Brattle Street » 12 Jun 2015 2:15 pm wrote:
It seems you are claiming that, even if any and all criteria for meeting your definition for nazi may be met.... but with the exception of that being a particular racial bias toward a particular racially identifiable group, then they must be ruled out as qualifying as nazis. I would claim that if it WALKS LIKE A NAZI it is accurate to call it a nazi.
They may walk like nazis, adopt every nazi policy, in every way behave like nazis, model their actions after nazis, BUT if their particular prejudice is not directed toward jews, then it is not fair to call them nazis? Is that your assessment?
If you look around a little bit and you will see people the world over, incidents using the term in circumstance that include NOTHING involving jews.
It is quite natural for communication efforts to have legitimate success when employing language considered to be in common usage.
If it wasn't before, certainly now, in this day and age, evidence shows now that the term is inclusive of an ideology which attempts to establish superiority of one race over another.
Since you have conceded that it is possible for jews to be fascists, were there any other discrepancies between fascists and nazis that you feel make a significant distinguishing difference?
In my opinion that's the major distinction. Nazi's are fascists who hate Jews.
"Europe’s a big place," he said. "I’m not going to take cards off the the table. We have nuclear capability.'
Trump discussing nuking Europe.