A is for Aryan, B is for Brainwash

August 11, 2007 10:43 AM

Nazi Pop Twins is an eerie documentary that debuted this year on BBC's Channel Four about the neo-Nazi teen folk musicians, Prussian Blue. The girls are managed by a neo-Nazi stage mom from hell, and the girls already seem to be more interested in shopping at the mall than singing white power lyrics. One of the creepiest scenes includes the twin girls on a phone call with their prison "pen pal," David Lane, the Neo-Nazi convicted of the murder of radio talk show host, Alan Berg. Lane refers to the twin girls as his "fantasy sweethearts," raising issues about whether an obsession with genetic "purity" leads to pedophilia on the Racist Right. Watch the documentary on YouTube (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) (Warning: may be exposed to YouTube comments from racist asshats.)
posted by jonp72 (162 comments total)

*summons Wendell*

*accidentally smudges circle of protection*

Oh, shit.
posted by loquacious at 10:51 AM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Warning: may be exposed to YouTube comments from racist asshats.

This will take care of that for you.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:52 AM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Channel 4 is not part of the BBC...
posted by afx237vi at 10:54 AM on August 11, 2007

I saw a fascinating documentary created by PBS's HBO channel recently too.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:00 AM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

This looks fascinating. Thanks!
posted by JPowers at 11:02 AM on August 11, 2007

Previously:
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:06 AM on August 11, 2007

The BBC's Channel 4 is helpfully named BBC Four. It's Channel 4's Channel 4 that's named Channel 4.
posted by cillit bang at 11:10 AM on August 11, 2007 [11 favorites]

Isn't raising your children to be neo-nazis grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:11 AM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

And I agree with fenriq's psot from the previous thread: "White Trash Supremacists make me want to use a Sharpie and color myself black."

I mostly hat what the parents have done to these kids. I have two daughters, and the thought of poisoning young girl's minds like that fills me with an odd mix of sadness and rage.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:12 AM on August 11, 2007

Prussian Blue
Prussian Pink
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:13 AM on August 11, 2007

*hat=hate*
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:13 AM on August 11, 2007

It is interesting that the girls seem to be moving at least a bit away from their deranged, imbecilic mother, though it might have less to do with thinking for themselves and rejecting her rabid racism/nationalism and more to do with the fact that she forces them to play their god-awful songs to gatherings of older stupid racist thugs year round and they've been doing it since they were small children. They've never had time to develop remotely like normal children do.

I liked Louis Theroux's 2003 documentary on the twins better, but that might just be because I am in love with Louis. Also, not that it matters in the least, but I was shocked at how much weight April put on in the intervening four years.
posted by inoculatedcities at 11:16 AM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

raising issues about whether an obsession with genetic "purity" leads to pedophilia on the Racist Right

Pedophilia and sexual deviancy is pretty common among authoritarians of all stripes.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:16 AM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

a neo-Nazi stage mom from hell

This alone makes this FPP worth its weight in (farmed) gold.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:17 AM on August 11, 2007

Isn't raising your children to be neo-nazis grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

Because it's not illegal to be a neo-Nazi, as far as I know.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:19 AM on August 11, 2007

I once found and shared a picture of their youngest standing on a pile of fliers saying "Love Your Race." Their father (or mother) commented, "This blog is the saddest thing I have seen. Attacking a child, you should be ashamed of yourself." Except I wasn't attacking the child at all, and I wasn't the one needing shame.
posted by yeti at 11:24 AM on August 11, 2007

Prussian Blue fascinates me because they seem so similar to the Olsen Twins. Both are pawns of forces more powerful than themselves, indoctrinated from birth to push a belief system they didn't choose and probably don't understand. The specific creepy ideology differs, but that hardly matters from the perspective of these human ad campaigns.

Lynx and Lamb's inevitable rebellion is gonna be much funnier than Mary-Kate and Ashley's, though.
posted by contraption at 11:24 AM on August 11, 2007 [5 favorites]

They are performing in Germany twice in August. I thought that sort of thing was illegal there?
posted by yeti at 11:26 AM on August 11, 2007

Isn't raising your children to be neo-nazis grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

That would set a pretty bad precedent, don't you think? I mean what would stop conservative states from removing kids from families with gay parents (actually, it wouldn't surprise me if this happens from time to time, especially in divorce cases)
posted by delmoi at 11:29 AM on August 11, 2007

It'll be interesting to see what they're like in 10 years. Kids escape hateful religious brainwashing all the time, so I won't be too surprised if they renounce and feel embarrassed about all the crap their mother taught them once they enter the real world.
posted by cmonkey at 11:33 AM on August 11, 2007

I'm going to take a radically divergent tone here, one that might put me at odds from the rest of you and your opinions:

I really disagree with the racism exhibited by neo-Nazis, and I think they are wrong. I'll go even further and suggest that they are bad. Bad people.
posted by quin at 11:34 AM on August 11, 2007 [8 favorites]

I always feel weird seeing these British documentaries. It's like your hoity-toity friend came to your house with a camcorder, shot video of your brain damaged uncle who likes to take his dick out at the dinner table and then took it back to all his hoity-toity friends to laugh at.

PUT UNCLE FREDDY BACK IN THE CLOSET MOM.
posted by The Straightener at 11:36 AM on August 11, 2007 [7 favorites]

Lynx and Lamb's inevitable rebellion is gonna be much funnier than Mary-Kate and Ashley's, though.

I was thinking the same thing. Once they get out of that environment and can put some distance between themselves and the people that have polluted their thinking, they are going to have a lot more fun.

I foresee one of them hooking up with a black guy and the other moving to Mexico and taking up Salsa dancing.

Which, if true, would be both hilarious and a perfect moment for their VH1 Behind the Music episode in 20 years.
posted by quin at 11:40 AM on August 11, 2007

To see why it'd be a bad precedent, let's take an easy example of the logical extreme: Isn't raising your children to be neo-nazis [anything unpopular] grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

Doesn't seem quite so nice, now, does it, etc. Let's keep the government out of it as much as we can, thanks.
posted by zerolives at 11:41 AM on August 11, 2007

I'm forced to wonder... what do adolescent neo-nazis call their parents in fits of teenage angst?

"My mom's such a fucking fascist."

"I know, isn't she the best?"
posted by Riki tiki at 11:45 AM on August 11, 2007 [7 favorites]

Anyone who's been around the far right for awhile can tell you all about its truly creepy sexual qualities. Child molesters and pedophiles are unusually common, as are various kinds of domestic-violence and rape cases.

Huh. So, bigots and hate mongers are somewhat prone to indulge in immoral and/or disgusting behavior?

Who could have guessed?
posted by psmealey at 11:45 AM on August 11, 2007

It would be nice to see those two escape that environment, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them end up in some sort of creepy arranged marriage.
posted by delmoi at 11:45 AM on August 11, 2007

I so hope not. I am really pulling for them to strike out for a real music career, start a band, write some songs about adolescent angst and sex and stuff, break away from their hideous family, and hit the road along with a bunch of sane friends their own age. Run girls, run! And take little Dresden with you! She can play the maracas!
posted by jokeefe at 11:56 AM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Go go granny! Not too late to save those girls from a life of pointless hate.
posted by Abiezer at 11:59 AM on August 11, 2007

Arranged marriage and they'll be encouraged to breed like rats, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:01 PM on August 11, 2007

Actually I would petition my local Overlord Edmund Stoiber (Head Honcho of Bavaria) the reactivate the concentration camp Dachau and gas these stupid ... together with the Clan of Fred Phelps and so many fascist, extremists and fundamentalists around.

It is simply amazing to me that such people still find such big audiences ...
posted by homodigitalis at 12:03 PM on August 11, 2007

loquacious, why'd you have to wake me for this?
posted by wendell at 12:04 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

To see why it'd be a bad precedent, let's take an easy example of the logical extreme: Isn't raising your children to be neo-nazis [anything unpopular] grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

Doesn't seem quite so nice, now, does it, etc. Let's keep the government out of it as much as we can, thanks.

