-
Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
I'm not surprised at Lithuania - I've made my judgment about this country long ago, what I'm wondering at is if the EU officials would swallow that as well? Doing nothing about this would bury my remaining illusions about European Union.
Source:
http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/2010/05 ... erminated/
The Klaipeda city court has acquitted a group of history enthusiasts for using posters with swastikas on them during the Independence Day parade on 16 February in Klaipeda. The court on 18 May ruled to terminate the administrative case against the four youth on grounds that the Swastikas used on the posters were photographs of an archaeological finding in Lithuania and initially the swastika was the sign of the sun.
“These are not Nazi symbols, but valuable symbols of the Baltic culture. The symbols of our forefathers, which were taken away, fabricated and crippled by other nations. It is not fascism, but the architecture of the universe that they represent,” Milvydas Jusakauskas, the defence counsel’s witness from Vilnius said as reported by BNS after the court hearing. reported after the court hearing.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
It's true that the swastika is actually an old Northern European symbol. In Sweden there are some swastikas on old buildings from the 1800s when it was fashionable to use as decoration. I think that's exactly why the Nazis selected that particular symbol - because they were obsessed with everything "aryan". It's tasteless to use it today though!
But it's not something that seriously upsets me... And besides, I have heard that a lot of people across the Baltic states area were quite pro-Nazi during the war --- I think a lot of people there saw it as a better alternative than becoming part of the USSR. A fair number of people there still support nazism --- at least according to the press.
Tons of the ex-Nazi Baltic people escaped to Sweden in 1945. However Sweden handed them back to the USSR on the basis of some agreement that existed. The USSR sent them to labour camps in Siberia. Some of them returned to the Baltic area decades later, but some never returned. It became quite a big scandal that they had not been allowed to stay. I remember a debate about it at university; because the whole question about what was right or wrong in a situation like that was interesting from an academic perspective.
I agree that the EU uses a lot of double standards when it comes to the Baltic states.. Imagine if somebody in Germany or Austria walked around with banners of swastikas! Besides being illegal there, the EU would become livid....
The Baltic states have also banned gay parades and certain types of political/historical comments. Plus they are discriminating against the Russian speaking minorities. All of this is completely against EU law. So individuals in those countries could sue their country in Brussels, if they wanted.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
I'm aware of the fact that swastika is an old symbol and it was used by many nations. Few people know that it has been proposed even for a Soviet coat of arms in the early 1920s. The origins of this symbol are lost in the dim past of prehistoric India. BUT. I've no doubts that those young men who demonstrated it in Lithuania used it as a Nazi symbol, not some 'historic legacy'. It's because of the Nazi this symbol became known to the Western civilization and in the minds of people its ties to the Nazi ideology are stronger than anything else. Now, it is a symbol of nazism and nothing else. It's forbidden in many countries but if this tendency is left unbroken I wouldn't be surprized to see this symbol on the Lithuanian national flag. Imagine their olympic team marching across some stadium under this banner :lol:
And I'm practically sure that no sanctions against Lithuania will follow from the EU.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
I agree with you, there are all sorts of strange goings on in the Baltic states that the EU really ought to look into; particularly the treatment of the Russian speaking people.
The Baltic countries are VERY keen to recieve EU funding, so they ought to make sure they follow the EU rules...
Frankly I don't really understand the Baltic people very well (although I have basically only met Estonians and Latvians, never Lithuanians). Have never worked with anyone from there and I don't have any friends from there, although I met quite a lot of Estonians at university. I have some distant relatives in Estonia but I have only met them a few times; hardly know them at all.
I have heard some really crazy political comments by people from there, but who knows what's behind it and how serious it is... ?
You can travel through the entire country on a tram.... Most citizens in the EU probably don't even know these countries are members...
:roll:
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
I heard that the swastika was first used with the open ends pointing to the left, and Hitler switched the direction, making the arms S-like. That's why he had all the bad luck. =:^0
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Is it illegal to display Nazi symbols in Lithuania? I tried to find information on the specific law there, but I came up with nothing.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika
I heard that the swastika was first used with the open ends pointing to the left, and Hitler switched the direction, making the arms S-like. That's why he had all the bad luck. =:^0
There were plenty of swastikas in history with ends pointing right and with ends pointing left, even in a single ornament you could find both and no universal agreement exists about the symbolism of swastika's arms direction. There're very interesting articles in wikipedia about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika_origin_theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Is it illegal to display Nazi symbols in Lithuania? I tried to find information on the specific law there, but I came up with nothing.
No, it's not illegal anymore, quite the contrary, it is now a part of their 'historic legacy'.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
No, it's not illegal anymore, quite the contrary, it is now a part of their 'historic legacy'.
