Did you know the Nazis were liberals???
March 7th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David FarrarJohn Stringer blogs:
Nazism largely succeeded due to mob mentality. We are seeing some of the same pressures pervasive amongst liberal dogmas and social engineering being applied in the West, where if you disagree you’re pilloried and abused. There is even a whole glossary of semantic bully words to describe conservative dissidents (homophobes, sexist, bigots, archaic, unprogressive, intolerant, opposed to equality).
John is effectively comparing the Nazis to those who dare to argue against him. Not a winning strategy. Any comparison to the Nazis is offensive and ill-considered unless someone is actually out there committing genocide and the like. Calling someone a name is not comparable. Not even in the same universe actually.
Let’s remember, Hitler’s politics was Socialist before it was fascist.
Yes, but socialism and liberalism are very different things.
The Christian church was prominent among the few who stood up against this 1930s “progressive” ‘new morality’ hope and change wave, and then shielded the Jews at peril of their own lives. History repeats.
Is John saying he is risking his life by arguing against same sex marriage? Does he see himself as a brave martyr risking the mob burning down his home?
Also on a historical note, while there were many brave Christians who risked their lives to save Jews, the record of the Christian churches as a whole was very mixed.
It is utterly historically inaccurate to understand Nazism as a conservative movement, which it patently was not. It was radical, violent, self-righteous, liberal, progressive, new; it threw away, mocked and persecuted the old order
Oh yes, the Nazis were liberals and progressives. For someone who is meant to be complaining about the use of language to demonise, John does the exact thing he complains about.
Newflash to John. The Nazis executed Germans for being homosexuals – they didn’t allow them to marry. They banned gay organisations, they burned impure books, they arrested 100,000 homosexuals for being homosexuals and thousands perished in concentration camps. This is not liberalism.
In 1936 Himmler created the “Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion”. Does that sound like something a liberal regime would do, or a “conservative” one? The correct answer is actually neither as labels are inadequate for the Nazis, but oif John is going to play that game, well I’d say 99% of people would say such an office sound more conservative than liberal.
John says the Nazis were liberals and the wonders why he gets verbally abused by some. You get verbal abuse when you say outrageous offensive things such as the Nazi were liberals. Don’t say stupid offensive things, and you won’t get so much flak.
White Roses or red blood. Read more about that historic movement and lessons we can learn for today, here White Rose.
John praised White Rose for fighting Hitler. I agree they are heroes. Quite inspirational.
One of the founders of White Rose was Hans Scholl. He was executed at the age of 24 along with his sister. Many Germans revere them and their bravery and convictions.
Scholl incidentally was earlier arrested by the Nazis and accused of various offences including a same-sex teen relationship when he was 16. The Daily Mail reports:
During their interrogation neither of them cracked, but Sophie explained that Hans’s long drawn-out ordeal at the hands of the Gestapo years earlier over what they termed his ‘sexual deviance’ was ‘the most important reason’ for her subsequent decision to defy Hitler’s regime.
So I’m not so sure Hans or Sophie Scholl would really appreciate John’s portrayal of liberals (such as supporters of same sex marriage) as akin to Nazis.
Related posts:
- Conservatives and Classical Liberals
- Labour on Dunne and Nazis
- NZ Nazis
- The 20 most annoying liberals in the US
March 7th, 2013 at 9:06 am
They were National SOCIALISTS
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:09 am
DPF you draw a way-too-long bow here. The piece is about White Rose; it doesn’t mention homosexuality anywhere and doesn’t make any comparison, other than that ‘a new dawn replacing the church and traditional moralities’ has been done before as well as the political tactic of denigration to isolate.
Nazism is an historic politics; it has to be discussed without immediately saying authors are comparing XYZ with Nazis as a form of denigration.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:19 am
Yes, it’s called the dictionary, apparently.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:42 am
Your way off the mark here DPF. Your taking a statement and trying to push out of the context it was intended for.
Vote:Your taking a statement comparing what one historical timeline started out as, and comparing the statement only to the extremes of said timeline, ignoring the precursive of events.
Incidentally, I believe this is what is intended, insofar as demonizing the left
Nazi’s where Liberal, Socialist before Fascist.
March 7th, 2013 at 9:46 am
The main lesson learnt from the Nazis is that propaganda introduces change.
Other things may also introduce change, but that is essentually what propaganda DOES!
And we in the west are currently going through ‘newspeak’ – propaganda- where before all change first comes the change in language.
And that is why the terms “feminazi’ and ‘gaystapo’ are in vogue!
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:48 am
The Nazi’s were not liberals – but fascism and ‘modern’ liberalism are ideological cousins sharing the same ancestor of progressivism. For this reason, it is absurd to call Nazism ‘right-wing’ when it shares many of the same impulses and assumptions of modern liberals.
For those more interested in political philosophy and analytical thinking about politics than political horse-racing (probably not this blog) this is a fascinating field of scholarship. Recently, the CEO of Whole Foods got in trouble because he accurately described Obamacare as being a fascist economic policy (state control of producers) rather than socialistic (direct production by the state). Unfortunately, in our dumbed down culture, this was taken to mean the same thing as “CEO compares Obama to Hitler’
A pretty good read on this whole subject is Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:52 am
Oh, like using the euphemism “pro-life” to actually mean “banning abortion so that desperate and impoverished will die from backstreet abortions?” Or “pro-family” as an Orwellian Newspeak term to actually mean nothing more than “anti-gay”? The latter certainly isn’t anything else. Too bad if you happen to be interested in real issues to do with Kiwi families, because “Family First” sure as hell isn’t interested in those.
Of course, these Orwellian conservative Christian propaganda terms are used to distort the actual meaning and hideous reality of their destructive, negative, coercive authoritarian statist agenda, which is why many good classical liberals/libertarians join the centre-left in upholding women’s reproductive freedom and LGBT rights.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:55 am
DPF – you are seeing monsters where there are none.
The Naxis actions of group bullying are exactly what the current PC brigade do – the moment you disagree with them – you are labelled in a negative fashion. The most common of course is to called a racist. But recently its been homophobe.
Of course we have the well used Feminazi name as well – for those who think men should be killed at birth.
Its a current fashion which needs to be challenged every time it comes up.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:56 am
And yes, why is it that virtually all neofascists oppose reproductive and LGBT rights? And don’t forget, Josef Stalin also banned abortion and homosexuality in the former USSR during the backlash against Alexandra Kollontai and other Soviet feminists earlier social liberalism. Wow. So according to the raving ‘right,’ (as opposed to centre-rightists and classical liberals), Hitler and Stalin were “pro-life” and “pro-family.” Yeah, right.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:58 am
Has anyone else noticed how Hitler and every single Nazi were composed mostly of water?
And you know who else is composed mostly of water?
David Farrar.
Yes, you heard it here first, folks.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:58 am
I think you’re suffering a disconnect David, with the various meanings of the word “Liberal” and “Liberalism”. Classical liberalism is antithetical to totalitarian political systems. The modern meaning of the term Liberal, especially in an American context is almost the polar opposite. In that context liberal means more or less anti-liberal. It supports free speech as long as you agree with them, freedom of choice provided you chose what they insist you do, and freedom from government intervention as long as you do exactly what they tell you to do and think exactly what you are allowed to think.
