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?
As I have said before. When it comes to socialism or communism if you will, compared to nazism of the so called “right”.
It really is only a red herring. Both are totalitarian with an earthly Utopia as a paradise forever by social evolution combined with the idea of human transformation into a new form.
Both eat the minds of the young in their Nations. Hitler youth. The young communists Pioneers. Here its done in schools by the mainly leftist school board. Since they don’t have absolute power yet.
In the end both destroy capitol , while nationalizing all in collectives. Both for ideology with the surveillance of the population easier as a by product.
As Simon Weisenthal said when he was “Liberated” seven times by both. The Communists first destroy Industry than the intellectuals. Nazis kill the intellectuals first. Than take over Commerce.
Both kill whom ever disagrees with them. One for racial purity the other ideological purity.
I go with the idea their both evil, anti-human systems of mass murder to achieve Utopia at all costs, by all forms of power being in the hands of one individual or cadre of elites. Can we say Chavez, Fidel, Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, & on & on it goes. Monsters in the charnel house of history all.
So in effect you have two similar systems that end up in with the blood of millions writ in suffering. These dogmas have exhausted Europe in a semi-religious conflict based on heaven on Earth stupidities. I see little difference at the outcome for either. They both do not work long term because they deny basic human nature if not genetics.
Remember Both Hitler & Stalin both signed a treaty to destroy Poland. Both made it a killing factory. Both persecuted their own people. One for conformity to terror. The other for “racial cleanliness”
Just my opinion.
One model, the Political Compass (http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2) puts Hitler slightly right of center on the X-axis (Collectivism vs. Libertarianism) just slightly to the right of the axis, but way up the Y axis (Authoritarian vs. Libertarian).
I think most would find this a much better model (though not perfect) than simply Left vs. Right.
I have seen on the web more time wasted per Goodwin’s law than anything else, thus I generally decline to get involved in such discussions. However, I do read all the threads at SDA, and I just noticed elsewhere that today’s Day by Day cartoon is humerously relevant to the discussion here. I hope you enjoy it:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2007/02/20/#a004018
Heh… the meanings of “left wing” and “right wing” are purely subjective.
Open to interpretation. And whatever.
Everyone has their own take on the meanings.
Opinions are like arseholes… everybody’s got one.
This whole left-right bafflegab fest is silly.
We who use our brains know what’s what and who’s what.
I see the self-serving, myopic, mentally-disordered opponents of the Conservative government attempting to create a diversion here. To what end… who knows? Who knows what happens in the space within the crania of those opposed to good government, such as the Conservatives are indubitably delivering against all odds?
I laugh at the opponents of the Conservatives. I wish they’d get a bloody life already.
oh yes Dr Dawg just give the liberals more time and history will be revised as it is being done now. Who discovered the new world?. Now it is being seen as more of an invasion/intrusion on the part of those who were once omly aim was looking to explore the world as well as well as looking for other means of trade and commerce.
We’re talking about genocide as a tool of the megalomaniacs to attain or retain power. The pathology that enables one to use such a tool does not strike me as being exclusively of the domain of the right, or of the left. Power is power, whether it’s accreted through a right, center or left wing ideology. If concentrated in the hands of a sociopath, we’ve seen the results enough times.
I’m disappointed with the discussion on this post thus far. Whether we are left, right, or center, we should be vigilant about recognizing the conditions under which genocide becomes possible. In my opinion, that is a useful debate. Trying decide if the Hitler smear is better applied to this part of the spectrum or that is futile, and misses the important point. My 1/100 of a toonie.
If someone is anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-individualist, anti-equality, explicitly racialist …. where would you find them? Not, generally speaking, on the Left(/i>
But even these labels are biased; what you call “anti-gay” may not be anti-gay as such but anti-language-distortion (gay “marriage”), anti-advocacy-in-the-schools (the BC gay couple now vetting school curriculum for good queer vibe).
And as to “explicitly racialist” I consider affirmative action to be “explicitly racialist” but you might call me a “racist” for being against racial preferences.
As for “anti-equality” it would depend on whether you mean “outcomes” or “status before the law”. I would say you are anti-liberty if you force me to contribute to someone else’s outcomes against my will. So, I “on the right” and might accuse you “on the left” of being “anti-equality”.
Labels and semantics.
Who discovered the new world?
Native people, I assume. About 40,000 years BC (Before Columbus).
Your point?
“If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.”
I just love those clever Austrians…for years now, they’ve managed to convince the world that Beethovan was an Austrian and that Hitler was German…
Dawg said:
“Who discovered the new world?