Well, that's obviously what the court ruled, but I wanted to know the specific reason why they were in court to begin with. Which law did they break? I'm not an expert on Lithuanian law!
Proponents of Nazi ideology are among the most detestable people in the world. However, I don't support the banning of Nazi symbols, which I consider to be an abridgment of free speech. Although everything about neo-Nazism is highly offensive, I don't believe that people have the right to not be offended. On more practical terms, banning Nazi symbols doesn't eliminate neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi ideas. I believe that allowing these people to air their views in the cold light of day is the best way to deal with them. Let society at large see them for what they are: heinous people filled with ignorant hate and warped arguments. Let society publicly condemn them. The only thing that we can accomplish by banning Nazi symbols and/or speech is allowing a community to comfortably turn a blind eye to the ugly things that exist in the dark corners of society.
All that said, this court decision doesn't seem to be based on free speech grounds.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
No, it's not illegal anymore, quite the contrary, it is now a part of their 'historic legacy'.
Well, that's obviously what the court ruled, but I wanted to know the specific reason why they were in court to begin with. Which law did they break? I'm not an expert on Lithuanian law!
Proponents of Nazi ideology are among the most detestable people in the world. However, I don't support the banning of Nazi symbols, which I consider to be an abridgment of free speech. Although everything about neo-Nazism is highly offensive, I don't believe that people have the right to not be offended. On more practical terms, banning Nazi symbols doesn't eliminate neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi ideas. I believe that allowing these people to air their views in the cold light of day is the best way to deal with them. Let society at large see them for what they are: heinous people filled with ignorant hate and warped arguments. Let society publicly condemn them. The only thing that we can accomplish by banning Nazi symbols and/or speech is allowing a community to comfortably turn a blind eye to the ugly things that exist in the dark corners of society.
All that said, this court decision doesn't seem to be based on free speech grounds.
What can I say, your words do make some sense, after all, having many Nazis assembled at one time in one place makes a perfect opportunity... :evil: What about marches of SS veterans in Latvia (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52F3UB20090316) ?
As far as I know, Lithuanian parliament banned Soviet and Nazi symbols not long ago. Hammer and sickle are forbidden there too, by the way. Up until now, swastika had been forbidden also.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
What can I say, your words do make some sense, after all, having many Nazis assembled at one time in one place makes a perfect opportunity... :evil: What about marches of SS veterans in Latvia (
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52F3UB20090316) ?
As far as I know, Lithuanian parliament banned Soviet and Nazi symbols not long ago. Hammer and sickle are forbidden there too, by the way. Up until now, swastika had been forbidden also.
I think that those SS veterans should have the right to march. It's basic free speech. Fortunately, society also has free rein to heap scorn on them if they so desire. They can mercilessly annihilate the weak arguments of anti-Semites. They have the right to free speech, too. In an open society, the good ideas will rise to the top.
Of course, it's all very offensive, but that doesn't matter. "Offense" is subjective and if we start handing out the right to "not be offended", where does it end? Do Muslims have the right to not see cartoon depictions of Muhammad? Justifiably or not, some considered the Danish cartoons to be deeply offensive. The sight of a New York Yankees baseball cap deeply offends me. Can we ban those too? :D
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Well, free speech is a good thing, but what about legal statutes about forbidding the Nazi ideology?
What about denying Holocaust being considered as a criminal offense?
If everyone is granted free speech, why we don't see people on TV saying that Hitler was right, cannibalism is normal, child pornography is legal, etc? Freedom is freedom - everything should be legalized in this case...
Man... we need to draw a line somewhere and I'm sure you agree that Nazism is a thing that should remain behind that line.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
cannibalism is normal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_VNMF7He8E&NR=1
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
No youtube at work :( Will watch this at home. What is it about?
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
No youtube at work :( Will watch this at home. What is it about?
Mr.Freeman №4
Cannibalism is our unavoidable bright future.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
Mr.Freeman №4
Cannibalism is our unavoidable bright future.
Cannibalism is just an allegory here, the video is about competition.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Cannibalism is just an allegory here, the video is about competition.
:ROFL: :bravo:
Let's start a new [s:36y1s984]thread[/s:36y1s984] topic about Mr.Freeman's messages. "Mr.Freeman: what this all is about?"
Even linguistic forums should keep up with the times.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Well, free speech is a good thing, but what about legal statutes about forbidding the Nazi ideology?
What about denying Holocaust being considered as a criminal offense?
I completely understand why they have been enacted in various European countries, but I don't support such statutes. I think they accomplish very little.
Quote:
If everyone is granted free speech, why we don't see people on TV saying that Hitler was right, cannibalism is normal, child pornography is legal, etc? Freedom is freedom - everything should be legalized in this case...
