> Note that I don't necessarily agree with the subject matter of these titles
Y'know, there's really only one reason to be coy about whether you agree with Neo-Nazi propaganda.
> Note that I don't necessarily agree with the subject matter of these titles
Y'know, there's really only one reason to be coy about whether you agree with Neo-Nazi propaganda.
>Y'know, there's really only one reason to be coy about whether you agree with Neo-Nazi propaganda.
Straight to the ad hominem attack on taboo thoughts. Transparent. If the books are true what is your problem with them? Not me. Not the other poster. Not a strawman fallacy. What is your issue with the content of actually banned books? Be specific.
Someone named tinfoilhatter replied but that's gone now. Not one to let a response go to waste:
Well. I seem to have triggered something.
> Ah yes, because the only people that have ever spread propaganda are Neo-Nazis
Not something I ever said or implied.
> and we should only ever learn about the sanitized and approved version of history from our Robert Maxwell (Ghislane Maxwell's Mossad agent father / McGraw Hill co-founder) published textbooks.
I find it interesting who just happens to know who else is Jewish, and then feels the need to interject that into utterly irrelevant contexts.
> Never mind that there are two sides to every story, and when it comes to history, only the victors get to tell theirs.
No, I'm pretty sure a lot of losers have been able to have their sides heard. It's just that, well, people lose for a reason, and losers tend to be less popular among normal people. Ranting about subhumans can do that, you know.
> We don't even learn about the 23+ million massacred by the Bolsheviks in school.
I would be interested to know who exactly you call a Bolshevik, but I did get taught the history of the USSR in school, at least, and "One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich" is not a ringing endorsement.
However, nobody was talking about Bolsheviks until you decided to use them as a distraction.
> But yeah - only one reason to consider a different perspective other than the one forced down your throat by the public education system.
I didn't need the public education system to teach me to hate genocidal racists, thank you.
[flagged]
> No but you said there was only a single reason to agree with "Neo-Nazi" propaganda as if agreeing with any propaganda is rational. There's a reason it's called propaganda after all. It's not like there weren't deplorable crimes being committed by the Soviets / US / France / Britain and they certainly had their fair share of propaganda during WWI and WWII depicting Germans as barbarians / sub-human / etc...
We're only talking about one political group here. The group that published The Turner Diaries. The group that can't help but mention who's Jewish. Bringing up other groups is a distraction tactic, aside from how dishonest it is. Yes, we are taught that everyone did morally questionable things in WWII. But only one group ran a Dachau.
> How is the owner of the second largest publisher of textbooks in the US, and the fact that he served in a Zionist intelligence organization in the US, irrelevant when it comes to what people learn about WWII and propaganda? Please explain.
OK, let's get down to brass tacks: Do you think people only believe the Holocaust happened and was bad because a Jewish man published a lot of textbooks?
> Are you disputing the well-recorded fact that tens of millions of innocents were killed by the Bolsheviks over the span of about 40 years?
Are you disputing the fact eleven million people were killed by a concerted effort on the part of Nazi Germany to eliminate people it considered subhuman for various reasons?
I don't dispute the vile stain on the history of state Communism. I hate Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Hoxha and Kim Il-Sung just as much as the next normal person. But we're talking about why someone wouldn't distribute The Turner Diaries and, I have to say, the Communists didn't commit that little literary peccadillo.
> Why don't we learn about the Holodomor in the US in grade school?
Because there are fewer people waving hammer-and-sickle flags around than there are spray-painting swastikas on synagogues and Raising Questions about whether the Holocaust was so bad after all.
> I never said you did - but if it were me, I'd want to make sure I considered both sides of a historical event before deciding which direction to aim my hatred, if I was into such endeavors.
That's funny, the more I learn about WWII the less I feel the Nazis had a legitimate side. They were a bunch of losers lead around by a drugged-up corporal who ran his country into the ground with gross mismanagement to the point Germany, once the jewel of European science and industry, was split in half and lived a shadow existence as the puppet of two world powers for a half century after his reign.
> I personally believe that war is a racket, and that there are no good guys in evil and corrupt wars (WWII was definitely one of those, same with WWI).
