Yalden wants readers to believe the Nazis were able to come to power and perpetrate the Holocaust in part because of “unfettered” free speech when in fact the opposite is true. Suppression of civil liberties in Germany, especially free speech, was essential to the Nazi’s successful acquisition and consolidation of power.
It’s a myth that Weimar Germany was a bastion of freedom and civil rights before being taken over by the Nazis. The Weimar Republic was no respecter of civil liberties and the rule of law – at least not consistently. Weimar “liberals” shut down newspapers when it suited them, they spied on political parties, they used plainclothes police or other surrogates to break up political meetings, they outlawed political parties – including the Nazis for a time, and they not only tolerated armed militias but in many instances encouraged their existence and activity while the judiciary turned a blind eye.
There is a lesson to be learned here, but it’s not the lesson that Yalden and his ideological compatriots are teaching. National Socialist Germany is not an example of what happens when hate is tolerated – it’s an example of what happens when hate is empowered. The uncomfortable fact is that the Nazis didn’t invent the apparatus of power or culture of repression in Germany, they merely took control of, and perfected, an apparatus and culture that had already been created and used by “liberals” to combat extremism.
RTWT.
Previous.
Update – Joseph C. Ben-Ami has dropped by to share further thoughts in the comments.
ET at April 17, 2008 10:06 PM
Bottom up. The bigger an organization becomes, the more corruption exists. The UN, I suspect is no different in that respect. Beginning with the premise that some countries are entitled to veto rights, the path to self created irrelevance has already been embarked upon. With this, comes a situation where minor crisis in minor countries can be dealt with somewhat, but even then only if the interests of those holding veto’s is not involved. Major issues become gridlocked by the inherent restrictions.
And Tribalism is the crux of it in Afghan and much of that region.
The situation in Iraq, is clearly Imperialism. Even current candidates for the upcoming US elections make statements such as, we will protect American interests in the world. The intent of that is as clear as need be I would think. More of same old. Now, when a person thinks about it, and reads, we come to understand that US manipulation of foreign countries has existed for a long time, but often the desired results could be obtained via the CIA and other like agencies of other complicit governments. Once Middle Eastern countries gained wealth, some elements were not pleased to accept what they saw as continued foreign control via stealth, gun boat diplomacy nor occupation.
Now it begins, and brings us to where we are.
Anyone who knows anything about the Vietnam war can quickly draw parallels. These types of involvements cannot be won militarily by half hearted efforts. This is folly. Changing the Tribal structure in Afghan for example would require reversal of hundreds of years of past practice, and just as importantly a complete change of the goals of the residents, in country and beyond. Think Pakistan and all the rest of the Stan’s, then expand to Iran, Syria, Lebanon etc. Israel too. They are mired in a swirl of ancient religious philosophies, animosities and power broking.
A fella has to think extensively about the Russian experience too. I don’t just mean the Soviet experience, I mean Russian. Why do you suppose they didn’t incorporate the Stan’s in the new Russia? Westerners as a whole, don’t understand the region. The Russians do.
Hell, 20% of young Britains think Churchill was a fictional character.
Phillip G. Shaw at April 18, 2008 3:19 AM
“The unrestrained bureaucracy in Canada is the profound problem.”
Good points again Phillip. I especially agree with the above. On that point, I would add that much of this is due to what some call “Empire building”. Others not so eloquent would say “they breed faster than rats”. Ultimately, the process operates in such a way as to self proliferate and is constantly creating new opportunities for new departments, dept. heads and supporting Civil Servants.
Numerous times I have read similar complaints about the US administration and that although the Rebublicans talk the talk, the walk is another matter. I believe this is one of Ron Paul’s gripes is it not? The critics say there is no less government under Republicans than there is under Democrats.
To your point of measured response, yes that is preferable. But what do you do when its not working? Also, how long do you measure before you get an answer? One year, two, six?
I think the measuring is done, its the answer that needs to be addressed. The truth would be nice too.
To Hans Rupprecht:
Hans, it is not accurate to say that the stock market crash of 1929 caused the depression in the USA or anywhere else. Stocks gained back more than half the amount of the decrease in the months following the crash.
The depression was caused by a massive decrease in the money supply, which resulted in deflation. This was aggravated by the almost-closing of the borders to trade, from the Smoot-Hawley Act, and also by the increases in income tax rates and by the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal policies that gave many businesses monopoly power, causing them to restrict their output.
Phillip G. Shaw said:”…The bureaucracy has been engaged in self- serving (feather bedding) that has resulted in unrestrained power that is not vetted by the democratic process. I think this was a blunder, and not by any intelligent design….”
No, this has been intentional by the Liberal regime. It is how you maintain your power base in the face of “democratic” processes that may from time to time limit your influence. It also allows you to be publicly conciliatory without actually surrendering any control. IChannel did a fascinating series of documentaries in their “Underground Royal Commission” series that addressed this very issue, examining in quite some detail the structural changes the Liberals made to Canada’s bureaucracy and its parliamentary oversight, specifically to reduce that accountability. The explosion of foundations and agencies is only part of those changes. I work for a federal agency that was a department- in my case, the minister no longer has any control over the operation and management of the agency – he only reports to parliament what the board of commissioners tell him to say. The department has been in functional freefall since its inception, and there is virtually nothing the Conservatives can do until they get a majority, as there are extensive legislative changes needed.