I think that people should be allowed to say that Hitler was right, that cannibalism is normal, and that child pornography should be legal. But that is very, very different from actually enacting Hitler's policies or legalizing child pornography.
It is legal to say all of these things in the US, and yet you never hear these opinions espoused on TV. Why? Because they are ideas that have been thoroughly discredited and society has rejected them. You don't see pro-Nazi material in the media because TV stations have the right to show what they want. Society can regulate itself. People who spout pro-Nazi nonsense are quickly marginalized. There's no need for government interference, which accomplishes nothing other than the creation of an opportunity for an abuse of power.
Quote:
Man... we need to draw a line somewhere and I'm sure you agree that Nazism is a thing that should remain behind that line.
I draw the line at libel or public endangerment (the classic example -- yelling "fire" in a movie theater). I don't think that the government should regulate any other form of speech and that includes Nazism.
Again -- banning people from saying pro-Nazi things, or from denying the Holocaust, or from using Nazi symbols will not eliminate them. They will hold these very same opinions in private. It does nothing other than allow a society to feel better about itself and ignore real problems.
It's an attack on the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. Sometimes, giving up civil liberties in exchange for something else is a good trade. In this case, it sets a bad precedent on free speech without gaining much at all.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
You don't see pro-Nazi material in the media because TV stations have the right to show what they want. Society can regulate itself. People who spout pro-Nazi nonsense are quickly marginalized.
Ok. Imagine I've money and I bought Fox-News channel. I'm a Neo-Nazi and I tell them to start propagandizing Nazi stuff.
Will I get away with it? (I don't care if I'm marginalized).
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
You don't see pro-Nazi material in the media because TV stations have the right to show what they want. Society can regulate itself. People who spout pro-Nazi nonsense are quickly marginalized.
Ok. Imagine I've money and I bought Fox-News channel. I'm a Neo-Nazi and I tell them to start propagandizing Nazi stuff.
Will I get away with it? (I don't care if I'm marginalized).
Most of your employees would quit immediately (association with Nazism is a real career-killer in addition to the moral qualms they would have), there would be massive boycotts, and you wouldn't get a dime of advertising money since all companies would be heading for the hills. Cable companies would come under immense pressure from customers, politicians, and advocacy groups to drop your channel from their lineups. You'd be left with two options: sell or go out of business.
That's the thing with free speech. You are free to say what you'd like, but you have to accept the consequences. For something as grotesque as Nazism, even money and influence can't protect you from the backlash.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Most of your employees would quit immediately (association with Nazism is a real career-killer in addition to the moral qualms they would have), there would be massive boycotts, and you wouldn't get a dime of advertising money since all companies would be heading for the hills. Cable companies would come under immense pressure from customers, politicians, and advocacy groups to drop your channel from their lineups. You'd be left with two options: sell or go out of business.
That's the thing with free speech. You are free to say what you'd like, but you have to accept the consequences. For something as grotesque as Nazism, even money and influence can't protect you from the backlash.
Still I can broadcast. And propaganda works both ways. Why do you think that such strong anti-Nazi sentiments exist in the society? Because of the propaganda. Because they've been telling us a million times that Nazi are evil, etc. Bit by bit I can theoretically turn the tide and reverse the mechanism.
Freedom of speech you say? What about freedom of thought? Do you really think that media allows us to think freely and independently? They can make people believe that white is black and vice versa in no time at all. And that's why they forbid propaganda of Nazi ideas (or racism, or any other forbidden -ism). If a government promotes some 'virtues' or 'values' they must point out 'vices' also.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
It's a sensitive subject, Ramil. I myself am easily annoyed by all sorts of propaganda, violent or not. On the other hand, it's not so hard to hit a shifting target and create an "anti-nazi" nazi movement. All you do is demonize symbols of your opponents and pose yourself as a solution. Didn't nazi come to power on the wave of anticommunism? I'm not a historian, so forgive me my simplification. It's practically impossible to forbid attempts to manipulate the masses, but if you create an atmosphere where people don't try to prosecute you for your views, however outrageous they sound, that just may create a good immune system against extremism. So, I am with почемучка here, if that doesn't lead to riots or killings, people should be free to express their hate and sociopathic thoughts.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
That's the thing with free speech. You are free to say what you'd like, but you have to accept the consequences. For something as grotesque as Nazism, even money and influence can't protect you from the backlash.
Hmmm... In Stalin's USSR situation was the same: you were free to say what you'd like, but you had to accept the consequences.
But after Stalin the mechanism of providing consequences became not so effective and flexible as in USA, so USSR lost.
:angel:
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Still I can broadcast. And propaganda works both ways. Why do you think that such strong anti-Nazi sentiments exist in the society? Because of the propaganda. Because they've been telling us a million times that Nazi are evil, etc. Bit by bit I can theoretically turn the tide and reverse the mechanism.
