sbs and the nazis eugenics

[withdrawl clinic]

i get pissed off by sbs, programing sometimes two shows a day, how the nazis were monsters.

most docus regarding the 2 ww are not only biased (winner tells the history) but outright done by people who are in denial (JUST THE SAME AS HOLOCAUST DENIERS).

 

the presenters hold no qualifications, and because of the topic of the subject, no body is likely to stand up and critizise them for making up stories.

 

story1, the most popular untrue story. hitler did'nt shake jesse owens hand because he was black.

truth is, hitler did only shake hands with athlets who won gold for the 3 reich.

nazis were not racist like the american, they had many black people in the armies, and belived that the australien first nations people are the leader race of the black people.

 

story2, america is portrayed as, having saved many jews, like einstein went to america. america closed it's border to jews and asians and slaws and sint, and and.

 

story3, they killed and experimeted with humans, the nazi the moster, thats all the say, and it's true they were monsters, but those sbs docus, never tell you who educated them, to those crimes.

if a person preaches a dogma, which suggests to harm people, those people are as well responsible for the harm that is the result of there teachings.

the people who educated the nazi monsters, to kill the feable minded, and people who they thought were not racialy pure, are in fact brits and amarican.

they are darwinians, and created the idee of EUGENICS. GALTON, darwins cousin, invented eugenics, and as such holds partly responsibilety for the holocaust and the killing of sinti, roma, wittness of jehova, homosexualls, epileptics, and many gene transmited disease. there is footage of roosevelt, saying he envies germanies laws.

 

now, i am against eugenics, and i was allways against the nazis, but i hate it if, the history gets told wrongly.

 

i will writte more about this, but have run out of time for now.

 

america, has sterilzed black people with out ther knowledge, till quite recent.

the methode was the same as done by the nazies, produce some paper work and sterilize....

rape victims, were processed by saying they were promiscuos and feable minded and for the good of the country, need to made sure to not have offspring

 

.

 

[fyzygy]

The best documentary I've seen on the holocaust is the 9- or 10-hour film (in 2 parts) called Shoah. In it, the industrial mass transit system (i.e. railroads, with their clockwork schedules etc.) is briefly discussed as one of the enabling conditions of the Nazi extermination programs. 

The German folk were primed for dictatorship by the pre-existing structures of patriarchal religion, according to a chapter in an out-of-print book, The Misery of Christianity. 

Neither of these factors is exclusively "German" in origin or application. Western culture more broadly, is implicated in various programs of extermination (and of mass-extinction, in the post-WWII period). The United States, clearly, is no exception. 

My only objection to holocaust commemoration is that it serves to function as a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for the Israeli state and Hebrew religion, both of which conduct some fairly atrocious business as a matter of course -- in my opinion. 

Only an imbecile would maintain that the Nazis held a monopoly on totalitarianism, or racist oppression. 

As John Pilger says of the war in Ukraine, nothing coming from the western media should be taken at face value. 

 

I do hope this thread doesn't degenerate into another flame war. 

[Cubism]

Just out of curiosity WC, are you talking about SBS in general, or the Viceland channel?

 

And fyzygy, I totally sympathise with your reference towards Israel (and Palestine implicitly I guess?). Its something very close to my heart. For the sake of keeping things peaceful and diplomatic, I'll only say two things. 

 

It's amazing the amount of clickbait trash on SBS these days generally speaking. 

 

It's amazing that fascism can be inherited by the very victims themselves of fascism. 

 

Time to shut up now  

 

[fyzygy]

18 hours ago, Cubism said:

It's amazing that fascism can be inherited by the very victims themselves of fascism. 

 

I think we're *all* liable to totalitarian thought and behaviour, the products of internalised oppression. I'll leave it at that.

[Freakosystem]

My predominant concern with misrepresentation of facts surrounding the nazi regime is that it gives credence to nazi sympathisers and undermines the genuine and disgusting atrocities that did occur. Morality may be a philosophy but facts are the foundation of the moral landscape that we must all agree upon or else we're simply having two different arguments.

