A typical example of his freely exercised speech is:
Typical n****r behavior. Concealed carry would have made the outcome much different. Note if the perpetrators had been White, they would have all got the death penalty for a hate crime against n*****s. And the lieberals wonder why a large segment of Whites hate blacks and distrust them. I am surprised the black bastards did not try to rape them, that is standard fare for n*****s.
That's an old post, though. More recently he's taken to advocating Muslim genocide and issuing incoherent threats against Warren Kinsella. He thinks Ezra, Mark Steyn, and Mark Lemire are righteous, but Ezra is not convinced he's real.
Fortunately for everyone whose going to be in Ottawa later this week, the OPP has a less sanguine opinion:
I just received the occupants of two OPP crusisers into my house, and was warned that I am personna non grata at the star chamber hearing this week in Ottawa. I think the name attached to the warning was Katherine Slater, and if I appear there I will be arrested.
Ed has never posted his real name, but I suppose the important thing is that the police have it.
PS. I'd probably condemn Kate's latest if I could figure out what the hell she was on about. If anyone can pull a rational assertion from this, let me know. The Nazis merely employed the already existing German bureaucracy to implement the Holocaust? Is that her point?
If so, its crazy, but perhaps a product of the Conservative habit of seeing "The State" as an evil abstraction apart from the people who make it up.
42 comments:
I'd probably condemn Kate's latest if I could figure out what the hell she was on about.
Since I'm fluent in right whingerese let me translate for you.
The Nazis employed the state apparatus to carry out the holocaust just like the left employs the state apparatus to carry out its own holocaust against people like St. Ezra and Mark Stain.
BCL knows exactly what Kate was referring to, but he plays the "I don't know what your talking about" defensive posturing, as a way of avoiding (once again) the substance of the point.
Substance,
vs.
rhetorical defences and platitudes.
It may explain why Kate's site is by far the most visited political blog in our country. People go there for real stimulating, thought provoking discussion.
Whereas here is the place where the likes of ti-guy and a handful of others like him roam.
Kate's point, as is as plain as can be, is that people have more to fear from one's own government than from any sort of other group out there. Tens of millions of citizens were killed by their own governments, under Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, etc. This doesn't include people killed by soldiers in war, but by government initiated programs, specifically intended to murder millions of people who do not fit their view. Not surprisingly, these were all left- and extreme-left wing governments. No, don't bother arguing that Nazis were right wing, they weren't.
Without the state apparatus extending their authority to all arms of bureaucracy, enabling suppression of all criticism and dissent, the National Socialists would have had no more capacity to order the round up and mass murder of their fellow citizens than the national executive of your Kinsman club.
What of the above statement do you disagree with?
Doc.
They extended their authority by stacking the bureacracy with Nazi Party Members.
Also, why does it hurt when I pee?
That's the point.
They "stacked" it because they needed that state machinery.
They didn't operate outside of the state, but AS the state.
They were the state, quite true. Kate seems to be saying that the state was an entirely seperate entity
"The Nazis didn't carry out the holocaust...The german state did that..."
I take it then, that you don't really disagree with the above statement.
A statement made by Kate in her comments thread BTW.
As an aside, it is OK to agree with those you deem your ideological opponents. The notion that whatever someone from the "other side" must be false generally leads to absurd positions being taken in the name of blind partisanship.
Ah, but if you want to make that point, then by that argument, you cannot say that "the State" is evil.
The state is just a tool, and tools are only as good or evil as the people who wield them. The fact that the Nazis co-opted the apparatus of the state is only an indictment of the Nazis' intentions, not the apparatus they used.
Do we ban nails because Christ was crucified with them?
What KKKate knows about the Third Reich she learned watching Hogan's Heroes.
The State that ended up carrying out the atrocities of the Third Reich had been transformed by a multi-year process of Gleichschaltung, a forced coordination of State and public institutions along the principles of National Socialism and the elimination of agencies and forces that provided alternatives to or challenged these principles.
If KKKate's worried about that, she should look at what the State is doing, not what the people are doing.
James,
so if we can't equate a state with a gun then Kate's argument fails?
Surely you can appreciate the distinction between a single object and a bureaucracy that has the authority to govern us?
Given that you seem to be a fairly intelligent person, it appears that your retort is founded more on intellectual dishonesty than ignorance.
Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Kennedy often claims in his posts that he is publishing under his own name. This would help explain, of course, how quickly the OPP were able to find him (assuming that the story is true). If E.L. were a pseudonym, they would need to subpoena user logs, etc., which would be both time-consuming and (one assumes) controversy-producing.
