Something I've started to point out to vaccine-defenders (the Covid-vaccines, that is):
More people have been killed by the mRNA-jabs than in the Holocaust.
It /really/ kills a conversation.
It also sends such a shock through their cognitive order, that from the outside it looks like a tower of plates collapsing.
I guess the logic (or whatever) is, "Holocaust equals ultimate evil for list of reasons, the no. of dead and the meticulous and studied approach to mass-murder in no small part playing into it; if Covid-jabs have killed more than the Holocaust, the Covid-jabs equals more evil than Holocaust".
Upon the realisation of this, the mind seems to shut down and reboot, ready to start asking questions.
Which is good, since asking questions is a sign of someone starting to think, not just receive-and-consume information.
Here's an anecdote from last week's (academic) conference I attended:
On day two, a Ph.D. candidate from a US fancy-name place gave a woke-heavy talk via Zoom, and, of course, she included her pronouns in her Zoom handle. I'm sitting next to a Slovak-born colleague teaching at a private US lib arts college, and during the talk, he leans over and mentions something like this:
'You know, in the past two days no-one spoke like this, and I didn't miss it a bit.'
The paper was full of the expectable woke nonsense about stuff that happened 170 years ago and its *direct* and, of course, *explicit* bearing on current events, including specifically what the presenter called 'the US carcereal state'.
So I reply to my friend: 'there is but one exception to that kind of nonsense--events, sentiments, and developments in 19th-century Germany had nothing to do with Hitler in general and the Holocaust in particular, for if they did, it would render this entire "argument" moot.'
My friend nodded in agreement, and I do think that the comparison you make is thought-provoking (to say the least), but I fear we're not quite 'there' yet to have that kind of public debate about both the WHO-declared, so-called Covid 'pandemic™' and the big historical issues you alluded to.
Lest someone reading this reply desires to read 'more' about what kind of 19th-century sentiments in 'Germany' I allude to, please see here:
It’s true that for many people the Holocaust has become the definition of evil.
My experience is that, when confronted with the inanity of their convictions, most people do not begin seeking answers; they merely avoid anyone who will question their beliefs.
Some HAVE been awakened from their comas, but most refuse to question this most basic faith in their leaders for fear of having to look at ALL of the times they have been told to do something insane and obeyed
I would add a para-heretical thought here: while I agree that 'for many people the Holocaust has become the definition of evil', neither Hannah Arendt's consideration (of Evil's 'banality') nor the possibility of any other situation, generation, or circumstances being, possibly, like that Evil renders this extremely uncomfortable.
No-one wishes to admit that 'we' could, hypothetically, by like or, God forbid, worse than those who committed the Holocaust.
And I'm not saying this as a thought experiment or hypothetical, because if we follow Rikard's proposition, both the uniqueness of the Holocaust and the entire system of order (as Max Weber would have it) constructed upon the vilification of Hitler collapses.
I'm not saying this is 'good' or 'bad', but analytically as well as logically, this is what's at stake.
Yes. And if the number of dead is how we categorize how evil something is, then he’s right. But the method is significant, and that’s why the Holocaust stands out.
As horrible as that point in history was, it was not the only time evil manifested itself in that form. There were other times in history which could be compared in the number of dead. The fact that modern chemical weapons and the industrial might of classification were used made it so much more efficient. The role that the American company IBM played in helping the Nazis find every last person with Jewish blood is unforgivable, and yet…
Nazi culture is alive and well. It has nothing to do with Germany. The slaughter of millions through the use of the current method of culling will be remembered by some as the worst, but it’s not. And it won’t be the last. Mankind is capable of so much evil
On top of it, the 'banality' aspect, the systematic--dare I say--persecution of 'the unvaccinated', the massive amounts of gaslighting, agit-prop (here's looking at you, Steven Colbert), and propaganda, as well as the implementation of Covid passports, travel and other restrictions based on 'vaccination status', etc. is highly suggestive of comparisons.
I'd add that the method, which is significant, is quite globalised in the past couple of years, too, and it was sophisticated, isn't it?
Good and Evil are but two aspects of the same being, and it's a constant struggle to keep the latter from devouring the former. The 'pandemic' certainly wasn't the last such moment, I agree.
Well, he's both a poster child for these charades and, as a former 'fan' (I really like his stuff a while ago, i.e., before he got his own show), a supreme example of this kind of co-optation; Jimmy Kimmel's demeanour comes to mind, too.
Something I've started to point out to vaccine-defenders (the Covid-vaccines, that is):
More people have been killed by the mRNA-jabs than in the Holocaust.