No, strong anti-Nazi sentiments don't exist because of propaganda. They exist because of the fact that the Nazis rounded up and executed millions of Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and other "undesirables". And because they followed an extremely belligerent foreign policy that dragged half the world into a war.
On this particular issue, there's really very little you could do to turn the tide. You could try to broadcast if you bought a TV station, but like I said, your station would be off the air faster than you could say "Kristallnacht".
Quote:
Freedom of speech you say? What about freedom of thought? Do you really think that media allows us to think freely and independently? They can make people believe that white is black and vice versa in no time at all. And that's why they forbid propaganda of Nazi ideas (or racism, or any other forbidden -ism). If a government promotes some 'virtues' or 'values' they must point out 'vices' also.
How do you define "freedom of thought"? Our thoughts are inevitably influenced by our experiences in life. The media plays one part in that, yes, but only a minor one. Is my "freedom of thought" compromised only by the media? A large part of my identity and consciousness stems from my experiences with my family. Have my parents and my brothers infringed upon my ability to think independently? I guess I'm not quite sure what you are saying.
I think you are too cynical here. People can be persuaded that grey is black, but white-to-black? It seems that underneath your arguments lies a concern that people are too stupid and sheep-like to reject something even as extreme as Nazism, even in this day and age. If you are right and a large number of people can so easily be hoodwinked into supporting Nazism, then we're all screwed anyway, IMO.
It all boils down to two things:
1. When you give government the right to decide what is a virtue and what is a vice, you are playing with fire. There are myriad examples in history of government abuse in this area.
2. Banning the public expression of Nazi ideas doesn't do anything to eliminate Nazi ideas.
You're giving up personal freedom for nothing. It's a terrible trade; there's only downside.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
[quote=it-ogo] Quote:
Originally Posted by "почемучка":1mt09bwd
That's the thing with free speech. You are free to say what you'd like, but you have to accept the consequences. For something as grotesque as Nazism, even money and influence can't protect you from the backlash.
Hmmm... In Stalin's USSR situation was the same: you were free to say what you'd like, but you had to accept the consequences.
But after Stalin the mechanism of providing consequences became not so effective and flexible as in USA, so USSR lost.
:angel:[/quote:1mt09bwd]
That's nonsense. I was raised to believe that the US won the Cold War primarily based on the strength of our 1980 Olympic hockey team. :wink:
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Freedom of speech you say? What about freedom of thought? Do you really think that media allows us to think freely and independently?
I think the absolute champion of not-allowing-people-to-think-freely is a school. Start your criticism with them. The so-called 'evil media' is a mere logical consequence. :pardon:
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Ok. Imagine I've money and I bought Fox-News channel. I'm a Neo-Nazi and I tell them to start propagandizing Nazi stuff.
Will I get away with it? (I don't care if I'm marginalized).
(Please buy the Fox News channel, Ramil!! :D It seems like a terrible channel and anything you did with it would be vast improvement. You could be the political commentator....)
:yahoo:
Seriously; you probably couldn't immediately start pushing a neo-nazi agenda.
You'd have to be clever about it and GRADUALLY step it up month by month. Start with showing some neo-nazi group helping old people... Then show how the neo-nazis were the innocent victims of attacks by violent and yobbish opponents. etc...
Then after a few months of this neo nazis would appear like decent people to the viewers.... you'd be ready to start questioning some of the details of the holocaust....
A few years later you would have got to the situation were you could claim that the holocaust was a fake and neo-nazis are great people.... And many of the viewers might believe it.
Looking at actual examples:
Fox supports the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't they?
And they'd love the "good" USA to sort out super-evil Iran and North Korea too; and get some oil and reconstruction deals in the bargain, as with Iraq.
They show a very one-sided view of countries and peoples they don't like. You'd probably be furious about some of the things they say about Russia, for example!
Then they have constant advertisements to tell people to eat more, drink more, buy more stuff they probably don't need etc...
They push plenty of propaganda, they just happen to not be into neo-nazism --- it's not a profitable ideology....
I don't think there is any risk of Lithuania becoming seriously Nazi and I know that in most European countries it's ok for extremists (including nazis) to demonstrate if they want, so I don't think Lithuania is very different in that respect. The nazis usually get beaten up by anti-fascists as soon as the demonstration is over and the police protection disappears.
The swastika and nazi greetings are only illegal in Germany, as far as I know.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
No, strong anti-Nazi sentiments don't exist because of propaganda. They exist because of the fact that the Nazis rounded up and executed millions of Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and other "undesirables".