[fyzygy]

I don't think anyone here is denying the holocaust, or sympathising with the Nazi regime. 

It's very difficult trying to separate "facts" -- e.g. Coronavirus exists -- from their over- and mis-representation. Facts are always mediated, often with an unhealthy dose of moralism, and thoroughly interwoven with political/ideological assumptions and hidden agendas. I sympathised with the original poster because the contemporary media landscape (mainstream and social media) is infuriating, alienating, and fundamentally hostile to anything beyond its limited purview, a cynically calculated, dumbed-down version of (social, historical) "reality." But enough of my opinion (everybody's got one). 

[withdrawl clinic]

On 27/01/2023 at 7:53 PM, Cubism said:

Just out of curiosity WC, are you talking about SBS in general, or the Viceland channel?

 

 

It's amazing the amount of clickbait trash on SBS these days generally speaking. 

 

 

 

sbs in general, and the change happend apruptly...

years ago, sbs had the 7.30 time slot, reserved for good docus, but than it changed to:

instead of high grade docus (docus with real footage of artefacts) - semi sientific docus, produced with a style like aim and shoot pc games (computer animated pyramids and so on)

i dislike docus which show 70% of the time, the "presenter" 20% animation, and only 10% the buildings or artefacts.

often , if the presenter visits the artefact, it's hardly shown in good focus, but the presenter fills most of the screen, talking for minutes, and than the artefact is only shown for seconds.

 

sbs, promotes with this, hate against germans.

they show movies about holocaust deniers, and the next film, is ABOUT THE TOWER OF LONDON, AND HENRY THE 8, and it portrays those in a very good light.

the tower of london, was a concentration camp, many innocent people lost ther lives there.

victoria was the biggest drug dealer in history, the chinese say'd we don't want your opium, it cause suffering and death, to our people, so the brits went to war with them, with superior weapons, so the could force opium onto them.

but sbs glorifies those people who comited those mass murders.

 

let's make a thought experiment, let's kill hitler, maybe somebody else would have followed the ideas of eugenics, even in another country?

you would have to go back and kill galton and darwin, but maybe the vacum would have produced a worse case scenario.

like killing sadam hussain and gadafi, and you get islamic state instead.

 

even darwinism, is very problamatic how it's portrayed, i hate it when david attenborough say's, THE MOST AGGRESSIVE MALE, GETS ALL THE FEMALES.

this statement, all most a line in every nature movie, is wrong and needs to be re addressed.

i wonder, how much LESS VIOLENCE WOULD BE ON THE PLANET, if this statement would not be advertised so often.

the most agressive wins, this sentence, is for me a leftover from the core of EUGENICS AND DARWINISM. 

AND PEOPLE WHO LIKE SAYING IT ARE A BIT LIKE NAZIS!!

[SayN]

You realise this is supposed to be "Chill Space"?

[fyzygy]

To be fair, SBS On Demand hosts a 3-part documentary The US and the Holocaust. Episode 1 outlines the home-grown American eugenics movement, as a prelude to the atrocities of WWII. I mentioned Shoah above, and this work looks to be just as powerful and confronting (albeit in a different style).

 

Not very chill, but I thought it might temper some of the original poster's outrage. 

[withdrawl clinic]

the us and the holocaust, is a start into the right direction, however it is still very biased.

 

most eugenics topics are cencored by the australian state, they don't want you do know the truth.

same as footage of rosevelt, endorsing  hitlers eugenics.

 

thats when the russian media, becomes the only source of footage and documents.

if you think you are free to know, and do research regarding eugenics or the wars, in australia or say america, you are mistaken.

they block this information, and as such are on the same level as china or north korea.

 

people with a browser, which pretends to be at an other country, might be able to view some of those (youtube) clips.

 

i guess, nobody could watch, the link i gave in my opening post......

i managed to watch a lot of this "banned by the oz goverment stuff", but don't want anybody of the goverment to know, how one can still watch it.

 

[fyzygy]

It's shocking stuff WC, and so recent. Is the full video of A Dangerous Idea available somewhere? 