On this whole Same Sex Marriage question you and Ryan are “New Speak” Liberals and not “Classical”. Ryan’s little snark being completely in tune with that, it’s apparently perfectly acceptable for Ryan to demonize and disparage opponents of his point of view with personal invective and personal denigration (in fact it is almost, it seems, obligatory to make this a matter of personal fault), and in his view completely unacceptable for his opponents to use the same tactics. Self righteous authoritarianism dressed up a compassionate liberalism.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 9:59 am
Barry, the term “feminazi” is only used by the tiny fringe male backlash micromovement, which, to be blunt, are a pack of moaning middle aged misogynist blokes who whinge incessantly and obsessively about how hard done by they are insofar as the Family Court and child support agencies, as well as their more sinister agendas attacking feminist domestic violence, child sexual abuse prevention and rape crisis. No wonder most thoughtful classical liberals want nothing to do with it.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:00 am
Well said, Ed Snack.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:00 am
“….banning abortion so that desperate and impoverished will die from backstreet abortions?” Or “pro-family….”
Idiot.
‘Back street abortions’ is the name given to doctors surgerys who performed abortions afterhours. Very few actually died.
And then – unbelievably – you went on to say this:
Of course, these Orwellian conservative Christian propaganda terms are used to distort the actual meaning and hideous reality of their destructive, negative, coercive authoritarian statist agenda,…’
Chardonnay Guy, if you want to contribute here, then please get your facts right. Your presense is otherwise pointless!
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:03 am
Stringer: Nazism largely succeeded due to mob mentality… if you disagree you’re pilloried and abused… bully words .. homophobes, sexist, bigots, … opposed to equality.
How very true. Don’t agree? Bigot. I have concluded (many) homosexuals have no comprehension of what marriage is. Marriage is an institution that formalises a special relationship that began with life itself, it concerns mating and making the sacrifices necessary to raise any children. Marriage, an ideal worth preserving and strengthening, will be reduced to a comforting word for homosexuals, few of whom will get married. It is not equality, it is narcissistic humbug.
Farrar: John is effectively comparing the Nazis to those who dare to critique those who argue against him…
Ah, “effectively”, eh? Well, Nazism did succeed due to mob rule. Most people have never thought about what marriage is, want to be fashionable, and politicians want to be modern and, of course, popular. We are persuaded buggery is the equivalence of copulation. Of course this is not Nazism. But, democracy does depend on people being civilised and independent.
Homosexuals don’t want to be equal, they want to be normal. So we redefine marriage.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:03 am
What the. Which Ryan are you talking about, Ed? Me? Can you cite some examples?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:04 am
Manolo, can you give me some examples of my personal invective and personal denigration too?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:06 am
Oh, I’m sorry, Ed. I thought that the US Christian Right was involved in a massive statist plan to introduce a constitutional amendment, the so-called “Federal Marriage Amendment”, against marriage equality in the United States? And that Australia had amended its federal marriage legislation to pre-empt its states and territories legislating for marriage equality there? And that New Zealand’s Gordon Copeland tried to mangle New Zealand’s own Bill of Rights and Human Rights Act back in 2005, slavishly following that precedent?
Most *real* classical liberals in National and ACT that I’ve met support marriage equality precisely because they are appalled at what they see as an authoritarian conservative statist agenda to impose sectarian religious doctrine on those of other religious beliefs as well as secularists who do not share it. And that also applies to similar elements within David Cameron’s Conservative Party and even the US Republicans who support marriage equality.
Tory fascist apologists denigrated Sir Winston Churchill back in the thirties and forties, yet he was vindicated by history. I have no doubt that good classical liberals will be over their support for marriage equality.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:06 am
“…..which is why many good classical liberals/libertarians join the centre-left in upholding women’s reproductive freedom and LGBT rights….”
Again, you post incorrect facts.
Women are the ones who have actually lost the most through the ‘progressive’ agenda.
Which means you should have instead said – “….why many USELESS classical liberals/libertarians join the centre-left….”
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:06 am
Calling the Nazi’s socialists because the were the they were the National Socialist party is like calling North Korea democratic because it is The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:07 am
Chardonay Guy – I find your advocacy of LGBT rights offensively narrow. Why are you so prejudiced against intersex people? What about the pansexual? The asexual?
I think you should consult your conscience and become more inclusive. From now on, I would be grateful if you could refer to LGBTIPA rights.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:08 am
Weird accusations aside, I believe you’re wrong about this, Ed Snack. You’re right that the term “liberal” has been perverted from its classical meaning, often to something almost its opposite. But in the matter of same-sex marriage – of the State not favouring/encouraging one way of living over another so long as it does not directly harm another – it’s clearly a Classical Liberal position.
There are plenty of policies suggested by the established left that are new “liberal” rather than classically liberal, but this is not one of them.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:11 am
Harriut, our good host is quite correct about the historical realities of Nazi Germany (and Stalinist Russia during the same historical period*). They banned abortion and maintained criminal penalties against gay men, consigning five thousand to the concentration camps where they were starved and overworked to death.
As for backstreet abortion deaths, I believe that you have an excellent organisation called the Children By Choice Association over in Queensland. I trust their judgement and assessment of the actual historical record rather than yours. As well as that of former QNP state parliamentarian Rosemary Kyburz.
*Yes, good point, David, what abou Stalin’s identical authoritarianism and attack on individual freedoms during the same time frame?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:11 am
Nazism largely succeeded due to……..
Everything happens in a context.
France (the Allies) imposed crippling reparations,the depression,loss of territory etc
There was then the struggle for the control of Germany between two evil ideologies, communism and the National Socialists.The Soviet Union was hell bent on controlling Germany through its communist party in Germany.
Vote:Only one of those 2 could win. Most Germans knew the dangers of the Soviets and that’s why so many opted for Hitler (not knowing what would follow).
March 7th, 2013 at 10:14 am
Kowtow – as an interesting aside – do you really think we can maintain that wartime reparations were a cause of the rise of Nazism when we consider the fact that modern Germany has paid more to France under the Common Agricultural Policy than they were required to pay under Versailles?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:15 am
HG Wells, the most strenuous intellectual advocate of totalitarianism on the early-20th-century British left.
“I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti,” he told the Oxford Union in 1932, “for enlightened Nazis. The world is sick of parliamentary democracy. The Fascist party is Italy. The Communist is Russia. The Fascists of liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition of a far grander scale.”
Avant-garde Nazi philosophers – Heidegger, Paul de Man, Carl Schmitt – are venerated by nominal leftists in the postmodern universities, who love their contempt for traditional morality and standards of truth.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:18 am
Actually, I do support adding gender identity to the Human Rights Act, I’ve been a strong supporter of Mani Mitchell and the Intersex Society of New Zealand for the last decade or so and wonder if ‘remedial’ infant intersex surgery shouldn’t be subject to mandatory informed consent provision for parents, and would be open to discussing what asexuals would regard as appropriate social and legislative recognition, Cato. And incidentally, I wish you’d pick some other Roman pseudonym than a much-respected individual like that one for your neoconservative utterings. It denigrates the memory of a good person. I may disagree with the Cato Institute about economic matters obviously, but there’s little faulting it on other issues of individual freedom (as many genuine classical liberals view it).
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:20 am
All you have just shown is that:
- You are beyond parody;
Vote:- You don’t know what a neocon is; and
- You don’t know much about history.
March 7th, 2013 at 10:20 am
I don’t know about de Man or Schmitt, but I’ve never read anything in Heidegger that suggested a contempt for traditional morality.
Though there does tend to be an amount of foot-shuffling and “yes, well, you know, nobody’s perfect…” when his enthusiastic membership in the Nazi Party is brought up.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:21 am
Adding some petrol to the DPF BBQ…
http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/naughty-closet-nazis-the-new-n-word/
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:22 am
“….tiny fringe male backlash micromovement, which, to be blunt, are a pack of moaning middle aged misogynist blokes who whinge incessantly and obsessively about how hard done by they are insofar as the Family Court and child support agencies, as well as their more sinister agendas attacking feminist domestic violence, child sexual abuse prevention and rape crisis….”
