fchan

>>38
"I think everyone can agree here that Hitler did twist ideology, I'm only further stating that Hitler also twisted the Nazi ideology to further extremes."

And I am saying that, if you look at the consensus among historians, Nazi ideology did not come from Christianity. It drew influence from the anti-Semitic beliefs of Christian(s) in Germany, but not of Christian theology itself across the world. A historian who disbelieves this is like a scientist who says there's no global warming.


"For Christianity, I'll just ask this: Before the arrival of Christ, was there not God? Did no one believe in God until the arrival of Christ? If people did believe in God, would said beliefs then be the source/core part of Christianity?"

There's a reason why one part is called "The Old Testament" and the other part is called "The New Testament". The definition of 'Christianity' found in a dictionary is "a religous belief founded on Jesus Christ and his teachings". Of course, Jewish relgion is the source of Christianity in the same way British culture is the source of American culture. But both have always been clearly distinct.


"For evil Christians, I think I'll only need to say one term to prove my point. Witch-hunt."

Nineteen people died in the witch-hunt, at the hands of a small group of Christians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials). During the Spanish civil war, an organized group of secular terrorists following orthodox Marxist-Leninism killed 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy. In one night alone, they burned over forty churches.

Compare and contrast: When the High Priest came to capture Jesus, one of Jesus' apostles tried to defend him and cut off the ear of the Priest's servants. Jesus said "No more of this!" and healed the servant. He then gave himself up willingly. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&version=47)

Comapare this example of nonviolence to the one set by Vladimir "let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks" Lenin. Entire socio-ethnic groups met execution at his direct orders. Any fair judgement of history will regard him as one of its greatest monsters.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin#Lenin_and_the_Red_Terror)


"And frankly, your last point proves my whole point that homosexuality was punishable by genocide/death in the past"

Yes, by *secular people*. You claimed that German and Russian homophobia was caused entirely by Christianity, and that's not true.

>>31

That is something typical of some American people (Thankfully not everyone.) How you always find justify the atrocities the United States has done. I am not saying they are worse or better. In the end all sides are the same. You see your country's actions justified, so Soviets did and so Nazis did.

Enemies of the Reich, traitors to the party, communists terrorists. In the end, the actions to destroy these percieved "enemies" are the same, just like what drive them.

But to answer your question, are the crimes done by Cambodian communists comparable to burning whole villages do death using N
napalm? Or to carpet bombing civilian centers? No, they are not comparable, because both are equally atrocious.

>>41

"In the end all sides are the same."

That is something typical of some European people (Thankfully not everyone). In the 1930s, as the US was developing a pluralistic democracy and expanding civil rights under FDR-- Europe as a continent swooned over totalitarianism. They have never truely accepted the reality of they did, and they may never will.

The ADL surveyed people in Austria, Belgium, Britain, Hungary, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Guess what they found? "Fifty percent of Europeans in six countries believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their home country; 34.5 percent agree that Jews have too much financial and business clout; and 43 percent said Jews talk too much about the Holocaust". (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/883342.html)


"In the end, the actions to destroy these percieved "enemies" are the same"

These are all the exact same moral equivilence arguements that Charles Lindburg and his friends in the America First Committee made to try to keep the US out of WWII. If we got involved, we would be bombing entire cities and we would inevitably kill civilians as we ran through the war.

I know that you think the US really was/is as bad as the Nazis. But think about what the world would look like if the US had listened to the isolationists. Have you ever heard of the book "Fatherland"?

Why did FDR and Truman order things like the atomic bombings in Japan and the carpetbombing of Berlin? They did so because they knew that National Socialism and its conterpart ideologies around the world were inherently genocidal and that, every moment the war dragged on-- more and more innocent people would be exterminated. The Nazis actually considered defending themselves from the allies to be a lesser priority that continuing with their final solution. The same is true for the other fascists.

There are a lot of modern day Charles Lindburg's out there. And it's sickening. Of course, America has done things in the past that I strongly oppose. Most American Catholics, like me, opposed the invastion of Iraq, our use of chemical weapons there, our torture of terrorist suspects, our holding people without trial, and so on.

But it is just not the same. As mad as I may be that US soldiers stacked terrorists into a naked pyramid, I know that that is nowhere near comparable to Al Queda's kidnapping of innocent Iraqis, tying them down to chairs, and methodoically drilling holes into their hands with power tools.

