/politics/ - News & Politics

Neither cancer will allow that to happen.

>>11156

Also

>Loudest parties are nazis and commies

>Neither believes in freedom of opinion of speech

It's truly amazing that they are on 8chan of all places.

>>11157

I know right? Whenever I look at /pol/ and how its moderated, I cant help but feel like they would do better on Ironmarch or something, It really seems like they aren't compatible or comfortable with anonymity which is why the mods keep dumping peoples posting history's for going against the mob.

The good thing is that 8/pol/ made me realize just how cancerous National Socialism is through the effects that it has had on the board itself. I already knew commies were bad news but was actually impartial to natsocs because they already had a presence on 4/pol/ before the exodus anyway but seeing them in control first hand opened my eyes.

>>11179

/pol/'s BO is Argentinean-grade white, and nearly everyone on the board doesn't know that Nazis started out much closer to the dreaded "Bolsheviks' than what they ended up as

As far as I can tell, in the 20's, the tiny NSDAP read the works of Marx and Engels, yet disagreed that the problem was the Bourgeoisie, but rather, the "Juden". Both ideologies see enemies in the religion of Judaism, and 'International Hyena' bankers

Also, Marx wrote his own answer to the Jewish Question, but I haven't read that yet

>>11157

One reason actually is that libertarians meaning in the broadest sense seem to dislike hugboxes. If we went by number of libertarians on 8ch.net, /liberty/ would be as big as /pol/. Instead, they would rather post on other boards.

>>11193

I can attest to this.

>>11157

I seriously hope we don't get flooded by /pol/ refugees.

They may come here to escape moderation, but I am sure the majority will keep their low-tier arguments and ad hominem.

Not going to happen.

Leftists are going to retreat to /leftypol/.

Nazi faggots are going to retreat to /pol/.

This place is going to probably peter out and die because it's going to be mostly reasonable centrists mostly agreeing with one-another and eventually getting bored of the lack of controversy.

>>11162

>If the board becomes a top 5 board

Which is why it shouldn't. Small is good. Too small is bad, but small is good.

I'm a firm elitist. The moderation on /pol/ and /leftypol/ isn't totalitarian for no reason. It's totalitarian because the userbase needs that level of control because the userbase is a broiling mass of unacceptable retards.

/politics/ needs to be the NWO clique pulling the strings of /pol/ and /leftypol/ from behind the scenes.

>>11169

>Is there a way of bringing more people over from /leftypol/?

No.

Don't bring Leftist cucks here, they just are globalist cunts even /pol/ (which is shit) is better than /leftypol/.

>>11169

Please don't bring anyone from one of the hugboxes here.

No /pol/

No /leftypol/

No /christian/

>>11394

>don't bring anyone from one of the hugboxes here

but then we become a hugbox ourselves. Lets not become /liberty/2.0

>>11129

>Nazi faggots and communist faggots retreating into their hugboxes whenever they're confronted with opinions different to their own is boring and shit.

>

>How's /politics/ going to attract more lively debate in the future?

It is nice that you used a pejorative for natsocs while using the proper term for commies.

Get out.

>>11481

>proper term

But is not, the proper will be "Marxist-Leninists" or "Bolsheviks", the term "Communism" is as Pejoractive as "Fascism".

>>11510

>List of people banned on /liberty/ because their opinions:

>>11519

Authoritarians and communists are regarded as outsiders who won't be taken seriously and better fuck off because this place is not for them. It's a hugbox.

>>11162

>That's why hugboxes are popular. Their users are shielded from opinions that can destroy the fantasies that bring them little peace in their pathetic lives. It's like religion. Whenever you make a religious person doubt his beliefs a bit he gets uncomfortable and shuts you down.

Yes, there are different places commited to different subjects because of pathology. Only an /s4s/ style board is for the non-pathetic, not-like-religion people.

>>11520

How extreme was censorship in Nazi Germany really?

The Wikipedia article of censored people in NS Germany is actually pretty small (maybe I'm just looking at the wrong article?)

I'm wondering this because of just some basic reading I have been doing. I remember being taught in school that jazz, swing, etc was strictly forbidden in Germany (punishable by concentration camps or similar), but recently read that the government ended up not enforcing anything of the sorts and that swing was broadly played and listened to.

How seriously was the concept of censoring degenerate art taken in Germany at the time? I'm always hearing about it, but I often also wonder why (if the policies were so strict) so much of the "degenerate art" survived the government and the war.

Some of the points raised even make sense to me - even though there is very good jazz out there, a lot of it at the time was incredibly trashy and appealed to a very low common denominator -just like a lot of trashy rap/crunk/etc today.

I also found it interesting that artists like Otto Dix, although put under pressure from the state, were not as chased down as I had previously thought they would have been.

Why was art left alone (besides the stealing, obviously) in France and other occupied territories? Weren't countries like Denmark/Holland and such considered as part of the "Greater Germanic" area/empire and had plenty of SS type units and volunteers? Why is it hard to find mention of censorship of art and music there, then?

