Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Godwin’s Law again [updated]

Here’s something to ponder.

Why is it that it is apparently okay for folk to yell “Godwin’s Law!” at people who compare them to Nazis, or who call people Little Hitlers, but those same folk have no problem leaping into print loudly and nastily comparing other people to the Norwegian mass murderer.

See what I mean? They’re all doing it.

Is it just me, or has a rather nasty line been crossed?

UPDATE: According to Danyl it’s okay to call someone a Nazi if they do things Nazis did. Fine. But bizarrely enough, he seems to think the Nazis’ only evil was the Holocaust. As if, absent that, the Nazis were simply a minor nuisance.  You know, book burning, tobacco banning, property thieving, invading Europe, treating human beings like cattle … all just “inconveniences,” apparently, with no relation at all to the ideology that created the Holocaust; so if anyone advocates something along those lines it would be wrong to call them Nazis.

Hear that George?

Meanwhile, emulate anything said by a Norwegian mass murder, anything at all, and you’re clearly an incipient murderer yourself.

A strange double standard indeed. One commented on rather well by Edward Cline in this post.

47 Comments:

Blogger KG said...

"The point is not that all rightwingers are on the edge of becoming murderers but that the violent language and hate-filled imagery they use makes the leap to real violence for some more easy, more likely, for some on the Right."

Just as the collectivist, statist mindset and language of the left led to Pol Pot and the gulags,and will do so again.
When it comes to violence on a grand scale, nobody does it like the left.
Conservatives can point to collectivism's 100+million dead--they get to point to one or two lone nutters, yet still they manage to set the terms of the debate....
The left crossed that line a long time ago, it's just that they're more open about it now.

7/27/2011 01:49:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

This is all a bit rich coming from a bunch of people who with dull regularity compare democratically-mandated legislation with which they happen to disagree to authoritarian socialism.

L

7/27/2011 02:47:00 pm  
Anonymous DS said...

As the owner of one of the main sites trading in uneducated eliminationist rhetoric (including using Mexicans as target practice), I am sure many are pleased you are no longer NZ's problem KG.

7/27/2011 02:53:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Sorry, Lew, to which "bunch" are you referring?

7/27/2011 02:56:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

Peter,

Darnton, Perren, McGrath and yourself are all pretty fond of the general 'taxation is theft at gunpoint'/'regulation of lightbulbs is the state employing its monopoly on force' line of reasoning. And you guys are some of the saner people we have singing from those songsheets.

L

7/27/2011 03:14:00 pm  
Blogger dan said...

well its not fucking voluntary socialism is it Lew?

it is what it is

7/27/2011 03:15:00 pm  
Blogger Phil (Pacific Empire) said...

Predictably, this act is being used to demonise all people labelled as "far right", including many libertarians, and we won't hear the end of it for some time.

This ignores the fact that there have been, historically, violent thugs from every corner of the political and religious spectrum, including animal rights activists, pacifists and Buddhists.

Also, I note that the Norwegian killer criticises libertarians several times in his manifesto and he includes "capitalist globalists" in a list of his enemies.

7/27/2011 03:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

No, Dan, it's no kind of socialism at all; that's the thing. And even if it were, you'd have recourse to the ballot box to change it.

If they ever take that away, I'll be right there on the barricades with you. Until then, try not to overreact.

L

7/27/2011 03:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

Phil, that may have something to do with the fact that libertarians -- and Objectivists -- are prominent advocates of many (though not all) very similar positions to those Breivik cited as his reasoning.

The argument that "Western" culture is objectively superior to "barbarous" Islam, but that the latter constitutes a clear and present danger to the former, probably chief amongs them, since that was Breivik's casus belli and is very commonplace indeed in libertarian rhetoric.

Some of you who don't hold such views will be collateral damage. That's unfortunate, but it's your more hyperbolic brethren who should carry the can for it, more than anything else.

L

7/27/2011 03:29:00 pm  
Anonymous DS said...

