The rise of neonazism after the WWII in Europe and America is definetely not a positive thing. Number of books and films have addressed this problem in various ways, from depicting neonazism as abominable hatred, to trying to examine and understand the root of the popularity of Nazi ideals among certain demographic groups, to trying to dissect the negative social phenomena that galvanize growth of Neonazism among the youth of US, UK, Russia and others.
But should groups like National Socialist Movement (self-proclaimed Nazi Party of America) and Ku Klux Klan be allowed to exist and convene on regular basis?
Should we outlaw meeting, membership and possession/wearing of uniforms and regalia of these organizations? What actions should be taken regarding these groups, if any?
Please explain and justify your point of view.

I voted for option three.
People should have a right to express their views, no matter how loathsome... but when someone preaches hate and advocates violence it is only obvious that for the good of society we should keep tabs on them.

A combination of #2 and #3. They should be able to express their views, as part of the first amendment, but should be monitored by law enforcement strictly.

CP

It seems to me to be a lot easier letting them express themselves publicly and keeping things peaceful than driving them underground and not being able to keep an eye on them.

Besides, there is a higher principle involved here. Today the group in question is the Neo-Nazi group. Tomorrow it might be a group that you or I belong to that may be in disfavor for some reason. The freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly must not be eroded.

#3 They should be free to express their views. Verbally and in writing but limited by any existing laws or regulations governing hate speech. If additional laws are needed to suppress their activities further they should be passed by a majority of our elected reps and such laws should be subject to judicial review to insure that their 1st amendment rights are not being abridged.

I definitely go with allowing them full freedom of speech. It may be naive, but I have always believed that the best way to discredit evil ideas is by letting them be heard as clearly as possible. I certainly don't want to create martyrs or make something seem attractive becuase it is forbidden.

Radical racist groups are so incredibly disgusting I would try almost anything to get rid of them. Their kind of rabid ignorance and bigotry doesn't belong in decent society. But I don't think that we can consitutionally outlaw any organization no matter how much we hate them. I would however have the FBI harass them as much as possible and if their members commit a hate crime I would make sure they get sued for it. This method has really gotten rid of some terrible groups. That along with some work by private organizations can chase those crazy baldheads out of town.

Whoops, RU. Id watch the stereotypes. Many balding men are shaving their heads these days and have tatoos too, and are peaceful people.

Constitutionally, absolute free speech. I also dont think they should be 'unusually' monitored, but if things get to 'cult status' and violence against others is indicated, then yes, they should be monitored. Monitored being just that, not threatened or arrested, unless there is a crime.
Step out of line, in any way, first acts, or percieved acts of violence, such as threats, extortion, or recruitment of minors, and I believe in bringing the full arm of the law upon these groups. Peaceful assembly, in uniform or out is fine. ONE act of violence or ANYTHING perceived as such, and the whole group is then subject to close monitoring, for ever.

Free speech is part and parcel. Talk all you want, ACT detrimentally, and you have blown your right to life as we know it, swiftley, and with sweeping predjudice. ALL, not just the perp, but the entire organization.

I voted "Yes, they should be outlawed/banned" because, as a country, we need to shake off the hate we have for different types of people whether they be African-Americans or Jews. We are all human. Letting them stay together as legal groups & using the First Amendement to do so is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution

Wow! excellent point. And for the most part it is true. Though, when the people only get to hear one side of an issue then they will tend to believe it.

Thankfully, these days, people have access to so many sources of information they can get both sides of any issue if they choose to.

Oh Artemise? Those "crazy baldheads" that Rancid Uncle is talking about is a subtle reference to a Bob Marley song.

Though I find Neo-Nazis and their ilk anti-human, anti-American and anti-me, I also subscribe to the theory that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Driving hate groups underground where they can congregate secretly and silently is more dangerous than having their idiocy out in the open for all to see.

The problem with the government monitoring extremists on the right mean they also are monitoring extremists on the left and pretty soon everybody else in the middle. That old "slippery slope" theory kicks in again.

#1 - They should be banned.

The KKK is known for having lynched black people, just in the name of the cause. How disgusting is that!!! How can you let these people free to spread their hatred?





Unfortunately, the fact is that some people will still choose to follow neonazism for their own personal reasons. You know that. Promoting neonazism will only make it stronger and create fear, anger and resentment between communities.

