Nationalism & Free Thought

[Loki]

This topic has triggered my interest as of late, and I briefly touched on it here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=137498&postcount=162).

We know from history, that when German Nationalists came to power, there occurred book burnings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings):



The Nazi book burnings were a campaign conducted by the authorities of Nazi Germany to ceremonially burn all books in Germany which did not correspond with Nazi ideology.


Censorship of political expression seems to happen often, and appears to be a tit-for-tat thing. Nowadays the ideological descendants of the book burners are campaigning for freedom of expression with regards to the Holocaust, and a few other matters such as race. In other words, it is a double standard.

In your view, where do you stand with regards to this?

[anonymaus]

The destruction of books is an attack on knowledge, on thought, on expression, and on man's mind. If your ideas are so weak that they cannot survive any conflict with others, then they are not likely true.

Demagogic nationalism is one such strain of virulent ideas.

[Black Turlogh]

As a person whose very existence revolves around an inherent, burning desire and need for creative expression, the thought of being barred from this freedom is a tragedy worse than death.

[Tony]

I believe in the "struggle between ideas" so one idea can't fight handcuffed i.e. censored , I strongly believe in the freedom of speech and that only an open debate brings to the truth , I for first couldn't support an idea I think of as false/biased , it would mean lying to myself.
I believe the truest ideas in the long run win the audience throu an open and free discussion , can't stand the ideas imposed by censorship.
Behaviours and political actions should get censored , not ideas.

[Anthropos]

First of all, I am not a nationalist, but the question of censorship is broader than that.

It must be taken into account that democracy has certain pernicious effects on the 'intellectual climate'. In its train follows a levelling downwards of the entire 'debate', as mediocre reasons take up much more time and space than highly qualified reasons. With the illusion that each one of us has participated constructively in building up that 'debate' is created yet another illusion, namely that of 'public opinion', and by this, mediocre reasons gain something like an appearance of factuality. Democracy also gives rise to the illusion that the demos has always deserved whatever result democracy brings about, since, according to the democratic idea, it was the demos that brought the result on itself. This, however, is absurd and incorrect, since, from an intellectual point of view, there can never be an intellectually coherent demos. Whoever said that democracy is the tyranny of the majority was onto something, but the negative effects of it strikes against each and everyone in such a system.

I am in favour of 'free speech', meaning that I think that anyone should have the 'right' to voice his opinion (thus taking the risk of making a fool out of himself), but I am against democracy and the so-called 'free media'.

[Thulsa Doom]

This topic has triggered my interest as of late, and I briefly touched on it here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=137498&postcount=162).

We know from history, that when German Nationalists came to power, there occurred book burnings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings):



Censorship of political expression seems to happen often, and appears to be a tit-for-tat thing. Nowadays the ideological descendants of the book burners are campaigning for freedom of expression with regards to the Holocaust, and a few other matters such as race. In other words, it is a double standard.

In your view, where do you stand with regards to this?

Hey Loki, the Nazis was just a populistic revenge party. It is true that nationalism was a big part of their ideology, but the book burnings, marches and other things was more a part of the show. Nationalism came to power much earlier in Germany with the beginning of the 1848 upheaval and later put in system by Bismarck.

What the Nationalists did do was to put a bias in the cultural range. One example of that is the 19th century invention of Shakespeare by the English Nationalists, some people still believe in that.

[Poltergeist]

I am in favour of 'free speech', meaning that I think that anyone should have the 'right' to voice his opinion (thus taking the risk of making a fool out of himself), but I am against democracy and the so-called 'free media'.

"Free media" usually means those who have money, therefore can own the media, terrorizing everyone else with their views.

[Lahtari]

We know from history, that when German Nationalists came to power, there occurred book burnings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings):

Censorship of political expression seems to happen often, and appears to be a tit-for-tat thing. Nowadays the ideological descendants of the book burners are campaigning for freedom of expression with regards to the Holocaust, and a few other matters such as race. In other words, it is a double standard.