It /really/ kills a conversation.
It also sends such a shock through their cognitive order, that from the outside it looks like a tower of plates collapsing.
I guess the logic (or whatever) is, "Holocaust equals ultimate evil for list of reasons, the no. of dead and the meticulous and studied approach to mass-murder in no small part playing into it; if Covid-jabs have killed more than the Holocaust, the Covid-jabs equals more evil than Holocaust".
Upon the realisation of this, the mind seems to shut down and reboot, ready to start asking questions.
Which is good, since asking questions is a sign of someone starting to think, not just receive-and-consume information.
Here's an anecdote from last week's (academic) conference I attended:
On day two, a Ph.D. candidate from a US fancy-name place gave a woke-heavy talk via Zoom, and, of course, she included her pronouns in her Zoom handle. I'm sitting next to a Slovak-born colleague teaching at a private US lib arts college, and during the talk, he leans over and mentions something like this:
'You know, in the past two days no-one spoke like this, and I didn't miss it a bit.'
The paper was full of the expectable woke nonsense about stuff that happened 170 years ago and its *direct* and, of course, *explicit* bearing on current events, including specifically what the presenter called 'the US carcereal state'.
So I reply to my friend: 'there is but one exception to that kind of nonsense--events, sentiments, and developments in 19th-century Germany had nothing to do with Hitler in general and the Holocaust in particular, for if they did, it would render this entire "argument" moot.'
My friend nodded in agreement, and I do think that the comparison you make is thought-provoking (to say the least), but I fear we're not quite 'there' yet to have that kind of public debate about both the WHO-declared, so-called Covid 'pandemic™' and the big historical issues you alluded to.
Lest someone reading this reply desires to read 'more' about what kind of 19th-century sentiments in 'Germany' I allude to, please see here:
https://fackel.substack.com/p/commemorating-1848-german-president
It’s true that for many people the Holocaust has become the definition of evil.
My experience is that, when confronted with the inanity of their convictions, most people do not begin seeking answers; they merely avoid anyone who will question their beliefs.
Some HAVE been awakened from their comas, but most refuse to question this most basic faith in their leaders for fear of having to look at ALL of the times they have been told to do something insane and obeyed
I would add a para-heretical thought here: while I agree that 'for many people the Holocaust has become the definition of evil', neither Hannah Arendt's consideration (of Evil's 'banality') nor the possibility of any other situation, generation, or circumstances being, possibly, like that Evil renders this extremely uncomfortable.
No-one wishes to admit that 'we' could, hypothetically, by like or, God forbid, worse than those who committed the Holocaust.
And I'm not saying this as a thought experiment or hypothetical, because if we follow Rikard's proposition, both the uniqueness of the Holocaust and the entire system of order (as Max Weber would have it) constructed upon the vilification of Hitler collapses.
I'm not saying this is 'good' or 'bad', but analytically as well as logically, this is what's at stake.
Yes. And if the number of dead is how we categorize how evil something is, then he’s right. But the method is significant, and that’s why the Holocaust stands out.
As horrible as that point in history was, it was not the only time evil manifested itself in that form. There were other times in history which could be compared in the number of dead. The fact that modern chemical weapons and the industrial might of classification were used made it so much more efficient. The role that the American company IBM played in helping the Nazis find every last person with Jewish blood is unforgivable, and yet…
Nazi culture is alive and well. It has nothing to do with Germany. The slaughter of millions through the use of the current method of culling will be remembered by some as the worst, but it’s not. And it won’t be the last. Mankind is capable of so much evil
Exactly.
On top of it, the 'banality' aspect, the systematic--dare I say--persecution of 'the unvaccinated', the massive amounts of gaslighting, agit-prop (here's looking at you, Steven Colbert), and propaganda, as well as the implementation of Covid passports, travel and other restrictions based on 'vaccination status', etc. is highly suggestive of comparisons.
I'd add that the method, which is significant, is quite globalised in the past couple of years, too, and it was sophisticated, isn't it?
Good and Evil are but two aspects of the same being, and it's a constant struggle to keep the latter from devouring the former. The 'pandemic' certainly wasn't the last such moment, I agree.
“it's a constant struggle to keep the latter from devouring the former”!!
That attitude of “we can’t be bothered to worry about them” is so much of what Arendt was talking about.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees colbert’s behavior as especially egregious
Well, he's both a poster child for these charades and, as a former 'fan' (I really like his stuff a while ago, i.e., before he got his own show), a supreme example of this kind of co-optation; Jimmy Kimmel's demeanour comes to mind, too.