Yeah, well, someone else could say, "let's put people in jail for murder!" and I could switch it around to say, "'let's put people in jail for [anything unpopular]'...ha! You don't feel so smart NOW, do you?!"...but that wouldn't mean I'd have a point, other than we shouldn't put people in jail for murder, and I'm relatively that's a point no one would agree with, so...not much of a point, really.

Nazis are not nice people. Historically speaking, nazis are violent, murderous racists. It's not like there are the good, misunderstood nazis. At the very least, it's an idiotic and patently antisocial lifestyle choice that perhaps only adults should be able to make, with the full cognizance that most of the world will think they're pieces of shit, for the compelling reason that they are in fact pieces of shit. To me, raising one's child to be a nazi constitutes both abuse of the child and a clear and present danger for everyone else who has to share an environment with that child. It's a point I think would be much more easily proven than, say, gay people shouldn't raise children.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:05 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

April Gaede is a real piece of work. Some people are immune to parody--because they parody themselves.
posted by metasonix at 12:07 PM on August 11, 2007

I, too, seem to be more interested in shopping than singing white-power lyrics, and until just now I would have been quite at a loss to complete the preceding clause.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:08 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

contraption, I knew you'd be in here.

*scratches "MK&A" off the countdown-to-legal clock, writes "L&L" on*
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:09 PM on August 11, 2007

Hmm, here's an interesting related video seemingly filmed years before.
posted by delmoi at 12:16 PM on August 11, 2007

Yeah, well, someone else could say, "let's put people in jail for murder!" and I could switch it around to say, "'let's put people in jail for [anything unpopular]'...ha! You don't feel so smart NOW, do you?!"

Well I don't think that really works. You're talking about taking children away for their parents beliefs. Why, if this happened, would it not apply to other unpopular beliefs? I'm sure a lot of people would argue that children ought to be taken away from parents who believe in recreational marijuana use, for example.
posted by delmoi at 12:22 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Damn you delmoi, I was all set to be Rickrolled.
posted by Sailormom at 12:25 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Definitely fascinating. Those poor girls. They clearly don't want anymore to do with their mother.
posted by billysumday at 12:25 PM on August 11, 2007

They clearly don't want anymore to do with their mother.

...don't want anything to do with their mother anymore.
posted by billysumday at 12:26 PM on August 11, 2007

Here's the full version of "Louis Theroux and the Nazis", from which delmoi's clip comes.
posted by interrobang at 12:30 PM on August 11, 2007

Isn't raising your children to be neo-nazis grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

The state doesn't remove children from homes where parents are raising them for religious reasons to hate gays, or to believe that women are subservient to men, or that women must always cover their head in public, so why start with a home where parents are raising their kids to hate everyone who isn't white? Parents teach their kids all sorts of repugnant, idiotic shit but I really wouldn't trust a government to decide what is an appropriate belief and what isn't.
posted by cmonkey at 12:36 PM on August 11, 2007

Well I don't think that really works. You're talking about taking children away for their parents beliefs. Why, if this happened, would it not apply to other unpopular beliefs? I'm sure a lot of people would argue that children ought to be taken away from parents who believe in recreational marijuana use, for example.

And I would agree that that's wrong. But I'm pretty sure indoctrinating your children into recreational marijuana use as a condition of living under your roof is an excellent way to get your children taken away from you. And I would argue that that's okay. And I think that's a much closer parallel to what's going on in this situation. (Not that I really think there is a non-absurd parallel to be drawn between the legalize it crowd and the guys who pushed people into ovens.)
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:40 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Do radical views really matter if they are from the mouth of a sub-moron? I think an import is being ascribed here that is way overblown.

April Gaede is a sad, stupid woman who is exploiting her children because she has nothing else going for her.

From a media perspective, the white-supremacist angle is sexy, I guess, multiplied by the creepy teen pop star vibe, but this is nothing more than a let's gawk at the retards documentary. It has little of interest to say about anything.

Also, yeah, I glanced at the YouTube comments. Sigh.

I'm going to go and play in the sunshine now.
posted by psmealey at 12:40 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nazis are not nice people. Historically speaking, nazis are violent, murderous racists. It's not like there are the good, misunderstood nazis.

Nonsense. Some of them are just racist, lower-class white people looking for some rubric of personal esteem to cling to, for which the symbols of Naziism are conveniently modern and accessible.

But why stop here? What about Black Nationalist households? What about the households of insular, racist immigrants? Hell, what about fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, and Jews? They have a hell of a lot of antagonistic, antisocial threads woven into their Weltanschau. Historically-speaking, I can attribute examples of violence to any of these groups. Should the government take their kids away too?

Lane refers to the twin girls as his "fantasy sweethearts," raising issues about whether an obsession with genetic "purity" leads to pedophilia on the Racist Right.

Okay, not only is it time to stop using the word "pedophilia" when you're talking about teenagers, but it's the lowest form of rhetoric to claim that your political enemies are infested with perverts and bogeymen. How many times have you heard the same line from the Right - that the Left is infested with perverts, pedophiles, sex criminals, zoophiles, Satanists, Pod People, and what have you.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:42 PM on August 11, 2007 [4 favorites]

But I'm pretty sure indoctrinating your children into recreational marijuana use as a condition of living under your roof is an excellent way to get your children taken away from you. And I would argue that that's okay.

Well thank you for proving my point.
posted by delmoi at 12:43 PM on August 11, 2007

But I'm pretty sure indoctrinating your children into recreational marijuana use as a condition of living under your roof is an excellent way to get your children taken away from you.

Again, it's not, and never should be, against the law to hold ideas. I know you think Nazism is bad. I'm inclined to agree. But you're trying to solve the problem like a Nazi.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:45 PM on August 11, 2007

(Just to clarify, I said that there are those who would argue that taking children away from parents who believe in recreational marijuana use, not parents who indoctrinate their children, i.e. force them to smoke weed)

Now this family is quite fucked up, but that's a whole other issue.
posted by delmoi at 12:46 PM on August 11, 2007

Here is a link to another docu that features the twins (entitled LOUIS AND THE NAZIS). It's broken up into multiple parts on YouTube.
posted by JPowers at 12:49 PM on August 11, 2007

Heh.
posted by zerolives at 12:50 PM on August 11, 2007

One post in the blue was enough for this family.
posted by ~ at 12:51 PM on August 11, 2007

"let's put people in jail for murder!"

But I'm pretty sure indoctrinating your children into recreational marijuana

As I stated above, I'm anti-Nazi, but your examples don't really work. Both of these are things that are illegal already and therefore under a different metric with regard to toleration.

Being a hateful bigot is not illegal, and thus it would not be appropriate to step in and take their kids away. What would be appropriate would be to call them on their hate and bigotry at every opportunity to force them to defend an indefensible position.
posted by quin at 12:54 PM on August 11, 2007

The state doesn't remove children from homes where parents are raising them for religious reasons to hate gays, or to believe that women are subservient to men, or that women must always cover their head in public, so why start with a home where parents are raising their kids to hate everyone who isn't white?

I don't think I'd really weep a river over the children in those situations finding better homes, honestly, but the difference to me is that these children are being raised to hate everyone who isn't Aryan (a little broader than just "isn't white," not that a narrower field of bigotry would make it better) in a tradition that has demonstrated its eagerness to follow up said hatred with actual mass murder. It's not an abstraction, and to call it a "belief" is to both minimize it and give it more legitimacy than it deserves. It might be my belief that the Zodiac Killer was awesome and that we should all aspire to emulate his storied deeds, but I'll bet if I taught my kids that, they wouldn't be my kids for long.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:55 PM on August 11, 2007

(Just to clarify, I said that there are those who would argue that taking children away from parents who believe in recreational marijuana use, not parents who indoctrinate their children, i.e. force them to smoke weed)

And just to clarify, I didn't think your example held water as a comparison, so I acknowledged substituting one I thought did.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:57 PM on August 11, 2007

After seeing what the girls said candidly when their mother wasn't listening, I had a sense of hope for them. Then I saw how they backtracked and came to their mother's defense when the interviewer confronted her about their unhappiness. Thank goodness their grandmother is sane, and I hope her mention of a future "escape plan" was true.
posted by amyms at 12:58 PM on August 11, 2007

And holy cow, that crazy nazi mom really let herself go between the first documentary and the second one. Wow.
posted by zerolives at 1:04 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

I thought the "confrontation" bit was a bit cliched, I mean it's such a common "tv reporter" trope. If he really cared why film it?
posted by delmoi at 1:07 PM on August 11, 2007

And holy cow, that crazy nazi mom really let herself go between the first documentary and the second one.

