Nazi Granny

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:01 am

Maybe little Swastika cakes....

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:18 am

Chewy finger cookies. Just don't mispronounce "chewy" when she offers you one.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:20 am

I wouldn't put her in jail for HD, I'm against those laws. Neo-Nazi propaganda as such should be punishable though, they should have combed her vids for it rather than HD.

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Aaron Richards » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:15 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:I wouldn't put her in jail for HD, I'm against those laws. Neo-Nazi propaganda as such should be punishable though, they should have combed her vids for it rather than HD.


Could you kindly explain your position on why Neo-Nazi propaganda should be a punishable offense while being more lax toward holocaust denial?

To me, open neo-nazism is self-defeating by its sheer lack of appeal to the broad public whose immediate reaction is revulsion at the sight of reichskriegsflaggen, raised right hands and skinheads in jackboots calling for an ethnostate while singing songs about soap and ovens (like Gottfried Küssel used to do while being filmed, even). So let them have their annual marches and be the laughing stock of whatever town they do them in.

On the other hand "clever questions" and mental diarrhea disguised under what appears at first glance to be an innocuous "history book" full of citations is what I consider to be far more dangerous and damaging to a society.
"...we had the duty towards our Volk (the German people) to kill this Volk (the Jewish people) that wanted to kill us." - Himmler in his 1943 Posen speech reminding any future holocaust denier how absurd their beliefs really are.
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:03 am

I’m against either one being criminalized.

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:09 pm

Criminalizing denial is basically a state controlling historical opinions. For me this negative outweighs the positive reasons to outlaw denial.

Neo-Nazi opinions fall under direct incitement of racial/ethnic strife, it is this incitement that IMHO should be criminalized in general, not specifically neo-Nazi stuff.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:48 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Criminalizing denial is basically a state controlling historical opinions. For me this negative outweighs the positive reasons to outlaw denial.

Neo-Nazi opinions fall under direct incitement of racial/ethnic strife, it is this incitement that IMHO should be criminalized in general, not specifically neo-Nazi stuff.



If it calls for the violent overthrow of a government or physical and/or mental harm, then yes, by all means. Get rid of it.

If it’s just some morons marching around shouting mindless paens to Hitler, meh.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:02 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Criminalizing denial is basically a state controlling historical opinions. For me this negative outweighs the positive reasons to outlaw denial.

Neo-Nazi opinions fall under direct incitement of racial/ethnic strife, it is this incitement that IMHO should be criminalized in general, not specifically neo-Nazi stuff.


Agree with you.

But just to point out that some would argue that Holocaust Denial is a form of incitement of Antisemitism, as it indirectly implies that Jews have invented a hoax and profited from it.
Although i don't support HD laws in general, at a certain level, there is some truth in this. Hence the importance to distinguish between "honest" skepticism toward an historical Event as presented and Hard core deniers like Hanover or Berg. For them, it seems that denying the Holocaust globally is more a tool to express pure Antisemitic ideas than just the expression of doubts or disbelief.

I still can hear Berg shouting on radio " I DON'T CARE" to the question "where did the Jews go from the AR camp?", and it is really horrible when one thinks about it. It is hatred coupled with inhumane insensitivity and pure madness.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:18 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Criminalizing denial is basically a state controlling historical opinions. For me this negative outweighs the positive reasons to outlaw denial.

Neo-Nazi opinions fall under direct incitement of racial/ethnic strife, it is this incitement that IMHO should be criminalized in general, not specifically neo-Nazi stuff.

There's a lot in this that's in the details.

In the US incitement, to take the case I know best, isn't exactly protected speech, but such speech loses protection only under certain conditions. Generally, courts have given wider latitude to "speakers" than in much of Europe, from what I understand, defining incitement more narrowly, as in the "clear and present danger" standard in Schenck v. United States (1919).

Dennis v US (1951), decided during the post-WWII red scare, endorsed a broadening of the clear and present danger test and more restrictive view of speech rights (Eugene Dennis was the post-Browder general secretary of the CPUSA and evidence against him and his co-defendants included passages from Marx and Lenin; Dennis and the other Communists were convicted under the Smith Act). However in 1969, the Court in Brandenburg v Ohio - a case involving the Klan's advocacy of violent insurrection ("revengeance" against blacks and Jews as well as the government supposedly protecting their interests) (Clarence Brandenburg was KKK leader in Ohio) - re-embraced Schenck and used the standard of "inciting or producing imminent lawless action" for proscription of "incitement." Ohio Klan leaders had been filmed calling for a march on Washington, DC, to enact "revengeance." Brandenburg governs to this day, a situation one could see ending with the future Trump court.

I prefer the narrower incitement standard - for neo-Nazis, for Antifas, for white-sheeted racists, for morons, even for Trumpists - than the narrower one articulated in Dennis, which always struck me as a blatantly political decision; that said, for me the devil is in the details. I can see where deniers could be found to cross the line toward incitement but revolutionaries might not - in particular cases. My boundary line is incitement, not the content of the speech.

edits: farkin' spelling woes continue
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:38 pm

Balsamo wrote:Agree with you.

But just to point out that some would argue that Holocaust Denial is a form of incitement of Antisemitism, as it indirectly implies that Jews have invented a hoax and profited from it.
Although i don't support HD laws in general, at a certain level, there is some truth in this. Hence the importance to distinguish between "honest" skepticism toward an historical Event as presented and Hard core deniers like Hanover or Berg. For them, it seems that denying the Holocaust globally is more a tool to express pure Antisemitic ideas than just the expression of doubts or disbelief.


Yes, but is being an antisemite a crime? Who makes the determination between what is honest doubt and just being a plain old antisemite?

I still can hear Berg shouting on radio " I DON'T CARE" to the question "where did the Jews go from the AR camp?", and it is really horrible when one thinks about it. It is hatred coupled with inhumane insensitivity and pure madness.


Berg gets no sympathy from me. I’ve been on the receiving end of some of his vile rants. The day the universe decides to punch his time clock will be a happy day.

But, is hatred, inhumane insensitivity and pure madness a crime, Balsamo?

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:06 pm

It's a gray area which will remain a matter of opinion. I'm glad to read the insightful and nuanced opinions on this here.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:38 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Agree with you.

But just to point out that some would argue that Holocaust Denial is a form of incitement of Antisemitism, as it indirectly implies that Jews have invented a hoax and profited from it.
Although i don't support HD laws in general, at a certain level, there is some truth in this. Hence the importance to distinguish between "honest" skepticism toward an historical Event as presented and Hard core deniers like Hanover or Berg. For them, it seems that denying the Holocaust globally is more a tool to express pure Antisemitic ideas than just the expression of doubts or disbelief.


Yes, but is being an antisemite a crime? Who makes the determination between what is honest doubt and just being a plain old antisemite?

I still can hear Berg shouting on radio " I DON'T CARE" to the question "where did the Jews go from the AR camp?", and it is really horrible when one thinks about it. It is hatred coupled with inhumane insensitivity and pure madness.


Berg gets no sympathy from me. I’ve been on the receiving end of some of his vile rants. The day the universe decides to punch his time clock will be a happy day.