Your democracy will not save you here, because that's exactly how the extreme right prospers : they claim the right to express themselves and they turn your constitution against you. By the time you understand what's going on, it will be too late already.

Your country is leading a war against worldwide terrorism, an ideology of hatred. Neonazism is also an ideology of hatred. It's not based on religion differences, it's based on race differences. It's equally evil.

We've had Hitler here in Europe. Don't be stupid and candid like we were in 1939, because you are no better than we are. So get rid of this plague while you still can and ban it.

Absolutely. The freedom of speech is gauranteed in the first amendment, and while I may not agree with the speech of groups like the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement, I would certainly fight for their right to use that speech.





This is clearly covered in the constitution, as I have bolded in the quote above, and any action that should be taken against these groups should only be taken when they cross the boundaries of speech into the territory of other illegal activities.

I think that Victoria Silverwolf said it best with this quote:





So, do we apply this to other groups as well? What about the extreme religious right? I feel that they preach hate against homosexuals and their speech in turn causes violence. Should their freedom of speech be revoked? Should they be disallowed to assemble?

I hate the ideology that the neonazis espouse, but if we don't protect our constitution, what do we have? The erosion of rights for one group may seem like it's an advancement of society, but what if I'm next on the blacklist?

Edited to fix typo

Should Malcolm X have been persecuted? How about Louis Farrakhan? Where do we stop once we start censoring hate speech and banning hate groups?

Horyok Posted on Mar 28 2004, 03:40 PM


Our Constitution is based on the rights of the individual to liberty of thought and speech though when people actually exercise their rights we must now throw the constitution out the window? Lets look back to why the United States exists in the first place, because we were driven out of our homelands (in the case of my ancestors France) as a result of our thoughts and speech. It is the laws that will protect us from the harm that an individuals thoughts and speech may or may not lead to. It is a persons actions that the laws can only have power over and it is actions that the laws must address. Thoughts and speech do not infringe on anothers liberty only actions have the power to do that. I certainly see your concerns though the remedy you suggest undermines the basis of our society. Our Constitution states that liberties may only be infringed upon through due process of the law. The law addresses the actions of the individual.

edited...typos

I voted #2. It shouldn't be against the law to act like an idiot.

There are plenty of laws in place to protect against unlawful actions, so you don't need a sheet on your head to commit a hate crime.

If we start banning groups based on association, where do we stop? Ban the NRA because at times, they seem to promote gun violence (note: I'm not accusing them of anything. But many would agree with that premise)? Ban Boy Scouts because they don't like gays? Ban "InMyUndiesMFM" chat rooms because it's a public health issue?

It's a slippery slope problem (much like my opposition to gay marriage and the like). Where does it stop?

Years ago, a group lobbied to ban smoking from airplanes. They never wanted anything else, other than to not be stuck in an airplane breathing second-hand smoke when you had no other recourse.

The rest is history.

I voted for optoion three because even though Neo-Nazis, in my opinion are a bunch of dirtbags that insult my heritage by bringing back the ideology of a few twisted Germans, they do have the right to speak their mind.

But the first time one of them performs a violent hate crime, i.e. murder or assault, fry his... well, you know.

This is a tricky issue. How can we defend the fundamental freedom of speech, whilst protecting those who are threatend by such speech?

I believe that, although they're dirbags, these groups have the right to exist. But that those who disseminate racist, biggoted, and violent platforms of hate to anyone and everyone who willl listen must be monitored 24/7 and to the highest detail. If that means the FBI creates files on everyone of those idiots, although it is a scary precedent (the FBI having a KGB side, that is), it is the only way I see to protect the Bill of Rights along with the people who possess those rights.

I seem to be in the minority that voted for #1. Perhaps being a modern historian has made me particularily sensitive to this issue, but I must say groups as extreme as this should be banned.

I concur with the notion of freedom of speech, and people should have the right to say almost anything they want, no matter how repulsive.

But neo-Nazi groups and KKK-style groups do not define themselves by what they are for, they define themselves by what they are against. They preach hatred, lies, intolerance and violence against groups of coulour or ethnicity. They incite action and hold in highest esteem acts of violence based on this intolerance.

If you as a person get up and say you don't like jews, I think you are an idiot, but you are an idiot who is within his right to make such a statement.

