Horst Mahler Sentenced to 6 Years

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:53 am)

ASMarques wrote:Look, I certainly don't love the guy's politics, but I've read a lot about him and I think I know him well.


Perhaps I should be a little more specific here. An enormous amount has been written about the man himself [Hitler], but 99% of it is, of course, nearly worthless. What I meant was I have read a lot of those 99% but, most importantly, I have learned to pick the wheat from the chaff, and I have read the 1% essential, in my view, to glimpse the real man behind the mythic persona created by his enemies' propaganda.

His own writings, published or not (both books and minor pieces), are important, as are such books as his friend August Kubizek's, his biography by Toland as well as Irving's Hitler's War, and works like the recent one on his personal library.

That said, he remains a tragic historical character, a man with vision and great abilities, but a single-minded dictator as well, who looked upon himself as a demigod and did not mind in the least holding the arbitrary powers to send any fellow countryman of his to his doom with a stroke of his pen. And though he was not the sole culprit for the War, he did launch the military campaign that inaugurated the whole disgraceful sequence of events.
Last edited by ASMarques on Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Reinhard » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:25 am)

Here his statement he has recorded in advance of being arrested (in German):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBqTncjgjc0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6djEO22R6g

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:13 pm)

...who looked upon himself as a demigod and did not mind in the least holding the arbitrary powers to send any fellow countryman of his to his doom with a stroke of his pen.


Yes, please tell us how he was different in that respect from George W. Bush or any other "democratic" leader.

And though he was not the sole culprit for the War, he did launch the military campaign that inaugurated the whole disgraceful sequence of events.


The unjust status quo established by the victors at Versailles was unacceptable to Germans.
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."

"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"

C.G. Jung

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:39 pm)

friedrich braun wrote:Yes, please tell us how he was different in that respect from George W. Bush


He wasn't. Please tell us how you count that in his favor.

or any other "democratic" leader.


Why the quote marks? To imply quote-unquote democracy is different from democracy tout court? Glad you spot the difference and appreciate the advantages of democratic government.

The unjust status quo established by the victors at Versailles was unacceptable to Germans.


So?...

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:48 pm)

He wasn't. Please tell us how you count that in his favor.


Well, you seemed to imply that there's an intrinsic difference between a National Socialist style of government and a "democratic" one; and I'm saying that taking a country to war has always been the normal prerogative of all governments.

Why the quote marks? To imply quote-unquote democracy is different from democracy tout court? Glad you spot the difference and appreciate the advantages of democratic government.


There has always been various kinds of democracies throughout history. In other words, there's a plurality of definitions. National Socialist Germany had a populist and participatory democracy that represented more accurately the Will of the national community than the BRD's imposed pseudo-representative model. One can make the case that the current system is undemocratic in all essential aspects.

So?...


International law, more often than not, serves to solidify and legitimize the victors' status quo, without taking into account whether that status quo is in point of fact just or unjust, moral or immoral, legitimate or illegitimate. Germany was asked to acquiesce to a profoundly perverse Versailles Diktat and all that flowed from it. Only looking at who officially started shooting is a cynical and untenable approach in my view, as it solely serves the interests of the victorious powers. The Allies must carry the lion's share of the blame for W.W.II.
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung

User avatar
holographic
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:19 am

Postby holographic » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:22 pm)

I come before you oh biased "judge" and coward . I put before the ladies and gentleman of the "jury" that YOU and our "fair" judge are ALL complicit in "holocaust denial". To entertain the notion of a trial implies that you may have some doubt as to the veracity of the "holocaust". it's a small step from doubt to actaul denial.

since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear, I SENTENCE YOU TO BE EXPOSED BEFORE YOUR PEERS!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:36 pm)

friedrich braun wrote:
ASMarques wrote:He wasn't. Please tell us how you count that in his favor.

Well, you seemed to imply that there's an intrinsic difference between a National Socialist style of government and a "democratic" one; and I'm saying that taking a country to war has always been the normal prerogative of all governments.


I still don't know what you mean by your quote-unquote democracy. You seem to love the word -- a word that, BTW, I rarely use. Perhaps I can suggest a definition of the concept to avoid further confusion: in modern context, democracy means freedom of political organization plus the possibility of getting rid of elected representatives through peaceful mandatory elections. No more, no less. I don't mean "popular democracy," or "organic democracy," or "social democracy," or whatever. I mean freedom of organization plus frequent mandatory elections. Period.

