Abortion

I Mean, What Isn't Auschwitz These Days? (UPDATED)

The Holocaust: Not just for Planned Parenthood anymore!

|

He's hot, he's sexy, he's dead! ||| Memes Happen
Memes Happen

This week, Rep. Jodi Laubenberg (R-Texas) commented on the undercover video sting of Planned Parenthood's fetal-parts business thusly:

To find out that this culture of death is now leading to the sale – this is no different than what happened in Nazi Germany. No different than doing the experiments on the old men and old women and now doing them on the babies.

It's a sentiment echoed over at Red State, where Owen Strachan has a piece up titled "Planned Parenthood Is Our Auschwitz."

This is as close to accurate as such contemporary comparisons get. The following are American policy issues that have been analogized this month either to the Holocaust or its chief architect:

Scott WalkerUniversity Wisconsin-Madison professor Sara Goldrick-Rab ("My grandfather, a psychologist, just walked me through similarities between Walker and Hitler. There are so many — it's terrifying.")

The Iran nuclear weapons dealMike Huckabee ("will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.")

The meat industry and other abusers of animals: Russell Simmons ("There were people for slavery, remember? Almost everybody. Slavery was fine. There's people that put people in ovens…. You're asking me, do I think that people who are unconscious to the suffering they cause to 100 billion animals–the worst holocaust in the history of humankind, the suffering of animals, the abuse of animals, and yes you're all guilty in my opinion…. [Y]ou don't like the word holocaust? It's a fucking holocaust.")

UPDATE/ADDITION: Uh, Uber? Ted Rall: ("Seriously, let's walk through the parallels between the Silicon Valley startup and the genocidal right-wing totalitarian movements of the mid 20th century.") (Thanks to alert commenter Just say Nikki!)

The good news, as ever, is that Americans, with few exceptions, still really, really hate Adolf Hitler. The bad news, well, I'll let Kurt Eichenwald deliver it:

NEXT: Memphis Police to Forward all Fatal Shootings to State Investigative Agency

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know who else had an Auschwitz…

        1. You know who else was a son of a bitch?

          1. My childhood dog?

          2. The band Nazareth?

          3. Snoopy?

          4. Your transgender sister who’s now your brother?

  2. This list leaves out the best one of all, Ted Rall’s comparison of Uber to Hitler!

    1. Well, they both use the Austrian language.

      1. Don’t forget efficient means of transport

        1. You know who else built good roads, Reggie?

          1. Not the libertarians in Somalia, I’ll tell you that!

    2. Updated, thanks!

    3. Wow! H/t and updated in the same thread! You’re the best Nikki.

      1. You’re the best Nikki.

        I have heard rumors to the contrary.

        1. Nobody is better at being the worst.

  3. Okay, I was wrong. Reason will cover it.

    Carry on.

    1. reverse drink?

        1. I don’t make the rules… but that’s the only logical choice.

        2. Butt chug.

          1. Or vodka-soaked tampons, either way.

  4. The Nazis really did start with killing off the sick, weak and unwanted. So yes, saying it is okay to kill children in the womb is analogous. And giving $150 billion dollars and access to long range missile technology to a country with a nuclear program that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map is asking for another holocaust only this time with open air ovens burning the bodies.

    The problem with Godwin is that assumes that nothing could ever be analogous to the Nazis and sadly some things are.

    1. just not these things.

      1. Giving somebody who has promised to kill 6 million Jews the means to do so isn’t comparable?

        1. No. Not unless giving someone who said “I’ll Kill You!” makes them comparable to a murderer.

          1. Isn’t that the argument that was made for compromising with the Austrian? That “He didn’t really mean” all the extreme things he said?

            Are we really ready to make that mistake again?

            1. ask me that after they invade poland.

              1. And I’ll want to see an airforce, also.

        2. It’s too bad the Jews once again find themselves with no way to defend themselves.

          1. They will be once Obama sanctions them into giving up their nukes.

        3. So now allowing a nation state to do what they will is giving them something? Isn’t that a lot like saying that not taxing rich people more is giving them more money?

          I’m not commenting on the Iran situation here, but I don’t think it is really comparable.

    2. I usually hate Nazi comparisons. but Huckabee was pretty spot on.

      1. that’s strange… I usually Hate Huckabee…

        1. I thought that they were loved

          1. I tried to like that movie… but I couldn’t. could’ve been worse. I

        2. +1 Airplane

    3. The problem with Godwin is that assumes that nothing could ever be analogous to the Nazis and sadly some things are.

      The problem with Godwin’s Law is that people believe that it says that Nazi comparisons are inaccurate when all Godwin said was that the longer an Internet conversation goes on, the greater the odds that someone mentions Nazis.

      Godwin probably gets misquoted on the Internet more than the Dalai Lama.

      1. Or, as the Dalai Lama likes to say, “Fuck bitches get money.”

      2. Which reminds me of my favorite Confusius saying:

        “I didn’t say half of the shit people claim I said”

      3. +1 Gunga galunga…gunga — gunga galunga.

    4. No, the problem with Godwin is that no one seems to know (or perhaps care) what he really said about Nazi comparisons and internet arguments.

      The problem with comparing things to Nazis isn’t that it is never an apt comparison, it is that it turns people off and gets you no where with people who don’t already agree with you. And it is often used in stupid ways.

      1. You know who else got nowhere with people who didn’t already agree with him?

        1. *looks around, shoves hands into pockets, kicks rock*

        2. Rand Paul, according to Shriek

    5. Lets not overlook that that some of the ME politicial parties have no-kidding Nazi roots.

      The one that comes to mind is the Baath Party (now defunct, I believe), but I want to say there are others.

    6. Hey, Matt! New update!

      John|7.29.15 @ 12:03PM|#
      “The Nazis really did start with killing off the sick, weak and unwanted. So yes, saying it is okay to kill children in the womb is analogous”

      1. It is true Sevo. Are valid analogies what Matt is talking about?

  5. What’s a “Though Guy”?

    1. Dammit, I wasted time trying to add something snarky.

      1. Did you just send a tweet to KLAC sports talk radio?

    2. Thanks – I was wondering the same thing.

    3. I was wondering that too…

    4. For goodness’ sake, people!

      Misspelling (especially with extra “h”s) is sarcasm font.

      Yello Pheril!

      Stop teh Ghays!

      1. Except “though” is an actual word, and is the only misspelling present, so I think it may be an actual mistake.

        1. Wow – OK, internet tuff though gai!

    5. That’s where somebody would slip in something good about you to mitigate an insult. “Her kugel was dry & awful tasting, though she was good at parallel parking.”

  6. “people who are unconscious to the suffering they cause to 100 billion animals?the worst holocaust in the history of HUMANKIND”…

    Um, someone here is unconscious to something, but I’m not gonna point out the obvious…

    1. The thing is, the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive establishment gets hot under the collar when somebody compares Abortionists or Iran to the Nazis, but thinks this kind of blather about animal cruelty is just fine. This strongly suggests that the LIRPs think of farm animals as thinking, feeling beings with rights comparable to those of humans ? and don’t feel that way about little black fetuses and Jews.

      1. You know who else thought more highly of farm animals than Jews?

  7. What is a “THOUGH GUY”?

    1. That’s how you know it’s meant to be sarcastic. That’s how you account for Poe’s Law.

      It’s like “Teh ghay”.