If you get up and make comments like the only good jew is a dead jew, or praise people who have killed or mistreated blacks and call for more of the same, then you have passed beyond the protection of freedom of speech.


If you want to be a credible leader of a war on terrorism, then perhaps you might want to first crack down on groups whose only purpose is to cause terror among minorites by painting swatikas, burning crosses, defacing gravestones and even attacking these minorities when the opportunity arises. These organisations ane a blemish on humanity, and to allow them to continue to preach violence, bigotry and hatred say as much about the society that permits it as it does the malcontents who do it.

I am so very tired of cowards. Ban this! Ban it now! We must Get THEM before they get US!

These groups survive because of the cowardess shown by such people. Protect me from the bad people please. They scare me.
You want them gone then you have no other choice but to confront them! Call them on their IGNORANCE. Drag their cowardice and fear of anything different and their spiteful hate out into the light and expose it for what it is.
Falsehoods, Weakness, Cowardice, Ignorance.
Expose them and watch it shrivel up and die.
Try to ban any of them and they will use it to recruit other weakminded losers.
They will say "See they are afraid of us because they KNOW we are right."
Your own actions will reinforce their credibility. All you'll do is further their cause.

At the same time drag out your own prejudices and face them yourself. That is the only way to defeat such evil.

Vermillion,

I am sure you know that the United States already has special laws in place regarding hate crimes that carry especially severe penalties. When these people cross the line, they are arrested and prosecuted.

I agree with Christopher; to try to get rid of these groups is to actually give them power. Individuals with persecution complexes gravitate to these groups. To have their peaceful gatherings tolerated (not accepted; there is a big difference) actually removes some of their power as those who come to see and listen to them are given a chance to make up their own minds as to the validity (or lack thereof) of the group's statements.

They have the right to freedom of speech, despicable though they may be. That's our birthright as Americans regardless of what nonsense some of us may believe.

If there's probable cause to believe a particular group has committed or is going to commit a crime, that's a different matter and by all means let law enforcement keep a close eye on them.

What brought up neonazis as a current threat? Shouldn't we all be more worried about Wahhabiism right now?

Vermillion Posted on Mar 29 2004, 12:42 AM


I am not quite sure how the belief in liberty of thought and speech undermines us in the war on terror. Is not Jihad a Muslim concept. As a society if we were so ready to limit the thoughts and speech of it's citizens, would we not have closed down all Mosques in the United States as a reaction to the Trade Center attack? Following this train of thought it most certainly would be an appropriate response. If we had actually done that, what would it have served to do. We would have become what we were fighting against in Afghanistan, a Government that through it's laws mandates a belief structure. I believe what gives the United States the moral upper hand in the war on terror is it's unwavering belief in liberty of thought and speech, we lead by example that what it's citizens hold dearest their individual freedoms will only be infringed upon as a result of their actions and with due process of the law.

edited ...remove stutter ...If if

Horyuk, I can appreciate this sentiment, but Hitlers ideology and actions came from the top down, not from the public upwards. The general public was forced by fear and manipulation to adhere to propagandist thought. European governments thought that fascist control of the masses and Jews might be an overall 'good thing' and let Hitler slide. It was a conservative pendulum swing that had nothing to do with average folk, yet, people are only civilized on the surface. Face them with fear, ostrazation and poverty and they turn into animals.

We have much more to worry about from our government than from our neighbors, as far as civil liberties go. If the gov't could have their way they'd shut down every protest of any of their greedy and corrupt schemes and turn this into a police state as fast as anyone could scream, Help! Therefore, to preserve our greater rights of free speech under the Constitution, we are obliged to allow the hateful to speak in open forum, not to create a dangerous precedent of censorship, when we will most need it, when they come for us.

If anyone wants to be a credible participant in the war on terror, they might stop pointing fingers and start getting serious about preventing terrorists from entering their country and then leaking through the borders.



I would take offense at your calling us no better than them, but Canada has it's own hate problems, so I assume you're referring to Canadian society as well. And while I love this legislation, it's intended goal would have been achieved with time, just as the legislation will only work (if at all) with time. Either way, you can't change the way people think - why try?

As for my fellow Americans, I would spend the rest of my lifetime fighting for their right to speak at the top of their lungs words that I would forever contradict at the top of mine.

