Wolfenstein 2: Anti-White?

[IMPress Polly]

Wolfenstein is an action video game franchise that dates back to 1981, but whose best-known installment is unquestionably 1992's Wolfenstein 3D, which largely defined the popular first-person shooter genre. The series was rebooted in 2009 and the recently-released Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus is the second installment of the reboot series. It takes place in a fictional, alternative 1961 wherein the German Nazis won World War II and control the United States. The player is a member of the resistance tasked with trying to overthrow the German occupation.

The Wolfenstein franchise has always revolved around gunning down Nazis, either in or around World War II. Nazis were chosen to be the franchise's villains because back in 1981 Nazism was considered to be the most uniformly despised political worldview in America, and thus a choice of villain that would be uncontroversial. Wolfenstein 3D was minutely controversial with parents back in the early 1990s because of the level of blood and gore it included back in an era wherein video games were still broadly regarded as simply children's toys (to the point that the industry didn't see a need for a ratings system at the time). The game's actual themes, which boiled down to shooting generic Nazis in a satirized way, were not traditionally part of the controversy surrounding this franchise. UNTIL NOW!!

Enter 2017: a time when Nazis march down American streets chanting "Jews..will not..replace us! Jews..will not..replace us!" with Tiki torches in hand and one is socially obliged to treat them with respect and their ideas with equal consideration and legitimacy, when college campuses are expected to provide them a platform, etc. Can the Wolfenstein franchise survive this new, liberalized political correctness? To judge by the Internet's reactions to Wolfenstein II's preview trailer at this year's E3, it may struggle to. The E3 trailer generated a massive response from the Gamergate and other alt-right online communities, which didn't exist back in 2009 when the franchise was rebooted to an immensely positive reception. Many of the comments that could be found on the YouTube video for the game's E3 trailer (I'd estimate about 45% of the total) lamented the game's ostensible anti-whiteness (yes even though you play as a hulking white he-man like in every other Wolfenstein game). Here are some typical examples of that:


21008

21009

21010

21011

21012


Shortly after all that came the infamous events in Charlottesville. Putting it all together, publisher Bethesda decided to subsequently promote their already-finished game with a marketing campaign that made frequent, hostile allusions to alt-right movement and implied endorsements of the resistance (e.g. incorporating our slogans, like "Not My America", and so forth), such as this (https://twitter.com/wolfenstein/status/916075551382585344/video/1) and this (http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/social-commentary-in-wolfenstein-ii-marketing-not-game-w509207). There was also an easter egg added to the game late in development mocking Richard Spencer and the trivializing coverage that the rise of the alt-right movement has received in liberal news publications (https://kotaku.com/wolfenstein-2-collectible-mocks-progressive-magazine-ov-1819952709). The majority of responses that could be found on social media were very positive, but there has continued to be a real Gamergate and alt-right campaign against the game. Bethesda has explained (http://www.businessinsider.com/wolfenstein-2-make-america-nazi-free-again-ad-campaign-2017-10) that recent events (such as Charlottesville, the online reaction to their trailers claiming the franchise is anti-white, etc.) have left them feeling morally obliged to comment on current events, which they regard as reflecting a sad state of affairs considering that Wolfenstein, including this latest installment, has never been intended as a serious political commentary:


"At the time, none of us expected that the game would be seen as a comment on current issues, but here we are. Bethesda doesn't develop games to make specific statements or incite political discussions. We make games that we think are fun, meaningful, and immersive for a mature audience. In 'Wolfenstein's' case, it's pure coincidence that Nazis are marching in the streets of America this year. And it's disturbing that the game can be considered a controversial political statement at all."

They added:


"We don't feel it's a reach for us to say Nazis are bad and un-American. And we're not worried about being on the right side of history here."

Unfortunately, I fear that an increasing number of Americans disagree, and THAT is what's truly sad. At least in my mind. But maybe you disagree with me about that. What do you think? Is Wolfenstein anti-white or is white racism becoming worryingly popular (especially online)?

[Standing Wolf]

First of all, I've got to say...a Nazi who calls himself "Pepe Von Europa"? Sounds like a cross-dressing cabaret singer.

Seriously, though, if a group chooses to promote itself on the basis of its "racial purity"/Whiteness, and to identify with a universally despised lot of truly evil, homicidal b*st*rds, it doesn't make a whole lot of rational sense to then complain that a game depicting violence against that earlier group (or their fictional, alternate history counterparts) is 'anti-white".

[donttread]

Wolfenstein is an action video game franchise that dates back to 1981, but whose best-known installment is unquestionably 1992's Wolfenstein 3D, which largely defined the popular first-person shooter genre. The series was rebooted in 2009 and the recently-released Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus is the second installment of the reboot series. It takes place in a fictional, alternative 1961 wherein the German Nazis won World War II and control the United States. The player is a member of the resistance tasked with trying to overthrow the German occupation.

The Wolfenstein franchise has always revolved around gunning down Nazis, either in or around World War II. Nazis were chosen to be the franchise's villains because back in 1981 Nazism was considered to be the most uniformly despised political worldview in America, and thus a choice of villain that would be uncontroversial. Wolfenstein 3D was minutely controversial with parents back in the early 1990s because of the level of blood and gore it included back in an era wherein video games were still broadly regarded as simply children's toys (to the point that the industry didn't see a need for a ratings system at the time). The game's actual themes, which boiled down to shooting generic Nazis in a satirized way, were not traditionally part of the controversy surrounding this franchise. UNTIL NOW!!

