Some of us call the History Channel the ‘Hitler Channel.’ Why? Well, whenever one tunes in, chances are one will be viewing a program about Hitler’s women, about Josef Mengele, about Operation Barbarossa, about Erwin Rommel’s Afrikakorps, und so weiter. This is good insofar as none of us should ever forget the depths of depravity into which humans can sink.
Notice, I said ‘humans,’ not ‘Germans.’ Though it may be that there is a certain authoritarian strain in Germans that specially equips them for goose-steeping behind dictators, all of us, I’m afraid, are potential Nazis, potential Commies, and potential Islamo-terrorists. (Recall the case of that nice boy ‘Jihad Johnny’ Walker-Lindh from the Bay area? A more recent case is Adam 'Convert or Die' Gadahn the American from Orange County, California, who decided that Islamic fundamentalism had more to offer than heavy metal music.)
Only by fortunate circumstances, individual moral vigilance, and the grace of God do any of us escape descent into barbarism.
Although it is good that the memory of Nazi horrors be kept alive, on the History Channel and elsewhere, it is not good that there is no comparable coverage of the crimes of Communism. There is coverage of the latter, but no comparable coverage: why are there no Hollywood movies about Communist crimes like Schindler’s List or Sophie’s Choice? The predominance of lefties in Hollywood is of course a large part of the explanation.
You may help convince yourself that I am right in my 'no comparable coverage' thesis by listing Nazi death camps and then trying to do the same for the islands of death in the Gulag Archipelago. I'll wager that the first list will be longer than the second, and that for many of you the second will be the 'null list.' See here for a little background.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.