Native people, I assume. About 40,000 years BC (Before Columbus).”
And you’re right. And I can buy into the complaints from the native people that they’ve been hard done by through government policies (although I think that for $8-10 billion a year we should have seen more prograss…
THat said, all I’m looking for is a simply “thank you” for the introduction of the wheel :)…
Fine thinking, me no dhimmi. Thanks.
“A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?
Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimitied. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.” – Ayn Rand
Ok, so now that Canada has had the collectivism crap, and all of its ugly warts and defects, rammed down our throats for the last 40 years, let’s try the individualism approach.
Starting with the CWB. Heh.
Maude Barlow will be holding a press conference shortly, she expects the NDP women’s caucus to help her comment on how bad this is.
Pakistani minister killed for refusing to wear veil
The Australian
A PAKISTANI government minister and woman’s activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.
”
I’ve never read meinkomf. But I can provide references in Mein Kampf for every one of the quotations provided, and not one of them is out of context.
In fact, I could link to an English-language version, but out of respect for Kate I won’t. Easily found on-line, though.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 20, 2007 3:00 PM
”
”
Incidentally, “bryceman,” I have
indeed read Mein Kampf, and I found those quotations, hardly selective, for myself–quotations that all the bluster and name-calling here (such phenomena are always in inverse proportion to the facts available to conservatives, it appears)will not erase from history.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 20, 2007 3:40 PM
”
hmmm…
Incidently – I didn’t see anyone answer the trivia(i may have missed it, but it should be pointed out again if that’s the case); it’s the Liberal Party of Canada
There’s a current member of the US Senate,
that was a former member, and GRAND DRAGON, no less, of the KKK.
Guess which party he belongs to? (sorry if it’s been pointed out already).
Aw, Jordan, come on. Zundel ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party in 1968. How many votes did he get? Give me a break.
PS: Jordan, I don’t understand your commentless juxtaposition of two quotations from me. Do you have a point? If so, spit it out.
Evidence of the oldest occupants in North America are entirely Clovis peoples. – they are not related to the “First Nations” who claim it now. More likely from northern Spain.
Consistantly the oldest fossiled bones in North America are Caucasoid. check out Kennewick man and Clovis . There is always a push for the current “first nations” to reclaim those bones and bury the evidence.
Kate, please kill this thread…this is nauseating.
There is a famous apology regarding Hitler – that “at least he made the trains run on time”.
That quote undermines any attempted link to Hitler and the right.
An extreme “right-winger” wouldn’t make the trains run on time. He’d consider making the trains run on time to be the proper domain of a competitive free market.
And had Nazi Germany been a true “right wing state”, the only Jews who would have been loaded on cattle cars would have been those willing to pay the freight charges up front.
I wish I knew how Paul Bernardo voted. It would do my heart good to be able to describe him as a “left wing” serial killer in the same irrelevant manner the media and the left attach “right wing” to anti-semitic Holocaust deniers.
If nothing else the South American “natives” were in Canada long before the current crop invaded across the Siberian land bridge.
Anybody remember the compensation that was paid?
CBCpravda tonight on the drive home.
Announcement of 140 million on AIDS research. they end it with some “critic” saying it is just an election ploy.CBCpravda is much more free with the radio version of its slant because people dont tend to record it.The website makes sure the election is mentioned first in denial.
If Peter Pansbridge got to be deputy Governor General tommorrow CBCpravda would complain that the “Harper Regime” should have done it yesterday.
I have noticed in the past few days either Borat Dion has said anything or even CBCpravda is afraid to show it. Despite their constant stumping for him, he is down in the polls and he is becoming a glaring error for the lieberals.The Paul Martin story of soliciting party memberships from a declared terrorist group as reported in the Herald this morning didnt make Pravda – they are still keen on the 0.5 ppm of mercury in Tuna.
They [Hitler’s National Socialist Party) are most assuredly on the right and share – albeit to an extreme most on the right don’t go – far more ideology than anyone on the left.