I heard that she hates diets. And she's really into Twinkie pride.
posted by billysumday at 1:12 PM on August 11, 2007

I said...

But I'm pretty sure indoctrinating your children into recreational marijuana use as a condition of living under your roof is an excellent way to get your children taken away from you.

KI replies...

Again, it's not, and never should be, against the law to hold ideas. I know you think Nazism is bad. I'm inclined to agree. But you're trying to solve the problem like a Nazi.

And I'd have to urge you to read again what you cut and pasted. I think it's just fine for anyone to believe whatever moronic thing s/he can convince him/herself to believe. But when:

(a) those beliefs are imposed upon a developing mind

and

(b) those beliefs can mold a developing mind into not just a bigot, but -- if one is to pay more than lip service to nazism -- a violent bigot who is okay with mass murder

then s/he can go fuck him/herself, and vigorously. Turning your child into a racist psycho, I think, should not be allowed, both for the sake of the child and for the sake of others who may have the misfortune to encounter your rabid little hellbeast. I see no reason why we should feel uncomfortable drawing a moral distinction between gay people and potheads on one side and nazis on the other. These things are not the same.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:15 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't understand the thought process that says "It's okay to raise your kids to be Nazis", but I also don't understand the thought process that leads to "Nazis have the right to exist", either.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:27 PM on August 11, 2007

It was weird watching the last segment of the documentary. When the girls are away from their mother and when the fellow behind the camera challenges the concepts, the girls don't seem to be psycho or even flat-out racist. They seem to be interested in protecting and pleasing their mother. Compared to when their mother had them on the radio and was sitting next to them, the attitudes and responses were night and day different.
posted by aburd at 1:28 PM on August 11, 2007

kittens for breakfast, See, the problem is that the moment you have set the bar for removal of someones children based upon their viewpoints (not their actions) you have set a slippery slope that will be misused.

Today you take Nazi kids, fine. Nazis suck.

Tomorrow you take anti-government religious fanatics, that's ok because they kinda suck too.

The day after, take the kids of person protesting in the street because they are also anti-government. And that sucks.

Obviously I'm being slightly hyperbolic, but one of the hallmarks of the freedoms of our country is that we don't punish people for what they believe. We punish them based on their actions.

If these neo-Nazis are taking their children to rallies and beating people up, fine. That is illegal and you have an actionable offense.

But just because they are telling their kids that Eichmann was pretty great or that the coloreds are out to get them, isn't a justifiable reason. It's disgusting, but not justifiable.
posted by quin at 1:31 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

the difference to me is that these children are being raised to hate everyone who isn't Aryan (a little broader than just "isn't white," not that a narrower field of bigotry would make it better) in a tradition that has demonstrated its eagerness to follow up said hatred with actual mass murder.

And Communists, Christians, Muslims, and various breeds of Nationalist don't have that history of violence? I don't think our world is still on the brink of war because of Neo-Nazis, convenient a scapegoat for evil as they are.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:32 PM on August 11, 2007

You know what would be funny? If one (or both) of them married a non-white, or whatever race/creed the neo-Nazis are against.
posted by Xere at 1:36 PM on August 11, 2007

Short version of kittens for breakfast-

"Think of the children!"
posted by quintessencesluglord at 1:39 PM on August 11, 2007

then s/he can go fuck him/herself, and vigorously. Turning your child into a racist psycho, I think, should not be allowed, both for the sake of the child and for the sake of others who may have the misfortune to encounter your rabid little hellbeast.

Well if you watch the documentary, it's clear that she did not succeed.

I see no reason why we should feel uncomfortable drawing a moral distinction between gay people and potheads on one side and nazis on the other. These things are not the same.

The interesting thing about people who want to use state power to control other people's lives is that they always assume that they'll be the ones doing the controlling. If we give the government the power to take away children based on the beliefs of their of their parents, then what's to stop them from taking away the the children of people you agree with? Or are you planning on stopping them all by yourself.

What you're proposing is that the government, and by extension 50%+1 of the population should get to dictate what ideas are passed along to children. When the confederacy was founded, freedom of speech was right out, and there was a constitutional ban on even advocating abolition of slavery, because the majority of southerners, or at least southern voters, wanted.

The problem is that while you may find various things objectionable you're not the one who gets to decide what is and isn't. 50%+1 of the country does. Would you really be comfortable with letting those people decide what views could be passed along to children, and which were reprehensible?
posted by delmoi at 1:43 PM on August 11, 2007 [6 favorites]

I'm fascinated by this stuff. I'm trying not to use it as an excuse to feel superior, but damn. Racism's just stupid. I love the mom's reasoning for her hatred in the Theroux documentary.

"I just find other races annoying. I don't like them chattering in other languages."

Classic.
posted by katillathehun at 1:45 PM on August 11, 2007

I don't understand the thought process that says "It's okay to raise your kids to be Nazis", but I also don't understand the thought process that leads to "Nazis have the right to exist", either.

For crying out loud, I don't get the thought process where *you* get to make these decisions for other people.

It's a matter of countervailing goods. I'd rather live with a bunch of nutcases hampered by broken, incomplete belief systems - the human race, in an egg - than let anyone have control over who gets to exist/think and who doesn't.

Not too long ago, Pope Guilty, someone would be playing the McCarthy card, pointing to Stalin and Mao and maintaining that Communist-sympathizers, whatever the hell that means, don't have the right to exist. And they'd be equally wrong.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:47 PM on August 11, 2007

kittens for breakfast, See, the problem is that the moment you have set the bar for removal of someones children based upon their viewpoints (not their actions) you have set a slippery slope that will be misused.

I understand what you're saying, quin. What I'm saying is that this is an inherently violent philosophy -- it's not one of those things where you can argue that "well, all Muslims aren't 'Islamofascists!'" or "well, all Christians don't hate [insert one of the vast number of groups many Christians hate]!", because there literally is nothing else to nazism. I mean, you take away the race hatred and the desire to kill everyone who doesn't fit your standards of awesomeness, and all you have left is guns, fetish wear, and the love of Wagner. (All things I am in favor of! In their proper settings, it goes without saying.) I argue this is a special case wherein the philosophy itself is a malignancy and nothing but potential harm; something as defensible as, say, NAMBLA. Not everything fits into that category -- in fact, most everything does not fit into that category. This does.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:50 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Pedophilia and sexual deviancy is pretty common among authoritarians of all stripes.

Hey! I'm a sexual deviant and I'm somewhere to the left of Karl Marx, thank you very much.
posted by Clay201 at 2:00 PM on August 11, 2007

The problem is that while you may find various things objectionable you're not the one who gets to decide what is and isn't. 50%+1 of the country does. Would you really be comfortable with letting those people decide what views could be passed along to children, and which were reprehensible?