I'm mad that the US government decided to do carpet bombing of enemy cities in Vietnam. They should have just said "Screw public opinion" and sent over hundreds upon hundreds of extra troops; then, we could root out the communists hiding among the civilians house by house rather than having to bomb them via air. At the same time, I know that our decision to do that is not the same as communist soldiers tracking down the 10-year-old daughter of a Christian minister, asking the child where her father is, and then executing her. (By the way, that little event didn't happen in the course of the war. It happened in April 2002)

>>42

Before I learned that some Furzis actually believe the ideology, I thought that-- and I'm only speaking for myself here-- they they're all fond of Nazi symbolism in the furry context becuase they know it's dirty and evil in real life.

It seemed to me to be mostly about irony. It's like those yiffy images/stories about prey sexually turning on their predators-- dominant foxes with wolves, dominant rabbits with foxes, dominant humans with dragons, and so on.

For someone that would have been exterminated under the Nazis to dress up as a Nazi, it's a quirky form of revenge. For them to yiff with regular furries: Revenge is a dish best served hot.

I've only been a furry fan for like a month and it's a real shock to learn that they'll actually say "Fucking Jew" and do all this other weird shit.

I can't get sick of the fandom so soon...

While Im usually not into uniform or domination, There is something about many of the Nazi fur pics that I find attractive.  I think it is the attitude of the pictures, the air of power.  It isn't so much the uniform or the symbol, but more the air and look.  I wonder if it this way for some of the other fans.  Just putting it out there and asking.

Honestly, i wouldn't know.  I am against RL nazi's, and if i saw a fursuit nazi, i doubt i would find it hot, but for some reason anthro nazi's just turn me on. For instance, i've seen a pic of a female doberman nazi, don't know if you've seen it, but i find it really hot.  But yeah, in RL i have a problem with nazi's and neonazi's.

I agree with mr 48 about it being a form of BDSM... maybe its because they did kill gays and therefore they're seen as being in a position of power or dominance for homosexuals.

More Soviets would be interesting to see though. They were the iconic villian during the Cold War, but nazis always one-upped them for evilness... perhaps because of all the movies and videogames of ww2. Especialy videogames man, now the nazis have become cartoon fodder in the same way zombies have. In fact all we need now is a zombie nazis... oh wait... Resistance.

On the topic of "iconic villians" the capatilist world makes for itself, I wonder if Al Qaeda would weezle its way into a furry fetish some day...

>>51
The Command and Conquer series comes to mind. We need more iconic Soviet bad guys like that! Come on!


"I wonder if Al Qaeda would weezle its way into a furry fetish some day"

Nah, but the RAF and IRA style urban guerllia terrorists might (they might have already-- IDK). Picture a skater punk-looking vixen with dyed bright blue hair, spiked bracelets, ripped up camoflauge fatigues, and a 'Dropkick Murphys' t-shirt carrying an assualt rifle: fetish material?

The problem is that they don't convey that sense of pure evil that BDSM requires, though...

My self i hate it worse than vore but i heard its a uniform fetish. Why dont those silly furs atleast stay updated and dress in "Alcada" uniforms... Then again I never got WTF the guys like about A Aceint war?

>>56
Stop straw-manning. This isn't about the flags or the symbols, this is about uniforms.

As the admin of this site, a strictly leftist person and as a german i have to say this: Everything has its time and its place. Forbidding the symbols in germany has its place to prevent the vestiges of that line of thought from using it to keep it going. Forbidding it elsewhere is simply dumb, as non-german nazis aren't nazis and this isn't protection of the public, but plain censorship.

>>58
Oh for the love of Belial, do you seriously believe that furries are the only people who get off to /ah material?
A small percentage of furries do, a small percentage of everyone does. You might as well just say that people make you sick and be done with it.

>>57

""Forbidding it elsewhere is simply dumb, as non-german nazis aren't nazis and this isn't protection of the public, but plain censorship.""

Why is censorship okay in Germany and not okay in the US?

On May 29, 2004, the world's most influential neo-Nazis-- David Duke, Paul Fromm, Don Black, Willis Carto, Kevin Alfred Strom and John Tyndall (signing as an individual, not on behalf of his British National Party)-- signed the 'New Orleans Protocol' for international far-right cooperation. "Honorable and ethical behavior in relations with other signatory groups... In other words, no enemies on the right" as they put it.

What makes American neo-Nazis any different than German neo-Nazis? There are holocaust survivors here as well, and they're also in danger. About a year ago, an American Neo-Nazi tried to kidnap Elie Wiesel while he was staying in a San Francisco (not a city known for bigotry). [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17193352/]

>>60

If they do, it goes in /ah/.