“….child sexual abuse prevention and rape crisis….”
Chardonnayguy – you have COMPLETELY lost the plot today!
Marriage has been the greatest form of welfare that women and children have ever seen! Only a complete fool would ever say otherwise!
Most child sexual abuse is NOT performed by the natural fathers. More importantly – children who live with their fathers and mothers in Marriage are far LESS likely to be victims of child abuse by OTHERS!
Children fare FAR BETTER in relationships with both their natural parents!
Neither is the rape of wifes committed by husbands – virtually ALL rapes on Married women are committed by those who ARN’T the husband!
Go to your local police station and they will tell you the DIFFERANCE between a DEFACTO MALE PARTNER and a HUSBAND, then ask the police who is MOST likely to rape a female they live with or commit child abuse on children they live with!
Go on!…away you go!….and stay away from the feminazis – as your head today is full of shit!
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:24 am
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:24 am
And I am not apologising for Heidegger and his role as regime apologist, or Paul DeMan, although Carl Schmitt’s a new one. Incidentally, Reddy, you seem to omit pro-Nazi British Conservative and US isolationist Republican supporters of Nazi Germany during the immediate prewar period from your rather selective historical scrutiny. And I notice you haven’t commented on my point about Churchill’s lack of popularity within the British Tories during that period. Why?
Traditional morality? According to Sir William Shirer, in his monumental “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” everything David and other genuine classical liberals have said about the Nazi (and Stalinist) anti-abortion and anti-gay policies of the thirties and forties is correct. Merely because something is ‘traditional’ does not give it the imprimatur of ‘truth’ or validity. Slavery and anti-Semitism were once ‘traditions’ too.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:27 am
Interesting Charles Lindburgh preached Facism was the future.
Looking at the financial devastation of Europe and the US by bankers and technocrats I have to say the vision is being fulfilled.
Everything bad is inspired by socialism. Nazi’s called themselves socialist. USSR caled itself socialist. The seeds of Mao Tse Tung were socialist.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:28 am
Why is that the neocon authoritarians here are resorting to personal abuse, given that David and those of us who support individual freedom in this context are merely citing valid historical facts about the past that originate from respected historians like Sir William Shirer in the context of Nazi Germany?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:29 am
ChardonnayGuy, you come across as having a big chip on your shoulder as a result of your sexuality.
Vote:It makes you reduce the whole universe to eternal confrontation between male and female, where homosexuals like yourself are perennial losers and victims.
March 7th, 2013 at 10:32 am
Actually, I thought the article about the White Rose paid fitting tribute to brave and courageous German Christian teenagers. It’s just a shame that the Deutschkhristen movement of the thirties was so blinded by the Lutheran and Catholic traditional values of anti-Semitism (…) and Nazi “family values” rhetoric that they gave the Nazis a free bus pass.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:34 am
And I’m not apologising for Mao or Stalin, either, let it be noted. They were mass murderers and should be denigrated as such, every bit as much as the bizarre and lunatic regime of the Kims in North Korea, fit only for parody.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:36 am
“John is effectively comparing the Nazis to those who dare to argue against him.”
A pretty piss poor misrepresentation. John says this-
“Nazism largely succeeded due to mob mentality. We are seeing some of the same pressures pervasive amongst liberal dogmas and social engineering being applied in the West, where if you disagree you’re pilloried and abused. ”
He is clearly talking about “mob mentality” and the dangers of allowing it political supremacy. I myself wrote a similar blog article recently.
http://truebluenz.com/2013/01/30/opinion-polls-hitler-mussolini-and-caligula-would-all-have-been-so-popular/
The title of an article on Whale Oil on marriage redefinition-
“Kevin Hague smashes up Family First’s claims…one by one till there are none left standing”
What kind of imagery does that convey??
Slater’s blog in particular is full of disgusting little cowards who can do nothing in defence of their efforts to use big powerful government to redefine traditional marriage other than call those opposed bigots and haters, as Slater himself frequently does.
John Stringer has a point, and all you are doing Mr. Farrar is trying to ridicule Mr Stringer and his point by extending the comparison he made into territory John clearly never intended.
Thereby in actuality unintentionally reinforcing John’s real point.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:37 am
John is effectively comparing the Nazis to those who dare to argue against him.
Or in other words, John is effectively a typical guy with an internet connection.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:41 am
Chardongayguy is an autority on the subject of nazism!
Which validates my comment[the 5th from the top of the page]:
“…The main lesson learnt from the Nazis is that propaganda introduces change.Other things may also introduce change, but that is essentually what propaganda DOES!…And we in the west are currently going through ‘newspeak’ – propaganda- where before all social change first comes the change in language….And that is why the terms “feminazi’ and ‘gaystapo’ are in vogue!…
…”
Chardongayguy is another who didn’t see Orwells 1984 as a warning, but rather, as a training manual!
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:43 am
Harry it
If you think that legally being raped with no legal redress was welfare.
Your term welfare encapsulates your misogynist approach to the sexes.
I would hope that most of those married view their relationship as a mutual exchange of benefit rather than charity to the pathetic sex that can not even support itself.
I have stated before that marriage is the long term commitment between two people, to use the vows to have and to hold from this day forward……… to love and to cherish*, till death us do part…..There is no intent of welfare inherent in this contract just mutual exchange of respect support and pleasure! in each other.
Conservatives: attempting to pervert marriage to only child rearing and sex since gay marriage first became a topic of discussion on kb
ps * and obey Misogynistic christian church not Christs teaching inspired. The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene, http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm Slavery as abhorrent in a Muslim now as it was in the Christstianing church then
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:44 am
This thread looks like all kinds of fun.
I’ll be over ———> there somewhere, if anybody wants me.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:51 am
BTW readers, please visit “the Conservative” for another excellent article exposing how the whole redefinition of marriage push is underpinned by big government duplicity and fraud:
http://www.theconservative.co.nz/?q=node/204
Good examples of some of the pathetic pro- redefinition submissions that were granted legitimacy by the kangaroo court that is deemed a “Select Committee.”
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:53 am
I kind of agree with Redbaiter here. Things are being read into Stringer’s post that he didn’t say.
But I think Stringer is also reading things into what others say that isn’t there. He says he’s arguing against the claim that Naziism was a conservative movement. Now, like “liberal”, the word “conservative” can mean plenty of different things. One of those things is “traditional/established” or “opposed to change”. And because so much change in the last century has been about racial equality, gender equality and sexual equality, “conservative” has also come to be associated with opposing those changes specifically.
Fairly or unfairly, it has.
And because a number of the values espoused by the Nazis are also associated with conservatism, there are people who would call Naziism a conservative movement. Not in the sense that it wasn’t a sweeping change, though. It’s two strawmen.
STRINGER: “Liberals say that this burrito is hot. It’s not hot! It’s been in the fridge!”
Vote:DPF: “You’re crazy! That pizza is covered in chili flakes and is very hot!”
STRINGER: “I’m not talking about the pizza!”
March 7th, 2013 at 10:55 am
“ChardonnayGuy, you come across as having a big chip on your shoulder as a result of your sexuality.”
Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:58 am
Sproull,
The other half of the equation is that left-liberalism has somehow acquired an unearned reputation for being on the ‘right side of history’ regarding racial equality.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:00 am
That’s a good point. Really all that means is that it won. If the racial-equality movement had failed, the conservatives of that time would be looked back on as being on the right side of history.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:01 am
On a more positive note, the jolly old Nazis did sponsor some pretty spectacular motor racing though before they got preoccupied with genocide…
http://www.autoviva.com/img/photos/283/big_103283.jpg
600 horsepower (that’s more than your HSV/Walkinshaw/whatever V8 thing) in an open cockpit death-trap the size of a Mini, rolling on tyres that look skinny even for a motorbike.
