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.