Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the neoliberal vision of the future

Do I take it that you agree that if we remove the death camps (which were not death camps until the war progressed)...

I recognise the above claim. It was last made in a history text by a scholar called David Irving. Like you, he was fond of decontextualising evidence, then recontextualising it to mean what he wished it to mean, rather than what it originally signified.

The death camps (Majdenek, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, Belzec) did not become death camps, as your formulation "were not death camps until the war progressed" implies. They were constructed as sites for the industrial-scale extermination of those deemed racially-inferior under the Nazi racial hygiene laws, not converted from existing camps with different functions.

...then there is no important differences between Nazis and social democrats?

Many, but you're hardly amenable to taking in such information, given that you've already made up your mind that Nazis and social democrats are 95% the same (even though, in spite of many long paragraphs that you've written, you haven't been able to quantify your claim with any substantive evidence).
 
Also I forgot to mention that I don't use gel, I use wax. Not that it matters. According to my calculations a year's worth of wax would tot up to about 20 quid. I'd pay that to see Onar go away for a long long time to his liberal nirvana.
 
What would be the point while you're all way more interested in even the vaugest sniff of holocaust denial?

It's not the vaguest sniff. It is a fucking stench. But Onar knows what he can do to get rid of it.

What exactly is the point of you on this thread?

(And yes, I know I'm breaking my own advice by responding to you. )
 
I don't know. Doesn't remind me of anywhere particularly.

In any case - I think Onarch is too far down the rabbit hole to be able to discuss things based on any agreed premises (or even terms that mean the same thing). For instance, the idea that taxes are a form of theft has some traction insofar as you have no choice over whether you pay it. Some libertarians would think it not a problem if your access to various services was contingent on certain payments, but it is the demand to unconditionally pay, backed up by the use of force, that they have a problem with.

A common view expressed on this thread is that the element of compulsion is a non-issue and that the services that the taxes pay for is highly valued by them. Whethr you agree or not, it is possible to highly value the services and see the extraction of taxes with menaces as an issue at the same time. Or at least to entertain the idea of a tension there. We can't talk on that level with Onarch, though, because the appeal of being a lone persecuted voice in the wilderness is so great and the common ground has been long since abandoned in favour of the high ground.
 
As VP says, this is recognisably David Irving style holocaust denial. Not as blatant as Zundel or one of those guys, but still recognisably an attempt to let the Nazis off the hook for intentional mass murder.
 
I can certainly entertain the idea of tension between the individual and the state, 8ball. There is great tension where the state is the only entity legitimately allowed to exercise the use of violence to get its way.

That's a different conversation, though. Onar is stuck at the level of asking why the suffering fuck he should be forced to pay for his neighbour's cancer treatment. Such a morally bankrupt position has to be challenged first before you can go on to consider the best way to resolve the tension between the collective and the individual.

(In fact, I would say that you cannot resolve this tension – it is something that ought to always be subject to constant re-evaluation – I don't believe in some kind of endpoint for society or politics: the process is ongoing and dynamic.)
 
Onar is stuck at the level of asking why the suffering fuck he should be forced to pay for his neighbour's cancer treatment.

Ok, devil's advocate hat on here. Why should someone be forced to pay for another person's cancer treatment?

There are plenty of reasons why you might want to pay into a common pot for when such eventualities happen to a member of the group, but there's still a legitimate question there.
 
= the Holocaust. And you're saying there's no physical evidence. How is that not Holocaust denial?

Suppose a woman accuses someone of rape. There is no physical evidence, only the testimony of the victim and the prosecutor acknowledges as much. Is this rape denial?
 
First of all, the US is not "way down on the list," they are significantly above OECD average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OECD_Productivity_levels_2007.svg

Second, it is not hard to explain this. A) in the United States MORE people are working, whereas in European welfare states (such as Sweden) up to 20% of the people in working age is unemployed or on social security or in government programs. Since only the the most productive actually work in France and in Sweden the productivity numbers per GDP are skewed upwards. Norway is an outlier. Our unusually high productivity is due to oil. Third, maybe the United States is not as economically free as most Europeans believe? The US has a huge welfare state too, and it has very high taxes for businesses (approaching 40%). Also, most people never consider the cost of America's horrid tort law. We've all heard about crazy lawsuits are in the US, where people can be rewarded money for spilling hot coffee on themselves because they weren't warned that the hot coffee was actually hot. We laugh of these lawsuits, but extremely few know that this tort law system places a heavy cost on US businesses that make them a lot less productive. Even fewer know that these laws were created by socialists specifically to promote "social engineering" and redistribution of wealth from the rich corporations to the poor consumers. Tort law is better in most European countries and they therefore have an advantage.

Finally, in a global economy capitalism makes it extremely hard to stay on top. Even quite illiberal regimes are able to become quite productive by importing technology developed in more liberal countries. Norway has not developed the vast majority if technologies that are utilized in Norway. They're invented elsewhere, typically in the US. The ability to "outsource" innovation to liberal countries makes it easier for the illiberal countries to keep up with and in some cases even get aheade of the liberal countries.

So when you pick the more limited labour productivity rather than multi factor productivity the US is still behind many European social democratic economies. You mention the welfare state of Norway - so while having such high productivity in terms of labour it still manages to have social safety nets.

Regardless your mitigating factors don't add up.

In regard to welfare. Your selected measure of productivity was labour against GDP. So despite having a social safety net Norway still has better productivity than the US.

In terms of GDP litigation adds to this. So your reference to crazy litigation costs is not valid - in fact it makes the US look worse than the measure you used.

In regards to redistribution wealth the riches of Norway are shared far more equitably through the population. Take any measure and you'll find Norway has a far bigger middle class, and far smaller difference between the poor and the rich. Wealth in the US is hugely sued towards the mega rich, while leaving a huge economic underclass.

I will not even bother to enquire why social engineering is such a bad thing for a sovereign state undertake.

In regard to outsourcing. Your chosen measure of productivity is GDP. If you picked GNP you have have a point. If a US company outsources the income is still counted as GDP.

You really need to get a better grasp of the fundamentals of economics. I'm just a beginner but it's clear you have made very some basic errors.
 
Suppose a woman accuses someone of rape. There is no physical evidence, only the testimony of the victim and the prosecutor acknowledges as much. Is this rape denial?

That would've been an apt comparison hadn't it been for the fact that there is unequivocally positive physical evidence for industral planned extermination of undesirables under the Nazi regime.
 
Suppose a woman accuses someone of rape. There is no physical evidence, only the testimony of the victim and the prosecutor acknowledges as much. Is this rape denial?

About those "mainstream holocaust researchers". Got any references yet?
 
Suppose a woman accuses someone of rape. There is no physical evidence, only the testimony of the victim and the prosecutor acknowledges as much. Is this rape denial?

Onar - you ass - there is actually physical evidence of the holocaust, including evidence of Zyklon B residues on the site of the Auschwitz gas chambers. As others have cited above the claim that there isn't such evidence is a favoured trick of the deniers.
 
@ 8ball

Because individual freedom can only exist in the context of a society in which people help each other where they need to. We cannot run our own private health services, so the decision is taken collectively to run one collectively, and yes, the individual is forced to pay into it. Within a properly democratic set-up the individual can protest about this, but they cannot opt out.

The crucial point here is this: The alternative to this limited freedom is no freedom at all. Whether we wanted to be or not, we were born, and it is only due to the actions of others that we were able to survive our childhoods. So, for instance, you should pay out of your taxes for the education of other people's children because your education was paid for by other people, and without that education, you wouldn't be earning the money you're being taxed on! Societies do involve payback. It is childish to think that they could be any other way. The nature of that payback is, of course, open to discussion, argument and disagreement, but the fact that any such payback ought to exist should not be cause for debate: the likes of Onar who do debate it really are acting like small children. Individually, humans simply cannot survive – and any form of coming together collectively has to involve compromises. There is no way that it cannot.
 
@ 8ball <big snip>

Your post proves the point I was making. I asked a simple, albeit contentious question and you made a lot of points and assertions there, with more than sufficient holes, gaps and fallacies helpfully provided to allow any libertarian, whether of the left or right wing variety, plenty of ways in to make some points.

But Onarch doesn't want to play like that because this is a site full of the benighted heathen who see good as evil and evil as good. To argue on agreed terms and deal with such ambiguities would place him down here in the mud with the rest of us.
 
References for the lack of physical evidence of the holocaust?

Louis MacNeice

Yes, please. We'd like to see the evidence for your claims onarchy. It might not be controversial to say that stuff in far-right shithead circles, but we'd like to see some proof before even entertaining such ideas as a premise for discussion.
 
Robert Jan van Pelt said:
Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Holocaust] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

The above quote by professor Robert Jan van Pelt is from this Toronto Star article.

This place is a sorry excuse for a discussion forum.
 
I know that the Nazis had plans to rid Europe of Jewry, not totally unlike many Europeans today want to rid Europe of muslims -- by kicking them out. Many "endloesungs" were discussed by the Germans and as late as after the war had started the Nazis planned to ship the Jews to Madagascar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

You imply "the Nazis" were keen for this. History actually records that the Madagascar plan, like the various plans that preceded and were contemporaneous to it, were predicated on achievement at arms and the taking of territory, and that the primary plan was always going to be extermination. Even back in the days of Aktion T4 it had been acknowledged (reinforced later by events at Katyn) that mass shooting or poisoning, followed by mass burial were inefficient and insufficient. Madagascar's planning process didn't start until late 1940. Aktion Reinhardt, the liquidation of occupied Poland's Jews, started in the first part of 1941, with mass killings by shooting and exhaust gases starting then, with the first of the death camps coming on-stream in early 1942.

However, I have never seen any evidence of concrete extermination plans. In fact, among Holocaust scientists it is widely acknowledged that the research is plagued by a lack of concrete physical evidence of industrial extermination. Therefore I would be very greatful for any reference to such material.

Ah, the old "lack of concrete physical evidence" schtick beloved of modern day neo-Nazis. We have paperwork, thanks to German bureaucratic efficiency. We have samples of mortar and brick that contain concentrations of Zyklon B that could not have accumulated in a century of clothes and bedlinen de-lousing. We have aerial photographs of rail networks and railheads, of the off-loading of tens of thousands of people per day at the death-camps, but no corresponding pictures of people being loaded back on to trains, or leaving the camps by road.

I won't mention the near countless recorded accounts of various Nazis and Soviets, as well as Jews, because you'll disregard them as being anecdotal.

I regard the death camps as incidental, and largely a product of WWII which was also incidental. The evidence points in the direction that Hitler never had any intentions of starting a war.

And yet the testimony of those of his contemporaries that survived the war don't point that way at all.
Perhaps you're mistaking the fact that Hitler did not expect Great Britain and France to stand by their promised support of Poland, with him not having intentions of starting a war? if that is the case, it's another proof of your poor scholarship.

After the allies declared war Hitler was reportedly both very surprised and depressed.

He had a history of depression, his having been depressed is not therefore necessarily indicative of what you claim.

It was logical that Hitler was surprised. He was an ally with Stalin, and Stalin also invaded Poland. Yet Britain did not go to war with Stalin. Why?
Because Britain had not promised to come to Poland's aid from Soviet aggression, but from German aggression. We did so for reasons of realpolitik - to sound a warning to Germany.

This was something Hitler could not have predicted and did not expect.

This was something he could easily have predicted if he hadn't convinced himself that he understood the character of British politics better than the British themselves did.

All the major deaths in the concentration camps occurred during the war, so if the war had't happened (which was not planned) then the evidence indicates that there would not have been any death camps either. Hence, the death camps are incidental, and not an integral part of Nazism, not any more integral than Stalin's death camps are to communism.

Sophistry with a healthy dose of bullshit woven in. You speculate and revise, but have no basis for your contentions except your own prejudices.
 
OMG, he's just logged out and not replied. Why hasn't he replied? He should know which mainstream researchers he's basing his position without having to refer to his notes, surely, since he claims he's written about the holocaust so many times?

You're making an assumption.

Your assumption is that he's speaking from knowledge.

My assumption would be that he did not, and that he's now scrabbling around the internet, attempting to find a source of "fact" that isn't so rancid that it will cause projectile vomiting from anyone who isn't and idiot.
 
Could you point out a fallacy in my post, please?

I don't doubt that there are holes and gaps...

I'd say you have a false dichotomy at the beginning of second paragraph (at least without a lot of unstated qualifying premises), and an apparent fallacy of necessity just toward the end (dependent on whether the second clause is intended to carry a degree of inference from the first).

These are more a matter of rhetorical style than fallacious attempts at tricking with broken reasoning though - I was just really meaning to say there are plenty of places to stick a screwdriver in (most obviously the assertions). I could argue the neoliberal stance insofar as I'm familiar with it but it would be a bit disingenuous since I don't actually believe it myself. ;)
 
Your post proves the point I was making. I asked a simple, albeit contentious question and you made a lot of points and assertions there, with more than sufficient holes, gaps and fallacies helpfully provided to allow any libertarian, whether of the left or right wing variety, plenty of ways in to make some points.

But Onarch doesn't want to play like that because this is a site full of the benighted heathen who see good as evil and evil as good. To argue on agreed terms and deal with such ambiguities would place him down here in the mud with the rest of us.

I have to take issue with the idea that what I wrote has holes, gaps and fallacies.

You are only alive because of the actions of others, not just your parents but wider society too. That's it at its most basic.

I'm sure we've all had moments when we've looked around us and wondered whether we'd been born into the wrong world by mistake. When we look, perhaps, at the military, at the gross inequalities, at some narrow-minded idiocy or other.

But to have such moments when looking around at a sick neighbour, or at a child and her mother coming out of a day centre? If you wonder at the injustice of having to pay for such things out of your taxes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
 
Why not ask those who lost their relatives in the death camps? You loathsome piece of shit.

That's me out, then. Mine were part of the quarter of a million Jews who were shot when the SS Einsatzgruppen (supported by the Wehrmacht) pushed through Ukraine at the opening of Barbarossa.
 
Back
Top Bottom