Question to Roberto

[witness]

Roberto
If you don't mind me asking - how long have you been exploring
the Holocaust and other War- crime atrocities.?Your knowledge of these subjects is absolutely awesome.
What I am mainly interested in, is -How can you avoid being emotionally involved while you are so immersed in all these documented evidence of human brutality ?
Don't you get disgusted sometimes ? Despondent over the human species?

[Roberto]

Roberto
If you don't mind me asking - how long have you been exploring
the Holocaust and other War- crime atrocities.?

Mostly for the last two years, since I started posting on this forum.

Your knowledge of these subjects is absolutely awesome.

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think it is extraordinary. I have a good memory and an eye for what's essential, that's all.

What I am mainly interested in, is -How can you avoid being emotionally involved while you are so immersed in all these documented evidence of human brutality?

It is not easy, especially in the face of ideologically motivated propaganda trying to sweep certain horrors under the carpet.

But it is helped by the fact that detachment favors the refutal of such propaganda.

Don't you get disgusted sometimes ? Despondent over the human species?

Not the human species, but the systems of goverment that bring out the worst there is in people and use it for their purposes.

And the admirers and apologists of such systems.

Cheers,

Roberto

[witness]

Thanks for the reply Roberto.
I agree you really have a good eye for what is essential.
Just one objection . You wrote:

Not the human species, but the systems of goverment that bring out the worst there is in people and use it for their purposes

But are not the "systems of goverments" created by people ?
I am wondering if the systems of goverments which are supposed to protect its citezens are themselves the cause of such horrors, what can prevent societies from the futures Aushwitzes and Gulags ?
The goverments are made up of the people .I am afraid that if the murder is authorized and the victims succesfully demonized these things could happen again and again.
Rwanda can serve as a sad example..Probably there are no inherited
inhibitions in humans.

[Roberto]

Thanks for the reply Roberto.
I agree you really have a good eye for what is essential.
Just one objection . You wrote:

Not the human species, but the systems of goverment that bring out the worst there is in people and use it for their purposes

But are not the "systems of goverments" created by people ?
I am wondering if the systems of goverments which are supposed to protect its citezens are themselves the cause of such horrors, what can prevent societies from the futures Aushwitzes and Gulags ?
The goverments are made up of the people .I am afraid that if the murder is authorized and the victims succesfully demonized these things could happen again and again.
Rwanda can serve as a sad example..Probably there are no inherited
inhibitions in humans.

There are no such inhibitions indeed.

What can be done to prevent the outbreak of violence is to control power.

The more power a human being has, the more likely he is to abuse that power.

The more power a government has, the more dangerous it becomes.

Hence control mechanisms such as exist in democratic countries - and don't exist in totalitarian regimes - are vital to the prevention of aggression and mass murder.

[witness]

mistake -duplicate post

[witness]

Yes I agree with you mostly.It is so much applicable to say the Communist Russia
But then..The history of the Weimar republic ..Hitler as ademocraticaly
elected leader.The democracratic institutions,restriction of power
didn't prevent from the creation of one of the most bloody regimes in the history of humankind.

1929 Germany is ruled by a grand coalition stretching from the Social Democrats to the Peoples Party and the Social Democrat Muller is Chancelor. Unemployment is rising and the unemployment insurance is in heavy deficit. The Social Democrats want to increase employer's contributions while the People's Party want to cut benefits. A compromise is patched together.
1930 Rising unemployment puts the unemployment insurance into greater crisis. Meyer of the Democrats and Bruning of the Centre Party propose a new compromise. Three of the four Social Democrat Ministers accept the compromise but the Social Democrat group in the Reichstag rejects it. On 27th March Muller resigns as Chancellor.

30th March Bruning forms a minority government. By including a program of agricultural support he gets the National Party to vote for the government - against the wishes of the National Party leader, Hugenberg.

July Bruning's government proposes a finance package in response to the growing economic crisis. The Nationalists are divided but mainly against. Bruning needs Social Democrat support and the Social Democrat offers this on condition of changes. Bruning rejects the compromise and the measure is defeated. Bruning then goes to the President, the conservative Hindenburg, and imposes the finance reforms by emergency decree under Article 48. Article 48, intended to be used only in times when security and public order were seriously disrupted or imperilled (but this was never defined) gave the President far reaching powers. The Social Democrats move suspension of the decree which passes. Bruning asks the President to dissolve the Reichstag.

