Until he learns to interpret the word “right” in the appropriate political context, perhaps Seamus O’Regan should stick to cooking segments.
“… what’s with the kid gloves Seamus? If Dion uses language to describe Canadian conservatives that CTV reserves for Holocaust denial, aren’t you supposed to call him on that? The proper response would have been “now wait one second there, Mr. Dion…”
When the day comes that these intellectually vacant talking heads throw around “left wing” as freely as they do “right wing” as a political perjorative, when they begin to properly attribute to the “left wing” the tens of millions of human beings systematically eradicated in the pursuit of socialist utopia – then, perhaps they’ll have earned the privilage to misapply the term “right wing” to deniers of the Holocaust – despite the apparently forgotten fact that the Nazi brand of human eradication scheme was also conducted in the name of socialist eugenics.
Holocaust Denier Trivia Question: Ernst Zundel run for the leadership of which party in 1968?
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927
Ted – re your 3.40
Little words now…
Left and right are not good labels. Stop using them.
Ted,
“today’s neo-Nazis/Holocaust deniers and whether they can be called right”
There is a difference between should call and can call.
You lefties label whoever you are supposed to hate right. The MSN, the lefty professors in the humanities on campus and the left in general have done an amazing job at influencing the language.
There is nothing at all “right” about holocaust denial. The neo-Nazi types have nothing at all to do with the right. The only reason you believe them to be “right” is because you wrongly equate racism with the right and neo-nazis are racist. Ergo, you equate neo-nazis with the right. Your first error is assuming racism = right. The rest of your logic falls apart from there.
Nazis were:
Anti-Capitalist
Anti-Smoking
Pro-Animal Rights
Pro-Gun Control
Pro-Abortion
Pro-HOMOSEXUAL (yes, it’s true)
Pro-Euthanasia
Does that sound conservative to you?
Don’t believe it?
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
Ted, No you implied that the David Duke types were drawn to the Republicans which is historically false. Totalitarians are drawn to power from whatever the source. Witness the Liberals spinning their principles to keep themselves in power. That, Ted is the type of slur you made.
C’mon guys, quit feeding that troll Ted. He’s just come in from the cold…
Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker.
“Plenty more where than came from: an outright rejection of the notion of equality, a fetishism of the individual. All good conservative stuff.”
Since we’re already pretty far off-tangent as far as this topic goes, I thought I might as well mention how the words you quote mesh well with the kind of attitude that accepts abortion as a type of class-warfare between those accepted as being ‘human’ and those who are somehow ‘subhuman’.
“There can be no confusion of this sort of thing with anything remotely left-wing.”
Unfortunately, I do find myself making many parallels here between left-wing abortion dogma and the words of Mein Kampf.
Ed, I think you were right to call Godwin earlier.
Ted; “Hitler was for small government.”????
WTF and Holycrap
Do all liberals call Nazi Germany,…. small government ?
“spot the difference between George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament and recent visitor to Damascus, where he said this on state television:
I was re-elected despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.
… and David Duke, the white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan “Grand Wizard”, also on a visit to Damascus where his speech was covered by state television:
It hurts my heart to tell you that part of my country is occupied by Zionists, just as part of your country, the Golan Heights, is occupied by Zionists. The Zionists occupy most of the American media and now control much of American government.” From Anglicans for Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
I’d just like to point out to Dawg that all people are NOT created equal. A child born to an overweight, alcoholic, smoking parent who feeds the child formula is at a distinct disadvantage from the outset when compared to a child born to a non-smoking, non-drinking, fit mother who breastfeeds. However, in a society where all members are viewed as having the POTENTIAL to be equal, and are given equal OPPORTUNITY, it is quite possible for the disadvantaged to succeed despite their initial disadvantage. Of course, to do so requires a desire to do so, and comes down to the individual’s own will to succeed.
Fisher: Where did I say that Hitler was for small government? I said today’s neo-nazis are generally anti-government/in favour of small government. I haven’t said a word about the politics of Hitler.
