Ghost of a flea

"Fascist" is good and the right word to use, though the related and individual label "fascist sympathizer" might be an even better one for Mel baby. It is a good word that reminds us of the tyranny of institutionalized racism with a good measure of self-appointed corporatism of the 1930s Italian variety thrown in, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Particularly good to use it, too, with all the "Hitler was a socialist" whack-jobbery going about. Odd, in retrospect, that Mel made a movie about Jesus given that Jesus was Jewish - not to mention pushed that whole "judge not" thing among other ideas that rank for many as just passing slogans, mantlepiece mottos or distant ideals. But, as with most fascist sympathizers, you do start shaking your head within the first few questions given all the glaring contradictions floating around their brains, don't you.

Hey, doesn't this bloggy machine kill fascism, too? http://portland.indymedia.org/icon/2005/05/318009.jpg

Two things irritate me about the "Hitler was a socialist" line. First, most conservatives I know are socialists. Second, the dodge fails to account for how Hitler got into power only with the support of Germany's conservative parties.

As I mentioned in a comment to the Jawa's yesterday, some latter-day Coughlinites think they can surf the jihad back to an imaginary 1950s. After all, at least the jihadis have family values. This sort of thinking is as contemptible for its immorality as it is wrong-headed as strategy. Mel Gibson and his ilk can make as many gay jokes and Jew jokes as they like secure in the knowledge that none of his targets are ever going to slaughter him in a supporting part in a jihadi internet snuff film.

A moderate version of the same problem expressed itself in the last federal election when Stephen Harper chose to address said family values at a Toronto mosque while studiously snubbing Gay Pride. Not that the manoeuvre will garner his party any more 905 seats than showing his face at Pride would have elected a Conservative downtown. But to be a man and face his political opponets at Pride would have been a better expression of a conservatism that was not limited to the socon liberty to treat the rest of us with contempt.

And Alan: My Gmail is not loading so here is the link I would have otherwise sent.

Does it irritate you at all that Hitler called his own machine the "National Socialist German Workers' Party"? Hardly the sort of moniker bound to appeal to us cigar-smoking fat cats of the business district.

It is also worth noting that the 1930 elections decimated the traditional parties of the right (the Centre and DNVP), leaving the NSDAP the effective opposition in a field of even more left-leaning parties.

And Hitler did not "get into power" with the support of the DNVP and Centre parties. He was already elected and appointed Chancellor long before the DNVP and Centre parties voted to support the Enabling Act, which allowed him to evolve from mere Chancellor to dictator. Not saying that this support was correct or blameless, but he had power before this vote. He had absolute power afterward. Small but important distinction.

Even with the support of the Centre and DNVP, the combined NSDAP/DNVP/Zentrum vote for the Enabling Act totals just 414 votes. Thirty others out there, presumably from liberal democratic parties or left-leaning parties, voted for it as well.

For all the gasoline I threw on the fire this morning I confess I am a little disappointed you did not rise to my describing most conservatives as socialists. I mean: I am not sure what is it going to take you wind you people up. So, you know the German Democratic Republic was not actually a democracy, right?

Somehow the "Socialist" in NSDAP did not deter the entire Tory establishment in England from supporting Hitler through May 1940; and for many of them, well after that. But then the Conservative party had gone pink around the edges well before that.

Also: Churchill was right about everything and still is.

Surely you know that I am past getting riled up about your occasional bomb-throwing at conservatives and Christians; I still wear those gang colours proudly but am much more about Zionism and Crusading these days. =)

Odd that one might make any parallelism between conservatives and Christians as we all know, unlike Hitler, Christ was in fact a socialist.

[PS: what is the emoticon for "ducking from Taylor's thrown beer glass"?]

I will say only that our crass political labels must surely be insufficient to pigeonhole the Son of God.

I doubt very much if a hermeneutical examination of the Gospels can reliably conclude that Christ was a socialist, capitalist, or any other sort of political -ism.

My interpretation would be that he was primarily concerned with one's relationship to God and our fellow men, and that all other worldly concerns could be tackled by human intellect and discretion without ramifications to one's eternal destiny.

Errr...he did kick the money changers out of the temple and did disdainfully advise us to give unto Ceaser his due - a mere coin. As with the call to shoe the poor as opposed to a call for them to get off their arses (not to mention Job's dramatic fall from capitalist grace in the previous set of books in the Old Testament) there is a certain theme of sympathy for communal wealth and a rigidity in response to other economic forms. Christ was certainly concerned with justice in this world and not, as certain North American evengelicals might suggest, only making sure one got one's own ass into heaven in some sort of metaphysical game of musical chairs.

I would also point out that I see no mention of the trade unionists being likewise given the boot from any locations, though the whole red flag rally incident is admittedly gnostic.

XOXO

The Flea is right about Churchill.

Excuse yourself, sir. The Flea is right about everything. Have you not received the new pamphlets?

And that is the danger of reading these things through the lens of our current headspace and cultural fascinations, as the Flea can readily tell you. That is why hermeneutics has been developed, to help a reader get inside the headspace of the writer, at the time the document was written.

The latter chapters of Mark are devoted to showing how Jesus fulfils Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, that is their purpose -- even that specific incident in the temple.

Job is a book of great difficulty and scholar debate its primary theme or purpose, but an anti-capitalist polemic is not among the leading theories.

I think I am obliged at this point to say that you and I are clearly not on the same plane of reality nor even seriousity, and that we are done with this discussion (or indeed any further discussion on any topic). Good day, sir.

Alan is right about The Flea.

Despite such unhappinesses, I am obliged by my faith in the spirit to ingore such stuff as hermeneutics and academic theories in my reading of the text. That is both the beauty and the point of the faith. I am also obliged to neither judge nor worry but as you are an excellent fellow those concerns never arise.

PS - I have apologized by email to Chris for clumsily treading by not reading his level of seriousness correctly and I do so again here.

I do not see a strong economic theory of any kind in Christ's teachings. Also, a small suggestion, Alan: Try reading all the way to the end of the Book of Job. I think you will find he is rewarded in dramatically unsocialist and uncommunal fashion.

As for my original post, I think Mel Gibson is a Christian in name only. My brickbat in the comment was aimed at a silly duck-and-cover about the Nazis and not Christianity.

Still, I think this exchange was mostly in good humour. Except the bit about the pamphlets. Pay them special heed.

You must not read the same translation of the Bible that they hand out to the grandchildren of the Scots Presbyterians of the Red Clyde as that bit at the end of Job (where he gets better stuff back than was taken from him by God) is clearly about getting into the politburo.

And the off-line blogging peace and reconciliation commission (BPRC) has done its job: we all now just want what anyone one wants - a cold beer at the end of a hot day.

Well many Christians speak like socialists; which is probably why there the "conservative" parties on continent are Christian Democrats rather than conservatives. They are more "religious" socialists than their more secular left-of-centre secular socialists. The Conservative vs Democrat/Labour/Liberal Democrat thing in the UK/US and other places is a complete different kettle of fish.

Mel's father is a hard-line Catholic of a type that makes Opus Dei seem rather mainstream. Obviously Mel is one of them as well; he just has tried to hard his hard-line extreme Catholicism (with all its jew-hatred) under wraps. His boozing is exposing his real side. Maybe Mel will make a movie praising the efforts of the Inquisition. He seems to agree with their aims.