But, is hatred, inhumane insensitivity and pure madness a crime, Balsamo?


Good question, Jeff.

To answer your question, no i do not think that "being" an antisemite should be a crime, but i insist on "being"...in your private sphere, or with other antisemitic friends...I mean someone shouting at Israel while watching the news does no harm. And i would like to be allowed to hate Trump without to be treated of "Anti-pumpkinheadism".

A different think would, as Sergey said, to publish, hold conference to rally other people to your opinion, and encourage them to consider the Jewish people as a bunch of dishonest criminals...implying that sooner or later, "THEY" will have to pay back, implicitly calling your public to take action at the first opportunity

AS for the distinction between an honest skeptic and a hard core antisemite...well the latest is deaf dumb and bling when it comes to debating the case, while the skeptic will eventually - even if not changing his mind - at least revised some of his certainties
I remember a Codoh member whose pseudo was Warheit or something like this who changed his mind...
Another example would be the Black Rabbit, sometimes annoying, but at least, as i said often, always documented, always conducting his personnel research as a denier, who finally concluded that there was no alternative to the case of the AR camps, not because it was told but because his personal thoughts led him to this conclusion.

You can read through the lines of deniers posts to identify who is who...between those who doubt but leave a window open, and those who won't look at any window because of their core beliefs and hatred...Hence my mention of the Berg's "i don't care"...I would guess that he would even be pleased that they were all killed as long as it is not by his beloved SS...

I can say, because i have already written it, that i am strong skeptic of the "Mathausen gas chambers", which does not mean that i deny that tens of thousands have been killed there...I have never been convinced by the Ravensbruck gas chamber neither, even if my aunt is supposed to have died there, but she was nevertheless assassinated in the same camp
I don't know or do care if 6.000.000 Jews died, whether it is more or less, my personal estimation is less, because the genocidal plan is obvious, so in the end it does not matter, i do not agree with many thesis that are still around here and there, but leaving the window open...

In more extreme examples, BROI changed his mind, even Hunt made a case defending Birkenau as a killing center, Cole did the same exercise on the KR, which proves that they were more skeptics than purely motivated by hatred.

Just take a look at who still posting on Codoh...only the {!#%@} of the surviving flies who ate the former {!#%@} to death... It is also obvious that Been-There is much more Antisemitic than "revisionists", same with many others...Some others are just kind of delusional sick persons, like dear old bob and his master "mattogno"... or obsessive psycho like Faurisson, other are just German frustrated Nationalists who could just not accepted that their beloved country (Vaterland) could have committed such a crime...and then comes the Hitler's lovers...
It would be difficult to punish all those variety of "suspect" into one single global law...and that would be HD laws.

But, is hatred, inhumane insensitivity and pure madness a crime, Balsamo?


Well, no, i agree...but again depending on how you express your "hatred and inhumane insensitivity"...hence the first European approach to only punish incitement of hatred, as long as it can be proven...and you know that i have quite a "positive stance" on how law should be interpreted... ;)...Obviously you cannot jail all the racist persons - hey aren't there enough "non-white" in Jail??? - or put any person doing a stupid "racist joke" (just like the one i did) on trial...

But you might concede that Society should have a special interest in all those "hating, inhumanely insensitive mad" person around...just in case, there would be consequences to it.

But as you know, my opinion is that one should convict people for their acts, and acts only...but one should not wait to indict someone who is calling for crime that the crime actually take place.
Actually, after deep thoughts, i have some sympathy for the concept of "Täter" in the German criminal code...like in the case of suicidal terrorist attacks...the real criminal being the one who convinced the idiot to blow himself up for the cause...
Given the current environment, yes, people should be held responsible for the potential reach of their public actions.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:20 am

Balsamo wrote:To answer your question, no i do not think that "being" an antisemite should be a crime, but i insist on "being"...in your private sphere, or with other antisemitic friends...I mean someone shouting at Israel while watching the news does no harm. And i would like to be allowed to hate Trump without to be treated of "Anti-pumpkinheadism".

A different think would, as Sergey said, to publish, hold conference to rally other people to your opinion, and encourage them to consider the Jewish people as a bunch of dishonest criminals...implying that sooner or later, "THEY" will have to pay back, implicitly calling your public to take action at the first opportunity


But therein lies the rub.

You see, being able to criticize Trump publicly, calling him a dishonest crook, a stooge in the palm of the Russians, etc., is just the opposite side of the same coin.
Let me take this example further to make it more applicable:
Let’s say a group of me and my fellow Democratic Party friends decide to hold a rally in Washington D.C. We pay for a permit, obey all local and federal laws and march around for four hours calling the Republicans racists, homophobes, enemies of democracy, call for their ouster at the next local and federal elections, etc. We leave private property alone, don’t harass anyone and go home when our time is up.

Now, the local Young Republicans Chapter from the University of Virginia show up the next day. They do the same, pay for a permit, obey the law, leave private property alone and don’t harass anyone. Instead they march around for four hours, calling Democrats enablers of pedophiles, Communists, tell Democrats to love it or leave it, etc. They also call for the ouster of the Democrats in the next elections. They go home when their time is up.

Now, replace the above with a group of Neo-Nazis. They take all the right steps, pay for their permit and leave people alone. They yell “Jew will not replace us!!!!” They proclaim their love for a White Nationalist State, piss everyone off and news crews film the whole thing. It shows up on the nightly news with the talking heads falling over themselves and saying how horrible it all is. The Neo-Nazis go home, having satisfied their need for attention.

Now, what’s the difference? Granted, most people, sane people, will say the obvious difference is the message. Yet all three groups have messages that will hurt someone’s feelings or piss someone off. That’s a given. In a free-speech society someone always risks having their feelings hurt or getting pissed off. The difference is actively promoting harm or destroying property. Or actually hurting someone. If any of those groups above had done this than the person or group forfeits the protection of free-speech and is now liable to civil and criminal law.

You can read through the lines of deniers posts to identify who is who...between those who doubt but leave a window open, and those who won't look at any window because of their core beliefs and hatred...


That’s one of the reasons I got into this whole mess, Balsamo. I don’t do this for Berg (though, I admit that he is fun to poke at just to make him rant a little..... :twisted:) or dumbasses like saggy or been-there. They are too far gone. I do this for the one’s who aren’t sure and need knowledge. I also do this because I’m interested in the time period and I recognize there are others who know far more about this than I do.

Hence my mention of the Berg's "i don't care"...I would guess that he would even be pleased that they were all killed as long as it is not by his beloved SS...


I’m always amazed by those who deny genocide yet secretly (or not so secretly) wish that it would happen.

In more extreme examples, BROI changed his mind,


The rabbit is more like Hunt, I think. Only smarter and a much better researcher. The rabbit has no fondness for Jews, I know because I’ve read his musings on his blog.

even Hunt made a case defending Birkenau as a killing center,


He also accepts the ARC and Chelmno as extermination camps but remains a racist and a committed white nationalist. At least he did at his last sighting. For all I know Hunt’s obsession has changed and he’s now a peace-loving hippy living in a commune. Hunt’s not exactly the poster boy for stability.