Frankly, I don’t know or care if today’s neo-nazis share much in common with Hitler other than his racism. In Kate’s post the issue was raised about whether Holocaust deniers/neo-nazis can justifiably be called right wing. And obviously they are. Not because of their racism. Racism is absolutely and most definitely a reality along all spectrums of thought, certainly not just the right. But because of the general beliefs and values neo-nazis hold. Which is why I gave a whole laundry list of examples of why today’s neo-nazis are clearly and irrefutably right-wing extremists.
Such as:
– no/little immigration
– immigration from only certain countries
– for many, white Christian supremacy
– small government/anti-government
– strong military
– strongly anti-communist
– strongly anti-gay (shared with social conservatives but not necessarily economic conservatives)
– no gun control
– man as leader/woman at home
– certainly very opposed to anything politically correct
– oppose most every progressive/liberal program or initiative
– oppose hate laws (though this is shared by many ideological groups)
– strong, all abiding nationalism
… and so on and so on and so on… all basic, generally held views of your typical neo-nazi.
I honestly thought – no, I’ll be more charitable – I for certain know that conservatives are way smarter than you lot are demonstrating, at least way better readers.
C’mon folks, every now and then allow a little fragment of reality to enter into your hatred for all things non-conservative.
(p.s. I love Doug’s comment that Hitler’s Nazis were pro-gay. Loved ’em so much they sent them to the gas chambers!)
Nazis were “pro-abortion” and pro-gay?
Nope.
10 October 1936
The Reichsfuhrer-SS and Head
of the German Police at the Reich
Ministry of the Interior
SV 1 24/36g
Secret!
Not to be printed in the RMBliV
To: the Secret State Police Bureau, Berlin
the Prussian Land Criminal Police Bureau, Berlin
all regional and local headquarters of the State Police in the Reich all regional and local headquarters of the Criminal Police in the Reich
Subject: Combating homosexuality and abortion
The serious danger to population policy and public health represented by the still relatively high number of abortions which are a major violation
of the fundamental National Socialist world-view, as well as the homosexual activity of a not inconsiderable layer of the population which
poses one of the greatest dangers to the youth, requires more than before the effective combating of these scourges.
1. the handling of the above mentioned offenses is essentially the responsibility of local police.
2. in order to ensure uniform guidelines for central registration and for effective combating of these offenses, I hereby establish within the
Prussian Land Criminal Police Bureau a: Reich Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion [… list of reporting details deleted for brevity]
On behalf of:
signed Heydrich
Source: Hidden Holocaust? by Gunter Grau (translated by Patrick Camiller), Cassell, New
York, New York, 1995 (original German edition Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 1993)
Plenty more where that came from too.
Keep spinning Ted, you started out implying that David Duke types were drawn to the Republican Party and by implication slurred all republicans as being anti semites when the facts indicate otherwise. Does that mean only thieves can join the Liberals? They may all be thick but I really don’t think they’re all thieves.
The Pink Swastika:
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html
Read this, and then come back and claim that Nazis were not Leftists.
On the contrary DDT. Clearly there are anti-semites in all parties. I’d hazard to say there are probably more anti-semites on the left than the right, but I’ve never seen anyone documenting that.
Again, slowly this time, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing. Repeat, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing.
Keep at it. It will start to sink in eventually.
Although maybe not.
Ted
Ted you still don’t get or choose to ignore it. You imply David Duke and by extention the GOP are associated with the KKK. The facts show otherwise and you continue to ignore them and not admit your slur. I know racists come in all political strip and colour. Don’t forget the “greatest canadian” was a eugenics proponent.
Dr. Dawg:
None of your new quotes have anything to do with conservatism. They just don’t. It seems to me that you have taken your pre-conceived notion of conservatism…then picked up Hitler’s rant-mag and went through it and thought, “Yeh…uh-huh…here’s a thought that’s weird…must be conservative. And because the stuff about not liking Marxism is there…that’s proof it’s conservative.”
