The Daily Mail Tendency: The House That Looks Like Hitler

Now, you'd have thought that The Daily Mail would be OK with a house that looks like Hitler given their history, but apparently not. Mind you, they're not exactly speaking out against it, more observing...

The Devil and the Pope

Sometimes you don't need to satirise the Catholic Church; it just does it for itself:

"The Devil resides in the Vatican and you can see the consequences," said Father Amorth, 85, who has been the Holy See's chief exorcist for 25 years.

Doesn't the Pope live in the Vatican as well? If the Devil resides there as well, does that make them roomies? Or something more?!? I think we should be told....

"I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler and Stalin did."

Err, Stalin wasn't a Nazi. Small point, but worth highlighting. And the Nazi's weren't possessed by anything than a heady brew of undeserved power mixed with deeply held prejudice. To dismiss them as possessed by evil is rather to miss the point about the banality of evil; the willing killers of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not necessarily evil - although their actions certainly are - but are rather normal humans given permission to become inhuman by the state. That's why we need to have constant vigilance against the tendencies of government to drift towards authoritarianism. And also why we need to combat any such drift (with something a little more realistic than exorcism).

Plus, wasn't the Pope once in the Hitler Youth? Does that mean he was possessed as well? Perhaps that's why the Devil feels so at home in the Vatican.

"(The Devil) can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, or even appear to be sympathetic. At times he makes fun of me. But I'm a man who is happy in his work."

The Devil makes fun of you, eh? Can't think why...

Being Afraid of the Government

In modern society, the government is, more often than not, seen as a Good Thing. Sure, it could be run a bit better - a little more efficiently, - but a modern liberal democracy is perceived to be a million miles away from the nightmare dystopias of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al. So when a Libertarian mentions being afraid of the government, a lot of people simply roll their eyes and wonder what you have done with your tinfoil hat.

For what it is worth, I don’t think there is an imminent danger that the UK will slip into an aggressive, murderous dictatorship. Sure, there are some very concerning developments – like ID cards and the attempts to get 42 days detention onto the statute books – but I think that Gordon Brown is so cack-handed and incompetent that he would struggle to create a dictatorship even if he had absolute power.

But that is rather the point. It isn’t the intentions of government that I fear, but rather the incompetence of government. It is the stupid things they do while trying to do the right thing that really worries me. 42 days detention is a good example – the government desperately wants to stop terrorism. However, it doesn’t understand that 42 days detention doesn’t actually stop terrorism, and also has all sorts of potentially dangerous side effects. You can see the same thing happening with the economy. The Labour government swooped in to save the banking sector, like Superman with a fat wallet stuffed with someone else’s cash. As a result of their panicked, knee-jerk and ultimately pointless attempts to head off the recession, the country is nearly bankrupt and the coming recovery is being jeopardised. The government is currently paving our road to hell. With good intentions. Oh, and our money as well.

Then there is the commitment of the modern politician to trite political expediency. We can see this in Gordon Brown’s claim to be securing British jobs for British workers. Fuck knows whether he actually thought what he was saying was actually morally acceptable, but his determination to win the BNP vote led the British Prime Minister to plunge headfirst into the politics of ignorance. Political expediency – or political cowardice, as I’d rather call it – led to Brown jumping on the racist bandwagon. Sure, it is a minor point, relatively speaking, and Brown doesn’t speak for me on this issue or on any other. But it does beg the question of where this political cowardice could lead this ruling elite. I’ve heard some whispers that one of the reasons why we went to war in Iraq was because Blair was afraid of the Tories painting him as weak on security. I don’t know whether this is the truth, but I find the fact that I can consider it as a possible reason for that conflict speaks volumes. I think the desire to win votes now exceeds almost everything else for our politicians. I’m not afraid of them selling their own grandmother for a vote, I’m more afraid of them selling our grandmothers, grandfathers and then us out for an extra couple of votes.

And then we have the problem of the massive bureaucracy that goes hand in hand with “liberal” “democracy” in this country. Of course, with a government this size and with this scope, a large bureaucracy is an inevitability. But the problem with any bureaucracy is that it is fundamentally inhuman and amoral. It does not recognise the human. That is how innocent people can end up with their DNA on a criminal database in perpetuity, and how people can end up dying from cancer despite the drugs that could be used in their treatment being on the market. The bureaucracy, the rules and regulations, further remove people from each other, and do not take into account that basic human compassion that is seen so often when individuals interact with individuals. Most people, if they could help someone with cancer, would do so – however, when it comes to a vast, heavily regulated monolith like say, the NHS, the individuals who make the rules and therefore make the choice are so far detached from the dying person that it becomes a case of “bureaucracy says no”.