Cole did the same exercise on the KR, which proves that they were more skeptics than purely motivated by hatred.


Cole always struck me as a rebel without a clue. He thrived (and still thrives) on being a colossal pain in the ass. His mission in life seems to be trying to portray a snarky, edgy attitude and biting the hands that feed him.

Just take a look at who still posting on Codoh...only the {!#%@} of the surviving flies who ate the former {!#%@} to death...


Hey!!!!! I post on CODOH!!!! :lol:

I do it in disguise. I’m trying to think of some interesting things to post. I’ve only been there a few times, I’ve just regurgitated some hoary old denier tropes.

But as you know, my opinion is that one should convict people for their acts, and acts only...but one should not wait to indict someone who is calling for crime that the crime actually take place.
Actually, after deep thoughts, i have some sympathy for the concept of "Täter" in the German criminal code...like in the case of suicidal terrorist attacks...the real criminal being the one who convinced the idiot to blow himself up for the cause...
Given the current environment, yes, people should be held responsible for the potential reach of their public actions.


I agree in principle. Those that incite are just as responsible....the key is not to go overboard on what is defined as “incitement.”

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:38 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Balsamo wrote:even Hunt made a case defending Birkenau as a killing center,

He also accepts the ARC and Chelmno as extermination camps but remains a racist and a committed white nationalist. At least he did at his last sighting. For all I know Hunt’s obsession has changed and he’s now a peace-loving hippy living in a commune. Hunt’s not exactly the poster boy for stability.
Balsamo wrote:. . . which proves that they were more skeptics than purely motivated by hatred.


It proves nothing of the sort. Hunt wrote in "The End of the Line" about his deep motivation:
In many ways I feel the “denial” issue held me back from tackling other issues essential to the survival of Western Civilization. Especially Nationalism, race realism, and opposing the very real Jewish-led white genocide campaign.

I cannot twist this into academic interest in the Holocaust, curiosity about history, or skepticism about historical or media accounts of WWII events. This is a nutter declaring precisely that (pseudo) academic/historical concerns held him back - and that by freeing himself of such "issues" he now feels liberated to, er, engage in hate. His deeper purpose.

This shows Hunt's trajectory to follow more Weber's arc and have nothing to do with Balsamo's imagined skepticism. To be clear, I am agreeing with your reply and strongly disagreeing with Balsamo's conclusion, which seems free of empirical burden. After all, Hunt has explained himself: nationalism, race realism, and opposition to the very real Jewish-led white genocide.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:05 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:This shows Hunt's trajectory to follow more Weber's arc and have nothing to do with Balsamo's imagined skepticism. To be clear, I am agreeing with your reply and strongly disagreeing with Balsamo's conclusion, which seems free of empirical burden.


I agree. I can’t give Hunt credit for figuring things out because he was open minded about anything. FFS, he was denial’s video maker, his stuff is still being used by deniers who don’t care about his “conversion.” He kept that going for years, just because his mind became clearer doesn’t make him any less a creep. He still espouses white nationalism and antisemitism, so, like Weber, he’s still a jackass. Frankly, so is the rabbit.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:48 am

Finland bans Nordic Resistance Movement for “offending and hateful expressions ... [and] urg[ing] its supporters to use violence and harassment against alleged enemies.”
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Balmoral95 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:55 am

"the very real Jewish-led white genocide campaign."

Anyone care to splain what that bit of slobber is supposed to mean?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:11 am

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:39 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:It's a gray area which will remain a matter of opinion. I'm glad to read the insightful and nuanced opinions on this here.


[My comment goes to all members, not only Sergey]

This is a very interesting and long question, especially in Greece, too, where there is a debate if the state has to ban nazi Golden Dawn party, which it has MPs in the Parliament (its finance cut until the end of the trial), in the European Parliament (finance cut, too), in Local municipalities councils etc., and it has already commit several murders and violent attacks according to their 'ideology' and modus operandi.

I think we should put in this equation also these (and please, correct me where I'm wrong)

The most important element of the judgments of the Nuremberg tribunal was, IMO, this:

- The court has not only ruled on individual people, it has also ruled on parties and organizations, concluding unanimously that the Nazi party constituted a "criminal organization" and therefore its executives had to be treated as members of a criminal organization. The tribunal found that in the case of national-socialism, it is not possible to distinguish between the propaganda of its ideas and the criminal acts of its members, because they are an inseparable unity. This concept, of the 'joint criminal organization' has been used in all major genocides cases, like Bosnia, Rwanda etc.

The Nuremberg Tribunal struggled to oppose that 'ideology' (which are not 'ideas' in fact, because what has hate, violence, murder and extermination have to do with any idea) for a reason, and rightly, IMO, has criminalized Nazism, because of what Nazis did brought to the humanity: War, oppression, death, hunger, extermination and mass graves, for this is the decisive end of every fascist totalitarian regime throughout history of the human world. The legacy of the Tribunal was in fact this 'never again'.

So if we put it all down: Some propagandists and/or potentially (perhaps not only potentially) criminals are pushing this kind of 'ideas', and the same people are saying that they prepare (or even COMMIT today) these all-condemned violent and criminal acts in the name of their 'ideology'.

Are we (as a society) suppose to let them doing this?
Last edited by Kleon_I XYZ Contagion on Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
According to experts and scholars, the 10 stages of every genocide are
Classification Symbolization Discrimination Dehumanization Organization Polarization Preparation Persecution Extermination
... and finally the 10th stage:
Denial
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/t ... ocide.html

XYZ Contagion (‘Because the truth is contagious‘), an investigative/research political and historical website, deals also with the Srebrenica Genocide
https://xyzcontagion.wordpress.com/about/#English

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:42 am

I think that that's an important addition to this discussion, the question of organizations which habitually employ violence and illegal actions to support their "rhetoric." This case seems close to that of the Nordic Resistance Movement and the grounds on which Finland banned the organization - not because they propagandized but because the propagandized and acted on hate against target groups, assaulting and attacking people as part of their mission.

The standard here is still moving from speech to criminal action: in US legal mumbo-jumbo, "imminence" is inferred if a group's record is one of lawlessness, violent attacks, and harm to individuals or property - and the group continues to plan and engage in such actions. Again, the devil is in the details, because it must be sorted out when overzealous "party" members get out of line and occasionally break the law vs when an organization habitually does so, as policy or simply as its way of operating. Or which has demonstrated with a very serious violent action - maybe a mass shooting or something like that - its capacity and willingness to cause serious harm.

The concern I share with Jeffk is about who decides, knowing that those deciding on bans and prohibitions can have political motivations and will not always be scrupulous about following standards - but may well act on the content of ideas (including ones I support!) rather than on danger of violence, assaults, destructive actions. That's why IMO the test needs to include the action side of the equation.