Yes, conservatives are anti-Marxism. But, you can’t simply say, “if A and B don’t like C, then A must equal B.” That is not a valid argument.
Conservatives are against what Marx stood for…but NOT what he stood against – which was the lack of competition…the idea that only a few should have all of the money/power and collude on business matters. Republicans and Conservatives are anti-monopoly too. Marx favored revolution – which when carried out in the USSR failed miserably. Conservatives favored reform – which in the case of the US was a success. Both wanted change from the status quo.
Folks who argue postions like you are arguing when you try to categorize an historical bad-man as having a particular slant are not looking at the position of the person you are analyzing…you’re simply looking for loose threads and hints of ideas of what they may have been for or against on a particular issue and trying to make one group equal another as a result.
Conservatives (Republicans) are against affirmative action. So, is the KKK. In your mind, that makes the two the same. But, from Wikipedia…
The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery and held a vision for modernizing the United States. The new party was created as an act of defiance against what activists denounced as the Slave Power—the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The party founders adopted the name “Republican,” echoing the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.
I threw out my copy of Mein Kampf years ago…but I know that there are just as many anti-business and anti-capitalist thoughts in there. Note that I have not claimed the opposite of what you are saying…I am not saying that Hitler was left (even though I could give plenty of examples that would make it seem that way if I used the same thought process as you).
He was a freak. Pure and simple. Trying to lend credibility to your argument by using the techniques you are using won’t make him anagolous to conservatism.
Harper has done nothing but spend like a drunken sailor since taking office a year ago. Federal spending is up well above inflation. He appointed a moderate to the supreme court, created a childcare program, and increased immigration. The gun registry isn’t going anywhere, income taxes actually went up for many.
This is far right? It wouldn’t hurt the credibility of some to concede that Canada looks much the same as it did a year+ ago under the Liberals. Harper’s not even moderate-right or centre-right; in actual reality he is centre, bordering on centre-left. The Tory strategy is to be “just a hair to the right” of the Liberals, notwithstanding the nonsense about Harper being an ideologue, so this is unsurprising.
So right wing politics = NAZI !
And that is because a NAZI wrote some Right Wingish bullcrap along with a lot of other garbage.
If you think this is a logical conclusion to draw then you are a complete idiot or simply a shallow socialist minded provocateur.
Go back to sucking your thumb!
Um, DDT, David Duke WAS associated with the KKK.
In fact, he was a “Grand Wizard” of the KKK.
In 1975 he ran for the Democrats in Louisiana. I don’t know if you can accurately call the Louisiana state Democrats left wing or right wing in 1975. The party re-alignment along more ideological lines among southern Dems that started in the 1960s with the civil rights movement was still evolving. The same re-alignment that results in Byrd, also a southern Democrat and also a former KKK. During the 1980s, that re-alignment was basically established with the Reagan revolution and Duke ran for the Republicans in 1988.
The growth of neo-nazism/white supremacists that Duke represents also rose dramatically in the 1980s and into the 1990s. These neo-nazis were clearly right-wing, though most would probably not have been Republican or aligned with any party, and right wing because of the beliefs they held other than their racism.
Duke also, by the way and no surprise, is a friend and supporter of Ernst Zundel and thinks he is a political prisoner.
So there you go DDT. I addressed your off-topic issue and even brought it back or close to the original topic.
Bottom line, today’s neo-nazis are right wing. Doesn’t mean there are racists or terrorists or haters or totalitarians of other kinds and stripes on the left. Obviously there are, just look at Castro and Sasha Trudeau’s admiration of him. So the left definitely has its wacko extremists. It just happens that one of your wacko extremists are the neo-nazis.
Ted
Ted: Again, slowly this time, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing. Repeat, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing. Keep at it. It will start to sink in eventually. Although maybe not.
If only one could create animated Venn diagrams in the comments section of this blog.
Just after the civil war in the US the disgruntled southern DEMOCRATS set up an organization, do you know what it is?
Oh yeah, and Lincoln was a republican. Remember him? Hes the guy that freed the slaves.