However, I don't know what all of this has to do with the comment of mine that you excerpted, namely "[Hitler] who looked upon himself as a demigod and did not mind in the least holding the arbitrary powers to send any fellow countryman of his to his doom with a stroke of his pen."

In case you misunderstood me, this didn't mean the power to wage war. I was thinking of government by unchecked personal power, i.e. by Fuehrer and Party, if you wish, with no freedom of organization, no balance of powers, no free elections, and indeed with general contempt for the rights of individuals in real or perceived opposition to the government (do read the man, by all means, if the spectacle of totalitarian politics in lockstep doesn't impress you).

friedrich braun wrote:
ASMarques wrote:Why the quote marks? To imply quote-unquote democracy is different from democracy tout court? Glad you spot the difference and appreciate the advantages of democratic government.

There has always been various kinds of democracies throughout history. In other words, there's a plurality of definitions.


See above, to avoid confusion.

friedrich braun wrote:National Socialist Germany had a populist and participatory democracy that represented more accurately the Will of the national community than the BRD's imposed pseudo-representative model.


You know, the impressive electoral results in Stalin's "populist and participatory democracy," as far as the counting of the votes went, was probably accurate as well. But, of course, at the root of the whole system was the outlawing of any political opposition, so what on earth are we talking about here?...

friedrich braun wrote:One can make the case that the current system is undemocratic in all essential aspects.


That would be a long discussion, relatively irrelevant to the point I was making: that of individual rights versus the abusive power of the unchecked state. Is it a simple coincidence that the present German governments actually use legislation devised under Hitler's regime to incarcerate revisionists? Methinks not.

friedrich braun wrote:
ASMarques wrote:So?...

International law, more often than not, serves to solidify and legitimize the victors' status quo, without taking into account whether that status quo is in point of fact just or unjust, moral or immoral, legitimate or illegitimate.


True and something that needs to be changed, rather than accepted as a sort of superior worldly wisdom.

friedrich braun wrote:Germany was asked to acquiesce to a profoundly perverse Versailles Diktat and all that flowed from it. Only looking at who officially started shooting (without taking into account the whole picture) is a cynical and untenable approach in my view. The Allies must carry the lion's share of the blame for W.W.II.


No contradiction with what I said. I certainly don't "only look at who started shooting." But a lot had been achieved by peaceful means and the decision to start shooting rested not even with a freely elected parliament, but with the Fuehrer who made it an habit of his to assume he could always have his way through sheer will power (it's interesting to note a passage that Hitler distinguished with a defiant question mark in his copy of one of Ernst Junger's books: it concerns Junger's doubts about the power of the human will in the face of "monstrous mass production").

Well, the illuminated sole decider failed, and the ordinary people paid the price. Perhaps we should start learning while there is still time.

My apologies for stopping the solely political discussion here, but I wish to spare the esteemed moderator the trouble of banning us from this thread.

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:31 am)

You know, the impressive electoral results in Stalin's "populist and participatory democracy," as far as the counting of the votes went, was probably accurate as well. But, of course, at the root of the whole system was the outlawing of any political opposition, so what on earth are we talking about here?...


This is a straw man, if you want to talk about Stalin start another thread. Adolf Hitler told Germans again and again that he was going to rid them of the weak, chaotic, decadent, and corrupt Weimar system with its plethora of parties who represented nobody but themselves and their narrow and petty interests...and he did. The Germans cheered, as they had had enough of Weimar-style "democracy." It was time to put the commonweal of the German Volk before individual egotistical interests. An era of unprecedented solidarity and prosperity ensued.

You have a very superficial knowledge of an organic, participatory democracy. Just because you don't know anything about it, that doesn't mean that it's not an authentic or adequate form of popular expression. Again, our parliamentary democracy that first and foremost represents moneyed business interests and powerful lobby groups isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Since about 50 % of eligible voters actually bother to vote in the U.S. - a trend seen all over the western world - I'm not the only one who believes that it makes no difference which gang of thieves and crooks and cynical opportunists actually runs the country.