"so if we can't equate a state with a gun then Kate's argument fails?"
Well, I would have no objection to state control, a state registry or keeping states locked up in cabinets, separate from the ammunition. ;-)
But, seriously, I think my point stands: the state is not a person, it is a _thing_. You cannot ascribe a moral value to it, only to the people who use it or misuse it. Nothing we create is good or evil until we use it.
If we're talking in broad strokes here, and if you're asking me to believe that the fact that the Nazis had an effective bureaucracy to carry out their evil intentions makes all bureaucracy inherently evil, then I simply will not agree with you. The responsibility for evil rests with the people, and not the tools that they use.
Similarly, guns don't kill people. People kill people.
The state is not merely a "thing".
In our social contract it is that which is "authorized" to coerce us. The state tells us what we can and cannot do, through laws and the machinery to enforce those laws.
Nazis, like the communists in Russia and Maoists in China, did not operate outside the state, but within it, as part of it, to attempt to accomplish their utopian vision and in so doing killed millions (in China it was hundreds of millions).
What lay at the heart of the state abuse that allowed such horrifying acts to take place? Should we, as citizens who are subject to state control, not inquire?
Examining our state's ability to control expression (as Kate is doing) is a good starting point, don't you think?
Kate's not doing that. She's trying to let Nazis off the hook by condemning faceless bureaucrats, and then dumping that 'logic' onto the CHRC issue here.
The state _is_ a thing. It's a tool, and that's something we're just going to have to agree to disagree on. It's what we've used from the moment we decided to work together in groups to hunt and gather in order to govern the interaction of individuals, ideally for the resolution of disputes, and as a means of increasing comfort and safety for all.
Therefore, if the state is misused, it's no more the fault of the state than it is the fault of a hammer which misses its nail and squashes your thumb. Yes, we need to design better states, just as we need to design better hammers, and encourage people not to misuse states and hammers. But to suggest that the state is inherently dangerous and should be banned is like saying guns are inherently dangerous and should be banned.
I've never called for the banning of guns, only their regulation. I have no problem with rational, law-abiding individuals owning guns as long as they don't misuse them. Similarly, I have no problem with rational individuals making use of the state's apparatus to improve our lives, as long as they don't misuse it. For this reason, I support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I'm as upset as anybody at the Bush Administration doing end runs around the constitution down south, or suspending habius corpus.
The gun/state analogy ends when one realizes that a state has so many purposes it cannot exist to serve only one. A gun has one use and one alone.
Doc,
If all Kate is saying is that the Nazis only became able to implement the holocaust when they became the government and put their people into the bureaucracy, then that is true but trivial. But it also does not follow that it wasn't the Nazis that "carried out" the Holocaust.
Nazis, like the communists in Russia and Maoists in China, did not operate outside the state, but within it, as part of it,
This displays a rather ignorant understanding of history that ignores the high degree of corruption and crime (as defined by the State) that went un-noticed/un-punished by the State that renders any discussion of the State in these instances meaningless.
"What KKKate knows about the Third" - ti-guy
BCL spikes posts that associate his friend McClelland with Nazi sympathies, but routinely allows ti-guy's posts that associate Kate with an equally obnoxious group, the KKK. A Liberals idea of equality.
" ...a multi-year process of Gleichschaltung, a forced coordination of State and public institutions along the principles of National Socialism and the elimination of agencies and forces that provided alternatives to or challenged these principles."
Not unlike what Harper is doing to Canada. Just ask Flanagan.
No anon, you're remark was banal. Pick a fake name, stick to it, and you can be three times as banal. Otherwise you must entertain me more.
Kate is a war bunny, don't take her seriously.
Remember what happened to The Shotgun blog? Biggest blog in Canada, then proceeded to gross out all its readers with anti Muslim hate speech, everyone bailed, they went bankrupt. Same thing will happen at SDA.
There aren't ten, let alone ten thousand, people in Canada who could stomach her daily stream of hot steaming turd.
There's nothing more banal than your posts on global warming. So spike yourself.
Remember what happened to The Shotgun blog?
It's still around, as stupid as ever.
Actually, Ti Guy, its considerably less stupid. They do seem to have made an attempt at flushing out some of the crazies (S. Soharwardy's threatened to protest in front of their building; they caved). Now its just somewhat stupid, and they actually had an article on green tech being inhibited by gov. regs. that made some sense.
"I'd probably condemn Kate's latest if I could figure out what the hell she was on about."
It is a truly putrid stool sample.