"Phil, that may have something to do with the fact that libertarians -- and Objectivists -- are prominent advocates of many (though not all) very similar positions to those Breivik cited as his reasoning."

Absolutely not. Most libertarians favour open immigration for a start.

Maybe you have been reading too many Perigo pieces Lew.

7/27/2011 03:38:00 pm  
Blogger Phil (Pacific Empire) said...

Well Lew as long as we're throwing around comparisons to Breivik, how about the Maori and Mana parties, since they advocate ethno-nationalism and/or indigenous rights, just as Breivik does?

Sure not all of them hold such views, but the rest are just "collateral damage", yeah?

Libertarians will not and do not advocate nationalism, indigenous rights, closed borders, social democracy or government control of fertility - all of which Breivik advocates in his 1500-page "compendium". Comparing any libertarian to Breivik is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

7/27/2011 03:42:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

DS, oh, is Perigo not one of Aotearoa's foremost libertarians or Objectivists any more? I didn't get the memo. There are plenty more, within these shores and without.

Unfortunately, you don't get to just disclaim people who claim those mantles if they say something you disagree with.

Of course, you have the opportunity to distance yourselves from such positions -- I'm sure a robust repudiation by libertarians and Objectivists of Islamophobia and the whole "Western superiority" canard would be very welcome.

L

7/27/2011 03:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

Phil, I've seen those arguments made, but I don't think they have much merit. The arguments they're making aren't about an inherent superiority, but about partnership based on the Treaty. But if you want to try and make those arguments, by all means.

Regarding what libertarians 'will not and do not' advocate -- I'm sorry, but saying "these are No True Libertarians" doesn't make it so. I'll continue to judge self-identified libertarians based on the arguments they actually do advocate, including nearly all of the examples you cite.

L

7/27/2011 03:52:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

Bah, please also excuse my awful phrasing in the last comment.

L

7/27/2011 03:54:00 pm  
Anonymous DS said...

"Unfortunately, you don't get to just disclaim people who claim those mantles if they say something you disagree with."

Yeah - I totally agree. Which is why he was no longer a libertarian in my eyes after the "Death to Islam" rubbish a few years ago. And the more recent comment that he "Hated all Muslims".

Libertarians and Objectivists have to take a long hard look at why people like him and KG are attracted to the philosophy.

7/27/2011 03:59:00 pm  
Anonymous Sean Fitzpatrick said...

The lesson here is probably to judge individuals on their personal views and actions on a case by case basis rather than repairing to the lazy, knee jerk response of pinning ill defined labels on people and groups alike.

7/27/2011 04:26:00 pm  
Blogger Phil (Pacific Empire) said...

Hi Lew, I'm not sure you got the intended meaning of my last comment, so I'll explain myself further.

1) I'm not seriously comparing Breivik to the Maori Party, he has a different kind of nationalism. Just saying that his philosophy has superficially more in common with theirs than libertarianism, since he explicitly describes himself as supporting "indigenous rights" for Europeans.

2) I'm not trying to invoke the no true Scotsman argument. I am pointing out that Breivik advocates a raft of positions which are completely at odds with libertarianism. For example he opposes free trade, legal prositution and drugs, gay rights etc, and he advocates for government intervention in the economy, and government intervention in the families, sex lives and reproduction of individuals (to the extent of discussing government-controlled artifical wombs).

7/27/2011 04:34:00 pm  
Blogger Russell Brown said...

Why is it that it is apparently okay for folk to yell “Godwin’s Law!” at people who compare them to Nazis, or who call people Little Hitlers, but those same folk have no problem leaping into print loudly and nastily comparing other people to the Norwegian mass murderer.

I think what "those same folk" have largely been doing is observing that that the paranoid rhetoric cited by Anders Breivik as the justification for his actions is the exact same rhetoric used by quite a number of local right-wingers active on the internet. He quotes the same eliminationist ideas from the same, well-known blogs that they read and quote.

In the circumstances, it's not unreasonable to fret about the possibility that one of them might also act the hateful, paranoid speech they're spouting.

