"Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser", I thought was a quote from Lenin; besides which, German "Kontrolle" doesn't normally translate into English as "control", but as, "to check", in which case the saying is not as unreasonable as we are given to understand. A more accurate translation and interpretation might be: it is good to trust someone, but necessary, from time to time, to check that they are in fact trustworthy. Or should taxes be collected and benefits paid on trust alone?

"No reasonable person will doubt [the German justice minister's and EU justice commissioner's ] good intentions" in wanting to ban Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols, Mr Garton Ash maintains. Well, I do doubt (question) their intentions, and with good reason.

If you want to promote something or someone (perhaps yourself) a very effective, but dishonest, way of doing so is to associate it (them or oneself) with something (or someone) indisputably positive. The advertising industry understands this very well, as they demonstrated most callously and immorally (although perfectly legally, of course) in advertising cigarette brands and associating them, and smoking itself, of course, with attractive, healthy people, beautiful landscapes, nature, positive attitudes, ideas, lifestyles etc. It helped them hook and keep hooked 100's of millions of people on the health-damaging - for many, lethal - habit of cigarette smoking, earning billions of dollars annually for the tobacco industry and its collaborators.

Politicians, who depend on having a positive public image, do it as well, of course, associating themselves with positive (and/or popular) causes, ideas, attitudes, ideologies etc.), not because they passionately believe in them (although they may do, of course), but because it will promote their public image and self-interests.

Is this what is motivating the German justice minister and her EU counterpart? I have no way of judging. But for Timothy Garton Ash to write that "no reasonable person will doubt [their] good intentions" is quite ridiculous and causes me to doubt his competence as a political commentator.

Its not just advertisers and politicians who use this device either. To some extent we ALL do. It's programmed into our behaviour to seek acceptance and approval and improve our standing within the social group(s) we depend upon. If that means distorting or hiding the truth (about what we really feel and think, for example), telling untruths, or even lies (if we believe we can get away with it), there is a strong, natural inclination for us to do so. When it is particularly opportune for us to adopt a cause, attitude, opinion, ideology, or whatever, we are even able to convince ourselves of its worthiness and our own sincerity (rationalizing away any contradictions or irrationalities), despite our primarily (subconscious) motive being self-interest (which may or may not be harmless).

It is this behaviour that causes people to separate and coalesce into political groupings somewhere within the political spectrum. Naturally, and self-servingly, most politicians (whose livelihoods depend on it) want to be close to the centre, while still emphasizing how much they differ, in some respects at least, from their political rivals (any differences will do, but the more emotive and popular in their own grouping the better).

I'm more in sympathy with the Guardian's ethos than with that of the Telegraph, for example, but I often find myself questioning its writers' and editors' subconscious motives; whether their primary concern is for the noble ideas, causes etc. they champion, or for promoting themselves and their standing in the community of "progressive" leftwing liberals?

I have strong doubts about anyone (including Timothy Garton Ash) whose professional standing (and success) depends on his or her public image; although, to some extent, it compromises us all, I'm sure. The Question is, to WHAT extent? Without knowing the individual very well, it is impossible to judge.

There is also a big difference between those who knowingly and dishonestly manipulate their image and those who do so without realizing it. But how do you tell them apart, especially when again it is something we ALL do consciously to some extent?

And here's another important example of the same pernicious device at work: I believe that allowing mass immigration into our natively overpopulated country and the creation of a multi-racial/multicultural "melting pot" of a society was MADNESS, but those with a financial (economic), socio-political or ideological interest in it have succeeded in associating it with all kinds of positive things (who can deny that interacting and getting on well with people of very different ethnic and cultural backgrounds is a heart-warming experience?), while associating anyone who opposes it with xenophobia, racism and fascism.

I was going to write something about the (stupid) proposal to make Holocaust denial illegal, but think I'd better leave it now for my next post.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with [supermollusc] when he says, "It doesn't matter how egregious someone's opinions about historical events are; once you ban them from expressing them you've lost the argument".

When the Israelites took possession of the Promised Land, all its previous inhabitants (men, women and children, even their animals) were put to the sword. If they'd had gas in those days, perhaps they would have used that. It would have been less messy and the result would have been the same: genocide (for the Canaanites a Holocaust), recorded and celebrated in the Old Testament. Of course, it happened a long time ago, when such behaviour was more acceptable - but it still wasn't very nice.

I hasten to add that I'm a Judophile, even a bit of a Zionist sympathize, but I also have a desire for the truth and for justice.

I do not like the way that some Jews, and many non-Jews, use the Holocaust as a badge of honour to display to the world their OWN supposed humanity and worthiness. Nothing seems to suit them better than having a few Holocaust deniers, or supposed faschist or racists to bash and demonstrate their prowess on. It has a lot to do with what I wrote about in my first post.

Banning Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols would be a very stupid and counterproductive thing to do.

An essential characteristic of the truth is that it does not need to be defended by force (or the law). It's only untruths and lies which need that, and is characteristic of them. If Holocaust denial were banned by law, it would prompt me to doubt its truth myself!

Just look at the way good science has progressed against the false teachings and dogma of the Catholic church, which, when it could, it defended with force. It took a while, but even against the might of the Catholic church (and it was once mighty indeed) the truth won out and Galileo, Darwin, etc. were vindicated.

My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org