I thought Dion’s drivel too pathetic to comment on but I see he has cheerleaders trolling SDA to “interpret” his paranoid slanderous rantings.
First, to Dijon anyone who hasn’t a hysterical illconcieved socially balcanizing agenda is a right wing extremist.
Secondly, in the stark realities of political discourse when you become so vacant of counter points you are reduced to calling your opponent “hitler” or liken him to a similar tyrant-murderer “right wing extremist” you have lost the debate and your credibility….this seems to escape Borat Dijon the more virulent left. Obviously the fanatic LPC left have their hand up Dijon’s tuchas moving his lips.
But with all the partisan hissing and spitting aside, a “extremist” is self evident…and the more the public see of Dijons truely bizarre ideas,in contrast with Harper’s reasoned practical approach just exactly who the “exremist” is will become quite evident.
Now run along Steffie and go tank the economy of a country I don’t live in with your moonbat ideas.
If Hitler came from the right, then why do today’s Nazis (Islamo-Fascists) get all their support from the left?
Ted Like a good little lawyer you continue to ignore the facts you don’t like. Duke last ran a republican in 1999. Here comes the big question when you said ” And just look at their voting patterns and which parties they run for when that is made discernible, David Duke being only the most obvious.” Were you talking about the democrats or the GOP and who were you trying to slur by associating? You brought it up and still haven’t answered. You’re great at claiming drive by slurs execpt when you make them yourself.
The use of “right-wing” and “far right-wing” and “extreme right-wing” terminology by the media and liberals and socialists is OBVIOUSLY intended as an attempt to denigrate Conservatives…it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, representative of where the Conservatives fall on the “ill-defined” political spectrum.
Linking nazism and neo-nazism to “right-wing” is just another attempt to reinforce the negative image. Don’t pretend it is anything other than that.
Although apparently no one believes that Wikipedia is to be believed, it states that it is GENERALLY held that Hitler was right-wing, but it also states quite clearly that the use of a left-right political spectrum is clearly deficient and particularly so in terms of Hitler and nazism.
Try this, Ted…it is GENERALLY held that lawyers are scum-sucking leeches who should all be hung, yet some feel that this is an unfair representation. I will use this as a parallel for the Hitler / right-wing discussion.
So, I would tend to agree with bryceman and Ed Minchau…arguing as to whether nazism is left or right is a fools errand.
With the ever-so-minimal introduction I was ever given to the political spectrum it was described (as I recall) as running from reactionary to conservative to liberal to revolutionary from right-to-left. Running from those resistant to change (reactionary) to those adamant for change (revolutionary). This is wholy inadequate to describe the current political “spectrum”, in my opinion.
Do we have to go so far as to dividing up the worlds’ worst criminals and despots between the Liberal’s side and the Conservative’s side? Let’s just drop it, shall we? No one will win with that argument…and a nasty argument it would be.
As for Kate’s posting, it was in response to the “innocent” sequencing of stories discussing “right-wing”, “far right-wing” and “far right-wing” when referring to Harper and Zundel. The likely intent of CTV, and the almost-certain inference that viewers would get, is that Harper and the Conservatives are equivalent to Zundel and Nazis. I say it was their likely intent because, you know, there can only be so many coincidences before it can’t be considered a coincidence anymore.
Ted, I know you’ve held that there is no bias or an equal bias in the media…but the “left-wing” bias is getting so transparent now that I would think that even you would have difficulty maintaining that position. Just check out today’s CBC story on Peter McKay and the “arse-licking Satan worshipper” clip that HAD to be included for some reason…when a quote like that would NEVER be included in a story about a Liberal. Check out the media non-response to Holland’s “NEP2” statements versus the media’s running of Harpers 5-year old letter on Kyoto.
I mean, really…if you can’t see it, you’re either blind or foolish or completely partisan.
Oh for the love of Pete, DDT. I’m not normally one to get into some personal swipes here but you are a little slow today, aren’t you?
