Tuesday, November 27, 2007

questioning your questions.....

In 1950, Leo Strauss coined a name for a fallacy that has since come to be known as Reductio ad Hitlerum. This fallacy basically manifests itself in statements which follow this pattern, 'if Hitler (or the Nazis) liked/supported something, it must be bad/evil'. The inherently fallacious nature of this argument can be countered in a few simple strokes (do read the linked wiki article to know how you can too).
But what often happens is that Ad Hitlerum is inextricably combined with the Ad Hominem approach, manifesting itself as 'Hey! Hitler held some similar views, so you must be wrong!' and thusly, 'Hitler was evil, so if you hold those views you must be evil too.'
From personal experince, trust me, it gets worse than that. If i am in anyway supportive of Hitler, then for sure my views and opinions are bad/not bothering with, etc. etc. it is assumed "Oh! But you like Hitler" and that is supposed to make anything the other person, or the opinion he holds, right. Irrespective of what i may have said on the issue being debated. Or just being dismissive, 'Hah! you Nazi!' Well. I have faced it, fought it, countered it over the years, but in person only. But being online and blogging seems to give the wrong notion, so this is a way of asking those people who think like what is stated above, if they are as holier-than-thou as they think themselves to be. Judge not! They preach and go forth and judge. Well. There are some who would pass judgement on me in totality by judging one part of my whole.
Ad Hitlerum+Ad Hominem....ad nauseum. I get that a lot. Even that i can counter. And have. If "do to others what you would have them do to you" does not seem to be working, and from which point we all should start, i can too resort to "do unto others as others have done unto you." But nopes. I will not say here how it has been countered, because Ad Hominem implies that i use the belief of a particular person against him. And these 'people' keep changing, and so do the counter-arguments. But just because the people keep changing does not mean their comments or responses do. Having been through this a million times, it's like there is some script that these people follow.
Now even if you have remotely known me, you will know that Adolf Hitler was, is and will remain one of the people that i greatly admire. Those who have seen me at work, will know that my wallpaper(s) over the last many many years have been pictures of Hitler. I wear a badge of the NSDAP Swatika on my jacket which i wear almost all the time. And if the washing machine hadn't messed up the colours and the threading, i would still be wearing that Red NSDAP Swastika armband. You can say what you will, i will not apologise for admiring Hitler and some of the things he stood for.
Pat comes the reply. It's been so many hundreds of times that i automatically lean forward for the person to ask, and there it comes. 'What are you? Some sort of white (or aryan) supremacist? My answer. No. I'm not white, so why should i support those white rascists. Am better off supporting non-white, supremacy not included. And no. Aryan is not a race. Just a linguistic group if at all and one word that riles me when used before the word race. There is no such thing as Aryans, it was just a word meaning 'noble, virtuous' in the vedas, but one that was convieniently and successfully used by the British as a tool to divide and rule my country for two centuries. Whatever else he did, that pawn Max Mueller will not be forgiven for this, his complicity in the whole Aryan Invasion Theory, and the false Aryan-Dravidian divide, one that this land is still suffering from. It is taught as the gospel truth in our text books, but no, Aryan is not a race. So there you go. This (in brief) was the same reply i gave to one of the stormfront-affiliated sites who invited me to be member many many years ago based on some comments i had made/left on some site. After getting my answer, their reply was 'you're not welcome here anymore'. Funnily enough, this thing works both ways from where i'm standing as you have just seen.
Thusly, so on and so forth they go. Sometimes i defend, sometimes i attack. Some just get sucked into the quicksand they're standing on. And all this because they would judge me by something i love. Go right ahead. It's a good indicator ain't it?
This post is not to defend Hitler. He needs no defending. Neither is this post to explain why i admire Hitler, or how i came to like him, or anything even remotely approaching anything in the vicinity of me having to explain myself.
No! This post is for the self-righteous people who would question me. Who feel it is their right to question and to judge. I question your right to question me. I question your right to judge me. Based on one part of my whole. I question the very basis of your questions. And here are some of my questions for you. For once. You answer.
And no, just because the majority believes it doesn't make it right. More people think 'this' rather than 'that' does not make 'this' right. So here we go.
You say that me having the Kitler icon could be discomforting to some. Displaying the Swastika could mean that i am demeaning a whole people. Ok then. My first question (in my usual rambly way).
One of the first things that Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany tried to do when Germany took over the Presidency of the EU was to try and ban the Swastika. Because many atrocities have been committed under this symbol. Many peoplee have been killed in the name of all the things this symbol stood for. I ask you this? If that is the case, so be it. Ban it. But also do you realise that everytime you wear a cross in front of me, or i see a crescent on a mosque, how discomforting it would be to some. For if symbols have to be banned, why shouldn't it be The Christian Cross or The Muslim Crescent? So many people have been killed by the flagbearers of each of these symbols that the holocaust pales in comparison. We should ban these symbols too right?
More cultures have been laid to waste, more knowledge has been lost in the name of The Christ or based solely on Allah's words. The armies of Christendom and the battalions of Islamic invaders have destroyed more believing as they did in their brand of belief. Shall we then consider every Christian an evil man? And every Muslim too while we are at it? Hey. You remember that funny one-liner which goes, 'O lord! protect me from your followers!' But which lord? Both these lords just seem to have bred maniacs for followers, going by their actions throughout history. So. While we're at it. Can we also say Jesus The Messiah and Mohammed The Prophet are pure unadulterated evil, because genocide upon genocide was conducted? Honestly, (and this is off-topic) i think the last true Christian died on the cross (and then may be not, if Holger Kersten is to be believed, and if he is to be then The Christ was a Buddhist). So what's your answer?
And the Jews? I have nothing against them. The few that i have met have been very nice people. A couple actually told me once over at coffee house that they were tired of the sympathy that they got because they were Jews, and the 'glamour' like they were some kind of showpiece, tired of being 'eternal victims'. They are a hardy people, quite capable of taking care of themselves. A little too much sometimes. In a tenuous argument, would you agree that the Hitler effect hastened by far the formation of Israel? So the Jews should thank him right? You say Jews will take umbrage, let them. Did the Jews 'care' when they occupied Palestine? So why should anybody bother 'caring' for them?
I will stop at these couple of questions for now. Before i move on. Let us resolve this and what came before it in this post before we move on. So we won't have cross-issues and cross-debates. I intentionally do not have comment-moderation on (never have) because i do believe that you have a right to your opinion, even if i may not agree to it. And you should be able to say what you please, as long as you don't do it as an anony mouse. So use the comments section to have your say, and let's take the debate forward.