Democracy is not in its essence about checks and balances or ritualistically voting for some slick, fast-talking lawyer or other every four years or so (indistinguishable from the other slick, fast-talking lawyer), democracy is about giving an expression to the collective Will of the people. A true, authentic democracy should be a megaphone for the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the community, of the collectivity, of the Volk. That has always been the Germanic concept of democracy. In that respect, National Socialism was a truly democratic state, and far more democratic than the BRD that jails patriotic Germans and has an ever-growing list of legally protected taboos that must not be given a public airing! Presently, the German people are constantly prohibited from making democratic choices in the name of -- wait for it! -- democracy! Funny how that works, no? The Establishment obviously doesn't trust the German people to make the CORRECT decisions or to think for itself.

WHY NO FREE SPEECH IN GERMANY?

http://www.natvan.com/american-dissiden ... 20493.html

That would be a long discussion, relatively irrelevant to the point I was making: that of individual rights versus the abusive power of the unchecked state. Is it a simple coincidence that the present German governments actually use legislation devised under Hitler's regime to incarcerate revisionists? Methinks not.


I didn't know that sec. 130 and the concept in criminal law of Volksverhetzung that is used to prosecute revisionists originated with Adolf Hitler. That is indeed astonishing as it would mean that Adolf Hitler and National Socialists continue to legislate from the grave and against their own interests.

The fundamental difference between us is that I'm not a liberal and I don't pledge fealty and obedience to the dominant ideology.
Last edited by friedrich braun on Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:05 am)

friedrich braun wrote:You have a very superficial knowledge of an organic, participatory democracy. Just because you don't [know] anything about it, that doesn't mean that it's not an authentic or adequate form of popular expression.


Mr. Braun, I was born and lived for a good part of my life under one of those. Indeed under the most ideologically pure of "organic democracies," Salazar's Maurrasian, anti-parliamentarian, Corporativist Portugal.

To be sure, it was a relatively mild variation within the family of fascist-like political regimes, on the wane in the post-war period, but I still did sport my obligatory S-buckled belt over my little green shirt as a young child. I know what kind of representation the "happy national family" got through its single super-party (the "União Nacional," as they called the Party over here). I know what censorship of the printed word and the arts meant, and what it meant to see books confiscated and bookshops closed. I know what kind of individual rights and guarantees were provided by our little Vishinskys and Freislers in their political "Tribunais Plenários." I know the farce of the single party political life, with its ridiculous "organic elections" and -- for the duration of the liberalizing period that preceded the fall of the regime -- the "electoral commissions" authorized for the strict duration of each election as ersatz political parties to fool foreign observers, with the government ballots directly sent home to you by mail, and the distribution of any ballots forbidden in any way inside or within 100 meters of each voting assembly.

So, your assumption that I have but a "superficial knowledge of an organic democracy," is not fortunate, since I actually lived under the quintessential thing, and I know you don't prove meaningful popular support by having the Ministry of Propaganda print posters with smiling faces on them. You prove it through the ballot box. That's the litmus test, Mr. Braun: either you have the freedom to politically organize and compete in mandatory elections or you haven't. Period.

Far from me to indulge in unwarranted assumptions about you, as you do about myself, but may I ask what experience you have of life under an "organically democratic" single-party political system?
Last edited by ASMarques on Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:34 am)

Muito obrigado, great post.

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:01 am)

So you're a liberal who didn't like Salazar, got it. And? I don't think that Salazar's Portugal was equivalent to N.S. Germany, as the two regimes had their own national specificities and political cultures; and National Socialism isn't Italian fascism or Portugal's Salazarism or Spain's Franquism.

You shall know them by their fruits. The immense popularity of N.S. Germany and its social cohesion and economic achievements speak for themselves.



ASMarques wrote:
friedrich braun wrote:You have a very superficial knowledge of an organic, participatory democracy. Just because you don't [know] anything about it, that doesn't mean that it's not an authentic or adequate form of popular expression.


Mr. Braun, I was born and lived for a good part of my life under one of those. Indeed under the most ideologically pure of "organic democracies," Salazar's Maurrasian, anti-parliamentarian, Corporativist Portugal.