14th September. Elections are held while unemployment is around 3 million. The Nazis make sweeping gains and smaller gains are made by the Communists. To form a new coalition now would need everyone from the Social Democrats to the right wing 'splinter' parties. Bruning knowing he can rely on Article 48 dosn't even try. From now on Germany ceases to be a parliamentary regime but Presidential regime ruling through the Chancellor appointed by the President. Bruning now imposes a policy of deflation which the Social Democrats reluctantly 'tolerate' by voting against motions suspending the decrees. Unemployment continues to rise.

March/April 1932: Hindenburg's term expires. Bruning persuades him to stand again. The Social Democrats and the Democrats support him as the lesser evil and he is elected on the second ballot - but Hitler gains 37%.

13th April: In response to growing NAZI violence Bruning's government persuades Hindenburg (very reluctantly) to ban the SA.

June 1932: Hindenburg fed up with issuing unpopular decrees on Bruning's behalf replaces him by von Papen. Papen, reactionary, stupid and arrogant, was however an officer and fine horseman and so the ideal Chancellor in the eyes of the ageing President.

Papen meets Hitler and Hitler hints that the Nazis might support the new government in exchange for lifting of the ban on the SA and new elections. Papen falls for it and the Reichstag is dissolved (4th June).

20th July Presidential rule is imposed on the Prussian Land - using SA-communist clashes as a pretext. This gives the Chancellor direct control of the police force of 2/3rds of Germany.

31st July Elections to the Reichstag. Hitler makes sweeping gains. The Nazis, along with the communists have a blocking majority in the Reichstag and as Hitler breaks his promise to support Papen once again Germany is ruled by emergency decree.

12th September The new Reichstag meets. The communists move to repeal one of the emergency decrees and to no-confidence the government. Papen, to forestall this, attempts to immediately dissolve the Reichstag but not before the vote is counted - 512-42 against the government. The new elections show some losses for Hitler but gains by the communists keep the Reichstag deadlocked.

By now Germany is already a Presidential dictatorship in which any attempt to oppose the emergency decrees by the Reichstag will be met by dissolution. However Papen loses the support of his cabinet and Hindenburg reluctantly agrees to Papen's resignation.

2 Dec 1932: Schleicher, former friend of Papen and former minister heads the new government. Papen then , driven by a desire for revenge, seeks out Hitler. Hitler demands the Chancelorship, the Ministry of Interior, and Commissioner for Prussia. Papen wants to be Prussian Commissioner himself but offers the Interior Ministry of Prussia. As this is what Hitler really wanted he agrees and all that is required now is to get the consent of the virtually senile Hindenburg.

Jan 30 1933: Hindenburg appoints Hitler as Chancellor.

March 1933: During the election campaign massive intimidation by the SA means that only, apart from the Nazis, only the Nationalists are able to campaign. The Prussian police, now under Nazi control, employs 50,000 'auxiliaries' who are mainly SA to be used against the opposition. Many Nazi opponents are beaten up , some 50 killed. Despite this the Nazis only get 43.9% of the vote but with the Nationalists they have a majority. With the election over the communists are banned and their Riechstag deputies arrested.

23rd March: An enabling act giving dictatorial powers to Hitler's government is put to the Reichstag. A 2/3rds majority is required and 2/3rds of the Riechstag must be present. However along with the Nationalists, the Peoples Party and the Catholics vote for. The Democrats (all five of them ) are split but decide to vote for, on the grounds that as Hitler is going to establish a dictatorship anyway it is better to let him do it legally. Only those Social Democrats who attended (many are already under arrest) have the courage to vote against.

http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/hist/tyra.html

[Scott Smith]

Well, anytime you have a standard story there will be more information available to support that view. It is not very difficult, really. No conspiracy-theory or even Thoughtcrimes laws are needed. Just ask Roberto for a list of authorized Genocide sites and a bibliography of approved historians and secondary sources. There should be many. And further, you can use search engines to find specific information. If you are not really sure about something you can always ask Roberto what is true; for he knows the Gospel. He knows the Alpha-and-Omega of what is true and what ought to be true.

[witness]

Well, anytime you have a standard story there will be more information available to support that view. It is not very difficult, really. No conspiracy-theory or even Thoughtcrimes laws are needed. .

Is it supposed to mean that you disagree with the provided above chronology ?If so -why would not you provide yours ?

What do you mean by the"Thoughtcrimes"' here ?
If you don't like the policies of this forum you can always find some neo-nazi ,skinhead site and partake in their ruminations.