The corruption in WWII was the starting of it, which falls directly at the feet of the Nazis and Imperial Japan. Self-defense is not corruption, and neither is ending the reign of expansionist tyrants. Or do you think people don't have the right to defend themselves from your pet dictators?
> I'm also not naive enough to believe that there wasn't atrocious behavior on both sides of either war.
Only one side ran death camps. Both sides imprisoned people unjustly, but only one side turned them into ashes. It doesn't balance out.
> Nor am I going to label anyone who has the gall to question the prevailing narrative or say it is incorrect in some capacity, a Neo-Nazi.
No, the only people I call Neo-Nazis are the ones triggered when I say the Nazis were, on the whole, bad for everyone around them.
> only one group ran a Dachau
is a strange example since it was just a complex of work camps, with the Japanese, British and so on having far worse than that.
> Because there are fewer people waving hammer-and-sickle flags around than there are spray-painting swastikas on synagogues and Raising Questions about whether the Holocaust was so bad after all.
The hyperbole weakens the point / or where are you to see constant Nazis? In the US, Mexico and Germany I regularly see hammer and sickle flags, t-shirts and graffiti. In Mexico city right now, there are huge banners with Stalin and Lenin, besides Marx and Engels, draped across traffic lights and streets all over the center, while it's been almost 10 years since the only big nazi protest I'm aware of (Charlottesville)
As if Neo-Nazis were and are the only people capable of authoring propaganda. The Bolsheviks certainly were good at it, yet we don't learn about the 23+ million they massacred in US schools. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the second largest publisher of textbooks in the US (McGraw Hill) was co-founded by Ghislane Maxwell's Mossad agent father Robert? One can and should question the prevailing narrative when it comes to historical record. After all, the victors get to write it, and there are two sides to every story. You don't have to agree with Neo-Nazi propaganda to acknowledge that what we are taught about WWII and Weimar Germany in school, isn't the truth either.
> The Bolsheviks certainly were good at it, yet we don't learn about the 23+ million they massacred in US schools.
Those of us who paid attention certainly did.
How can you pay attention, as a student, to a historical event that isn't being taught to you in your history class? Please explain.
Less than 8% of the English speaking world has heard of the Bolsheviks' genocide. And we know that's not an accident because Mossad's Robert Maxwell owned the dominant textbook publishing company in America for years.
If that simple, easily checkable fact doesn't get your hackles up I would know why that it doesn't.
> As if Neo-Nazis were and are the only people capable of authoring propaganda
Of course they aren't. But that's no argument for distributing it.
No, the argument for distributing it would be that other propaganda is widely distributed without question, so if one wants to arrive at anything even close to an objective account of what transpired during that time in history, all propaganda should be examined and learned about. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, and we certainly aren't getting to it by blindly accepting one narrative over another.
No, because extremist propaganda does not "average out" to an objective center.
If you want to distribute it in a box labeled "extremist propaganda", to study it as such, sure.
But if your society has some extremist propaganda in the wild, distributing more, different extremist propaganda will make things strictly worse.
Who defines what is extremist propaganda? The people who win the propaganda war and get to label the other side as extremists is the answer.
Extremism can be more-or-less objectively defined in terms of difference from the mean/median. Measurement is tricky but just because something has fuzzy boundaries doesn't mean it's meaningless. Especially when something is not near that fuzzy boundary.
> You don't have to agree with Neo-Nazi propaganda to acknowledge that what we are taught about WWII and Weimar Germany in school, isn't the truth either.
Go on then.
Say what you mean.
I just said what I meant - what we are taught about WWII and Weimar Germany in school isn't anything approaching the truth. For example: https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/katyn-massa...
I don’t know what school you went to, but mine covered war crimes committed by the Allies plenty.
That doesn’t mean Nazi Germany wasn’t utterly disgusting though.
Both sides in the war were utterly disgusting. The allies firebombed cities full of innocent German civilians, and when the civilians would seek refuge in the only remaining buildings standing, the allies would bomb those. The soviets killed between 1.6 and 15 million in their gulag camp system, not to mention the millions they massacred, tortured, mutilated, etc... in Russia and on their march westward. We certainly learned a lot more about the war crimes Germany allegedly committed than the ones the allies allegedly did, and we certainly didn't learn about war crimes that were committed by the Soviets but blamed on the Germans. I went to school in the US.