Geometric Denazification

They did not attack artists for the sake of them producing art. The Nazis literally produced their own art and films. They were not against art itself but Jewish art. They were very clear about that.

Your example is actually what *I* was referencing to make the point you didn’t actually refute. It wasn’t because they were artists but because of the political content of their art and who was making it as I already stated.

it’s a bit like saying they didn’t attack academics for being academics. okay maybe they didn’t in the strictest sense of the phrase, but being an academic under a fascist regime that is pushing overtly non-academic ideals and specific programmes like nazi science and medicine meant many had to choose between their integrity and their life in germany. if you were an academic of any quality, you had to curb your speech and research in order to remain safe. THAT is the attack on the profession, not the literal attacks on people for their ethnicity or ideology, but the violent suppression of the entire field. Germans didn’t hate science or academics either — in fact they were so advanced that Russia and America both hoovered up all their Nazi scientists at the end of the war in two seperate named operations. yet scientists WERE attacked for furthering the field of science because their field became politicised by the nazi regime. it’s not necessarily that they produced political works, though many did, or that they themselves were jewish or gay, though many were— it’s also that those who did not label themselves openly enemies of the state at the beginning of the occupation then lived under the spectre of the Nazi regime which limited their output to what was deemed “acceptable”, a tyranny which is itself an attack on the profession and those within it because an inherent aspect of academia involves challenging orthodox notions, and so people who were literally just doing their job were harmed for it, or would have been had they done it well

It’s just not useful to have such a broad and non-specific description. The Nazis had a racist conspiratorial view of the world in which “Jewish communism” could contaminate the purity of the nation. They attacked “degenerate artists” under that logic. Decontextualizing the racial and ideological elements of Nazi censorship adds a vagueness I don’t think is useful because they weren’t against the idea of art being producers of propaganda themselves, but instead saw art as a contested space for cultural and political dominance between their “master race” and the “degenerate enemy races” who seek to destroy western civilization with communist revolution.

fair enough i suppose on it requiring more context and owing more to the specific identities of those harmed and policed by violence because of their identities and beliefs. but i suppose i think it is also just useful to point out that fascism really does come for art.

It may also lead you to being confused about modern day white nationalist movements. Their censorship very specifically targets particular groups. It’s not writers writ large but writers about specific histories and experiences or from specific perspectives all related to oppressed groups.

They did not attack artists for the sake of them producing art. The Nazis literally produced their own art and films. They were not against art itself but Jewish art. They were very clear about that.

Your example is actually what *I* was referencing to make the point you didn’t actually refute. It wasn’t because they were artists but because of the political content of their art and who was making it as I already stated.

it’s a bit like saying they didn’t attack academics for being academics. okay maybe they didn’t in the strictest sense of the phrase, but being an academic under a fascist regime that is pushing overtly non-academic ideals and specific programmes like nazi science and medicine meant many had to choose between their integrity and their life in germany. if you were an academic of any quality, you had to curb your speech and research in order to remain safe. THAT is the attack on the profession, not the literal attacks on people for their ethnicity or ideology, but the violent suppression of the entire field. Germans didn’t hate science or academics either — in fact they were so advanced that Russia and America both hoovered up all their Nazi scientists at the end of the war in two seperate named operations. yet scientists WERE attacked for furthering the field of science because their field became politicised by the nazi regime. it’s not necessarily that they produced political works, though many did, or that they themselves were jewish or gay, though many were— it’s also that those who did not label themselves openly enemies of the state at the beginning of the occupation then lived under the spectre of the Nazi regime which limited their output to what was deemed “acceptable”, a tyranny which is itself an attack on the profession and those within it because an inherent aspect of academia involves challenging orthodox notions, and so people who were literally just doing their job were harmed for it, or would have been had they done it well

It’s just not useful to have such a broad and non-specific description. The Nazis had a racist conspiratorial view of the world in which “Jewish communism” could contaminate the purity of the nation. They attacked “degenerate artists” under that logic. Decontextualizing the racial and ideological elements of Nazi censorship adds a vagueness I don’t think is useful because they weren’t against the idea of art being producers of propaganda themselves, but instead saw art as a contested space for cultural and political dominance between their “master race” and the “degenerate enemy races” who seek to destroy western civilization with communist revolution.

They did not attack artists for the sake of them producing art. The Nazis literally produced their own art and films. They were not against art itself but Jewish art. They were very clear about that.

Your example is actually what *I* was referencing to make the point you didn’t actually refute. It wasn’t because they were artists but because of the political content of their art and who was making it as I already stated.

Who speaks for them? They historically pick up rifles against our empire. Women have been major players and leaders in guerrilla movements against the empire that would make your “girlboss feminism” possible. These are women that seek to destroy the material basis for your fantasy.

this is how some people on here talk about punk

I imagine nobody would suggest it’s offensive for a white person to share the recording (perhaps excluding the RIAA), but printing the word felt different enough to make me hesitate when making a post earlier. Just curious.

FUCK YOU. FUCK. YOU. DAVID. KARP.

Donations and reblogs have came to a standstill but my friend still does need some help. If anyone can lend a hand and match me donating at least £5 you would really be helping a girl in the global south out.

The excerpt reads, "Rape of Vietnamese women by US troops "took place on such a large scale that many veterans considered it standard operating procedure." It was "systematic and collective"; an "unofficial military policy". One soldier termed it a "mass military policy." Indeed, rape followed by murder of Vietnamese women was "so common that American soldiers had a special term for the soldiers who committed the acts in conjunction: a double veteran". Examples of soldier testimony regarding rape include: "…they raped the girl, and then, the last man to make love to her, shot her in the head." End ID]