Posted on 05/01/2022 4:39:29 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Rabbi Michael Barclay began his article at PJ Media Saturday with this scenario, that grabbed my attention:
A criminal is wrongfully killed, and “peaceful demonstrations,” which are actually violent riots, break out nationwide. The flag of a radical and violent group is placed next to the national flag on government buildings. Out of fear of being canceled and losing business, individuals and corporations succumb to publicly supporting this violent organization. Mandated behavior is compelled upon threat of arrest by the political elite and leadership. Despite objections from parents, schools begin teaching an alternative “history” and embrace prejudice, anti-Semitism, and sexual permissiveness as part of the school curriculum.Obviously, this sounds like a narrative of America since George Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis. But Rabbi Barclay explains that it is actually a narrative of the development of the Nazi regime Germany...A President overreaches and takes on “emergency powers,” which create an authoritarian regime that demands supportive behavior and calls any criticism “disinformation.” A new agency of the government is created to “fight this disinformation”… an agency that even has access to armed personnel. This new agency is led by a fanatic who is arguably delusional in their own self-perception and fully committed to stopping the dissemination of any information that is not part of the authoritarian narrative. And through it all the media is a willing accomplice, even striking against other media outlets that try to present opposing views.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
rlmorel wrote (in his reply to Robert DeLong in post #8):
We see people on all sides who like to paint a moral equivalence boiling away the issues that actually differentiate the comparisons made by the Left against the Right, and the Right against the left by saying “Oh, both sides do it”.
It is an ignorant and simplistic approach at best, and at worst, is intentionally done to further corrosive damage and suppress rational dialogue.
For what it's worth, I have long wondered why both are verboten: if the criticizer of today's troubles/events makes any comparison of today's events to events in Germany in the 1930's...and at the very same time if anyone dares criticize any statement based upon that type of comparison.
I hope my point here is not too convoluted. I just find it rather peculiar that all of this is a "Lose-Lose" situation. You "lose" in the minds of some individuals if you try to draw parallels between events today and events of 1930's Germany; but you also "lose" (in the minds of others) if you dare criticize the criticizer.
Please don't misunderstand me: I have no solution for this apparent "Lose-Lose" situation. Indeed, by pointing this out I have no doubt stepped into another "No-Win" situation. I have been trying to crack this nut for over 25 odd years. But for the life of me I haven't cracked it yet.
Just my 2¢. Cheers.
Clash of Christianities: Why Europe cannot understand Russia
Onward to Odessa
Excerpt:
With the fall of the USSR, Russia found itself in a geopolitical situation last encountered in the 17th century. The slow and painful reconstruction was spearheaded from two fronts: the KGB – later FSB – and the Orthodox church. The highest-level interaction between the Orthodox clergy and the Kremlin was conducted by Patriarch Kirill – who later became Putin’s minister of religious affairs.
Ukraine for its part had become a de facto Moscow protectorate way back in 1654 under the Treaty of Pereyaslav: much more than a strategic alliance, it was a natural fusion, in progress for ages by two Orthodox Slav nations.
Ukraine then falls under the Russian orbit. Russian domination expands until 1764, when the last Ukrainian hetman (commander-in-chief) is officially deposed by Catherine the Great: that’s when Ukraine becomes a province of the Russian empire.
The whole point is that the Ukraine cheer leaders are not open for polite discourse on the war. Either you adhere to their their thoughts or you are also an enemy, a Putin puffer, or a nut-case. All quite ludicrous indeed. 🙂
Thank you for the link… I’ll check it out.
Polite discourse. Hmm. As you and rlmorel have already discussed upthread, there does appear to be a diminishing number of "let's agree to disagree" discussions in recent years. Even here on FR.
Perhaps that's why I have not yet cracked the nut: because I still (naively?) believe in both the benefit and the utility of the "let's agree to disagree" paradigm...?
Ad hominem attacks, whether they are launched by Left-leaning individuals or by the occasional Right-leaning individual, just flat-out sour my stomach. In my opinion, the very moment an individual indulges in or resorts to an ad hominem attack he or she has just admitted that they have the debate skills of an adolescent. They beclown themselves, do they not?
In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt had something similar in mind, I think, when he wrote the following about flippancy, duplicity, and sophistry: "And such shallow wisecracks [are to] pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom."
When instead the adolescent antics and juvenile jollies often invoked as components of the ad hominem attack have precious little in common with rational discourse.
Just my 2¢. Cheers.
Hopefully, it’s just a phase they are going through and maturity will finally win the day with them. 🙂
The person who made the comparison in the article did so in an in depth and thoughtful way, though I imagine any references to Horst Wessel and like matters are likely lost on a vast majority of people today who might have read the article.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing a Hitler comparison.
There is something wrong with treating them as if they are all the same and, in your word, “verboten”. Doing so by saying “both sides do it” is drawing an intellectual and moral equivalence where none may exist.
For example, saying that a country rounding up innocent civilians and lining them up on the edge of pits to machine gun them is Nazi-like is more valid than saying a country banning immigration from countries with known muslim terrorist populations is Nazi-like.
Or, in another example, saying a President is similar to Hitler because he chums around with the likes of Louis Farrakhan or “Reverend” Wright, provable racists with documented statements of antipathy towards Jews because they are Jews is quite different than saying a President is similar to Hitler because of ginned up racist sentiments that exist only in the fevered minds of antagonists who simply wish to slander that President.