I'm a nice guy in a good mood today, so I'll give you some analysis that I charge good money for, and that you won't see anywhere else, free:
Kate's underlying argument, stripped bare, is that in a democracy it is the people, not the government, that is ultimately accountable. So far so good.
Except that this is the exact justification for OBL's fatwa, and Hezbollah's targeting of Israeli "civilians".
Both stated clearly that since American\Israeli citizens freely elect governments that rape, torture, and murder on their behalf that they feel justified in delivering retribution and negative reinforcement against what they perceive to be the true enemy, the electorate, since they knowingly and repeatedly elect warmongering governments.
Osama Bin Laden couldn't ask for a better apologist than Kate, and she doesn't even realize it.
You're going on and on about neo-Nazis: how many people have been murdered by neo-Nazis worldwide in the last 10 years?
Just who is the real danger? Why are you trying to distract people away from the real threats at large today? Are you being paid off to keep silent?
Actually, Ti Guy, its considerably less stupid.
I never separate the blog from the commenters it attracts and as far as I can tell, it's the same old collection of screaming meemies over at The Shitgun.
Truth be told, I've always had fewer problems with rightwing blog posts than I have with the commenters. I fault the bloggers for their unwillingness to mentor their commenters and moderate their discussions.
You're going on and on about neo-Nazis: how many people have been murdered by neo-Nazis worldwide in the last 10 years?
Can we include the US military in that tally?
"Are you being paid off to keep silent?"
They all are. I hate bloggers more than I hate the government. Take Kate McMillan. Lives in the highest crime\second highest tax jurisdiction in North America - and blogs nonstop about Iraq and Iran.
You too BCL. Mayor of Toronto admits that Toronto is "unsustainable", innocent bystanders popped in daylight shootings on a fairly regular basis...and you're on about global warming and goth teenagers?
In both cases it is difficult to believe for us readers at home that you aren't being influenced, materially or otherwise.
Same goes for the rest of the bloggers - shite. Bought and paid for shite, significantly worse than even the MSM.
I guess you're tired of getting slapped out over at SDA in the Comments section, so you retreat to your own little echo chamber here to build up your self esteem.
Well, I'm here to tell you that you aren't good enough, or smart enough, and doggone it, nobody likes you.
Cool, third party subtrolls! I have a following!
Told you guys I was hardcore.
Kate's done it! She's turned the Liberal blogosphere into a vein bursting, red faced babblesphere. Check out Cherniak he's gone absolutely ape declaring open jihad on SDA.
Oh, fer God's sakes...get off the computer you guys and go read a book or something. Might I recommend The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby?
"Susan Jacoby"
Entry #92 for Stuff White People Like should be "recommending atheist feminist New York City dwelling affirmative action hired keyboard jockey authors and their dreck". Ugh. What on earth can a broad in New York City tell me about anything? Nothing. I'll bet she watches 30 hours of television a week, minimum.
Just be quiet and read it...or any other book that examines the phenomena presaging the coming Endarkenment.
"Endarkenment"
What do you have against dark people?
Nevermind, according to Progressive Bloggers moderator and Blogging Dippers moderator Paladea, the Tories are, well, let her tell you:
"I wouldn't put it past the Conservatives to reintroduce the head tax on non white immigrants. Or more likely, people of colour ...will have their applications arbitrarily denied."
idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2008/03/question-for-supporters-of-conservative.html
Yeeesh, if this is what passes for a moderator I wonder how bad are the moderatees?
Gosh, I sure wish I met the stringent Progressive Bloggers standard of conduct apparent in the actions of their moderators. What an excellent country Canada is, with truly outstanding commentary flowing from the citizens.
On a serious note, Harper has exceeded both Chretien and Martin's immigration numbers, and actually halved the Liberal head tax.
For his efforts, the best and brightest of the Canadian blogsphere are suggesting that he is a racist. And you wonder why nobody in Canada takes bloggers seriously.
Yes, I get it...you're irrational and have lost the ability to reason properly. That's why I'm suggesting some remedial reading.
Don't feel bad...you're not alone.
I'm really surprised that you don't see the implications of this on every single Canadian. Right now, the HRC shuts down the speech you don't agree with. But you know that Harper's hidden agenda is to take over every single government agency and install his handpicked cronies to enforce the neo-con agenda. THEN you'll complain when all of a sudden, the HRC is shutting down feminist groups, and gay rights groups, and anti-religious groups, and peace protestors, and environmental groups. Then it'll be too late. So you better act now. You've already made the stupid mistake of trying to ensure that only the police and military have guns (again, under the control of HARPER!) and then where will you be when he enforces a police state?
Post a Comment