Historical Misconceptions That We Hate

Post Reply New Topic

Overall, I hate it when white nationalists treat the Roman Empire as though it was a "great white empire".

The Roman Empire was a multi-ethic empire ... and they had absolute contempt for the people of Northern Europe.

A lot of people ask me "Why do you even consider white nationalist rhetoric? Why not simply dismiss all racist theories just because they are racist?"

That's not what Socrates would say. I believe that, if something contains substance, but is factually incorrect, it should be debunked.

That's how the modern rise of the far-right will be dismantled. The left needs to listen to me here.

I'm not saying that racists should be allowed on this site. I'm saying that the leftists here should be willing to venture to other sites which allow that sort of nonsense.

Yes. Better to debunk their claims. Above all we should not silence them because they will use that as evidence of a conspiracy against them.

If we silence them it will seem to them like there's no valid argument against them. If we silence them it will seem to them like they have indisputable evidence which must be supressed rather than debunked.

Probably not all women, but many from my experience.

it's only stuff i gleaned from many documentaries i watched about him.
none of them was dedicated to showing hitler in a positive light.

i know he hated jews and saw them to be genetically inferior, and he wanted his empire free of them, but i think himmler spared him of the gory details.

goebels was the master of propaganda and was also an evil person.

i remember hearing in one documentary, that his personal train pulled up and stopped for clearance beside a train on the way to a death camp. he said after seeing their faces pressed up against the slotted windows "never expose me to that kind of sight again".

i do not know enough to have an argument about it.

The thing is, every Nazi lived to please Hitler, including Himmler. I seriously doubt he'd have carried out mass genocide without Hitler's knowledge. And in fact, Himmler's second-in-command, Reinhard Heydrich, had headed up the Wannsee conference where details of the Holocaust were worked out - - which was all recorded. True, it was Himmler and Heydrich who had worked out the details of gas chambers, but ultimately it was Hitler who bore most responsibility because he was the totalitarian autocrat. Also, one elderly German woman, whose husband was a higher up in the Nazi government, in a recent interview told how she had confronted Hitler with the mass murder in the camps. She recalled Hitler seemed hurt by her accusations as he told her that with the war, he had to maintain the biological balance in Europe with the mass exterminations. So he knew, and he approved, and had doubtlessly given the go ahead.

i agree, but he did not want to personally witness their plight. therefore he was not a sadistic killer, but a cold calculating person who said "i'll leave the details up to you"
i am certainly appalled at the plight of the jews.
having their businesses blacklisted and then confiscated by the nazi regime was fine with hitler.
being hoarded into ghettos where misery and starvation and disease made their lives hellish.
then being transported like cattle to an abattoir in trains straight to the death camps.

the misery of the living skeletons is hard to watch.

women and pretty little girls and also little boys and even babies were just shot in the head at first.
people who looked as german as the germans themselves.

how could the executioners bear the horrifying guilt of shooting a little 3 year old girl in the back of the head in a trench? as well as everyone else.

they generally could not do it, and only the sadistic soldiers could maintain the practice, but even they started to refuse to do it, and that is when gas was employed.
it is much more impersonal to have people walking into a room never to emerge alive from.

i wonder whether hitler himself could have aimed a rifle at an innocent child's head and pulled the trigger.
i think not.
but he caused it all to happen for sure.
but he had the protection for his conscience of never witnessing or engaging personally in these acts.

some normal people are capable of this.
people who liked to hear of the iraq war and thought "good riddance to all of you" would not personally have been able to carry the killing acts out.

people in the middle ages who flocked to see a beheading, were protected in conscience by not wielding the axe.
they often cheered, but if you picked any one of the audience and gave them the axe to do the job, i bet they could not do it.

snipers have a rather disturbing personality trait that allows them to zoom in on the head of a person and get very personal, and then, at the right moment, blow them away.

the guy who dropped the bomb from the enola gay on hirroshima knew what would be the consequence, but if you are not there to see it, i lends a shield of impersonality to it all.

i do not know really.

Charles Manson also didn't personally kill all those people he set his "family" on - he didn't want to see it, either - but he was just as responsible.

Use of poison gas on the battlefield is not the same issue as using poison gas in a sealed chamber to execute prisoners. On the battlefield poison gas is considered a "weapon of mass destruction" with hard to control collateral damage, and other issues. But as a means of capital punishment its actually considered "modern" and "humane" (like the electric chair,and lethal injection, and unlike archaic means like having a big dude with a big axe chopping your head off). The US Army has not used poison gas in combat since 1918, but many US states have gas as an option for capital punishment. Peaches to pears.

Also Hitler balking at using poison gas on the battlefield may have had more to do with practicality than with morality. In Europe the prevailing winds are westerly, and the western allies were attacking Germany from the west.

poison gas should never be employed at close range.
that is obvious.
but the v1 and v2 rockets that pummeled london could have been loaded with chlorine gas or mustard gas or cyanide or even plague bearing fleas.

no collateral danger.

the substance that kills people on death row by lethal injection is sodium thiopental.
it is an anesthetic which is kind of humane.

but you can not miscellate it or turn it in to an effective field gas.

i

"Dinosaurs were incredibly slow, stupid beasts because their brains were tiny, and that may even be the reason for their extinction". I used to hear this quite a bit until maybe the early 90's when scientists had learned more about dinosaurs and found that such a belief was rather undeserved.

"Bats are blind". I once knew a guy who even believed bats had no eyes.

"HIV and AIDS can be transmitted by mosquitoes". I once knew another guy who believed this and when I told him it wasn't true he claimed that's what "they" want your to think.

"Walt Disney's body was frozen." He was cremated. I'm no expert but I think it would be pretty hard to bring someone back from that.

"Women were never drafted or expected to fight on the battlefield; therefore, women were protected and not affected by war."

I even here this one right here on WP, and it's a sentiment that reflects both a poor understanding of history, and a privileged First World viewpoint.

Women might not have been in the "front lines"----but they certainly were in the "front lines" when it came to treating battlefield injuries both physical and emotional. All the way back through history.

At least as useful infantrymen---at least as much on the "front lines" as infantrymen.

"The Ancient Greek philosophers were all deep, introspective thinkers."

Nope. "Philosopher" means "lover of knowledge" in Ancient Greek.

Back in those days, "philosopher" was a more general term for "intellectual".

Socrates was (arguably) the first person who was a "philosopher" in the modern sense of the word.

Hearing aids completely correct a hearing problem. They are like glasses for the ears.

All people who use a wheelchair are totally incapable of walking.

All blind people are totally blind.

All deaf people are totally deaf.

I hate it when people say "The English language is degenerating! Look at how eloquent Shakespeare was compared to the average person today!"

Well ... that's what you get when you take one of the most exceptional people of one era and compare him to the average person of another era. I could easily prove the opposite point by comparing my English to that of a typical medieval peasant. I've never spoken to a medieval peasant, but I'm fairly certain that they threw around the c-bomb constantly.

Overall, I think that Shakespeare is a tad overrated. Was he eloquent? Yes. He was also an anti-Semitic, misogynistic, nationalist who inserted political propaganda into his plays. He was only human after all.

Rewriting history to fit political and social engineering agendas is reprehensible.