In spite of what you might think, Nazi sympathizers do not have valid opinions and should be shunned by everyone.
Seems like something a nazi would say
> Some key issues for the Örebro Party locally include strong secularism, a 30-hour workweek with retained pay, lowered wages for politicians, expanded social housing, abolishing preschool-fees, making public transport free of charge,[3] ending taxpayer funding of what it sees as wasteful sculptures, monuments and art and introducing free dental care.[4][5] Nationally the party has set out large-scale remigration, closing the Swedish borders to immigration, a stricter assimilation policy and ending taxes on energy and fuel as some of its key issues.
Strict immigration policy does not equal nazis, sorry.
Brilliant or useful ideas/work can come from morally monstrous or politically toxic people you know. Many people have done things that are very morally wrong (up to murder and so-on) and provide great things to the world, not that it "compensate" in anything, but both can be true at the same time (do bad & good at the same time, or during different life periods).
You need to realize that millions at the time of Nazi regime were "Pro-Nazi", and many were scientists that invented great things, many were writers that wrote lasting pieces, many used their experience to actually to meaningful things later-on, such as avoiding that those terrible things re-occur, how do you explain this?
Let me give you another example: Programs meant for homeless, drug addicts, criminals... are often managed by former criminals, and they turned their lives around and decided to actually contribute to society instead of continuing to do harm (or sometimes do both at the same time).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Stark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
also, traditional german blackletter and german handwriting were abolished by the nazis, so if we take this concept of complete rejection of any of their ideas seriously then germans should have gone back to the old forms after '45. attempts were actually made but failed and in hindsight i think going back would only have strengthened german nationalism as it appears to do today. imagine germany using blackletter today and you ask them: why don't you use normal print like everyone else? only to get the response: we can't, nazis tried that first, and therefore it's a bad idea.
Do you agree with his Nazi opinion? But of course, this isn't about "Nazi", we are talking about serious criminals that did a lot of wrong but also doing a lot of good, that's the whole point, is that people can do both (thousand do so, everyday).
Again, before I'm being mistaken for a Nazi, I'm not saying that doing good invalidate doing bad, I'm saying both are true simultaneously, you have many real life examples with people that did great within their community and later been discovered to have done extremely immoral things, I can pull up a massive list with Fable if you want me to but I don't think it's necessary. Previous slave owners that did heavily fight for slave rights later-on is another example but I don't think it's necessary as there is probably hundred of thousand of cases and this is HN, I believe we can extrapolate a minimum.
edit: I can't reply to your comment below, so I'll respond to your question here. Knowing the atrocities and the genocide that the Nazis committed behind the cover of the law, and how their antisemitism was at the root of so many of their laws and actions, I would never agree with any of the laws the Nazis passed. I would be concerned that I would be validating, enabling, or endorsing the antisemitism that inspired any particular opinion or law.
For example, why did the Nazis pass a law strengthening protections for animals? Was it for moral and ethical concern of animals, or was it so when they later dehumanized Jews that they had a legal framework protecting the Nazis who would conduct torturous experiments on them? Their motivation for any action is corrupt and inseparable from their antisemitism and genocidal conduct.
Knowing that antisemitism is coming back into style, and seeing your agreement with this infamous Nazi's law, I find myself finding your denial of Naziism suspect. One cannot simply agree with a Nazi without casting suspicion upon oneself. But thank you for your bravery.
For example, why did the Nazis pass a law strengthening protections for animals? Was it for moral and ethical concern of animals? Or was it so when they later dehumanized Jews that they had a legal framework describing how they could treat Jews like draft horses and lab rats, and protecting the Nazis who would conduct torturous experiments on them? The Nazi motivation for any action is corrupt and inseparable from their antisemitism and genocidal conduct. This is why the greyed out commenter above feels that the opinion of a Nazi sympathizer doesn't matter, because one can't tell whether or not their opinion is based on antisemitism and genocidal ideation or not.
Knowing that antisemitism is coming back into style, and seeing your agreement with this infamous Nazi's law, I'm finding your earlier denial of Naziism suspect. One cannot simply agree with a Nazi without casting suspicion upon oneself and one's motivations.