Just ask Roberto for a list of authorized Genocide sites and a bibliography of approved historians and secondary sources. There should be many. And further, you can use search engines to find specific information

You can also always use search engines ,can not you?. Just find "Google"
and enter "Codoh" or "IHR''. I am sure you will find a lot of like- minded souls there.Although of course there is no need for coaching - you know this path much better than me..
Don't you think that you are somewhat overusing this Orwell's expression ? It is getting quite boring indeed.

[Marcus]

Scott,

Was there any point with that post other than to provoce Roberto?

/Marcus

[Scott Smith]

Well, anytime you have a standard story there will be more information available to support that view. It is not very difficult, really. No conspiracy-theory or even Thoughtcrimes laws are needed. .

Is it supposed to mean that you disagree with the provided above chronology ?If so -why would not you provide yours ?

I'm merely putting Roberto's brilliance into perspective. I submit that you agree with his posts and that's why you find them so valuable.

What do you mean by the"Thoughtcrimes"' here ?
If you don't like the policies of this forum you can always find some neo-nazi ,skinhead site and partake in their ruminations.

I've never complained about the policies of the forum, which I find to be as fair as is humanly possible.

Just ask Roberto for a list of authorized Genocide sites and a bibliography of approved historians and secondary sources. There should be many. And further, you can use search engines to find specific information

You can also always use search engines ,can not you?. Just find "Google"
and enter "Codoh" or "IHR''. I am sure you will find a lot of like- minded souls there. Although of course there is no need for coaching - you know this path much better than me..

My point is that some alternative viewpoints are criminalized in some countries and therefore it is harder to find information without a lot of handy authoritative Spam-in-a-can, and of the two of us I have made many more trips to libraries. Besides, I seldom rely on the IHR or Codoh, or any other site. Mostly I voice my own opinions.

Don't you think that you are somewhat overusing this Orwell's expression ? It is getting quite boring indeed.

No, because Thoughtcrime is a excellent paradigm and the point can't be emphasized often enough. Obviously many still don't understand.

[Scott Smith]

Scott,

Was there any point with that post other than to provoce Roberto?

/Marcus

I'm sure that Roberto will find it provocative--and his occasional inability to control his rage is my best argument against his celebrated sagacity--however, that wasn't why I posted here.

On the American & French (post) War Crimes
thread I offered not to respond to Roberto's posts at the suggestion of Alexx. Our exchanges usually go nowhere beyond Is-Too/Is-Not anyway.

Roberto's response of Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:36 am was this:

Suggestion: Why not restrict yourself with a selfimposed moratorium. You don't adress or answer each others posts for a while.

I don't have a problem with that if my partner agrees.

I don’t see why I should deprive myself of so much fun.

If I am to stop taking Smith’s bull apart, Smith must stop shooting the bull.

As simple as that.

To which I was not able to reply to his sanctimony on what constitues "bull" because the thread was locked--which was no great loss considering the direction the thread was going.

Frankly, I am tired of Roberto's Spam-tactics which wind up with a discussion being subverted into an irrational attack and then getting closed if I choose to reply. Most of his exhanges with me have been little more than attacks. I seldom even respond to him anymore, even if I don't agree.

Therefore, I don't think that my response on this thread was out-of-line. If witness had wanted to compliment Roberto on his scholarship he could have just done so by PM.

I do not see why statements such as the following are not meant to be provocative:

It is not easy, especially in the face of ideologically motivated propaganda trying to sweep certain horrors under the carpet...And the admirers and apologists of such systems.

you can always find some neo-nazi, skinhead site and partake in their ruminations.

So, my offer still stands: I'm willing not to speak to Roberto if he will comply likewise.

Sure, he will claim that this is because he "takes apart" my argumentation. But my PMs from others suggest otherwise. I can play the game as well as he can in any case. Nevertheless, I am thinking more for the good of the forum. His side can say just about anything that it wants, whereas "my" side has to be more guarded--although I have never felt inhibited in any way on the forum myself.

Best Regards,
Scott

[Dan]

although I have never felt inhibited in any way on the forum myself.

A tribute to the wisdom of the moderators.

[witness]

I'm merely putting Roberto's brilliance into perspective. I submit that you agree with his posts and that's why you find them so valuable.

Are not you merely being unhappy that somebody don't find your own
posts valuable ?

I've never complained about the policies of the forum, which I find to be as fair as is humanly possible.