But all societies do have to make these decisions, regardless of how flawed the people that comprise society are. We have to make a determination between what's acceptable and what is not, and while that responsibility is scary due to our boundless capacity for fucking up, we've got it. I grasp the fear of the slippery slope -- I really do -- but we're on the slippery slope, all the time. I don't think that declaring it unacceptable to raise one's children to be nazis is setting the bar especially low.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:01 PM on August 11, 2007

Isn't raising your children to be neo-nazis grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

Isn't raising your children to be gay marriage supporters grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

Isn't raising your children to be Democrats grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

Isn't raising your children to be vegans grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

Isn't raising your children to be secular humanist liberals grounds for having those children forcibly removed from you by the state? If not, why not?

get the picture? geez, i swear some of you kids are brain-dead.
posted by quonsar at 2:05 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

This conversation makes more sense if you imagine that Kittens is in fact Indiana Jones.
posted by kid ichorous at 2:09 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

I was really pleased when the documentary began to wrap up. Those girls know their own minds, they know their mother is insane (for god's sake, she called one of them a "cunt"), and if they manage to get the hell away from her they will have a shot at a semi-normal life - no doubt with some counselling. Plenty of kids that grew up during Hitler's Germany lost their indoctrination and gained more of a balanced view of the world around them, and I really really really have hope for a happy ending for them. It's horrible seeing damaged kids stuck in damaged situations with no one to help them get out.
posted by saturnine at 2:11 PM on August 11, 2007

Imagine, hell!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:12 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

But all societies do have to make these decisions, regardless of how flawed the people that comprise society are. We have to make a determination between what's acceptable and what is not

Sure, but I, like our government, do not believe it's appropriate to take kids away from parents based on their beliefs. So why don't you go piss up a tree? That's what society has decided, right?

Okay but seriously. Hiding behind "society" is pretty weak, after all various societies have done some pretty horrible things in the past, which is the entire reason for wanting to limit what society can do to an individual it doesn't like.

and while that responsibility is scary due to our boundless capacity for fucking up, we've got it.

Well the whole point is to limit the capacity for fucking up.
posted by delmoi at 2:12 PM on August 11, 2007

From one of the articles above: Although Gaede's husband made for good "Aryan" breeding stock, she claims that their relationship turned violent, and they were divorced in 1996.

Color me shocked.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:13 PM on August 11, 2007

I don't think that declaring it unacceptable to raise one's children to be nazis is setting the bar especially low.

Wait, you don't think that's setting the bar especially low? Does that mean you're setting it high? Are you talking about the parents or society? Limbo or pole vault?
posted by delmoi at 2:15 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

And to think I didn't used to understand when right-wingers accused liberals of relativism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:17 PM on August 11, 2007

I don't understand the thought process that says "It's okay to raise your kids to be Nazis", but I also don't understand the thought process that leads to "Nazis have the right to exist", either.

Says the "anarchist." Snort.

And, kittens, I'm sorry, but Nazism does have ideological elements that aren't purely negative. I think they're totally wrongheaded, true, but they certainly exist: the creation of a pure race with a single will, the embodiment of the political in a single leader, the unity of the people, etc.

I think that's stupid. But I also think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is stupid. I don't go around taking children away from Communists.
posted by nasreddin at 2:29 PM on August 11, 2007

Okay but seriously. Hiding behind "society" is pretty weak, after all various societies have done some pretty horrible things in the past, which is the entire reason for wanting to limit what society can do to an individual it doesn't like.

Um. I don't think anyone's hiding here, delmoi. And I certainly admit that society has indeed done some pretty horrible things in the past -- I'm pretty sure I as much as said so. And I'm sure horrible things will be done again. Does that mean that nothing should be done, ever?

Well the whole point is to limit the capacity for fucking up.

That's gotta be about the most underachieving take on society I've ever heard...seriously, "minimize damage" is what you see as the point of a governing body? Man, Bush has really lowered our expectations, hasn't he?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:31 PM on August 11, 2007

Okay, so eugenics are bad and most of us think that eumemics are bad too?
posted by aubilenon at 2:31 PM on August 11, 2007

That's gotta be about the most underachieving take on society I've ever heard...seriously, "minimize damage" is what you see as the point of a governing body? Man, Bush has really lowered our expectations, hasn't he?

Man, they really didn't teach you any civics in school, did they? Ever heard of Thomas Jefferson?
posted by nasreddin at 2:33 PM on August 11, 2007

"minimize damage" is what you see as the point of a governing body? Man, Bush has really lowered our expectations, hasn't he?

Was it Bush, or Thomas Hobbes?
posted by psmealey at 2:35 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Say What You Like About the Tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at Least it's an Ethos.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:37 PM on August 11, 2007 [4 favorites]

the creation of a pure race with a single will

Uhhhhhh...no, I'm sorry, but that is purely negative. At least if it's the creation of a "pure race" to the exclusion of all others, which kinda seems to be the gist of it. The other things you mention...well, one is dictatorship, which isn't so great, and the other is just...like...generic. I don't think there's ever been a system that expressed disdain for the unity of the people (in theory, I mean; practice is a little different). So I think we're kind of left with dictatorship. Yay. I don't think we need to lose any sleep worrying about preserving that as an ideal.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:38 PM on August 11, 2007

So...am I being taken to task for not embodying Jefferson here, or Hobbes? C'mon, you guys!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:40 PM on August 11, 2007

Says the "anarchist." Snort.

Yeah, those anarchists who fought the fascist takeover of Spain? Total fakes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:47 PM on August 11, 2007

Yeah, those anarchists who fought the fascist takeover of Spain? Total fakes.

Nice bait-and-switch. I imagine that in your future anarcho-communist world, reading Chomsky will be mandatory and reading Mein Kampf forbidden.

Lord, spare me from the well-meaning.


Uhhhhhh...no, I'm sorry, but that is purely negative. At least if it's the creation of a "pure race" to the exclusion of all others, which kinda seems to be the gist of it. The other things you mention...well, one is dictatorship, which isn't so great, and the other is just...like...generic. I don't think there's ever been a system that expressed disdain for the unity of the people (in theory, I mean; practice is a little different). So I think we're kind of left with dictatorship. Yay. I don't think we need to lose any sleep worrying about preserving that as an ideal.

Christ, dude, you really don't get it, do you? This is a concept that can be described as "liberty of conscience" and "democratic pluralism."

Think of it as an analogy to net neutrality, if that will make it clearer for you. The network infrastructure (aka the public sphere of discourse) is able to carry any form of content (aka ideologies, philosophies, etc.). Once certain forms of content become excluded, the network is no longer neutral, and it then becomes a question of who gets to make the rules for exclusion (the telcos?).

Do you have any compelling reasons for why you, kittens, are a better arbiter of discourse than, say, David Lane? Why do you get to decide what the network ought to be able to carry? You think Nazism is stupid. But no one made you king. How do we decide who is qualified to fill the role of content controller? Do you trust that person not to suppress or punish you for any ideas you may have that he thinks are crazy?

This, by the way, is why the ACLU defends Jehovah's Witnesses and Neo-Nazis.
posted by nasreddin at 2:56 PM on August 11, 2007 [5 favorites]

Yeah, those anarchists who fought the fascist takeover of Spain? Total fakes.

Were those the same anarchists who tried to exterminate every person who proclaimed themselves a fascist?

Oh no, those were the anarchists who were fighting in a large civil war against a military force, not "anarchists" wanting to kill a small minority of social misfits with no actual power because they disturb him.
posted by Snyder at 2:57 PM on August 11, 2007

Look what a little swapping does:

Turning your child into a sub-human via intermixing races, I think, should not be allowed, both for the sake of the child and for the sake of others who may have the misfortune to encounter your rabid little hellbeast.

As has already been pointed out - your approach is exactly the same as that of a Nazi state. As others have pointed out - who sets the bar for what is acceptable? Religion, race, sexuality - these are all "controversial" issues and I have yet to see any state have a rational response to them.

You've got a madman starting wars for fun & profit, politicians fighting to keep coma patients alive over the wishes of their family, media that ignores the issues, other politicians who hide their sexuality (until caught in compromising positions) and vote against their own self-interests to toady to those in power. You have a government who can and will unlawfully monitor it's citizens, you have a government that ignores international law, you have a government that sanctions secret trials, imprisonment and torture. You have a government that has probably stolen not one, but two elections and is pushing for shoddy voting machines from a company run by a toady. You have a government that repeatedly hands over citizen rights to corporations for financial gain (RIAA/MPAA).