Which also leaves the thorny question of real threats, which I think also should be proscribed.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:39 pm

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
The most important element of the judgments of the Nuremberg tribunal was, IMO, this:

- The court has not only ruled on individual people, it has also ruled on parties and organizations, concluding unanimously that the Nazi party constituted a "criminal organization" and therefore its executives had to be treated as members of a criminal organization. The tribunal found that in the case of national-socialism, it is not possible to distinguish between the propaganda of his ideas and the criminal acts of his members, because they are an inseparable unity.

The Nuremberg tribunal struggled to oppose that 'ideology' that rightly has been criminalized, Nazism, because of what it did brought to the humanity: War, oppression, death, hunger, extermination and mass graves, for this is the decisive end of every fascist totalitarian regime throughout history of the human world:


Nuremberg also concluded that being a member of the Nazi Party or the SS was not a presumption of guilt. So, while being member meant that an investigation was warranted, that person also deserved due process in order to determine if that person had done anything criminal.


So if we put it all down: Some criminals 'ideas' and potentially (perhaps not only potentially) propagandists are saying they prepare (or even COMMIT today) these all-condemned violent and criminal acts.

Are (as a society) we suppose to let them doing this?


IMO the best thing is to continue to watch them to stop them when actions move from rhetoric to planning. Or, when silly marching around includes calls for violence and mayhem.

The thing is, lots of ideas can be considered “dangerous,” considering the time period and what’s in and out of favor. I actually consider the Antifa, in their actions and rhetoric, to be just as potentially dangerous. Battling Nazis in the streets didn’t work out the last time and only encourages repression. It maybe viscerally satisfying to see Richard Spencer get smacked around but it’s also assault and needs to be punished.

I’m also very leery of governments stepping in to these matters, IMO I’d rather let an idea stagnate on its own than risk having a government decide how to handle matters of free speech and expression. I’ll take the risk that these morons recruit a few disaffected pinheads, it’s the price to pay in a free society.

There’s a lot to say about this, I just can’t adequately express it this morning.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:54 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Nuremberg also concluded that being a member of the Nazi Party or the SS was not a presumption of guilt. So, while being member meant that an investigation was warranted, that person also deserved due process in order to determine if that person had done anything criminal.

Thinking about this a little more, I definitely go along with broadening the discussion from individuals to organizations but I am struggling with Nuremberg and the SS as a marker for what we're talking about: as it was investigated at Nuremberg, the SS was part of the Nazi power apparatus, not an advocacy group advancing a case in the marketplace of ideas - but an organization supporting Nazi rule and policy by executing state security functions and acting as part of the Nazi state.

I don't see this as terribly relevant to speech issues. It's a whole different kettle of fish.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:The thing is, lots of ideas can be considered “dangerous,” considering the time period and what’s in and out of favor. I actually consider the Antifa, in their actions and rhetoric, to be just as potentially dangerous. Battling Nazis in the streets didn’t work out the last time and only encourages repression. It maybe viscerally satisfying to see Richard Spencer get smacked around but it’s also assault and needs to be punished.

I don't buy this. The argument here seems to be that the Antifas' activities are counter-productive - whereas the central issue is whether they are legitimate. In general - though there are issues with my position, I concede - I favor the proscription of violent groups - and paramilitaries. I'm against Antifa actions on this ground for sure, but that doesn't answer the question of their legality.

Paramilitaries, even if they sometimes carry out propaganda for their cause, are organized for deployment of defensive or offensive violence. In general - again, there's a problem with my position - I am against permitting paramilitaries to operate (that goes for groups in the US like the Oath Keepers and the armed militias, etc): essentially, by having a paramilitary a group is saying that they are breaking with the unspoken (or spoken) agreement of a country's people about how they will govern themselves and are prepared to take matters into their own hands.

So one question is, what if Antifa violence weren't counterproductive, not that it is counterproductive - again, see below? And another question is, effective or not, are their actions legal - are they protected "speech"/"assembly" - or even are there parts of what they do that are not protected by the First Amendment?

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I’m also very leery of governments stepping in to these matters,

So I'm generally (ugh) favorable to paramilitary activity being made illegal and, in fact, see that as a legitimate government duty. To consider paramilitary and militia organizations and activity as being part of the protections for expression or debate or assembly is IMO to mix apples and oranges.

But - here's the problem with my position - what about situations where the state uses power differentially - against some groups (and ideas) and in favor of others? where large groups can't trust the government to enforce laws equally and to protect citizens equally? a case like the Republic of South Africa - should we not have supported the "Antifas" of the RSA and its equivalents? Is organized violence always to be avoided - and condemned? What if that armed violence will be productive in getting rid of an unjust regime?

Of course, every armed formation will likely make a case based somehow on an argument about unjust rule. Granted, too, the track record of armed movements overthrowing governments and seizing power - on the basis of violence - has not been good. Just think, for example, of the American colonies and how they broke away from the legitimate government ruling them, an armed band taking it upon themselves to decide how to govern and even forcing that solution down the throats of their compatriots . . . :) I'm sure there are other examples of armed action to end perceived injustice that wound up not so well . . .
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:28 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Nuremberg also concluded that being a member of the Nazi Party or the SS was not a presumption of guilt. So, while being member meant that an investigation was warranted, that person also deserved due process in order to determine if that person had done anything criminal.

Thinking about this a little more, I definitely go along with broadening the discussion from individuals to organizations but I am struggling with Nuremberg and the SS as a marker for what we're talking about: as it was investigated at Nuremberg, the SS was part of the Nazi power apparatus, not an advocacy group advancing a case in the marketplace of ideas - but an organization supporting Nazi rule and policy by executing state security functions and acting as part of the Nazi state.

I don't see this as terribly relevant to speech issues. It's a whole different kettle of fish.


I agree, I wanted to point out to Kleon, that while Nuremberg did make these organizations criminal enterprises, being a member was not a presumption of guilt or innocence. It still required whoever was investigating the person identified as a member of the SS or the Nazi Party to provide this person due process instead of tossing said person into prison on the basis of membership alone.

The thing is, lots of ideas can be considered “dangerous,” considering the time period and what’s in and out of favor. I actually consider the Antifa, in their actions and rhetoric, to be just as potentially dangerous. Battling Nazis in the streets didn’t work out the last time and only encourages repression. It maybe viscerally satisfying to see Richard Spencer get smacked around but it’s also assault and needs to be punished.
I don't buy this. The argument here seems to be that the Antifas' activities are counter-productive - whereas the central issue is whether they are legitimate. In general - though there are issues with my position, I concede - I favor the proscription of violent groups - and paramilitaries.


I think we are the same page on this but I need to explain it a little better......
I also consider the rhetoric to be dangerous, not just the action. Going out and counterprotesting Nazis in itself isn’t a bad idea, I’m fine with that. It shows that people do care and want their voices heard as a balance. But inciting violence at one of these meetings, deliberately using violence to stop Nazis from marching, causing injuries or getting someone killed, destroying property, all of these things happen when the Antifa show up because that is part of what they are. They recruit people to do it, they discuss it, they plan it.

To me that is as bad as a militia group or Nazis that advocate violence as part of what they are. So, I don’t care that just like them I don’t like Nazis. Antifa are dangerous, they are a part of the problem and not a solution. Paramilitaries are not a solution, they just make things worse.