Tuskegee is another reference point that comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by fyzygy

[Strontium Dawg]

Please don't tell me you think Russia had clean hands when I comes to this stuff. The Russians dredged up the old "Prague cemetery" trope and rebirthed it as the protocols of the elders of Zion. Antisemitism was rampant throughout Europe at the turn of the century and in the leadup to the wars. France, Italy, Prussia...

[fyzygy]

In a nutshell: 

 

 

 

[fyzygy]

57 minutes ago, withdrawl clinic said:

most eugenics topics are cencored by the australian state, they don't want you do know the truth.

I think it's rather that people themselves would prefer not to know. 

[fyzygy]

Closer to home, in the Victorian parliament: 

https://theconversation.com/eugenics-in-australia-the-secret-of-melbournes-elite-3350

 

Important legislation, in the form of three Mental Deficiency Bills, was presented to the parliament in 1926, 1929 and 1939 by the Premier Stanley Argyle ...

The bill aimed to institutionalise and potentially sterilise a significant proportion of the population - those seen as inefficient. Included in the group were slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, as well as those with small heads and with low IQs. The Aboriginal population was also seen to fall within this group.

The first two attempts to enact the bills failed not due to any significant opposition but rather because of the unstable political climate and the fall of governments.

The third in 1939 was passed unanimously, but not enacted in the first instance because of the outbreak of war and, later, due to the embarrassment of the Holocaust.

Other state parliaments were inspired to also institute such legislation by Berry’s many town hall lectures across the nation.

Important national Royal Commissions in the 1920s also recommended a range of eugenic reforms including measures relating to child endowment, marriage laws and pensions.

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by fyzygy

[fyzygy]

[fixed]

Edited February 4, 2023 by fyzygy

[fyzygy]

https://newspapers.ushmm.org

 

Out of the blue, a "citizen historian" posted me this. Pointing out that it was part of a multimillion-dollar government-funded project.

I just wonder why Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't treated in quite the same way. Might makes right? Ugly as fuck. Even Gravity's Rainbow, now, I suspect of inadvertent ethnocentrism. Every Good (American) Boy Deserves Fascism ... and animal slaughter, for that matter. Anyone seen the Oz documentary Dominion? Reminded me so much of Shoah. What's the difference, other than ignorance? 

And yet, and yet ...

[ZooL]

The nazi regime was all sorts of fucked up but that doesn't mean that anyone opposing them isn't themselves also fucked up in one way or another. In regards to eugenics, I see no inherent issue with it in general but any realistic implementation of it runs into ethical issues strait away.

 

Eg. Two people realising they have some genetic issue that may be passed on to their offspring so choosing to adopt one of the countless already born kids that need love/parents instead is one thing and is not an issue, but the reality of eugenics implementation requires forcing these  people to either not breed or to breed with some "desired" comparable partner instead.  In reality there is just no way it ethically works.

 

Eugenics as it is fails, there is no way around this, but I think conflating eugenics and "designer babies"eg. and such is an issue in itself. From them moment we built fences we effectively started to separate ourselves from "natural" selection which is itself having issues we shouldnt ignore, any sort of "unnatural" selection has its own ethical issues but so does doing nothing in regard to

the "natual" selection we have negated/suppressed.

 

 

[withdrawl clinic]

let's not forget, that this all started with plants, peas which gregor mendel a man of the cloth, cultivated in his church garden.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gregor-mendel-and-the-principles-of-inheritance-593/

now, the theory behind eugenics, did lead to a slippery slope, which the 3 reich promoted to extreem proportions.

if people are kept in concentration camps and starved of food, and laboured to death, everybody becomes, a sub human, and as such, can be erraticated.

 

i have bred plants, but i think this topic needs to be, revisited as it contains a lot of flawed thinking.

i don't like david attenborough any more, as he always promoted darwin, and the view, the most aggressive male get's all the girls.

i wonder how many violent man, get encouraged by this view!

there is even a big problem with seeds that have been breed to perfection, they don't reproduce true to type.

a fact which is a problem in developing nations, and gives all the power and financial gain to the seed companies and not the farmer.