      1. But “though” is a word. How are you supposed to know it means tough?

        Memes are so confusing.

        1. It’s tsar chasm!

  8. Two points:

    1) Just because people make bad Nazi analogies doesn’t mean that good Nazi analogies can’t be made.

    2) The holocaust was certainly the worst thing the Nazis ever did, but it wasn’t the only rotten thing they did. Listening to some people (not Matt Welch), you might think if it weren’t the for the holocaust, then the Nazis would have been okay.

    In reference to Point 2, for instance, the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire as a pretense to curb civil liberties. If you don’t want to be compared to the Nazis in that regard, then a good way to avoid that is to not use tragedies like 9/11 as an excuse to attack our civil liberties.

    1. ) The holocaust was certainly the worst thing the Nazis ever did, but it wasn’t the only rotten thing they did. Listening to some people (not Matt Welch), you might think if it weren’t the for the holocaust, then the Nazis would have been okay.

      That is because if most Progressives were honest, they would think the Nazis were okay absent the Holocaust.

      1. Good point!

        The Nazis were also about using the coercive power of government to force people to sacrifice their individual rights for the common “good”.

        And me being against that, as a libertarian, is the same reason I oppose progressives–whose philosophy boils down to the same thing.

        Certainly, progressives shouldn’t complain about being compared to the Nazis if their main complaint is that the Nazis went too far.

        My problem with the Nazis is substantive–rather than merely a criticism of their extremeness.

        1. The quote of the year so far was from a blogger yesterday named Moe Lane. In response to hearing the Bernie Sanders is for closing the borders he asked; “So what do you call a socialist who is not an internationalist?”.

          1. And “american socialist” immediately shows up. Coincidence?

            1. So American socialist is to national socialist what the American League is to the National League?

              1. American Socialist usually makes mincemeat of National Socialists at the socialist all-star game?

              2. I think he’s more like what the Washington Nationals are to the National League.

          2. didn’t the commentariat make this joke 50 times yesterday?

            1. Yes, but to be fair, John may have been suffering from rage stroke and missed all the others.

            2. Yes, which Glenn Reynolds seems to have picked up on, and is now spreading across the intertubes.

      2. Psst, John, an article about how ridiculous nazi analogies are generally isn’t the best place to ponder about your leading intellectual insight– you know, the one about how liberals in Congress are Nazis

        1. You’re commenting on other people’s comments, but I don’t think you’re reading them.

          1. Ken, did you check out the comments below?

            Best,

            AS

            1. Did you check out the comments above?

              Making Nazi analogies is perfectly appropriate–when appropriate?

              The holocaust wasn’t the only rotten thing the Nazis did, etc.?

        2. No, they are fascists. There is a difference. And absent the holocaust there isn’t a single thing about Hitler’s economic views that liberals would object. They wouldn’t even object to the war making. They would just object to Germans doing it. Nazism was as much as anything a cult of German victimhood. And liberals love nothing better but a victim and someone to blame.

          You are part of a fascist movement. You have the same tactics and the same total commitment to the state and collective guilt and scapegoating. You just haven’t gotten the blood and soil aspect, though that part is coming.

          1. And absent the holocaust there isn’t a single thing about Hitler’s economic eugenics views that liberals would object.

            FIFY

          2. the blood and soil aspect

            Bernie got the soil part the other day. A closed and protected border doesn’t clear up Bernie’s scare stories about immigrants pushing down labor costs.

            America for Americans might be multiracial, but the nationalism stays the same.

            1. A comparison with the Silver Shirt Legion or the Coughlinites might be more apt…

          3. “And absent the holocaust there isn’t a single thing about Hitler’s economic views that liberals would object.”

            Not only Hitler’s economic views, but his social policies as well. Hitler was a dedicated non smoker and was among the first to discourage smoking among the population. His policies didn’t go nearly as far as the Liberal regimes of today, but he deserves recognition for getting the ball rolling. Smokers seeking freedom these days are forced to turn to regimes like North Korea, where the sacred freedom to smoke is still cherished.

        3. Hey, remember that time your homies murdered a few million people? That was awesome, bro.

          1. It should be emphasized and never forgotten that “a few” here means “around 100 million.”

            1. 100 million? That’s an impressive number. I imagine sources are cited?

              1. If he’s including civilian casualties in Russia and elsewhere, he can get up there close somewhere.

                1. Wait, he’s talking about the victims of communism? I thought he was talking victims of the Nazis…

                  Yeah, a hundred million may be a low estimate for victims of communism.

                  1. Ok, I thought it was Nazi victims too. My bad.

              2. Well Stalin is estimated to have caused the deaths of anywhere from 40 to 60 million and Mao in the neighborhood of 45 million. These estimates are not too hard to find.

                1. Plenty of estimates put Mao up to 77 million. Here’s one.

                  1. Yeah, the death toll between the two of them could actually be well in excess of 100 million.

            2. Precision is a lie made up by lying bourgeois liars. To the camps with you!

            3. Wasn’t real socialism, never been tried, a few rotten apples, etc.

              1. I have an idea:

                Free Market Socialism

                Who’s with me?

        4. Hey, AS? Do you remember that time that socialists murdered millions of people? Good times.

      3. If the Progressives were honest they would admit that what they REALLY resent about the Nazis is that Hitler and Company put the stink on eugenics.

        Of course of the Progressives were honest, they would fall down foaming at the mouth, as their poor brains tried to reconcile all the self-condraditory swill they manage to believe in.

        1. The eugenics link is pretty weak tea these days. Progressives have long-since given up removing undesirables from mankind’s evolutionary destiny. They embrace former “undesirables” and many beside as worthy political clients. The new undesirables are climate change deniers, second amendment advocates, religious purveyors, home schoolers, pro-lifers, etc., and their new tactic involves bureaucratic harassment and censorship. If they had the chance they’d start incarcerating.

          1. Progressives have long-since given up removing undesirables from mankind’s evolutionary destiny.

            I’m too lazy to include the obligatory PP link, the obligatory Climate Change link, the obligatory anti-GMO link, and the obligatory mandatory minimums link.

            Just because modern progressives practice “compassionate eugenics” doesn’t mean they have given up on the basic tenets of eugenics.

          2. Progressives have long-since given up removing undesirables from mankind’s evolutionary destiny.

            I’ve been reading (don’t know if its verified or not), that more blacks are aborted than born in NYC these days.

            Of course, this gets into intentionality, I suppose, but it strikes me as at least plausible that abortion, which was originally part of their eugenics program, is continuing on as a sort of zombie eugenics program. Based on results.

        2. Progressives haven’t been pro-eugenics for decades. If anything they, like libertarians, favor dysgenics. Fewer Europeans and East Asians, more black Africans and Amerindians. Because Brazil is obviously the model we should be shooting for.

          1. I thought Argentina was the promised land now?

          2. Jay Fortin, is that you?

          3. Go away, Amerikan.

      4. The holocaust was certainly the worst thing the Nazis ever did,

        I’m just curious: on what scale?

        I would bet that more non-combatants died because they invaded the Soviet Union than because they ran death camps for undesirables. I could be wrong, but its entirely possible that invading the Soviets was the worst thing they did, if we are going purely on body count.

        This isn’t to deny that there is moral dimension to death camps, just that reflexively saying the holocaust was the worst thing did may or may not get us to the right answer.