1. Neo-nazis and white supremecists like David Duke and Ernst Zundel are right wing because they hold firmly to many of the common beliefs of most right wingers, as listed above, albeit way more extremely than most on the right would accept.
2. The Republican Party, starting in the 1960s and definitely by Reagan, was an ideologically right wing party.
3. It is not surprising that a David Duke and his ilk would find a warmer home in the Republican Party than the Dems because of the shared right wing views.
4. That does not mean that I think every right winger is a racist or that Republicans are more inclined to be racists. Indeed, Bush Sr. and other Republicans spoke out against Duke (although many spoke in his favour as well). So nice try.
I could have the same about an extremist – and racists – like Farkuhan and the Democrats.
It’s not like this is a live debate, DDT. It shouldn’t be so hard to keep up.
Is anybody going to answer the trivia question?
Thanks Ted. If you are going to be slimy at least say what you mean.
Ed Minchu, maz2 et al,
Conventional reasoning behind the terming of the Nazis as right wing and communist/socialists as left wing rests on the segment of population the regimes get their support. The Nazis had the support of the rich, upper class and business folk. The socialists generally rely on grassroots/worker support. The Nazis had strong links with all the major business houses of their day. A socialist would probably have shut them down.
Thats usually the technical ground used to provide these definitions, anyway.
Dawg: nazis are conservatives and harper is a conservative therefore a Nazi 🙂
Interesting viscerally construted syllogism. The same dyslexic logical construct would, by extention, state:
Stalinists are socialists Dion is a socialist therefore a Stalinist.
by your rationale there are 2 brands of tyranny to chose from in Canada.
I can understand how if you repeat delusional mantras like this they become part of your personal reality….but obviously it is not part of universal realies.
There is nothing more pathetic than a dogmatic leftoid finger pointing “nazi” at anything he disagrees with….truely sad Dawg. What’s it feel like to commit intellectual suicide every time you appear at SDA
Eeyore: Even Stephen Taylor how put up the linked to post didn’t think it was deliberate or a sign of bias.
You can cite anecdotes but you choose to ignore just as many anecdotes. Like, oh, I don’t know, today’s “liberal-biased” Globe front page, top of the fold article with the screaming across the whole page headline: “Tories surge on Harper leadership” based upon a poll that shows Harper with a measly 4% lead on Dion. Or the constant attacking of Dion in the Sun papers. Or the regurgitation of Harper press releases in the Post or CTV national broadcast. Or the entire last election. Or the coverage John Tory is getting and McGuinty has never gotten (CTV even interviewed Tory in a favourable light on a nothing municipal tax story the other day).
If you want to see bias, you’ll find bias. But you have to ignore a whole lot more to conclude overriding bias.
Ted: We may not be allies after all.
The party re-alignment along more ideological lines among southern Dems that started in the 1960s with the civil rights movement was still evolving. The same re-alignment that results in Byrd, also a southern Democrat and also a former KKK.
This alignment actually started at the time of Reconstruction,in fact, before: Lincoln was a Republican. The word “Democrat” has simply never meant “left-wing” south of the Mason-Dixie line (and, at least in my view, seldom north of it either).
I’d hazard to say there are probably more anti-semites on the left than the right, but I’ve never seen anyone documenting that.
And no wonder–it’s arrant rot, the New McCarthyism of the right-wing. The word, which once had meaning, has just become a synonym for “critical of Israel.”
bryceman: Surely you would agree that emphasis on the individual, the notion of social darwinism, and opposition to homosexuality and abortion, are positions not commonly found on the Left.
As this is a post partly about Stephane Dion claiming, like some ultra-leftist zombie parroting talking points, that Conservatives are “far right”, I’d like to bring everyone’s attention to the kind of dangerous extremism found attached to Dion and the Liberals:
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2007/02/islamists-pulling-lib-leader-dions.html
I understand that Dion’s Liberals are pulling out the stops lately to attempt to demonize the Conservatives at every possible opportunity, desperate to slow their rapid descent in electoral esteem, grasping at whatever they can… it isn’t as if they have anything to use against the Conservative gov’t that they can back up with concrete evidence.