Truth is it's own force. We don't need to regulate individuals in what they say - words are their own regulators. Truth is it's own regulator. As long as we continue to educate our people, suppressing hate is not a wise investment of time and resources. Money is much better spent sending people to colleges with mixed ethnic student bodies. Educated people are generally not blinded by hate and lies.
While the KKK and similar organizations are run by educated people, they gain their power, mass, support structure through the uneducated. A more noble (and effective) goal is to take away their resources by pushing the educational bar higher. Liberate people without taking away personal freedoms, accomplish same goals.


edited: to add link

First of all, NAZI is an acronym which stands for National Socialist German Workers'
Party. Socialists are on the extreme left side of the political spectrum, not the right.

Second, it was appeasement of Adolf Hitler that made a bad problem even worse.

Example: In 1938, Hitler was threatening war against Czechoslovakia unless he was given a piece of the country. Then British PM, Neville Chamberlain, went to Munich to negotiate and appease Hitler. Chamberlain was heralded as a peacemaker by many. One of the few dissenters, Winston Churchill, said to Chamberlain, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” Churchill was right, appeasing extremists does not stop them. Appeasing the terrorists will not stop them!

So how should America deal with home grown fringe groups that preach hate and terrorize? Preaching hatred is not illegal, but fortunately most people are smart enough to avoid these groups. But if such a group commits acts of terrorism, it should be treated as such and have its assets seized and its leadership justly penalized.

We can't legislate some things into or out of existence, be it this kind of hate group, morality, ignorance, whatever. As long as we fail our children in the home and in the schools, they will grow up learning many of the wrong things from the wrong people. It is up to Mom and Dad to set a proper example, and live lifes worthy of emulation. Otherwise, the kids see our hypocrisy and seek answers to their questions elsewhere, and there are plenty of "elsewhere" types out their looking for a flock of sheep to lead.
When they have enough education and good examples to look to, they will better be able to see the truth.

While only obliquely related to the topic, I'm afraid I have to address this old chestnut:
First of all, "Nazi" is an abbreviation, not an acronym - the acronym for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei would be NSDAP. Second, while the two dozen or so streams of socialist thought which have emerged over the past hundred and fifty years or so tend to be left-wing (from the Saint-Simonians and followers of Robert Owen in the early nineteenth century through the utopian socialism of Charles Fourier and the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels to the modern Christian Socialist Movement and Europe's many Social Democrats), the German National Socialists were anything but.

The German National Socialist Workers' Party is, in short, a misnomer. Misnomers abound in politics: the German Democratic Republic was neither, Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democrat party was neither, George Bush has claimed to be a compassionate conservative - and is neither. And Hitler's party was about as far from "the extreme left" as one can get and still exist.

As the late Steve Kangas put it, Hitler's views were far right:
I doubt there's really anyone here who's politically naive enough to actually believe that Hitler was a leftist, but I thought this ludicrous myth should be laid to rest once and for all. If you have any doubts whatsoever, read the rest of Kangas' excellent essay.

If you really want to bash socialists, deerjerky, why not attack some of the truly vile human beings who actually were socialists? Demon spawn like Albert Einstein and Clarence Darrow and Helen Keller and Winston Churchill and George Bernard Shaw and Langston Hughes and George Orwell and Jack London and Carl Sandburg and Tony Blair.

Obviously, Horyok, you were absolutely accurate in describing Hitler and the Nazis as "extreme right". That said, I don't entirely share your fears. I would like to think that we are vigilant enough to keep our more extreme hate groups at bay. That said, we do currently have a corporatist administration in power and are in clear danger of being totally dominated by their fascistic tendencies. But I don't think that banning the more extremist groups which constitute part of their constituency will do much good - apart from making them more vocal and active.

Despite the fact that "neo-nazis" are every bit as extreme right as were the German National Socialists, they should still have the ability to express their views and opinions freely as guaranteed in First Amendment - hence I voted for option two. I was, I admit, a bit torn. Obviously, any group which preaches hatred deserves scrutiny (not that they'll be watched all that closely again until we effect our own regime change) - and banning ultra-right, white supremacy organizations could lead to justification for banning any group which others might find objectionable - especially under this administration where some consider dissent treason. Ultimately, though, I had to go with the Constitutional option. Freedom of speech, for good or ill, must apply to everyone.