 

i know from the plants that "nurture" is a very big factor, as even hybreeds such a nexus, don't grow well unless fully nurtured.

i would say that there is an argument, to say stabilised seeds are, superior because they adjust better to a varied enviroment.

[SayN]

10 hours ago, withdrawl clinic said:

...

i don't like david attenborough any more, as he always promoted darwin, and the view, the most aggressive male get's all the girls.

i wonder how many violent man, get encouraged by this view!

...

 

The facts aren't the problem here so, with respect, you can't ignore the science or shouldn't shoot the messenger.  It is what it is.  The problem, if there is one, are the violent men.

[fyzygy]

I don't think "survival of the fittest" is an appropriate model for human society. Darwinian sociobiology is theory, not fact (otherwise Richard Dawkins would be out there disseminating his genes as widely as possible, by any means necessary). Darwin overlooked almost entirely the ethological insight that "mutual aid" (cooperation, as opposed to competition) is an equally significant driver of evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

 

I don't blame Darwin for modern eugenics movements, although he is often credited as their inspiration. I think perhaps Nietzsche, rather than Darwin, was the more malignant influence upon Nazism. Philosophy without compassion is detrimental to the human spirit. Darwin himself harboured a few regrets on that score, by the end of his lifetime. 

[withdrawl clinic]

On 01/04/2023 at 8:53 PM, SayN said:

 

The facts aren't the problem here so, with respect, you can't ignore the science or shouldn't shoot the messenger.  It is what it is.  The problem, if there is one, are the violent men.

i respect your view, but strongly disagree.

i think there are two problems, with darwins view, "survival of the fittest".

1, i don't think that it is fact. even blind and injuried animals often survive. less aggressive males get a chance as well to pass on there genes, the observers just don't report this, as it doesn't go hand in hand with the mantra, "survival of the fittest".

the most aggressive animal is as with humans mostly, not the smartest. being smart and kind and supportive, are as well in the animal kingdom, far more important traits than sure "strengh". 

2, and yes, this view alone was an excuse by the 3 reich to kill inocent people. and it's not that one nation contains statisticly more aggressive people than an other.

america under rosevelt, wanted to have the same laws as nazi germany, it's just they could not get the law changes done, as they were not totalitarian.

the way how sbs and other media portrays the 3 reich, is wrong. they portray the nazi as a monster, and never mention, that the reason for this monsters action was eugenics.

 

darwin was seen in his contampary time, the same as hippies were seen in the 60's, "a lazy no good person that only travels", but his cousin galton was praised, and he is the person that created the ideas that led to the holocaust. anyway darwin plecherised most of his ideas.

sorry for my dyslexia...

[Freakosystem]

To be fair to Darwin, most people don't understand what "fitness" means as a technical ecological term. It's very different to common usage.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/evolutionary-fitness/#:~:text=Evolutionary biologists use the word,beetles had a higher fitness.

[fyzygy]

Reproductive fitness, sure. Hence the compulsory sterilisation (etc.) of certain subgroups deemed (by a process of artificial, not natural selection) "unfit" to reproduce their genes. So there is a lot of play in the meaning of "fitness" in sociobiological contexts (physical, moral as well as biological meanings of the term). In colonial Australia, the decline of Indigenous populations was construed as a sign of their evolutionary unfitness, and the best white Australia could hope to do was "soothe the pillow of a dying race." That's not Darwinism, to be sure; but rather, "social darwinism" -- and the same could be said of any eugenics program. Darwin himself didn't believe in contraception, much less forced sterilisation. As for ecology (the ultimate arbiter of evolutionary fitness), it's absurd that Europeans would be better-adapted to the Australian climate than its native population. So environmental factors were eliminated from the calculus of social darwinism, in order to justify the "superiority" of the European mind, perceived as a biological inheritance which transcended climate and geography. In the second half of the 19th century, social darwinism justified dispossession (in tandem with the legal fiction of terra nullius, which it tended to reinforce): Indigenous Australians came to be seen as sub-human, some kind of "missing link" to primate ancestors. This was not Darwinism per se, but his biological theory was used, in practice, to legitimate the expansion of European empires in the name of (colonial) science.