Quote Originally Posted by Prowl View Post
Out of interest what makes them "Neo Nazis"? I understand it is a insensitive comment to make but but why is anyone that makes those comments a Neo Nazi? Why not Neo Fascist as by branding them Nazi's you are guilty of the same genralisations that you are accusing the police of? Fascism exists in many forms not just the Nazi variety

Or why not just arseholes as I hardly think that making a insenstitive remark is akin to Nazi eugenics & I doubt they are looking to put people on a bus to Hadamar.

Also why is it Neo Nazi bigotry in general? Bigotry exists in all races & creeds not just Central European politics from 75 years ago.
Actually your argument here is guilty of the very mis-attribution you accuse mine of.

The problem is you've completely misattributed what fascism is.

To quote FDR in 1938: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."

In other words, while the Nazi regime was certainly fascist, it was not fascism which drove the extermination of the Holocaust.

Now to deal with the Nazi aspect of things.

Hitler didn't start the Holocaust, he merely jumped on the bandwagon that was already rolling away in Germany at the time.

To quote Binding and Hoche (1920) in their Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life:

Their life is absolutely pointless, but they do not regard it as being unbearable. They are a terrible, heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole. Their death would not even create the smallest gap -- except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses.
Furthermore it was this very school of Social Darwinist thought which ideologically fueled the genocide of the Holocaust. Why wouldn't it have- the moment you apply this ideology in any productive way, you wind up in a situation where you are at best, saying that it would be best for the good of the productivity of society if those with a disability died out. Funnily enough, that fits neatly into exactly what is meant by slurs like "spaz", "spastic", "retard" and "tard".

You bring up the visceral example of loading the disabled on a bus to Hadamar, but that's a bit of an irrational argument. After all, only a few of Hitler's supporters post 1942 loaded the ovens. Only a few of them manned the gas chambers. Only a few of them manned the gas chambers. Only a few of them rounded up the "undesirables" into cattle cars and transported them to concentration camps, were members of the Gestapo or were members of the SS.

The vast majority simply agreed with what Hitler was doing, that the "undesirables" needed to be wiped out "for the good of the volk".

That police woman might not have been experimenting on or forcibly sterilising the disabled, but she was actively perpetuating the bigotry that says that they should be- meaning that ideologically it ammounts to the same thing. Otherwise you might as well argue that the conviction of Albert Speer in the Nuremberg trials was unjust because all he was was a number cruncher (which would be an utterly ludicrous argument).

Whether you want to split hairs and call it Neo-Nazism, Nazism, Nazi sympathising, or some other term which rightfully and shamefully brands someone as a pro-eugenic scumbag, the underlying ideology is identical.

Then again, I completely understand why so many are reluctant to admit to this form of bigotry being what it is. Considering how much disability discrimination gets a free pass globally compared to racism and sexism; if society actually admitted to this being what it is, then a significant number of people would have to admit to the ideological swastikas they've been wearing in their hearts for some time now.