Radical groups have the right to exist unchallenged. However, members who violate the law can be tried individually. I think it's important to mention now (since I haven't seen it addressed yet on this thread) that direct threats are not considered protected speech. Such group members do cross the line of legality if they present a direct, clear and present danger to the public.

Edited to add link

This was on the front page of today's Muskegon Chronicle:
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/inde...75175181550.xml


So why am I bringing this up? This was a "peace" rally, not a neo-Nazi recruitment gathering or a demonstration by the Ku Klux Klan, or by the Black Panthers for that matter.

Folks, this government does not need any encouragement to crack down further on groups considered to be on the fringe at this time. There are far-reaching powers in place now to detain people on mere suspicion and not even tell them what, if anything, they are being charged with.

Let's not try to eliminate one or two evils by employing a potentially far greater evil.

Movements such as Neo-Nazism only flourish during times of great economic peril. I trust that even in the worst of conditions, Americans tend to feel repulsed by such reactionary movements that try and provide the answer to their woes. No laws or other such provisions should be passed in any way to inhibit them. We only do them a favor by giving them persecuted status.

That would be me, Wertz. I do believe that, not out of naivete but out of an informed difference of opinion. I could argue it with you, but I could only do so at greater length than I'm willing to take the time for, so I'll have to be content with noting my disagreement and the book that convinced me of it: Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

Take it up in the History Debate, Izdaari - I'll bring my informed opinion to the discussion.

What a cop out! Studied at the Gingrich institute have we? Just toss out a firebomb and then dramatically throw a hand to one's face Blanche DuBois style and lament that there is just not enough time for us to possibly understand your reasoning. If you're not going to support why bother even bringing it up?

I'll be fair and balanced of course I just ordered the book off of Amazon along with

The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861: With a New Preface (New Perspectives on the History of the South)
by Robert E. May

Having read the reveiws I have just GOT to see the Work that went into Kuehnelt-Leddihn's ideas.


Edited to remove some comments till I read the book.

Be nice, christopher. I should probably not have commented anyway as it was an atopical response to an off-topic comment on a posting which skirted the topic by addressing an off-topic remark in the first place. I just wanted to let Izdaari know that she had the option of pursuing the subject elsewhere, were she interested.


@#^*@^*#@^#*#^@#^*@^*#@^#*#^@#^*@^*#@


We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate:

Neonazism: should it be outlawed or not?

To be fair, I have a closeness to this position I suspect nobody else her does. Apart from having my doctorate in Modern European History specialising in this field, I am also very conversant with the literature and spread of neo-Nazi groups, they are simply a facet of a larger whole. To me far more of a concern is the psudo-legitimate (or would-be legitimate) proponents of holocaust denial, typefied by such organisations as the Institute for Historical Review.

I have published a lot in this field, and covered the 1999-2000 David Irving trial in the UK at some length, even spoke to the man himself about it for a while...

No mater what arguments these detractors would put to the contrary, this kind of activity, be it street-level neo-nazism or ersazt-intellectual holocaust denial springs from anti-semetism, and spreads nothing but the furthering of hatred. Now I am Canadian, and though I believe srongly in freedom of speech, I do not believe it is unassailable and universal as many Americans do, and I believe the line should be drawn there.

To respond to earlier comments, yes I am aware there exist hate problems in Canada too, my diatribe was not meant to be directed at a specific nationaility, but I might point out that no organisation such as the KKK exists uncontrolled in Canada, and the most active neo-nazis tend to find themselves persona non grata. (see: Ernst Zundel)

I also think the argument that 'the best way to defeat them is to allow them free reign and to come out into the open and be heard' is fascile at best, absurdly dangerous at worst. These people live in a world where reality and fact has no bearing on their hatred, do you really think contradicting them in public will make them revisit their beliefs? Furthermore, their views have been challenged in public and private for decades, and they do not seem to be going away. Rather, by allowing them into the open you legitimise their point of view.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not advocating total censorship, nor am I disallowing people from having differing even controvercial views. But Neo-Nazism is not about having differing views, it is about preaching hatred and violence. Some on the board have said 'oh, but thats already illegal'. Great. Enforce those laws, then get back to me.