        /contrarian OFF

        1. Careful here. Someone like Jordan would argue that the Russians would have been better off under Hitler.

        2. Suffice it to say that in addition to the holocaust, the Nazis did a lot of other terrible things that weren’t specifically holocaust related, and if people who aren’t trying to bring back the holocaust don’t want to be accused of acting like the Nazis in various other non-holocaust ways, then they should avoid doing the same things the Nazis did.

          The Nazis banned “deviant art”, for instance. Just because some group of people isn’t advocating that 6 million Jews should be burned in ovens doesn’t mean that they can’t be compared to the Nazis if and when they advocate banning “deviant art”.

          Another pet peeve, bringing up the Nazis is not in itself a slipper slope argument. The Nazis aren’t just awful because of the results of what they did–their methods, motives, and qualitative preferences are all perfectly legitimate subjects for criticism, too.

    2. Sure, “never let a crisis go to waste”, the “Big Lie”, attempts to censor criticism, etc. are all used by our politicians to curb civil liberties and enhance their power. Godwin really only applies when the analogy is used inappropriately.

      1. “Godwin really only applies when the analogy is used inappropriately.”

        I agree with WTF here, and would only add the somewhat obvious “? and when the debater has to resort to hyperbole because he or she is out of cogent points” (or perhaps refuses to acknowledge the other side’s salient points).

  9. This article is exactly like Mein Kampf

    1. only shorter and better written.

      1. And far fewer references to syphilis.

  10. Matt Welch is out Goebbels

  11. This thread is like Kristallnacht.

    1. Yet another reason why we can’t have nice things.

      Like windows.

  12. You know who else compared other people to Hitler?

    1. Eva Braun?

    2. Hitler’s mom

    3. Shrike, T o n y or Hugh?

      1. I would stop if you’d just shave off that dumbass mustache.

    4. NOT hitler’s art teacher… #amirite?!

  13. Excellent rant by the pissed-off guy.

    1. Though he seems to be more than a bit of an asshole.

      1. well, a bit of everybody is an asshole. It’s keeping it clean and covered that important.

        1. I’m always mystified that Jews aren’t the most heavily armed gun nuts on the planet. Especially ones that know as much about the Holocaust as this guy.

          1. I am.

            1. So is Israel.

              1. Yes, but you’re not quite the walking advertisement for TRT that this guy is.

              2. So is Kinky Friedman.

  14. “Hitler” is a bit over used. We need to start comparing modern political travesties to “Pol Pot”.

    1. “Mao” and “Stalin” work well.

      1. NO. Mao was a great leader who was led astray in his old age by the subversive and evil politburo. (I read that in a pamphlet… or some red book).

        1. Yeah, the left would probably think comparison to Stalin and Mao is a good thing.

        2. Forgot to log in as american socialist, did you?

          1. I doubt american socialist would speak of Comrade Mao in such sarcastic terms. 🙂

      2. We need to start a rotation. Monday is Hitler (because Monday!), Mao can be Tuesday, and so on. We should try to hit all the continents at least once a week just to show that we’re not bigots.

        1. first of all, for marketing, Mao needs to be monday. Mao’s Day Monday- all forced labor quotas are 150%!

          Stalin can get both the weekend days. Hitler would be Wednesday- the worse day- the HUMP day.

          Pol Pot can get Friday- Killing Field Fridays!.

          I know I’m missing more…

          1. You’re on the right track.

          2. ooh! Maybe Fidel friday? Did he kill enough people? Pol Pot can take tuesday- Pol Pot-luck tuesdays!

            Pinochet for thursday?

            1. Pish. Pinochet is bush league.

              Not sure which South American caudillo (modern era) has the biggest body count.

          3. Torquemada Tuesdays?

            1. Che “Torquemada” Guevara Tuesdays!

          4. Tito Tuesdays!!!

          5. Let’s leave Sunday for Pope Francis who only aspires to make the world more like Argentina.

            1. Silly Hat Sundays!

        2. Can we squeeze Woodrow in there somewhere. He deserves to be in the rotation. FDR deserves honorable mention as well.

          1. internment is one thing, genocide another. I don’t think the two worst presidents in the nation’s history did those things.

            1. Wilson gets bonus points for being a big part of the Paris 1919 Peace Conference and helping to create dozens of long-term foreign policy problems. Hell, it takes skill to piss off both China and Japan in the same conference.

              1. yes, but ineptitude is a different ballpark than willful slaughter.

            2. How about Oliver Wendell Wednesday?

            3. I’ve been getting a lot of ‘100 years since Wilson invaded Haiti’ articles in my face-burp.
              http://winknews.com/2015/07/29…..-projects/

            4. Can our nation’s most obviously sociopathic President not get in on this. Teddy Roosevelt helped start a war in Cuba so he could go murder people for the fun of it!

            5. Did you forget about FDR’s nickname of “Butcher of Haiti”?

          2. He can have Feb 29th

        3. I’m starting to conceive a board game somewhere between Monopoly and Cards Against Humanity with each player assuming the role of a historical dictator.

          1. “What am I going to talk to her about, Ceausescu?”

    2. non-white dictators are cool and misunderstood

  15. “My grandfather, a psychologist, just walked me through similarities between Walker and Hitler. There are so many ? it’s terrifying.”

    Call me cynical, but I don’t buy that progs believe half of the Hitler comparisons they make. They routinely compare Republican politicians to Hitler and yet they don’t do anything, they just talk. Either they’re lying for effect, or they’re effectively saying “yeah, this guy’s like Hitler and I’m going to stick around and be like one of the Germans complicit in the Nazi regime”

    1. NO. I think they are true believers. They are, also, impotent.

    2. Everything they say is a lie. So yes, they don’t believe that. No one is that stupid and delusional and not living in a box or locked up. Two things are going on. First, they are just lazy and stupid and calling someone “Hitler” is just what they do out of habit. Second, they inflate their own sense of importance by grossly inflating the threat posed by their enemies. If Walker is just a politician with different views, then Professor Rab is just a partisan hack scoring points. If Walker is the next Hitler, however, then Rab is fighting a brave and noble fight against evil. The more important and evil your enemy, the more important and noble you are. And Hitler is the definition of important and evil. They really are this childish.

      1. One of the most popular thought experiments is the old “would you go back in time to kill Hitler?” Evidently a prog would go back in time to express disapproval of Hitler. Then, of course, quickly hop back into the time machine to avoid consequences. So brave!

        1. How would they argue if there had never been a Hitler to compare all of their political enemies to?

          1. Would the progressive movement have gained so much ground absent WW2? Hell, would America even have recovered from the Depression, except for the post-armistice aftermath?

            1. Would the progressive movement have gained so much ground absent WW2?

              Yes. By that point it had infected both the GOP and the Democrat Party. The progressive movement had begun its ascendancy by WWI.

          2. In 1920s/1930s America, it would be Woodrow Wilson.

    3. Last names that end in ‘er’ are often German or Jewish/German in origin. Negotiating with public sector unions on the behalf of taxpayers is exactly what made Hitler so infamous.

    4. They both have two legs, they both had hair, ….

      1. Yeah, I’m thinking this is more like one of those car insurance commercials.

    5. Eh, pro-lifers say “fetus are babies and abortion is murder on the scale of the holocaust” and also say “we condemn violence against abortionists”. So, what, they would also condemn anyone who tried blowing up Nazi death camp personnel?

