michael mills wrote: I find it distinctly odd that Roberto should object so vociferously to the statement that he regards Hitler and National Socialist Germany as "absolute evil".
I am well aware that Roberto has often condemned the atrocities committed by Stalin and Mao Zidong, for example; I have read his posts on those subjects myself.
But it is quite obvious that he does not regard the "evil" of those two characters as absolute,. in the way that he regards the "evil" of Hitler and National Socialism. It is obvious that he regards their "evil" as relative, that is, mitigated by some good points, which he denies to Hitler and National Socialism.
Well, if it is "obvious", then Mills should have some statements of mine to show for it. Not just blah-blah-blah.
I asked for quotes, Mills. Where are they?
michael mills wrote: The difference in Roberto's attitude to Hitler and National Socialism on the one hand and other perpetrators of atrocities on the other is well illustrated by his treatment of various posters on this forum who seek to relativise the crimes of, for example, Stalin. (For the record, I will say that I have no objection to anyone seeking to relativise the crimes of Stalin; they should no more be exaggerated than those of Hitler, or anyone else).
If someone seeks to relativise, modify or reduce the "evil" of Stalin, Roberto will either ignore it or, if he does disagree on a particular point, will express that disagreement in a normal, polite and civilised way. How different from the vehemence, the aggressiveness, the personalised abuse with which he attacks anyone who tries to relativise the "evil" of Hitler and national Socialism, even in the most minor degree! I have said before that I believe that that violence on the part of Roberto stems from a need to continually distance himself from his own background of "playfully romancing" National Socialism, a need that does not exist in relation to any manifestation of "evil".
I’d say Mills has again brilliantly illustrated the reasons for my supposed difference in approach, to the extent that they exist at all (which I would like Mills to demonstrate on hand of a few examples, instead of just making glib assertions). One of the main reasons for such “aggressiveness” towards apologists of the Nazi system is their obvious intellectual dishonesty and the disgusting, rodent-like character of some of them. Mills stands out as the classic example. Now where are the equally disgusting apologists of Stalin towards whom I have shown myself so “polite and civilised”, Mills?
michael mills wrote:Roberto also attributes to me a belief in the "absolute evil" of Jews.
Roberto wrote:I dare say that the one of us who believes in "absolute evil" is Michael Mills, who obviously sees the big bad Bolsheviks and especially their supposed Jewish overlords as cardboard cutouts of evil and, paranoid maniac that he is, feels constantly persecuted by "judeocentric" and/or "leftist" opponents who in actual fact are nothing other than reasonable people too critical to fall for the crap he tries to sell.
Is that what you’re referring to, Mills?
michael mills wrote:I have previously expressed my position that all the peoples of Eastern Europe, including the Jews, have been at various times victims and victimisers. Although the Jews suffered the greatest degree of victimisation during the 20th century in comparison with any other European people, various Jewish establishments have been victimisers in the recent past, and are so today.
Yeah, and Mills has taken it upon himself to demonstrate that “various Jewish establishments have been victimisers in the recent past”, blowing up the role of Jews as authors or supposed instigators of crimes or criminal regimes in the same way that he tries to play down the victimisation of Jews, especially at the hands of the Nazi regime. Is it not legitimate to assume that a person obsessed with such concerns has a genuine problem with Jews, and also some degree of sympathy towards their victimisers?
michael mills wrote:Roberto's judeocentrism is demonstrated by the fact that he disallows any suggestion that Jews qua Jews have at times been perpetrators of "evil' rather than purely sufferers of it; he attacks any such suggestion with the imputation of "anti-Semitism".