Hitler might have been to the left of communism but he and his party were unquestionably socialist/leftist. Here’s a few reasons:
– Hitler’s distaste for Jews
– Hitler’s speeches sounded much like Friedrich Engels’, an avowed leftist
– the National Socialists adapted their Swastika from the Soviet Swastika worn by the Red Army during and after WWI
– Hitler’s distaste for the bourgeois
– his passion for the arts
– he and his gf lived common-law, a rarity back then
– he disliked smoking and took steps to combat it
– he was a vegetarian
– he enacted tough gun control laws
– he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill
– he thought capitalism was unjust and brutal
– he championed the rights of workers
– he disliked the Catholic Church
– he favored Islam over Christianity
– he imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power
– he favored a one-party state
– he imprisoned political adversaries
– he had concentration camps
– he favored relentless propaganda
– he favored price controls
– he completely removed the bourgeois from control of their businesses–which then came under the control of the state
– his use of the slogan “Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz” (Common use before Private use)
– he was pro-homosexual; a number of his friends and collaborators were homosexual, and some scholars think he was at least bisexual
– he banned medical experiments on animals
– he signed a non-agression pact with Stalin in 1939–agreeing to invade and “split” Poland
Whose Party policy manifesto do you think this came from?
– The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.
Therefore we demand:
– That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
– Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
– We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
– We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
– We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land
They [Hitler’s National Socialist Party) are most assuredly on the right and share – albeit to an extreme most on the right don’t go – far more ideology than anyone on the left.
Hitler might have been to the left of communism but he and his party were unquestionably socialist/leftist. Here’s a few reasons:
– Hitler’s distaste for Jews
– Hitler’s speeches sounded much like Friedrich Engels’, an avowed leftist
– the National Socialists adapted their Swastika from the Soviet Swastika worn by the Red Army during and after WWI
– Hitler’s distaste for the bourgeois
– his passion for the arts
– he and his gf lived common-law, a rarity back then
– he disliked smoking and took steps to combat it
– he was a vegetarian
– he enacted tough gun control laws
– he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill
– he thought capitalism was unjust and brutal
– he championed the rights of workers
– he disliked the Catholic Church
– he favored Islam over Christianity
– he imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power
– he favored a one-party state
– he imprisoned political adversaries
– he had concentration camps
– he favored relentless propaganda
– he favored price controls
– he completely removed the bourgeois from control of their businesses–which then came under the control of the state
– his use of the slogan “Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz” (Common use before Private use)
– he was pro-homosexual; a number of his friends and collaborators were homosexual, and some scholars think he was at least bisexual
– he banned medical experiments on animals
– he signed a non-agression pact with Stalin in 1939–agreeing to invade and “split” Poland
Whose Party policy manifesto do you think this came from?
– The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.
Therefore we demand:
– That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
– Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
– We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
– We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
– We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land
Sorry for the double post Kate.
Toontown Kid:
Why do you misquote me?
I was very explicit about referring to neo-nazis today and NOT to Hitler. I really don’t think today’s linear line of left-right comes close to applying to Hitler and so, as I said expressly a couple of times in this too long thread, I’m not commenting about yesterday.
On that, I agree with Kate. Talking about whether Hitler was more of a left or a righty is pretty irrelevant.
My only point was that today’s neo-nazis share far more values in common with the right than the left. As Dawg pointed out, you don’t see today neo-nazis funding or joining the NDP.
Ted
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH….
Ferchristsakes….who CARES whether Hitler was right or left. He was a freakin’ monster…the dictator of a totalitarian state. Whatever he did has NOTHING to do with someone’s current political leanings in the contemporary political climate in Canada (unless of course, you happen to be a neo-nazi, in which case F%%k Off).
Enuff already…please……
Dawg – He dropped out of the race before voting took place. For verification: Here and Here
As for “PS: Jordan, I don’t understand your commentless juxtaposition of two quotations from me. Do you have a point? If so, spit it out.”
I think it speaks for itself.
Anyhow – the argument that Hitler is either left or right is ridiculous. He was an incredibly insane man, and his policies were actually somewhat of a mix. Sticking him with the label of left or right for partisan reasons is disgusting.
Kate,
Correct me if i’m wrong but wasn’t the boast that “He made the trains run on time” attributed to Benito M than Hitler.
Enuff already…please……
I heard Genghis Khan was a right-wing imperialist.
My apologies for coming to the party this late. I’ve followed this thread at work – and they frown on me posting stuff there. Some of what I have to say has already been well covered by other posters; I too want to see the ‘political spectrum’ as it is commonly understood, tossed. For one that matches reality, put Statism on the left and Individual Freedom on the right, and then you can get down to the arguing over where the specific policies of any government places it.
The traditional political spectrum places Communism on the far left, Socialism next, with that followed by a zone of progressively freer Centrists, who with the sufficient application of personal freedom, magically transform into the tyranny of rigid Fascism. Yet if you look at the nature of fascistic states, the one element that defines them overall is equally present in governments of the far left: statism.