  16. It’s in the pop culture too, in Wolfenstein: The New Order alternate history Jimi Hendrix gives a big speech to BJ about how him and American soldiers ‘were the Nazis to him’ back in America.

    But then they take acid so everything’s cool.

  17. Ever notice how you don’t meet many guys named Adolph anymore these days?

    1. Indeed, Adi Dassler is dead.

      1. “Indeed, Adi Dassler is dead.”

        That was rather stealthily done, grrizzly.

        You’re quite the sneaker.

        1. *narrows gaze*

    2. I have met only one Adolph. Well, two if you count Adolph’s Meat Tenderizer.

      1. And the other was Coors?

        1. Nope. But he should have stuck to drinking Coors.

  18. When Planned Parenthood starts taking a keen interest in identical twins, then we know we have a problem.

    1. sounds like we need more yellow journalism another investigative expose!

    2. Is there money in it?

  19. Now Planned Parenthood is on the ropes…first they said the transactions on the tape were perfectly normal and legal, then they said don’t air it because – though it’s perfectly normal and legal – it violates medical privacy…now finally they’ve reached Step 3 – find some prolifers who used rhetorical excesses in describing the sale of aborted baby parts.

    Because we all know that the most important part of this trafficking-in-baby-parts story is that some of the people who didn’t like the trafficking violated Godwin’s Law in expressing their condemnation. The baby-parts-trafficking itself isn’t the problem, no sir.

    1. then they said don’t air it because – though it’s perfectly normal and legal – it violates medical privacy

      Yeah, no. Nothing that was part of the main conversation on tape violates medical privacy.

      Now, if the tape shows other people who were in the office, that’s an issue.

      If it captures conversations with other people who were in the office, that’s a PP problem, because HIPAA says you’re supposed to prevent “incidental” disclosures.

      Regardless, the people making the tape aren’t subject to HIPAA. If they got confidential information about others, that’s a PP problem.

  20. You know who else was always talking about Naziism?

    1. Churchill?

    2. The ACLU?

    3. The National Socialist German Worker’s Party?

    4. Franz Liebkind?

      1. Nice. I watched the original earlier in the week.

      1. “Just don’t mention the War!”

    5. Churchill?

      Henry Ford?

      The Kennedys?

    1. I do like how the story is not going away despite the best efforts of the Clinton’s to obfuscate and delay, which is their preferred method to dealing with potentially embarrassing stories that seem to occur every day.

      1. Yep. She really stuck her foot in a woodchipper.

        1. Well, *figuratively*.

  21. Elsewhere in absurd hyperbole:

    “While the tactics of ISIS differ substantially from those of right wing Christian fundamentalists in the US, there is little difference in their ultimate goals.”

    Oh-kay…..

    “ISIS fundamentalists want to criminalize homosexuality.
    Conservative fundamentalists want to criminalize homosexuality.”

    See, opposing gay marriage is no different than throwing gay people off buildings.

    “It is ironic that such a barbarous cult could well be allies of the political left in Europe, Asia, and Africa.”

    No, ironic is when you find a black fly in your chardonnay that was specifically purchased to repel black flies.

    1. That’s not ironic, that’s just getting ripped off.

    2. So, the current talking point is that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, but everything to do with conservative fundamentalist Christianity on the other side of the world?

    3. Yeah, I’m pretty sure ISIS is not concerned with criminalizing homosexuality…

      1. What a surprise, someone attempting to project human ethics systems onto animals has to immediately begin to defend unethical behaviour. Almost like your premise is flawed, or something.

      2. LOL WTF… is the animal rights activist calling for a genocide of carnivores?

      3. Hot damn read the comment of John M Browning….best line “Most of the liberals and pseudo-anarchists I’ve encountered can barely manage getting 3 full bags of gluten free vegan products home from Whole Foods on their bicycle, let alone devise the military operation necessary for the killing and disposal of millions of enemy personel.”

      4. Prime derp. As always, you deliver, Derptologist!

    4. “While the tactics of ISIS differ substantially from those of right wing Christian fundamentalists in the US, there is little difference in their ultimate goals.”

      Someone needs to tell him that Margaret Atwood already pitched that book.

      1. Mulatto, we don’t mention that woman’s name here.

        *Shivers, remembers Canadian high school English classes*

    5. It is ironic that such a barbarous cult could well be allies of the political left in Europe, Asia, and Africa

      Why is it ironic that a totalitarian religious ideology would be allies of a totalitarian quasi-religious ideology?

  22. Hitler. He’s so hot right now.

    1. +1 Paris Hilton

  23. Going to Reason during Trump-a-thon 2015 was just like being at Auschwitz.

    1. “The Holocaust is coming from INSIDE THE WEBSITE!”

  24. U.S. approves possible sale of $5.4 billion in missiles to Saudi Arabia

    One man’s “Iran Deal” is another man’s Marketing Campaign for US weaponry.

    Because frankly, we’ve been carrying way too much of the load in the perpetual Middle-East war, and think Israel is like waaaaaay overdue for one, particularly for all the military subsidies we’ve provided them over the last 3 decades.

    So, really – a better-funded and (sorta) less-nuclear Iran that’s prone to Moar War with its neighbors is like a huge win-win from certain perspectives.

    (*note = while what is described is highly accurate as to the facts and incentives involved, encouraging an Israel+Saudi/Iranian conflict is actually Epic Stupid that makes the Iraq war seem comparatively ‘smart’)

    1. Peace Through Encouraging Everyone Over There To Blow Each Other The Fuck Up

    2. Operation Infinite Budget has commenced.

      Godspeed, gentlemen.

  25. Matt,

    Careful reading of your article reveals that the guys making comments about Planned Parenthood and a game-changing peace deal made between Iran and Fascist Obama were made by a sitting congressman and a serious contender for the Republican party’s nominee, respectively. Coversly,, the comments made about scott walker and meat eating were made by some professor I’ve never heard of and a British guy I see occasionally on TV, who mad a movie about what’s it like to take a cocktail of lsd, ketamine, ecstasy, cocaine, and pcp.

    When I was travelling in Thailand there was this tourist t-shirt that said “different, but same.” I ended up buying the one that said “different, but different.” I kind of see your comparison like that.

    1. Cool story, bro.

    2. some professor I’ve never heard of

      Considering your continued attempts to show the world your ignorance, you being unaware of an academic is not a persuasive argument.

    3. Right, we expect politicians to use ridiculous hyperbole. Academics should be held to a higher standard.

      1. That, and this is American ‘Whitewash Soviet Atrocities’ Socialist. Of course he’s going to focusing on the Republicans and try to hand-wave anyone slightly to the left. This is guy who lectures everyone here on ‘principles’ and then time and time again he shows he has none by failing to hold leftists to the same standard he does the right. I mean, there’s no better way to kill your credibility that such blatant hypocrisy.

        1. joe liked that tactic, to claim “no one says this!” and when proven wrong, he’d sniff that he’d never heard of the person.

    4. Oh for fuck’s sake! The shirts read “same same, but different“!

    5. Careful reading of socialist history shows your greatest heroes kill over 100 million people.

  26. “Sour mix in a margarita? What is this, Auschwitz?”

  27. Don’t tell me that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick didn’t focus-group the shit out of the name.

    (For whatever it’s worth, Kalanick’s family is supposedly Czech and, ahem, Austrian.)

    Wow, Ted Rall is kind of a dick.

    1. Those Czechs, widely known for their pro-Nazi sympathies to this day.

      1. Nothing says liberal like naked ethnic slurs.

        1. Yeah, they’re uber bad about that.

        2. Also, Ted Rall is likely historically illiterate enough to believe that the word ‘Uber’ didn’t exist until the Nazis.

      2. The first “National Socialist” party in history was actually a Czech nationalist party in the Habsburg Empire, based on the idea of sharing the wealth with other Czechs and fucking over the Germans and Jews who lived in Bohemia. Hitler and his pals just stole the concept and promoted Germans instead of Czechs.

  28. It’s like, meow-schwitz in here.

    1. Don’t Treblinka or you’ll miss it!

      1. I always Gulag when i think about meow-schwitz.

  29. You know who else Godwined a whole, fucking thread…

    1. You, you did that.

  30. I would say that Left-wingers who make comparisons about conservatives and Nazis sound just as delusional, idiotic, and unhinged as libertarians and conservatives sound when they make comparisons between Leftists and totalitarian communists.

    1. But do you remember that time that socialists murdered many millions of people? That was fucking sweet. Do you think you can get that going again? It would be fucking sweet, bro.

      1. Of course he remembers. He tried to handwave it away because the Soviet Union was the first to put a woman in space and had elementary schools.

    2. What about unhinged, delusional idiotic socialists who ineffectively troll libertarian websites?

      1. What about unhinged, delusional idiotic socialists who defend the Soviet Union and then throw a temper tantrum when they’re called on it.

        If we’re really getting to the core of AS’s idiocy and hypocrisy.

      2. He’s not socialist.

        He’s communist-libertarian.

        Or classical liberal.

        I’m lost!

        1. He claims to be old libertarian, back when modern ‘libertarianism’ was classical liberalism. Of course, this is still utterly hilarious because he’s ideologically ignorant of their positions too. AS, Libertarian socialists reject political systems of authority you moron, so you praising Sanders and supporting a state-based platform is the exact opposite. If he actually was one he wouldn’t be bothering with politics and forming voluntary communes.

    3. How’s your garden, btw?

      1. Class enemies make great fertilizer.

        1. He knows exactly what I mean, and by my reference, he knows that I know.

          1. His garden is on track to meet the 5 year plan according to his official state newsletter.

      2. Is this a Candide reference or something?

    4. I’m trying to start a new movement. Can we be friends?

    5. Conservatives don’t go around calling themselves National Socialists. Plenty of leftists call themselves Maoists or Leninists, wear Che Guevera or Mao t-shirts, have a coveted copy of Mao’s little red book, etc.

    6. unhinged as libertarians and conservatives sound when they make comparisons between Leftists and totalitarian communists.

      See, and this is why your credibility is garbage. AS, you don’t get to praise the Soviet Union, ignore their brutality and massacres, and then pretend that the ‘libertarians and conservatives’ are out to get you. You defended a totalitarian regime and their massacres, the ‘libertarians and conservatives’ did nothing but point out what an utter piece of shit you are for defending them.

    7. Well, Left-wingers who make comparisons about conservatives and Nazis sound much more delusional, idiotic, and unhinged because the National Socialist German Workers Party were not right-wing or conservative. Whereas socialists are in fact left-wing.

      1. The Nazis were certainly perceived as “right wing” and conservative by almost every contemporary German. Most people aren’t purists on economic issues, it is more about “what’s in it for me”, and German conservatives felt Hitler was making them the best offer. To this day most right wing parties in Europe are anti-free market on all sorts of issues. They all love Putin, who is as statist as they come. Same in South America and Asia. Hell, a lot of American social conservatives act more anti-free market than they admit. America (and the Soviet Union) are the historical weird outliers where you are expected to a pass a purity test on your economic ideology, whether socialist or libertarian.

        1. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that “right-wing” means the same thing everywhere. The European right is pretty different from the American right. Nazis were violent collectivists. Commies were violent collectivists. I don’t care whether you want to call either of them left or right.

          Maybe a 2D political spectrum isn’t adequate?

          1. Maybe a 2D political spectrum isn’t adequate?

            What? We can’t move past a system based on the positions of 18th century French politicians!

            Admittedly I think if you’re going to use the 2D political spectrum its a horseshoe.

          2. The problem with the 3d diagram is it gives no definition of right and left. It gives authoritarian, and libertarian, then just says right and left. Okay, what’s right and left?

            1. I think we are all adding an extra dimension.

              I’m not saying that political compass gets it perfect. But I think in that case, left/right is in the American economic sense.

              Of course, the two axes aren’t completely orthogonal.

              1. I think a collectivist-individualist continuum makes more sense.

                1. What we need is a political hypercube.

        2. Sure, but all your saying is Europeans call right and left different then Americans, which doesn’t really say much at all. If you call a socialist right wing then I would ask for your definition of right wing. Usually I get the answer because they were racists. Okay, so all racists are right wing, that’s not historically accurate, and it isn’t true. So once again we get to what is “right wing.”

          Unless I hear a good answer I’m going with them being socialists, which is not right wing.

          1. It really isn’t that hard. The right-wing/conservatives represents the interests of the owners of capital, including property owners such as farmers. The left wing represents employed labor. Everything else follows from that. The Nazis were conservatives because they were defending the interests of the existing (ethnic German) owners of German capital. They did not expropriate private property from German industrialists the way socialists would have. They supported private farming, and even went on an expedition to add milions of hectares of Polish and Soviet land for Germans to settle and own. Capitalists/property owners are not always in favor of free markets. In Europe lots of property belongs to vested interests such as aristocrats, religious institutions and family farmers who view the goal of a conservative party as managing the state to protect them from competition and defend their property from newcomers.

          2. It really isn’t that hard. The right-wing/conservatives represents the interests of the owners of capital, including property owners such as farmers. The left wing represents employed labor. Everything else follows from that. The Nazis were conservatives because they were defending the interests of the existing (ethnic German) owners of German capital. They did not expropriate private property from German industrialists the way socialists would have. They supported private farming, and even went on an expedition to add milions of hectares of Polish and Soviet land for Germans to settle and own. Capitalists/property owners are not always in favor of free markets. In Europe lots of property belongs to vested interests such as aristocrats, religious institutions and family farmers who view the goal of a conservative party as managing the state to protect them from competition and defend their property from newcomers.

    8. If the jackboot fits…

  31. Oh – shitarian derpfest alert, above^^! You know who else hated communists…

  32. The longer an Internet conversation goes on, the greater the odds that someone mentions Mike Godwin.

    1. Whoa.

      WHOA.

    2. Citizen Nothing’s law.

      1. So now when someone mentions Godwin, they have “nothinged” the thread.

    3. Was he the guy that was just like Hitler?

    4. If you notice, I’m the one who makes the argument that we should dispense with such comparisons. Are we cool?

      1. Almost as cool as murdering millions of people. That was fucking cool, right comrade?

      2. And again Amsoc, you don’t get to praise the Soviet Union, whitewash its atrocities, and then claim the moral high ground by saying no one else gets to talk about it or call you on your behaviour. That’s the sign of a childish coward hiding from his positions.