Now you want them involved in deciding how to take away children based on a belief-set?

Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazi's - especially Illinois Nazi's - but do you really trust those assholes?
posted by jkaczor at 3:03 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Were those the same anarchists who tried to exterminate every person who proclaimed themselves a fascist?

Oh no, those were the anarchists who were fighting in a large civil war against a military force, not "anarchists" wanting to kill a small minority of social misfits with no actual power because they disturb him.

Exactly. Note also how the anarchists worked side-by-side with the Communists, despite the radical difference in their beliefs.

Cue comments about how The Bush Regime Is Fascist, So Prussian Blue Is Actually Running The Country So Suppressing Their Speech Is Okay Amirite.
posted by nasreddin at 3:05 PM on August 11, 2007

I don't think I'd really weep a river over the children in those situations finding better homes, honestly

You think that a kid in foster care is in a better home than one who lives with intolerant immigrant parents? Now that's funny.

If I had as rosy and blinkered a view of our glorious overlords in the government as you, maybe I'd be ready to hand 'em the keys too.
posted by enn at 3:07 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh no, those were the anarchists who were fighting in a large civil war against a military force, not "anarchists" wanting to kill a small minority of social misfits with no actual power because they disturb him.

Right, right, I want to kill fascists because their ideology bothers me. It has nothing to do with the fact that the neonazi subculture is a breeding ground for murderers, thugs, and career criminals. It's just because fascism "offends" me and not because neo-nazis are, to an individual, dangerous to the rest of us.

Fucking relativists.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:12 PM on August 11, 2007

To the people who are arguing that these girls shouldn't be saved from their toxic families because, "what if this was applied to people with X belief" -

Do realize that these girls aren't just being raised to be intolerant asswipes. They are being raised by a stage mother (which, IMHO, could be considered child abuse in and of itself) who puts them on stage and has them sing songs about hate and intolerance. She has made them well-known throughout the world for encouraging the worst kind of intolerance. Imagine what happens when one of these girls wants to go out and get a job and do something useful with their life? I mean, shit, in today's Google-driven world, giving your child a past like that should be considered child abuse by anyone's standards.
posted by Afroblanco at 3:13 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

The way to combat bigotry is not through suppression of speech, but through fact, reason, and argumentation. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fascist.

Further, suppression of speech (and taking their kids away) is ineffective, in that it creates a victim complex and further radicalizes the movement.
posted by nasreddin at 3:13 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

It has nothing to do with the fact that the neonazi subculture is a breeding ground for murderers, thugs, and career criminals. It's just because fascism "offends" me and not because neo-nazis are, to an individual, dangerous to the rest of us.

Having lived in the Soviet Union, I assure you that Nazi ideology is neither unique nor unusual in this respect.
posted by nasreddin at 3:15 PM on August 11, 2007

Channel 4 thinks it is Channel 5.
posted by jb at 3:16 PM on August 11, 2007

Says the "anarchist." Snort.

Anyone who believes otherwise is a fascist.

You know that words have meanings, right?
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:18 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

And, also:

neo-nazis are, to an individual, dangerous to the rest of us.

That's what they said about Sacco and Vanzetti, you gendarme.
posted by nasreddin at 3:18 PM on August 11, 2007

Of course, they used to take kids away from Indians and Australian aborigines. Lowlifes like that, you know, couldn't be trusted to bring up children, and would just teach them a bunch of degenerate ways and beliefs and languages. [note for the impaired: views stated above do not reflect those of the author]

More recently, there have been accusations that a child was taken from someone for being a subgenius. It was even discussed here on Metafilter, and everyone was outraged at the nosey damned conservative Christian sticks-in-the mud.

If you start taking people's beliefs, rather than their actions, as reason to take their kids away, you will quickly find yourself outraged at the results. Or maybe just very, very busy.
posted by dilettante at 3:21 PM on August 11, 2007

That's what they said about Sacco and Vanzetti, you gendarme.

More relativism. Typical.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:22 PM on August 11, 2007

Right, right, I want to kill fascists because their ideology bothers me. It has nothing to do with the fact that the neonazi subculture is a breeding ground for murderers, thugs, and career criminals. It's just because fascism "offends" me and not because neo-nazis are, to an individual, dangerous to the rest of us.

OK, PG, put your money where your mouth is.

What percentage of US criminal activity can you attribute to Neo-Nazi groups?

Let's see some DoJ statistics. Naturally, I want to know how dangerous these scary people before I repeal all kinds of rights to save myself from them. You know, like we should have done with the terrorists.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:32 PM on August 11, 2007

BTW, the one case where I'd actually say skinhead gangs pose any kind of serious risk is inside of prison, where the Aryan Brotherhood competes with other race-gangs like Nuestra Familia. But then, the Brotherhood has jack-squat to do with actual Nazi ideologies beyond the most basic cosmetic symbolism, allies itself with gangs of other ethnicities, and operates more like a mafia organization than anything else. So it's not exactly a wing of the White Nationalist or Neo-Nazi political movements.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:39 PM on August 11, 2007

If being raised with ridiculous beliefs was a leading indicator of what you believed as an adult, all my friends would be either Hippies or Black Panthers. Isn't that the reason true believers of all stripes always feel compelled to spread the word? With the exception of Catholicism, which is like ideological Krazy Glue. It adheres on contact.

Not that I'm comparing Catholics to hippies or nazis.
posted by billyfleetwood at 3:54 PM on August 11, 2007

Further, suppression of speech (and taking their kids away) is ineffective, in that it creates a victim complex and further radicalizes the movement.

This, actually, I might buy. The other arguments, as Pope Guilty noted, really do smack of relativism. "Let's swap out, yada yada..." Well, no. Let's not. You can't equate a member of the Church of the SubGenius with a group of violent intolerants -- which is exactly why it's galling that someone would try to take their children away. Because these people are harmless. Is anyone seriously arguing that the same is true of neo-nazis? If they don't generally cause harm, it's either because they aren't true to the nazi ethos or because they lack the emboldening factor of numbers.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:59 PM on August 11, 2007

What percentage of US criminal activity can you attribute to Neo-Nazi groups?

A much more useful question would be "What percentage of neo-nazis are criminals?"

Hell, let's ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, shall we?
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:06 PM on August 11, 2007

Not that I'm comparing Catholics to hippies or nazis.

I'll do it! Catholics are nothing but hippie-nazis. Bunch of granola-chewing, dreadlocked, jackbooted, country-annexing, Jew haters.

/escaped Catholic
posted by quin at 4:06 PM on August 11, 2007

Fascinating stuff. Horrifying, of course. It really is heartbreaking to see how the girls have been brainwashed; one can only hope they will go through that rebellious phase and reject their mother's insane ideas.

It is truly amazing, the things people will say with a straight face and actually seem to believe. The Louis Theroux documentary is especially good at showing this--I love the part where he asks racist leader Tom Metzger what the problem is with white women dating black men, and Metzger says, "Most black men are ugly."

Theroux: Do you think you're better looking than Denzel Washington?

Metzger: Yeah.

Theroux: Do you really? What if that were put to a vote and you were outvoted?

Metzger: If I had the money and the power and was making movies, I'd get ten times more women than him.

Theroux: Do you really believe that? That seems delusional.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 4:09 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Say "relativism" some more, PG, I'm sure it will mean something eventually.

Gee, what's more relativist, understanding I'm not God on Earth and letting people exist unless they harm others, or having "strong moral principles" that are thrown to four winds as soon as somebody waves a swastika around. Apparently, those anarchist principles are deep and closely held until someone scary shows up. Jesus, Nazis in America are about as dangerous as popsicle stick splinters, and you act like they're an imminent threat. There a fucking bogeyman. Way to take a strong and forthright stand against Nazis, that's real out there. (Because it goes without saying that you've done nothing more to kill Nazis than then post about how much you don't like them on the internet, right?)