Therefore, I shall fight back. The Liberals are once again nasty as ever, if not nastier than ever, so they brought it upon themselves.
Vicious. Caustic. The gloves are off. No punches pulled. Ok, then.
All’s fair…
Ted said “…right wing because they hold firmly to many of the common beliefs of most right wingers…”
You don’t listen, do you? Using your logic, I could turn Harper into a card-carrying communist.
To the fool who accused me of calling Harper a Nazi:
That’s a lie. Plain and simple. Reading comprehension should be mandatory over here, even if that would cut down the comments at SDA significantly.
Quote: If Hitler came from the right, then why do today’s Nazis (Islamo-Fascists) get all their support from the left?
Because the Islmofascists are against democracy, freedom, capitalism (the market economy and most especially the great and little satans the US and Israel — a marriage of convenience which the left thinks it’ll bail out of just in time.
But today’s left is really fascist, i,e, wanting not state ownership but rather total control of the economy via domestic and international regulation. The EU, for example, is now exporting thousands of laws into their so-called sovereign member states (including the UK) where they are swallowed whole. It is a fascist supra-state.
As someone mentioned above the labels “left” and “right” are no longer useful.
It’s really better to characterize people as “statist” or “individualist”. Or “interventionist” or free market-oriented.
Ted you aact like a typical leftist who has to label and pidgeon hole the philisophical spectrum to make sense of the world.
Conservative thought in the free democracies has nothing in common with Nazi economics or race based politics…so get a grip and stop trying to promote the guit through association ploy…this is intellectually dishonest…If you are indeed a member of the bar I suspect you never sense an ethical problem with misrepresentation until you’re busted.
“The word “Democrat” has simply never meant “left-wing” south of the Mason-Dixie line (and, at least in my view, seldom north of it either).”
I guess that’s what I meant, Dawg. After about the 1960s, Democrat did start to mean left wing (or lefter wing) across the whole party and further it meant left wing on social issues not just New Deal economics.
As for the left being more anti-semitic, it’s not just about Israel and it’s not just a right wing spin. Farkuhan and other leaders on the left are virulently anti-semitic. It is so ingrained and accepted in some parts that even Jesse Jackson can breathe the words “himie” and still be a leader. I did not say that the right is empty of anti-semites. Dawg, we have to look in the mirror sometimes and point the light in the shadows.
Yep, if I was the leader of an ultra-right wing party, I’d certainly name it the National Socialist Worker’s Party, and I’d set to nationalizing industries, and I’d talk about the “volk”, and…
Aw, forget it.
Back to CTV’s coverage, and related issues: It’s strange how the Conservatives’ criticisms of the Liberals, based entirely on the Liberals’ record, and on their own ongoing, over-the-top hypocrisy on almost every single issue, tend to either be expunged from coverage, or else dissolved in “analysis” — i.e. a reporter’s take on the minutiae of buffet conversations — while the Liberals’ specious slurs and insinuating warnings are delivered coast-to-coast, one way or another, and elaborated on in a sideways manner by reporters at our two GTA-centric networks.
That’s why on the matter of that quick pairing of Zundel/Harper, I’m less forgiving than the commendably diplomatic Mr. Taylor is. The pattern has been so consistently in one direction for too long to be a series of unfortunate editing incidents.
When I start seeing repeated instances of Mr. Dion’s visage and words being juxtaposed with clips of a maraca-wielding Peter Allen, or of Don Knotts, or Mao, or inspector Clousseau, I’ll rethink that position, but in the meantime, “editing mistakes” doesn’t quite cover it.
Remember how, during the last election, CBC’s website displayed a cartoon drawing of Mr. Harper with his hand in a “zieg heil” position? Their explanation at the time was that they had edited a section of a larger cartoon, which is a complete non-defense, considering that the uncropped cartoon showed the identical image, only smaller.
