Fascinating, just fascinating. So many words, and so many people talking past each other.
Hitler? Primary responsibility has to lie with the German electorate.
That does not deny the continual (and continuing) efforts of all the major nations: US, China, NTH and STH Korea, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, et al to influence the actions of other nations as and when it suits "their interests".
The means and techniques are manifold - Japan "selecting" little island nations onto the IWB with aid payments being made in return for supporting Japan; the sale of weaponry at bargain prices to third-world nations in return for unfettered access to natural resources; the list is long and open-ended...
If we were to return to the original topic - that of David Irving - then there is one question that must be asked.
How did he get to the prominence he actually achieved without being exposed?
Exposed he was, as was recorded in the head post here, by the media having the guts and determination to say "We are right" in a Court of Law. That is not all. The publishers also knew that if the initial findings went against them, they had the resources to appeal; Irving did not.
Now truly, Neo-Neocon, the path that question leads to MUST be the number of charlatans, the cheats, and outright liars who are not exposed because they have the resources (legal and monetary) to ensure that a definitive conclusion is never reached.
The tobacco companies almost pulled it off. The actions (I think there were three?) by individual States of the US did eventually make the breakthrough. But in large part solely because the States could match (and were prepared to) the resources of the tobacco industry.
As I said, how many in positions of power and influence hold those places through their ability to ward off challenges of process and exposure?
and here...
...
There was an interesting comment made here [in NZ] in the past 24 hours to the effect that there was a direct correlation between anti-denial legislation and law that "prevents" inciting racial hatred and violence.
There was a considerable amount of regret that Irving was NOT allowed into NZ some four years back. The regret was that it prevented the implementation of some fairly rough, and illegal, justice.
But let's be truthful about this.
Charlatans such as Irving are not restricted to the field of historic studies, nor is their dishonesty limited to denial of the attempted extermination of the Jews in Germany.
They rise to positions of prominence and power in many fields; science (who remembers cold fusion?), politics (start with Milosevic and Saddam, but don't stop there...), religion (Hubbard and Moon if you like, or Falwell and Robertson), business (how about start with Enron?).
The very BIG problem is that so many people can not see these charlatans, liars and cheats for what they really are. After listening to Bethany McLean last night previewing her documentary (Smartest Guys in the ROom) I think I am getting a glimmer of how it can happen.
I want to pick up on the question I dropped at neo-neocon and (sad to say) which will probably not be picked up on.
Dave Justus sees it like this -
Using government power to define and protect truth strikes me as a very blunt and unsuitable tool for the job. There are more effective ways to prevent this sort of evil, and they don’t spawn the risk of re-creating the very style of evil they are designed to prevent.
I could probably trawl for the next 24 hours and find plenty more in similar vein. Responses that I have seen cover virtually every concievable aspect of the line between government definition and the protection of the right to free speech - even to including the Second Amendment as one surety.
But I do not believe that this is really the answer. Nor, I believe, is David Irving anything more than a very minor but obvious instance of the real problem.
neo-neocon gets close with this -
So it seems to me that the only remedy is free speech in the theater of ideas. We must believe in the ability of truth to ultimately triumph, and in our ability to wage war against those who would preach hate and follow through on it with destruction. If Irving and his ilk have influenced Iran, the damage is long done, and the remedies lie elsewhere--unfortunately.
- but it still does not cover the full problem.
I referred to Bethany McLean and her book - now film documentary - "Smartest Guys in the Room" and this is starting to reveal the real problem.
In the tv interview last night she was asked "Why did you see what was happening at Enron when no one else did?"
Her answer was most revealing. She had not read the company's publicity, the stories in the business pages, and of the hype and gloss that was Enron. She had a copy of their financial statements and she could not make them "work". There was information missing. Things did not add up, in every sense. Her questions were continually rebuffed and she would not let it go. As she put it...
IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WANTED TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY WERE BEING TOLD.
There, gentle folks, is where I believe Hitler came to power, where Milosovic was able to sashay his way through Kosovo, even why Rob Muldoon was able to bankrupt NZ.
We are told, continually, in every sphere of life, what we want to hear. Part of the failing is that we refuse to listen to the voices that dissent. Part of the failing is that we are not critical of what we hear. We accept too easily that "this is the truth" when it can be a flat contradiction of yesterday's truth.
So, as I said in the second of my comments
Charlatans such as Irving are not restricted to the field of historic studies, nor is their dishonesty limited to denial of the attempted extermination of the Jews in Germany.
They rise to positions of prominence and power in many fields; science (who remembers cold fusion?), politics (start with Milosevic and Saddam, but don't stop there...), religion (Hubbard and Moon if you like, or Falwell and Robertson), business (how about start with Enron?).
And here we reach the nub of the problem.
Hands up all those who believe that smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer.
Of you, how many can support that with scientific fact?
The remainder, how many of you believe that to be the case because the tobacco companies told you, or because you trust them not to sell you a product that is dangerous?
All of you again, think back 40 years if you can and answer the questions again in the light of your knowledge and feelings then.
Why has opinion changed?
It was a series of extremely expensive Court battles. They were not taken by individuals, but by State governments in the US.
ONLY THEY HAD THE RESOURCES, LEGAL AND FINANCIAL, TO OVERTURN THE LIE.
And there, gentle readers, is the true reason why people such as Irving are such a danger. As I said, he was a bacteria. The top of this food chain is a different matter all together.
And, more to the point, what do we do when the government, the highest authorities in the land reach that level of corruption, as they did in 1930's Germany and (it must be said) as may be the case with the Muslim religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment