This ad annoys me, too, but for different reasons: the typography, the images, the colour scheme. It's hard to discuss anything reasonably when the fires of Hell are burning in the lower right corner. This is not an appeal to reason. If you like demagoguery, you'll love this ad.
Exactly. And I am not sure what the trigger is supposed to be. What (recent?) historical event brought this ad about? Nor am I sure what specific political outcome it sets out to achieve, beyond lowering the discourse. BB has always been a bit too right for me on several issues, but I've always assumed they were a class act.
Its also butt ugly, like somebody puked on the page. I sincerely hope the ad agency of my good friend Harry Abrams wasn't behind it.
Finally, the argument that its about radical Muslim groups and not Muslims is like the argument that its about Zionists/Israel and not Jews. Both are valid in theory, but can be abused in practice. This ad says nothing concrete or useful about a Canadian response to domestic terrorism (or anything else). It looks like its saying that they (Muslim radicals) are everywhere, so be afraid.
See infamous BB ad here.
25 comments:
If this ad was targeted at Zionists (as opposed to Jews)for their treatment of Palestinians, rather than at Radical Islam (as opposed to Muslims) it would definitely be called anti-Semitic by B'Nai Brith.
Nor am I sure what specific political outcome it sets out to achieve, beyond lowering the discourse.
As I pointed out in your other post, hate speech like this is about priming the population to accept unreasonable actions as reasonable. That's why I think we need to press the Muslim haters on the specific outcome they want to see happen.
That's why I think we need to press the Muslim haters on the specific outcome they want to see happen.
They'll never tell us. I've been asking that question for years and the only answer I ever got was "I want you to believe it."
Considering they aren't very bright we should be able trick them into revealing it.
Let me continue to remind you, B'nai Brith is today a small membership organization. Many like me join Bnai Brith to play organized hockey and baseball. We recoil at their "advocacy" and are far more connected to CJC as a representative of mainstream jewish concerns
Let me continue to remind you, B'nai Brith is today a small membership organization.
They're the most well know Jewish lobby group though and their voice carries a great deal of weight behind it.
The usual speechy blogosphere seems to have lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree over this one. I knew an ad was coming, but had no personal input concerning the content.
I suppose it was purposely made to be raw and to shock people from their complacency. And judging from the responses all over the place, I'd say it's doing its job.
Fact is that there's a dangerous radicalization that's been infecting Cdn. organized labour and academia that accepts and pretty much parrots aspects of the ideologies of Hamas and Hezbollah.
As the Nazis did,and before the serious violence began, those targeted were first demonized and disenfranchised.
These recent boycotts,sham conferences and Israel Apartheid stunts are rather reminiscent of Germany in the 30's.
Robert, many groups are known because they are loud or boisterous. That is understandable. However most Jews in Canada recognize the CJC as the official representative of the organized community. It should be said that others accept neither organization.
BCL:
Finally, the argument that its about radical Muslim groups and not Muslims is like the argument that its about Zionists/Israel and not Jews. Both are valid in theory, but can be abused in practice. This ad says nothing concrete or useful about a Canadian response to domestic terrorism (or anything else). It looks like its saying that they (Muslim radicals) are everywhere, so be afraid.
The above is, I think, a much better articulation of your point than your previous post on this.
Also, I think you like this kind of stuff.
Harry:
Fact is that there's a dangerous radicalization that's been infecting Cdn. organized labour and academia that accepts and pretty much parrots aspects of the ideologies of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Couldnt agree more. Sid Ryan is exhibit A.
Fact is that there's a dangerous radicalization that's been infecting Cdn. organized labour and academia that accepts and pretty much parrots aspects of the ideologies of Hamas and Hezbollah.
So, what do the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler have to do with that?
If the B'nai Brith wants to caution anyone about "dangerous" radicalisation among the evil socialists, I suggest it take a different tack, because this garbage is insufferable and divisive.
That is, if I believe you, which I don't. This primitive propaganda...Der Ewige Moslem comes to mind...is simply in aid of mobilising Canadians to support official Israeli policy.
Fact is that there's a dangerous radicalization...
Yes, but it's not Islam that causing this radicalization. It's the Islamphobes who are doing that and this is an example of the fruit of their labours.
A woman had her head covering torn off and was pelted with anti-Arab slurs in an attempted stabbing London police are treating as a hate crime.
The suspect who attacked the 52-year-old woman in the elevator of a Jalna Ave. apartment building Sunday morning made comments referring to Arabs and terrorism after pulling off and tearing her attire, police said last night.
"The suspect said something like 'you Arab terrorist," said Const. Marcel Marcellin, the London police force's diversity officer. "It's unfortunate when people in our community express their views using violence.
Sid Ryan is Hitler?