You seem to be going to some lengths to be unconscious of this fairly obvious point.

7/27/2011 05:08:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

@Russell: So (after re-reading your post and subsequent comments with this comment in mind) is it your position that you're "fretting" about the possible murderous rampages to be inflicted upon us by Kris K, Pamela Geller, Muriel Newman, John Ansell, David Farrar's commenters, possibly David himself, and perhaps even the late Denis Dutton?

And that you're not at all interested in smearing any of the above?

7/27/2011 05:20:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

@Sean: Ha! Like that would ever work. :-)

7/27/2011 05:21:00 pm  
Blogger Russell Brown said...

@Russell: So (after re-reading your post and subsequent comments with this comment in mind) is it your position that you're "fretting" about the possible murderous rampages to be inflicted upon us by Kris K, Pamela Geller, Muriel Newman, John Ansell, David Farrar's commenters, possibly David himself, and perhaps even the late Denis Dutton?

And that you're not at all interested in smearing any of the above?


Sigh ...

If you're determined to be that disingenuous (and, for that matter to manfully ignore the "smears" uttered on any given day by the likes of Geller or Kris K) let's put it another way, then.

In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to worry about the consequences of the paranoid, racist utterances of some of the people you have named above. Just as it is not unreasonable to worry about the consequences of similarly hateful speech from jihadis or anyone else with extreme, paranoid and hateful beliefs.

7/27/2011 05:35:00 pm  
Blogger Russell Brown said...

I might also add that it is unedifying behavior to respond to a bloody political massacre by declaring yourself the victim. Seriously, get a grip.

7/27/2011 05:37:00 pm  
Anonymous Lew said...

The rule seems to be: if it's "socialism" (which is indistinguishable from "Naziism", you see) then everyone holding thoughts that might in the slightest way be construed as "socialist" are all liable; whereas if it's individual action, only the individual taking that action is responsible, regardless of where he got his ideas from.

You can syllogise in the former case because they are "collectivist" by "nature"; but not in the other case because, by their declaration, they are sovereign individuals, immune to the influences of others.

How frightfully convenient.

L

7/27/2011 05:46:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

@ Russell. Nice spin. But absolute billion. Where on earth have I been claiming "victim" status FFS??

What I did do was to question folk taking a tragic foreign event and seeing only the opportunity to make gratuitous domestic smears.

Something I consider particularly odious.

7/27/2011 06:20:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Sorry. For "billion" read "bollocks". (Hard to have a good rant when you're let down by your spellcheck.)

7/27/2011 06:23:00 pm  
Anonymous Hal Incandenza said...

"You know, book burning, tobacco banning, property thieving, invading Europe, treating human beings like cattle … all just “inconveniences,” apparently, with no relation at all to the ideology that created the Holocaust; so if anyone advocates something along those lines it would be wrong to call them Nazis."

Having difficulty with reading comprehension or a deliberate misunderstanding I wonder?

7/27/2011 07:24:00 pm  
Anonymous John D said...

After 9/11 Russell and co spent a lot of energy finding the rationale and justification for the "inevitable" attack on the evil empire. Basically of course evil rightists throughout the 20th century were to blame.

In Norway he spends a lot of energy not looking at anything except... evil rightists in NZ and the USA.

Remember kiddies, cognitive dissonance is your friend.

7/27/2011 07:35:00 pm  
Blogger James said...

The left play their little game again...."Its ok when we do it" but always wrong for you to raise a point of your own".....tards.
The post 9/11 slanering that cam from the left was shameful....and now they get all precious when the historically factual corollaries between their dogma and that of a certain Austrian 70 years back are aired..

7/27/2011 10:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Karl Jensen said...