Ultimately, I believe humans are capable of great things. They are also capable of being small-minded, self-serving incompetents. I’m in far more danger of being killed by a bad driver than I am by a serial killer; just as I am far more likely to be adversely affected by an incompetent government than I am by a proactively malign one.

Which is why government needs to be – why it must be – limited as much as possible in its scope. It means well, but its actions end up being anything other than positive. And the unintended but still devastating impact of government can only really be minimised by returning as much power and as much responsibility as possible to the people.

Oliver Stone, Uncle Joe and old Adolf

Oliver Stone has sent us a missive from the parallel universe where, judging by his moronic opinions, he resides. With David Icke, Donald Rumsfeld and L. Ron Hubbard. He's given us a history lesson. Of sorts. Most outstanding are his comments on Hitler and Stalin. They really do defy understanding. First up for the Stone revisionism is old Adolf:

"Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply," he said.

Hitler as a scapegoat... right. I struggle with this one. Hitler was the leader of a regime that murdered six million people and fought both the UK and the US in a brutal battle for survival. Hitler is responsible for so much evil that I wonder why anyone would even need to scapegoat him. It's a bit like trying to pin a burglary on the Yorkshire Ripper; no-one is really going to care because, to be honest with you, the other crimes seem a little bit more important.

And then we have Stalin:

"Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any person."

I'm glad that Stone realises that Stalin shouldn't be painted as a hero, because his regime is one of the most lethal in history. But this concept that he fought the German war machine more than any person demands a slightly closer analysis of actual historical events. Before Stalin fought the German war machine, he signed a peace treaty with them, carving up Poland and allowing for the invasion of Western Europe. And Stalin fell apart after the German invasion of Russia, creating a power vacuum at the top of his regime at one of the most crucial moments in the war, and thus allowing Germany to invade far more of the USSR than they might otherwise have managed. And the brutal war of attrition against the Nazis saw both sides commit atrocities. Whilst it is tempting to think of good ol' uncle Joe taking down them nasty Nazis, the truth is somewhat more sordid and a little less like a John Wayne movie.

I suppose some might agree with Stone. Stranger things have happened. I suppose it comes down to your personal political opinions. And whether or you have a connection to the real world, or life in a twisted world detached from the reality where every one else lives, and believe that Hugo Chavez is a truly great leader, a Che t-shirt is the very pinnacle of cool and Stalin was a bit misunderstood.

If it is the latter, of course, you are a total wanker. Much like Mr Stone.

Being an Idiot, the David Irving way.

Stating that David Irving comes across as an unpleasant human being is really stating the obvious, but it is always eye-opening to read an article like this one, that really hammers the point home. Take this part of the article:

When I suggest that all dictators have a loyal clique who like them – it means nothing – he keeps dodging the question. Eventually, he responds by arguing dictators are often misjudged: Idi Amin gets a unfair press, for one. Irving says he owns a medallion that belonged to the Ugandan dictator, and he likes to wear it secretly below his clothes when he is delivering a lecture. But, I respond, he ethnically cleansed the Ugandan Asians. He shrugs: “Expelling people is something that's been going on for a long time.”

Uh-huh. Idi Amin gets an unfair press. And Pol Pot is frowned upon for no reason. And Stalin was actually just an avuncular guy with a mildly intolerant streak. Dictators? Pah! They are just lovable rogues.

What glaring idiot actually takes it on themselves to not just defend Hitler but also Idi Amin?

But Irving also shows himself to be almost delusional in another part of the same article. See, apparently Hitler was waiting for him:

Irving sits back with an expression of beatific calm. “So [when] I phoned the doctor and he said ‘I’ve been expecting you,’ the Messiah had come. The one he had been waiting for all these years. And of course all the other historians hate that because they don’t fit.” I stare silently for a moment. To clarify: you actually think Hitler wanted you to be his biographer? “Yes. Yes and I am not ashamed of that. Hitler knew that. Hitler himself said that for fifty years they won’t be able to write the truth about me.”

Riiiigggghhhht. Hitler, in the midst of a war and just after an assassination attempt, was thinking about a future English biographer of the next generation who he did not even know existed. That seems logical. I mean, Irving is 70 now, meaning when Hitler died, Irving must have been circa seven years old. So Hitler was thinking about a seven year old boy. Sweet Jesus, this is the sort of thing that gets people committed.

Go read the article, and come away convinced of what seems to be an invioable truth - David Irving is a dickhead.