Enter 2017: a time when Nazis march down American streets chanting "Jews..will not..replace us! Jews..will not..replace us!" with Tiki torches in hand and one is socially obliged to treat them with respect and their ideas with equal consideration and legitimacy, when college campuses are expected to provide them a platform, etc. Can the Wolfenstein franchise survive this new, liberalized political correctness? To judge by the Internet's reactions to Wolfenstein II's preview trailer at this year's E3, it may struggle to. The E3 trailer generated a massive response from the Gamergate and other alt-right online communities, which didn't exist back in 2009 when the franchise was rebooted to an immensely positive reception. Many of the comments that could be found on the YouTube video for the game's E3 trailer (I'd estimate about 45% of the total) lamented the game's ostensible anti-whiteness (yes even though you play as a hulking white he-man like in every other Wolfenstein game). Here are some typical examples of that:


21008

21009

21010

21011

21012


Shortly after all that came the infamous events in Charlottesville. Putting it all together, publisher Bethesda decided to subsequently promote their already-finished game with a marketing campaign that made frequent, hostile allusions to alt-right movement and implied endorsements of the resistance (e.g. incorporating our slogans, like "Not My America", and so forth), such as this (https://twitter.com/wolfenstein/status/916075551382585344/video/1) and this (http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/social-commentary-in-wolfenstein-ii-marketing-not-game-w509207). There was also an easter egg added to the game late in development mocking Richard Spencer the trivializing coverage that the rise of the alt-right movement has received in liberal news publications (https://kotaku.com/wolfenstein-2-collectible-mocks-progressive-magazine-ov-1819952709). The majority of responses that could be found on social media were very positive, but there has continued to be a real Gamergate and alt-right campaign against the game. Bethesda has explained (http://www.businessinsider.com/wolfenstein-2-make-america-nazi-free-again-ad-campaign-2017-10) that recent events (such as Charlottesville, the online reaction to their trailers claiming the franchise is anti-white, etc.) have left them feeling morally obliged to comment on current events, which they regard as reflecting a sad state of affairs considering that Wolfenstein, including this latest installment, has never been intended as a serious political commentary:



They added:



Unfortunately, I fear that an increasing number of Americans disagree, and THAT is what's truly sad. At least in my mind. But maybe you disagree with me about that. What do you think? Is Wolfenstein anti-white or is white racism becoming worryingly popular (especially online)?


I think your worried about nothing. Free speech has always applied to the hated as well as the loved. That is not something new and not something we can be us without. But the amount of support limits the platform.
Nazi's are still hateable , enough more so than congress!

[Mister D]

Did you take yourself seriously as a Maoist? Sorry, your condemnation of Nazism (or what passes for Nazism these days) rings hollow.

Anyway, the tiny minority of weirdos playing Nazi are irrelevant. In light of the irrelevancy of Nazism the real question here is why are we always reminded of Nazi evil? It's certainly not unique. How and why did Nazis become the archetypal villains?

[resister]

Did you take yourself seriously as a Maoist? Sorry, your condemnation of Nazism (or what passes for Nazism these days) rings hollow.

Anyway, the tiny minority of weirdos playing Nazi are irrelevant. In light of the irrelevancy of Nazism the real question here is why are we always reminded of Nazi evil? It's certainly not unique. How and why did Nazis become the archetypal villains?

How did Hitler tie his boots? In little Nazis! lol

[Mister D]

How did Hitler tie his boots? In little Nazis! lol
The History Channel should be called the Hitler Channel. They probably do have a documentary about how he tied his shoes.

[Chris]

Did you take yourself seriously as a Maoist? Sorry, your condemnation of Nazism (or what passes for Nazism these days) rings hollow.

Anyway, the tiny minority of weirdos playing Nazi are irrelevant. In light of the irrelevancy of Nazism the real question here is why are we always reminded of Nazi evil? It's certainly not unique. How and why did Nazis become the archetypal villains?

They opposed communism? Liberalism in general.

[Mister D]

They opposed communism? Liberalism in general.
I think that explains the alliance between the West and the USSR. I just find it odd that even after half a century of intensive Cold War propaganda the archetypal villain was still not a Soviet agent, commissar etc. but a Nazi officer.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
I think that explains the alliance between the West and the USSR. I just find it odd that even after half a century of intensive Cold War propaganda the archetypal villain was still not a Soviet agent, commissar etc. but a Nazi officer.

Maybe that's because it's tough to persuade the majority of people that anything else human beings have done to date has actually been worse than the Holocaust and starting the most devastating war in human history.

[Mister D]

Maybe that's because it's tough to persuade the majority of people that anything else human beings have done to date has actually been worse than the Holocaust and starting the most devastating war in human history.

It's actually pretty easy. Your Maoist friends alone have been responsible for many more civilian deaths than the Nazis never mind the the USSR, the Khmer Rouge etc. You were one misguided lil' gal back in your Maoist days. So why do we focus so much on Nazis?

As for the war, it never would have happened had Germany not been persecuted for the First World War. That's not particularly controversial. Moreover, let's not forget how amenable your red friends were to Hitler. After all, they happily dismembered Poland with Nazi Germany.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
It's actually pretty easy. Your Maoist friends alone have been responsible for many more civilian deaths than the Nazis...

1) I don't have "Maoist friends" anymore.

2) What's your source for this BS claim anyway?

[Mister D]

1) I don't have "Maoist friends" anymore.

2) What's your source for this BS claim anyway?

1) That you ever did is a little disturbing or rather...it should be which is precisely the point. Nazis are horrible people but you're a nice person? Yeah, OK. :rollseyes:

2) Look it up.

[Chris]

I think that explains the alliance between the West and the USSR. I just find it odd that even after half a century of intensive Cold War propaganda the archetypal villain was still not a Soviet agent, commissar etc. but a Nazi officer.


Academia always championed it, and the media. So that's a factor.

WWII was boots on the ground. The Cold War did, in Korea, Vietnam, but not an all out war with Communist Russia.

[Mister D]

For the record, making distinctions between regimes that murdered millions of people is pointless. My object here is not to suggest one was somehow better than another.

[Chris]

For the record, making distinctions between regimes that murdered millions of people is pointless. My object here is not to suggest one was somehow better than another.

Especially when you consider the one common factor among them all was central planning by experts in a mechanical way which, despite losing World and the Cold Wars, still persists today. FDR, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin had a mutual admiration society in that regard.

[Mister D]

Academia always championed it, and the media. So that's a factor.

WWII was boots on the ground. The Cold War did, in Korea, Vietnam, but not an all out war with Communist Russia.
True. Many 20th Century American intellectuals were sympathetic to communism. Some even actively covered up communist crimes (e.g. Walter Duranty).

But those boots were on the ground 70 plus years ago. I think it's a combination of what I'll call the Holocaust industry and a certain sympathy especially on the left for communist goals and ideals the historical reality of communism notwithstanding.

[Mister D]

Especially when you consider the one common factor among them all was central planning by experts in a mechanical way which, despite losing World and the Cold Wars, still persists today. FDR, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin had a mutual admiration society in that regard.
What I found most damning was the observation that "race" and "class enemy" served exactly the same function and had exactly the same results.