I’m also very leery of governments stepping in to these matters,
I'm generally (ugh) favorable to paramilitary activity being made illegal. To consider this as expression or debate or assembly is to mix apples and oranges.


I agree. I hope I’ve made this clearer.

But - here's the problem with my position - what about situations where the state uses power differentially - against some groups (and ideas) and in favor of others? where large groups can't trust the government to enforce laws equal and protect citizens equally? a case like the Republic of South Africa - should we not have supported the "Antifas" of the RSA and its equivalents? Is organized violence always to be avoided - and condemned?


There are always exceptions to any rule. I think you have to look at circumstances on an individual basis, not a group one.

Granted, the track record of armed movements overthrowing governments and seizing power - on the basis of violence - has not been good. Just think, for example, of the American colonies and how they broke away from the legitimate government ruling them, an armed band taking it upon themselves to decide how to govern and even forcing that solution down their compatriots throats. . . :) I'm sure there are other examples of both armed action to end perceived injustice and seemingly legitimate armed action that wound up not so well . . .


Well (it’s been awhile since I’ve taken a hard look at the American Revolution) but this is a case where things worked out. The French Revolution is a case where it didn’t, the same with the Russian Revolution. But, it’s hard to compare full-scale rebellions to what we are discussing now.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:40 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I agree, I wanted to point out to Kleon, that while Nuremberg did make these organizations criminal enterprises, being a member was not a presumption of guilt or innocence. It still required whoever was investigating the person identified as a member of the SS or the Nazi Party to provide this person due process instead of tossing said person into prison on the basis of membership alone.

Got it.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I think we are the same page on this but I need to explain it a little better......
I also consider the rhetoric to be dangerous, not just the action. Going out and counterprotesting Nazis in itself isn’t a bad idea, I’m fine with that. It shows that people do care and want their voices heard as a balance. But inciting violence at one of these meetings, deliberately using violence to stop Nazis from marching, causing injuries or getting someone killed, destroying property, all of these things happen when the Antifa show up because that is part of what they are. They recruit people to do it, they discuss it, they plan it.

To me that is as bad as a militia group or Nazis that advocate violence as part of what they are. So, I don’t care that just like them I don’t like Nazis. Antifa are dangerous, they are a part of the problem and not a solution. Paramilitaries are not a solution, they just make things worse.

Right, on the ground that it is not protected activity, whether it works or not.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Well (it’s been awhile since I’ve taken a hard look at the American Revolution) but this is a case where things worked out.

Not for the majority of the population who opposed it . . . and look at where we are today! LOL

Jeffk 1970 wrote:The French Revolution is a case where it didn’t, the same with the Russian Revolution. But, it’s hard to compare full-scale rebellions to what we are discussing now.

But - this is why I brought this up - sometimes groups advocate for full-scale rebellion (speech) and take actions prepare for it - and being against those actions in all cases means that the weapon of insurrection is denied in all cases. I think we're saying the same thing: to some extent, not all cases are the same - but the insurrectionists will likely always make an argument about an illegitimate government, as does the far right crap one reads in the US today.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:53 pm

LOL, I really need to get some work done!!!!!

I do enjoy discussing this topic but I may have to hold off on a reply until tonight or tomorrow. It sucks, for some reason the state requires me to actually earn my paychecks.

Bastards.

LOL

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:00 pm

Smash the state!
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Balsamo » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:38 pm

Jeffk:


Let’s say a group of me and my fellow Democratic Party friends decide to hold a rally in Washington D.C. We pay for a permit, obey all local and federal laws and march around for four hours calling the Republicans racists, homophobes, enemies of democracy, call for their ouster at the next local and federal elections, etc. We leave private property alone, don’t harass anyone and go home when our time is up.

Now, the local Young Republicans Chapter from the University of Virginia show up the next day. They do the same, pay for a permit, obey the law, leave private property alone and don’t harass anyone. Instead they march around for four hours, calling Democrats enablers of pedophiles, Communists, tell Democrats to love it or leave it, etc. They also call for the ouster of the Democrats in the next elections. They go home when their time is up.

Now, replace the above with a group of Neo-Nazis. They take all the right steps, pay for their permit and leave people alone. They yell “Jew will not replace us!!!!” They proclaim their love for a White Nationalist State, piss everyone off and news crews film the whole thing. It shows up on the nightly news with the talking heads falling over themselves and saying how horrible it all is. The Neo-Nazis go home, having satisfied their need for attention.

Now, what’s the difference?


Two of those groups have wrong ideas ... :lol: :lol:

Seriously, there is a point in common, in the American context at least, all three groups are practicing their democratic rights.
In Germany and in Austria, the last groups would not be tolerated if any visible Nazi signs is part of the march.

In my opinion, all three groups should be free to march, as long as no offense are done meanwhile. And members of all three groups should be prosecuted in case some offense are done.

That being said, if the slogan is not "Jew will not replace us" but " let's burn Jewish businesses", then one of the group clear put itself "outside" its political rights and outside democracy, and should be indicted with incitement to hatred.

So i guess we do agree 100% ;)

That’s one of the reasons I got into this whole mess, Balsamo. I don’t do this for Berg (though, I admit that he is fun to poke at just to make him rant a little..... :twisted:) or dumbasses like saggy or been-there. They are too far gone. I do this for the one’s who aren’t sure and need knowledge. I also do this because I’m interested in the time period and I recognize there are others who know far more about this than I do.


Again, agree 100%...

I agree in principle. Those that incite are just as responsible....the key is not to go overboard on what is defined as “incitement.”


Of course, and this is why i am suspicious of any new legal initiatives.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:47 pm

Balsamo wrote:Jeffk:


Let’s say a group of me and my fellow Democratic Party friends decide to hold a rally in Washington D.C. We pay for a permit, obey all local and federal laws and march around for four hours calling the Republicans racists, homophobes, enemies of democracy, call for their ouster at the next local and federal elections, etc. We leave private property alone, don’t harass anyone and go home when our time is up.

Now, the local Young Republicans Chapter from the University of Virginia show up the next day. They do the same, pay for a permit, obey the law, leave private property alone and don’t harass anyone. Instead they march around for four hours, calling Democrats enablers of pedophiles, Communists, tell Democrats to love it or leave it, etc. They also call for the ouster of the Democrats in the next elections. They go home when their time is up.

Now, replace the above with a group of Neo-Nazis. They take all the right steps, pay for their permit and leave people alone. They yell “Jew will not replace us!!!!” They proclaim their love for a White Nationalist State, piss everyone off and news crews film the whole thing. It shows up on the nightly news with the talking heads falling over themselves and saying how horrible it all is. The Neo-Nazis go home, having satisfied their need for attention.

Now, what’s the difference?


Two of those groups have wrong ideas ... :lol: :lol:

Seriously, there is a point in common, in the American context at least, all three groups are practicing their democratic rights.
In Germany and in Austria, the last groups would not be tolerated if any visible Nazi signs is part of the march.

