clashes between anti-fascists and neo nazi's in hanover

[Sasha]

after the near pogrom in Cologne earlier this month Hanover was the second town where the Hooligans against Salafism (extreme-right/neo nazi movement modeled on the EDL tactic) where allowed to hold a mass demonstration, a mass mobilization of militant antifascists confronted them this time;

+ YouTube Video

[Sasha]

pictures of the nazi participants: http://recherche-nord.com/gallery/2014.11.15.html

(for those that do not know, "Kategorie C" is a infamous extreme-right rock band named after the classification of the german police for the worst, most violent hooligans. the many shirts and banners with this name on it are both a reference to this classification and the populairity of this band in these circles)

[Palmares]

Salafism?

[Sasha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism

[jullia]

Just to be clear, by confronting them for this particular demonstration don't means they are link with the salafism movement?

[Sasha]

Anything but, I hesitate to link to this article because a. its from Jacobin magazine and b. there are actually a lot of mistakes in it and its conclusions are suspect in my view but it explains a lot about the German lefts relationship towards neo-nazism and Islamism: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/t...stine-problem/

[keine_zukunft]

the main line of the mobilization was against nazi hools and religious fundamentalism. that was done as it's good to have a materialist communist theme of the demo. political integrity you know. so we were in the middle and against both sides. saying fuck the nazis/racists and the salafists too.

[Sasha]

+ YouTube Video

[jullia]

I don't know what scare me the most in the video the hooligans or the islamist.
What is this sharia police? how can germany allow that?

[Sasha]

what, any dick can put a reflective vest and scold girls for having too short skirts for a few nights, it takes time for progressives let alone the state to formulate a appropriate response. the patrols got banned a few days later by the cops under threat of confrontations.

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

Reactance occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away his or her choices or limiting the range of alternatives.

Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion. People using reverse psychology are playing on at least an informal awareness of reactance, attempting to influence someone to choose the opposite of what they request.

It is assumed that if a person's behavioral freedom is threatened or reduced, they become motivationally aroused. The fear of loss of further freedoms can spark this arousal and motivate them to re-establish the threatened freedom.

When certain free behaviors are threatened or removed, the more important a free behavior is to a certain individual the greater the magnitude of the reactance.

Silvia's 2005 study concluded that one way to increase the activity of a threatened freedom is to censor it, or provide a threatening message toward the activity. In turn a "boomerang effect" occurs, in which people choose forbidden alternatives.

during the reactance experience one tends to have hostile or aggressive feelings, often aimed more at the source of a threatening message than at the message itself.

I would say this is why a lot of political policy often has the opposite of the intended effect. If I'm going to try to prevent you from holding a Nazi rally, then it makes you want to hold a Nazi rally even more. If I successfully stop you from attacking someone, it doesn't turn you into a good person - it just makes you look for a chance to attack that person when I'm not around.

This isn't to say that nobody should try to stop murders. Yes, by all means, stop murders, but what many policy makers seem to fail to understand is that they are only fighting the symptoms, without working on a cure. In response to fascist ideology, I'd probably divide response into two types: short-term and long-term. Short-term response is the practical one - yes, you want to stop attacks on Jews, immigrants, or other minorities - but do realize short-term responses often result in reactance. Long-term responses look at the underlying causes - sure we can try to stop people from killing each other everyday, but what causes people to try to kill each other in the first place?

Whether it's "terrorism" or Nazi ideology, if you want your targets to listen to what you say, you in fact should *not* disagree with them - or at least your arguments should not be presented in such a way that makes them feel bad about themselves. Whether you like them or not, you have to at least pretend to be on their side, even if you want to wring their necks. This is for long term behavior modification only - obviously if they're in the middle of actively assaulting someone, pretending to be their friend is going to have to go out the window. In any case, to affect long term behavior, it's easier to avoid reactance by slowly nudging them in slightly different directions, rather than trying to force a large course correction - ie. do they really hate immigrants because they're smelly, or are they just frustrated with their economic outlook? If you attempt to take them head on, and try to argue that immigrants are actually very clean, it usually just makes them dig in their heels, especially if they fear public humiliation. On the other hand, if instead of attacking immigrants, they could more practically improve their economic situation by doing X, then eventually they may stop thinking about immigrants altogether.