On preview: Nice link the SPLC. Not that even a substantial amount of those are self-proclaimed Nazis, and that some of those aren't even crimes (distributing flyers, well, I guess you think that should be one, don't you, of it's the wrong type of flyer.) Way to make an honest argument.
posted by Snyder at 4:26 PM on August 11, 2007

Hell, let's ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, shall we?

OK. It looks like they found 167 "hate" crimes - ranging from nonviolent canvassing and graffiti to assault and kidnapping - for the entire US in all of 2007 to date. Furthermore, not all of these seem to be linked to Neo-Nazi groups, to be racially motivated, or to have been perpetrated by whites. The subset of these crimes that are violent and are linked to Neo-Nazi groups is an extremely small number. For Neo-Nazis to demonstrate a higher disposition towards violent crime than members of say, Black Nationalist groups, or other racially-affine movements, there would have to be a very very tiny number of them overall. Which, again, makes this look like a non-issue, and certainly nothing I want start changing the laws over.
posted by kid ichorous at 4:26 PM on August 11, 2007

Twenty years from now, we'll find out that one of these girls married LeBron James and the other married Melissa Etheridge.

(it's not all that farfetched. Former White Power leader George Burdi has married an East Indian woman, formed a racially mixed band and renounced his former views, which in those circles is putting yopurself at considerable risk.)
posted by jonmc at 4:33 PM on August 11, 2007

Tom Metzger

Denzel Washington

Metzger

Denzel

Metzger

Denzel

Metafilter, you decide.
posted by quin at 4:34 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

It shouldn't be illegal to have shitty beliefs or to teach your kids to have shitty beliefs.

If you want to raise your kids to believe stupid awful things then it makes you an asshole, not a criminal.
posted by lemuria at 4:34 PM on August 11, 2007

Anyone who's been around the far right for awhile can tell you all about its truly creepy sexual qualities. Child molesters and pedophiles are unusually common, as are various kinds of domestic-violence and rape cases

*cough*

(I remember watching this documentary about this Klan type who was forming this youth-based white supremacist outfit. Most of the kids were poor, from troubled homes and except for a few not especially bright. And the way he spent so much time around these kids made me wonder if there wasn't a sexual component to the whole thing. What disturbs me as well is that we (on the left) aren't doing much to reach these kids which makes them prime fodder for these types. just saying)
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Metzger is bringing sexy back.
posted by kid ichorous at 4:37 PM on August 11, 2007

kittens for breakfast : "That's gotta be about the most underachieving take on society I've ever heard...seriously, 'minimize damage' is what you see as the point of a governing body? Man, Bush has really lowered our expectations, hasn't he?"

You seriously need to go and reread your history and political theory books. You are making little to no sense. The US was based on minimizing damage. One of Bush's faults is that he's ignoring these efforts to minimize damages in order to get what he thinks is Good and Correct done, and thereby fucking things up.

Your arguments, basically, are saying "The founding fathers had one of the most underachieving takes on society I've ever heard of. I would prefer that we ignore these limitations in order to pass important moral legislation, just like the Bush government is doing. Sure, it's a slippery slope, but I think we can navigate it successfully. Despite the fact that in real life, right now, it's not being navigated successfully."

I mean, one thing is saying "I think I can drink this pond water without getting sick", and having a bunch of people tell you it's a bad idea. It's quite another thing to say "I think I can drink this pond water without getting sick. You detractors are just underachievers, like Bob, that asshole over there who is puking from drinking this pond water."
posted by Bugbread at 4:38 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

most likely scenario: inside of five years one will be hooking for crack and the other a fat alcoholic single mother of 4. and that's before you factor in the whole nazi indoctrination thing. you can take the trash out of the trailer but...
posted by quonsar at 4:41 PM on August 11, 2007

Gee, what's more relativist, understanding I'm not God on Earth and letting people exist unless they harm others

Declaring oneself a nazi is basically tantamount to tattooing your forehead with a legend that says, "I Harm Others (Or Would If Only I Weren't Such a Wuss)" (or, among teenagers whose parents are not neo-nazis, it may mean, "Everyone Thinks I'm a Douche; Please Hear My Cry of Anguish, Someone, Anyone, Please, Ogod"). "THEY" -- that is to say, the vast throng of neo-nazis who will come charging down the streets of every major city in America, any minute now -- are not a threat, because they don't exist. But individuals are a threat, at least to individuals.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:42 PM on August 11, 2007

kittens for breakfast writes "This, actually, I might buy. The other arguments, as Pope Guilty noted, really do smack of relativism."

kforb, I think that you and Pope Guilty have a different idea of what relativism means to the rest of us.

There's nothing relativistic about insisting that people face sanctions on the basis of their actions rather than their ideas. If these people really are such a threat, then prosecute them for their criminal actions, not for the views that they hold.

Pope Guilty writes "Hell, let's ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, shall we?"

That's 167 prosecutions this year, so obviously there's no problem prosecuting them -- and, if warranted, taking their kids away -- when they do break the law. However, the number of prosecutions tells us nothing about the proportions that are engaged in criminal activities.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:44 PM on August 11, 2007

Say "relativism" some more, PG, I'm sure it will mean something eventually.

Snyder, meet nasreddin. He shares your lack of belief in the use of phonemes to communicate meaning.

Apparently, those anarchist principles are deep and closely held until someone scary shows up.

Which anarchist principle are you referring to which supports tolerating nazis? Are you of the impression that anarchists are pacifists who simply refuse to act against threats? Everyone thinks they know about anarchism, but I notice nobody seems to give a damn about its history or what anarchists think/say about anarchism.

Because it goes without saying that you've done nothing more to kill Nazis than then post about how much you don't like them on the internet, right?

I've also advocated for it offline as well. What do you think I'm going to do, go out, murder a fascist, get arrested, tried, and executed? What fucking good does that do for anybody but the fascists? Why is it that whenever someone advocates for radical change, the response is always "Why don't you foolishly run off and do something completely stupid and counterproductive?" I advocate for it. I try to convince others that it's a good idea. I try to inject the meme into the public consciousness and build support for it. Anything else would be incredibly stupid.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:44 PM on August 11, 2007

There's nothing relativistic about insisting that people face sanctions on the basis of their actions rather than their ideas.

And nobody, least of all myself, is arguing that. It is relativism to judge Nazis equally with SubGeniuses. It is relativism to take a horror and a non-horror and say "There is no moral difference here."
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:47 PM on August 11, 2007

and equally lame and ineffective.
posted by quonsar at 4:48 PM on August 11, 2007

Someone upthread wondered what the point of filming this documentary was, suggesting it was exploitative and without a message. Pardon me for not rereading all of the comments to find out again who that was.

I'd say that at the very least the filmmaker showed that the girls aren't completely in line with their mother's insanity after all, and that they may redeem themselves. Consider, as another reader mentioned, that these girls might soon drop mom's incessant bullshit manipulation completely and try to piece their lives together apart from all that white nationalist nonsense. What an important document this might be for them, to show that they were thoroughly brainwashed and they want out.
posted by Evstar at 4:55 PM on August 11, 2007

Pope Guilty : "And nobody, least of all myself, is arguing that. It is relativism to judge Nazis equally with SubGeniuses. It is relativism to take a horror and a non-horror and say 'There is no moral difference here.'"

As far as I can tell, nobody here is arguing that, either. They're saying "there's no way to prove the moral difference, therefore if you allow legislation prohibiting the morally abhorrent one, you're opening the door for someone morally abhorrent to pass legislation prohibiting the non-morally abhorrent one."
posted by Bugbread at 4:58 PM on August 11, 2007

You seriously need to go and reread your history and political theory books. You are making little to no sense. The US was based on minimizing damage. One of Bush's faults is that he's ignoring these efforts to minimize damages in order to get what he thinks is Good and Correct done, and thereby fucking things up.

I think that's a pretty charitable reading of the Bush administration, personally; I don't think there's a moral compass in play at all, though considerable lip service is paid to anyone. I cited Bush because it seems to me that the fear of government action, period, is the consequence of seven years that make most of us simply wish for a government that would stop smashing the country up against the rocks. I think that's important, obviously, but (I hope) we can do better.

