When Margaret Brennan and her ilk speak about "democracy" they do not mean the kind normies do or what it has meant historically. It was redefined by the Regime in 2016 to mean "consensus of institutions", thus any questioning of its decisions was deemed to undermine "our democracy". Your interlocutors who fervently advocate censorship because they say Trump and Elon "lie" do not seem to appreciate that I and many others believe that Obama, Biden, Powers, Rice, Brennan and all other Regime apparatchiks lie routinely, and thus under Brennan's rules she herself would be targeted and her dangerous speech suppressed. That's why we have a 1st amendment that applies to everybody. She is one of the stupidest women journalists out there in a field crowded with serious contenders like Stahl and Raddatz. I love watching JD swat them like the gnats they are.
I didn't see the show, or a subsequent video, but I assume she meant that the Nazis took advantage of the naively open speech laws of Weimer to unseat the young democratic pluralistic rule-governed polity. As a student of history, you most certainly be aware that some societies will disintegrate with untramelled free speech by the unhinged
And Marco Rubio had no problem fielding her pop fly:
Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they—they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history.
I don't understand American politics well and I don't know the ratings of leading commentators on TV channels. So I won't comment on what Brennan meant, I'll comment on what caught my eye.
I immediately saw the substitution of concepts that fools allow or propagandists use. And I understand fools and propagandists well.
German National Socialism used Nazi propaganda as a weapon, not freedom of speech. Mrs. Brennan substituted the concept, which immediately led the topic away from the problems with freedom of speech that Vance was talking about and transferred it to a comparison of Nazi Germany and (apparently hinting at this) the Trump administration, which, according to her logic, with the help of freedom of speech (apparently, "using it as a weapon") is also approaching Nazism.
This is a rather cheap substitution of concepts, a cheap comparison, and a cheap transfer of the conversation from one topic to another, completely unrelated in meaning and logic, based on hints and cliches. And you decide for yourself who she is, a fool or a propagandist, but I don’t see a third option, because calling freedom of speech the cause (or one of the causes) of genocide is the same as stumbling over the leg of a chair and blaming Newton’s law. It doesn’t matter in what context it was said.
Oh, do you? Let’s review. She said that free speech was “weaponized” to facilitate the Holocaust. That’s clear enough, isn’t it? And as a student of German history, particularly National Socialist Germany, I know that’s bullshit.
Brennan was just parroting the view, widely held among progressives, that speech needs to be policed. Is that what you believe?
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of history knows that dictators don’t allow freedom of speech. The fact that a supposedly intelligent person could say something like that is an indictment of echo chambers.
Rachel is probably one of the smartest people I know.
This diatribe about Brennan is very ignorant. All these little trite comments are so smug. JD Moron was way off base citing the “enemy within” to Germans no less. Then meeting with the ADf with ties to nazi’s. You can’t make this up.
This admin is so corrupt and stupid. I can’t wait to see what all you geniuses say when it all blows up in your faces.
You are right oh great one, I don’t care for racism or Nazis. It may be a month, maybe a few months, maybe a year or two but we are in for some serious problems caused by your orange pumpkin and his minions. MAGAs are in the fuck around and find out stage.
Let’s review. Margaret Brennan makes a surpassingly stupid claim linking freedom of speech to the Holocaust, and it’s her critics who are ignorant. What process of reasoning led you to that conclusion? Inquiring minds want to know…
Thomas, she was most likely referring to the fact that free speech means the nazis were able to lie like Musk and Trump are doing now. They then took over the the govt by coup. It’s what is happening right now or they are trying. We’ll see if the courts can stop them.
Bullshit. Brennan was giving voice to the po-mo progressive view that freedom of speech is dangerous, and that speech should be regulated by the government. No doubt she regards with approval the authoritarian speech policing carried out by the authorities in Germany.
Oh for gods sake, Germany does like giving Nazis a voice. It’s equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. It happened there once and that was one too many, many millions incinerated because of a megalomaniac got the power. It’s happening again but this time we’ve got an orange dickhead and his trusty billionaire sidekick spewing such bs and the gop are giving him all the fools for his cabinet to bankrupt our country then say look it’s the D.E.I. or the woke or progressives. It’s their fault. Always their fault. Trump/Musk or Musk/Trump is the biggest scam ever known to man. Can’t wait to see how it all turns out.
I think that the pragmatics of what she was saying were these: She was saying that if Mein Kampf was banned during the Weimar Republic, the Nazis would not have risen. It’s interesting to think about, and I suppose that it is not out of the question.