To say the comparisons in both examples are both the same is intellectually lazy at best, and provocatively bad at worst. Sometimes both parties are indeed guilty of the same thing.
But to make a blanket statement is just wrong.
I'm right there with you.
My wife has a phrase which is predicated on the sort of soberly patient self-restraint required to temper any temptation I have to lose my temper: "as long as there is breath, there is a chance." For individuals to experience an epiphany of their own without any input from me; for individuals to be convinced over to "my" side of an issue by substantive/rational arguments (as opposed to being intimidated into silence, or forced to comply); for individuals to experience a clearing of the emotional fog which often envelopes our minds, so that the excess emotional froth which generally drive most of the cries "but we gotta do something!" can dissipate.
Just my 2¢. Or, accounting for inflation, perhaps I ought say 5¢. 🙂
Thank you for sharing your sage and sober thoughts. I appreciate it. Cheers.
Probably more like 50¢ now. 😋
Thank you for the kind words. As we age, most start to mellow a little, at least the majority of the time, and see things in a broader perspective. 🙂
It's funny how there seems to be a correlation between increasing level of intellectual laziness and the decreasing level of rational discourse.
For what it is worth, it's taken me years to realize that many individuals simply do not want to seek common ground. Or, when common ground can't exist because the differences contained within the different opinions can never be eliminated, such individuals refuse to chose the "let's agree to disagree" path. If only because of work required. And the lazy, by definition, don't like to work.
Intellectual laziness is just as frustrating to encounter as are the behaviors of closed-minded individuals. Intellectual laziness is just as frustrating to encounter as is the hubris of individuals (e.g. BHO or AOC) who think they are so enlightened, so erudite, and so thoroughly "on the right side of history," that they already know enough. And, because they already know enough, they haughtily conclude that they simply don't have to listen to any other point of view or any other substantive argument. (Indeed, this latter type individual often arrogantly dismisses any substantive argument as utterly unworthy of consideration. It is beneath their dignity to listen to vermin. Vermin must be dispatched, not given a voice.)
But I think you know this. So, I'll leave it there.
Thank you for sharing your insights. And thank you for reading my long-winded replies. I appreciate it. Cheers.
Good point. I still have a $10 bill I stumbled across in 1980 when I was in high school. It was a "Series 1950" bill. I don't know why it struck my fancy to keep a 30 year old piece of US currency, but it did and I still have it. In a fireproof safe of all places!
The point is that this $10 bill now has significantly less purchasing power than it did when it was printed. And, with the currently out-of-control inflationary pressures afflicting us today, I won't hazard a guess as to how little inherent value this now-72 year old bill has. Indeed, I hold on to it only for the "sentimental" value: I earned it mowing lawns back in the day. So, the bill helps connect me with my youth.
Thank you for the kind words. As we age, most start to mellow a little, at least the majority of the time, and see things in a broader perspective. 🙂
You are welcome. And man-oh-man are you correct about how age can mellow us out. When I was younger my behaviors used to be of the rather insufferable variety. I thank the Creator each and every day for His (Herculean?) efforts to pound some humility into my thick skull. Dare I say He may even have required another "day of rest" to recover from His efforts to reduce the size of my once-enlarged ego...?
Cheers.
I subscribe to the "We are all A$$holes" theory, in that most of us try to be consistent and have intellectual rigor (including people who might use those emotional arguments or make moral/intellectual equivalences which I find abhorrent) but, with so many of us failing 5% of the time, it seems like everyone is an a$$hole all the time, so I generally try to be more forgiving about it, though I fail at even that sometimes.
Well. I guess that is what makes us conservatives. We often fail, and when we do, we know right from wrong and try to pick ourselves up and not do it again. Leftists just shrug their shoulders and move on as if nothing ever happened.
I believe that complex issues require complex discussion, and while many things can be boiled down to their essence (Such as Elon Musk's tweet about wanting to purchase the Bidens, but the Chinese wouldn't sell!) for pithy and entertaining effect, most things need lengthy discussion, hence the length of your posts...and mine!
That means that posts like ours won't be read by a significant portion, but I can live with that. At this point in my life, I have to talk (write) things out in order to understand them, and I can see I am not alone in this.
I will occasionally buy Silver Dollars, because at least the silver will most likely rise in value, if not for me the grandchildren. 🙂
When we are young we think wee will live forever, and our physical appearance and health will remain the same, even when the evidence is starring us in the face. Then as we take on more responsibility for ourselves, and eventually start a family we start facing reality more. My favorite saying is, The older my father gets the wiser he becomes. 🙂
So, my point is you were quite normal, for it is the rare male who sees things early on in life that most of us have to grow into mentally.
But for now, I will apologize to anyone (including the thread starter, RoosterRedux, and DoodleDawg) for my unintentional hijacking of this thread.
I think Thomas Lifson's blog post referencing Rabbi Michael Barclay's PJ Media article is spot-on. I believe that Rabbi Michael Barclay's comparisons were spot-on. Both Thomas Lifson and Rabbi Michael Barclay raise valid points; both men make statements which have merit.
What we, as in We The People, must or will do about this is an entirely different discussion. One into which I don't have time to delve right now. I wish I did.
Cheers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.