        You lecture people here on principles but you refuse to hold yourself to any kind of standard. Either grow up or take a seat with Buttplug and Bo at the kiddies table.

        1. When did I ever say that I supported the Soviet Union or state communism? I did say people in Russia and the Eastern Bloc were being sold a bill of goods in the 1980s. They endured a decade or two of economic collapse before things got back to the way they were in1985 to prove my point.

          1. When did I ever say that I supported the Soviet Union or state communism?

            Right here, you moron. Do you not realize that when you write things here it stays as public record? You don’t get to pull a Stalin and erase anything you don’t like.

            So, again, you praised a totalitarian system and whitewashed their atrocities, and now you’re acting like ‘libertarians and conservatives’ are just bullying you when they point out that’s exactly what you do. Guess what, AS, when you actually say the things people are accusing you of saying, it makes their comments legitimate and entirely right.

            But again, we’ve established that you’re a childish coward, so I don’t expect you to hold yourself to any kind of standard. Now please, lecture everyone here on principles so we can all see what a petty, pathetic loser with zero self awareness you are.

            1. Just to save people a click:

              Yeah, I know. the Soviet Union transformed a backwards monarchy into a world super power, almost single-handedly defeated hitlerean fascism, brought about universal literacy, gave women the right to vote, legalized abortion 18 years before the US, put the first man in space, put the first women in space, championed anti-colonialist movements worldwide. Other than that it was a bad idea.

              1. Just for the record, 1. the Russian Empire pre-1918 was one of the leading economic and cultural powers in the world. The regime was backwards and disfunctional but Russian society was more dynamic prior to WWI than it has ever been since. 2. Stalin and Hitler were allies from 1939 to 1941 so there has to be a big asterisk next to “defeating Hitler”. 3. Literacy rates were already climbing rapidly before the Russian revolution. The USSR did improve literacy dramatically in Central Asia, at the cost of destroying most of the local culture and elite literary traditions. Not sure if progressives should be so happy about that. 4. Right to vote in sham elections, sure 5. Ok. Birth control is far more humane, but enjoy those abortions in shitty clinics performed by drunken doctors. 6.Yes 7. Yes 8. Except in its own expansive empire.

      3. You only make that “argument” because your ideology comes off really, really poorly.

  33. OT: ancient aboriginal rock paintings warn of radiation sickness

    This is a picture of a person sick with Miyamiya ? see the swollen joints ? said to be contracted if you disturb the stones of a sacred site downstream from Ubirr near the East Alligator River. Aboriginal rock art, Kakadu National Park, NT, Australia

    Aboriginal people are very concerned about people disturbing certain sites, and often with good reason. There have been a number of connections drawn between such sites and the subsequent discovery of substances dangerous to people like uranium.

    http://www.worldwanderingkiwi……-rock-art/

    This may be the first known instance of humans noting danger in Australia.

    1. So, even the fucking rocks in Australia can kill you.

      1. What thing; animal, vegetable or mineral down there cannot?!

      2. I saw a show on PBS (!) last night about the high abundance of uranium in Australia. So yes, even the rocks there can kill you.

  34. I’m not sure how anyone can discuss a nuclear holocaust in Israel without mentioning the, um, holocaust.

    1. I love Ty Burrel as the Key and Peele Nazi.

  35. This is the worst H&R thread ever. I was vanity checking to see if anyone responded to my post with the cntrl-F ‘Hitler’ but I’m lost in the noise.

  36. Hey Matt, has anyone ever told you you could pass for a Nazi?

    1. You know who else could pass for a Nazi?

      1. Mel Brooks?

      2. Christoph Waltz?

    2. but he doesn’t have The Jacket

  37. Eh, 3 of those aren’t really that bad, assuming you buy into a certain moral or factual premise.

    Morally, if you think animals have the same moral status as people (clearly they aren’t in terms of intelligence and the like, but neither are the severely mentally disabled), the meat industry is an ongoing holocaust of Nazi-esque proportions. Same deal for the fetus meat industry.

    If you think Iran will actually use nuclear weapons against Israel, rather than just to shore up more conventional power, then Huckabee’s assertion isn’t an invalid comparison — the Iran deal would, in that case, be enabling genocidal lunatics to murder millions of Jews.

    In each case, if you don’t like it, the problem is the premise, not the analogy.

    1. That’s a pretty good point. Though I’m still not so sure about the Iran one. Jews in Europe were a not-too-well-regarded minority with little power to defend themselves, many of whom lived within the country that wanted to murder them. Israel has proven quite capable of defending itself.

      1. If Iran launched a first strike, how much of Israel would be left to make it worth not their while?

        1. Would something like Iron Dome even defend against it? And how much damage would a non-airborne nuke do, if it was brought in via a tunnel or something?

          It’s going to be very interesting times as the sorts of cultures that practice suicide bombing step into a dynamic dominated by MAD.

          1. I wouldn’t think that non-airborne nukes would be able to wreck the whole place very quickly. Could still be pretty horrible.

            1. Depends on what you mean by ‘wreck’ and the actual megatons of the nukes. If its just Hiroshima size (doubtful considering Pakistan’s nukes are massive in comparison to the old WW2 atomic bomb) you’re still taking out a good chunk of Tel Aviv, and if its a ground burst you create a lot more localized fallout.

              1. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be terrible. But it would probably leave time for Israel to retaliate.

        2. Not much (if they get good missiles). But what are the odds that Israel just sits there and lets Iran build nuclear weapons?

          I honestly don’t have much of an opinion on the recent Iran deal. Something shitty will probably happen and i just hope that it doesn’t involve us having a war with Iran.
          Just saying that the asymmetry that made the Holocaust possible doesn’t exist between Iran and Israel and that makes today’s situation rather different. And Israel is already ahead of Iran on nukes, so some sort of MAD situation seems somewhat likely if Iran does get nukes. Which isn’t great, but isn’t the Holocaust either.

          1. so some sort of MAD situation seems somewhat likely if Iran does get nukes.

            What my fear is is that MAD only works with secular states. Even Israel isn’t secular as we would understand the term. And it certainly doesn’t help that Islamic eschatology reads like a Nostradamus prophecy concerning nuclear weapons, complete with Mecca being engulf in a fireball and a wind spreading across the land making people ill and causing death.

            1. How do they stack up against WW2 Japan, would you say? I mean, we had “suicide bombers” in the sense of the kamikaze pilots, and a fanatical devotion to the country and its ruler.

              On the other hand, that still leads to a desire to protect the country from being wiped out, whereas Allah will still be Allah even if everyone on the planet is annihilated in global nuclear holocaust.

            2. That’s a legitimate concern, I think. I may well be overly optimistic (it does happen), but I am inclined to think that the leaders of Iran prefer power to eschatology and that most of the people just want to get on with their lives.

              1. I think the larger concern is the Saudis. They are very broadly united with ISIS against the Shia. They have the backing of the neocon part of the US foreign policy apparatus. When the neocons invariably return to power (probably with whatever GOP idiot the voters select because 8 years has soured then on donkeys), the Saudis will try to make sure they get nukes to balance out Iranian power.

                Now, they won’t use nukes themselves, but I wonder if they would be bold enough to sneak them to ISIS and wash their hands of whatever happens next.

                1. Haven’t they been bombing the fuck out of ISIS in Yemen?

                  1. Yeah, ‘ISIS is rolling with Saudi Arabia’ is a bit of old news now. They do likely have wealthy citizens donating to ISIS that they aren’t trying to get under control, but Saudi Arabia liked ISIS a lot more when they were just causing trouble for the local non-Sunni leaders. Now they’re rolling around Iraq and claiming Spain, and the Saudis have no intention of jumping into a new Caliphate unless they control it.

                  2. No, my understanding is they were bombing Iranian-affiliated groups.

    2. Thomas Goodwin, the author of Hellstorm, is a vegan.

      http://www.amazon.com/Hellstor…..1494775069

      1. Vegans are worse than Hitler. Does no one care about the plant Holocaust?

  38. I’m glad these pundits have the intellectual honesty not to compare these atrocities to the doings of Chairman Mao Zedong. Certainly tens of millions died due to his heavy handed and crackpot notions of agricultural reform. Just as certainly however, millions of lives were saved through Mao’s programmes of hygiene, public sanitation and health care such as the barefoot doctors.

    1. Indeed. I heard that Mao’s reforms of the Tiedaobu were equally beneficial in the field of time management.

      1. “I heard that Mao’s reforms of the Tiedaobu were equally beneficial in the field of time management.”

        Maybe you listen to too many Communists. A lot of Mao’s reforms were ignored. Even by the work units which made up the nation’s rail system. Mao tried to institute daylight savings time and was forced to abandon the idea after the chaos which ensued from only some of the populace adopting the plan, with most of the nation ignoring it. Their health care reforms were far more successful and universally embraced. Check into any hotel in China today, no matter how remote, and you’ll find a fresh thermos flask of ‘kai shui’ – boiled water, usually a cup and maybe a bag or two of mediocre tea, all part of the service.

        1. Check into any hotel in China today, no matter how remote, and you’ll find a fresh thermos flask of ‘kai shui’ – boiled water, usually a cup and maybe a bag or two of mediocre tea, all part of the service.

          Good to know those 77 million human beings didn’t die in vain, then.

          1. I’ve checked into several hotels in China and have never seen a “fresh thermos flask of ‘kai shui’ – boiled water”. So they did die in vain.

    2. mtrueman|7.29.15 @ 2:01PM|#
      “…Just as certainly however, millions of lives were saved through Mao’s programmes of hygiene, public sanitation and health care such as the barefoot doctors.”

      mtrueman is a lying ignoramus who will make up ‘facts’ as he pleases:

    3. So, on net, he only killed nines of millions?

      1. “So, on net, he only killed nines of millions?”

        Don’t know about that. You got any figures on the numbers of premature deaths the programmes prevented?

        1. Certainly tens of millions died, but millions of lives were saved

          Just using your own statement as a guide, commie bro.

          1. “Just using your own statement as a guide, commie bro.”

            Very flattering. But if you have any interest in the matter, do your own research and see what you can come up with.

          2. So hypothetical lives saved outweigh actual lives lost? Duly noted. Stay away from my family.

            1. “Stay away from my family.”

              If they are as prone to sentimental blubbering as you are, you’ve nothing to worry about.

              1. Ok, so thinking that maybe it’s not cool to cause the deaths of over 75 million people is “sentimental blubbering.”

                You know what’s really crazy? I bet you’re under the delusion that you are a good person who has something to offer the world.

                1. “I bet you’re under the delusion that you are a good person who has something to offer the world.”

                  Hey rube, name your terms.

                  1. I’m not offering an actual wager. You see, in American English, colloquialisms such as “I bet” are sometimes used to express that the speaker has a high level of certainty regarding the outcome of a situation based on available facts. Therefore, when i say “I bet you’re under the delusion that you are a good person who has something to offer the world,” i am not really offering to gamble with you as to whether or not you believe you are a good person, let alone whether or not that belief is delusional. I am merely expressing that, based on what you’ve posted here and elsewhere, any such belief you may have as to the goodness of your own nature would seem to be a delusion. It may very well be that you labor under no such apprehensions, and do not consider yourself a good person; or it may be that you genuinely do not believe that your tendency to explain and excuse really horrible instances of totalitarian violence is really such a bad thing. I am not interested in getting to know you as a person in order to find out which it is. Maybe the six people who follow your blog could tell me, but i don’t really care enough to ask.

                    Fuck along now.

                    1. ” your tendency to explain and excuse really horrible instances of totalitarian violence is really such a bad thing”

                      Read again. I’m not explaining or excusing anything. I’m simply pointing out another crime of Mao, his health and hygiene reforms. Think of Obamacare. What Mao did was every bit as intrusive and paternalistic.

    4. Just as certainly however, millions of lives were saved through Mao’s programmes of hygiene, public sanitation and health care such as the barefoot doctors.

      And mtrueman is legitimately stupid enough to ignore the fact that Mao is responsible for the propagation of ‘traditional Chinese medicine’, a quarkery responsible for the deaths of a great deal of Chinese people.

      1. Not to mention the impending extinction of basically the entire southeast Asian biosphere.

        1. And it was done for the most cynical bullshit reason ever: they didn’t have enough real doctors, but they wanted to look like they had a really good public health system that idiots like mtrueman would praise. Mao didn’t believe in traditional Chinese medicine, he didn’t use it, but it was good enough for the proles as long as he looked good.

      2. ” to ignore the fact that Mao is responsible for the propagation of ‘traditional Chinese medicine'”

        I’m not ignoring that at all. For many thousands of years Malaria took the lives of Chinese. This stopped under Mao thanks to the aforementioned policies, including the use of artemisinin a traditional Chinese antimalarial drug which researchers studied under more rigourous modern methods during the time of the cultural revolution. These days, western drug companies are busy developing artemisinin based medicines for malaria and other maladies.

        1. Yeah mtrueman, just ignore all the quarkery and deaths that traditional Chinese medicine is responsible for. Why let actual reality get in the way of your strongman delusions?

          1. Have you heard of artemisinin? It’s a traditional Chinese medicine that modern western drug companies deem worthy of further research and development. Do you know something they don’t? I suspect not, but am willing to listen.

            1. Have you heard of the rest of the Chinese pharmacopoeia? It’s pretty huge and detailed, and it’s not surprising that it contains a nugget or two of actual medically beneficial information. I’m not sure how draining the blood from an endangered golden turtle and drinking it prolongs one’s lifespan, though.

              1. The only traditional Chinese medicine I’m willing to recommend is a cup of hot ginger tea with unrefined sugar at the first sign of cold symptoms. I’ve found this works to prevent a full blown cold sometimes. A shot of 5 penis brandy is also nice before a hearty meal.

            2. Have you heard of the literal thousands of traditional Chinese remedies that are pure quarkery and used to treat serious, even deadly diseases? Seriously, screaming ‘artemisinin! artemisinin!’ does actually counter the point of promoting thousands of cures that don’t work and result in the long term suffering and deaths of patients. You held up Mao’s healthcare work as a positive example. I have addressed how he negatively promoted medicine that doesn’t work that has resulted in suffering and death. You have failed to disprove this argument.

              Address the actual argument, not the made up one you think is easier to attack.

              1. “the point of promoting thousands of cures that don’t work”

                Can you provide the name of one of these thousands of cures that was promoted under Mao’s reforms? You appear to agree with me that artemisinin is an example of a promising traditional Chinese medicine. I’d like to know which are the promoted medicines that resulted in suffering and death.