Holy shizzle the guys that raced these things shoulder-to-shoulder must have had big cojones.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:04 am
Also, if you want to LAND A MAN ON THE MOON AND RETURN HIM SAFELY TO THE EARTH it helps to have a few captured Nazis giving you pointers along the way
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/38660.jpg
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:04 am
Whatever marriage is, it has always been, since time immemorial, between men and women, and never included homosexual acts. That is a statement of fact, not an attempt to pervert marriage.
Of course we can redefine the word marriage. Just as we can redefine the word bus to include trucks. Good luck flagging down a truck at the bus stop. Make sure it stops before climbing aboard.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:05 am
I think John Stringer is saying this
The Nazis preached that Jews must be excluded from society, and used political methods to achieve this objective, and these methods resulted in widespread ridicule, violence, humiliation, and persecution of Jews.
How often on this blog and Slater’s blog do you read comments saying that Christians and Conservatives should be excluded from society and have no input into government?
I’ll answer that.
Almost every day.
I say there is a lot of validity in comparing Nazi methods to exclude Jews from society and the methods today’s Progressives use in attacking Christians and Christianity. (and also Conservatives)
Are Progressives the new Nazis?
Of course not, but their political tactics at the very least bear comparison.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:06 am
Sproull,
Umm that’s a comprehension fail – I don’t mean it was a triumph of relativism. What I mean is that, particularly in the American context, large sections of the liberal movement in America were overtly racist and that has been airbrushed out of history.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:07 am
I always get attacked when I say this, but however…
The Nazi party was actually stacked with homosexuals and the party itself was formed in a gay bar, the Bratwurstgloeckl (documented in the book by German Journalist Heinz Hohne The Order of the Death’s Head, called ”A monumental achievement” by the New York Times Book Review).
This stuff has pretty much been written out of history, such as the burning of the Sex Institute and its books by the Nazis in Berlin on May 6, 1933. Why? Because they held records on the sexual treatment of Germans, many of them Nazi leaders.
Treatment at the Sex Research Institute was required by the German courts for persons convicted of sex crimes. Ludwig L. Lenz, the “gay” Assistant Director at the Institute at the time of the raid, managed to escape with his life and later wrote of the incident:
There’s info out there if you want to look for it, but it’s not Politically Correct now. A good place to start is The Pink Swastika, which the authors document by “[drawing] heavily upon homosexual writers and historians for our source material and used direct quotations from their writings whenever possible. The remainder of our sources are primarily mainstream historians of the Nazi era”.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:10 am
@Harriet
Approximately 30% are genetic relatives of the child (such brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins). Around 60% are non-related acquaintances such as ‘friends’ of the family, babysitters, or neighbours. Strangers are responsible for around 10% of child sexual abuse cases.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:11 am
“If the racial-equality movement had failed, the conservatives of that time would be looked back on as being on the right side of history.”
Seen Detroit recently??
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:17 am
“…..If you think that legally being raped with no legal redress was welfare…..Your term welfare encapsulates your misogynist approach to the sexes……..I would hope that most of those married view their relationship as a mutual exchange of benefit rather than charity to the pathetic sex that can not even support itself….”
Griff….again you haven’t bothered to read what I’ve said…today…..yesterday…the day before that….last week….whole of January…..and oct and nov and dec of last year!
Take your ignorance of hetrosexual Marriage and what it affords women and children -and your hatred of those who defend it- elsewhere Griff !
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:19 am
Woodrow Wilson, for instance – the academic leader of the Progressive movement – was an avowed racist who resegregated the US civil service. The Civil Rights Act passed on the strength of Republican congressman and over the bitter opposition of Democrat populists. Obamacare very nearly failed because a former Grand Wizard of the KKK and Democrat US Senator died and couldn’t vote.
Today, the broader liberal movement is consumed with race – it’s latest, acceptable iteration being poisonous identity politics.
But you wouldn’t believe that if you just consumed the mainstream media and weren’t particularly predisposed to reading serious books on the subject. In that case, you would believe the dumbed down narrative of the ‘progress’ made by goodies (left-liberals) against the opposition of badies (traditional conservatives).
Which brings us to posts like this.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:23 am
Cato @1014
As I said everything has a context. The reparations in the context of the politics ansd economic collapse in Germany played to Hitlers’ advantage.
Today’s Germany is crippled by guilt over WW2,a different context altogether.
Having said that the fact that Germany is funding the indolent lifestyle of practically the rest of the EU is breeding discontent there.Who knows what the outcome will be?
Vote:But it’s not the same and nor is it comparable.
March 7th, 2013 at 11:24 am
” it’s latest, acceptable iteration being poisonous identity politics. ”
First tried by the Nazis.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:25 am
I am confused as to why people get so upset about being likened to a Nazi (National SOCIALIST workers party).
Being accussed of being a Socialist does not seem to get the same reaction. Yet [other] Socialist regimes have done far worse that the Nazi’s who were moderate by comparison.
It seems the political left do not like being reminded of their true history, let alone current events.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:25 am
Kowtow – very interesting you should say that. I think you’re probably right, of course. But somewhere … I can’t remember quite where … I had recently been reading an account of German resentment at the bailouts that gave me a very slight pause.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:28 am
“…..Approximately 30% are genetic relatives of the child (such brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins).Around 60% are non-related acquaintances such as ‘friends’ of the family, babysitters, or neighbours. Strangers are responsible for around 10% of child sexual abuse cases……”
That doesn’t mean that children and wifes are MORE unsafe with their husbands/fathers – because it doesn’t tell us who the person is that is in a relationship[s] with the mother[s].
The figure that I quoted was taken from Norway where staitics show “that children who do not live within a Marriage are 15 times more likely to be a victim of child sexual abuse’.[not just by the father, but by anyone!]
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:31 am
Young Germans don’t really mind being seen as ‘European Unioners’ as they don’t like the past of their grandparents.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:40 am
Border control in Greece:
Vote:Name? Merkel, Angela Merkel.
Nationality? German.
Occupation? No, no, I’m just here for the weekend.
March 7th, 2013 at 11:46 am
Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. I thought you were saying that (lower-case-L) liberals were riding on being on the right side of racial equality as a fallacious moral weight behind other liberal causes today.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:52 am
One of the interesting sidelines here is the claim that the Nazi Party included homosexuals – and yet persecuted homosexuals – are these people arguing that it was a liberal socialist parody of a certain conservative religious organisation?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:57 am
There might be some other factors at work there, Harriet. For example, are there any socio-economic trends in legally married couples versus unmarried couples? Are unmarried couples more likely to be from poorer backgrounds, and are people from poorer backgrounds less likely to get legally married?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:57 am
Interesting article for “racial equality” advocates-
Birmingham, Alabama is considered by many to be the birthplace of the civil rights movement. Today, African-Americans in Birmingham benefit from a numerical majority in the population, corresponding majorities in government jobs, and political control of the city. But civil rights won’t address what ails the city now.
Birmingham is recognized as one of the most violent and poorly-run cities in the nation. The city runs a massive deficit, and is county seat of Jefferson County, which recently cut a deal with a European bank as part of the largest government bankruptcy in U.S. history.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/civil_rights_and_the_collapse_of_birmingham_ala.html
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:58 am
You can’t shoehorn Nazism into almost any modern political category except totalitarianism, the system of Govt where the usually charismatic leader tries to control all of the political, economic and social institutions.