And who told you about this? What would have happened if the Nazis had won? Yes, 60 years after their victory you, American, what would you tell us about it? Every Nazi crime would have been justified. Winners write history, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
On this particular issue, there's really very little you could do to turn the tide. You could try to broadcast if you bought a TV station, but like I said, your station would be off the air faster than you could say "Kristallnacht".
Oh really? See Johanna's brilliant post. I couldn't have said better. Slowly and gradually, carefully I would 'clean up' their image and then justify their deeds. Really I could if I wanted and if I had control over the media. At least, the number of my 'supporters' would increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
How do you define "freedom of thought"?
Well, when nobody tells grownups what's good and what's bad. Ideally, as Crocodile said, children should also have such freedom but hell, they have to learn from someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Our thoughts are inevitably influenced by our experiences in life. The media plays one part in that, yes, but only a minor one.
I think you're underestimating the power of modern media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Is my "freedom of thought" compromised only by the media?
Yours? No, I don't think so, but there are quite a number of people whose 'freedom of thought' IS compromised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
I think you are too cynical here. People can be persuaded that grey is black, but white-to-black? It seems that underneath your arguments lies a concern that people are too stupid and sheep-like to reject something even as extreme as Nazism, even in this day and age. If you are right and a large number of people can so easily be hoodwinked into supporting Nazism, then we're all screwed anyway, IMO.
Yes, I am cynical if you want and yes, we're all screwed. And people can be persuaded in nearly anything. What, all Germans in the 1930s were evil? Have you watched "Triumph des Willens" (Triumph of the will) by by Leni Riefenstahl.
Look at the faces of people who greet Hitler, are they evil? Should they all have been exterminated? And yes, people are generally idiots (as some internet sources estimate the idiocy rate is up to 95%) :-D Oh, each particular individual can be quite smart but a crowd (and when we're talking of mass manipulation we're dealing with crowds), a crowd is as smart as the most stupid person in it is.
Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." And the soldiers gambled for his clothes by throwing dice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
1. When you give government the right to decide what is a virtue and what is a vice, you are playing with fire. There are myriad examples in history of government abuse in this area.
And yours is not an exception, by the way. And mine also :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
2. Banning the public expression of Nazi ideas doesn't do anything to eliminate Nazi ideas.
Yes, but their public flogging might teach the young something. (I'm only partially joking about this).
@Johanna, thanks, you've given a perfect example of my point.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
Let's start a new [s:3siobiwa]thread[/s:3siobiwa] topic about Mr.Freeman's messages. "Mr.Freeman: what this all is about?"
Even linguistic forums should keep up with the times.
Yes. I'm hungry.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Ok. Imagine I've money and I bought Fox-News channel. I'm a Neo-Nazi and I tell them to start propagandizing Nazi stuff.
Will I get away with it? (I don't care if I'm marginalized).
(Please buy the Fox News channel, Ramil!! :D It seems like a terrible channel and anything you did with it would be vast improvement. You could be the political commentator....)
:yahoo:
Seriously; you probably couldn't immediately start pushing a neo-nazi agenda.
You'd have to be clever about it and GRADUALLY step it up month by month. Start with showing some neo-nazi group helping old people... Then show how the neo-nazis were the innocent victims of attacks by violent and yobbish opponents. etc...
Then after a few months of this neo nazis would appear like decent people to the viewers.... you'd be ready to start questioning some of the details of the holocaust....
A few years later you would have got to the situation were you could claim that the holocaust was a fake and neo-nazis are great people.... And many of the viewers might believe it.
Looking at actual examples:
Fox supports the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't they?
And they'd love the "good" USA to sort out super-evil Iran and North Korea too; and get some oil and reconstruction deals in the bargain, as with Iraq.
They show a very one-sided view of countries and peoples they don't like. You'd probably be furious about some of the things they say about Russia, for example!
Then they have constant advertisements to tell people to eat more, drink more, buy more stuff they probably don't need etc...
They push plenty of propaganda, they just happen to not be into neo-nazism --- it's not a profitable ideology....
I don't think there is any risk of Lithuania becoming seriously Nazi and I know that in most European countries it's ok for extremists (including nazis) to demonstrate if they want, so I don't think Lithuania is very different in that respect. The nazis usually get beaten up by anti-fascists as soon as the demonstration is over and the police protection disappears.
The swastika and nazi greetings are
only illegal in Germany, as far as I know.
I'll grant you that this could maybe -- maybe -- work in a country where the government controlled the entire media.....and in a country that didn't have the largest Jewish population in the world.
It would not work in the US. Seriously. No chance. Nil. Nada. If a TV channel tried this strategy, this "gradual process" method would be tracked and criticized almost immediately. Remember, our hypothetical TV station doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are other TV stations, newspapers, magazines, advocacy groups who are trigger-happy with the "anti-Semite" label, etc. And I see you are in love with the all-encompassing "they" ("they" want this, "they" are doing that), the media is actually comprised of a number of very different people who happen to have very different agendas.
