quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

If Zundel were free today, and not under the news blackout employed to further marginalize his most rational views, he’d be unapologetically implicating Israel as the soul beneficiary of any further hostilities in Iran or Syria.

I don't think that Israel should be implicated in anything for propaganda reasons but Israel's problem will always be in how it was created and its need to become clean, in the sense mob money is eventually converted into 'clean' money. I have little sympathy with Israel because Ben Gurion & Co. planned mass murder and the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine before the holocaust. The problem Israel has for people who like to be informed, is that it has form of the very worst kind that one could believe it is almost capable of anything, which is why infantile propaganda can, for awhile, sound true.

Abook worth reading is The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN20070207&articleId=4715

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre

Well it is clear to see you think all Americans are exactly the same, with that kind of attitude - there can be no reasoning with you. Your mind is made up, good day to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Everyone is assuming in Germany, the people were tricked or forced to be Nazi's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

These debates are a bit crazy, because they assume the populace is a docile little gullible thing, that is corrupted by the ideas of the evil man. When in reality, most of what is happening at any given time is condoned by the public at large, and only in hindsite do people seperate themselves from the events.

quote:

Type musn't be the best form of communication because time and time again I see people jumping to conclusions based on what they think they're reading.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

It is the easy option to say everyone should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences because people want to be seen as purveyors of freedom. The problem with this is, you're into the realms of a free-for-all and moving away from the rule of law. There is a balance to be had in society - civili liberties, responsibility to the people around us and the rule of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


I always wonder what people who want to ban free speech are afraid of hearing.

Sinergy

quote:

You mention American being led down the garden path by WMD propaganda, the problem there wasn't free speach but those speaking out against WMD being sidelined. Again, after 9/11, the conditions were there for those who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq to be sidelined and ridiculed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre

For someone who seems to think they have an open mind, you sure do make a lot of off-base generalizations. Every part of the United States in not covered in "hoods" full of "gangstas". You have spent way too much time watching television and movies, then forming your opinions of the United States from what you've seen. What a sad and bitter world to live in. I'm not going to say racism doesn't exist here, but it exists to some degree everywhere. But we've come a long way. 

It's Americans that make all those gun happy films. It's always Americans on these threads that seem to think that guns and violence solve the world's problems and a few closer to home. It's America's leaders sending out messages to the world that if countries don't do as they say they'll return them to the stone age. If the violent loving gun happy American is a stereotype that doesn't exist and Ameircans are insulted by its existence, then perhaps Americans should stop promoting the stereotype.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Indeed, one could argue that the problem was not enough free speech, given that fear of appearing unpatriotic seemed to deter many from voicing or seriously reporting on criticism of the Bush Administration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Indeed, one could argue that the problem was not enough free speech, given that fear of appearing unpatriotic seemed to deter many from voicing or seriously reporting on criticism of the Bush Administration.

Dc, the context in which I mentioned the US was to show that people's minds can be swayed, that propaganda is a powerful tool e.g. the propaganda of appearing unpatriotic, as you mention above.

The only case I have given for restricting free speech is the Nazis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

These debates are a bit crazy, because they assume the populace is a docile little gullible thing, that is corrupted by the ideas of the evil man. When in reality, most of what is happening at any given time is condoned by the public at large, and only in hindsite do people seperate themselves from the events.

quote:

I've narrowed the rest down to the above.

I'm surprised to hear you say you believe the lynchings and hanging of black Americans were condoned by the majority of the US, or that the chaos in Iraq is condoned by the majority of the public - a few on here will disagree with you.

Life is not so simple that everyone knows their own mind and can't be swayed. Propaganda is such a powerful tool. The Germans didn't suddenly wake up one day and want to massacre a whole religion/race. They were influenced by decades of very powerful propaganda - prior to 1933 and after 1933. Young kids were brainwashed to the point where they spied on their families. That is not normal behaviour in my book and most certainly the result of people having their minds bended. Germany was as civilised as any other in the world - they were as advanced as any other in terms of sciene, technology, literature, philosophy etc. This wasn't some poverty-stricken, uneducated people.

"People separating themselves from events" is a completely different issue. I'm talking about the evolution of the ideas of a small bunch of cranks into the widespread action of a nation. There is a whole chain of events to consider.