The political leanings of totalitarianism are.. whatever the leader wants them to be. Hitler instituted aspects of Fascism, Politburo, socialism, nationalism, leader worship, militarism and environmentalism which tend to make his system reasonably unique. He could hardly be called conservative because he was the enemy of traditional stuff like religion, and he cant be called liberal because he was the enemy of individualism.
Nazism, like Communism and even Radical Islam sought to provide a comfortable answer to everything and hung their ideologies on useful scapegoats such as race (Hitler), class (Communism) and religion (Islam).
Long story short.. Nazism is a bad example to use in virtually any first world country because you can be conservative but sexually liberal, socialist and devout Christian and liberal on social mores but fiscally strict.. you now need to be more precise in your insults.
JC
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:58 am
And as for how propaganda is a device to realise success in politics, including change. Apparently those who engage in this to realise change are a said to be a threat to the conservative order. Thus liberals, as progressives against a conservative order, are portrayed as a threat.
In this way the term liberal becomes a term like the word Jew to describe a threat to a Christian white race conservative order. So who are demonstrating the practice of the Nazis on this thread?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 11:59 am
I think that’s well said, JC.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
JC- One link with today’s Progressives and last century’s Nazi’s that is hard to break is the matter of identity politics.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Sproull – you might be surprised but, as a traditionalist, I agree with your critique of Harriet’s reasoning. Humans are not lab rats – there are too many variables to draw iron-clad conclusions from surveys.
SPC – do you deny that Ernst Röhm, Edmund Heines and a whole cadre of SA leaders weren’t homosexual?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Ryan Sproull-
Have you read Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism”?
I can get an audio or digital version to you if you would want.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Oh, I’m never surprised when people agree with me, Cato. I’m just constantly surprised that they don’t ; )
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
I haven’t read it, but I’m happy to. Is it on Kindle?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
JC – I mostly agree. The one reservation I do have is that – from an academic perspective – you can trace the various ideologies of the 20th century back to their roots and make interesting observations about that. While Nazism may have been unique, I would suggest that there are the seeds of coherence there – and it was, of course, influenced by themes and ideas that also informed the other ideologies of the day.
What are the practical implications of the fact that fascism and modern liberalism have a common ancestor? Not much (or at least, not much that is useful). Remember, modern (Burkean) conservatism shares some traits with Throne and Altar conservatism. Am I tarred with the divine right of kings because I believe in a smaller government and the natural law?
We should debating the mertis of divergent philosophies – not damning them by association.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-ebook/dp/B000W917ZG
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
RyanS, love your burrito/pizza allusion at 10:53am…
STRINGER: “Liberals say that this burrito is hot. It’s not hot! It’s been in the fridge!”
DPF: “You’re crazy! That pizza is covered in chili flakes and is very hot!”
STRINGER: “I’m not talking about the pizza!”
So, what you’re actually saying is DPF is frigid?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Sproull –
Take the offer. It’s actually good book. But if you do read it, I think you should make sure you read the introduction first because it makes quite clear that:
1- It’s intention is defensive – basically, its purpose is to stop people from hanging the albatross of fascism on the necks of contemporary conservatives; and
2- Despite the title – it does NOT argue that modern liberals are the equivalents of 20th century fascists.
Because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, you need to constantly remind yourself to read the book through those prisms.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Cheer, Redbaiter. I’ve bought it. Will let you know what I think when I’m done.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Redbaiter
Vote:You are the epitome of identity politics.
To the existent that you decry even accessing politically conflicting media in an attempt to insure your chosen identity is kept Pure.
As is your habit of labeling all who disagree with any point in your grand plan as progressive socialists.
Ironically you are the most extreme representation of fascist that we have posting.
March 7th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Cato, did you read and comprehend what I wrote?
The church includes homosexuals while condemning any activity – as for the Nazis the real question is timeline – the SA included homosexuals, but on the night of the longknives what happened to them … were gays in the socialist movement first exploited as activists, then dismissed and then persecuted across Germany as part of Nazi policy in government?
PS What will the church now do, to improve its public reputation …
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Remember 1987, the Homosexual Law Reform petition at parliament, when Fran Wilde and the news media labelled the Christian churches present (with their NZ flags) as Nuremberg and the Nazis? again when the Destiny gang protested in black T-shirts (“black shirted SS” etc).
A funny inconsistent world we live in.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Griff- you’re a moron and that’s why I usually do not respond to your disconnected inconsistent drivel. But I’ll make your day today-
“If you think shrinking government and getting it less involved in your life is a hallmark of tyranny it is only because you are either grotesquely ignorant or because you subscribe to a statist ideology that believes the expansion of the state is the expansion of liberty.”
Vote:― Jonah Goldberg
March 7th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
i just wanted a clarification. There were plenty of gay people in the Nazi Party, of course – even the SS – despite very serious sanctions under Nazi Germany’s criminal code. What does that tell us – nothing more, I suspect, other than that people are complicated.
What will the Church do now, to improve its reputation? Hopefully elect an energetic Pope with a mandate the clean out the filth from the Church while ministering to the souls of the sinners and victims alike.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
What the thread demonstrates is that so many who frequent this blog have a trained and educated dislike of “liberals”.
Cato
If political philosophy and analytical thinking about politics … means labelling regulation of business is fascist economic policy (state control of producers) and direct ownership by the state is socialistic, then of course it just serves to idolise private capital as a god for men to worship and obey.
Small goverrnment in that context just makes this private capital a bedfellow of faith based provider subsidarity (taxpayer funded jobs handed out by religious identity) – a radical return to the past pre (liberal) modern nation state government. To the days of an international regime, based on an economic order (capital based rather than land) and religious identity (poor laws).
PS I presume this might provoke a clarification.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Cato, most of the homosexuals were purged when the Nazis got into power and exercised state power.
As to the SS, there even some who were categorised as Jews (with Jewish ancestry) who by other associations were exempted by being of the party etc. The church has supported laws that criminalised homosexual activity while including supposedly celibate homosexuals loyal to group doctrine.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Can we just unpack the logic here:
1 – Under fascism, the state indirectly controls production through corporatism;
2 – Under socialism, the state controls the means of production;
3 – Therefore, private capital is a deity to be worshipped and obeyed.
QED or non sequitur?
If any clarification is needed – can you please clarify in what sense you are using the word ‘subsidiarity’.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Cato,
One presumes that improving the church’s reputation includes better focus on protecting minors – this probably involves a distinction between those who prey on the young of the laity and those who are simply prone to activity with consenting adults, but may not. The latter could involve a wider crackdown on all priests active sexually, a crackdown on homosexual activity alone would indicate a judgment of the sexuality rather than the breach of celibacy.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
That “Political Compass” thingy is flawed (IMHO) because it shows political philosophies as being distributed around a flat, two-dimensional plane.
It is my opinion that reality is more of a sphere, and the extreme edges of The Political Compass actually disappear around a circular horizon and all meet up again at point around the back. In a place opposite the political “centre” that I like to call “hell”.
http://politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png
Hence why there’s no-one quite as far “left” as the extreme political “right” for instance. And the crimes of history’s nastiest tyrants against those under their power are broadly similar, no matter what the political or philosophical bent of the tyrant may be.
And hence threads like this one…
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
SPC – robust procedures have been put in place to prevent this occuring again. In Australia, the Towards Healing procedures are presently being reviewed (I think) to ensure they are effective. This is a problem for the Church, I agree, but I’m not so interested in engaging on it with people who I don’t believe are pursuing the matter in good faith and instead simply want a cudgel to forever beat those Catholics with whom they have an ideological difference.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
RRM – I have never given much credence to the ‘circle’ theory of politics. It doesn’t have much to commend it apart allowing centrists (as self-described by liberals) to define totalitarianism as nothing more than ‘the opposite of me’
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
“Hence why there’s no-one quite as far “left” as the extreme political “right” for instance.”