[Chris]

1) I don't have "Maoist friends" anymore.

2) What's your source for this BS claim anyway?



https://i.snag.gy/kyFArb.jpg


@ https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
1) That you ever did is a little disturbing or rather...it should be which is precisely the point. Nazis are horrible people but you're a nice person? Yeah, OK. :rollseyes:

I will take no lectures on that from someone who has used a Hitler avatar before.


2) Look it up.

In other words, it's either some widely discredited, McCarthyite source like The Black Book of Communism or you don't have one.

[Chris]

What I found most damning was the observation that "race" and "class enemy" served exactly the same function and had exactly the same results.

They had that in common as well.

[Mister D]

I will take no lectures on that from someone who has used a Hitler avatar before.



In other words, it's either some widely discredited, McCarthyite source like The Black Book of Communism or you don't have one.

Sure you will and I have never had a Hitler avatar.

Look it up, Polly. I'm not your history tutor. If you had looked it up before you became a Maoist you may have had a fortuitous "holy shit" moment saving you a lot of time and effort.

BTW, the Black Book of Communism was published around 20 years ago. You have strange compulsion to recycle long dead language.

[Mister D]

https://i.snag.gy/kyFArb.jpg


@ https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

McCarthyite lies!

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
Sure you will and I have never had a Hitler avatar.

Hmmmm....I seem to distinctly remember one! MAYBE I'm confusing you with someone else, but I doubt it.


McCarthyite lies!

Well let's break it down: Even assuming that Chris's data is all accurate, check out the key "Odds of Dying" column that Chris's own chart provides. Notice where the highest odds -- i.e. the highest rate of "death by government" -- lies, by a lot: "Nazi Europe". What's to miss about that? The fact that World War II didn't last as long as the Soviet Union or the Cold War?

Now, btw, check out where, among those cited in Chris's chart, by far the LOWEST rate of "death by government" could be found: "Communist China" (liberally defined as running through 1987, where most Maoists would say 1976-9). Ooooohhh! Maybe there were worse dictators than Mao after all! Maybe China's average life expectancy doubling in 25 years under Mao WASN'T actually the worst thing that ever happened in human history!

[Chris]

Hmmmm....I seem to distinctly remember one! MAYBE I'm confusing you with someone else, but I doubt it.



Well let's break it down: Even assuming that Chris's data is all accurate, check out the key "Odds of Dying" column that Chris's own chart provides. Notice where the highest odds -- i.e. the highest rate of "death by government" -- lies, by a lot: "Nazi Europe". What's to miss about that? The fact that World War II didn't last as long as the Soviet Union or the Cold War?

Now, btw, check out where, among those cited in Chris's chart, by far the LOWEST rate of "death by government" could be found: "Communist China" (liberally defined as running through 1987, where most Maoists would say 1976-9). Ooooohhh! Maybe there were worse dictators than Mao after all! Maybe China's average life expectancy doubling in 25 years under Mao WASN'T actually the worst thing that ever happened in human history!

It's not my chart, Polly.

It's the results of decades of study by Rudolph Joseph Rummel, a liberal and a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii.

Here's what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel has to say:


Rudolph Joseph Rummel (October 21, 1932 – March 2, 2014[1]) was professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii. He spent his career studying data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. Rummel coined the term democide for murder by government (compare genocide), such as the Stalinist purges and Mao's Cultural Revolution.

He put the total number of people killed by governments during the 20th century at 212,000,000 of which he says 148,000,000 were killed by communist regimes.[2] His figures for Communist regimes are higher than those given by other scholars, which range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000.[3] He concluded that democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not wage war against each other.[4] This is known as the democratic peace theory.

He generally estimates much much higher number for Communist murder, but the chart he drew up used the standard number scholars use.




the highest rate of "death by government" -- lies, by a lot: "Nazi Europe". What's to miss about that? The fact that World War II didn't last as long as the Soviet Union or the Cold War?

Rates aren't determined by temporal factors like that. So it's not the "lie" your denialism wishes it were.

And for all your ooohs and aaahs Communist China still murder more than the Nazis.

Accept history, Polly. Reject Communism.

[donttread]

Did you take yourself seriously as a Maoist? Sorry, your condemnation of Nazism (or what passes for Nazism these days) rings hollow.



Anyway, the tiny minority of weirdos playing Nazi are irrelevant. In light of the irrelevancy of Nazism the real question here is why are we always reminded of Nazi evil? It's certainly not unique. How and why did Nazis become the archetypal villains?

My guess would be that the telvision age closely followed WW2.

[Mister D]

Hmmmm....I seem to distinctly remember one! MAYBE I'm confusing you with someone else, but I doubt it.



Well let's break it down: Even assuming that Chris's data is all accurate, check out the key "Odds of Dying" column that Chris's own chart provides. Notice where the highest odds -- i.e. the highest rate of "death by government" -- lies, by a lot: "Nazi Europe". What's to miss about that? The fact that World War II didn't last as long as the Soviet Union or the Cold War?

Now, btw, check out where, among those cited in Chris's chart, by far the LOWEST rate of "death by government" could be found: "Communist China" (liberally defined as running through 1987, where most Maoists would say 1976-9). Ooooohhh! Maybe there were worse dictators than Mao after all! Maybe China's average life expectancy doubling in 25 years under Mao WASN'T actually the worst thing that ever happened in human history!
You remember a lot of things that never happened.

Polly, Chris' chart isn't really of interest. That's no slight to Chris. After all, it's common knowledge or at least it should be that the Chinese communists killed more people than the Nazis. It's also beyond dispute that communist regimes are responsible for a far greater number of deaths than fascist regimes. We can include the Nazis in that category for the sake of simplicity. So why exactly do the Nazis loom so large in our imagination? Why is that, Polly? Because Rummel concludes you had a greater likelihood of being a victim in nazi Europe? Seriously? lol

BTW, your last comments are shameful. Hey, maybe Mao's atrocities effected some good! Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, huh? Ugh...you're disgusting.

[IMPress Polly]

Alright, I think this Hitler vs. Mao debate has gone far enough. No one was worse than Hitler was my only point. I am an anarchist, not a Maoist. Let us return to the topic of Wolfenstein 2 now.

[resister]

21018

This picture reminds me of someone.