LOL, that's because those people are/were one-eyed fanatics, not because they're nationalists. :p

How I understood that Brännvin's sentence you linked, is that if a nationalist would create a nationalist board for nationalists with the purpose of discussing issues concerning nationalism, they might not approve arguing with people with opposing views and would rather ban them with the message "We're not interested. Go hug a foreigner." ;)

[Svarog]

Famous burning of books by Germans is not the only time they show their weakness, in a very similar manner, Germans, knowing how Russian low class citizens likes vodka which was almost impossible to find during the siege, offered a bottle of vodka to every Russian who brings a book to be destroyed, many priceless piece were destroyed that way, partly by scared Germs, partly by weaken will Russians. It's almost sensible to say after Alexandrian fire, WWII was the second biggest burning of written knowledge, totally off topic tho.

[Tabiti]

In your view, where do you stand with regards to this?
Manipulating people's minds in such way is pure totalitarianism. I don't agree with such regimes myself, however sometimes this is the only way to reach something for your country nowadays. People can't think by themselves, so they need leaders - medias, corporations and celebrities in the so called democratic societies, politicians in the totalitarian and chieftains in primitive ones.
The ideas of ideal, free society can't be realized on this level of development of the human race.

[Liffrea]

A few from John Stuart Mill sum it up for me:

“No one can be a great thinker who does not recognise that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Truth gains even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.”

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”

“This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom of opinion and sentiments on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological.”

Nice sentiments, and one’s I share, yet I believe that Frank Herbert was right when he wrote this:

"Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy."

All government is, essentially, the imposition of the values of the few over the many, maybe Mill’s society, however desirable, is, ultimately, impossible, at least for any length of time….

[Tony]

"Free media" usually means those who have money, therefore can own the media, terrorizing everyone else with their views.
I thought free media were the Internet forums like this one for instance , websites and communities that need a very small amount of money to get set up , if compared with classic media like TV channels or newspapers.:rolleyes2:

[Tabiti]

This forum is not exactly free for its owners;)

[Svanhild]

We know from history, that when German Nationalists came to power, there occurred book burnings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings):

Censorship of political expression seems to happen often, and appears to be a tit-for-tat thing. Nowadays the ideological descendants of the book burners are campaigning for freedom of expression with regards to the Holocaust, and a few other matters such as race. In other words, it is a double standard.

In your view, where do you stand with regards to this?
What a tricky posing of a question. :) Freedom of speech is important but there should be borders to prevent antagonistic ideas concerning state and folk to establish themselves and to corrupt the mind of naive citizens. We all know that words can be stronger than blades and the state of neglect of our people is the result of a deluge of sh** for the brains from 1945 till today! Please visualize that our media are the opinion-forming authority of our time. They keep our people stupid and reiterate virulent cogitations on nation and folk, or better the refusal of these settings.

In a hale and hearty patriotic country acts against the country and the people are persecuted as treason or high treason. I think that writing articles and books whose content supports the mutilation of folk and fatherland is a form of treason and should be penalised by the authorities. Is the burning of books a good solution or not? I can't put my finger on it. But it's the outmost form of showing strong damnation and strong damnation is needed every now and then to make the opposite side understand.

Famous burning of books by Germans is not the only time they show their weakness, in a very similar manner, Germans, knowing how Russian low class citizens likes vodka which was almost impossible to find during the siege, offered a bottle of vodka to every Russian who brings a book to be destroyed, many priceless piece were destroyed that way, partly by scared Germs, partly by weaken will Russians.
Why are we weak for you? Not the ones who have such ideas are weak but those who fall for it! :wink

[Poltergeist]

I thought free media were the Internet forums like this one for instance , websites and communities that need a very small amount of money to get set up , if compared with classic media like TV channels or newspapers.:rolleyes2:

Didn't you notice my quotation marks?

[Svarog]

Why are we weak for you? Not the ones who have such ideas are weak but those who fall for it! :wink

Read me carefully, I did not say you are weak, I said Germans were weak, their believes were apparently weak and unstable if they had to draw drastic measures like that.

Stalingrad, Russians breaking the front and Germans holding only the dockside, at the same time Hitler and Goebbels have nothing better to do than lie how Stalingrad has fallen under the German rule, record a movie to boost the spirits and burn books?

Why work on ideological and not practical if you're confident and strong?

Why destroy cultural heritage, especially when I consider Germany and Russia the richest nations judged by literature?