Think about BDSM and the change that occurs in people. The change in outlook on life and the evolution of thought. If you accept that people change and their outlook on life changes, and you accept that propaganda is a very powerful tool, then you must accept that propaganda can turn peoples' minds - we're not static in our beliefs, we evolve, we learn, we take on board new ideas. There is such a thing as the herd mentality and mass movement and people can be led down a path. Where propaganda is used effectively, that path can have dangerous consequences. Look at the WMDs farce, were Americans led down a path or are you saying the majority couldn't care less and want to see large numbers of people dead? This is the top and bottom of your logic.

It is the easy option to say everyone should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences because people want to be seen as purveyors of freedom. The problem with this is, you're into the realms of a free-for-all and moving away from the rule of law. There is a balance to be had in society - civili liberties, responsibility to the people around us and the rule of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Everyone is assuming in Germany, the people were tricked or forced to be Nazi's.

There's a real communication here because much of what I've said has been misconstrued.

If I'm part of the everyone (which, considering everyone is everyone, I must be), you couldn't be further from the truth. Type musn't be the best form of communication because time and time again I see people jumping to conclusions based on what they think they're reading.

I rarely have problems understanding most people, maybe type isn't the best way of communicating. I'm sure you've heard "Everyone" used in a casual way to denote the vast majority. My assumption in communicating is that most people having years of experience communicating, and can easily derive the intended meaning. Mostly what I find in such circumstances is the same people seem to have a reoccuring problem understanding and need things  put in a super concise manner, as to avoid confusing them.

I've already said that the majority of the votes in 1932 or 1933 did not go to the Nazis and this should tell you that, despite their best efforts of gaining support through terror, there was real choice right up to the point where he was elected in very dubious circumstances.

How do dubious corrupt elections relate to free speech. I will agree with you that corrupt elections should be banned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

These debates are a bit crazy, because they assume the populace is a docile little gullible thing, that is corrupted by the ideas of the evil man. When in reality, most of what is happening at any given time is condoned by the public at large, and only in hindsite do people seperate themselves from the events.

I've narrowed the rest down to the above.

I'm surprised to hear you say you believe the lynchings and hanging of black Americans were condoned by the majority of the US, or that the chaos in Iraq is condoned by the majority of the public - a few on here will disagree with you.

I think the majority of white people in the thirties didn't view black people as people. I've met some very racist people, and most of them happen to be older(generational 50+ years old, very very very few younger people). Who say things just like you described and think it's acceptable. So, no I don't think I'm exagerating, at all.  Now, it's like everything else in the world, some are passively racist, as in they wouldn't do anything physical, but couldn't care less if something did happen. Tell you a real story, if you still think I'm exagerating, there is small town (600-700) population around here I lived in for a couple years, and when ever black people came up. Well, sometimes, someone would recount how in the late sixtiesish a black family tried to move in and they burnt their house down within a week. There to this day still aren't any black people in that town, and undoubtedly the world is more tolerant now than then. I can only imagine that it was even less tolerant the further back you go.

Life is not so simple that everyone knows their own mind and can't be swayed. Propaganda is such a powerful tool. The Germans didn't suddenly wake up one day and want to massacre a whole religion/race. They were influenced by decades of very powerful propaganda - prior to 1933 and after 1933. Young kids were brainwashed to the point where they spied on their families. That is not normal behaviour in my book and most certainly the result of people having their minds bended. Germany was as civilised as any other in the world - they were as advanced as any other in terms of sciene, technology, literature, philosophy etc. This wasn't some poverty-stricken, uneducated people.

No, but my point here is not that the germans initially wanted to eliminate all the jews, mentally disabled, etc... My point is they accepted this leader because he promised radical change. People are people, and maybe this is where we seperate in thought. "Nearly" everyone transfers blame on someone else constantly. Examples: It's corporations, It's the lazy people, It's the Right, It's the Left, It's the Communists, It's the Terrorists, It's the Blacks, It's the Whites It's the Capitalists, It's the Jews, It's the Bankers. It's human nature from everything I've ever witnessed for people in general to defer blame and gravitate towards those that offer such. Now who is to judge which of those is true or not, it's not so clear in some cases today. But like after 9/11 IT WAS THE MUSLIMS, if you asked 9 out of 10 people, it wasn't a specific MUSLIM, or a few, but all. In one day a whole country went leaving peacefully to threatening to kill them in their shops or on the streets. People are people and I've not seen more than a handful deviate from the Norm

Now it's a small leap of logic to connect the dots in germany, to why alot of the populace would jump on the Hate Jew bandwagon as the cause of all the problems. This is not a new phenomenon, It has happened innumerable times throughout history. To believe it is not in general human nature, to blame others when times get tough, is in my view, putting to much faith in human nature to do the right thing.