Any sort of pro-Nazi material from a major media company would instantly create a firestorm. There's no way anyone could quietly get away with this.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
No, strong anti-Nazi sentiments don't exist because of propaganda. They exist because of the fact that the Nazis rounded up and executed millions of Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and other "undesirables".
And who told you about this? What would have happened if the Nazis had won? Yes, 60 years after their victory you, American, what would you tell us about it? Every Nazi crime would have been justified. Winners write history, that's all.
Perhaps I would be telling it to you in German. :wink:
Nazi crimes would have been downplayed, but not justified. It's like long sad history between the United States and American Indians. Our crimes against them are acknowledged and people understand that the Indians were wronged. They aren't given their due, however, and we don't give the crimes the attention that they deserve. In this case history was most definitely written by the Americans -- what changed was a shift in emphasis, but there was no inversion of reality.
I know what you are trying to say, though. The Holocaust is a bad example because it's so black-and-white that it's pretty much impossible to "spin".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
On this particular issue, there's really very little you could do to turn the tide. You could try to broadcast if you bought a TV station, but like I said, your station would be off the air faster than you could say "Kristallnacht".
Oh really? See Johanna's brilliant post. I couldn't have said better. Slowly and gradually, carefully I would 'clean up' their image and then justify their deeds. Really I could if I wanted and if I had control over the media. At least, the number of my 'supporters' would increase.
Frankly, you and Johanna are incorrect on this issue. You haven't thought through the consequences of such an action. The backlash would come from many places and ultimately would destroy your plan. Johanna's example is a good case for why media shouldn't be consolidated in the hands of one person or organization, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
I think you are too cynical here. People can be persuaded that grey is black, but white-to-black? It seems that underneath your arguments lies a concern that people are too stupid and sheep-like to reject something even as extreme as Nazism, even in this day and age. If you are right and a large number of people can so easily be hoodwinked into supporting Nazism, then we're all screwed anyway, IMO.
Yes, I am cynical if you want and yes, we're all screwed. And people can be persuaded in nearly anything. What, all Germans in the 1930s were evil? Have you watched "Triumph des Willens" (Triumph of the will) by by Leni Riefenstahl.
Look at the faces of people who greet Hitler, are they evil? Should they all have been exterminated? And yes, people are generally idiots (as some internet sources estimate the idiocy rate is up to 95%) :-D Oh, each particular individual can be quite smart but a crowd (and when we're talking of mass manipulation we're dealing with crowds), a crowd is as smart as the most stupid person in it is.
The difference between 2010 and the 1930s is that in people in the 1930s didn't have a decade of Nazi history to learn from. Now, we definitively know a lot more things about Nazism. The picture was much more muddied with uncertainty in the early 1930s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
1. When you give government the right to decide what is a virtue and what is a vice, you are playing with fire. There are myriad examples in history of government abuse in this area.
And yours is not an exception, by the way. And mine also :(
And that's why I don't want to give them additional power!
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Pochemochka: Honestly, an American style media is the MOST efficient for pushing propaganda of any kind! All you need to get people to believe in you is: 1) Money and 2) Time....
And when you succeed in making people believe in you, then the results will be so much more efficient, since they believe they live in the "land of the free" with the freest press in the world!
I agree that some agendas might be harder to get people to believe in than others, and neo-nazism would be a hard one. But it's not in US financial interests to push that agenda anyway, so it's a non-issue.
But I am sure that if something is in the interest of the US economy (= big corporations), then the great majority of the American population will believe in it in a couple of years.. following media "campaigns". It's happened before!
And every single person doesn't need to believe in it -- just the majority. Then you simply marginalise those who don't support it.
---------------------EXAMPLES------------------------------------
1) It was "necessary" for the US to invade Iraq because it had WMDs and was a "threat to the US".... Yeah right...
2) Afghanistan: Invading it was supposed to fix terrorism... Has made terrorism worse, but been good for US business and misc. shady agendas.
5) Global warming is a hoax.. LOTS of Americans believe this propaganda. It doesn't suit US economic interests that people believe that there is environmental danger associated with our lifestyles.. So global warning is constantly challenged in right wing media.
4) 1960 insane paranoia about "communists" in the USA; portrayed as some evil plotting schemers out to "enslave" the USA under the USSR (or something similarly absurd).. Paranoia also about other countries in Asia and South America who wanted to try this ideology and had every right to do it without interference.
5) North Korea is a threat to the USA..... TONS of Americans believe that a country the other side of the globe, the size of a small US "state", with serious financial problems is a "threat" to the worlds' only superpower, thanks to channels like "Fox".