Multisubj Yb TruthSeeker said...

There is a strong need to investigate the links between India and Latvia-Lithuania-Old Prussia. There lies the key of migration of people from NE Europe to India or, India to NE Europe.


Anonymous said...

Dear Shenoy, it is not too late. Turn to our lord Jesus Christ before it is too late.

shenoy said...

Thanks for the comment and the link. I surely need to read more of all your other blogs.

Coming back, the investigation in a sense has been done. Most prominently Gimbutas and her Kurgan culture hypothesis. But then it has been criticised and somepeople would also term it obsolete in the face of new archeological finds and linguistic research. both of which are required to work together if we have to arrive at an absolutely irrefutable answer. which i do not think is forthcoming anytime soon. there are enough theories and hypotheses to support both the versions. though objectively it might seem that it is now slightly weighted in the favour of the out of india theory. thusly, in the light of there being equal evidence either way, it falls upon you what you want to believe happened. i fervently hope that Out Of India triumphs and the AIT is forever trampled into the dust where it belongs.

*Dear Anonymous
Thank you for your concern. Too late, two times? Let me know when it is in truth too late. Damn! i could make bad cracks...but i won't.

Sam said...

A very interesting thought about symbols being banned..as you said if we go on banning everything, there probably wont be anything left.

Counter arguments are fine, but judgement is not. You are entitled to your opinion. Doesnt necessarily have to be wrong just because its different.

shenoy said...

i agree. and the operative word being 'necessarily', which is the point most people miss.

and paradoxically, it's the people who're most vociferous about 'freedom of speech and expression' who can't seem to handle an opposing viewpoint. ah well.

nice to have you back Sam!