In my opinion, all three groups should be free to march, as long as no offense are done meanwhile. And members of all three groups should be prosecuted in case some offense are done.

That being said, if the slogan is not "Jew will not replace us" but " let's burn Jewish businesses", then one of the group clear put itself "outside" its political rights and outside democracy, and should be indicted with incitement to hatred.

So i guess we do agree 100% ;)

That’s one of the reasons I got into this whole mess, Balsamo. I don’t do this for Berg (though, I admit that he is fun to poke at just to make him rant a little..... :twisted:) or dumbasses like saggy or been-there. They are too far gone. I do this for the one’s who aren’t sure and need knowledge. I also do this because I’m interested in the time period and I recognize there are others who know far more about this than I do.


Again, agree 100%...

I agree in principle. Those that incite are just as responsible....the key is not to go overboard on what is defined as “incitement.”


Of course, and this is why i am suspicious of any new legal initiatives.


There we go, Balsamo. It just took some clarity to have a meeting of the minds...... :D

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Balsamo » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:52 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Balsamo wrote:even Hunt made a case defending Birkenau as a killing center,

He also accepts the ARC and Chelmno as extermination camps but remains a racist and a committed white nationalist. At least he did at his last sighting. For all I know Hunt’s obsession has changed and he’s now a peace-loving hippy living in a commune. Hunt’s not exactly the poster boy for stability.
Balsamo wrote:. . . which proves that they were more skeptics than purely motivated by hatred.


It proves nothing of the sort. Hunt wrote in "The End of the Line" about his deep motivation:
In many ways I feel the “denial” issue held me back from tackling other issues essential to the survival of Western Civilization. Especially Nationalism, race realism, and opposing the very real Jewish-led white genocide campaign.

I cannot twist this into academic interest in the Holocaust, curiosity about history, or skepticism about historical or media accounts of WWII events. This is a nutter declaring precisely that (pseudo) academic/historical concerns held him back - and that by freeing himself of such "issues" he now feels liberated to, er, engage in hate. His deeper purpose.

This shows Hunt's trajectory to follow more Weber's arc and have nothing to do with Balsamo's imagined skepticism. To be clear, I am agreeing with your reply and strongly disagreeing with Balsamo's conclusion, which seems free of empirical burden. After all, Hunt has explained himself: nationalism, race realism, and opposition to the very real Jewish-led white genocide.


Well, lol, i never said that Hunt has been touched by divine grace...he is still an imbecile... reading the passage you quote, i was wondering what the color of a Jew actually was..." a Jewish-led white genocide" seems partly suicidal to me...Stupidly i was imagining Harrison Ford or Steven Spielberg assassinating themselves in front of their mirror screaming "Die, you dirty white pig"...

But it illustrates that the two problematic should be considered distinctively. Hard core deniers might be Racist Nationalist Antisemite, but you can also be a Racist Nationalist Antisemite without denying the Jewish genocide. In the same logic, there is a chance that one can be a holocaust "soft denier" (a skeptic) without being a Racist Nationalist Antisemite; that promoting such things "race realism" (for whatever that means) or fighting Jewish led genocide does not imply Holocaust denial, in Hunt case at least.

Actually, regarding Hunt's demonstration, i was thinking of his map of Birkenau where he identified the spots where the "Hungarian pictures" had been taken. This map created quite a shock on codoh, much more effective than whatever you and i might have written. Because, most codoh members - not including Jeffk - tend to trust a Racist Nationalist Antisemite like Hunt.

Hunt was in fine a skeptical because somewhere he left a window open which allowed him to change his mind.

By the way, i am very aware of what the "white genocide" is about. It is just another dynamic than Holocaust denial and you know i am not kind of amalgams.
French journalist and writter Eric Zemmour, who is Jewish, is one of the adepts of this theory, while not accusing the Jews specifically, he instead is attacking the Anglo-Saxon post war society...and the USA, actually, along with "multiculturalsim". His book "le Suicide Francais" (or "French suicide") sold over 500.000 copies which is huge. He contests Paxton, claims that Petain indeed helped to save the "French Jews", without being a holocaust denier at all.

Two very different things, in my opinion.

As a last remarks, Hunt or those of his kind, might prove more dangerous in their fight against the so called Jewish led white genocide than they were being just holocaust deniers.

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:21 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:There’s a lot to say about this, I just can’t adequately express it this morning.


Was it morning overseas? Because, where I am, it was 15.39 :D

Nice conversation. So, I want to put another element in the equation.

These organizations from the Democrats, Republicans or even the Antifa that are meant to go marching have a big difference with the bastards in Charlottesville.
Do you remember the clip showing a particular group from some mountains or something, marching with their guns and weapons and everything? I think there were a million big strong men and only two women. Very familiar images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7wVBy9HTM

It was an army put on hold. They have, besides their 'ideology', or perhaps because of it, specific hierarchy, ranks, insignia, and everyone knows his role, foot-soldiers, sergeants, platoons, regiments etc. They train themselves, they obey, they live military style with military norms, right?

This is an army waiting for the moment. It will only take a word, 'Get them' and all these clowns they will be transformed in a perfectly trained army. This was the question that many didn't ask in Greece, and the result was Golden Dawn from a small talk-group about nazism to become a giant organization with 70 offices in small Greece and tens of thousands of members, in circles. First the close leadership core, then the executives which all took an oath to Hitler and to the swastika, one dawn of the 21th of December in some mountain, then the wide membership, and all around thousands of supporters. We're talking oaths, omerta kind, secret initiations rituals and a lot of other disgusting nazi stuff. A trained militia, ready to become a well-functioning Army.

This army was talking secretly about issues like 'what are we going to do with our brothers in the Police?' (25% of Greek policemen are Golden Dawn's voters).
'What should our relationship with the military will be during the taking over of the situation?' (Army officers both in action and retired are high ranked members of GD)

So, their plan was to go into a 'low-level' civil-war with the anarchists, the antifa, the extreme-left, in the streets. Taking strong-holds in certain neighborhoods of our cities, wherever there were problems with immigrants etc, or in parts of the towns where significant poverty was present, and they were giving some cheap food to people without income, or to places with high criminality.

And they did it in part. Only the murder of a Greek made people stand up. They were murdering immigrants, and none cared. Only the assassination of a 36 years old Greek musician woke up my fellow Greek patriots. It was too close to complete their plan.

Now, all these may sound strange for societies like the USA, but Charlottesville showed that it's not that strange, isn't it?
According to experts and scholars, the 10 stages of every genocide are
Classification Symbolization Discrimination Dehumanization Organization Polarization Preparation Persecution Extermination
... and finally the 10th stage:
Denial
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/t ... ocide.html

XYZ Contagion (‘Because the truth is contagious‘), an investigative/research political and historical website, deals also with the Srebrenica Genocide
https://xyzcontagion.wordpress.com/about/#English

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:47 pm

Absolutely. And if you read back further - to the years of lynchings, private police armies used to break labor in the later 19th century and first half of 20th century, the Red Scare following WWI, the murders of civil rights workers (going back a bit further we had massacres of native tribes, violence before the Civil War and during and after, the Klan terror, and so on) - you find it's not so strange here in the first place.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Balsamo » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:08 am

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:There’s a lot to say about this, I just can’t adequately express it this morning.


