological abnormality. 

It should be understood that all these defects and diseases have been proven to be hereditary by scientists throughout the world. It was estimated that at least 400,000 persons in Germany were known to be subjects for sterilization. But the law specifically forbids sterilization for any non-hereditary cause. Even mentally diseased persons, habitual criminals, and ordinary alcoholics cannot be sterilized [if it is not shown to be hereditary]. 

Each case up for sterilization must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before special district courts, and appeals from their verdict can be taken, first to a regional court of appeals, and ultimately to the High Appellate Court sitting in Berlin. 

Such are the provisions of the Sterilization Law. So many charges have been made outside Germany that it is being used to sterilize politically undesirable persons that I particularly welcomed the opportunity to study at first-hand the High Court's proceedings. 

[...] 

Germany's Eugenic Supreme Court sits in an impressive building at Charlottenburg, one of Berlin's western suburbs. I arrived just as court was opening. On the bench sat a regular judge in cap and gown. At his right was the celebrated psychopathologist, Professor Zutt, a typical savant with mild blue eyes and a Vandyke beard. At the judge's left was a keen-eyed younger man who was a specialist in criminal psychology and beside whom I sat during the proceedings. All three courteously explained points to me at frequent intervals. 

Since this was the court of last resort, all matters came up to it on appeal from lower courts, and thus tended to be "hairline" cases. 

The thing that struck me most was the meticulous care with which these cases had already been considered by the lower tribunals. The dossier of each case was voluminous, containing a complete life-history of the subject, reports of specialists and clinics, and also exhaustive researches into the subject's family history. In reaching its decision, the High Court not only consulted the records of the case but also personally examined the living subjects themselves. 

The first case I saw looked like an excellent candidate for sterilization. A man in his mid-thirties, he was rather ape-like in appearance -- receding forehead, flat nose with flaring nostrils, thick lips, and heavy prognathous jaw. Not vicious-looking, but gross and rather dull. His life-history was mildly anti-social -- several convictions for minor thefts and one for a homosexual affair with another boy when a lad. In early manhood he had married a Jewess by whom he had three children, none of whom had showed up too well. [...] He was now seeking to marry a woman who had already been sterilized as a moron. The law forbids a non-sterilized individual to marry a sterilized person; so he was more than willing to be also sterilized. The lower court recommended sterilization. 

All three members of the High Court interrogated the man at length. Questions disclosed the fact that he conducted a newspaper delivery route in the suburbs, that he was able to run this simple business satisfactorily, and that he answered the Court's queries with a fair degree of intelligence. The Court concluded that sterilization had not been proven mandatory and sent back the case for further investigation. 

Case Two was obviously unbalanced mentally, though not an asylum case. Swinging a cane like a fine gentleman, he entered Court with an "air," which went incongruously with his shabby-genteel clothes and the battered felt hat tucked under his left arm. There was no doubt that he should be sterilized. The lower courts had decided he was either a schizophrenic or a manic-depressive, and both defects came under the law. But which of the two it was had to be clearly determined before the operation could be legally performed.... The Court inclined to think him a manic-depressive, but they also detected schizophrenic symptoms. Since they were not absolutely sure, the case was remanded for further clinical investigation. 

Case Three was an eighteen-year-old girl. A deaf-mute, she talked through an interpreter. She was obviously not feeble-minded, but had a poor family record. The parents, who also appeared, were most unprepossessing. Her case had first come before the lower court two years ago. It then decided against sterilization because no hereditary deafness was shown in the family record. Recently it had recommended sterilization because several unfortunate hereditary factors in the family had been disclosed by further investigation. The High Court ordered the girl sent to a clinic for observation. It also ordered more research into the family record. 

Case Four was a seventeen-year-old girl. The issue was feeble-mindedness. She certainly looked feebleminded as she sat below the bench, hunched in a chair, with dull features and lackluster eyes. Left an orphan at an early age, she had had a haphazard upbringing. The record showed her to have been always shy, backward, and unable to keep up with normal schooling. 

[...] 

The members of the High Court examined this poor waif carefully and with kindly patience. She had no knowledge of or interest in even the most elementary current events. For instance, she barely knew there was a war going on. But the psychologist discovered that she was able to make change for small customers' bills in her restaurant and that she could perform other duties of her humble job. So the Court finally concluded that, despite her most unprepossessing appearance and her simple, childlike mind, she was not a moron within the meaning of the law and therefore should not be sterilized. 

There were other cases that day, all conducted in the same painstaking, methodical fashion. I came away convinced that the law was being administered with strict regard for its provisions and that, if anything, judgments were almost too conservative. On the evidence of that one visit, at least, the Sterilization Law is weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.

 

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

[Far til 2]

Det er tragisk at politiet i Kr.sand gjorde knefall for svenske nazister.

Eller var det politiledelsen i Kr.sand som var enig i de svenske nazistene sine meninger ?

[AnonymBruker]

Helt enig. Det er et svik av dimensjoner. På nivå med tyskertøsene som gikk til sengs med fienden og avslørte hemmeligheter som medførte tap av mange norske liv.