                1. Can you provide the name of one of these thousands of cures that was promoted under Mao’s reforms?

                  You are aware that traditional Chinese medicine include the use of known toxic components like arsenic sulfide and mercury sulfide right? And for the record, these are substances the bloody Greeks knew were toxic. So Mao’s impressive modern healthcare promotes the use of toxins that were established as bad in the classical period. That regression is impressive.

                  Again, you seem to think that one promising medicine is some amazing argument against peddling literal poison, when it’s not, it’s just one promising medicine surrounded by thousands of things that don’t work or actively harm the patient. Someone spray painted a blade of grass black and you’re there screaming ‘this field is black’ surrounded by green.

                  1. I’m not aware of Mao’s promotion of mercury as a medicine. I urge you to check your facts.

                    1. mtrueman, you have spend this entire time showing how utterly unaware you are of actual Chinese medicine if it doesn’t confirm to your foolish argument. In fact, you seem to actively ignore anything that contradicts your point. You being unaware of something is not surprising at all.

                    2. HE’s not aware of it, so YOU must check your facts.

                    3. “showing how utterly unaware you are of actual Chinese medicine”

                      But it’s not actual Chinese medicine I was talking about. Read again, and you will find I’ve been discussing the health and hygiene reforms under Mao. And it’s you who seem to be claiming that promotion of mercury as a medicine was a part of these reforms. Do you still stand by this, or have you sensibly climbed down. No shame in admitting ignorance about a topic so exotic as this.

        2. Mtrueman probably has a caged bear at his house, in terrible pain, with a shunt in its side from which he extracts delicious, delicious gall.

          1. Mtrueman has spent the past ten years eating small amounts of mercury in an attempt to gain immortality. What it’s really done is mush up his brain to the point where he thinks its a clever argument to suggest that unsupported hypothetical lives saved somehow makes the deaths of tens of millions of people any less important.

            1. When it comes to TCM-prescribed beverages, mtrueman finds jaguar’s blood to be an insufficient substitute for endangered tiger’s blood, and has said as much on Yelp.

    5. So as long as you help some people out, mass murder is OK? I’m not so sure about that. I’m sure Nazis improved some things about life in Germany too (well, until the war effort fucked everyone over). And who knows, maybe sewing up rats into living people provided some useful medical knowledge. And the trains ran on time. And they were snappy dressers. So Nazis aren’t all bad.

      1. “So as long as you help some people out, mass murder is OK?”

        No, it’s not OK. But if you want to understand communism, concentrating on the murderous end of the equation will only get you so far. Their penchant for paternalism and social engineering can have disasterous consequences. What’s your opinion of Mao’s hygiene and health reforms?

        They are about as unlibertarian as you can imagine, but nobody here has bothered to denounce them. Are you willing to ‘give them a pass’ because of the millions of lives saved? To rephrase your question – “”So as long as you help some people out, social engineering is OK?”

        1. Well then I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about Mao.

          1. “what point you are trying to make about Mao”

            It’s more about communism and how it uses the same tools to destroy and save lives.

            1. So, no point then. Cool.

        2. To rephrase your question – “”So as long as you help some people out, social engineering is OK?”

          And again, you’re legitimately so stupid that you don’t realize that deaths under Mao and his social engineering agenda are one and the same. Mao’s social engineering killed millions of people, but you’re here attempting to argue that it was ‘good’. No, it resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Your question is moronic because your premises are moronic. Mao’s social engineering wasn’t ‘OK’ and didn’t ‘help out’ the people who died, so your question is inherently built on a delusion.

          1. ” but you’re here attempting to argue that it was ‘good’.”

            I never said it was good. Clearly it was bad. I am only observing that the communist health reforms saved untold millions of lives.

            1. I am only observing that the communist health reforms saved untold millions of lives.

              And that’s utterly unsupported, and is a number you have literally made up because you want it to compare to the millions of people killed. And when someone points out that medical reforms of Mao actively promote suffering and death, the opposite of what you claim, it’s ‘lalala doesn’t exist because I can’t question my premises’.

              In order to accept your premises, you have to utterly ignore the massive amounts of completely unscientific insanity that floated around the medical fields of communist countries, or the actual quality of the medical treatment given. So basically, we have to deny reality to support your argument.

              1. “And that’s utterly unsupported, and is a number you have literally made up because you want it to compare to the millions of people killed.”

                Don’t you mean the hundreds of millions of people killed? That’s what the sensible libertarians on this page are telling me. If you disagree with them, take it up with them or I will consider you a useful idiot of communism. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

                “you have to utterly ignore the massive amounts of completely unscientific insanity that floated around the medical fields of communist countries”

                Again, I’m discussing the health and hygiene reforms under Mao. What happened in other regimes, even communist ones, is not relevant. You might want to take it easy on the mercury.

  39. My favorite part of the Huckster’s comment is that supposedly he’s been to Auschwitz three times, like that makes him an authority to make these comments on historical parallels, and he says “marched to the door of the oven.”

    In reality the Jews (and others) taken to Auschwitz were forced off the train and sent immediately to the gas chambers, not the ovens.. The corpses were put in the ovens. The ovens were not used for execution. The point was efficiency (e.g. “how can me will the most Jews and political dissidents the quickest?”), which is why more concentration camps were built and the existing ones expanded as the war went on; because the Einsatz Gruppen (death squads) were extremely inefficient and even the Nazi leaders saw what it was doing to the young men carrying out the executions.

    Good job Huckster.

  40. “public sanitation”

    It goes somewhere when I flush the toilet?

  41. Let’s try a thought experiment:

    If a political party arose in the United States that was like the Nazis in every way–except that they never advocated the holocaust and specifically denounced the holocaust–would it be alright to compare them to the Nazis? What if they spoke German, wore Nazi uniforms, marched under the swastika banner, and did everything else the Nazis did?

    Would it be wrong to compare them to the Nazis–just because they didn’t also want to perpetrate a holocaust against Jews?

    I say comparisons are valid insofar as they’re valid–even if you’re comparing something or someone to the Nazis.

    That’s what I was trying to say.

    1. “If a political party arose in the United States that was like the Nazis in every way–except that they never advocated the holocaust and specifically denounced the holocaust–”

      Let’s no forget that even the Nazis never advocated the holocaust. All through the 30s Nazi functionaries worked on solutions that were less atrocious. Adolf Eichmann for example went so far as to visit Haifa, I believe, to meet Zionists there and discuss a population transfer. Of course at the start of the war, the German’s put into effect policies to ethnically cleanse their newly acquired territories, but the Holocaust (of the Schindler’s list variety) was never really planned or advocated until 1942 when the war started to turn against them. Had the Germans actually won the war handily in a timely fashion, I wonder if there would have been a holocaust.

  42. “UPDATE/ADDITION: Uh, Uber? Ted Rall: (“Seriously, let’s walk through the parallels between the Silicon Valley startup and the genocidal right-wing totalitarian movements of the mid 20th century.”) (Thanks to alert commenter Just say Nikki!)”

    Again, just because there are plenty of bad Nazi comparisons doesn’t mean that there aren’t any good ones.

    And those comparisons he’s making to Uber are bad. In fact, they’re so bad, I think he’s being facetious.

    Ted Rall is a political cartoonist. Isn’t it possible likely that he’s kidding? Is he spoofing Uber’s critics?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.