[Mister D]

Alright, I think this Hitler vs. Mao debate has gone far enough. No one was worse than Hitler was my only point. I am an anarchist, not a Maoist. Let us return to the topic of Wolfenstein 2 now.
There was no debate here, Polly. My position is irrefutable but I agree that no one was worse than Hitler. Once you kill millions of people what's the point of making distinctions? This guy killed 3 million so he's not as bad as the guy who killed 5 million? It's ridiculous.

Anyway, my question is why Nazis loom so large in our imagination? Why is that? Nazi atrocities certainly weren't unique. You love to analyze society, Polly. Surely this is food for thought. Why do we see so many films about the Jewish Holocaust? Why does Holocaust literature turn up so often in American schools? I don't want to take the focus off of video game villains but it's a larger topic.

[Chris]

Alright, I think this Hitler vs. Mao debate has gone far enough. No one was worse than Hitler was my only point. I am an anarchist, not a Maoist. Let us return to the topic of Wolfenstein 2 now.


Hitler was terrible. Only Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others were worse.

If you're no longer a communist/Maoist, why defend them?

[Chris]

There was no debate here, Polly. My position is irrefutable but I agree that no one was worse than Hitler. Once you kill millions of people what's the point of making distinctions? This guy killed 3 million so he's not as bad as the guy who killed 5 million? It's ridiculous.

Anyway, my question is why Nazis loom so large in our imagination? Why is that? Nazi atrocities certainly weren't unique. You love to analyze society, Polly. Surely this is food for thought. Why do we see so many films about the Jewish Holocaust? Why does Holocaust literature turn up so often in American schools? I don't want to take the focus off of video game villains but it's a larger topic.



That's true, once the numbers become so staggering their difficult to imagine even, those people all equally bad.

And, yes, the question remains, why the focus on Nazis and not communists? --Why, in fact, given my recent thread on the 100th anniversary of communist failure, is communism even defended still?

[Chris]

One question remains. While looking for numbers, I never found numbers for fascists. I even explicitly searched for how many fascists murdered. What I found were some articles on fascist murder numbers that talked about how terrible Hitler was and others that merely merged Nazis and fascists. So I'm curious about this. Especially in light of Antifa and Polly and others condemning facists.

[Mister D]

One question remains. While looking for numbers, I never found numbers for fascists. I even explicitly searched for how many fascists murdered. What I found were some articles on fascist murder numbers that talked about how terrible Hitler was and others that merely merged Nazis and fascists. So I'm curious about this. Especially in light of Antifa and Polly and others condemning facists.
If we do not include the Nazis, fascism just wasn't that nasty. I'll include the Nazis because I do think it was part of the same interwar political phenomenon.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
If you're no longer a communist/Maoist, why defend them?

On the contrary, you and Mister D were objectively defending Hitler and the Nazis. I was correcting you on the facts.

[gamewell45]

How did Hitler tie his boots? In little Nazis! lol

Nicely done; nothing beats a good laugh in the morning. Now its time for coffee. :)

[Chris]

On the contrary, you and Mister D were objectively defending Hitler and the Nazis. I was correcting you on the facts.

We pointed them out as mass murderers, Polly. We also pointed out communists as worse mass murders. Nice try, no cigar.

[Captdon]

It's not my chart, Polly.

It's the results of decades of study by Rudolph Joseph Rummel, a liberal and a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii.

Here's what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel has to say:



He generally estimates much much higher number for Communist murder, but the chart he drew up used the standard number scholars use.





Rates aren't determined by temporal factors like that. So it's not the "lie" your denialism wishes it were.

And for all your ooohs and aaahs Communist China still murder more than the Nazis.

Accept history, Polly. Reject Communism.


The Nazis murdered at least 12 million and probably more. They are the worst sine Genghis Khan. The reason the Nazis didn't murder more was losing the war. No defense for them.

[Captdon]

We fought the Nazis. We didn't fight the Communists in a big war. The Nazis are the bad guys and no one can argue the point. They are the perfect bad guys.

[Chris]

The Nazis murdered at least 12 million and probably more. They are the worst sine Genghis Khan. The reason the Nazis didn't murder more was losing the war. No defense for them.

No one is defending Nazis. We are pointing out the communists mass murder an order of magnitude more.

[Mister D]

On the contrary, you and Mister D were objectively defending Hitler and the Nazis. I was correcting you on the facts.

You lie a lot, Polly. I'm starting to wonder what else you lie about here.

[Mister D]

We fought the Nazis. We didn't fight the Communists in a big war. The Nazis are the bad guys and no one can argue the point. They are the perfect bad guys.
Wow that's really convincing. lol

[The Xl]

I don't see this as anti white but the Nazi stuff gets old at a point. They're not the only evil regime of all time, and Jewish victims of the Nazis aren't the only victims of all time.

[IMPress Polly]

I think at this point it's worth saying that the central inquiry of this thread -- whether Wolfenstein is an anti-white franchise because it casts Nazis as the villains -- was intended sarcastically, as a leading proposition that yours truly assumed people would find self-evidently false, not as a matter of serious debate. The fact that half of this thread's participants cannot just make an unequivocal statement on this, but go out of their way to dream up nuance that doesn't exist vis-a-vis this situation, is kind of disturbing to me in its own right. The fact that there's any sympathy at all for the Third Reich here is something that bothers me.

Let me make something perfectly clear that I shouldn't have to: only white supremacists sympathize with Hitler's regime. There are no exceptions to that rule. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.

[Chris]

I think at this point it's worth saying that the central inquiry of this thread -- whether Wolfenstein is an anti-white franchise because it casts Nazis as the villains -- was intended sarcastically, as a leading proposition that yours truly assumed people would find self-evidently false, not as a matter of serious debate. The fact that half of this thread's participants cannot just make an unequivocal statement on this, but go out of their way to dream up nuance that doesn't exist vis-a-vis this situation, is kind of disturbing to me in its own right. The fact that there's any sympathy at all for the Third Reich here is something that bothers me.

Let me make something perfectly clear that I shouldn't have to: only white supremacists sympathize with Hitler's regime. There are no exceptions to that rule. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.


Be it serious or sarcastic the basis of your conclusion are false premises. It is those premises that are argued with.

I would argue so many more white supremacists sympathize with communism that murder so much more. By this I mean those whites who proclaim and promote their ideas and reasoning superior to that of the people who in their arrogant minds are to stupid to be free and choose for themselves.