And when, during CBC’s election night coverage, the single word “heil” appeared on a studio monitor for a good length of time, it was explained as a bad edit: the word wasn’t “heil”, but rather “their”. (!) What happened, apparently, was that the “T” and the “R” got cut off, see, and a cursor, which “looks to some people” like a lower case “L”, was inserted after the “i”….
Editing. Remember Christina Lawand’s specious, partisan slur of an artfully-edited news report which made Mr. Harper appear blithe about the death of innocents? And how, during the election campaign, the National’s news story on Alan Cutler’s nomination included an onscreen photo of Stephen Harper proximate to one of Sargeant Schultz of “Hogan’s Heroes” fame? Was that, too, an editing mistake?
How many times do we have to see specious, groundless attacks on the Conservatives during “news” broadcasts before we start to recognize them as the political/cultural expressions of certain networks?
A currently running, oft-repeated promo-clip for “The Hour” drops the statement “that guy is so far up George Bush’s backside it’s ridiculous”. Hmm, who do you think that might be refering to?
Last Sunday, CBC employee Mary Walsh stood at the podium at CBC’s nationally-broadcast East Coast Music Awards and brayed that the Conservatives are “the arse-lickers of Satan”.
Ask yourself this: if some drunken slattern of a CBC employee went on national television and called Liberals the arse-lickers of Satan, do you think she might be fired? Do you think CBC might issue an official statement on the matter? And do you think her unsteady performance might be described in news coverage as an “incident” at the ECMA?
Ted:
I’ve always considered you a pretty bright guy and certainly no troll (and I really wish you would start blogging again) but, in my opinion, you demean yourself by characterizing all those on the right wing of the political spectrum as having the characteristics you posted at 1:26 and then again at 4:53.
I fit into the description of “right-wing” but to attribute all those views that you posted, to me and others of my ilk, is frankly, absurd, untrue and insulting. Heck, I’m not even religious…
I subscribe to something that Dawg posted not that long ago (paraphrasing)…a little more civility in political discussions, a little less dogma and much less pre-conceived notions.
Frankly, the best post I’ve seen on this thread is bryceman at 2:18. Arguing about whether Hitler was right or left wing is akin to those in the middle ages trying to determine how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. It’s absurd. Hitler, Mao and Stalin were, in my estimation, neither left nor right…they were evil, venal leaders of totalitarian regimes who picked whatever “philosophy” served their purpose – that being, obtain and retain power, at any cost.
As an example,characterizing the current PRC leaders as being communists is wrong (I’ve been to China a couple of times). They’re not communists as such, they’re essentially a very large crime syndicate with nuclear weapons. They are pragmatic, not dogmatic. You just have to view the cars leaving the Public Security Branch compounds at quitting time to get a feel for it…Lexus, Mercedes and other luxury cars, and given the position of the steering wheels, mostly stolen from the west.
Imn any event Ted, I think you’re much smarter than your posts on this thread seem to represent.
’nuff said…
EBD: If I were in serious competition with the Communists, I might indeed pretend that I was offering the workers an alternative. There was nothing remotely left-wing about Hitler, as Mein Kampf makes abundantly clear.
Ted: Sorry if I misunderstood your point about the 1960s Democrats. But isn’t the alignment you speak of the very reason that Wallace ran as a third-party candidate?
Where on earth did you get the notion that Farrakhan was left-wing, by the way? That’s a stretch to the breaking-point. In fact, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard Farrakhan described so. Bobby Seale used to refer to his kind of politics as “cultural nationalist horseshit,” and indeed it is. You’re on stronger ground about Jesse Jackson’s one recorded ant-Semitic slur, which has haunted him, probably rightly so, since he uttered it–23 years ago.
I lifted this post today from those fine folks at Maggies Farm…ya’all should pay a visit there and say hello.
-2 Questions-
Question 1:If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded – and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.
Question 2:It is time to elect a new national leader. Here are the facts about the three candidates.
Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He’s had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?
Decide first… then go to Continuation Page for the response.
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.