I understood that you were using the "Thoughtcrime" term implying that your point of view is being censored somehow and you are having so much difficulties digging out your "truth".Otherwise what do you want to say ?

My point is that some alternative viewpoints are criminalized in some countries and therefore it is harder to find information without a lot of handy authoritative Spam in a can, and of the two of us I have made many more trips to libraries.

Bigotry is criminalized in some countries and rightly so.
"To find information" ?
Yeah -It is very hard to find a black cat in a black
room ,particularly if it is not there..

Besides, I seldom rely on the IHR or Codoh, or any other site. Mostly I voice my own opinions.

Quite strange.Then why your own opinions are so much copycats of the
opinions expressed on these sites ?

No, because Thoughtcrime is a excellent paradigm and the point can't be emphasized often enough

The thoughtcrime paradigm was used by Orwell to emphasize the restrictions of freedom under totalitarian regimes.( "1984")

If witness had wanted to compliment Roberto on his scholarship he could have just done so by PM.

Didn't you notice that my post (opening up this threat )contained the
question which I was interested to discuss ?
witness wrote:

How can you avoid being emotionally involved while you are so immersed in all these documented evidence of human brutality ?
Don't you get disgusted sometimes ? Despondent over the human species?

[Scott Smith]

I'm merely putting Roberto's brilliance into perspective. I submit that you agree with his posts and that's why you find them so valuable.

Are not you merely being unhappy that somebody don't find your own posts valuable ?

I don't really care since I try to respect all viewpoints. However, Roberto's smug reply was a bit annoying. About the only point-of-view I can't respect is that of Moral Certainty--those who regard themselves as the Guardians of Truth, where everything that they happen to disagree with is Bullshit. That's why I responded.

I've never complained about the policies of the forum, which I find to be as fair as is humanly possible.

I understood that you were using the "Thoughtcrime" term implying that your point of view is being censored somehow and you are having so much difficulties digging out your "truth". Otherwise what do you want to say ?

Nice Try. Obviously you were just an Amen-Corner for Roberto, but I don't have a problem with that, as such. I merely pointed out that the brilliance you speak of is in snack-food form and did not require much digging.

My point is that some alternative viewpoints are criminalized in some countries and therefore it is harder to find information without a lot of handy authoritative Spam-in-a-can, and of the two of us I have made many more trips to libraries.

Bigotry is criminalized in some countries and rightly so.

Wrongly so! Because ANYTHING can be called "bigotry" by elites, whether true or not. It is Moral Certainty that we should fear. They have all the answers, you see. And the corollary to that is that such didactive intolerance leads to Crusades and unimaginable violence, because the enemy is not merely an opponent but actually Evil.

"To find information" ? Yeah -It is very hard to find a black cat in a black room, particularly if it is not there..

What are you talking about? More "Denier" canard, I suppose. I'm not a Denier. I am a skeptic. And a skeptic believes in the Scientific Method, not Orthodoxy or wishful-thinking. I don't need atrocity-propaganda to give my life direction. I object to Victimization-status to affirm one's place in a society of equals where "some are more equal than others" (to borrow from Orwell).

Besides, I seldom rely on the IHR or Codoh, or any other site. Mostly I voice my own opinions.

Quite strange.Then why your own opinions are so much copycats of the opinions expressed on these sites ?

An ill-informed claim. I consider myself an Isolationist and socially and economically progressive. I am also an atheist. If anyone can't understand these points-of-view it is not my problem.

No, because Thoughtcrime is a excellent paradigm and the point can't be emphasized often enough

The thoughtcrime paradigm was used by Orwell to emphasize the restrictions of freedom under totalitarian regimes. ( "1984")

Exactly, and I have done little else but complain of Totalitarian-trends used by some Democracy-Capitalist regimes to suppress their critics.

Furthermore, Orwell's message was about those "Orwellian" trends that he experienced firsthand as a British propagandist during WWII and as a journalist during the Spanish Civil War. One doesn't get much more liberal than Erich Fromm--you can't call him a skinhead or a neo-Nazi--so perhaps he can clarify what I mean about such 1984 trends in our OWN society:

If I work for a big corporation which claims that its product is better than that of all its competitors, the question whether this claim is justified or not in terms of ascertainable reality becomes irrelevant. What matters is that as long as I serve this particular corporation, this claim becomes "my truth," and I decline to examine whether it is an objectively valid truth. In fact, if I change my job and move over to the corporation which was until now "my" competitor, I shall accept the new truth, that its product is the best, and subjectively speaking, this new truth will be as true as the old one. It is one of the most characteristic and destructive developments of our own society that man, becoming more and more of an instrument, transforms reality more and more into something relative to his own interests and functions. Truth is proven by the consensus of millions; to the slogan "how can millions be wrong" is added "and how can a minority of one be right."