Bullshit. Utter fucking bullshit, and just another of the tired old unfounded pronouncements that progressives trot out all the time as if it is some great unchallengeable truth, when its just worthless crap.
Cato nutshelled it above. You’re either for tyranny or you oppose it. How the fuck can people who want minimum weak and hardly noticeable government (Redbaiter) be anywhere near (in any form of political comparison) those who want huge all powerful government consuming all we earn and directing us in every little part of our life???
The claim is just the usual worthless shit that brings nothing to the table other than to show again that progressives are brain damaged morons who will never get it.
BTW, you’re right about the political compass- its flawed because the premises of its questions are based on so much worthless progressive shit.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Cato, QED … I presume when you affect the tactics of Bill Clinton, when he does not want to clarify anything, you mean that you do not intend to …
Of course dismissing any national government alternative to unfettered capitalism, as being either socialist or fascist, the inference is that there should be an international regime where private capital is supreme. Subsidiarity offers away for this deconstruction of the nation state to proceed. The increase in wealth and income inequality since 1978 shows the poverty of this doctrine as one that is pro life – it’s an insult to liberation theology.
We can witness the American attempt to further the cause of international capital via the TPP – an irony that the US President forced into Obama care by opposition to real public health for all (as a cost on the well to do to assist those in neglect that the powerful resent as a burden they do not want to carry), should see this as part of his job representing American corporate interests in the global economy.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“less involved in your life”
Is not your position redbaiter you want more control over how people live their lives.
Freedom has never been closer.
Ever.
In the history of man.
Due to the liberal progressives you so dislike.
Your idea of freedom is we all do it your way.
The recreational drugs we use, The sex we have, The partners we have, The religion we belong to, The media we access, Our education processes we use, Our laws and courts.
All these things and many more you would need to control for your so called freedom to work.
All these things you label as liberal progressive and seek to enforce your chosen identity upon.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Cato – Socialism tends to lead to an oppressive government that keeps the poor in line through fear.
Oddly similar to “good” old fashioned dark-age monarchies?!? And heck, pretty much everything else right back to the Mesopotamian civilization at Ur as far as we can tell.
The worst excesses of almost any political system yet tried, seem to always lead to a state of affairs where a powerless majority being starved, bullied and killed by the people in power.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Redbaiter – you say you’re for less government etc etc, and yet you very strongly advocate for Government to impose the kind of morality you agree with on all other citizens. (No gay marriage.)
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:11 pm
RRM – don’t get me wrong – I don’t disagree with you about the deficiencies of a simple left/right axis. I don’t however, agree with the convenient alternative of a circle. Put it this way, If the ACT Party keeps getting more and more extreme about personal liberty it’s not going to end up like the Nazis. If the Green Party keeps getting more and more extreme its not going to end up like the Objectivists.
I think that, if we’re categorising ideologies, we have a choice of a number of different scales. Our desire for a neat, unified theory doesn’t mean one has to exist.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
RRM – the government didn’t impose traditional marriage norms on the people. Those norms predated the government and predated all formal laws everywhere. The government didn’t ‘create’ marriage – it recognised it (and then made some attempts to regulate it by restricitng it).
Some of us see it as a government imposition for it to annex it completely by declaring total sovereignty over it. You may not agree it’s a sound argument, but it’s certainly a valid one, at least.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:15 pm
For God’s sake, you people who link a wish for small government with support for the redefinition of marriage are just such brainwashed losers.
Lets just say you really cared about tyranny and you had the chance to change things-
Were would you start? By sacking 100 politicians and cutting government size by 80% and cutting expenditure to 20% of what it is now, or allowing two Marxist losers to use a shonky and corrupt big government process to redefine traditional marriage?
Don’t answer. I’m really not that interested in bandying ideas about with such mental cripples.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:16 pm
I always get attacked when I say this, but however…
You get attached for promoting egregiously stupid and offensive claims? No shit…
Redbaiter – you say you’re for less government etc etc, and yet you very strongly advocate for Government to impose the kind of morality you agree with on all other citizens.
He’s for less of the government he doesn’t like, and more of the govt he does like. It’s a coherent, if not particularly compelling outlook.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
SPC – I never said there aren’t alternatives to a troika of socialism, fascism or capitalism. Where would you get that idea? Accurately describing two things is not the same thing as saying there is only one alternative. For all you know, I might believe in distributism – if I did then that wouldn’t negate a single thing I’ve written.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
“JC- One link with today’s Progressives and last century’s Nazi’s that is hard to break is the matter of identity politics.”
I would say its more prevalent now than then. Today we call it multiculturalism.
JC
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Cato – no the govt didn’t impose traditional marriage norms.
However, the govt does have a role in administering state records of marriages, and a state-recorded marriage has some spin-offs for citizens that have one.
What is happening now is that the Govt is being asked to liberalise the scope of marriages that can be legally recognised in NZ, and it is conservative forces that are at the forefront of people saying “No, state-recorded marriage should continue to exclude the gays.”
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
RRM – that is certainly one way of looking at it. Another is to say that it is a vast expansion of government power because the state is asserting a right to redefine a basic, immemorial institution. If another government were to say, “We see where you are coming from, but we don’t think we have absolute authority over civil society and so we’re not sure we have the power to do that” – would you characterise that as the over-reaching of government power?
Which is the better argument? It’s debateable. I personally support traditional marriage but am at least somewhat agnostic about the importance or impact of the reform is a civil law matter.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Cato, how is natural law distinguished from morality? And if there is no separation, where is the place for God?
If God, natural law and morality are one, is there not really a claim that God pre-existed human government and that God’s law should apply – or is this line also not all inference …. Just as, opposition to regulation of private business and socialism only infers but does not mean pro capitalism…
In the above I am referring to the quote early on the thread not your own position necessarily …
And as for marriage pre-existing government, de facto relationships preceded marriage. Marriage is the artificial construct made by society/the group on/for such monogomous partnerships.
As for government law (as we know it) constraining marriage – the opposite, government liberalised terms for marriage – allowed it to take place between those of different faith groups and include divorced people etc. Formalised what would have otherwise what would have been de facto partnerships – in this doing just what happened in the very beginning – formalising de facto partnerships.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Cato, is not the idea of limiting government and seeing civil society as having a greater role, really just code for the church having the role of setting society moral standards and providing for the peoples needs. Thus a smaller role for government – via subsidiarity?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
“We see where you are coming from, but we don’t think we have absolute authority over civil society and so we’re not sure we have the power to do that”
That would be a very odd response for a government to make, given the current existence of a Marriage Act.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Some men prefer sex with women, some with themselves, some with other men, some with young children, some with goats.
If the sex does not concern children, either as the possible outcome or the target, I don’t see why the relationship need concern the state, although there may be property considerations for those cohabiting.
Note: de facto means “in fact” if not in law. What is a de facto relationship or partnership? Shorthand?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
@Redbaiter
“Don’t answer. I’m really not that interested in bandying ideas about with such mental cripples.”
————————
The large number in brackets beside your user name suggests that you are lying.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Psycho – hardly. Where in the Marriage Act does it say – “There shall be an institution called marriage which will henceforth exist and be open to all pair-bonds that meet with society’s approval”?
Instead, all of the language in the Act presupposes the existence of something called “marriage” and instead places restrictions on how these can be solemnised. It is not the same thing to restrict something than it is to redefine it in a fundamental way.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
DPF is correct about resorting to accusations of “Nazi” against those you disagree with.