It is on the far left of the new political spectrum that the fascists belong. The only difference between Stalin and Hitler was the public excuse each used to maintain their power.
Perhaps there is room to argue whether or not fascism should lie on this political spectrum to the immediate left or immediate right of communism – but there is no room to argue that the trappings and set dresssings of either form of tyranny make them into eternal opposites.
Statism is statism – regardless of who filed off the serial numbers, and what coat of pretty paint has been slapped on over the bloodstained hulk. Every vestige of it belongs on the left, including its virulent variations: unlimited monarchy and unthinking theocracy.
As one moves away from statism, one must be moving towards freedom. What ultimate degree of individual freedom a worthwhile society should have is an important question, and one I’m not going to get into here. There is a far right on this spectrum, but it is not occupied by any government. It is the realm of anarchy, unlimited personal freedom with no responsibility, and no place for humans who want to remain as such.
The advantage of the current, false-to-fact spectrum for those on the left is that they find it easier to defend their own repugnant ideas when they can claim that their political opponents have done far worse. It is for this reason that they export their own fellow travelers over to their political foe’s ledger.
When is anyone going to call dion a nuclear power denier?
Kate? …….. Are you still hanging around?
Hitler made the trains run on time? Maybe so but he must have been copying Mussolini.
Re Bryceman “venting” at 2:18 pm. Todays “Canadian Liberals” are the ones who want power for power’s sake. What term would you give them? I would give them the term “Socialist”. Socialism is about coercion of the individual. However, if the individual is protected by law it then follows, as the night the day, that the community is protected. Once upon a time that was the liberal philosophy. In the Canadian context that philosophy is a fundamental part of the CPC motivation. The modern Conservative motivation is to protect the individual as best as possible.
The problem is that one cannot always be orthodox if one wants to be elected. The prevailing anti smoking gestalt is a case in point. Most Conservatives and Liberals and especially Dippers are antismoking, bugger the individual. Some in the community say that it is not the the smoker’s right to kill themselves. Society must interfere to protect them and to deny them. The modern conservative says that it is the individuals right to smoke but it is not their right to inflict their vice on others.
Left, right, left, right…man, I feel like I’m back on the parade square.
Nazis, socialists, WTF is this? Nothing but pre-election rhetoric from Canada’s two big business parties.
sounds like Iberia would prefer some pre-election rhetoric from Canada’s Big Government and Bankruptcy party..
Dont worry. OVer the past couple of years Garth has been on all sides… left right centre, up down…all around. he should be able to teach courses. He needs SOMETHING to do after he becomes unemployed…
Or arrested for chaining himself to his desk …he loves his office you know.
http://repocreepo.blogspot.com
That’s a sweet video.
Watch Dion’s face at 3:30…
That’s the exact same look every leftist has when asked any of three simple questions:
1. How much exactly will Kyoto cost(in taxes)?
2. Where exactly will the money go?
3. How exactly does the money reduce CO2?
T. Robert Wolfram’s post is the last word on the subject, IMO. Thanks for that one.
Jordan:
Big Government and Bankruptcy… you wouldn’t be talking about the Conservative party would you? $9.8 billion in spending announcements since December 2006, likely with a commensurate increase in bureaucracy. No longer the party of fiscal restraint and small government, is it?
Iberia
Considering the Liberals spent like a drunken sailor for the last 13 years with the added bonus of their theft of public funds for good measure, $9.8 billion is peanuts.
$9.8 billion is peanuts? I thought this was Canada’s “NEW” government.
Ted,
“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.”
As it turns out David Duke is an avid supporter of Cindy Sheehan. 😛
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/08/14/david-duke-gets-behind-cindy-sheehan.php
By your logic, the fact that David Duke supports the “anti war” movement says everything we need to know about the “anti war” movement and the Left that spawned it, right? ^_~
First of all, thank you concrete for that wonderfull posting reminding us of a number of salient personal characteristics of significant WWII leaders. The green connection is quite interesting as apparently enthusiastic groups of youthfull nature enthusiasts would go for weekly nature hikes to commune with nature and would later morph into the Hitler youth. The closest political party the Nazi’s are related to is the Green party. Germany in the 1930’s was very progressive in public health with state sponsored programs to screen for various cancers, state sponsored anti-smoking programs and workplace cancer prevention programs. While north American workers were often toiling in a carcinogenic stew, German factory employees were systematically being prevented from being exposed to carcinogens. Part of the reason for this was preservation of the precious germ plasm of the German volk and the national socialists had no qualms about utilizing untermenschen to toil in conditions with considerable carcinogen exposure. These, and more fascinating insights into the progressive public health policies of 1930’s Germany are detailed in the book “The Nazi War on Cancer”. Pierre Lemieux has made much of the similarities of Hitler’s war on tobacco and current anti-tobacco policies. The degree of outrage that contemporary anti-tobacco crusaders exhibit when confronted with almost identical Nazi programs is telling.