The more I read, the less I am inclined to believe that The Standard, Russel Brown, Danyl, the Greens and all the rest actually have any grounding in reality. For christ's sake, a Norwegian loner pulls off a mass-murder and suddenly it is about Crusader Rabbit and David Farrar?!? Have these people lost their collective minds to their own fevered imaginings about what their hated opposition does? And that's what it is, hate, no matter how much RB or Dnayl or anyone tries to deny it. It is guilt by association of ideas, there is no further substance than that. Dozens of people are dead in Norway at the hands of a Norwegian crazy and all they can do is copy American sites and point at Pamela Geller??? Oh but they take it a bit further to avoid being accused of plagiarism and throw in Farrar and Crusader Rabbit. Me thinks that Russel and co should:

1. Learn a bit about Norway, its politics, its history and why people like Breivik are not like Timothy McVeigh, Jared Loughner or any of the rest. For anti-Americans, Russel and co sure do like to think linearly in American political terms.
2. Understand that there is no such thing as guilt by association of ideas. Even ideas they don't like.
3. Snidely accusing Geller, Farrar, Rabbit and the rest of inciting this loon is in itself a despicable and cowardly move.
4. Get out more in the world and away from their little internet echo chambers.

7/28/2011 12:03:00 am  
Blogger Danyl said...

It is guilt by association of ideas, there is no further substance than that

It boils down to this: do you think Islamic terrorist attacks are 'inspired by ideas?' If not, why not? If you do then why can't anti-Islamic terrorist attacks be inspired by ideas?

7/28/2011 11:37:00 am  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Danyl, you are right, the ideas: "stone adulterers, kill the infidel" and "we should close our borders to immigration" are the same.

7/28/2011 01:58:00 pm  
Blogger Danyl said...

Danyl, you are right, the ideas: "stone adulterers, kill the infidel" and "we should close our borders to immigration" are the same.

The whole point of this debate is that web sites like Crusader Rabbit are of the 'stone muslims, kill the liberals' persuasion.

7/28/2011 02:39:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try Danyl. But still, there is no guilt by association of ideas. Even if Breivik was inspired by Crusader Rabbit it does not make Crusader Rabbit guilty of anything.

I hear Breivik was inspired by John Stuart Mill, should we now remove copies of "Utilitarianism" from libraries just in case, you know as Russell thinks, it is just too much speech?

But of course Breivik was not inspired by Rabbit, but he may have read Pamela Geller and others. That is enough for the likes of you and the PA crowd to start frothing about the tea party movement as if they are all about to go out and shoot children.

You are very selective about who you condemn or choose to notice. It'd be more impressive if you were regularly pounding on Islamists, Maoists, FARC, and other non-white-rightists. But you don't, just like Russell doesn't, nor the Greens.

Because you are only interested in perceived attacks on your "side". If it is brownies dying somewhere, or a maoist guerrilla killing people, you'll happily ignore that. Even if they are inspired by American or European leftists.

So, short and sweet, you and Russell and the rest are opportunistic peddlars of implied hate.

7/28/2011 06:51:00 pm  
Anonymous the drunken watchman said...

... talking about double standards

daughter has an Oxford/Seiko dictionary/encyclopedia gadget.

Nip - informal, offensive
Yank - derogatory
Brit - informal
Aussie - informal
Jap - informal, offensive

7/28/2011 08:25:00 pm  
Blogger Sam P said...

Well said anonymous, but would be better if you used name.

7/29/2011 12:15:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is more to ponder Sam. On Public Address not one person has deigned to call a mass murderer evil. Not one. However at least one has called "tea baggers" evil, so there you have not only freely derogatory sexual references to their political opponents (presumably it is a fear of homosexuals or women that leads to this, judging by another commenter there) but also tagging unknown law-abiding citizens of another country as "evil" while not passing judgement on the acutal murderer in question. All because of some perceived political opposition. In other circumstances they'd call that "hate speech", but no, at Public Address I am sure it is sophisticated irony. It'd be funny if they weren't so fucking petty.

7/29/2011 03:37:00 am  
Blogger Danyl said...

Nice try Danyl. But still, there is no guilt by association of ideas. Even if Breivik was inspired by Crusader Rabbit it does not make Crusader Rabbit guilty of anything.