Was it morning overseas? Because, where I am, it was 15.39 :D

Nice conversation. So, I want to put another element in the equation.

These organizations from the Democrats, Republicans or even the Antifa that are meant to go marching have a big difference with the bastards in Charlottesville.
Do you remember the clip showing a particular group from some mountains or something, marching with their guns and weapons and everything? I think there were a million big strong men and only two women. Very familiar images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7wVBy9HTM

It was an army put on hold. They have, besides their 'ideology', or perhaps because of it, specific hierarchy, ranks, insignia, and everyone knows his role, foot-soldiers, sergeants, platoons, regiments etc. They train themselves, they obey, they live military style with military norms, right?

This is an army waiting for the moment. It will only take a word, 'Get them' and all these clowns they will be transformed in a perfectly trained army. This was the question that many didn't ask in Greece, and the result was Golden Dawn from a small talk-group about nazism to become a giant organization with 70 offices in small Greece and tens of thousands of members, in circles. First the close leadership core, then the executives which all took an oath to Hitler and to the swastika, one dawn of the 21th of December in some mountain, then the wide membership, and all around thousands of supporters. We're talking oaths, omerta kind, secret initiations rituals and a lot of other disgusting nazi stuff. A trained militia, ready to become a well-functioning Army.

This army was talking secretly about issues like 'what are we going to do with our brothers in the Police?' (25% of Greek policemen are Golden Dawn's voters).
'What should our relationship with the military will be during the taking over of the situation?' (Army officers both in action and retired are high ranked members of GD)

So, their plan was to go into a 'low-level' civil-war with the anarchists, the antifa, the extreme-left, in the streets. Taking strong-holds in certain neighborhoods of our cities, wherever there were problems with immigrants etc, or in parts of the towns where significant poverty was present, and they were giving some cheap food to people without income, or to places with high criminality.

And they did it in part. Only the murder of a Greek made people stand up. They were murdering immigrants, and none cared. Only the assassination of a 36 years old Greek musician woke up my fellow Greek patriots. It was too close to complete their plan.

Now, all these may sound strange for societies like the USA, but Charlottesville showed that it's not that strange, isn't it?


You are absolutely right, Kleon.
But we shall nevertheless not forget that WE are democrats (not necessarily the donkey party). Democracy is our strength as well as our weakness. The only way to fight those bastards is to make sure that democracy does not lose its soul, but be loyal its democratic values, and up to the task of taking care of the people.

the problem today is that a democratic regime is so taken for granted that many have lost touch with what it should be. A democracy is not only based on free election, a congress and laws...it should be based on values and principles, like tolerance.

Democracy can fail, can get bankrupt, not only economically - things are not looking well in this regards - but also morally - and things are not looking well neither. The issue would be WHY do 25% of the police force are tempted for vote for the "golden pigs"? Why did 13% of the Greeks vote for them?
And not only in Greece of course as the problem is pan-european.

Confronted with those bastards, we should show our strength and tolerate their march, as well as trying to revive our values so that people are not tempted by these kind of masquerades.

One thing to remember is that at no time in history was the far right as weak in Europe than during the 60's, a time where journalist were pleased to interview Speer, released from prison. Even before, in the 50's we could listen to a former french Nazi and collaborator - Lucien Rebattet - being interview by a French Jewish Journalist. My opinion is that were time when Democracy was confident in its values and strength.
Today the tendency is just to get rid of all those bastards, no matter the ways, trying to invent some new legislation to prevent people from thinking in a wrong way, thinking that fighting physically those "skin heads" is a way as another...Well this is not Democracy showing is strength, but expressing its fears and weakness...No good.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:12 am

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:There’s a lot to say about this, I just can’t adequately express it this morning.

Was it morning overseas? Because, where I am, it was 15.39 :D


LOL, why, yes. It was very early.

I forget that we have many posters here, we are the better International Skeptics Forum.

Nice conversation. So, I want to put another element in the equation.

These organizations from the Democrats, Republicans or even the Antifa that are meant to go marching have a big difference with the bastards in Charlottesville.
Do you remember the clip showing a particular group from some mountains or something, marching with their guns and weapons and everything? I think there were a million big strong men and only two women. Very familiar images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7wVBy9HTM

It was an army put on hold. They have, besides their 'ideology', or perhaps because of it, specific hierarchy, ranks, insignia, and everyone knows his role, foot-soldiers, sergeants, platoons, regiments etc. They train themselves, they obey, they live military style with military norms, right?

This is an army waiting for the moment. It will only take a word, 'Get them' and all these clowns they will be transformed in a perfectly trained army.


I can’t disagree with your assessment, Kleon. But, technically, even this isn’t against the law, at least, not in certain states, counties, cities or towns in the United States. I have no idea about Charlottesville ordinances regarding openly carrying those types of weapons. However, based upon them openly carrying assault rifles through the streets I’d say it’s legal for them to do so.

I do think it’s funny that these people think they are some type of cadre, the nucleus of some revolutionary army. The reality is any decent army unit would flatten them in no time flat.

This was the question that many didn't ask in Greece, and the result was Golden Dawn from a small talk-group about nazism to become a giant organization with 70 offices in small Greece and tens of thousands of members, in circles. First the close leadership core, then the executives which all took an oath to Hitler and to the swastika, one dawn of the 21th of December in some mountain, then the wide membership, and all around thousands of supporters. We're talking oaths, omerta kind, secret initiations rituals and a lot of other disgusting nazi stuff. A trained militia, ready to become a well-functioning Army.

This army was talking secretly about issues like 'what are we going to do with our brothers in the Police?' (25% of Greek policemen are Golden Dawn's voters).
'What should our relationship with the military will be during the taking over of the situation?' (Army officers both in action and retired are high ranked members of GD)


So, their plan was to go into a 'low-level' civil-war with the anarchists, the antifa, the extreme-left, in the streets. Taking strong-holds in certain neighborhoods of our cities, wherever there were problems with immigrants etc, or in parts of the towns where significant poverty was present, and they were giving some cheap food to people without income, or to places with high criminality.

And they did it in part. Only the murder of a Greek made people stand up. They were murdering immigrants, and none cared. Only the assassination of a 36 years old Greek musician woke up my fellow Greek patriots. It was too close to complete their plan.

Now, all these may sound strange for societies like the USA, but Charlottesville showed that it's not that strange, isn't it?


No, it’s not.

But, Kleon, that’s the risk in any free society. Turn away from principles and you become the thing you hate.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Well (it’s been awhile since I’ve taken a hard look at the American Revolution) but this is a case where things worked out.
Not for the majority of the population who opposed it . . . and look at where we are today! LOL


What, you’d prefer Theresa May?????
:lol:

Actually...... :D

I read a funny opinion piece back when Scotland was voting on independence, it basically begged England to take their wayward cousins back (the United States). Not a bad idea, come to think of it.