[Mister D]

I think at this point it's worth saying that the central inquiry of this thread -- whether Wolfenstein is an anti-white franchise because it casts Nazis as the villains -- was intended sarcastically, as a leading proposition that yours truly assumed people would find self-evidently false, not as a matter of serious debate. The fact that half of this thread's participants cannot just make an unequivocal statement on this, but go out of their way to dream up nuance that doesn't exist vis-a-vis this situation, is kind of disturbing to me in its own right. The fact that there's any sympathy at all for the Third Reich here is something that bothers me.

Let me make something perfectly clear that I shouldn't have to: only white supremacists sympathize with Hitler's regime. There are no exceptions to that rule. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.
I don't debate video games, Polly.

You admitted to being a Maoist, Polly. Spare us your indignation. lol

[Captdon]

No one is defending Nazis. We are pointing out the communists mass murder an order of magnitude more.

Was saying why Nazis are better enemies here.

[Chris]

Was saying why Nazis are better enemies here.

Nazis are better enemies...not sure I understand that. There really aren't any remaining Nazis. Did you mean they were the better enemy?

[Mister D]

Was saying why Nazis are better enemies here.
What?

[Mister D]

Nazis are better enemies...not sure I understand that. There really aren't any remaining Nazis. Did you mean they were the better enemy?
Exactly,. Why do we keep recycling Nazis? lol

[Mister D]

BTW, we did fight the communists in a "big war". We fought them all over the world from Latin America to Africa to Asia. Millions paid with their lives.

[Chris]

BTW, we did fight the communists in a "big war". We fought them all over the world from Latin America to Africa to Asia. Millions paid with their lives.

Correction, we fought "untrue" implementations. They were not true communism. :D

[Mister D]

lol

[Chris]

Fighting communism was only a major matter for the new conservatives. They initially arose in the 50s in resistance to FDR's follower's central planning, but were joined and steered by ex-liberals and ex-communists who were aware of the wretched conditions of communism, from Kirk to Reagan. McCarthy is demonized. Neocons are castigated.

[Mister D]

Fighting communism was only a major matter for the new conservatives. They initially arose in the 50s in resistance to FDR's follower's central planning, but were joined and steered by ex-liberals and ex-communists who were aware of the wretched conditions of communism, from Kirk to Reagan. McCarthy is demonized. Neocons are castigated.
Regardless of how we choose to interpret the Cold War in domestic terms the fact of the matter is that it did result in a great deal of violence. Anti-communist propaganda became a mainstay of political rhetoric, fiction and even advertising. Now we recycle Nazis. It's as if using Arabs is racist.

[Mister D]

That's an interesting point if I do say so myself. Maybe Nazis are just safe targets and not because they're uniquely evil but precisely because they are white nationalists.

[Safety]

I don't debate video games, Polly.

You admitted to being a Maoist, Polly. Spare us your indignation. lol

Then why are you in the geek out zone doing exactly that?

[Safety]

I think at this point it's worth saying that the central inquiry of this thread -- whether Wolfenstein is an anti-white franchise because it casts Nazis as the villains -- was intended sarcastically, as a leading proposition that yours truly assumed people would find self-evidently false, not as a matter of serious debate. The fact that half of this thread's participants cannot just make an unequivocal statement on this, but go out of their way to dream up nuance that doesn't exist vis-a-vis this situation, is kind of disturbing to me in its own right. The fact that there's any sympathy at all for the Third Reich here is something that bothers me.

Let me make something perfectly clear that I shouldn't have to: only white supremacists sympathize with Hitler's regime. There are no exceptions to that rule. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.

I'm sorry that a thread you started in the geek out zone has turned into some side bar between a couple of the usual suspects telling us how benevolent the nazi regime was. Getting back to the topic, you will always have those that will express their disdain for anything non-white on the internet, with Wolfenstein being the prime example, because it is the only venue they can do so without repercussions. 99 out of 100 people are decent and will agree with you that nazism are and should be villainized for their atrocities committed. Even in a video game, WNs will come out of the woodwork to argue against their ideology any way they can.

[Chris]

That's an interesting point if I do say so myself. Maybe Nazis are just safe targets and not because they're uniquely evil but precisely because they are white nationalists.

Of course, they're easy targets for virtue signaling on the left. Point out communists were worse and you get accused of being a Nazi and white nationalist.

[Chris]

The irony in all this id the alt-right is, as noted elsewhere, playing the left's identity group politics and the left is reacting to it rather than gaining insight into how ridiculousness playing that identity group politics is.

[Ethereal]

That's an interesting point if I do say so myself. Maybe Nazis are just safe targets and not because they're uniquely evil but precisely because they are white nationalists.
US involvement in WWII is central the state's mythology. In my opinion, that is the biggest reason why the Nazis are endlessly fixated upon in mainstream narratives.

[Mister D]

Then why are you in the geek out zone doing exactly that?

I brought up a larger and more interesting question. Do you have an opinion on anything here or are you just here to be Polly's black knight?

[Mister D]

I'm sorry that a thread you started in the geek out zone has turned into some side bar between a couple of the usual suspects telling us how benevolent the nazi regime was. Getting back to the topic, you will always have those that will express their disdain for anything non-white on the internet, with Wolfenstein being the prime example, because it is the only venue they can do so without repercussions. 99 out of 100 people are decent and will agree with you that nazism are and should be villainized for their atrocities committed. Even in a video game, WNs will come out of the woodwork to argue against their ideology any way they can.
Safety, who said anything about Nazi benevolence? No one?

[Mister D]

Of course, they're easy targets for virtue signaling on the left. Point out communists were worse and you get accused of being a Nazi and white nationalist.
Virtue signalling. I like that. That's a great term.

[Safety]

I brought up a larger and more interesting question. Do you have an opinion on anything here or are you just here to be Polly's black knight?

In other words, deflecting from the topic, right?


Safety, who said anything about Nazi benevolence? No one?

I said that was what ya'll were doing. Slow night?

[Mister D]

US involvement in WWII is central the state's mythology. In my opinion, that is the biggest reason why the Nazis are endlessly fixated upon in mainstream narratives.
That's true. US involvement in WW2 is on par with the lionization of Abraham Lincoln. The "good war" has indeed become central to American mythology at least as far as the 20th Century is concerned. Still, I find it odd that we have to constantly reminded of how evil the Nazis were (note tense).