And in the end - Germany DID fall for it by having a Red Flag waving over Berlin.

No wonder tho, when, starting with Hitler, everyone in the top of the Reich were damn cowards (excluding Rudolf Hess who was a true hero)

[Svanhild]

Read me carefully, I did not say you are weak, I said Germans were weak, their believes were apparently weak and unstable if they had to draw drastic measures like that.
That's sort of an ignorant sentiment. If you call all of this a weakness then how do you label the current situation of your countries? Book burning was merely a ritual of a few people and had no significance for the entire population. You're apparently badly informed: The beliefs were strong and stable till the very end of the war and the reeducation of our mindset started afterwards. Irrespective of the plain fact that I condemn our war crimes I believe that a strong faith in the strength and worth of the own folk and the will to keep it clean is not a sign of weakness but of fortitude. Not our beliefs were weak but our manpower grew weak after half of the globe took the gun against us. :wink


Stalingrad, Russians breaking the front and Germans holding only the dockside, at the same time Hitler and Goebbels have nothing better to do than lie how Stalingrad has fallen under the German rule, record a movie to boost the spirits and burn books?
Huuum. It's no German feature, the first casualty in war is truth. :rolleyes2:

[Brynhild]

I find the very idea of totalitarianism to be abhorrent to the human psyche. The burning of books simply proved that the Nazis were afraid of anything that went against their ideology. It's also a sacrilege and I liken it to the burning of the library of Alexandria in Egypt.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Germany in the 1930s and 40s was more a function of time & place. The monarchies that had ruled central and eastern Europe for centuries had just been brought down suddenly as a result of WWI. The communists were determined to take over 'by any means necessary', and there was no sizable 'center' or constitutional or other mediating power, so the NSDAP was able to consolidate anti-communist support by being the most vocal and violent opponent of the communists. All the participants in both world wars had extensive wartime 'propaganda' operations.

In modern countries, the wide variety of sources available makes it essentially a nonissue.

As regards to private venues, naturally they will restrict speech which opposes or disrupts their mission. A church will not allow atheists to come in and shout "god doesn't exist", a gay rights group will not allow religious radicals entry, McDonalds will not allow Burger King salesmen, and so on.

[Svarog]

If you call all of this a weakness then how do you label the current situation of your countries?

I don't have countries, I just have one country, so please tell me on which one you refer and I'll answer.


The beliefs were strong and stable till the very end of the war and the reeducation of our mindset started afterwards

That is not the point - were they or were they not, the point is being paranoid are they or are they not.


Huuum. It's no German feature, the first casualty in war is truth.

Nah, been in few wars, this is a huge misconception, a need to lie to cover your weakness or losses and in the end it costs you a war and a defeat, of course, sometimes lies do work out, in the case of my country on which you referred earlier.

[Anthropos]

First of all, I am not a nationalist, but the question of censorship is broader than that.

It must be taken into account that democracy has certain pernicious effects on the 'intellectual climate'. In its train follows a levelling downwards of the entire 'debate', as mediocre reasons take up much more time and space than highly qualified reasons. With the illusion that each one of us has participated constructively in building up that 'debate' is created yet another illusion, namely that of 'public opinion', and by this, mediocre reasons gain something like an appearance of factuality. Democracy also gives rise to the illusion that the demos has always deserved whatever result democracy brings about, since, according to the democratic idea, it was the demos that brought the result on itself. This, however, is absurd and incorrect, since, from an intellectual point of view, there can never be an intellectually coherent demos. Whoever said that democracy is the tyranny of the majority was onto something, but the negative effects of it strikes against each and everyone in such a system.

I am in favour of 'free speech', meaning that I think that anyone should have the 'right' to voice his opinion (thus taking the risk of making a fool out of himself), but I am against democracy and the so-called 'free media'.

I'd like to add to this that nationalists generally do not want to make any improvements to the intellectual climate, in my opinion. By 'nationalists' I refer not only to a few of them on The Apricity but to nationalists in general including the majority of them in my country as well as the parties that represent this ideology. Nationalists only want to employ exactly the same methods of brainwashing that are already in use by governments and so-called 'free media' in the West.