[…]

I am sure that neither Orwell nor Huxley or Zamyatin wanted to insist that this world of insanity is bound to come. On the contrary, it was quite obviously their intention to sound a warning by showing where we are headed for unless we succeed in a renaissance of the spirit of humanism and dignity which is at the very roots of Occidental culture. Orwell, as well as the two other authors, is simply implying that the new form of managerial industrialism, in which man builds machines which act like men and develops men who act like machines, is conducive to an era of dehumanization and complete alienation, in which men are transformed into things and become appendices to the process of production and consumption. All three authors imply that this danger exists not only in communism of the Russian or Chinese versions, but that it is a danger inherent in the modern mode of production and organization, and relatively independent of the various ideologies. Orwell, like the authors of the other negative utopias, is not a prophet of disaster. He wants to warn and to awaken us. He still hopes--but in contrast to the writers of the earlier phases of western society, his hope is a desperate one. The hope can be realized only by recognizing, so 1984 teaches us, the danger with which all men are confronted today, the danger of a society of automatons who will have lost every trace of individuality, of love, of critical thought, and yet who will not be aware of it because of "doublethink." Books like Orwell's are powerful warnings, and it would be most unfortunate if the reader smugly interpreted 1984 as another description of Stalinist barbarism, and if he does not see that it means us, too.

[Emphasis added.]

"Afterword," by Erich Fromm pp. 263-267, passim. New American Library, 1961; In 1984, by George Orwell (Eric Blair). Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, NY: 1981 (ca. 1948).

If witness had wanted to compliment Roberto on his scholarship he could have just done so by PM.

Didn't you notice that my post (opening up this threat ) contained the question which I was interested to discuss ?

How can you avoid being emotionally involved while you are so immersed in all these documented evidence of human brutality ?
Don't you get disgusted sometimes ? Despondent over the human species?

And (as I have explained) Roberto's reply was didactic and churlish, as usual. He has all the answers. Like I said, I don't have a problem with Roberto's cheering-section, or other points-of-view that I might happen to disagree with. So, by all means continue to ask-away of him. But I do object to the notion that those who disagree are somewhat morally-flawed. Such arrogance had to be commented upon. And I did.

Best Regards,
Scott

[witness]

I don't really care since I try to respect all viewpoints. However, Roberto's smug reply was a bit annoying. About the only point-of-view I can't respect is that of Moral Certainty--those who regard themselves as the Guardians of Truth, where everything that they happen to disagree with is Bullshit. That's why I responded.

What you are doing here is sticking labels on the people , which are very handy for you to attack afterwards.However these are your labels.
Very convinient position -to call everybody who disagree with your
dubious apologetic position "Guardians of Truth".
Quite a magic wand making skeptic out of Nazi apologists..

Nice Try. Obviously you were just an Amen-Corner for Roberto, but I don't have a problem with that, as such.

Nope.Look up the above posts - you will see there are points where
my and Roberto positions don't concur.

Wrongly so! Because ANYTHING can be called "bigotry" by elites, whether true or not. It is Moral Certainty that we should fear. They have all the answers, you see. And the corollary to that is that such didactive intolerance leads to Crusades and unimaginable violence, because the enemy is not merely an opponent but actually Evil

You see .The problem here is that you are always "sceptical'' of the atrocities committed by the Nazis.I don't remember a single post where you were skeptical about some brutalities committed by Allies.
Whereas Roberto is interested in atrocities committed by both sides
frequently posting the materials related to the Red Army crimes for example. My impression that your only purpose is whitewashing the Nazi regime by all means available.Even when there are irrefutable evidences your position is always Nazi apologetic and critical of Allies.That's the
reason why your position is very indicative of a strong bias.

And (as I have explained) Roberto's reply was didactic and churlish, as usual. He has all the answers.

Not really.Simply his position is obviously ethical .Besides he always backs up his position by abundance of the factual material.

So, by all means continue to ask-away of him. But I do object to the notion that those who disagree are somewhat morally-flawed

Thank you very much for the written permission.
And I take it that there could not be any morally-flawed views (such as
whitewashing the bloodthirsy regimes )by your definition .Right ?