[Mister D]

In other words, deflecting from the topic, right?



I said that was what ya'll were doing. Slow night?

Sorry, video games aren't really that interesting to me. They're mostly for children.
Safety, who has suggested the Nazis were benevolent or even implied anything even remotely along those lines? Now of course the answer is no one. Question 2: do you make a complete of yourself for all the white girls? lol

[Safety]

Sorry, video games aren't really that interesting to me. They're mostly for children.
Safety, who has suggested the Nazis were benevolent or even implied anything even remotely along those lines? Now of course the answer is no one. Question 2: do you make a complete of yourself for all the white girls? lol

Yet you felt triggered enough to post in a video game thread, in a video game subforum, why do you feel the need to defend nazis so? Is it the same leg tingle you get when you think you gain cool points by mentioning white girls to me? Obviously the usual defenders of WNs are not going to pay your last two comments any mind, will they? But, they would be quick to jump on my case if I said anything similar towards a white member, won't they? Rhetorical question, obviously.

[Mister D]

Yet you felt triggered enough to post in a video game thread, in a video game subforum, why do you feel the need to defend nazis so? Is it the same leg tingle you get when you think you gain cool points by mentioning white girls to me? Obviously the usual defenders of WNs are not going to pay your last two comments any mind, will they? But, they would be quick to jump on my case if I said anything similar towards a white member, won't they? Rhetorical question, obviously.
Safety, who said anything about Nazi benevolence or implied anything even remotely along this lines? No one, right? Of course not. So why did you lie? Your penchant for dishonesty does give you something in common with Polly but let me give you some advice on the house: never stick your dick into crazy.

[Chris]

Virtue signalling. I like that. That's a great term.


I've been accused of it when I go after the alt-right for their adoption of the left's identity politics. But I have no sympathy either mirrored side.

[Ravens Fan]

I'm sorry that a thread you started in the geek out zone has turned into some side bar between a couple of the usual suspects telling us how benevolent the nazi regime was. Getting back to the topic, you will always have those that will express their disdain for anything non-white on the internet, with Wolfenstein being the prime example, because it is the only venue they can do so without repercussions. 99 out of 100 people are decent and will agree with you that nazism are and should be villainized for their atrocities committed. Even in a video game, WNs will come out of the woodwork to argue against their ideology any way they can.
@Safety Please stick to the topic and not other members.

[resister]

Safety, who said anything about Nazi benevolence or implied anything even remotely along this lines? No one, right? Of course not. So why did you lie? Your penchant for dishonesty does give you something in common with Polly but let me give you some advice on the house: never stick your dick into crazy.
That's some good advice!:)

[IMPress Polly]

@Ravens Fan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=908)


Mister D wrote:
I brought up a larger and more interesting question. Do you have an opinion on anything here or are you just here to be Polly's black knight?


Question 2: do you make a complete of yourself for all the white girls? lol


Your penchant for dishonesty does give you something in common with Polly but let me give you some advice on the house: never stick your dick into crazy.


Chris wrote, in answer to Mister D's last remark:
That's some good advice!http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/smilies/smile.png

Okay, I don't care if I get in trouble for making this public because something must be said here and I have the sneaking suspicion that if I don't say it publicly, where everyone can see, the behavorial pattern won't change.

As we can see in the above examples supplied by Mister D and Chris, the fact that you singled out Safety specifically and exclusively for moderation seems rather...mmm...politically motivated is the nicest way I can think of to say what I'm thinking. You proclaimed that Safety had gone off topic and personally attacked others. What do you call the above quotations from Mister D, who personally attacked not only Safety in reply, but also me, and in particularly offensive ways (sexual, racialized, and gendered)?

This is a behavioral pattern from our moderators, and it has gotten noticeably worse of late. I don't know if that reflects the fact that our moderators seem to all be Trump voters or if instead there's a unrealized double-standard going on here with respect to race and gender, or if it's a combination of both of those things, but there is definitely some inconsistency in the enforcement of forum rules going on. I have (mostly) let these things go up to now, but this case is unusually outrageous and frankly the last straw for me. I hope it's not too offensive to kindly request that our moderators check their motives a little more often. Or better yet, add a more progressive voice or two to the team so they can check your motives for you.

Again, I'm sorry to go off my own topic and break the rules by posting this in public, but this is something I really want to say not just to you, but also to all of our moderators, and I really feel strongly that it needs to be at least seen by everyone as well. Threadban me or worse if you want. Whatever cost is attached to making this post is worth it. This kind of BLATANT discrimination against our more left-leaning members needs to be addressed and it needs to stop right now.

[Mister D]

@Ravens Fan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=908)







Okay, I don't care if I get in trouble for making this public because something must be said here and I have the sneaking suspicion that if I don't say it publicly, where everyone can see, the behavorial pattern won't change. As we can see in the above examples supplied by Mister D, the fact that you singled out Safety for moderation seems rather...mmm...politically motivated is the nicest way I can think of to say what I'm thinking. You proclaimed that Safety had gone off topic and personally attacked others. What do you call the above quotations from Mister D, who personally attacked not only Safety in reply, but also me, and in particularly offensive ways (sexual, racialized, and gendered)?

This is a behavioral pattern from our moderators, and it has gotten noticeably worse of late. I don't know if that reflects the fact that our moderators seem to all be Trump voters or if instead there's a unrealized double-standard going on here with respect to race and gender, or if it's a combination of both of those things, but there is definitely some inconsistency going on. I have (mostly) let these things go up to now, but this case is unusually outrageous and frankly the last straw for me. I hope it's not too offensive to kindly request that our moderators check their motives a little more often. Or better yet, add a more progressive voice or two to the team.

Again, I'm sorry to go off my own topic and break the rules by posting this in public, but this is something I really want to say not just to you, but also to all of our moderators, and I really feel strongly that it needs to be at least seen by everyone as well. Threadban me or worse if you want. Whatever cost is attached to making this post is worth it. This kind of BLATANT discrimination against our more left-leaning members needs to be addressed and it needs to stop right now.

Safety parachuted into the conversation and initiated the exchange. When he does that he'll get it back in spades...oops there I go again. lol The mods acted appropriately.

Get over yourself.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
Safety parachuted into the conversation and initiated the exchange. When he does that he'll get it back in spades...oops there I go again.