6) Iran, as above ----- only different ideology.. !
Oil (as opposed to geopolitics) is the motivation behind the "fear".
7) Obama is a socialist :lol: Common claim in American press.
---------------------------------------------
All this is propaganda --- If you think logically about it, it's all nonsense!
Lately there seems to be a tendency in Europe to jump on to these nonsense "threat" stories.
The dominance of English means a lot of continental European journalists use English speaking (American) sources as their main source of information on foreign countries. Plus there is no strong alternative to the US worldview, so they choose to "go with the flow".
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Pochemochka: Honestly, an American style media is the MOST efficient for pushing propaganda of any kind! All you need to get people to believe in you is: 1) Money and 2) Time....
And when you succeed in making people believe in you, then the results will be so much more efficient, since they believe they live in the "land of the free" with the freest press in the world!
I agree that some agendas might be harder to get people to believe in than others, and neo-nazism would be a hard one. But it's not in US financial interests to push that agenda anyway, so it's a non-issue.
Well, it's an issue in this little debate because you made an explicit claim that it would be possible to convince the American public to be pro-Nazi. That is specifically what I was arguing against. You are moving the goalposts here.
And yes, all Americans worship our press. :roll:
Quote:
---------------------EXAMPLES------------------------------------
1) It was "necessary" for the US to invade Iraq because it had WMDs and was a "threat to the US".... Yeah right...
2) Afghanistan: Invading it was supposed to fix terrorism... Has made terrorism worse, but been good for US business and misc. shady agendas.
I don't buy the "evil media" angle here. Iraq was a horrible idea that would have been bad idea even if the government didn't lie about WMDs. The media didn't nefariously pursue a conspiratorial agenda. The blame lies with the government -- the media simply reported on the available facts, which we now know to be complete BS. Afghanistan was also a bad idea, but I view that as more of a kneejerk reaction and panic move after 9/11. I think it's much harder to frame Afghanistan in the "Big Bad Corporations" narrative because there's not much financial upside to "friends" controlling the country.
Quote:
3) Global warming is a hoax.. LOTS of Americans believe this propaganda. It doesn't suit US economic interests that people believe that there is environmental danger associated with our lifestyles.. So global warning is constantly challenged in right wing media.
7) Obama is a socialist :lol: Common claim in American press.
Yes, intellectualism in American conservatism has taken a nosedive. FOX News is the most cynical "news" enterprise in the US. It's driven by ratings and they discovered that they do better with hysteria and hyperbole. At this moment in time, the conservative base is unhinged enough so that it all works. IMO, the American conservative movement is close to rock bottom... hopefully.
Quote:
5) North Korea is a threat to the USA..... TONS of Americans believe that a country the other side of the globe, the size of a small US "state", with serious financial problems is a "threat" to the worlds' only superpower, thanks to channels like "Fox".
6) Iran, as above ----- only different ideology.. !
Oil (as opposed to geopolitics) is the motivation behind the "fear".
Are you aware of the kind of people who run these countries?
North Korea isn't a direct threat to the US, but it is a threat to, say, South Korea. NK's economy is bad, but that just makes its nuclear weapons more dangerous. Unstable regimes often look to foreign policy and enemies abroad to distract the population. I see no problem with staunch opposition to North Korea.
Do you seriously think that the fear of Iran is primarily motivated by a secret oil agenda?
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
It would not work in the US. Seriously. No chance. Nil. Nada.
Arguing politics on the internet is like hitting your head into the wall so I just stay out. But I love this statement. It's so true -- Americans are special snowflakes that are completely immune to all forms of persuasion and propaganda. They are able to detect ideology like hounds and fight it (because Americans are 100% free of ideology and exist in a hermetically sealed environment).
And of course they are all extremely pro-Semitic and all-inclusive (as evidenced in pro-Israel policy which is a subtle form of pro-Palestinian policy :?). As well as pro- any-other-group-that-Nazi-Germany-sent-to-concentration-camps. All Americans love homosexuals, Muslims, and, given the nature of this forum, special mention goes to ... yes, you guessed it, communists. :-D
All of this is evident in the public policy and in how fiercely Americans fought the erosion of personal freedoms through a form of non-participatory politics (I assume this is a Ghandi-like refusal to engage in or care about politics in order to make a powerful statemet). :roll:
Just a bit of fun. No need to comment, please. I won't be replying.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
I don't buy the "evil media" angle here. Iraq was a horrible idea that would have been bad idea even if the government didn't lie about WMDs. The media didn't nefariously pursue a conspiratorial agenda. The blame lies with the government -- the media simply reported on the available facts, which we now know to be complete BS.
