[rofo1]

> The parallel with "democrats doing Nazi salute" is pretty poor: of course people will not assume it was the intention for someone who has, by the ideas they defend and by their acts, demonstrated they are strongly opposed to the Nazi ideas. But it is not the case here.

You have to prove that. You cannot just randomly keep saying it as a starting position because you hope nobody will call that out. He has shown support for free markets, reducing regulations, reducing taxes/gov. spending (within budget and small at that) and for limited government in general. How is that support for the National-Socialists?

> I'm not sure how sympathetic he is with Nazi ideas (but I would not be surprised he would be sympathetic to the core concepts, he is promoting the same family of ideas grounded in the same roots),

Again, you have to prove this. Be concrete: which ideas precisely? Which "concepts", which "family"?

[cauch]

I had this kind of discussions before but unfortunately it is usually a waste of time, as any consensus amongst experts is waved away.

> He has shown support for free markets, reducing regulations, reducing taxes/gov. spending (within budget and small at that) and for limited government in general. How is that support for the National-Socialists?

I think this sentence already is quite telling. For example, Nazi privatized the German industry massively in the 30s, and there was a full wing of the Nazi party defending free markets and low government, with people like for example Walther Funk. They also had the support of big private industry leaders like Friedrich Thyssen. The opposed wing of the party, containing for example Göring, who were advocating for a deeper control by the state on economy in order to build up the army, got the favor of Hitler just before the war. But it does not mean that the Nazi ideology was incompatible with pro free market, low regulations and low government ideals: there were plenty of proper Nazi that were openly defending these ideals.

> Which "concepts", which "family"?

Well, that is usually where the well is poisoned. For example, AfD in Germany is widely recognised as grounded in Nazi values (the fact that it is the relevant party that attracts the most people who consider themselves as proper Nazi is a very good clue: why the self-recognized Nazi likes this party so much if this party does not share any of their values?). But then, it is easy to just say "na-ah, they have nothing to do with Nazi values", even if it does not correspond to the simple facts. Yet, Musk has recently openly supported this party. There are plenty of political party in Germany and in Europe. He could have not supported any party, the same way he did not in France, in Spain, in Italy, ... or he could have defended values, or he could have defended other parties that are basically pushing for the same economic policies that Musk is probably interested in. It is difficult to understand why Musk is suddenly entering the debate JUST to defend parties with strong nationalistic and xenophobic roots (not used as an insult, it's just a fact of what their policies are) if Musk does not share these values, and these values are indeed the values shared by the Nazi party.

[rofo1]

Why can't you discuss sincerely and directly to the point? Why do you start with: "it's a waste of time", "this is telling", "the ExP3rtz said this.."

Stop moving the goal posts - I asked for direct examples, you say why didn't he supported parties in France and Spain.

NAZI Germany had total control over the economy. If you are contesting this point, there is nothing for me to discuss further with you.

They also had total control over the social aspects and any kind of even slight criticism of anything related to their party or the way they rule, was met with severe penalties. They regularly executed people for treason cause of criticism.

They fully controlled all media and speech without exceptions. Goes without saying that they disarmed anyone that wasn't directly controlled by their party. This is what the communists did, too. This is why I maintain they are the same evil.

It's unbelievable to read that a grown person thinks that companies in NAZI Germany had any kind of freedom themselves. I disagree with that strongly, as anyone knowing anything remotely about Germany 1933-1945 would.

I am against any censorship of ideas - ideas should be discussed openly. And I am against government interference in private businesses. That is core position of freedom. If Elon or Trump endanger it, I am against that, loud and clear.

This is off topic, but are you going to say the same for what the Democrats did to Zuckerberg? Check the Joe Rogan interview for details. That's just one example, they did much more than this. It doesn't matter how they justify it ("compassion", "empathy", "we protect you from thoughts" etc.)

[cauch]

You keep pretending you know what you are talking about, and yet, you are strongly downvoted.

Your description of the nazi Germany is caricatural, and does not correspond to the reality. Funk was strongly pro-market, and was in disagreement with some of Hitler choices, and yet was not merely executed and was still 100% a nazi, because the reality is not a Disney movie with caricatural villains.

I have given direct example such as he supports for AfD that makes only sense if he adhere to some of their values (as demonstrated, if he does not adhere to some of their values, why did he single them out), and those values are recognized by "the ExP3rtz", aka people who know way better than you (thanks of proving me right that you would behave exactly that way, btw), as following in the tradition of the nazis.

As for the rest, your turn to provide some arguments. But don't worry, I will not answer, as nobody is reading this because you have been massively downvoted, not because of "bad censorship" but because what you say is poor and stupid.

[rofo1]

My description of NAZI Germany is downplaying the evil, if anything. They had a lot of power even before 1936 but in 1936 they openly seized the economy (completely) to prepare for direct war with the communists. This is called the Four-Year plan. I will re-iterate that they executed people regularly, for being "dissidents" or any kind of political opponents or "communists".

I am only writing this for comedic effect. One day someone will read this, and they will see a person defending NAZI Germany as a country with free markets, and in the same time blaming Elon of being a nazi because he moved the arm. Remarkable, I have to say.

Don't tell me who is expert and who is not an expert. Use your own brain - how can NAZI Germany have any degree of freedom at all and do what they have done? They could have done that only because they had full power and were brutal with any opposition. This is true for the communists, too. It is the same thing. One uses the Aryans and one uses the Proleteriat.

[cauch]

you can write it as long as you want. Funk WAS a free market proponent and WAS nazi. That's a fact. If you cannot understand that, it's not my fault.

The rest of your "analysis" seems to be written by a 12 year old kid.

Pretending that when we bring the proof, with clear example, that free market proponent can be nazi, it means that we pretend that all policies from a specific nazi government were free market is just very very stupid.

As for the ridiculous rest, just look at Pinochet. He is NOT a nazi (not because he was pro-free-market, just in case you are too stupid to not notice), but he demonstrates that your logic of "if it's a free market, it's impossible to persecute the political opponent". The Pinochet regime was recognized as as-free-market-as-it-can-be by the ones of Thatcher, Friedman and the Chicago Boys, and at the same time, it was a bloodthirsty dictatorship that persecuted people who did not align with the party, organising murders and tortures, to the point of having a squad nick-named the "caravan of death". So, yeah, your argument is just uneducated.