DPF is also right about the mixed role of the Christian churches in Nazi Germany.
However, there were homosexual Nazis, notably Ernst Rohm, an open, even defiantly open gay. Rohm in the early days of the Nazis was virtually Hitler’s right hand man as head of the violent SA (the “Brown Shirts”), the precursor to the SS.
I doubt the Nazi Party was as stacked with gays as Fletch alleges in his 11.07 post, but according to the historian William Shirer, many of the early Nazis were homosexuals.
According to the New York Times of 10 July 1991, many sources mention Rudolf Hess “as an habitue of the gay subculture of Berlin in the Weimar era.” After his flight to Britain, the Nazis apparently also depicted him as gay, probably to ridicule his solo journey. However, Hess’s son, Wolf Rudiger Hess, alleged the homosexuality claim was a smear originating from the KGB.
Resorting to alleged “Nazi” precedents is diversionary and seldom useful.The tactic is rampant in the blogosphere. Nearly all of us slip into it from time to time using alleged Nazi or fascist links to label our opponents in everything from fluoridation to MMP.
Mike Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies has not weakened since he promulgated it in 1990: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
In the case of this thread, it started with Nazis, so we create for Godwin a corollary: if an online discussion begins with Hitler or the Nazis it expands towards infinity.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
SPC said:
“Cato, is not the idea of limiting government and seeing civil society as having a greater role, really just code for the church having the role of setting society moral standards and providing for the peoples needs. Thus a smaller role for government – via subsidiarity?”
I would reject that contention on this basis: civil society, including traditional marriage norms, aren’t actually set by the Church. The Church neither creates morality nor civil society. Traditional marriage norms, for example, have been universal. They existed in places where there was no “Church” like Rome and the Greek city states (despite varying degrees of toleration – and even celebration – of homosexual bonds). In fact they emerge organically through millenia of spontaneous interactions – and are ratified by the state for that reason. Over time, we can try to determine why these norms emerge and thus, what the natural law is.
Who is to say that the marriage norms haven’t simply evolved organically since 2003? That could well be the case. Against that, I would argue that this is a very short amount of time against thousands of years of uncontested precedent. It is an interesting discussion to have. Time will tell.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
What will the Church do now, to improve its reputation? Hopefully elect an energetic Pope with a mandate the clean out the filth from the Church
Already been cleaned out a long time ago by Benedict. Any accusations of abuse are from decades ago now.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 5:14 pm
were on earth did they find 100000 homosexuals?
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Did Hitler .. Stalin… Mao.. Pol Pot.. All have the same philosiphy . ??..
Where they all Conservatives.. Socialists .. Liberals..??? Of course not..
What the heck are you all rabbiting on about ??
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 6:24 pm
The common roots and ancestry of 20th century political ideologies.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
Ever heard of Magna Carta ??.. Think it was way before the 20th century..
Just a load of wafflers ..
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
DPF appears to be so blinded by his loyalty to liberals and liberal ideology that he fails to see that he is being logically inconsistent with his criticisms here.
It isn’t exactly difficult to see the slobbering drooling ideologues waiting in the shadows when legislation like the marriage laws is up for grabs.
But we are told to shut up and not comment.
A reference to the events in Germany is entirely reasonable when the state begins to ‘push’ instead of ‘reflect’ the views of it’s citizens.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
The above post by DPF about the Singh Frauds should have you more worried.. Not whether Hitler was a Bloody socialist or not..
Those people involved in the ALLEGED !!.. Fraud should be met head on straight away.. No pissing around for a couple of years… .. But NO !!.. You would rather see yourselves in print pontificating about DRIBBLE..
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
There seems to be a basic symmetry here: the Nazi-name-callers and the anti-Nazi-name-callers. “Marriage Equality” is propaganda. Bullying is bullying. When a homosexual calls me a “bigot”, I retort “faggot”. One word is a description, the other an insult.
While I cannot speak with authority, I very much doubt that homosexual men have any insight into the sex drive that is the reason we are (nearly) all here. The behaviour is not mere pleasure-seeking, which homosexuals understand, it is more like gasping for breath.
The essence of marriage, in the general case, is copulation and rearing any children. Why do homosexual couples, who cannot breed together, want to call their relationship “marriage”? Come on Farrar, you must know.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
Godwin’s “law” is evidence that the Nazis are alive and well today.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Fletch, I will personally be concerned if I ever read a comment from you about homosexuals that isn’t derogatory, beacause that will be the day the world comes to an end.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Dennis Horne 7:45..
Rearing children !!!.. Need I say more..
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 10:06 pm
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rear–2?q=rearing
Vote:verb
1 [with object] bring up and care for (a child) until they are fully grown:
Nigel was born and reared in Bath.
March 7th, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Cato, on the point of the language of the topic, the terms natural law and term marriage norm infer otherwise unnatural law and the abnormal. Somewhat loaded terms in regard to same sex marriage.
As to the Church neither creating morality nor civil society, this is a point that Christians other than yourself might dispute. The Creation myth and the follow up in Romans Chapter 1 are attempts to identify what is natural as of creation by God.
The Hebrew word reshit does not mean creation so much as renewal of the way the world is seen by the faithful of creation. Thus the attempt to identify creation of woman for the marriage of the man – because civil society had found a value for procreation in provide an heir to the property estate/legacy of the man (including a throne), thus this became the role of women.
Paul then attempts to pose faith in a Creator God with a necessary limitation of sexuality for procreating life within marriage (the seed used for a sacred life creating purpose line) and lack of faith in a Creator God amongst creation being associated with both idolatry and also a curse from God of homosexuality. Thus an attempt to identify the marriage bed (sacrament) as created by the Judeo-Christian God.
It could be argued that civil society in ending the criminalisation and or compulsory treatment same sex activity is enabling same sex marriages and thus participating in sanction of this activity as a curse on those who disobey the church by ignoring its prohibition. Sounds like an apple that is a forbidden. If however what is forbidden is sexual activity outside of marriage or non procreative sexual activity on the marriage bed, then all those who do not marry as virgins or those who practice oral sex and all those using the condom and the contraceptive pill have already succumbed to the temptation of this apple.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 6:12 am
The Nazis were authoritarians who wished to compel a nation to bend to their view of morality. I tend to call such people socialists regardless of what that view of morality is. I also tend to call them “Nazis”. I don’t think there should be a special taboo on that word.
The irony is that Stringer was calling out people for using labels as arguments. In that sense, to avoid hypocrisy, the label “Nazi” may not be useful. However, they were authoritarians, which makes them and the Left kindred spirits, so leftists should stop complaining that their authoritarian forcing of people to bend to their will is somehow more noble than the other kind.
I want to live in a free society, so Leftists are Nazis, Nazis are Nazis, and people who want the government to call marriage something that it is not are Nazis. There is really no difference between the lot of them.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:54 am
Including the people whose Christian view of morality means they don’t want same-sex couples being called marriages?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:58 am
I tend to call such people socialists regardless of what that view of morality is. I also tend to call them “Nazis”.
You are of course free to make up whatever meanings you like for words – it may well hamper communication with others, though.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:01 am
What a Nazi thing to say, Psycho.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:33 am
It’s not lack of intelligence, it’s psychological. The reason homosexuals cannot comprehend their partnerships are not marriages. It’s a question of differences and definitions, like buses and trucks.
If homosexuals don’t want to get married, fine, but why the maniacal need to call their relationships “marriage”?
Is it because they feel inferior, otherwise?
Of course it is. Homosexuals will usurp the word “marriage” as they have the words “gay” and “hero” and for what?
