This subverse focuses on topics of interest to the Western world from politics to high culture.
Free speech is respected here. Just please observe the following:
Please click New to see the most recent submissions.
Is Voat a fed nest?
Very possibly. Particularly in the system subs where brigading is possible. But this sub is an oasis from it. Their downvotes will have no effect on your CCP here.
We reserve the right to ban anyone we deem to be disruptive without notice.
If you are observed calling another poster Jewish on Voat you will be banned in this sub.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] ago (edited ago)
I think the evidence is pretty plain that Nazi racial theory served geopolitical objectives when it came down to it. This was reflected in the fluidity with which Serbs were viewed depending on whether they served German strategic interests. When they didn't the preference shifted to Croatians - another group of Slavs ultimately viewed far more favorably. The general view of Slavs though was unsurprising given that the Nazis wanted their land.
This emphasis on superiority-inferiority is also a problem with them and of much of classical racialism in general. Though the Nazis took it to unusual extremes as even American eugenicists believed. Ultimately what was inferior was a matter of taste. And even German speaking populations in central Europe were being told they were inferior to the Nordic type. Perhaps this could plausibly be claimed on aesthetic grounds but in terms of technical or intellectual prowess there are too many other factors that go into human accomplishment (much of which even refutes a race based theory) to reduce it to something so simplistic. Speaking of the Nordic countries themselves I have never been massively impressed with them. In 1915 Sweden was probably more backward than Argentina. Nordicist racial fetishists, if they attempted to explain this at all, would probably ascribe this to some 'Nordic' component in immigrants heading there.
Unconvincing stuff. And ultimately one should not push something strongly unless he has a compelling reason to do so. Merely having something as an open question is not enough. And I think it fair to say that the Nazis often didn't even get that far.
[–] GimmeTheUsual 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Holy cow, civil discourse on a complex topic. Refreshing, honestly.
I do have a question if you feel like answering/elaborating.
I've been thinking about the conditions in which the Nazis kept their prisoners. There's documented accounts of experimentation and other atrocities. As for the mass-killings via gas chambers, I'm having a hard time reconciling how that would go down. There have been accounts about "showers" in which they were tricked into stepping into, then gassed.
I don't see how that would work if you have a holding area (you can't gas them all, so there is a some kind of interstitial containment) and suddenly your best friend who was going to the "shower" didn't come back after an hour or so. Were they that demoralized that they didn't have any desire to fight? To storm the gates and get shot instead of poisoned to death, even if the chances of surviving were remote?
Putting myself in that situation, if my friend didn't come back -- I would know something is up. The last thing I'd want to do is wait for my turn.
I'm getting the feeling that there were such things that took place, and are all horrible, but the narrative of millions upon millions being killed that way just doesn't compute to me -- unless they had given up completely and were shambling zombies. I know there were gulags where they basically starved to death, so perhaps that was a factor.
Any opinion on that? Is the gassing and whatnot decisively documented on the scale that is part of the mainstream narrative? Or was it limited instances used as leverage for some kind of victimhood play.
Yeah, I'm serious.
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] ago (edited ago)
I have read quite a bit of literature on the Holocaust from both the revisionist and exterminationist perspectives. I've also read some debates between figures from both sides most notably Zundel vs. Nizkor. Do I believe radical anti-Semites were capable of slaughtering Jews on an industrial scale? Yes. Do I think they did it in the way usually described? Possibly not.
I do think the exterminationists tend to get the better of the debates though and their side has the real scholars. I don't think there is a single revisionist with a history doctorate for example. But of course to some extent the development of a more solid revisionist cohort has been impeded by criminalizing and impugning it. If Germans were permitted to investigate their own history I suspect they'd deal the approved narrative more compelling blows.
This post is already getting too long but the takeaway is that I'm basically indifferent on the topic and even question how important it is. If that helps.
[–] Walk1 ago
That is a pretty rational response, but I do believe intellectual and technical prowess translate over into being able to practically effect things that lead to the production of highly, more complex, and more developed civilizations that are qualitatively better than those in other parts of the world.
Sweden might have been a backwards country, but that was given the time and it still produced some notable people, such as Carl Linnaeus, while non-white countries, outside of the Middle-East, South-Asia, and East-Asia, have not produced notable ideas, accomplishments, and inventions on a large-scale since the Medieval period(Middle-East) and in more recent modern times South-Asia and East-Asia have produced one or two geniuses but nothing on the scale of Europe.
I think creativity and inventiveness are also important characteristics and when you have great intelligence and technical skills it certainly lends itself to opening the door or inspiring greater creativity and inventiveness(it arises from greater intelligence and technical skills to say the least). I do think racial theories can get warped, but a lot of that is because empirical evidence for what exactly constitutes race in an archaic sense is not understood properly and whatever can be made of it is hit or miss, hear and there, and basically finding one missing link that proves essentially that race has some more archaic root and is not something that is more of a diffusion of different archaic races(which is what most people believe, when in fact it seems very unlikely that this is so; the white race is not a unified race either, which explains in part the warfare between different European states).
I certainly agree it was meant to serve a national and geopolitical objective and what the Nazis did to Slavs was so barbaric and uncouth that it phases the mind that one can consider the Nazis an honorable role model.
The main question I have is what are those other factors that go into human accomplishment(because I think its pretty straightforward that whites would dominate this department; it does not mean non-whites can't be good professionals, scientists, et cetera, but much less likely to invent and be inventive and less likely to be creative and to create and less likely to be original and to originate; its of course my opinion, but its somewhat in the stats/data and I suppose the question at the end of the day is have we found the missing link in race to hammer the final nail onto the coffin or is this a pipe dream that will never be solved(I do agree the naturalistic argument is essentially somewhat very much tenable, but at the end of the day its proof lies in empirical undertakings and kind of a brutish willing of something to an ends which could lead us right back to the Nazis and personally I am very much opposed to ethnic cleansing or genocide).
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] ago
For a more strictly environmental account of human accomplishment the popular go to guide is Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. I found it fairly compelling even as an avowedly anti-racist effort. It's a book that should definitely be read and pondered seriously.