(If you notice me sidestepping the "what the founding fathers wanted" argument, you're right -- it's a net truism that this subject always turns into an avalanche of libertarian bullshit, and there's a reason why constitutional lawyers get so much work besides. I'm sure someone else will be happy to get into that shouting match with you, though; if not in this thread, then somewhere. Someone always wants to have that argument...)
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:59 PM on August 11, 2007

Snyder, meet nasreddin. He shares your lack of belief in the use of phonemes to communicate meaning.'

You are using that word meaninglessly, as a chant.

Which anarchist principle are you referring to which supports tolerating nazis?

The principles of freedom, self-management, egalitarianism, anti-authoritarianism, and, according to some, non-aggression.

Everyone thinks they know about anarchism, but I notice nobody seems to give a damn about its history or what anarchists think/say about anarchism.

You are not the first person in the world to discover anarchism.

What do you think I'm going to do, go out, murder a fascist, get arrested, tried, and executed? Why is it that whenever someone advocates for radical change, the response is always "Why don't you foolishly run off and do something completely stupid and counterproductive?"

You miss the point. It's neither brave nor noteworthy to speak virulently against Nazis, as they are A: Almost universally despised, and B: Not an actual threat. Loudly braying about is silly and simply attention-getting.

It is relativism to take a horror and a non-horror and say "There is no moral difference here."

Well, then good thing no one is saying that. We have no disagreement, except you seem to wish to kill people who have the wrong moral opinions.

You have not addressed mine and others comments about your fatuous attempt at evidence using the SPLC.
posted by Snyder at 5:23 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

*jumps up on the table*
*shouts 'Anarchy!'*
posted by jonmc at 5:28 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

kittens for breakfast : "I cited Bush because it seems to me that the fear of government action, period, is the consequence of seven years that make most of us simply wish for a government that would stop smashing the country up against the rocks."

It seems to me that the seven years that make most of us simply wish for a government that would stop smashing the country up against the rocks is evidence of why limiting government is a good thing. It's not like everyone started thinking that in the last year or two: people have been saying that government needs limitation for hundreds of years. The last 7 years aren't the cause of that belief. And if the idea of "you must limit government to some extent, because if you don't, it will eventually do bad shit" seems depressing, that's because the reality behind it is depressing. "One day we all die" may seem defeatist or depressing or bleak, but none of those change the fact that it's true.

kittens for breakfast : "If you notice me sidestepping the 'what the founding fathers wanted' argument, you're right -- it's a net truism that this subject always turns into an avalanche of libertarian bullshit"

Yeah, good point. I probably should have skipped that. After all, what really counts is whether one believes that the idea is good or bad, not who advocated it. Invoking the phrase "founding fathers" just ends out being an attempt to bolster an argument by citing supposed authority. Bad idea, and I should have avoided it.

Plus, I'm coming off as a big libertarian, which I'm not. I don't think the government should be powerless and we should all fend for ourselves by hiring private police or anything. I just think that both ends of the spectrum suck, and the middle sucks less, but letting the government decide who can keep their kids based on their beliefs will end up with a tilting towards one end (that is, an increase in suck), and I haven't seen anything during my lifetime that shows that the government would pull it off successfully.
posted by Bugbread at 5:28 PM on August 11, 2007

This isn't a terribly good documentary, is it? While I have little doubt the family is as troubled and terrible as the narrator implies, he throws a lot of opinions on the subject matter and inserts in a lot more editorializing than a truly responsible documentary-maker would. I'd like to see a drier coverage of the family--the editorializing works against him.
posted by Anonymous at 5:39 PM on August 11, 2007

He also has a bunch of misleading cuts--he presents it as chronological, when it's pretty clear he's splitting up takes and acting like they were taken at different times. Maybe he's hoping the horrific subject matter will make up for his poor filmmaking? Whatever it is, it detracts from his message.
posted by Anonymous at 5:42 PM on August 11, 2007

One notes that Germany's decision to criminalize nazism has, gosh, really driven their freedoms and rights straight into the ground.

Canada, too, is really suffering from the illegality of promotion of hatred. Why, kicking that asswipe Zündel out of the country (and into Germany's jails, IIRC) resulted in gays not being allowed to be married.

Oh, wait... wrong on both counts. Both countries are doing just fine.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:46 PM on August 11, 2007

*jumps up on the table*
*shouts 'Anarchy!'*

*Sits on stolen double-decker bus, yells at roomates*

"We can do just exactly whatever we want to do! And you know why?! Because we're Young Ones! Bachelor boys!! Crazy, mad, wild-eyed, big-bottomed anarchists!"
posted by quin at 5:50 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

One notes that Germany's decision to criminalize nazism has, gosh, really driven their freedoms and rights straight into the ground.

Or it's simply driven them underground and given 'validation' to their martyr and persecution complexes which are their fuel and cache.
posted by jonmc at 5:54 PM on August 11, 2007

Scientologists, too, for that matter. Yet somehow I think that unless one's a Nazi or Tom Cruise, Germany is an okay place to live.

Nazi Scientologists, there's a winning combination. :)
posted by five fresh fish at 6:11 PM on August 11, 2007

Nazi Scientologists, there's a winning combination. :)

You have to pay the Church every time you want to hate new groups.

Then they reveal Jews are really aliens.
posted by Snyder at 6:14 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

five fresh fish : "One notes that Germany's decision to criminalize nazism has, gosh, really driven their freedoms and rights straight into the ground.

"Canada, too, is really suffering from the illegality of promotion of hatred. Why, kicking that asswipe Zündel out of the country (and into Germany's jails, IIRC) resulted in gays not being allowed to be married.

"Oh, wait... wrong on both counts. Both countries are doing just fine."

If I had as much faith in the US government and/or voting constituency as I do in those of Canada or Germany, I'd be in favor of more ideology restrictive legislation as well.

It's like children and knives: are knives always horribly dangerous? No. They can be, depending on whose hands we're talking about. I handle a knife fine for cooking and minor DIY work. My wife is excellent at chopping vegetables. But I still oppose giving a knife to my 2 year old.
posted by Bugbread at 6:14 PM on August 11, 2007

Nazi Scientologists,

Their leader would be Heil Ron Hubbard.
posted by jonmc at 6:29 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

five fresh fish:One notes that Germany's decision to criminalize nazism has, gosh, really driven their freedoms and rights straight into the ground.

"Hell, man, my uncle's been smoking twenty packs a day since he was five, and he's fit as a fiddle."

Selectively eroding the rights of hated fringe groups (e.g. Neo-Nazis, Scientologists) doesn't immediately spell disaster. It does establish a dangerous legal precedent for government abuse, however. What starts with one fringe element doesn't tend to stop there, and that's something quite elemental that Germany should have learned from the Nazis.

But here's the real kicker: for all its cost, banning speech doesn't necessarily work. Criminalizing the swastika, or any other word, icon, or symbol, doesn't actually have the effect you intend. Striking a word empowers it. In particular, the swastika, which was selected by the Nazis for its mystical Indo-European connotations, grows in mystique the more occult you make it.

And striking the word doesn't uncreate what it signifies. Europeans can still be nationalist, racist, and economically disenfranchised. They can still dislike Jews. They can still feel sublimated resentment towards and from Turkish and Arab immigrants. They can still be militaristic. They can still be captivated and enthralled by charismatic leaders. They can still allow a police state to take hold. They can still elect leaders with national socialist tendencies. And yet this is all presumably under control, so long as nobody utters the wrong word, or waves the wrong flag, in the open?

Of all the multitude of dictators and butchers in the world, there was only one Hitler and one Nazi party. Probabilistically-speaking, eliminating all Nazis isnt' the way to keep the next dictator out of power, anywhere.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:41 PM on August 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

I promised myself I wouldn't, but...

Selectively eroding the rights of hated fringe groups criminal organizations (e.g. Neo-Nazis, Scientologists) doesn't immediately spell disaster.

