Are comedic links between Harper and Hitler going too far?
Comments
Star Spangled Canadian wrote:When Harper kills 6 million people...hell, when he kills 6 people... I won't be so offended by comparisons to Hitler.
Its already way past 6... sometimes I think people won't question fascism again till someone breaks Hitler's record.
Name who has he killed, or are you just a liar looking for attention?
Legitimacy is not just a matter of counting the votes.
It would have to come from a population subjected to ideas from all parties on an equal basis. An imbalance of money for advertising (and Steve tried to bring that about a few days back, didn't he?) and you have people who don't have the truth, don't have all the facts.
That is a major consideration in talking about someone being "legitimately" in power - and politics is about power.
Do you agree with my distinction?
I didn't find it funny and neither would my grandfather who lost his parents and 6 of his siblings to Hitler's genocide.
When Harper kills 6 million people...hell, when he kills 6 people... I won't be so offended by comparisons to Hitler.
Well, we now have 100 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. How many civilians and others has he killed there? And how many is he allowing to die because of inaction the world over?
I am constantly underwhelmed by the degree of compassion evidenced here most days.
It would seem attempts at even bad or gross comedy are bound to happen. But, then, it is Friday night and who knows what is being smoked out there.
Clearly, some postings have shown the "comedic links" ARE going too far for some. Bad taste begets even worse "jokes".
Sure wish that others would join Sarann and myself in a useful exchange of thoughts on neocons . Or is it too late in the day?
1. It isn't so much that Hitler comparisons and Nazi references are or should be verboten. It's more that 99.99% of such references are overblown, silly and not helpful in the least.
2. Given that the same clip has been used to satirize the Vancouver Cancuks and several other things, that arguably takes the edge off here.
3. The 6 million figure does not include either civilians or military casualties from Hitler's wars. It refers specifically to European Jews who were rounded up into prisons and murdered because of their religion / ethnicity. In this context, it should also include the 3 million ethnic Poles. Roma (Gypsies), disabled persons, freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and, of course, LGBTQs for a total of around 9 million. It should arguably also include the 2-3 million Soviet POWs who were denied the usual rights of POWs and were similarly murdered. Steohen Harper is a blinkered ideologue, a shameless hypocrite, a bald faced liar, a craven coward and a complete asshole. Hitler he ain't and the comparison is both foolish and counterproductive.
4. I thought "Hitler has only got one ball" was just part of a propaganda song by allied troops. Are you certain about your post, TH?
Oh, George, than goodness somebody besides me is reading Drury's and Norton's writings. Leo Strauss is the philosopher who inspires Stephen Harper. He advocates benign dictatorship. He justifies lying and secrecy because he thinks the population will rebel, so for their own good they should be kept in the dark. Explains a lot like the paranoia, the constant lies, the way the Conservative party members react only to 'sir' and 'attack.'
Also why he wants to completely smash the opposition, the secrecy, the attacks on gender equity.
Please read about it people.
They use "sir" a lot too, Sarann.
But let's try to consumate this meeting of minds on a brand new thread, shall we? It will be an invitation to discuss Leo Strauss and his followers and his critics.
Maybe it will result in a better understanding of what's happening out there. The neo-con effect and its dangers.
But where can this happen with approval by the mods?
Over to you.....
Malcolm wrote:1. It isn't so much that Hitler comparisons and Nazi references are or should be verboten. It's more that 99.99% of such references are overblown, silly and not helpful in the least.
I totally agree. Hitler can't hurt anybody any more.
I must also concur. Hysterical types come out of the woodwork whenever industrialists and banking elite support a rightwing ideologue. Especially when he starts off parliament with pulling public funding to opposition parties and is observed practicing the goose step in private. Humour is a forgotten art.
1. It isn't so much that Hitler comparisons and Nazi references are or should be verboten. It's more that 99.99% of such references are overblown, silly and not helpful in the least.
2. Given that the same clip has been used to satirize the Vancouver Cancuks and several other things, that arguably takes the edge off here.
3. The 6 million figure does not include either civilians or military casualties from Hitler's wars. It refers specifically to European Jews who were rounded up into prisons and murdered because of their religion / ethnicity. In this context, it should also include the 3 million ethnic Poles. Roma (Gypsies), disabled persons, freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and, of course, LGBTQs for a total of around 9 million. It should arguably also include the 2-3 million Soviet POWs who were denied the usual rights of POWs and were similarly murdered. Steohen Harper is a blinkered ideologue, a shameless hypocrite, a bald faced liar, a craven coward and a complete asshole. Hitler he ain't and the comparison is both foolish and counterproductive.
4. I thought "Hitler has only got one ball" was just part of a propaganda song by allied troops. Are you certain about your post, TH?
That is not the point of the lesson, as far as I am concerned. In 1933, Hitler had not yet killed 11 million persons in concentration camps, or started a horrendous war. Hitler started out as a kind of oddball right winger who no one took very seriously. Thing is that doing things like manipulating the autocratic authority of monarchy in order to cancel democratic process, is precisely the kind of thing that Hitler did before he became the worst mass murderer of Europeans in history.
The point is that from perspective of the time, Hitler seemed far more benign than he actually was, and we should never forget that. This is not to say that Stephen Harper is a genocidal maniac with a hidden agenda, but to say the reason we oppose the autocratic siezure of power in the executive is to prevent the possible excesses of the idealogue.
Its hard to imagine Harper as the new Hitler (for one thing Canada will never have the kind of power that Hitler had at his hands in terms of being the ruler of a major world power) but there is great evil of a lesser sort, but it is still a great evil.