To be sure, it was a relatively mild variation within the family of fascist-like political regimes, on the wane in the post war period, but I still did sport my obligatory S-buckled belt over my little green shirt as a young child. I know what kind of representation the "happy national family" got through its single super-party (the "União Nacional," as they called the Party over here). I know what censorship of the printed word and the arts meant, and what it meant to see books confiscated and bookshops closed. I know what kind of individual rights and guarantees were provided by our little Vishinskys and Freislers in their political "Tribunais Plenários." I know the farce of the single party political life, with its ridiculous "organic elections" and -- for the duration of the liberalizing period that preceded the fall of the regime -- the "electoral commissions" authorized for the strict duration of each election as ersatz political parties to fool foreign observers, with the government ballots directly sent home to you by mail, and the distribution of any ballots forbidden in any way inside or within 100 meters of each voting assembly.

So, your assumption that I have but a "superficial knowledge of an organic democracy," is not fortunate, since I actually lived under the quintessential thing, and I know you don't prove meaningful popular support by having the Ministry of Propaganda print posters with smiling faces on them. You prove it through the ballot box. That's the litmus test, Mr. Braun: either you have the freedom to politically organize and compete in mandatory elections or you haven't. Period.

Far from me to indulge in unwarranted assumptions about you, as you do about myself, but may I ask what experience you have of life under an "organically democratic" single-party political system?
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:46 am)

ASMarques wrote:may I ask what experience you have of life under an "organically democratic" single-party political system?

You know the forum guidelines, Herr Braun. Answer the question, or leave the thread.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:50 am)

friedrich braun wrote:
ASMarques wrote:That would be a long discussion, relatively irrelevant to the point I was making: that of individual rights versus the abusive power of the unchecked state. Is it a simple coincidence that the present German governments actually use legislation devised under Hitler's regime to incarcerate revisionists? Methinks not.


I didn't know that sec. 130 and the concept in criminal law of Volksverhetzung that is used to prosecute revisionists originated with Adolf Hitler. That is indeed astonishing as it would mean that Adolf Hitler and National Socialists continue to legislate from the grave and against their own interests.


You're absolutely right. I meant to write "abuse," not exactly "incarcerate."

How silly of me to have committed that slip of the keystroke. Of course illiberal banana republics don't need any particular historical models -- not even their own -- for their run-of-the-mill incarceration of the political opinions they don't like.

They do, however, often seek inspiration in much admired totalitarian / authoritarian judicial systems, when they want to indulge in some actions of a more esoteric nature, such as the withdrawal of academic degrees.

I was thinking, for instance, of revisionist judge Wilhelm Stäglich's words:

Staglich wrote:http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p115_Staglich.html

"Their [the three judges's] opinion was based on a law regarding academic degrees issued by none other than Adolf Hitler, on June 7, 1939 (RGBL. I S. 985). The same law served the council of deans of the University of Göttingen as a basis for depriving me of my doctorate on March 24, 1983, without so much as granting me a personal hearing. Where does the state governed by the "rule of law" begin and the lawless state leave off? [...] In particular, my case is of fundamental importance since to my knowledge it is the first time that an attempt has been made in the Federal Republic to deprive someone of a doctoral degree on purely political grounds, using a law established during the Third Reich."


There. Apologies issued and I stand corrected.

Perhaps you will now provide an answer to my question about your direct experience of the happy national family under "organic democracy"...

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:58 am)

Vlad wrote:
ASMarques wrote:may I ask what experience you have of life under an "organically democratic" single-party political system?

You know the forum guidelines, Herr Braun. Answer the question, or leave the thread.


Vlad, please put down the thumbscrew and let Braun reply to what he likes, and the esteemed Moderator be the sole master of the ship (under the blessed Gods, naturally). :salute:

Or else we'll all be thrown out of here, since the discussion of the much abused idea of Democracy has little to do with the thread subject, though it is relevant to the larger issues historical revisionism raises.

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:27 pm)

Vlad wrote:
ASMarques wrote:may I ask what experience you have of life under an "organically democratic" single-party political system?

You know the forum guidelines, Herr Braun. Answer the question, or leave the thread.


Vlad, I'll take my instructions from the forum's moderators.

I'm in my thirties; however, I've got family members (average, apolitical Germans), who lived in Germany during the '30s. Their recollections are similar to Kurreck's:

http://www.faem.com/eric/kurreck.htm
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: christianbethel and 13 guests