Oh, and by the way, I have read the Leddihn book you speak of, I highly recommend you read some of the reviews of legitimate historians:

"An erudite, if eccentric, feat of historical/philosophical legerdemain by virtue of which "leftism" more-or-less subsumes every belief and act to which the (explicitly) right-wing author objects, including liberalism (commonly understood), fascism, communism, socialism, egalitarianism, atheism, democracy ("democratism"), even homosexuality (it's subsidized by liberal democracy). His alternative is "rightism", i.e. religion (Christian, preferably Catholic)" (Book News Inc)

Leddihn is a far-right wing German catholic who is anti-democracy, pro-monarchy (by his own admission) who sees history through his own eccentric glasses. There is a reason neither the book nor the author has any real respect in historical circles. In his defence, this text is at least well researched and supported, unlike almost all of his previous work. I can reconned about 50 books on the topic if you want, but suffice to say that by any measurable standard Nazism was most certainly Rightist. Even the name, not socialist, but NATIONAL socialist demonstrates this, the workers, not working together for the benefit of each other, but for the benefit of the state.

THAT however is an argument for the History thread, if you wish to debate it further, please continue it there.

I voted for

As a peacemaker in my community, I am considered a person of suspicion -- because my viewpoints are at odds with a war-making administration. Once you give the government your rights, its going to be a nightmare trying to get them back. This is why the Patriot Acts are such bad legislation.

You'll also be better able to see what they are up to if you don't "ban" their groups -- those groups will exist whether they are legal or not -- keeping them in the open is the best scenario.

I strongly support hate crime laws, however.

I also believe that in the great scheme of things, groups like this (which are created by people reacting irrationally to FEAR) are a dying breed. We are simply evolving (slowly perhaps) into a more compassionate society. Groups like this that many once turned a blind eye to are now reviled by most. Behavior that was standard two or three generations ago are now seen by most as abhorrent.

We still have a long way to go, but we are getting there. Movements of hate may have mini resurgences when fear comes into play, but they can't continue to thrive indefinitely.

Neonazism: Should it Be Outlawed or Not?

WOW! Scary but true...I agree with the majority of the members' posts! No, these groups should not be outlawed.

Personally, I loathe and vehemently disagree with these groups as they represent a negative/dark side of humanity. They are entitled to and guaranteed the benefits of the 1st Amendment...and as it should be. As others have expressed...keep them above ground as much as possible...just so they aren't in my face...and they do bear watching.

Vermillion
We not only have free speech to contend with here but freedom of assembly. First of all we have a Constitution, which we keep whittling away to our own detriment, but nonetheless many of us strongly believe in its principles and do not want to see it easily infringed upon.
Secondly, if we ban certain groups it sets a precedent. Later if the government wants to ban protest , or anti-war, or any groups on the grounds that they incite hatred against the government, they have their precedent. This would greatly affect websites and alternative news media, we dont want to start that.

Lets really look at Nazi-Germany for a second. Hitler was able and firstly did begin 'arresting' ( not really, just disappearing ) dissentors of all types. Once you remove anyone who has the guts to speak up, write, or project alternate viewpoints, the rest will buckle easily from fear. It was much easier to subdue the masses when the strong voices were permanently silenced. Noone dared speak up after that, for fear of going missing themselves. Its exactly the tactics the KGB used.

Here in the US, the FBI is already making 'visits' to people who are speaking up against the government and against the war. They are filming protests, and suggesting that protestors are akin to terrorists and may be violent, which is their excuse to harass people who are speaking out, its strong arm tactics in hopes to silence.

Start banning 'some' groups and, I hate to use the term, its a slippery slope, one which many here feel we are already sliding down way too fast in the name of fighting terorism.

We have different problems now here because of 911. The government has begun first steps to invade our privacy and has pased laws in which they may lock people up without due process on 'suspicion' of terrorist threat. I imagine you can see where this could lead in a worse case scenario. Its akin to the beginnings of a police state. I dont think Canada is having this same reaction but I dont know. Anyhow, a lot of us here are fighting for some basic principles we believe in, and the neo-nazi issue is not so very important nor prevalent enough to risk the greater whole losing their privileges at this time.

Should it be outlawed?

Under no circumstances, for a few reasons.

1) Freedom of speech means freedom for all - not just those with whom we agree.