The French Revolution is a case where it didn’t, the same with the Russian Revolution. But, it’s hard to compare full-scale rebellions to what we are discussing now.
But - this is why I brought this up - sometimes groups advocate for full-scale rebellion (speech) and take actions prepare for it - and being against those actions in all cases means that the weapon of insurrection is denied in all cases. I think we're saying the same thing: to some extent, not all cases are the same - but the insurrectionists will likely always make an argument about an illegitimate government, as does the far right crap one reads in the US today.


It’s a good question...is rebellion justified? It can be but then we have to make judgment calls on each one. Regardless, people always die and things often turn out badly.

We can look at Vietnam as an excellent case. Now, it seems noble...kick the French out, become independent. The problem is that interior and exterior forces combined to make a mess of it. The Communists themselves were hardly the models of humane treatment towards their enemies or those they thought were their enemies. Outside forces intervened and for the next 20 years Vietnam remained a battleground. Even after the war the Communists persecuted those that fought against them or those they didn’t agree with.

So, I don’t know. Were the original 13 colonies justified in rebelling? Well, they thought so. But many that lived in the colonies disagreed and they suffered for it. It was far worse during the French Revolution and far, far worse during the Russian Revolution. At least the American Revolution ended with some sort of Democracy. The benefit in that case was a strong tradition of the rule of law and some type of representative government inherited from the British. I also think it helped that the men who led the revolution held strong enlightenment ideals and rudimentary ideas of “freedom” and what that meant, even if those ideas were flawed.

This is something I think I could ramble on about all night. Probably best to stop here....

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:21 pm

I was being partly tongue in cheek about the colonies - to make a point about revolution - but only partly. It's another whole discussion but I am not so sanguine about the American experiment as others, I have to admit. Maybe I read too much Charles Beard in my day about the motives of the American revolutionaries. When I taught history at an unnamed college, well it has a name but I'm not naming it :), I taught a course about violence in the American past: I focused on the lead up to the Civil War, Reconstruction, anti-labor violence in the 20th century, and the Vietnam era. It was an eye-opener for me to look at American history, even episodically, through the lens of deployment of violence, and also for my comfortable, postwar, post-Vietnam era students, for whom Dr Pangloss was a pessimist.

But also, back to the question of armed uprisings, even in cases of extremely violent and anti-democratic governments, there's also a tendency in practice for power gained by arms rather than by people power to lead to governments that don't respect popular rights, democratic practices, the flow of ideas and debate, etc. We're probably all saying something similar, if shaded differently here - but formal arguments, and laws, are only part of the equation: democratic politics wither when people don't respect one another, have tolerant and open attitudes, care about norms and free exchange of ideas. When you start letting groups arm themselves, and terrorize their opponents, not to mention neighborhoods and whole cities, as the US does, you start to destroy the soul of the whole thing.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:56 pm

As to how the American experiment worked out, the {!#%@} royal family may be more open than American society at this point :)
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 pm

Hey....the queen is a badass.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:25 pm

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:50 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:relevant, and interesting, piece on two concepts of free speech: "The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech': Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia." (Kleon might could help us with the Greek . . . ;))


- Isegoria, and parrhesia

It's a very useful article, and I have to say I have to read it, in fact, 3 times. The third, because I'm Greek and English isn't my first language, that means, I would suggest, everyone has to read it twice because inside it, one can find all concepts of today's democracy, especially looking closely at all words in italics.
The writer has done a very good job to underline them and their roots, most , because in these roots one can see all major democracy's functions of today, everything is over there.

Before going in detail in these two words, it would be a good idea to remind all members here who read this article, for the word 'idiot', and you'll see next why this is important. 'Idiot' means fool, stupid, but the Greek word ('idiotis') has a root that comes from the word 'idiocy' which means the man that wants to live alone, in his own privacy, away from the 'agora' of his fellow co-patriots. Idiot was the one who didn't participate in the public debate and the Local Council's decisions.

- Now, 'isegoria', comes from the word 'isos' which means 'equal', and the verb 'agorevo', its gerund was 'agoreuein', which means 'to speak in public'. A very familiar word is 'agora', which means 'the marketplace', that is the public place where people buy and sell, but in ancient Greece was at the same time, the place when people talked to each other. Agora became 'ekklesia' or 'ecclesia'. It is the same word for 'church', not the building but the gathering of the people. 'Ecclesia of demos', which means 'the assembly of the municipality' is exactly our Local Councils, Parliaments or Congresses. You all recognize the word 'demos', and all its products from democracy to demagogue.
But 'isegoria' doesn't mean only 'we are all equal to speak in public'. It means mainly 'all people can and must speak'. This made the revolutionary concept of (not only freedom of speech but) freedom of speech for everyone, including the poor. The assembly, Ecclesia (today's Parliaments or Senates or Local Councils) has to listen to everyone before its decisions, no matter rich or poor. The concept that most included people, against all other regimes of the time, whose their concepts excluded people.

- On the other hand, 'parrhesia', (which we Greeks don't necessarily think of a rival concept for the word 'isegoria', instead I think they complete each other) comes from the word 'pan' which means 'all, everything', and the verb 'orate', 'to say something important' in public, in a debate. From the second word comes the word 'rhetoric' and all other relative words we know. And parrhesia's meaning is a little different from what the writer says. The word is used to express the concept that if you are a citizen and you want to be part of the decision body, Ecclesia, you have to address all subjects, you have to talk about everything, no matter if someone else will not be pleased with your words. It encourages speakers to talk openly, freely and without thinking of the consequences. Don't stop before any barrier, nothing is sacred, all can be said, and would be said, as another Guy (Debord) said come centuries after.

Together these two words mean in the Greek democracy concept that if you want to have a well-functioning political decision body, a good and useful assembly for your people, you have to address everything, and no one should be excluded from speaking.

Democracy can be real only when everyone is a part of the debate ('isegoria'), and when he can speak about everything ('parrhesia'). Aren't these concepts made real in the English Bill of Rights of the 17th century and in the American constitution?

Now you can make the connection with the word 'idiot' roots. A person who doesn't want to participate in his own tribe decisions, that means in his own and his children's future is an 'idiot', a person who doesn't want to be one of the many in the 'isegoria' concept, a person who doesn't care about addressing all his issues with 'parrhesia', this person is an idiot, a stupid person.

It is fantastic, do you agree?
According to experts and scholars, the 10 stages of every genocide are
Classification Symbolization Discrimination Dehumanization Organization Polarization Preparation Persecution Extermination
... and finally the 10th stage:
Denial
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/t ... ocide.html

XYZ Contagion (‘Because the truth is contagious‘), an investigative/research political and historical website, deals also with the Srebrenica Genocide
https://xyzcontagion.wordpress.com/about/#English

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17464
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi Granny

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:17 pm

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:Aren't these concepts made real . . . in the American constitution?

Except, notably, for women, native American Indians, and unfree blacks. But, on the other hand, the tendency or dynamic was indeed somewhat already present in that document.


(great, very instructive reply, thanks much - I read the piece 1-1/2 times and your reply 2x!)
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jeffk 1970 and 2 guests