>>62

I have heard it said:
"Freedom of speech does not exist to protect what I want to say, It is there to protect what I do not want to hear."

>>64

I thought nothing gets deleted from /ah/ ?

But anyway, yes, that's the way it should be. Fchan is, still, a public site ans no law-less dumb for anything (at least it shouldn't be). If people want their nazi stuff just share it in private. No drama, no bitching. But, wait, that'd mean no possibility to cry for fursecution either. Well, that's a hard decision, ain't it?

>>64

Unless there is a solid reason to kill the image thread, we are not going to do it. No matter how much whining or trolling happens in /dis/.

>>64 >>68

The creation of this thread and the deletion of the /ah/ thread had nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Thread was beyond saving, it was just too full of bitching, counter-bitching and /wrists to clean up and by the time I ran across it. (No one ever placed a report mind you, to bring it to our attention), it would have been like cutting 50 pus-filled tumors out of someone and leaving nothing of worth behind. So it got sent to the fires.

>>32
They used it in reference to catholics. Most save the inner circle were practicing protestants, with a few anti-vatican catholics thrown in. If you had to attach a religion, I would attach Objectivism and not Atheism. (Read some of Himmler's stuff, then read Ayn and Naylor.) Ignore the occult shit, because it was nothing more than external justification to a still-religious Mass. "Vikings and Visigoths did this and this and this and so we should too."
Don't forget the big H wanted to be a priest before he found the church too corrupt then switched gears to 'artistry.' (he should have hung around Speer more, 'cause he had some great architecture ideas, his actual paintings are kind of blah-ly traditional though.)

>>(if you are thinking how homosexuals can progress one generation later to begin with I'll just note that sex != procreation. I'll laugh and continue further if you want to argue this other point)
One of the greater ironies of the Reich, they despise homosexuals, uphold ancient pagans, and yet...ancient pagan gays married and 'did the deed' exactly for that reason, to continue the family line, they just put the gay thing on the side temporarily. But for all intents and purposes they were still 100% crooked and proud of it once the kids went off on their own. I don't know about the celts past animal stuffing, but I know Wotanists/Odinists who were gay went that path. Even vikinganswerlady fielded that question. As eastern europe was similarly hypermasculine as a result of their harsh climates, I expect they probably had similar arrangements.

>>55
If you think 1940 is ancient, I hope you never attend a toga party, or an sca festival. Mind = BLOWN

Actually...nah, I won't get into that, Kinsey is kind of crappy and too logical about something as psychologically emotional as identified gender. But I'd reckon it's a whole lot higher, just many operate as 'straight' to retain their position in life.

And yeah, meant Jay. A lot of Rand & Jay's rants on social safety nets sound like the inferior/superior form of human life divide the old pamphlets refer to. Basically if you can't do it yourself, then you're just weak, incoming natural selection reference. They're both quite light compared to full-blown fanatical objectivists. They're the ones who say, for instance, everyone who died during Hurricane Katrina deserved it for not being properly prepared.
In fact, here is a paraphrased snippet of how one such argument with a non-fur on youtube known as biomech went.
"So what about the people in the hospitals?"
"They had warning. They should have had proper transportation arrangements in case it got worse."
"What if they lived on their own because their family?"
"They should have made better friends before going in, or hired a caretaker to drive them out."
"What if they couldn't afford one because they were poor?"
"Maybe they wouldn't be poor if they had invested smartly."
"Okay, so, so what if their money was wiped out because a family member was sick huh?"
"Simply should have taken better care of themselves/eaten less processed foods."
This went on for over 10 minutes before he broke out the Natural Selection card and declared it a complete win in his favour. Naylor is a lightweight compared to the hardcore adherents. It's like trying to argue with meat&bone Skynet agents. "hurr hurr standard humans are so inefficient, they deserve whatever happens, that's what they get for not using cold steely machine logic every waking second of the day."

>>75
As for your second point, yes, Objectivism as practiced how Rand intended it is nothing if not a diehard fundamentalist religion.

I recently saw an interview of an ex-Nazi administrator who was asked why he didn't object to the murdering of hundreds of disabled infants under his watch (the T4 program). He said something like "Did 'you' see those children? Those were not real children. Did you see them? They did nothing but cry, vomit, soil themsevles... They were revolting. They burdened their parents horribly and the Reich."