Fixed that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:46 PM on August 11, 2007

That is, you can have a Stalin, you can have a Caesar, you can have a Hitler, you can have a Franco, and so on. Diffuse names, symbols, platforms. What's the common ground to look for to prevent this pattern from recurring?

Well, in every case, the government and military consolidated too much power and entrusted it in the hands of too few.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:50 PM on August 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Pope, any organization is a criminal organization if you make it a crime to be a member.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:51 PM on August 11, 2007 [3 favorites]

Jesus, Nazis in America are about as dangerous as popsicle stick splinters, and you act like they're an imminent threat

It's obviously time to start beating the "OMFG NAZIS!1!!" drum to get everyone in a giving mood for the next SPLC fund raising blitz. Did I say blitz? I meant appeal. The Nazi "movement" in America is a couple dozen old men, several dozen drunken skinhead teens and about 3,000 FBI informants. Jesus fuck, can't you people find a more credible bogeyman?

Pope, any organization is a criminal organization if you make it a crime to be a member.

Well, that should pretty much close the thread.
posted by MikeMc at 6:54 PM on August 11, 2007

I just gave my 15 month old, strawberry-blonde haired, blue eyed daughter her first knife. She might be able to open it in another couple years. I told her not to terrorize the cats with it.
posted by Balisong at 6:55 PM on August 11, 2007

The Brews
posted by Balisong at 6:56 PM on August 11, 2007

( also, Kill all the White Man )
posted by Balisong at 6:58 PM on August 11, 2007

I'm late to the game, and obviously this thread's been waaaaay derailed.

But I posted the original PB thread, and I would've missed this otherwise, so thanks for the links!
posted by fungible at 7:29 PM on August 11, 2007

Thanks for posting this; these documentaries have been great watching tonight. I was expecting the girls to be much more brainwashed than either documentary showed them to be. At 10/11 and then 14, I thought there would be scenes of them angrily or passionately arguing in favor of their (mother's) politics. Children in similar situations often seem to ge a death grip on the ideology and loudly parrot back what they've been taught to anyone who threatens their ideas; those kinds of confrontational scenes seem like easy gold for a documentary.

Even at the radio interview, when talking about her views on immigration, the girl was carefully measuring her words and trying not to sound hateful---even though what she was compelled/expected to say was hate speech, she was doing her best to not sound like a hateful person. In some cases, that might be part of manipulating listeners into agreeing with your point; from her, I think she really didn't want to come across as a hateful person and was distancing herself as much as she could while still under her mother's watchful eye.

I also didn't think I'd like them. But they seemed like quiet, thoughtful, normal girls and I liked them a lot.

It really makes the whole thing much sadder to me. I hope they find a way to make themselves happy.
posted by juliplease at 7:41 PM on August 11, 2007

If I had as much faith in the US government and/or voting constituency as I do in those of Canada or Germany, I'd be in favor of more ideology restrictive legislation as well.

The only salient argument made so far.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:05 PM on August 11, 2007

I also didn't think I'd like them. But they seemed like quiet, thoughtful, normal girls and I liked them a lot.

It really makes the whole thing much sadder to me. I hope they find a way to make themselves happy.

I just finished watching the doc and the really sad part is the fate that awaits little Dresden. As the twins are getting older they are slowly starting starting to distance themselves from their mother and her ideology. April Gaede is not happy about this development as not only are these kids her meal ticket but their popularity serves as validation for her beliefs. I can damn near guarantee that moms is going to turn it up several notches to make sure little Dresden's indoctrination is far more through than her sisters'. I wonder if April has started giving Dresden guitar lessons yet?
posted by MikeMc at 8:19 PM on August 11, 2007

So true... poor Dresden. April Gaede's boundaries are definitely scary and I can't imagine what she is teaching the littlest one in addition to those ABCs. I was shocked in Louis Theroux film when she said that she knew beautiful 16 year old blonde twins would be a great way to get boy's/men's attention on their message. It is sick and weird for a parent to talk about daughters' sex appeal that way anyway, but at the time, they were 10! Of course, the phone call with David Lane took the cake insofar as a bad lack of boundaries go. Ugh.
posted by juliplease at 8:38 PM on August 11, 2007

*jumps up on the table*
*shouts 'Anarchy!'*

Grandpa is climbing the funiture again. Someone get his meds.
posted by homunculus at 9:13 PM on August 11, 2007

Huh. I remember reading a bunch of stuff about neo-nazi gang members, finding out later some of them were pedophiles. Watched a show about whats-his-face (does it matter?) the former leader of the nazi party in Illinois (tried to march thru Skokie) heard he was busted for child porn, buddy of mine got out of jail a bit back, said half the nazi prison gang members were in there on kiddie rape beefs which is what made that gang strong not the ideology.

Thought to myself: "Hey, I think I see a pattern."

Funny you think stuff like this and never really formalize the connections until you notice other folks adding things up the same way.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:56 PM on August 11, 2007

I agree with schroedinger.

It was an interesting story, but the reporter did not do a very good job of remaining transparent or neutral. He did a lot of suggesting as to how we should see various situations, even if they might have been just normal teenage parent arguments. He did it so often and so forcefully that it made me wonder whether his deductions were really accurate and if he were seeing things as they really are.
posted by milovoo at 10:23 AM on August 12, 2007

Are Prussian Blue really a popular band? I mean do they actually sell anything? Are they played on any radio stations, other than as a cautionary tale or a joke? The only reason they get any attention is because they whole situation is a trainwreck, plus momma April is too poor to turn down negative publicity it seems. Otherwise there's not much difference between them and Paris Hilton or the Olsen Twins, except that the girls seem like they might actually be more sensible than Paris Hilton or the Olsen Twins. Unfortunately there is nothing new about parents exploiting their children.

The real story, I thought, was that white nationalist April tried to move to the whitest place she could find and they still didn't want her around. That says something pretty hopeful.
posted by maggiemaggie at 10:36 AM on August 12, 2007

The real story, I thought, was that white nationalist April tried to move to the whitest place she could find and they still didn't want her around. That says something pretty hopeful.

It says that despite these people's grandiosity, most white people consider them and their ilk to be an embarassment. Which is, of course, a good thing.
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on August 12, 2007

When the popularity has waned, an interracial sex tape will recharge their careers.

Ya know, people only make this joke about women. Me, I hope Louis Farrakhan gets caught banging a Pakistani transsexual.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:03 PM on August 12, 2007

Now *that's* a nice image to end on.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:30 PM on August 12, 2007

Kevin Strom was the leader of National Vanguard, the organization to which April Gaede belonged and which did more to publicize Prussian Blue than any other white supremacist group. He was arrested less than a year ago on charges of possessing child pornography.

And David Lane? Before he died, he "authored a short story entitled KD Rebel, a fictional account of a colony of Wotanists who live in the mountains and kidnap miscegenating or "wayward" young girls and women from urban areas and force them into polygamy as breeding stock. Lane strongly advocated polygamy as part of Wotanism." (From the Wikipedia article.)

Pedophilia goes really, really deep in these circles. I don't want to suggest that April Gaede pushed her daughters into performing so early because on some level, she recognized that, because that would just be too horrific. But at the same time...

I don't know. April is really, seriously messed up. After watching that documentary, I'm shocked that her daughters seem so normal and well-adjusted. I was impressed at how much more mature they acted than their mother, like after the concert when she threw a hissy fit and one of them calmly looked on the bright side ("Well, it was fun for a while...") or in the diner, when one of them scolded her for rudely running out. They seem like they'll be okay, which is a miracle, given all the crap their mother has put them through.
posted by Anyamatopoeia at 4:06 PM on August 12, 2007

Britney Spears, Burhanistan?

(Warning: Britney Spears, Hitler and a Dutch version of "Barbie Girl" by Aqua)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 4:26 PM on August 12, 2007

Make it an Israeli transvestite and you've got yourself a bestseller.

I'll see your Israeli transvestite and raise you an Israeli transsexual at the Eurovision Song Contest.
posted by jonp72 at 8:30 PM on August 12, 2007