I am posting this here and not on /pol/ in the hopes of getting a variety of answers/opinions from all sides. Posting out of curiosity, not particularily out of a political slant. I also don't want to make a new thread ;) If someone else wants to make a thread for it, fine by me. Just thought I'd ask you!

Thanks!

>>11557

>Pic related happened, so yeah it was pretty severe.

While bookburning is repulsive, it was also in this context ceremonial, like burning Uncle Sam in effigy. Also, it was not done directly by the government, but by the German Student Union, which had become dominated by the National Socialists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings

Here is a list of banned authors, which happened later in the Third Reich. I would be curious what this actually meant. Could you get in trouble owning a copy of one of their books, for example, or was it only forbidden to publish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_banned_in_Nazi_Germany

>I was also a treasonable offence to listen to non German broadcasts, punishable with a spell in a concentration camp.

You would really have to look at what was going on in Germany and how people were actually prosecuted. A law on the books, or a law that was thrown on top of other "offenses," like being a Communist, is different from someone who

>>11574

didn't finish that.

>different from someone who merely listened to foreign broadcasts and had no other "crimes".

>>11557

>Since all the young men in places like France and Scandinavia had been either packed or sent off elsewhere German soldiers were encouraged by the state to breed and father children with the wives and girlfriends of allied soldiers, killing two birds with one stone.

Was this really such a big thing? I thought there weren't many Germans ever actually occupying areas with big population zones, due to there being a constant front line that many soldiers were being sent to (Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe, etc).

I read that the Norwegians actually put a lot of women who had kids with Germans into concentration/internment camps after the war had ended. Quite a backlash.

I'm going to read through this now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

It is interesting to read from Wikipedia, but I sometimes think there is a strong pro-Western slant in many articles. By pro-western, I don't just mean in the context of WW2. Maybe the truth is just pro-western? I don't know.

>swing and blues

I had read in some sources that the government didn't really clamp down on Swing after they did a big raid in 1941 or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Kids

I have to say, these swing kids already sound annoying by how they are described.

But blues - what blues? Blues wasn't even really that widespread among whites in the US at this time, let alone outside of the US. Big band and swing, with a few blues elements, was around, but blues was still seriously geographically limited in many ways to the areas where it is still played mostly in the deep south. Only Chicago blues was really spreading at that time period, I think.

Another side note - why do other governments seem to fear American introduction of music into their cultures so much? Not just music that is being sung in English - but rather also the introduction of music where the instrumentals are "American" (or maybe British) in nature.

The Chinese, Iranians, Russians, etc all seem to have a problem with this (on a government level). Do you think there would be a similar reaction if the entire thing was reversed? (everyone listening to Chinese traditional music or something?)

>>11574

>how people were actually prosecuted

I think this is important to know. Something being illegal or banned in Germany often means next to nothing. SO many things are illegal there even today, but often times the fee for such a "crime" is a warning, slap on the wrist, or a fine. Often times, some rules aren't even enforced, because there are simply too many to keep track of.

>but by the German Student Union, which had become dominated by the National Socialists.

To be fair, that sounds like a diret extension of a government arm to me with very bad deniability of it.

>>11645

I always thought Irving was seen as a pro-Nazi historian? I've only read snippets from him.

I guess I should pick up a book, instead.

>>11626

>Was this really such a big thing?

Yes.

Even in the Channel Islands several hundred British women were reported to have slept with German soldiers.

Most women were left alone otherwise sex starved for 4 or more years so naturally the younger won't slept with German soldiers.

>But blues - what blues?

iirc Weimar Germany had some blues clubs.

>why do other governments seem to fear American introduction of music into their cultures so much?

Music is highly emotional.

Alters their opinions and makes them think/do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

>Do you think there would be a similar reaction if the entire thing was reversed?

No.

For reasons to in depth for a single post.

>>11649

The problem is that anyone in the mainstream who doesn't believe that Hitler went into mad rages where he chewed the carpet and had one testicle is a Nazi.

Irving usually strikes a middle ground between modern revisionists and National Socialists, and mainstream historians.

>>11651

>No.

>For reasons to in depth for a single post.

Perhaps try a dumbed-down version to make it quick? Or some links? I'm just very interested in this. Thanks!

>>11703

Sorry, other way around.

Blue countries, are common law - adaptable.

Red countries are civil law - set in stone.

>>11703

But don't countries like Pakistan and Sudan also have common law? And places like Scotland don't?

Places like Canada, Australia, etc also all have common law, don't they? Yet speech such as Holocaust denial is prosectued there, if not in the US or the UK.

Or are they just exceptions to the rule?

>>11715

It's not 100% either way, of course.

It's just a general rule.

The English system tends to allow much more freedom of expression.

There are exceptions on both sides, like Switzerland for example.

