Replying to Avatar Kevin Alfred Strom

I do agree that we are, each of us, our own curators. And I also agree that this is inevitable. I would add, though, that the basic assumptions of liberal democracy, which inform most _centralized_ curation systems these days, are mostly false assumptions. And such curation systems often end up harming sincere, earnest, good people who are too intelligent to believe the myths of the moment.
Avatar
freemymind 🇨🇭 11mo ago

I think it is not fair nor intelligent to make such general assumptions. The cool thing in a democracy is that any centralized entity can be critizised without problem. When you or me are unhappy with any centralized entity, that brings up false theories, we can speak up without fear of repression.

In many autharitarian regimes one can not do this without legal consequences.

So there can be inlegitimate curators. But one can critizise them. And when the critizism is legitimate, more and more people will speak up until the curator changes his practice or his reputation goes down hill.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Kevin Alfred Strom 11mo ago

Numerous people, including Ursula Haverbeck, Ernst Zundel, and David Irving, have criticized the (centralized) control of the historical narrative, and have been imprisoned in "liberal democracies" for doing that. In some countries, it is a crime to criticize "democracy" itself. In the United States, where I live, powerful entities may not be able to directly throw you in jail for saying things they don't like, but they can and do trump up fake charges against you and imprison you just the same. James Alex Fields is a prime example of that.

Avatar
freemymind 🇨🇭 11mo ago

Whom are you defending and for what reason?

Ursula Haverbeck: Is denying the holocaust.

Ernst Zundel: Same.

David Irving: Also denying holocaust.

Not accepting History that has still thousands of survivors. To never forget this history the European Court of Human Rights was founded and survivors of the nazi regime have been convicted publicly so this history is not forgotten.

This is by no ways a centralized force. It is the history of our society in Europe, that we have.

No problem, whoever wants to write a novel how the world could be if there was no nazi regime. But the crimes against humanity are matter of consent. Not of some centralized propaganda.

It is also historic consent, that europeans migrated to Northamerica and systematically killed indigenous tribes. Genozides all over the US. And such History does not change when one beleaves it did not happen.

And to beleave so has nothing to do with freedom. Its about power.

Avatar
Kevin Alfred Strom 11mo ago

So it's okay and "democratic" to imprison people who say the opposite of what you are saying?

Avatar
freemymind 🇨🇭 11mo ago

No. But when this is what you see in them, then you misunderstand. It is the actions against society they were taking. With their denial of holocaust they were trying to split society and seed racism. And yes this is unlawful behaviour. And therefore I am proud on any state that is able to enprison people who follow these goals.

Avatar
Kevin Alfred Strom 11mo ago

So it would be okay and "democratic" to imprison people who say that National Socialists are basically good, or who write novels portraying them as basically good?

Avatar
freemymind 🇨🇭 11mo ago

Thank you for bringing this up.

It really is a inliberal law, that goes against the freedom of speech.

Eventhough I can understand why people did want this law, I would also vote against it. Rather people should be allowed to say everything and the law should take action when an individual is starting with violent actions.

And expressing alternative stories to history should rather be handled by the society with the freedom of speech again.