I'm not saying he is. All I'm saying is that his rhetoric is similar to that of Breivik's. And it is! Consider a few selective quotes:

“The enemies hearts and minds can be won with half an ounce of lead at 2000fps.”

“1,570,000,000 (Muslims) ……….that’s a lot of lead.” “or a few kilograms of plutonium….”

“The recommended treatment is to inject the sufferer behind the left ear with a small amount of lead at very high velocity.”

You are very selective about who you condemn or choose to notice. It'd be more impressive if you were regularly pounding on Islamists, Maoists, FARC, and other non-white-rightists.

Actually I write about Islamic terrorists a lot. I think they're evil! I don't 'pound on Maoists and FARC' because they're not really that relevant in contemporary debate.

7/29/2011 07:39:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I take it Danyl that you have actually read Brievik's "manifesto"?

To me it seems that he is not very Christian (rejecting a personal relationship with Christ, comparing Christianity to Islam, blaming the failing of Germanic culture on Christianity), is mad keen on drastically reducing oil consumption and promoting one-child policies to help save "mother earth", wants all American bases in Europe closed, wants to nationalize industries and so on.

So to summarize:

1. Not a Christian fundy.
2. Quite the environmentalist.
3. A statist anti-free-marketeer.
4. Anti-American.

Now, how you compare this sort of character (who seems to be some sort of model 20th century lefty) to Mr Rabbit (a supposed fundy righty) I don't know. The only thing that actually sets him apart is his hatred of Marx and multicultis, but that seems more like a falling out amongst family rather than a diametric philosophy.

On the other hand, perhaps we are supposed to just feel the vibe, follow the narrative and just believe that he is what you say he is so that you can continue feeling the nice glow of contempt for Mr Rabbit et al?

Maybe you can enlighten us??

7/30/2011 06:55:00 am  
Blogger KG said...

"As the owner of one of the main sites trading in uneducated eliminationist rhetoric (including using Mexicans as target practice),."
Care to provide a link to where I said that, DS?

8/01/2011 03:08:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

@KG: You said it at this link, which, to give you some little credit, you have at least removed.

Still, I did mention it and quote from it in 'Update 2' on this post.

8/01/2011 03:47:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"how you compare this sort of character (who seems to be some sort of model 20th century lefty) to Mr Rabbit (a supposed fundy righty) I don't know. "

They both hate mooooslims and their so-called enablers and would like to visit violence upon them. Pretty simple really. Anyway, only a retard or someone pushing an agenda could label Breivik anything other than an ultra-conservative.

8/01/2011 06:47:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

" @KG: You said it at this link, which, to give you some little credit, you have at least removed."

that link does not lead to Crusader Rabbit

I'll assume that was an honest mistake, PC. For now.

8/02/2011 12:01:00 am  
Blogger KG said...

It led originally, I assume to the old (Blogger) Crusader Rabbit which was removed by me from Blogger a long time ago.

8/02/2011 12:05:00 am  
Blogger KG said...

Ah yes, I have it now--I apparently described a crowd of La Raza demonstrators as a "target rich environment"
Well, big deal! lol!
I'm sure that has incited bombing and the murder of unarmed people all over the planet.
My God! Get a life. And grow up.

8/02/2011 12:16:00 am  
Blogger Oswald Bastable said...

Yep, us NON PC rough sort of blokes talk like that.

Want to pass a law about it?- oh- wait...

8/02/2011 07:00:00 am  
Anonymous DS said...

It is YOU KG who should grow up and stop hiding under the bed. Stop being afraid of ghost horses like Mexican immigrants and sundry hard-working Muslims going about their business without initiating force.

Get a life yourself and stop sticking your snout in other folk's lives.

8/02/2011 04:23:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

DS, you're an ignorant clown. What do you know about La Raza? They're not simply "Mexican immigrants", that's for sure.
You need to get out more. :)

8/07/2011 12:01:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home