>>11703In germany we have actual laws that no politican can change. That was implemented after '45 to prevent something like Hitler (one person rules the whole governing body).

And the UK as well as the US are rabid participators to undermine the law, aren't they?

With some bullshit excuses to implement exceptions.

I agree, not because I like the left, but because I liked old pol much better than what it has become. You used to have doom Paul, libertarians, commies, neoreactionaries, fascists, and a lot more variation of topics. Now pol is a trump monoculture and its lost all the appeal it used to have

>>11645

>>11657

>>11574

>>11575

>>11657

Wow. /leftypol/ made me hate leftists so much that I didn't realise smart anarcho-communists existed.

This board is really great. Quite slow, but great.

>this board needs more progressive stacking

Kill yoursel.f

>>11963

What's funny is that a lot of 19th Socialist Anarchists HATED the Jews. Look at Bakunin's main charge against Marx after Marx expelled him from the First International:

"This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labor of the people, will be found."

It's strange, because Fascism is kind of an "evil" and opposite twin of Anarchism, but the one grew partially from the other.

>>11986

IIRC Italian Fascism was not antisemitic really at all. they only started under pressure from Germany

>>11986

>>11986

>What's funny is that a lot of 19th Socialist Anarchists HATED the Jews.

>It's strange, because Fascism is kind of an "evil" and opposite twin of Anarchism, but the one grew partially from the other.

You're 100% right. I'm French and Le Cercle Proudhon (1911-1914), who invented National syndicalism, is the perfect example. Unfortunately, I don't find any texts in English.

This board isn't even supposed to be a moderate board, anyway. It's supposed to be a board where the mods don't enforce the bias.

>>12036

Where people can discuss any political ideas without getting banned or anchored for being a "slide" or a "shill".

What makes /pol/ cancer is not that it's full of ebul nadzees but that it's a political activism board instead of a political discussion board. At some point it became all about the cause, rather than a place to discuss politics without political correctness.

If you misdiagnose this you just get an anti-nazi board instead of an anti-/pol/ board, and then you get /leftypol/ which is just the opposite activism based board. I don't mind if people want to make political groups and make real change, but when you turn the whole board into an activism board by the moderators hands, you suck all of the fun out of it. Activism is cancer. Didn't we learn that from Project Chanology?

>>12040

It seems fun at first and it gives people energy, but then it just becomes a mind prison.

>>11129

This board needs more leftists.

Agreed. It's always hilarious watching some anonymous autist BTFO of a lefty's arguments from time to time.

>>11481

Hell, people can call it whatever they choose to, as long as you understand what an anon is talking about.

"Nazi" "NatSoc" "National Socialism"

>>12154

My problem with "leftists" is that most of them think they are Anti-capitalists, while they love consumerism and just want free shits. It's really hard to respect them or just to take them seriously.

>>12154

>muh unity

>muh consensus

>muh common enemy

>>>/pol/

>>>/leftypol/

>>12300

So your answer is to be divided between /trumpol/ and /sanderspol/

Both of which drink deep from the coolaid their chosen leaders push them, while those leaders drink together and laugh with their bosses.

You are as retarded as an ISIS fighter who doesn't realise he's fighting for the benefit of Israel/turkey

>>11179

>The good thing is that 8/pol/ made me realize just how cancerous National Socialism

Same

>>12006

They ban you for not sucking trumps cock now, it's a hugbox

We at /thirdpositionist/ already have you guys linked but traffic is slow.

>>11184

Its a good read.

>>11626

What they hated was freeform Jazz but some Nazi ads had regular Jazz

>>11986

Marx himself wasn't crazy about the Jews though.

>>12359

It was a suggestion, not answer, dumbfuck, for you to fuck off to a hugbox or create your own. The board has anons from all over the world, crying like a little baby that not everyone shares your opinion and not united over fighting what you think is the real enemy is suitable for hugboxes, not here.

/pol/: Jews

/leftypol/: Porky

It's too much to ask for, but I would fucking love to have a board where I could argue with SJWs, SRS, or other extreme progressives.

I had kicked around different ideas, like making a board with extreme moderation by image board standards, but I still doubt they would come to 8ch. Plus it would be tiring to moderate.

By extreme, I meant no stupid insults or anything other than arguments allowed that is counter to their worldview.

>>12408

I like the idea, but you are right about moderation load, trolls would bombard the board, I know I would.

>>12408

I would love to see a board modded for civility and little else - you can be in favor f any position as long as you politely and cogently explain it

When people throw around insults willy nilly it makes everyone emotional and makes it impossible for people to see reason or back down when they're wrong

>>12411

You just admitted that you're retarded.

>>12417

They tried to be an anti-Trump Natsoc hugbox first, but they had a revolt on their hands and switched to enforcing a pro-Trump hugbox.

>>11970

>Zionist Flag

>against progressiveness

Is the JIDF hiring retards now?

>>11963

>Anarcho-Anything

>Smart

pick one, and only one