Yes Ti-Guy, that is EXACTLY what I meant, i just didnt have the balls to say it outright. Thank god you can decipher what I really mean when I say that Sid Ryan is exhibit A of the radicalization of labour.
And yes, Hitler was, broadly speaking, a socialist. That is why he named his party the national socialists. And I know the typical response to that, usually it starts by pointing out that North Korea calls itself democratic even though its not. However, a country calling itself "democratic" when its not is not the same thing as a party (which, like the nazis, needed to be democratically elected) calling itself socialist.
Besides, its not like the nazis are reviled because they were socialists. That has to do with the whole starting wars/genocide thingy. Which are not socialist values. But economically speaking, Hitler was a socialist. Its not just the name, its about the policies.
And no organized labour is not nazism. It is however responsible for the demise of GM and Chrysler and for bleeding the city of TO dry (I dont know if you live in TO but this summer's strike and Miller's concessions were so pathetic I almost started to feel bad for torontonians).
Not sure what Geishlultnag is.
And yes, Hitler was, broadly speaking, a socialist. That is why he named his party the national socialists.
I'm sorry, but this is just too stupid to let pass. Hitler was a fascist, and fascism is a complex concept that exploits certain elements that are ALWAYS present in society, borrows from different movements and takes on different characteristics, depending on the time and place where it arises. It is always characterised, however as a right wing phenomenon, mostly because it embraces traditionalism, social conservatism and populism. The treatment of sexuality and gender is quite often what distinguishes fascism from other types of political totalitarianism.
Not sure what Geishlultnag is.
And yet you feel confident enough to make grandiose assertions about nazism.
Go read a book.
If you want to accuse some in the labour movement of still *labouring* (ha ha!) under the unscientific economics of Marxism that's a different story. But the labour movement in Canada and in Western Europe has mostly been about protecting one of the pillars of market economies, without which that economy cannot exist.
And yes, Hitler was, broadly speaking, a socialist. That is why he named his party the national socialists. And I know the typical response to that, usually it starts by pointing out that North Korea calls itself democratic even though its not. However, a country calling itself "democratic" when its not is not the same thing as a party (which, like the nazis, needed to be democratically elected) calling itself socialist.
Actually it is.
Hitler's definition of socialism wasn't what we'd define as socialism... his socialism was a national program of racism. He had no desire to give ownership to businesses to the workers. Government would protect the volk and look out for the volk's interest, but the volk would be narrowly definied.
In that passage from Ian Kerwin, Otto Johann Maximilian Strasser, a Nazi member and brother of Gregor Strasser (murdered in the Night of the Long Knives, which is seen as the Nazi party purging itself of its left-wing supporters), would be more identified with the more widely agreed definition of socialism (nationalism of businesses, support for strikers).
It's astonishing that at this point, when labour is the least radicalised, the Right starts screaming about its radicalisation. I'm sure they're spying something in the imminent future, which may in fact lead to intolerable radicalisation.
A little advice, righties...don't contribute to it by demonising your adversaries. That just doesn't work. Besides, it's really unpersuasive, given that the story of how radical capitalists have destroyed the global economy is still unfolding.
It is always characterised, however as a right wing phenomenon, mostly because it embraces traditionalism, social conservatism and populism. The treatment of sexuality and gender is quite often what distinguishes fascism from other types of political totalitarianism.
traditionalism? not sure what you mean by that. clearly nazis were in favor of anything that promoted german culture, and even going back to pagan nonsense (apparently Goebbels or Himller, forget which, firmly believed the aryans were descendants of the people of Antlatis, but i digress) I dont see how fascism relates to traditionalism, but I would be most grateful if you would care to expand.
social conservatism? well they hated gays. but they also performed abortions and eugenics. nothing too "traditional" or socially conservative about that.
populism? I know today populism is seen as a right-wing thing but populism is mostly about serving the masses instead of the elites. This is quite compatible with socialist tendencies.
Regardless, as Im sure you already know, fascism comes from the italian fascio, which designates many rods tied together - to represent that the collective is stronger than the individual. So the very term "fascism" was chosen by BM to symbolize a collectivist ideology.
The term "totalitarianism" was also coined by BM, and he meant it as something positive. As in "everything within the state, nothing outside the state". So the term doesnt mean that any branch of the state holds all the powers (as I was led to believe by my otherwise excellent history teacher in high school), but rather that the state has power over everything within the state. There is no "private sphere". And that, more than anything else, shows the inherent incompatibility between fascism and contemporary conservatism.
In my view, this whole discussion is academic anyways. Im a big fan of Godwin's law, and I dont believe that nazis or fascists have anything in common with anybody on the political spectrum today. But, it is interesting that these ideologies are usually labeled as "far-right" when they are explicitly collectivist and statist.
traditionalism? not sure what you mean by that.
When traditions are not just celebrated but are transformed into a cult, to the point where no one dare question whether they actually work anymore or even whether they were ever anyone's traditions to begin with.
The rest of what you wrote sounds like you copied it from LifeSite or Free Dominion so I won't bother responding to it.
I'll just say that parsing language doesn't bring additional information into a discussion. And if you're worried about the evils of "collectivism," take good look at "movement Conservatism" and the startling conformity of belief and opinion some time.
Although you probably have, which is why you're spending time talking to liberals and Liberals, who think for themselves.
One last thing: Godwin's Law is a statement of probability: "The longer an Internet discussion goes on, the probability that someone will mention Hitler/Nazis approaches 1."
It has nothing to do with whether someone mentions Nazis or Hitler. In this discussion, that's actually the topic. It really serves to illustrate, for example, a discussion that starts off with advice about planting tomatoes. If it goes on long enough, eventually someone will mention Hitler.
RE: Godwin's law.
I was under the impression that it was a rule that the first one to call his opponent Hitler in a debate had lost. I see from wiki that it is in fact both, although the probability thing is actually the original meaning.
The rest of what you wrote sounds like you copied it from LifeSite or Free Dominion so I won't bother responding to it.
As you wish. I never visit those sites btw.
Although you probably have, which is why you're spending time talking to liberals and Liberals, who think for themselves.
I like talking to liberals because I see no point in echoing a point over and over again. I dont need my beliefs confirmed by blogging tories (most of which suck, as do most of liblogs). I much prefer having my opinions challenged.
And of course I always enjoy it when you throw insults around at trolls. Ive always found a good potty-mouth entertaining.
Glad you cleared that up Mitka. Majority of Canadian Jews represented by the CJC and committed to assorted bits of dialogue and attempts to criminalize or regulate criticism of Israel as a form of anti-semitism.
BB, minority of Canadian Jews, more activist, noticing that there are actual anti-semites in Hamas and willing to draw attention to this fact.
Got it.
I was under the impression that it was a rule that the first one to call his opponent Hitler in a debate had lost. I see from wiki that it is in fact both, although the probability thing is actually the original meaning.
God, I hate Wikipedia. Any error can be supported by it. Now that so many people have misunderstood Godwin's law, the wrong (and less interesting) interpretation is now correct. And thus, the culture loses another IQ point.
I much prefer having my opinions challenged.
Lucky me. I had to challenge "Hitler was a Socialist" for the billionth time in my life.
social conservatism? well they hated gays. but they also performed abortions and eugenics. nothing too "traditional" or socially conservative about that.
Abortions for the unfit. Abortion was not legal for German women. Aborting a child could get you the death penalty. This was all a part of returning German women to their traditional roles and having them give birth to more children.
Overall, one of the preoccupations of fascism is societial decline because of liberalism, which is something they share with conservatives ;) .
Regardless, as Im sure you already know, fascism comes from the italian fascio, which designates many rods tied together - to represent that the collective is stronger than the individual. So the very term "fascism" was chosen by BM to symbolize a collectivist ideology.
And yet Fascism had a fascinated with heroic figures and the veneration of their leader. Oddly, for a political party that supposedly idealized the idea of the group, fascism didn't survive the deaths of Mussolini in Italy or Hitler in Germany.
There is no "private sphere". And that, more than anything else, shows the inherent incompatibility between fascism and contemporary conservatism.
The historian Robert Paxton's theory of fascism is that conservatives aren't fascists, but they're willing to work with them if they have a common enemy -- usually socialists. Fear makes strange bedfellows as the say. Paxton noted that the conservatives who worked with the Nazis tended to want "order, calm, and the inherited hierarchies of wealth and birth... they wanted to limit the state to the function of a 'night watchman' who would keep order while traditional elites ruled through propery, chuches, armies, and inherited social influence." Of course conservative groups in the past aren't identical to conservative groups of the present, but they're not unrelated either.
Didn't want to contradict you, but Fascism is a bit more complex than you made it appear.
Lucky me. I had to challenge "Hitler was a Socialist" for the billionth time in my life.
You dont have to.
The historian Robert Paxton's theory of fascism is that conservatives aren't fascists, but they're willing to work with them if they have a common enemy -- usually socialists. Fear makes strange bedfellows as the say.
it's a common mistake all over the political spectrum to go for the enemy of my enemy fallacy.
Fascism is a bit more complex than you made it appear.
Absolutely.
in their own words:
sanity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir_JNPn_GNM
Insanity:
Highly relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGc2NJf_QYo
Other:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9kOCxu0dvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9kOCxu0dvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvVXJa
Post a Comment