Oh you didn't stop at go after him in some unusually despicable ways, even for you. You went after me too, calling me names and sexualizing my whole existence.

[Mister D]

Oh you didn't just go after him. You went after me too, calling me names and sexualizing my whole existence.
Names like what? Maoist? lol You attacked Chris and I. Polly, you're a very weak girl who can't handle it when she isn't taken seriously. You won't be taken seriously when you say crazy shit. Get used to it.

[Mister D]

Sexualizing my whole existence lol

[Chris]

Oh you didn't stop at go after him in some unusually despicable ways, even for you. You went after me too, calling me names and sexualizing my whole existence.

What? Where? Who?

We did go after some of your premises, and I did wonder why you are against the alt-right using identity politics.

Be glad you have some opposition. How boring an echo chamber.

[Safety]

@Ravens Fan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=908)









Okay, I don't care if I get in trouble for making this public because something must be said here and I have the sneaking suspicion that if I don't say it publicly, where everyone can see, the behavorial pattern won't change.

As we can see in the above examples supplied by Mister D and Chris, the fact that you singled out Safety specifically and exclusively for moderation seems rather...mmm...politically motivated is the nicest way I can think of to say what I'm thinking. You proclaimed that Safety had gone off topic and personally attacked others. What do you call the above quotations from Mister D, who personally attacked not only Safety in reply, but also me, and in particularly offensive ways (sexual, racialized, and gendered)?

This is a behavioral pattern from our moderators, and it has gotten noticeably worse of late. I don't know if that reflects the fact that our moderators seem to all be Trump voters or if instead there's a unrealized double-standard going on here with respect to race and gender, or if it's a combination of both of those things, but there is definitely some inconsistency in the enforcement of forum rules going on. I have (mostly) let these things go up to now, but this case is unusually outrageous and frankly the last straw for me. I hope it's not too offensive to kindly request that our moderators check their motives a little more often. Or better yet, add a more progressive voice or two to the team so they can check your motives for you.

Again, I'm sorry to go off my own topic and break the rules by posting this in public, but this is something I really want to say not just to you, but also to all of our moderators, and I really feel strongly that it needs to be at least seen by everyone as well. Threadban me or worse if you want. Whatever cost is attached to making this post is worth it. This kind of BLATANT discrimination against our more left-leaning members needs to be addressed and it needs to stop right now.

Coupled with the fact that I submitted a report expressing exactly that, with nothing done, fuels my suspicion for the longest time that there isn't a level playing field.

[Chris]

@Ravens Fan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=908)









Okay, I don't care if I get in trouble for making this public because something must be said here and I have the sneaking suspicion that if I don't say it publicly, where everyone can see, the behavorial pattern won't change.

As we can see in the above examples supplied by Mister D and Chris, the fact that you singled out Safety specifically and exclusively for moderation seems rather...mmm...politically motivated is the nicest way I can think of to say what I'm thinking. You proclaimed that Safety had gone off topic and personally attacked others. What do you call the above quotations from Mister D, who personally attacked not only Safety in reply, but also me, and in particularly offensive ways (sexual, racialized, and gendered)?

This is a behavioral pattern from our moderators, and it has gotten noticeably worse of late. I don't know if that reflects the fact that our moderators seem to all be Trump voters or if instead there's a unrealized double-standard going on here with respect to race and gender, or if it's a combination of both of those things, but there is definitely some inconsistency in the enforcement of forum rules going on. I have (mostly) let these things go up to now, but this case is unusually outrageous and frankly the last straw for me. I hope it's not too offensive to kindly request that our moderators check their motives a little more often. Or better yet, add a more progressive voice or two to the team so they can check your motives for you.

Again, I'm sorry to go off my own topic and break the rules by posting this in public, but this is something I really want to say not just to you, but also to all of our moderators, and I really feel strongly that it needs to be at least seen by everyone as well. Threadban me or worse if you want. Whatever cost is attached to making this post is worth it. This kind of BLATANT discrimination against our more left-leaning members needs to be addressed and it needs to stop right now.



You cite me as saying "That's some good advice!" I didn't say it.

Am I targeted in your personal attack here because I disagree politically with you?

As I've suggested before , if you would reply with quote you wouldn't make such errors.

[Mister D]

You cite me as saying "That's some good advice!" I didn't say it.

Am I targeted in your personal attack here because I disagree politically with you?

As I've suggested before , if you would reply with quote you wouldn't make such errors.
But you had a Hitler avatar at one point, didn't you?

[Mister D]

Coupled with the fact that I submitted a report expressing exactly that, with nothing done, fuels my suspicion for the longest time that there isn't a level playing field.
The mods ignored you because they realized you brought it on yourself.

[Safety]

The mods ignored you because they realized you brought it on yourself.

Even if that was the case, how would you know?

Rhetorical question.

[Mister D]

Even if that was the case, how would you know?

Rhetorical question.
Seems obvious. How could you have possibly missed it?

Rhetorical quesiton. lol

[Safety]

Seems obvious. How could you have possibly missed it?

Rhetorical quesiton. lol

I couldn't see it for the tiki torches.

[Mister D]

I couldn't see it for the tiki torches.
Don't forget my Hitler avatar. That's always a distraction.

[Safety]

Don't forget my Hitler avatar. That's always a distraction.

Well, that was before the invention of the Shave Club.

[Chris]

But you had a Hitler avatar at one point, didn't you?

That must've been it.

https://s33.postimg.org/vh3scuiy7/3381.png

[Chris]

A humorous story about a guy who got carried away shooting Nazis in the Wolf 2 game: It Happened To Me: I Kept My Redbox Game For Way Too Long (https://kotaku.com/whoops-i-kept-that-redbox-game-for-way-too-long-1820440350)


I bought Super Mario Odyssey the day prior and couldn’t rationalize shelling out for Wolfenstein 2. Then I remembered Redbox. I might have passed on the game altogether if not for the convenience of being able to rent it 15 feet away from a $5 bag of frozen ravioli. I wasn’t leaving the house late on a Saturday night just to go get another new game, I was going to procure food for my loved one and me. I can be a high-quality person.

And it worked! Dinner was delicious. Killing Nazis was glorious. For that weekend everything felt right. Then Monday came and I still hadn’t finished the game. Shooting Nazis is also hard, it turns out. I’d already paid for three days though, and figured I might as well pay for one more. Who would I be if I bid adieu to W.J. Blazkowicz before the war was won? And then one more day became two days, three days, until eventually I had kept the game for a week.