2) People are drawn to the forbidden.

3) Who makes the call on what is allowed and what isn't? That's a dangerous road to travel - one that's been tried already (refer to the OP who mentioned Hitler).

4) It should never be up to the government to "protect us from ourselves." We are a country founded on the rights of the individual.


Earlier, jenreiautter wrote:



I'm too new to start a new topic, but I'd like to respond to this. It is sort of related, I guess....I'd like to ask what makes a hate crime worse than a "normal" crime? If the KKK murders a black man, does changing the label of the crime make it less acceptable?

Vermillion Posted on Mar 30 2004, 01:53 PM


I am wondering what would lead people to believe that these groups are anything but persona non grata here in the states as well. Granted I live in the NYC region though I have heard tell that the KKK does exist here in NJ. I really require more compelling information than they exist to deem them a threat and believe that we need to outlaw (thoughts and speech) as a result. Seems a very radical step to take in the attempt to address a problem that I have never encountered. I guess what I am saying is maybe I am missing something. Is there any evidence that this behavior is more than a radical fringe element, beyond what would be considered the nuts of our society?

the first amendment was not about protecting popular speech, but speech that people may find vulgar and offensive.



they already tried this type of thing in the 60's and 70's. it was called COINTELPRO and was a horrible failure. it turns out that harrassing people that others disagree with infringes on there freedom of speech. COINTELPRO was officially shut down in the 70's or 80's, though it is still around.

I voted for number two. while I personally find their views vulgar and highly offensive, (not to mention idiotic) I think the should be free to say and do what they want, so long as the harm no one the hate. now if they go out and kill people then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. and while I can see where keeping tabs on them could speed ivestigations, it is still a violation of our freedoms.

First off hate groups that operate purely on an agenda of hate are evil by my moral code, and I hope most of society. I wish that I could see every single nazi/hate-wielding person on the planet either change their ways or take a dirt nap, but of course this isn't an option. Freedom of speech ensures their right to put their opinions out there, nomatter how volatile. I like the "keeping them in the open" argument, its a good approach.
As far as legal action, I believe the best apporach is not a means approach (bannign their rights to speak, assemble etc) but instead an ends approach. The legislature should crack down on all hate-inspired violence, and consider it a supreme offence. Accidental manslaughter is bad, premeditated murder for personal reasons is worse, but murder or assualt based off of something as simple as class, race, gender, sexual preference, etc. is beyond despicable, and should be regarded as so. If the goal of a society, our society, is to reach some enlightened state, isn't the elimination of hate one of the first hurdles?

Answer to question: No, we shouldn't ban them, act on the other side of the law, and give them all a good long time to think about their actions behind bars.

We can not start taking away constitutional rights just because we don't agree with a group's politics. The KKK is gradually dying anyways. Howard Stern (don't discredit my post b/c of reference to Stern ) interviewed the 'Grand Wizard' on his show. He said that klan activity participation was down and that it would eventually dissolve. The problem is taking care of itself.

Is the Pledge of Allegiance nazism or neonazism and should it be outlawed or not?

Public comments about the pledge court case show that few people know that the pledge was written in 1892 by a self-proclaimed socialist in the U.S. nationalist movement, to promote socialism in the most socialistic institution -government schools.

POST EDITED TO REMOVE PICTURE

Few people know that the original salute to the flag was like the Nazi salute and that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party." (Eye-popping photos are only at http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html ) An easy mnemonic device to remember that Nazis were socialists and that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers’ Party" is that the horrid swastika resembles overlapping "S" shapes for "socialism," and that the Nazis often used stylized "S" symbolism. (See http://members.ij.net/rex/swastikanews.html )

The pledge of allegiance was authored by the self-proclaimed socialist Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was the first cousin of the socialist Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy's futuristic novel, "Looking Backward," was published in 1888, and described life in the year 2000. It described a totalitarian society where all private transactions are outlawed, where the government places all men in an "industrial army" and where the monolithic government school system is operated specifically as part of the "industrial army" system. Of course, all of the preceding was portrayed as a dandy utopia just as it was portrayed by so many apologists for the industrial armies of socialist hell-holes worldwide.