Yeah, it’s "judeocentrism" to dismiss "but the Jews
also this-and-that" - contentions in the context of discussion about the crimes of a given regime as absolute crap. The very view of an ethnic/religious community as a homogeneous and equally sinister body shows that the proponent has more than one screw loose. It’s not "the Germans" but "the Nazi regime", and not "the Russians" but "the Soviet regime", as far as I’m concerned. But it’s "the Jews" (not one or the other individual who happened to be of Jewish religion or ethnicity) as far as Mills is concerned. To dismiss such views as beyond discussion is nothing other than elementary common sense, in my opinion.
michael mills wrote:I well remember a case on this forum some time ago where a poster had referred to the "lizard-like" features of Sharon. Roberto immediately attacked, implying that the description was "anti-Semitic", even though it was applied to a particular Jewish individual who is definitely a perpetrator and in no sense a victim.
My memory must be failing me, which rarely happens. How about getting us the quote supporting your accusation in its proper context, Mills? Without backup, the above is nothing more than cheap slander.
michael mills wrote:Many of us will remember the occasion on which Roberto introduced onto this forum the curious theory that the mass-destruction of Jewish life by National Socialist Germany was actually an existential assault on all morality, the Jews supposedly being the inventors and guardians of all morality, with their disappearance signifying the end of all moral systems and a descent into primeval chaos.
Same as above, except that here I remember my message, which was about the theory of German history professor Gunnar Heinsohn, supported by certain statements from Hitler himself, that Hitler considered Jewish ethics and the Christian morality that had derived therefrom as a "bacillus" which kept the stronger peoples from ruthlessly fighting for their well-deserved supremacy against the weaker, and that could only be eradicated by eradicating its carrier. Mills conveniently distorted the statements of this theory, as he usually does.
michael mills wrote:I do not know whether Roberto actually believes that nonsense, and in a sense it does not matter whether or not he does. His judeocentrism is shown by the fact that he was prepared to peddle it.
Of course it is "judeocentrism" to accept that there is something such as Jewish ethics – an essential element of which is the prohibition of homicide introduced by the Ten Commandments - that Christian morality is to a certain extent a derivation thereof and that both were considered by Hitler to stand in the way of his design to create a social and political system built along the theses of the survival of the fittest and the right of the stronger to annihilate the weaker or claim its unconditional submission. Heinsohn’s theory, in my opinion, has enough support to be at least arguable. Which cannot be said of the fathomless nonsense that Mills keeps producing.
michael mills wrote:And there is one other thing. Although Roberto proclaims himself ready to condemn Stalin without reservation, and does so on many occasions, he never seems to apply that criticism to the Bolshevik regime before Stalin's assumption of power, although it was precisely during that initial period that the apparatus of tyranny, terror and oppression that Stalin later took to its logical conclusion was established.
Now that’s a very pertinent observation to make on a forum dealing with the Third Reich era, isn’t it?
It’s amazing how Mills can draw conclusions about my attitude towards pre-Stalin Bolshevism when the subject, off-topic on this forum, has hardly been discussed here.
One of my rare statements in this respect he obviously missed was when I told Kokampf that I considered National Socialism and Communism equivalents of each other ("the same junk", were the words I used, IIRC).
michael mills wrote:It was also during that pre-Stalin period that Jewish influence within the Bolshevik regime was most pronounced; it was then that one could really speak of "Jewish Bolshevism" without exaggeration. It was between 1918 and 1928 that the only political party that was allowed a legal existence apart from the Communist Party was the Poalei Zion, a socialist Zionist party.
Could the high level of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik regime in Russia before Stalin's rise to absolute power, including involvement in the crimes of that regime, be the reason why Roberto is reluctant to criticise that period in the history of the Soviet Union, reserving his attacks for the Stalin period?
Certainly so, Mills. Assuming, of course, that i) "the Bolshevik regime in Russia before Stalin's rise to absolute power" is one of this forum’s main discussion topics, ii) I am as familiar with it as I am with the Nazi regime or even Stalin’s regime and iii) I attribute as much influence as the poor paranoid does to "Jewish influence within the Bolshevik regime". Otherwise the above stands as a shining example of the rather bizarre thoughts that cross the mind of a mentally unbalanced fanatic.