BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


David Irving- guilty as charged?

 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
illmatic
15:49 / 11.03.06
Again can anyone prove otherwise? If you cannot then all of your arguments are meaningless as far as I am concerned.

Can you grasp the concept that an idea might have social and political consequences? And that it's active propogation might be said to lead to these consequences? Your choice of words is telling here, I suspect you find most arguments here "meaningless", in the same way that I find higer mathematics "meaningless".


People lie all the time about all manner of things so let's stop being hypocrites about that.

It might have escaped your attention, perhaps the ground is hard to see from up there on your high horse of self-righteousness, but people do get prosecuted for lying all the time. This is what the fraud and libel laws rest on. No one is suggested that each indivdual who tells an individual lie is to be prosecuted so there's no "hypocrisy" being expressed here. You seem to be getting the consequences of an individual telling a fib confused with actively propogating a political message to a wide audience. Perhaps you could have a think about what the differences between the two might be? (And pick your parallels a little more carefully general - the cack handed invocation of Grand Theft Auto doesn't do your argument any favours).

Telling outright lies about what may or may not have happened during the holocaust still does not equate to advocating violence against jews.

I think a useful parallel here would be the Armenian Genocide. The Goverment of Turkey still contests that 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Turkish forces in 1915. It actively prosectues those who question the offical line, the most recent being novelist Orhan Pamuk. It also contests any usage of the word "genocide" to describe these events. Is the Turkish Govermnet simply putting forward a value-free "theory"?

I rather think that they are advancing a specifc definition of genocide and and a specific line of argument for politcal purposes. What David Irving is doing is not any different. It is not an abstract "freedom of speech" issue. He is advancing a specific agenda for a set of specifc reasons, namely his anti-semitism and to advance the spread of far right politcs. The only difference is he has a lot less power, and I hope it remains that way.
 
 
Shrug
15:52 / 11.03.06
Zoemancer, where do you think Irving's responsibilities lie?
 
 
zoemancer
06:49 / 12.03.06
Where do David Irving's responsibilities lie? Sigh.

Look I am not on a high horse ok. Yes my approach to this is less than tactful but that is a fault of mine. I am just passionate about personal liberty and even more so these days when all governments can talk about now is why we need to be more afraid, why we need more cameras up are arse, why we need to medicate our children. I am just fucking sick of it. I am pretty sure that all of you are good people and I apologize for rubbing some of you the wrong way. I try to always attack the ideology and not the person. I may not be correct in many of your minds but that's ok you can have your opinions and I can have mine.

I am just done with this thread. Call it a cop out I really don't care. I know that I am beating a dead horse here. I wish you all peace and happiness and above all else I pray that we can somehow manage to preserve liberty and freedom for our progeny.

Cheers.
 
 
illmatic
10:22 / 12.03.06
Yes my approach to this is less than tactful but that is a fault of mine.

Well, that acknowledgement is appreciated. I'll try and be more tactful myself.

I am just passionate about personal liberty and even more so these days when all governments can talk about now is why we need to be more afraid, why we need more cameras up are arse, why we need to medicate our children.

While I agree with you that goverments gather power to themselves rather than relinquish it, and that they seem to delight in giving us lots of reasons to be afraid, the point I was trying to make with my parallel above was that David Irving is replicating the behaviour of many governments, in trying to rewrite history for his own purposes.

All governments do this. One might give the examples refusal by the Japanese government to acknowledge ill treatment of British POWs or the Israeli Governments' refusal to acknoweldge its post-68 landgrabs as illegitmate (I'm also sure there's the odd massacre in this conflict which has been explained away or pushed off the history books, but would have to look it up). I believe there have been some recent attempts to get the bomming of Dresden by UK forces reclassified as a war crime also.

In fact, I suspect that part of the reasons that holocaust denial is an offence in Austria is to prevent any future the wing government coming to power and trying to write teh Holocaust off the books or lessen its impact. Can anyone confirm this? I'd also add think this having this as a offence is part of a deliberate attempt to confront and acknowledge past wrongdoing - for which the Austrian establishment should be applauded IMO. If only all our Goverments were this honest.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:18 / 12.03.06
I am just done with this thread. Call it a cop out I really don't care.

How about I call it an acknowledgement that David Irving has links with neo-Nazi groups and is an apologist for antisemitic violence?
 
 
zoemancer
14:46 / 12.03.06
Bless you flyboy, bless you. Adios.
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply