Auschwitz: a myth?
- Thread starter Luis G
- Start date
tank girl
New Member
It is an interesting theory, although I personally am with the majority in thinking it is absolutely impossible to deny the Holocaust - I don't think this guy is a monster for sugesting it never happened in the way we believe that it did.
It is virtually undeniable that wartime is the best time of all for myth-makers to feed large amounts propaganda and disinformation to the people as fact - far more easily than any other time.
History is after all, a very dodgy concept and has always been controlled by those reponsible for making it - ('his story') in other words - history is the story of the victors, those that won not those that lost - and therefore ONLY ONE SIDE of what happened no matter how accurate you percieve your version to be.
Therefore - to a certain extent - it is far better to be openly critical of the information that has been fed to you or else you aren't getting a balanced perspective of the picture.
That is also a very hard thing to achieve because of the fact that there usually is nothing to back up the alternative voices as they have lost the right of way, right of power, rights to access and be acknowledged for their individual point of view which is weaker than the dominant concensus.
So its important to acknowledge and not dismiss such a claim of this simply because it disgusts you and because you don't agree with what he believes - that is actively a form of suppressing the individual rights of expression, the freedom that this guy has to publish what he sees.
Communism and anarchy are two conflicting and very broad and complex camps to begin with, Gonz but you are right about communism and the re-writing of history - Anarchy is a bit of a different thing altogether
But you must also acknowledge that it is a fact that the very first thing to go in a communist and totalarian society IS precisely the rights to freedom of speech.
And that is exactly what this guy is doing - I think, given the odds - the prospect of re-writing history is a very irrelevant one, what he is really doing is publishing information in an open confrontation and interaction with the standard conception of history.
It would be wrong to tell everyone to believe in this too, but it is not wrong to voice another perspective that is different from the mainstream point of view - although most sane people are probably opposed to the very prospect of such a concept.
It is virtually undeniable that wartime is the best time of all for myth-makers to feed large amounts propaganda and disinformation to the people as fact - far more easily than any other time.
History is after all, a very dodgy concept and has always been controlled by those reponsible for making it - ('his story') in other words - history is the story of the victors, those that won not those that lost - and therefore ONLY ONE SIDE of what happened no matter how accurate you percieve your version to be.
Therefore - to a certain extent - it is far better to be openly critical of the information that has been fed to you or else you aren't getting a balanced perspective of the picture.
That is also a very hard thing to achieve because of the fact that there usually is nothing to back up the alternative voices as they have lost the right of way, right of power, rights to access and be acknowledged for their individual point of view which is weaker than the dominant concensus.
So its important to acknowledge and not dismiss such a claim of this simply because it disgusts you and because you don't agree with what he believes - that is actively a form of suppressing the individual rights of expression, the freedom that this guy has to publish what he sees.
Gonz said:
Communism and anarchy are two conflicting and very broad and complex camps to begin with, Gonz but you are right about communism and the re-writing of history - Anarchy is a bit of a different thing altogether
But you must also acknowledge that it is a fact that the very first thing to go in a communist and totalarian society IS precisely the rights to freedom of speech.
And that is exactly what this guy is doing - I think, given the odds - the prospect of re-writing history is a very irrelevant one, what he is really doing is publishing information in an open confrontation and interaction with the standard conception of history.
It would be wrong to tell everyone to believe in this too, but it is not wrong to voice another perspective that is different from the mainstream point of view - although most sane people are probably opposed to the very prospect of such a concept.
tank girl
New Member
Gonz said:
Not quite. The first thing conservatives sem to do is censor, immediately dismiss and restrict the rights to freedom of speech. This serves to ensure the promotion of one side of political viewpoint holds more 'credibility' over everything else and therefore more public support.
You'll probably find that Facism, also; is very good at "re-writing" history...in fact - it appears that anybody who reigns with the strongest hold over the media and the channels of information has the distinct function of doing precisely that "re-writing" history - the means might be slightly different - but they will always be determined by the most popular opinion and ideologies of the time.
Whoever is in power inevitably negotiates the way things are to be represented and recorded as 'history' Regardless of political angle or perspective - the function is pretty much the same.
You'd be surprised how many things 'never happened'.... simply because they were omitted from the historical doctrines that have the freedom to select whatever is to be recorded as 'historical fact' - and what is to be left out.
BeardofPants
New Member
... everybody look what's goin' down....
I love that song.
Anyhoo, you two can get back to yer marital squabbling now.
I love that song.