Actually, I remember distinctly, lots of reports that proved to be true, that no WMD were being found, from before the invasion. The weapons inspections teams of Hans Blix found nothing. And US administration/CIA were telling them where to look. Nothing. Nothing, and more nothing. Hans Blix reported afterward about being at the White House, just before the invasion. He was pointing out about the actual facts. A senior executive official told him "You will be discredited." This was from an interview I heard on the CBC, I believe, 'As It Happens'.
Fair enough. There's no question that this was an incredibly dishonorable and shameful episode in American history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartz
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
It would not work in the US. Seriously. No chance. Nil. Nada.
Arguing politics on the internet is like hitting your head into the wall so I just stay out. But I
love this statement. It's
so true -- Americans are special snowflakes that are completely immune to all forms of persuasion and propaganda. They are able to detect ideology like hounds and fight it (because Americans are 100% free of ideology and exist in a hermetically sealed environment).
And of course they are all extremely pro-Semitic and all-inclusive (as evidenced in pro-Israel policy which is a subtle form of pro-Palestinian policy :?). As well as pro- any-other-group-that-Nazi-Germany-sent-to-concentration-camps. All Americans love homosexuals, Muslims, and, given the nature of this forum, special mention goes to ... yes, you guessed it, communists. :-D
All of this is evident in the public policy and in how fiercely Americans fought the erosion of personal freedoms through a form of non-participatory politics (I assume this is a Ghandi-like refusal to engage in or care about politics in order to make a
powerful statemet). :roll:
Just a bit of fun. No need to comment, please. I won't be replying.
Ah, that was an excellent hit job based on an out-of-context content. FOX News is hiring, you know. :beer:
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Perhaps I would be telling it to you in German. :wink:
Not necessarily, but 60 years from the WW2 you (as well as the Germans) would say that 'yeah, there were some ugly moments, but right now we're (the Germans) are quite nice'. Or it could be as it is with Turkey - they simply do not know that they'd massacred a great deal of Armenians in 1915. Their history books simply do not have such information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
I know what you are trying to say, though. The Holocaust is a bad example because it's so black-and-white that it's pretty much impossible to "spin".
Perhaps, perhaps no. Anti-semitic propaganda would be a first step. I think you're a bit too optimistic saying that this is impossible. People are the same anywhere and anytime. I've an example - ex-USSR countries. I was born in a country where people were told (from the earliest childhood) over and over again about 'the friendship between the peoples'. On it's coat of arms there were 15 variants of the same slogan written in all republican USSR languages. It really didn't matter in USSR who was of which ethnicity. And see what happened - in a matter of couple of years decades of such propaganda evaporated and different ethnicities started butchering each other starting many civil wars on the outskirts of the former USSR. Remember that before all this three generations had been brought up with the idea of 'friendship between the peoples'. I think that antisemitism and racism ARE possible in USA as well as in any other country. And despite me preferring to think otherwise I think that such feelings are the most natural for crowds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Frankly, you and Johanna are incorrect on this issue. You haven't thought through the consequences of such an action. The backlash would come from many places and ultimately would destroy your plan. Johanna's example is a good case for why media shouldn't be consolidated in the hands of one person or organization, though.
I think that US media IS consolidated in the hands of one organization even if it looks like otherwise. Well, maybe I will re-phrase - the monopoly on certain information makes the manipulation of US media pretty easy. After all, if a US state secretary will make a public announcement it will be displayed and printed everywhere. And if he would be bullsh|tting people nobody would notice or even if someone would nobody would listen to him.
-
Re: Lithuanian court defines swastika as “historic legacy”
I think we need to agree to disagree on the Nazism issue. Really, I agree with a lot of your underlying points, I just think that particular cultural factors in the US prevent a hypothetical "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" situation on this particular issue. But, clearly I haven't been effective in convincing anyone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I think that US media IS consolidated in the hands of one organization even if it looks like otherwise. Well, maybe I will re-phrase - the monopoly on certain information makes the manipulation of US media pretty easy. After all, if a US [s:28v2uya8]state secretary[/s:28v2uya8] secretary of state (always rendered this way) [s:28v2uya8]will make[/s:28v2uya8] makes a public announcement it will be displayed and printed everywhere. And if she ( :pardon: ) [s:28v2uya8]would be[/s:28v2uya8] is bullsh|tting people nobody would notice or even if someone would nobody would listen to him.
Well, it sounds like the problem lies with the US government more than the media. (I suppose that makes things even worse...) I don't want to suggest that the US media is blameless. These days, there are too may reporters who have cozy relationships with politicians and officials in a desperate quest for access.
I think it's worse with foreign affairs -- which makes sense, considering that that's the area in which the government has a monopoly on certain information. The domestic scene is also very messy, but at least there the liberals and conservatives tend to balance each other out.