[Sasha]

ugh...

[Palmares]

[jullia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

Reactance occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away his or her choices or limiting the range of alternatives.

Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion. People using reverse psychology are playing on at least an informal awareness of reactance, attempting to influence someone to choose the opposite of what they request.

It is assumed that if a person's behavioral freedom is threatened or reduced, they become motivationally aroused. The fear of loss of further freedoms can spark this arousal and motivate them to re-establish the threatened freedom.

When certain free behaviors are threatened or removed, the more important a free behavior is to a certain individual the greater the magnitude of the reactance.

Silvia's 2005 study concluded that one way to increase the activity of a threatened freedom is to censor it, or provide a threatening message toward the activity. In turn a "boomerang effect" occurs, in which people choose forbidden alternatives.

during the reactance experience one tends to have hostile or aggressive feelings, often aimed more at the source of a threatening message than at the message itself.

I would say this is why a lot of political policy often has the opposite of the intended effect. If I'm going to try to prevent you from holding a Nazi rally, then it makes you want to hold a Nazi rally even more. If I successfully stop you from attacking someone, it doesn't turn you into a good person - it just makes you look for a chance to attack that person when I'm not around.

This isn't to say that nobody should try to stop murders. Yes, by all means, stop murders, but what many policy makers seem to fail to understand is that they are only fighting the symptoms, without working on a cure. In response to fascist ideology, I'd probably divide response into two types: short-term and long-term. Short-term response is the practical one - yes, you want to stop attacks on Jews, immigrants, or other minorities - but do realize short-term responses often result in reactance. Long-term responses look at the underlying causes - sure we can try to stop people from killing each other everyday, but what causes people to try to kill each other in the first place?

Whether it's "terrorism" or Nazi ideology, if you want your targets to listen to what you say, you in fact should *not* disagree with them - or at least your arguments should not be presented in such a way that makes them feel bad about themselves. Whether you like them or not, you have to at least pretend to be on their side, even if you want to wring their necks. This is for long term behavior modification only - obviously if they're in the middle of actively assaulting someone, pretending to be their friend is going to have to go out the window. In any case, to affect long term behavior, it's easier to avoid reactance by slowly nudging them in slightly different directions, rather than trying to force a large course correction - ie. do they really hate immigrants because they're smelly, or are they just frustrated with their economic outlook? If you attempt to take them head on, and try to argue that immigrants are actually very clean, it usually just makes them dig in their heels, especially if they fear public humiliation. On the other hand, if instead of attacking immigrants, they could more practically improve their economic situation by doing X, then eventually they may stop thinking about immigrants altogether.

If i get your point. It's good there are this kind of demonstration against islamists. Like this people can express their opinions and we can talk after?

[cyu]

Only leftist demonstrations are good

Demonstrations in general aren't very productive, but they do accomplish one thing: they give courage to those who agree with the demonstrators, but are less public about their views. Whether you're a closet Nazi, a closet commie, a closet homosexual, or a closet furry, you may feel alone and vulnerable until you see a public demonstration of like-minded people. If it is our goal to give courage to leftist sympathizers, then at least for leftists, only leftist demonstrations are a "good" thing.

I can understand those who fight Nazi demonstrations in an attempt to contain fascist movements. But that is only containment. You've basically given up on turning them away from Nazism, you're just trying to stop their influence. That is all fine and good, but it is defeatism in a sense - you've resigned yourself into believing that Nazism will always exist.