Anyhoo, you two can get back to yer marital squabbling now.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Citizen protesters in cages during the election process?
tank girl
New Member
PuterTutor said:
I would actually extend that and say they are not only fighting (to-the-death) because they do not support them - but they are also protecting their religion, their traditions, their way of life morals and vaues, homelands - as well as being as (extremely in some cases) - religiously conservative (yes, CONSERVATIVE
) as they are - there is no other viable option than to fight against the "enemy" - those they percieve they are being under attack by occupying forces and if there were it would to be to turn ones back on ones religion, family, heritage, homeland - to, in perhaps a fitting Christian equivalent: "sell your soul to the devil" or choose hell rather than fight for the defence of their religion (inevitably, their perception of 'freedom').What stokes the fire of the backlash in Iraq is the fact that for every mother, brother, sister, father, son, daughter - every relative or friend- that is killed or injured or negatively affected in some way by the occupation (which by now, I'm sure it'd be pretty hard to find many that aren't) there are more relatives and friends that mightn't have wanted to be involved much before but have been brought into the conflict and the hatred because of their loss. It is I think a lashback that is strongly felt by the insurgents both on Religious and now Personal grounds which results in revenge and ignites an even stronger sense of anger - a stronger sense of loss and whats more fundamental - an even stroger devotion to the religious grounds which justify fighting and resisting the efforts of occupying forces who (as well as their leaders) continue to demonise themselves further in the eyes of ordinary civilians and continue to forfill the prophesies and grounds which drive them to fight for Islam and their homelands.
tank girl said:ooooh where do I start? thats a bit like opening Pandoras Box, y'know
patiently waiting more than a smartassed remark.
as for your (and PTs) statements....we're fighting very few Iraqis. The ones we're at war with are the Baathinst members (akin to German Nazi party), alongside Syrians, Iranians, Jordanians, Saudis & others who want to stop peace & democracy. These are the people looking to force Taliban style rule on the masses. They are against freedom. Why is it so dfficult for you to see that?
tank girl
New Member
Heres a quotation for you to think about, Luis.
By the way, Gonz - thinking ahead I forsee that talking to you about the censorship and bias that goes on in the U.S conservative media would be as good as banging my head on a brick wall - I already know that you are dead-set on your own convictions as much as you are at poking and jeering at "liberals"...
In fact, I believe that it isn't even right to answer those requests simply because you will inevitably find something to make a mockery of rather than contemplate my point of view.
The only way is to counter your attacks rather than offer you more fuel to harrass me with, Gonz - in order to serve your own desire to prove anyone with a lesser constrained point of view as deranged, wrong, false, lying, hypocritical etc in order to attempt to put yourself back securely on your own moral-highground...
Frankly it would be a waste of effort to try and provide you with anything.
Freako is right - censorship happens on both sides, although I disagree about the "censoring religion" point - its more of an objectivity and tolerant perspective that liberals have that acknowledges the fact that christianity and Judaism is not the only religions and also the fact that many don't have a religion - therefore a secular perspective is the one which encompasses a respect for every voice rather than fosters respect for one dominant one.
From what I have observed, Conservatives tend to slam down anything that conflicts with their perspective by appealing to all the derogatory and unsavoury connotations they can think of that sit on the other side of the divide of everything they believe in and then compartmentalising them with the people that hold these points of view.
That includes everything from politics to family to sex to shopping habits to education: all spheres governed by and underlying hold on religiously grounded but often self-serving "morals" and strict measures of what is "right" and "wrong" and thereby controlling and regulating things from that perspective irregardless of the fact it is only a very narrow one with little tolerance or capacity for freedom and diversity.
By the way, Gonz - thinking ahead I forsee that talking to you about the censorship and bias that goes on in the U.S conservative media would be as good as banging my head on a brick wall - I already know that you are dead-set on your own convictions as much as you are at poking and jeering at "liberals"...
In fact, I believe that it isn't even right to answer those requests simply because you will inevitably find something to make a mockery of rather than contemplate my point of view.
The only way is to counter your attacks rather than offer you more fuel to harrass me with, Gonz - in order to serve your own desire to prove anyone with a lesser constrained point of view as deranged, wrong, false, lying, hypocritical etc in order to attempt to put yourself back securely on your own moral-highground...
Frankly it would be a waste of effort to try and provide you with anything.
Freako is right - censorship happens on both sides, although I disagree about the "censoring religion" point - its more of an objectivity and tolerant perspective that liberals have that acknowledges the fact that christianity and Judaism is not the only religions and also the fact that many don't have a religion - therefore a secular perspective is the one which encompasses a respect for every voice rather than fosters respect for one dominant one.
From what I have observed, Conservatives tend to slam down anything that conflicts with their perspective by appealing to all the derogatory and unsavoury connotations they can think of that sit on the other side of the divide of everything they believe in and then compartmentalising them with the people that hold these points of view.
That includes everything from politics to family to sex to shopping habits to education: all spheres governed by and underlying hold on religiously grounded but often self-serving "morals" and strict measures of what is "right" and "wrong" and thereby controlling and regulating things from that perspective irregardless of the fact it is only a very narrow one with little tolerance or capacity for freedom and diversity.