There appears to be a variant of Godwin’s law in the MSM that suggests as soon as someone is publically identified with the Nazi party (whether that identification has any merit or not), they are to be discredited. While the smear campaign is carried out almost reflexively by the anti-individualist factions, there seems to be a concerted effort to block any detailed examination of this period in history.
The prosecution of Ernst Zundel is one of the most virulent examples of the desire to prevent any re-examination of WWII history. All Ernst Zundel did was question whether 6 million Jews really died during WWII. This is a legitimate question. No-one seems to get overly upset when the Turkish government absolutely denies that it had anything to do with the alleged disappearance of 1.5 million Armenians, and Hitler was proven correct when he said “who remembers about the Armenians” (or something to that effect as I’m much better at remembering concepts rather than exact quotes). If 6 million Jews died during WWII, then presumably there are meticulous records, the keeping of which is so essential to the Teutonic psyche, detailing exact numbers of boxcars delivered to various concentration camps and tons of NaCN delivered to these camps. One would expect gaps in these records as a result of allied bombing efforts, but surviving records would presumably give a range of potential victims. No such situation exists; one either accepts the 6 million number or one goes to jail.
I am very suspicious of any such situation and suspect that the legal sanctions are there to prevent any re-examination of certain aspects of WWII history. One doesn’t, for example, experience any legal sanctions when one stands up in public and says “No Armenians died as a result of Turkish actions during WWI” or “No Ukrainians died as a result of the re-organization of agriculture during the 1920-1935 interval”. (If someone makes the latter statement close to me their jaw will experience a collision with my fist.) These two historical events alone are estimated to have a death toll > 6 million so obviously the potential number of deaths has nothing to do with it.
One commonly encountered internet theory is that this is really a manifestation of the Zionist control over government in Canada, but when I’ve brought up the issue of Zundel’s persecution with Jewish friends of mine they are embarassed by the legal hysteria over something which should have the same importance as an individual arguing that the earth is flat, not spherical (and, IMHO, such individuals deserve far more severe legal sanctions as they are denying something which is self-evident (that is assuming one was prosecuted for making false statements)). Also, I’ve had a chance to speak with individuals who spent time in Auschitz during WWII and heard their stories.
I suspect the real reason for attempting to block any serious discussion of Nazi Germany is that close scrutiny would reveal far too many similarities between current western societies and pre-WWII Germany. Germany was a very advanced and progressive society that, step by logical step, slid into a totalitarian nightmare where it made perfect logical sense to take large groups of people and exterminate them. All of this was done by perfectly ordinary people. This perversion is not something confined to the Germans, as one psychologic experiment which took took two groups of individuals, split them into “guards” and “prisoners” and let the situation evolve had to be terminated as the guards became more and more sadistic and the prisoners became more and more passive. This happened just with taking undergraduate psychology students and asking them to take part in a simple experiment. When one has the additional factors of government sanction, it is not difficult to see how one gets from a seemingly civilized society to Auschwitz.
The same thing could happen here, but what makes it less likely to happen in N. America is that a lot of people have guns. It’s one thing to force an unarmed untermenschen into a boxcar headed for a concentration camp and a totally different situation when said untermenschen disputes his physical translocation with arms of his own. Individually owned firearms are the ultimate reality check for potential totalitarians and the framers of the US constitutions showed incredible foresight when they added the 2nd ammendment. As the liebrals in Canada have attempted to disarm the population, they are closest to the Nazi’s and will hopefully suffer the same fate as the Nazi’s. Governments have a vested interest in hiding potential side effects of statism on populations as this might lead to an anti-statist backlash.
My solution to this dilema is to move outside of large cities, have lots of guns and ammo in case I need them, and know my neighbors. Personal ties are important when the shit hits the fan as it’s a lot easier to kill strangers than people you know. I don’t think I’m being paranoid, just realistic as I’ve watched personal freedom steadily decrease in this country over the last 30 years.
A note to Dr. Dawg; I was very surprised when you said you scored in the libertarian section of the “worlds smallest political quiz” as your postings put you firmly in the statist camp. I do, however, appreciate your sticking to logical arguments and avoiding ad-hominem attacks.