In the beginning I felt guilty but I came up with ways to rationalize the delays. It’s an important game and one that deserves to be finished. 3$ a day is just another cup of coffee. Whatever the new charge was, it still wasn’t as bad as another $60. And so the days kept going by.

...Later that night I actually saw the damage. “Got it! Here’s your final receipt!” the email read.

I’d spent $50.88, just a few dollars shy of what the game now costs used at GameStop. First I was angry. Why didn’t I just keep the game? Then I was disappointed. Why had I waited so long? Finally, I was just ashamed. No one must ever know!

[Adelaide]

@Safety Please stick to the topic and not other members.

@Mister D and Chris - same warning applies.

Members need to report posts rather than waiting for action to be taken and then complaining about how other posts were not included in a warning; moderation can't read every post in every thread in every forum. We rely on member reports. So, report stuff.

[Adelaide]

@Ravens Fan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=908)









Okay, I don't care if I get in trouble for making this public because something must be said here and I have the sneaking suspicion that if I don't say it publicly, where everyone can see, the behavorial pattern won't change.

As we can see in the above examples supplied by Mister D and Chris, the fact that you singled out Safety specifically and exclusively for moderation seems rather...mmm...politically motivated is the nicest way I can think of to say what I'm thinking. You proclaimed that Safety had gone off topic and personally attacked others. What do you call the above quotations from Mister D, who personally attacked not only Safety in reply, but also me, and in particularly offensive ways (sexual, racialized, and gendered)?

This is a behavioral pattern from our moderators, and it has gotten noticeably worse of late. I don't know if that reflects the fact that our moderators seem to all be Trump voters or if instead there's a unrealized double-standard going on here with respect to race and gender, or if it's a combination of both of those things, but there is definitely some inconsistency in the enforcement of forum rules going on. I have (mostly) let these things go up to now, but this case is unusually outrageous and frankly the last straw for me. I hope it's not too offensive to kindly request that our moderators check their motives a little more often. Or better yet, add a more progressive voice or two to the team so they can check your motives for you.

Again, I'm sorry to go off my own topic and break the rules by posting this in public, but this is something I really want to say not just to you, but also to all of our moderators, and I really feel strongly that it needs to be at least seen by everyone as well. Threadban me or worse if you want. Whatever cost is attached to making this post is worth it. This kind of BLATANT discrimination against our more left-leaning members needs to be addressed and it needs to stop right now.

Thread banned for obvious reasons.

[Tahuyaman]

That was an entertaining exchange.

[Chris]

That's an interesting point if I do say so myself. Maybe Nazis are just safe targets and not because they're uniquely evil but precisely because they are white nationalists.


Another afterthought on all this. If we think about it, we do see Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc as evil as Hitler, just not the Communists as the Nazis. Those are some of the evilest men in history, yet one of their movements remains followed while the other shot to pieces, so to speak.

[Safety]

Probably because nobody sees "neo" pol pots, Mao, or Stalin rallies around the country.

[Chris]

Probably because nobody sees "neo" pol pots, Mao, or Stalin rallies around the country.

One sees neo-Hitlers? Where?

One does see neo-socialists and neo-communists.

At least I was trying to get back to accounting for why Nazis are shot up in games and Communists are not.

[roadmaster]

Another afterthought on all this. If we think about it, we do see Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc as evil as Hitler, just not the Communists as the Nazis. Those are some of the evilest men in history, yet one of their movements remains followed while the other shot to pieces, so to speak.
Well Chris if you look at the Antifa rallies, they hold the communist flag and many will tell you they follow Stalin. The ones with the green hats are from a group out of Chicago, the communist party. So to say they don't rally here in the US is wrong. Anyone against their thinking is called a Nazi.

[resister]

Well Chris if you look at the Antifa rallies, they hold the communist flag and many will tell you they follow Stalin. The ones with the green hats are from a group out of Chicago, the communist party. So to say they don't rally here in the US is wrong. Anyone against their thinking is called a Nazi.
Not only that, it is A-OK to beat your ass in the street, if you don't agree.

[Mister D]

Another afterthought on all this. If we think about it, we do see Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc as evil as Hitler, just not the Communists as the Nazis. Those are some of the evilest men in history, yet one of their movements remains followed while the other shot to pieces, so to speak.

Not sure I agree. After all, we see hipsters sporting Che Guevara t-shirts whereas Nazi wear is for fringe wackos. I've also seen those CCCP t-shirts. real cute.

OTOH, it is true that communist sympathizers dissociate Stalin et al from "true" communism.

[Chris]

Not sure I agree. After all, we see hipsters sporting Che Guevara t-shirts whereas Nazi wear is for fringe wackos. I've also seen those CCCP t-shirts. real cute.

OTOH, it is true that communist sympathizers dissociate Stalin et al from "true" communism.

Che has his detractors...

https://i.snag.gy/molNdf.jpg

But generally, the murderous leaders are disassociated from the ideology.

[Chris]

Well Chris if you look at the Antifa rallies, they hold the communist flag and many will tell you they follow Stalin. The ones with the green hats are from a group out of Chicago, the communist party. So to say they don't rally here in the US is wrong. Anyone against their thinking is called a Nazi.

Antifa is definitely rooted in neo-Marxism. I'd forgotten about them.

[Mister D]

Che has his detractors...

https://i.snag.gy/molNdf.jpg

But generally, the murderous leaders are disassociated from the ideology.

He definitely has his detractors but there is no cult of Hermann Goering beyond the fringe. Che is pop.

[Mister D]

Antifa is definitely rooted in neo-Marxism. I'd forgotten about them.
I think Antifa is as immature as neo-Nazism.

[Chris]

I think Antifa is as immature as neo-Nazism.
resister posted that video of an Antif clown in a gun shop.

[Chris]

Actually, there are anti-commie shoot 'em up games, like Freedom Fighters against Soviet occupiers of NYC. Wonder why we didn't hear about them?

[resister]

@resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122) posted that video of an Antif clown in a gun shop.
I believe that was StJames, not me.

[Chris]

I believe that was StJames, not me.

Oops, sorry St James!

[Devil'sAdvocate]

White people are an invention of the United States during the 20th century, the only "white person" is an albino (and even then, not really), everyone else is just a different shade of grey.