A growing number of couples shrugging off marriage and their children. Maybe they can donate them to the gays. A swathe of the population to be raised with two mummies or two daddies. Yes, yes, the statistics show … blah blah blah.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:43 am
It’s metaphorical, like calling someone a “lying bastard”.
A word best avoided, Nazi, because it causes an entirely disproportionate response. Although I have heard perfectly reasonable Germans say what Europe needs is some benign Nazis. They may get their wish. Spent much time in London or Paris lately? Democracy won’t survive.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:24 am
The Nazis were authoritarians who wished to compel a nation to bend to their view of morality. I tend to call such people socialists regardless of what that view of morality is.
Including the people whose Christian view of morality means they don’t want same-sex couples being called marriages?
Why is their opinion less valuable than that of the people who do? And why should government be the arbiter of it?
Definitions of words exist outside of the dictates of government. It is authoritarian for governments to start assuming they can change the meanings of words by putting them on certificates and giving them to people who don’t fit that description.
I’m sure some opponents of redefining marriage are prejudiced against homosexuals generally, don’t want them to formalise their relationship, don’t want to give them equal human rights, and would prefer the government didn’t allow that sort of thing. And yes, those folk are a pack of Nazis too. But I’m not one of them. I respect and support the freedom of gay couples, I just don’t call what they do marriage, and I don’t want the government making their opinion of what they do more important than mine.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:33 am
It is best translated. National SOCIALIST Workers Party. The people most likely to use the term Nazi, seem much less comfortable with the translation.
They were not just socialist in name. The parties policies were very socialist. They appealed to those who wanted more equality and who felt disenfranchised in German society at the time. Closing the gaps and all that …
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:41 am
I didn’t say they were. I just pointed out that they fit your definition of Nazis.
It shouldn’t, which is why the government should stay out of marriage entirely or, if it’s going to be involved in marriage, legally recognise it without any weighting that comes from any particular group of people’s values.
Do definitions of words exist outside the dictates of government or do you think governments can change the meaning of words? Which is it?
You don’t call what they do marriage, and you want that view of yours to be forced on everyone via the government. The government should be neutral on the matter, without legally favouring your views. No one is forcing you to call same-sex or interracial couples “marriages” if you don’t want to. But the government should be neutral on the matter.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:57 am
“Definitions of words exist outside of the dictates of government. It is authoritarian for governments to start assuming they can change the meanings of words by putting them on certificates and giving them to people who don’t fit that description.”
Do definitions of words exist outside the dictates of government or do you think governments can change the meaning of words? Which is it?
The former. The crucial word I used in the paragraph above was “assuming”. But just because governments can’t change definitions doesn’t mean they should try.
You don’t call what they do marriage, and you want that view of yours to be forced on everyone via the government.
Er… no I don’t. I think you can make an argument that the government is simply following the already established definition of marriage by issuing marriage certificates. But it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if they stopped doing that, just so everyone can be kept happy. Personally the whole debate appalls me, because having a word on a certificate that is issued by the government is not a human right by any measurable standard. It’s disgraceful that the debate is being framed and demagogued in that way.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:09 am
Yeah, I think the most elegant solution is to abolish the Marriage Act entirely. The only problem is how other countries often place weight on legal marriage for various practical things.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:16 am
One may or may not agree with interracial marriage, but it is marriage: couples mate and raise children.
Homosexual acts do not constitute mating and do not result in children. The relationship is no more a marriage than a sexual relationship with a goat, to which I have no objection either, by the way. Nor is it any less biologically absurd than paedophilia, which is abhorrent and unacceptable to all decent people because children cannot give consent.
Homosexuality is acceptable in Western society now on the basis it concerns consenting adults. Calling a homosexual relationship “marriage” will make it not one whit more acceptable to people who think, rightly or wrongly, it is abnormal.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:29 am
So it’s not marriage that’s important to you. I thought as much.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Myth: Hitler was a leftist: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Then you thought wrong, as I didn’t say that.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Goats can’t give consent either.
If your definition of marriage was accurate, infertile couples could not marry. Everyone agrees they can, so clearly your definition is not accurate.
Yes, I agree.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
@Ryan Sproull. Of course definitions are not accurate, that’s why I speak of the “essence” and so forth. A car has four wheels but some have three. A chair is still a chair if a leg breaks off. In the general case, marriage concerns mating and children. Indeed, a marriage not consummated can be annulled. Nitpicking.
We don’t ask goats’ consent to kill them, so again nitpicking. Indeed, consent need not be verbal, as any man who has seduced a woman will tell you.
On the one hand you want me to believe you think marriage is important, on the other you say abolish the Marriage Act. Actually, I think what you believe important is you.
I am sick of the homosexuals whining, “We want equality, we want marriage.” No you don’t. You want to have your own way, that’s all.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
No, I think it’s important, rather than nitpicking. What makes a marriage is love, not procreation.
I agree, but then, I’m a vegetarian.
Abolishing the Marriage Act doesn’t abolish marriage. Marriage was around long before the Marriage Act.
I want them to have equality. If having equality is having their own way, fine. And aren’t opponents of legally recognised same-sex marriage are also wanting to have their own way?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 6:13 pm
@Ryan Sproull. “What make a marriage is love, not procreation.” As I said earlier, homosexuals have no idea what marriage is. Not surprising really, considering the handicap. Not many colour-blind interior decorators, blind watchmakers…
“I want them to have equality.” Equality is civil union/partnership. Marriage is something else; men and women.
“Marriage was around long before the Marriage Act.” True, but abolishing the Act would abolish marriage in the legal sense.
You want to drastically change an institution that has, since time immemorial, concerned mating and rearing any children, the formalisation of a special relationship that has its roots in the beginning of life itself. I don’t call that wanting my own way. I call it recognising reality and the way of life.
Homosexual marriage is narcissistic humbug. Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they want to be normal.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 11:01 am
If you don’t think marriage is about love, Dennis, I don’t think you know what marriage is about.
Who cares? What business is it of the state? If people want to draw up legal contracts between each other, they can.
I don’t want to change the institution of marriage. I want the state to get out of it, or failing that, for the state to stop imposing your views on everyone else.
It really doesn’t matter what homosexuals want, or what you think they want. The state has no business playing favourites with how people live their lives.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Ryan Sproull: “The state has no business playing favourites with how people live their lives.”
What a lot of poppycock. The state is not telling homosexuals how to live their lives. Homosexuals can even get married, just not to each other, because marriage concerns men and women, always has. Two males don’t qualify for marriage together, legally or otherwise, never have, ever.
I don’t call not interfering with an institution that has never permitted homosexual acts the state playing favourites, any more than I call the state not allowing people to be doctors or airline pilots without the necessary qualifications playing favourites.
Most people are going along with this redefinition because they no longer care about marriage. Fashional nonsense.
I have been married for more than 40 years. All my friends have been married for >40 years. They all feel, without exception, as I do. All are well educated. All are atheists. We don’t need sexually immature men telling us what marriage is.
Homosexuals can form whatever relationships they like, but they cannot get married. The state can issue the paperwork but it’s worthless. Like the $500 degrees from some universities. A sham.
Good luck.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 8:10 pm
That’s your view. Others have other views. The state must be neutral on the matter.
Again, it’s your view that the doctor/airline pilot analogy holds. That’s fine, but it’s not the state’s place to force your view on everyone.
Even if that were true, it is irrelevant to the point at hand.
And no one needs you and your mates using the state to tell them what marriage should be. The state should keep out of it.
That’s your view, but the state should not favour your view over others. It should remain neutral on the matter.
Vote: