You’ve got to hand it to “the Left” – we’re very flexible. We’re both the evil pro-Government “statists” who want to tax you into oblivion, and we’re also, according to Andrew Bolt, anarchists:
The photograph above that Bolt uses to demonstrate the “crazies” of “the Left” was, according to the source, taken at an “Anarchist Bookfair” in 2006. (Bolt doesn’t tell his readers that.)
Now, I thought Andy had regularly attacked lefties for being “pro-tax, pro-spending” big government types. In which case – how are anarchists lefties? Have they not more in common with the anti-government anti-tax right-wing nutters attending the recent “teabagging” protests in the US?
Seriously, any broad political philosophy will attract a few crazies; it can’t be that hard to find photographs of a few deranged people who are actually lefties. Why’d Bolt have to resort to this old list of photos (2003-2006) of anti-war protesters and anarchists? Was the photograph of people wanting to set fire to police cars just too tempting NOT to misleadingly use to smear his political opponents?
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who thinks of themselves as a “serious journalist” would still be resorting to the cheap and childish “photos of crazies I will say you’re just like” gambit. Even if Andy’s photo had actually been of some lefties – so what? What does that add to public debate? What does it prove? Does he believe the photos of right-wing crazies at the “Tea Party” protests reflect poorly on him as a conservative? If not, what – apart from playing to the pathetic prejudices of his more stupid readers – was the point of his post?
PS Andrew, please – enough with the silly. I know it gets you website hits, but we want to cover other people too.
UPDATE: “Dave” thinks he can solve the riddle:
Amazing. He understands us better than we do ourselves!
87 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Scott, I’ll pay 49 but 50 is just being snipey. You can’t claim Fox are “unfair” (okay, Hannity is a tool) and they offer balance to the sad state of the American media. That is a good thing.
Hey, if you can’t trust Hitler’s words, what can you trust?
No, Pedro, they say they are “balanced” all by themselves. Which, you know, they’re not.
In addition to the Communists, Hitler also hated Monarchists, the Prussian military establishment – as represented by the old-school Generals, the Church (particularly the Roman Catholic church), gays, the mentally disabled, and of course Jews – who as the primary money-lenders in Germany at the time could hardly be said to be Lefties.
He encouraged and used prejudice against all of these groups to gain and hold power.
You can’t claim Fox are “unfair” (okay, Hannity is a tool) and they offer balance to the sad state of the American media.
Are you serious?! for 8 years fox news stood cheersquadding the Bush administration as it lied to its citizens about the reasons for invading Iraq, shat its pants after 9/11, implemented a torture program in clear breach of the US constitution and geneva conventions, and then lied about it by trying to cover it up, didn’t say ‘boo’ in response to Bush’s reckless spending that took the US economy into trillion dollar deficits after inheriting a multi-million dollar surplus from the Dems, but now accuses Obama of trashing the constitution, reckless spending and so on, while still defending the atrocities of the bush years!!
for fuck’s sake, take your blinkers off!
Fred, I watched the American election coverage on Fox after I got sick of CNN’s commentators absolutely ripping into the VP candidate’s children and admitting to getting warm, fuzzy feelings up their leg whenever Obama spoke.
I did not see on Fox anyone targetting the children of McCain or having verbal org-asms as they discussed him.
So yeah, I can say they are balanced in comparison.
Gavin, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say. Hitler was a psychotic maniac and nothing more.
But I get tired of people passing him off to the “right” when he used Socialism as his spring board.
Completely preposterous Pedro. Fox is outrageously partisan and its use of the slogan “Fair and Balanced” (which it tried unsuccessfully to patent, by the way) is nothing short of Stalinist. Confessions is right.
As for Hitler and the church Gavin, he didn’t have a lot of trouble working in close collaboration with the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia or Slovakia, to name just a couple of examples. His relationship with the Catholics was a bit like Bolt’s with Pell: he didn’t share all their beliefs, but he was happy to claim them as an ally.
Blood, CNN is equally “outragerously partisan”, ffs!
So where is all the outrage about them using “The Most Trusted Name in News”??
CNN don’t cheersquad the democrats in the way Fox does. look at the torture memos issue. CNN analysed both sides of the issue – releasing the memos would make the CIAs job harder, as well as the public’s right to know what atrocities had been committed in their name by bush/cheney. fox on the other had decided right away, despite waterboarding being listed as a war crime, that it did not constitute torture, and they also took the ‘frat boy jinks’ line. why do this when both these positions go against the facts? because for Fox it’s all about defending the republicans, it’s go nothing to do with balance. do the CNN vs Fox news comparison on the tea-baggers, you’ll find that Fox almost got itself into hot water by plugging just a little too hard. this did not happen at CNN.
Bloods05 is right: fox are outrageously partisan.
oops, should be “in the way Fox does the GOP”
is it possible to have a preview function???
Hi Bloods,
This may be interesting reading re the Nazi and Hitler’s relationship to the Catholic church
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_churchandnazis.html
“he didn’t have a lot of trouble working in close collaboration with the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia or Slovakia”
As I said – he was a pragmatist, he used whoever he thought would best serve his needs at a given moment, hence the use by the Nazis of the Catholic Croats against the Socialist/Communist Serbs.
“One is either a German or a Christian, you can’t be both” — Adolf Hitler
“We shall not rest until we have rooted out Christianity…” — Heinrich Himmler
“”…the influence of the churches has to be completely eliminated”. — Martin Borrmann
CNN is fairly lightweight, but it makes an honest attempt to report the news fairly. Fox might have the slogan, but it doesn’t even pretend to be fair. I’m guessing you regard the ABC as biased?
I’m not sure if Hitler would be outraged or flattered to be described as a pragmatist, but I know one thing for sure: I’ve never heard him described that way before!
Gavin, the Nazis might have been anti-Christian, but an awful lot of Christians weren’t anti-Nazi. Some of the latter occupied highly influential ecclesiastical positions and were never disciplined by their hierarchies.
Bloods, I watch the ABC for certain news, but tend to stick with Sky.
As for American news, my only choices are Fox or CNN. and CNN lost me with the “Obama gives me a warm feeling up my leg” stance of reporting.
CNN proudly replaying one of their reporters attacking a “tea-party” protester worried me. I don’t like agenda-driven media.
But Fox’s outrageous cheerleading for the “tea parties” didn’t bother you at all?
“Gavin, the Nazis might have been anti-Christian, but an awful lot of Christians weren’t anti-Nazi.”
I guess if you’re given the choice of either being pro-Nazi or being ‘disappeared’ to a concentration camp, you’re choice of loyalties becomes pretty easy…
Seriously though, considering the turmoil of post-WW1 Germany and then the effect of the depression years, its not hard to understand why Germans, wether religious or not, supported the one party that offered them some sort of light at the end of the tunnel.
But Fox’s outrageous cheerleading for the “tea parties” didn’t bother you at all?
I’d also ask or glenn beck’s outrageous, agenda-driven hysterics? that man has to be seen to be believed, still, if your a dyed in the wool fox news fan I guess that sort of thing appeals.
i saw keith olbernamm interviewed on Bill maher recently and he talked of his ‘rivalry’ with sean hannity and how they were talking about it one day. He said hannity goes “awww, but don’t they (the viewers) realise it’s all just a show for TV?”, to which olbermann replied “but sean, the views I have are my actual views which i’ve had for most of my adult life. I don’t have different views that i reserve for my TV show.” of course the implicit assumption from hannity is he simply puts on a show for his audience, throw around words like socialism, the left, bush haters etc. hmmm, now where have I seen that before….?
when your media outlet is solely concerned with revenue, it doesn’t matter what you say, just so long as the people tune in to watch. funny that pedro doesn’t see this as agenda-driven media.
Um, Jeremy. As much as I “value” your input, most people here would have figured out that I actually watched CNN on that particular day. I did, in fact, comment on what CNN said.
I’d also ask or glenn beck’s outrageous, agenda-driven hysterics?
Not that I can make much sense of this, but Beck is on at 7am. I would guess we have a closet Fox Watcher here.
Well, Pedro, as much as I “value” your contributions here, based on what you’d previously said there was a reasonable chance you’d also been listening to Fox’s coverage of the stupid “protest”.
I would guess we have a closet Fox Watcher here.
at least when I do watch FN i can recognise it for the partisan bullshit it is.
Gavin, what I meant to say was that a lot of Christians were in fact enthusiastically pro-Nazi. The Austrian Episcopacy, for example, advised Catholic voters in Austria to declare themselves in favor of the Anschluss, and the Archbishop, Cardinal Innitzer, praised the Nazis’ efforts to rebuild the nation. He was rebuked by the Vatican, but not by name, and he was not removed from his position. Many Christians, including clerics, were also implicated in the vilest acts of anti-Semitic persecution and murder. We are not just talking about going along with the crowd here.
If Dave could spell, he might pass himself off as educated on such matters, but as it is…
Pedro
What about Beck talking up his 9/12 forums them complaint about whinnig 9/11 victims and their families. Try listening to MSNBC’s Countdown and Maddow. Yes they are on the Left but they are critical of the Democrats and very funny when it comes to Fox.
Hi Bloods
Of course you’re right that many Christians were pro-Nazi, not too surprising given that most of Western Europe was Catholic at that time, and most were quite devout — but that support in many cases has to be taken in the context of the social environment in Europe at the time as well — the post WW1 political and social unrest throughout Europe, then the 1930′s depression…Pre-war, the Nazis were indeed seen by many to be nation builders given the recovery they oversaw in Germany…
The fact that many Christians supported them still doesn’t establish wether the Nazis were of the Right or Left though — as I said, I don’t believe they were from either of those ideologies and the fact that they persecuted both Left and Right wing groups would suggest that they were on a different level again..
I realise you don’t seem keen on the term political pragmatist to describe Hitler, I think its fairly apt, but perhaps political opportunist might describe him also.