For those that believe we'll always have anti-Semitism, I see them in a similar light to those who believe we'll always have to put up with capitalism. They may be good people, they may have good intentions, they may mean well, but I see defeatist beliefs as limited. Perhaps for some, if they can't figure out how to fix something, it is better for their ego to believe the thing can't possibly be fixed - thus they fail not because of inadequacy, but because their task is impossible. After all, nobody likes to feel inadequate.

[jullia]

Only leftist demonstrations are good

Demonstrations in general aren't very productive, but they do accomplish one thing: they give courage to those who agree with the demonstrators, but are less public about their views. Whether you're a closet Nazi, a closet commie, a closet homosexual, or a closet furry, you may feel alone and vulnerable until you see a public demonstration of like-minded people. If it is our goal to give courage to leftist sympathizers, then at least for leftists, only leftist demonstrations are a "good" thing.

I'am not sure the main goal of demonstration is give courage to "closet people". With internet you can talk with a lot of people who share your view.

[jullia]

Only leftist demonstrations are good

Demonstrations in general aren't very productive, but they do accomplish one thing: they give courage to those who agree with the demonstrators, but are less public about their views. Whether you're a closet Nazi, a closet commie, a closet homosexual, or a closet furry, you may feel alone and vulnerable until you see a public demonstration of like-minded people. If it is our goal to give courage to leftist sympathizers, then at least for leftists, only leftist demonstrations are a "good" thing.

I can understand those who fight Nazi demonstrations in an attempt to contain fascist movements. But that is only containment. You've basically given up on turning them away from Nazism, you're just trying to stop their influence. That is all fine and good, but it is defeatism in a sense - you've resigned yourself into believing that Nazism will always exist.

For those that believe we'll always have anti-Semitism, I see them in a similar light to those who believe we'll always have to put up with capitalism. They may be good people, they may have good intentions, they may mean well, but I see defeatist beliefs as limited. Perhaps for some, if they can't figure out how to fix something, it is better for their ego to believe the thing can't possibly be fixed - thus they fail not because of inadequacy, but because their task is impossible. After all, nobody likes to feel inadequate.

I'am not sure the main goal of demonstration is give courage to "closet people". With internet you can talk with a lot of people who share your view.

[synthesis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

I apologize for getting completely off-topic here, but I think it's intellectually dangerous to take concepts in psychology that are aimed at explaining individual behavior and then applying them to one's political analysis as a whole. I mean, I'm sure I've done it plenty of times, so this isn't in any way an attack on you.

In my mind, you kind of have to look at that stuff as similar to the whole quantum mechanics/general relativity quandary - things that make perfect sense and fit the scientific method on a microsocial level (day-to-day interactions between individuals) can't necessarily be applied on the macrosocial level (what we think of as "politics").

Anyways, to continue in my groove of not talking about this specific incident at all, I just had to point out this little tidbit from Sasha's article:

[A] significant part of the autonomists adopted the worldview of the Antideutsch, the “anti-Germans.” These ex-Maoist remnants expressed the view that the biggest enemy for the German left to confront was the abstract notion of “Germany” as nation. An alliance was necessary with anyone perceived to be against “Germany.”

If we accept this proposition as true, for the sake of argument - I know there are people who are sympathetic to anti-Germanism who would dispute that characterization - I really think it would help to illustrate the absurdity of anti-Germanism from the perspective of class analysis.

How are you going to defeat "the abstract notion of Germany as a nation" by engaging with it on the basis of being "the German Left"? You're demanding that your own nation's working class become politically engaged on the basis of being German, not on the basis of being working class. I'd argue this tendency, more broadly, has a lot to do with the total dearth of internationalism you see in a lot of the left today.

[DOOM]

PEGIDA (patriotic europeans against the islamization of the occident) is the most recent thing. It's HoGeSa for people who don't consider themselves to be Nazis or Hools, the content however is still (what a surprise) the same racist batshit.

[John Lennin]

PEGIDA is the most worrying movement since.... idk, maybe even 1945. And it's rapidly growing.
Number of protesters in Dresden:
1st Dec ~7.500
8th Dec ~10.000
15th Dec ~15.000