P.S.Forgot to mention that Candidate C is a dog-lover and enjoys bringing them to the mountains and a big Greenie, too. Nature, blood-and-soil, maidens around the village Maypole, neo-pagan Gaia fantasy, all a big feature of the Nazi religion.
In general … Conservative believe in a reduction of state influence in the lives of the citizens of the state …
The Nazi movement was a movement of growing governmental involvement in every area of an individual’s life …
The fact is that most dictatorships are far closer to the left in canada (Liberal/NDP) because of their focus on a strong centralized government and governmental involvement in every area of an individual’s life …
Simple way to demonstrate this … Listen to how most Liberal/NDP members talk about “Evangelical Christians” and then replace “evangelical Christian” with Jew and see who they sound like …
Let’s throw arch-segregationaist Governor George Wallace into this free-for-all. Left-wing or conservative? Hint: He claimed he was the latter, but you know how sneaky the Left is…
Left – right, is a broad brush that means nothing in politics.
It is collectivism where the action is and where only the results count.
“The Nazis are well remembered for murdering well over 11 million people in the implementation of their slogan ‘The public good before private good’, the Chinese Communists for murdering 62 million people in the implementation of theirs, ‘Serve the people’ and the Soviet Communists for murdering more than 60 million people in the implementation of Karl Marx’s slogan ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.
Anyone who defends any of these, or any variation of them, on the grounds of their ‘good intentions’ is an immoral (not amoral) enabler of the actual road to hell.” – Rick Gaber
And speaking of trivia, what country is it that had a Prime Minister for 13 years that was on the public record as supporting the slogan ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’?
And whose needs exceeded his ability, as it always does with these people.
I also agree that the ‘left-right’ dichotomy is inadequate (though sometimes useful, in the absence of a better alternative), and that playing partisan hot-potato with the likes of Hitler, Zundel, Stalin, etc. is pointless.
Having said that, recall that the current Conservative Party of Canada is the child of the United Alternative (popularly, the ‘Unite the Right’) movement. While consolidating various conservative interests under a single party banner has reaped its supporters many benefits — not least a federal minority government — it does leave the Conservatives open to accusations that they harbour a secret ‘far-right’ (typically social) agenda, à la (the more extreme factions of) the Reform Party. Does it, in reality? I dunno — they never invite me to their super-secret Evil Policy meetings.
In any case, the Conservatives are currently in power, and if they want to stay that way, then insofar as one can conceive of a political ‘middle’, they have to move there. It’s the great reality of governing in federalist Canada — he (or she) who occupies the centrist role wins the day. But PM Harper knows this — think income trust tax, think Clean Air Act II.
I happen to agree that a two-dimensional left-right axis is insufficient to characterize one’s politics. I assume most people here took that famous quiz with the two axes. I came out as a kind of libertarian, which isn’t far off–and in pretty august company, too: Mandela was just a shade away.
But look how this thread got started. Kate put the cat among the pigeons with her post.
Both “left” and “right” are pejoratives, in the hands of each other. But I see in these differing politics a constellation of values and the positions that flow from them. If someone is anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-individualist, anti-equality, explicitly racialist (and I’m not talking Harper on the last of these, by the way)–how is that person likely to vote, what political alignments would they choose, where would you find them? Not, generally speaking, on the Left.
Let’s not obfuscate this further. Yes, the Left has much to answer for, making excuses for the likes of Stalin and Mao (although I never did encounter much love for Pol Pot on the Left, 4except for the circus freaks in CPC-ML). But let’s not be ridiculous. Hitler was right-wing, and Canadian neo-Nazis tried to enter the Reform Party–not the NDP.
We all have our crosses to bear, so let’s carry them and try to do better, if that isn’t doing violence to the image.
“I happen to agree that a two-dimensional left-right axis is insufficient to characterize one’s politics.”
“But let’s not be ridiculous. Hitler was right-wing”
Umm…
Yup. Right-wing vis-a-vis that constellation of values I was talking about. Again: who on the Left shares those values?
Hitler was a statist. I’m not. But there are conservatives who are. More importantly, though, are those pesky values.