Anonymkode: 3748c...d5b

[AnonymBruker]

25 minutter siden, Far til 2 skrev:

Det er tragisk at politiet i Kr.sand gjorde knefall for svenske nazister.

Eller var det politiledelsen i Kr.sand som var enig i de svenske nazistene sine meninger ?

Som medlem av Motstandsbevegelsen kan jeg bekrefte at vi har flere av våre medlemmer i høyere posisjoner i norsk politi- og rettsvesen. Ordren om å la oss få demonstrere kom fra veldig høyt hold.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

[AnonymBruker]

1 time siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Som medlem av Motstandsbevegelsen kan jeg bekrefte at vi har flere av våre medlemmer i høyere posisjoner i norsk politi- og rettsvesen. Ordren om å la oss få demonstrere kom fra veldig høyt hold.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

Bullshit!

Anonymkode: f5a36...3f6

[Klossmajor]

13 timer siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Du kan jo ta en kikk, eller høre, på denne:

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.no/2017/06/public-healthcare-and-forced-eugenic.html

Her er et utdrag som gir et innblikk i hvor grensen gikk (går ut i fra at det primært er det du lurer på). Det er fra Lothrop Stoddard, en amerikaner som undersøkte tyske eugenikk-rettssaker under krigen:

As the Nazis saw it, .......the Sterilization Law is weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

Så vidt jeg kan se er raselære utelatt her. Kan du fortelle oss hvordan du mener nazisme forholder seg til eugenikk sett i forhold til raselære? Kan du også si noe om nazismens forhold til eugenikk og raselære er overførbart til dagens situasjon eller om dette er ideer som tilhører en fordums tid?

[AnonymBruker]

 

Anonymkode: 104fc...36b

[AnonymBruker]

19 timer siden, Klossmajor skrev:

Så vidt jeg kan se er raselære utelatt her. Kan du fortelle oss hvordan du mener nazisme forholder seg til eugenikk sett i forhold til raselære? Kan du også si noe om nazismens forhold til eugenikk og raselære er overførbart til dagens situasjon eller om dette er ideer som tilhører en fordums tid?

Å holde rasen ren og fri for lyter og åndssvake individer er da raselære?

Selvfølgelig er dette overførbart til dagens situasjon. I aller høyeste grad. Man trenger bare bruke fem minutter her på forumet, så forstår man det.

Anonymkode: 2f03b...0c1

[AnonymBruker]

Nazist og nynazist er begrep som det ser ut til at folk spyttet ut like lett som rasist i disse dager. Hvem prøver dere å definere? Hitlerdyrkere? Tyskere og andre som støttet Hitler på 30 og 40 tallet? SS soldater? Personer som støtter en nasjonalsosialistisk politikk? En som hater jøder? Hva skal til for å bli kalt nazist?

Anonymkode: bb05d...0a8

[AnonymBruker]

1 time siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Nazist og nynazist er begrep som det ser ut til at folk spyttet ut like lett som rasist i disse dager. Hvem prøver dere å definere? Hitlerdyrkere? Tyskere og andre som støttet Hitler på 30 og 40 tallet? SS soldater? Personer som støtter en nasjonalsosialistisk politikk? En som hater jøder? Hva skal til for å bli kalt nazist?

Anonymkode: bb05d...0a8

Hvis man kaller seg nasjonalsosialist, er man nazist. Det er ikke noe å diskutere.

Anonymkode: f5a36...3f6

[AnonymBruker]

1 time siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Hvis man kaller seg nasjonalsosialist, er man nazist. Det er ikke noe å diskutere.

Anonymkode: f5a36...3f6

Anonymkode: bb05d...0a8

[AnonymBruker]

23 minutter siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Anonymkode: bb05d...0a8

Du er kanskje geniet som påstod at nazisme og nasjonalsosialisme ikke er det samme i en tidligere tråd?

Anonymkode: afced...f5b

[AnonymBruker]

 rasist har jo forlengst blitt ett fullstendig  utvannet ord, ettersom venstrepopulister har slengt rundt seg med dette i mange år nå... 

Dermed forsøkes det nå å finne på enda verre ord, for eksempel "nazist" eller "nynazist"..... 

Anonymkode: 3144a...5db

[studerende]

23 minutter siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

 rasist har jo forlengst blitt ett fullstendig  utvannet ord, ettersom venstrepopulister har slengt rundt seg med dette i mange år nå... 

Dermed forsøkes det nå å finne på enda verre ord, for eksempel "nazist" eller "nynazist"..... 

Anonymkode: 3144a...5db

Du mener at det er feil å bruke disse begrepene på folk som kaller seg selv nasjonalsosialister?

[AnonymBruker]

10 minutter siden, studerende skrev:

Du mener at det er feil å bruke disse begrepene på folk som kaller seg selv nasjonalsosialister?

Nazisme og nynazisme er begreper som bærer mye stigma og er knyttet tett til Hitler. Jeg tror det er rom for å omtale nasjonalsosialisme uavhenig fra disse begrepene. Nasjonalsosialisme bør kanskje sees på på samme måten som kommunisme, for kommunisme er da vel ikke synonymt med Mao, Pol Pot eller Stalin? 

Anonymkode: bb05d...0a8