The Hitler lesson, is merely the most evocative and well known example of how democratic power was siezed by an idealogue to an evil end.The quality of that evil is yet to be determined. Wiemar is an very instructive lesson on the usurpation of democratic process in modern state. It may not be the first, nor the last but it is certainly the best known example.
Were one to use Augusto Pinochet as an example, or the basis of a joke, one would have to start off by explaining who Pinochet was, to most people.I'm sure Harper, the rapturist, and his followers, are going to be moved by concepts like "the great evil."
And in the Middle East "the Great Satan" has been used with effect by the mullahs.
But isn't a biblical source stretching it a bit in seeking words to describe a professed Christian for the unbelieving laity? Or has the secularization of Canada reached the point where we use "evil" and "good" without consideration for their origins?
But wouldn't the Christian community laugh, just a bit?
Hannah Arendt used "the banality of evil" in her 1963 work describing Adolf Eichmann and his cohorts. And the word "evil" still resonates in church-going America. But you would not use it there in describing Dubya, for instance, with any hope of gaining an audience. (Unless you were a Billy Graham gone bonkers. There, you might find some listeners).
George are you suggesting that without organized religion all things are morally relative and concepts such as good an evil are the exclusive property of the Churches?
I'm sure thats not what you meant to say but perhaps you could clarify. I do know how you hate it when I misunderstand you, and honestly, I'm trying not to do that here 
If the "non-believer" makes use of words like "evil" in describing the obvious believer, who is going to be believed, D?
Perhaps irony is not your main suit? (and how do you manage to miss something like;"But wouldn't the Christian community laugh, just a bit? ")
Or do you studiously avoid such "wrinkles"? (And yes, it would be a serious mistake to accuse me of moral relativity. Serious indeed!)
Its already way past 6... sometimes I think people won't question fascism again till someone breaks Hitler's record.
Sarann has brought an important subject to the fore - focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of "Steve's" political/economic ideas, coming out of the University of Chicago and the university of Calgary.
Walrus drew the connection a couple of years ago.
Reading Shadia Drury's The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, (2005 edition with a very interesting introduction by Drury, pointing tothe "Straussians in Power" in the U.S. administration.
In this introduction by the then University of Regina professor, Drury noted: '
"In an essay entitled 'The New Populism: Not to Worry', Irving Kristol argued that Americans should embrace populism, or the rule of the majority, despite the reservations of the Founding Fathers. This is what I have called the 'populist ploy', i which radical democracy or populism is used to undrmine the liberal elements that moderate and set limits to the tyranny of the majority. The result is not a more democratic society, as the rhetoric of the neoconservatives would have us believe - the result is an oligarchic society led by an elite of 'gentelmen' and the CEOs,. Far from being democratic and populist, neoconservatism uses populism as a ploy for anti-loberal as well as anti-populist ends."
Drury describes "Steve" and his following very well:
"Neoconservative ideology is laced with deception. Far from being conservative and moderate, neoconservatism is radical. Far from being populist,neoconservatism is elitist and oligarchic. Far from being democratic, neoconservatism subverts democracy with its lies and deceptions. There is perhaps one thing that neoconservatism is honest about - its visceral hatred of liberalism. But even THAT is concealed by a blurring of the distinction between freedom and democracy, both at home and abroad.
You want a comparison with the Nazi past?
Try Joseph Goebbels.
But lets get it straight. Neoconservatism is a very historically particular phenom. It ain't Hitler. That was a crude warping of minds
Pick up Drury's work and see how very sophisticated the task of bending the mind of the great unread has become. And successful.
I guess, Madwow, "Steve" is the "legitimate leader" only in the sense that he has been able to con a lot of people.
Check out Drury's writings. Also see Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire by Anne Norton.
And, heck, old Leo himself in his Natural Right and History.
They are all about how we are being misled.
I wish that folks, hereabouts, could get a little more focused on the nature of the beast.
Also see Chomsky on political advertising:
And notice incidentally on the side that the institutions that run the elections, public relations industry, advertisers, they have a role—their major role is commercial advertising. I mean, selling a candidate is kind of a side rule. In commercial advertising as everybody knows, everybody who has ever looked at a television program, the advertising is not intended to provide information about the product, all right? I don’t have to go on about that. It’s obvious. The point of the advertising is to delude people with the imagery and, you know, tales of a football player, sexy actress, who you know, drives to the moon in a car or something like that. But, that’s certainly not to inform people. In fact, it’s to keep people uninformed.The goal of advertising is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. Those of you who suffered through an economics course know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. But industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to undermine markets and to ensure, you know, to get uninformed consumers making irrational choices.
And when they turn to selling a candidate they do the same thing. They want uninformed consumers, you know, uninformed voters to make irrational choices based on the success of illusion, slander, and effective body language or whatever else is supposed to be significant. So you undermine democracy pretty much the same way you undermine markets. Well, that’s the nature of an election when it’s run by the business world, and you’d expect it to be like that. There should be no surprise there. And it should also turn out the elected candidate didn’t have any debts. So you can follow Brand Obama can be whatever they decide it to be, not what the population decides that it should be, as in the south, let’s say. I’m going to say on the side, this may be an actual instance of a familiar and unusually vacuous slogan about the clash of civilization. Maybe there really is one, but not the kind that’s usually touted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- That's what they did to folks' minds three-quarters of a century back in the Third Reich. It's not a Hitler at work today - but Steve's obviously been at work on your mind if you can call him "legitimate".
So who, in your mind, is the legitimate winner of the last election