GavinM when I studied history (while Noah built his ark) the fact that Hitler outlawed unions upon coming to power and cosied up to the industrialists like Krups was taken as an indicator that he was to the right politically.
Hi Zoot,
Of course he “cosied up” to the industrialists, who else was going to re-arm his military ?
Outlawing the Unions was, once again, an end to a means — not an indication of what side of politics he was from. It’s also a fact that when he was in power the State controlled those industries and instructed them on what they were expected to manufacture — a Socialist ideology.
oops, sorry, meant that to say “a means to an end” — still drinking my morning caffeine dose.
I always thought the reason Hitler was associated with the right (not the “small government right”, but the authoritarian right) was that his main characteristics – the main evil characteristics – were militarism and racism. And a fairly blunt “screw the losers” attitude to issues like welfare etc.
We don’t excoriate Hitler for the public housing he built. We excoriate him for his invading other countries, his brutal hatred of the weak, and his attitude that anyone who couldn’t fend for themselves deserved to die. That’s the rightwing “fend for yourself” ethos taken to its ultimate extreme.
But the man was a nutcase, and linking him to one political side or other is really just a polemical device, of limited value.
You could say the same for Stalin, btw – the modern left has as little in common with him as the modern right has with Hitler. We want democratic states that protect people’s rights, not one party dictatorships.
“I always thought the reason Hitler was associated with the right (not the “small government right”, but the authoritarian right) was that his main characteristics – the main evil characteristics – were militarism and racism. And a fairly blunt “screw the losers” attitude to issues like welfare etc.”
On the other hand, his more Socialist ideas like the Volkswagen (even though the plan was never realised) — which was planned that every German citizen would be able to afford, and the Nazi party pre-war organised holiday cruises for the people, along with his hatred of the Jews, which came about largely because they were associated with banking and money lending and seen to be more wealthy than non-Jewish Germans, would associate him more to the Left.
That’s why I reckon he was more of a political pragmatist or opportunist rather than either a Lefty or Righty.
“But the man was a nutcase, and linking him to one political side or other is really just a polemical device, of limited value.
You could say the same for Stalin, btw – the modern left has as little in common with him as the modern right has with Hitler. We want democratic states that protect people’s rights, not one party dictatorships.”
Spot on Jeremy.
“On the other hand, his more Socialist ideas like the Volkswagen (even though the plan was never realised) — which was planned that every German citizen would be able to afford,”
Well that would make Henry Ford a socialist.. There’s nothing socialist about pricing a product for maximum sales, that’s rather the opposite I think.
Hitler was a nutcase, a sick, evil bastard who’s levels of evilness transcends left/right. Same goes for Stalin, he was first and foremost a murderous, evil thug.
Hi Rob,
Not quite right about the Henry Ford idea, he was still in it to make a profit for his company, Hitler’s idea was that the State would subsidise the cost of the vehicle so that individuals paid less.
“Hitler was a nutcase, a sick, evil bastard who’s levels of evilness transcends left/right. Same goes for Stalin, he was first and foremost a murderous, evil thug.”
Absolutely right — that’s pretty much what I’ve said all along.
“Hitler’s idea was that the State would subsidise the cost of the vehicle so that individuals paid less.”
Fair enough.. I suppose if Ford was alive today though ;0) (ie Govt money being tipped into the motor industry)
Hmm, yes…that’s an interesting point…I reckon it would be interesting to know how old Henry would view his company in today’s environment.
As a card-carrying anarchist, I feel compelled to comment.
First, Bolt specialises in being provocative. He’s a controversialist, not a serious social critic.
Secondly, the ZombieTime ‘Hall of Shame’ is awesome. It’s also extremely old news, having been kicking around teh tubes since late 2004. So too, the Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair, which this year celebrated its 14th birthday. (The London Anarchist Bookfair will celebrate its 28th birthday later this year.)
http://sfbookfair.wordpress.com/
http://www.anarchistbookfair.org
(In fact, Anarchist Bookfairs are all over the place.)
In any case, whatever the relationship between anarchism and teh left is in reality, Andrew’s point is much more simple: ‘Lefties are crazy. Look at this photo. See?’
Pretty harmless stuff, because it’s a very silly argument: only those already convinced teh left really *are* crazy would take it seriously.
Re the political compass: it was originally developed by two anarchists from the UK, Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie, and is included in their 1970 tract ‘The Floodgates of Anarchy’ (Sphere Books, 1970).
Re left/right: the distinction ultimately derives from the period following the French Revolution, and the position various members took in the Chamber of Deputies. Like all other terms of political discourse, its meaning can really only be derived from its historical and social context. At one point in the late nineteenth century, for example, anarchists were described as ‘social democrats’, whereas generally speaking, in Australia and elsewhere in the English-speaking world, today ‘social democracy’ is identified with a mild form of political reformism: in Australia, by the ALP. By the same token, while ‘anarchist’ is sometimes used to describe the political perspective of supporters of a form of radical free market (laissez-faire) capitalism, anarchists such as myself reject this (mis-)categorisation.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All