Article

2005-12-11 Fifth Column

Rooters: Not As Sure About Holocaust As They Used To Be

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-11 08:30|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 My guess is these reporters do not get out much. Prolly never made it to the death camps. In DC, we have the Holocaust Memorial, which is pretty convincing. Photos, films. I 'spose they could be faked by .... Nah, there's not enough computers. There's a whole corridor filled with shoes.......

Posted by Bobby 2005-12-11 09:19|| 2005-12-11 09:19|| Front Page Top

#2 "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance" - G K Chesterton

Posted by lotp 2005-12-11 09:45|| 2005-12-11 09:45|| Front Page Top

#3 I would bet the rooters reporters are muzzies. There sure are a lot of them as bylines. And I'd bet rooters is PC enough to have them on editorial desks by now as well.

Posted by Gleth Shaimp6654 2005-12-11 09:53|| 2005-12-11 09:53|| Front Page Top

#4 And while I am at it, another quote from that same annoying, in some ways bigoted but in other ways wise man:

"There is something to be said for every error; but, whatever may be said for it, the most important thing to be said about it is that it is erroneous."

and

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"

Posted by lotp 2005-12-11 09:53|| 2005-12-11 09:53|| Front Page Top

#5 this widely-accepted view

Can't wait for Rooters coverage of the flat earth society. We can anticipate Rooters refering to the Copernican-Galilean system of the solar system as just the "widely-accepted view".

Posted by Shorong Glomoter6136 2005-12-11 11:07|| 2005-12-11 11:07|| Front Page Top

#6 Shrong..lol! Probably the reason it is warming.

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance"
"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"

I don't buy either one of those. Both very dangerous half-truths if you ask me. Sounds like the kind of thing a muzzie would embrace.

Posted by 2b 2005-12-11 12:02|| 2005-12-11 12:02|| Front Page Top

#7 "this most widely-accepted view"
How folks can reshape history to their liking is maddening. A few years ago I walked through Dachau. A very sombering day, the ovens, the cells, the gas chamber, the watch towers and barbed wire. How anyone can say this never happened, needs to see this first hand.

Posted by Jan 2005-12-11 12:23|| 2005-12-11 12:23|| Front Page Top

#8 2b, Chesterton was indeed writing in the context of religious and cultural beliefs. And he thought that the "tolerance" that was being preached by the upper-crust post-Anglican class was indeed not based on convictions about the equal worth of all humans, or a commitment to freedom of speech and belief, but rather on a spiritual and moral emptiness in that class after WWI.

As in the quote often attributed to him, namely that those who do not believe in God (have specific beliefs) end up believing anything that comes along.

Sure sounds like the liberal ruling class in Britain today, and those they've influenced over 2 generations. Here, too.

Look at the "impartiality" of the MSM. How often does it reflect a REAL concern for the poor and the oppressed in Sudan, in Nigeria, in Zimbabwe? How often are the attacks on Christians by Muslims in Africa reported and commented on by our "impartial" and "tolerant" news media and public intellectuals (soi disant)? They don't know much about the topic - because they are indifferent to it. And their so-called impartiality leads them to find moral equivalences where they do not exist.

Ultimately "tolerance" as a virtue is nothing more than indifference, the suggestion that neither people nor principles matter, just the treatment of things in a superficial way that appears to value people and cultures but in fact couldn't care less about their actual identities, value or suffering.

The commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves is directed at concrete, specific humans - people with actual identities, habits that may annoy or frighten us, interests that conflict with our own. It's a hard thing to do, loving and valuing actual flawed humans.

Whereas "tolerance" is so easy that the members of the EU parliament accomplish it in the few minutes between signing in for the day to qualify for expenses and salary and leaving to carry on their self-satisfied lives in comfort and with a total lack of accountability for the results of their actions.

Posted by lotp 2005-12-11 12:41|| 2005-12-11 12:41|| Front Page Top

#9 Jan: for those who have never been there, an objective take on the appearance of Dachau today, is that it is comparable in some ways to the grounds of a suburban high school. As shocking as it sounds, the normalcy of the place amplifies its abnormality.

When arriving in town, it would be otherwise easy to miss the camp unless you were looking for it. It is not far away from the center of Dachau, not hidden in some back woods area, and yet no great outward sign makes it stand out.

The surface area of the camp is also deceptive. It seems far smaller than could hold its estimated peak of 60,000 prisoners. Even its design for 8,000-10,000 prisoners seems excessive for the space available. But that speaks only to the inhumanity of those that put them there.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-11 12:54|| 2005-12-11 12:54|| Front Page Top

#10 "Look at the "impartiality" of the MSM. How often does it reflect a REAL concern for the poor and the oppressed in Sudan, in Nigeria, in Zimbabwe?"

About as often as it reflected a "real" concern about Saddam's mass graves in Iraq, or the Taliban's brutal oppression of women in Afghanistan.

That is, a concern that was only "real" until-- God forbid-- a Republican president actually took steps to do something about the injustice.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2005-12-11 13:03|| 2005-12-11 13:03|| Front Page Top

#11 lopt - I agree with everything that you wrote. I think the meaning behind the quotes, which have expressed is right on.

However, it's the semantics that I disagree with. I still do not think Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.

I have convictions in my faith, yet I am tolerant of those who do not share it. I don't believe that my tolerance is due to indifference, but due to the understanding that I can not shape the convictions of others.

I often sit at the table with those whose views are nothing like my own. Views that I believe are ruining the gift of peace and prosperity granted by our forefathers. Yet it is tolerance that allows me to sit with them, in peace and share our humanity. Is that not the very gift of the forefathers? Throwing food at them and stomping out of the room everytime I feel like it would not solve any of the worlds problems - but aggrivate them.

Perhaps we just need to better define tolerance. Tolerance meaning that I submit to their view or their demands? Or Tolerance meaning that I put aside my desire to bring them to my own way of thinking.

Posted by 2b 2005-12-11 13:23|| 2005-12-11 13:23|| Front Page Top

#12 Okay, we're just into semantics here, but let me defend Chesterton's phrasing a little further.

To tolerate is better than to attack, but it is not a virtue by any means IMO. It implies a certain unspoken condescension - we tolerate things we don't find important enough to either embrace or to resist or even to enter into active dialogue with.

Toleration is passive, those other responses imply action and engagement, which in turn implies some degree of respect or at least recognition of the other person as warranting an response.

Posted by lotp 2005-12-11 13:54|| 2005-12-11 13:54|| Front Page Top

#13 It implies a certain unspoken condescension - we tolerate things we don't find important enough to either embrace or to resist or even to enter into active dialogue with

The truth of that made me laugh.

Toleration is passive, those other responses imply action and engagement, which in turn implies some degree of respect or at least recognition of the other person as warranting an response.

Hmmm.. I'm not sure that toleration is passive. It certainly requires great effort on my part when my family gets together
:-)

Posted by 2b 2005-12-11 14:07|| 2005-12-11 14:07|| Front Page Top

#14 just to clarify and avoid possible confusion: The truth of that made me laugh because that is indeed true!

Posted by 2b 2005-12-11 14:10|| 2005-12-11 14:10|| Front Page Top

#15 Hey everyone knows that Hitler and the Nazi's were created by the Imperialist Americans and their Zionist allies as an excuse to invade conquer and occupy Europe. It was all part of the plan.

Posted by C-Low 2005-12-11 14:32|| 2005-12-11 14:32|| Front Page Top

#16 Well, seems like Al-Reuters is reading the Al-Jazeera transcripts to the T. "This widely accepted view ..." as if that alone certifies its truth and without acceptance, somehow it just didn't happen.

Reuters runs with the same demented, Holocaust-denying crowd as does this pot-smoking, pole-smoking, male-anus rimming pro-Saddamite, Sodomite asshat:

POLE-SMOKING ANTI-AMERICAN

Posted by Floating Stone 2005-12-11 14:52|| 2005-12-11 14:52|| Front Page Top

#17 Hey everyone knows that Hitler and the Nazi's were created by the Imperialist Americans

A widely held belief in anti-semitic circles is that American Jews actually did fund Hitler to eliminate European Jews. All designed to demonize Jews, with token anti-Americanism thrown in. Sometimes, what you believe to be a joke, is assumed for truth in the twisted mind. Be weary.

Posted by Rafael 2005-12-11 18:53|| 2005-12-11 18:53|| Front Page Top

#18
I'm fairly sure that in today's PC world that we would not fight WWII were the facts the same today.

Genocide in Sudan. Canonization of Sadam. Nuclear Iran. Riots in France. Theo Van Gogh.

Question for the Democratic leadership: What is the threashhold for fighting a war?

Posted by Master of Obvious 2005-12-11 21:31|| 2005-12-11 21:31|| Front Page Top

#19 answer - if it provides a political advantage to the Democrats.

Posted by 2b 2005-12-11 21:34|| 2005-12-11 21:34|| Front Page Top

00:03 trailing wife
23:45 2b
23:39 Doitnow
23:36 C-Low
23:29 Frank G
23:27 .com
23:26 Rory B. Bellows
23:23 trailing wife
23:18 Oldspook
23:16 trailing wife
23:10 Frank G
23:09 Frank G
23:07 Oldspook
23:05 3dc
23:04 Frank G
22:46 Rory B. Bellows
22:42 Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu
22:39 3dc
22:39 Ember
22:38 Red Dog
22:37 Sgt. Mom
22:31 lotp
22:26 lotp
22:22 Glenmore