Kate, it was Mussolini who was credited with making the trains run on time, not Hitler. I can’t imagine a Germany where the trains were ever late, but Italy is another matter.
Another regurgitation of the “Hitler was a bleeding heart liberal” theory. Kate you’re going of the deep end into patently absurd and vile territory here.
Jordan: Thank you for the history lesson. I must have been thinking about Lloyd Henderson. You are right: Zundel did drop out of the race. But how many votes would he have won had he run?
As for “PS: Jordan, I don’t understand your commentless juxtaposition of two quotations from me. Do you have a point? If so, spit it out.”
I think it speaks for itself.
Well, no, it doesn’t. Some commenter tells me boldly that he, allegedly unlike me, has read “meinkomp.” I think that speaks for itself.
Loki:
Not to get into a discussion of the Holocaust, which will stretch Kate’s patience to the breaking point, but that series of events was meticulously documented, with the Teutonic thoroughness you allude to. “Deportees,” for example,had one-way train fares to the East (children rode free), and the Deutschmarks thus spent were meticulously converted into other currencies as borders were crossed on the way to the camps.
Hence, debating whether the Holocaust happened (and not only Jews were caught up in it), is not “a legitimate question,” any more than “Did Abrhaham Lincoln exist?” is a “legitimate question.” Holocaust-denial is not based upon scholarly controversy, because there is no controversy. It’s simply an expression of hatred.
For more on this, including some of that documentation, check out Nizkor.org.
Dawg: To the fool who accused me of calling Harper a Nazi:That’s a lie. Plain and simple.”
>>Well before you go slandering people and name calling ( which is routine for emotionally disturbed “regressives like yourself), you may remember saying this:
Dawg: “Sorry, guys, revise history as you will, but Hitler was profoundly conservative”
All I did was take your statement and put it into a logical syllogism to see if it flies. A syllogism is a tool of deductive reasoning which is the natural extention and test of the logic of your premise.
Logic…that’s something they obviously don’t teach in the “progressive” arts… because you failed to recognise deductive reasoning or to grasp that a logical extention of your hypothesis produced an error in reason.
Hitler was obviously not a “conservative” because by comparison to a conservative ( Harper) they are worlds appart on ideology and political approach
To demonstrate the error in your postulation I put the syllogism in terms you could relate to by swapping out Hitler and conservatism for Stalinism and democratic socialism in the formula to show the error in branding tyrants and genocidal political systems with political labels that are indiginous to democratic constitutionalist systems.
Of course with your reactionary comment you proved to me , once again, that when logic fails a “progressive’s” dogma, name calling and slander are in store for anyone pointing out their logical errors.
So, Dawg , if anyone has proven to be a “fool” and a disingenuous “liar” it is you… who time after time shoot your mouth off without thinking, without fact and without the intellectual accumen or reasoning of an ant.
“Dawg”…that’s an apt handle… is it a reference to your unreasoning dogmatism?
Stating that Hitler was on the conservative side of the political spectrum–a notion that, quite frankly, would be uncontroversial if it weren’t such a useful tactic to claim he was a “leftist”–nothing like muddying the political waters–is a far cry from calling Harper a Nazi. To accuse me of stating the latter was a very foolish claim, and I called you on it, and I don’t apologize. Harper is no more a Nazi than Jack Layton is a Communist.
In the future, please don’t put words in my mouth. I have no idea where they’ve been.
WL Mackenzie Redux: All I did was take your statement and put it into a logical syllogism to see if it flies…Hitler was obviously not a “conservative” because by comparison to a conservative ( Harper) they are worlds appart on ideology and political approach
WLMR, the logical syllogism you tried to put Dr. Dawg’s statements into is flawed. You’ve committed what’s known as the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Here’s how you set it up:
Major premise (Dr. Dawg): Nazis are conservative.
Minor premise (Dr Dawg): Harper is a conservative.
(Fallacious) conclusion (WLMR): Harper is a Nazi.
Your conclusion based on his premises is demonstrably flawed. If X’s are Z’s and Y is a Z, it does not follow that Y is an X. To wit:
All chickens have wings.
A plane has wings.
A plane is a chicken.
All NDP activists like miniature schnauzers.
Kate likes miniature schnauzers.
Kate is an NDP activist.
All geniuses are human.
I am a human.
I am a genius.
I agree with you that local, organic food is a good thing, but stop calling people silly names.