"People separating themselves from events" is a completely different issue. I'm talking about the evolution of the ideas of a small bunch of cranks into the widespread action of a nation. There is a whole chain of events to consider.

Think about BDSM and the change that occurs in people. The change in outlook on life and the evolution of thought. If you accept that people change and their outlook on life changes, and you accept that propaganda is a very powerful tool, then you must accept that propaganda can turn peoples' minds - we're not static in our beliefs, we evolve, we learn, we take on board new ideas.

Yes, but one man's propaganda is another man's obvious truth. Like this conversation, I couldn't disagree with you more, and I can't even think how someone could believe in such things without an agenda.  See, you think it's truth, I think it' must be a power/control thing, for similiar minded people. You can't define truth in many cases, because it's not known until after the fact.

There is such a thing as the herd mentality and mass movement and people can be led down a path. Where propaganda is used effectively, that path can have dangerous consequences.
Yes, but no one is immune to propaganda, no person is capable of making these decisions. So, giving the power to arbitrarily remove some groups that haven't proven openly violent yet, is license to suppress unwelcome ideas. It's not that I don't agree with you in utopian reality terms. It's just not possible at all for any group to be immune from such effects, or even be the judge of correct thought.

Look at the WMDs farce, were Americans led down a path or are you saying the majority couldn't care less and want to see large numbers of people dead? This is the top and bottom of your logic.



What I'm saying since you frame it about Iraq, is most people won't do anything to change anything as long as it doesn't affect them or they don't think it will. And as long as you have a scapegoat to blame it on,(jews,blacks,mexicans,Right Wingers, Left Wingers, whitey, whatever) one is morally absolved of responsiblity. Presently that is Bush and the Right Wing. So, no people don't want people to die generally, but neither do most (obviously) care enough to do anything at all about it. What a couple million in a land of 300 million actually do something, the rest go to work, go home, eat dinner, go to bed, bitch a little about it and, Repeat cycle. And some do actually support the war and believe it is about bringing democracy to Iraq. As long as that is maintained they won't "care" enough to do anything. Now, when enough people die that they know or can relate to, then they care. The word "care" is wide ranging in its emotional content. They care like most care about a stranger they will never meet. It's print on a page, not something you can see, hear, and feel.

It is the easy option to say everyone should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences because people want to be seen as purveyors of freedom. The problem with this is, you're into the realms of a free-for-all and moving away from the rule of law. There is a balance to be had in society - civili liberties, responsibility to the people around us and the rule of law.

quote:

Joseph Stalin. Works, Vol. 13, July 1930-January 1934, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955, p. 30

"Anti-Semitism: Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States"
In answer to your inquiry:

National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.


J. Stalin
January 12, 1931

"Stalin Hits Anti-Semitism - Says It is 'Most Dangerous Survival of Cannibalism'", New York Times, January 15, 1931. This statement was made in Moscow on the previous day to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

<wee diversion>

quote:

Type musn't be the best form of communication because time and time again I see people jumping to conclusions based on what they think they're reading.

I suspect the problem may particularly be type on screen. It's not always comfortable to read, so I suspect many people (perhap unconsciously) wind up skimming instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I've already said that the majority of the votes in 1932 or 1933 did not go to the Nazis and this should tell you that, despite their best efforts of gaining support through terror, there was real choice right up to the point where he was elected in very dubious circumstances.

How do dubious corrupt elections relate to free speech. I will agree with you that corrupt elections should be banned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

No, but my point here is not that the germans initially wanted to eliminate all the jews, mentally disabled, etc... My point is they accepted this leader because he promised radical change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Indeed, one could argue that the problem was not enough free speech, given that fear of appearing unpatriotic seemed to deter many from voicing or seriously reporting on criticism of the Bush Administration.

Dc, the context in which I mentioned the US was to show that people's minds can be swayed, that propaganda is a powerful tool e.g. the propaganda of appearing unpatriotic, as you mention above.

The only case I have given for restricting free speech is the Nazis.

NG, I know. I was just picking up on MC's point (largely as a way of putting off some freelance work I need to be doing!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

If more people vote for parties other than the Nazi Party, then their grip on society extended to a minority of people voting for them i.e. the majority of the electorate were not silenced into voting for them. This is my original point. People were not silenced pre 1933. In other words, the communist and socialist parties were able to make themselves heard (free speech), otherwise, between them, they would not have had the platform to get the amount of votes they did.