The book spawned a socialist movement in the U.S. known as "Nationalism," with the Nationalist magazine, and "Nationalist Clubs" whose members wanted the federal government to nationalize most of the American economy. Francis Bellamy was a member of this movement and a vice president of its socialist auxiliary group.

Francis Bellamy had often lectured on the so-called "virtues of socialism and the evils of capitalism." In 1891, he was forced to resign from his church because of his socialist activities and sermons. He then joined the staff of the magazine "Youth's Companion" and wrote the pledge of allegiance, first published therein.

In the original articles about the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy promotes government schools and snipes at the many better alternatives, and urges that education should come only from government. It is consistent with the government school monopoly in the book "Looking Backward" and the "industrial army" promoted by the Bellamys.

Bellamy lived during the time when schools were becoming socialized heavily in the United States. When the U.S. Constitution was written, children received private educations (schools are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution).

Edward Bellamy's book was translated into 20 foreign languages. It was popular among the elite in pre-revolutionary Russia, and was even read by Lenin's wife. John Dewey and the historian Charles Beard intended to praise the book by stating that it was matched in influence only by Das Kapital.

Francis Bellamy lived from 1855 to1931. Edward Bellamy lived from 1850-1898. Edward Bellamy was spared witnessing the horrors that his socialism caused to the rest of humanity. Francis Bellamy lived in the U.S. during the first 14 years of mass atrocities under the industrial army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Francis Bellamy might not have known about the horrors of his socialist ideas in the U.S.S.R. at that time. Francis Bellamy lived long enough to see a similar salute and philosophy espoused by the industrial army of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If Edward Bellamy's fictional character had awakened in the year 2000 he would have learned that since 1887 Bellamy's philosophy had set and was holding all the worst records for shortages, poverty, misery, starvation, atrocities and mass slaughter.

According to R. J. Rummel's article in the Encyclopedia of Genocide (1999) the worst trio of socialist atrocities (see http://members.ij.net/rex/socialists.jpg) occurred under the industrial armies of: (1) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 62 million deaths, 1917-'87; (2) People's Republic of China, 35 million, 1949-'87; (3) Germany under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, 21 million, 1933-'45.

After the National Socialist German Workers' Party tried to impose socialism on the world, many U.S. citizens were disturbed by the Pledge's similar salute and that it was written by a socialist in "Nationalist" groups in the U.S. Although the salute changed, the pledge remained the same.

There is something more disturbing than all of the above: Most children are never told any of the preceding history in government schools, even though
there is a totalitarian-style robotic recital of the pledge as a collective by children in government schools en masse on cue from the government every single day.

It is a wonder why anyone recites the Pledge of Allegiance. It is probably because of rampant ignorance about the Pledge's origin and history.

No one would trust the government to tell you the truth if it ran the newspapers. Why would anyone expect the government to tell children the truth in government schools? As Libertarians say: The separation of school and state is as important as the separation of church and state. And that is the real solution to the pledge debate and all other school issues: remove government from education.

RexCurry.net

to learn more visit http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html

Rexcurry, what exactly does your post assaulting the Pledge of Allegiance do in the Outlawing Neonazism and right-wing extrimist groups?

I think we should go after neo-Nazis and the KKK as organized groups like we go after al-Qaeda cells.

Perhaps throwing Nazis into prison is exactly what the nazis want. (Wasn't Mein Kampf written in prison?) They want us to spit on our constitution.

Let's not arrest them because of their political party, let us wait for them to break a law.

If they are really a threat, they will be plotting something. Warrants for surveillance can be obtained for these sorts of things, and can be based on their stated principles, not on their party.

Mein Kampf was written in prison, but you would hardly call Hitler's stay in there a "sentence".
He had access to all te luxuries and amenities, sinlge suite all for himself, private secretary, personal chef, walks outside several times a day. It was life like in a 5-star hotel, despite his attempt to fool everyone that he was suffering doing his time.
One of many hypocrisies and lies Hitler invented about himself.

Being repressed is part of Nazi ideology. They play up to people's feelings of being left out or discriminated against in some way (as absurd as it sounds).

By violating our own laws and rights to punish the nazis for their political party affiliation, not only do we forever threaten those rights for ourselves but we actually play into the hands of these ferocious ideologues.

Really radical people will break laws on their own time, and they can be arrested and jailed for a specific criminal offence and not on the basis of their party affiliation.