But it begs the question: What book or speech would you have had to ban, in order to keep fascism from rising in Italy and Spain, or to keep totalitarianism from rising in Russia, in 1917. Should Europe have banned The Communist Manifesto, in 1848, because it prescribed a dictatorship, to cure modern society of its ills?
And are there actual historical instances of book bannings making society BETTER? Does Margaret Brennan want to ban all speech by populists in the Western World? How would that WORK? Who makes those judgements? People like her, I assume.
But yes - definitely an odd take, from a journalist. LESS of an odd take, if you think of her as a propagandist. It’s worth thinking about, insofar as constructing counterarguments is concerned.
ASa matter of fact, the authorities in Germany placed various restrictions on the Nazi Party for a time. They also banned Hitler from public speaking. All in vain of course, you can't suppress a mass political movement by censoring it.
Brennan wasn’t entirely clear on that, but you’re rationalizing and excusing her anti-freedom stance. Whether she meant that Nazis used “too much freedom of speech” to gain power, or had, or allowed, too much free speech after gaining power, she was wrong
Probably not. But I would like to see Margaret Brennan’s claim dismantled head-on. As in: “This is what she was saying, and this is why it was preposterous.”
When Margaret Brennan and her ilk speak about "democracy" they do not mean the kind normies do or what it has meant historically. It was redefined by the Regime in 2016 to mean "consensus of institutions", thus any questioning of its decisions was deemed to undermine "our democracy". Your interlocutors who fervently advocate censorship because they say Trump and Elon "lie" do not seem to appreciate that I and many others believe that Obama, Biden, Powers, Rice, Brennan and all other Regime apparatchiks lie routinely, and thus under Brennan's rules she herself would be targeted and her dangerous speech suppressed. That's why we have a 1st amendment that applies to everybody. She is one of the stupidest women journalists out there in a field crowded with serious contenders like Stahl and Raddatz. I love watching JD swat them like the gnats they are.
What an Olympian leap! Sign her up!
She’s a stupid petulant third grade bitch!!
I didn't see the show, or a subsequent video, but I assume she meant that the Nazis took advantage of the naively open speech laws of Weimer to unseat the young democratic pluralistic rule-governed polity. As a student of history, you most certainly be aware that some societies will disintegrate with untramelled free speech by the unhinged
and the compromise.
The rise of National Socialism had nothing to do with an excess of free speech. If you’re really interested in the relevant history: here it is:
compromised.
And Marco Rubio had no problem fielding her pop fly:
Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they—they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history.
AMEN!!!
She needs to go back to elementary school where we baby boomers learned a lot of history that was true!
I throughly disagree. Citing Megan Kelly is the topper, such a source of BS.
Margaret Brennan is one of the best reporters out there. Leave her alone.
You should only wish to have a fraction of her intelligence and brilliance.
Margaret Brennan blamed the Holocaust on freedom of speech. That, I would argue, is the reverse of brilliance. It’s the acme of idiocy.
Thank you Thomas. They still think it is a popularity contest.
I don't understand American politics well and I don't know the ratings of leading commentators on TV channels. So I won't comment on what Brennan meant, I'll comment on what caught my eye.
I immediately saw the substitution of concepts that fools allow or propagandists use. And I understand fools and propagandists well.
German National Socialism used Nazi propaganda as a weapon, not freedom of speech. Mrs. Brennan substituted the concept, which immediately led the topic away from the problems with freedom of speech that Vance was talking about and transferred it to a comparison of Nazi Germany and (apparently hinting at this) the Trump administration, which, according to her logic, with the help of freedom of speech (apparently, "using it as a weapon") is also approaching Nazism.
This is a rather cheap substitution of concepts, a cheap comparison, and a cheap transfer of the conversation from one topic to another, completely unrelated in meaning and logic, based on hints and cliches. And you decide for yourself who she is, a fool or a propagandist, but I don’t see a third option, because calling freedom of speech the cause (or one of the causes) of genocide is the same as stumbling over the leg of a chair and blaming Newton’s law. It doesn’t matter in what context it was said.
Exactly. I would only add that there’s no reason why she couldn’t be both a fool and a propagandist.
Can I criticize Israel without being deported? Pretty, pretty please?
That depends. Your papers, please.
I think you missed the point of Margaret Brennan's comment
Oh, do you? Let’s review. She said that free speech was “weaponized” to facilitate the Holocaust. That’s clear enough, isn’t it? And as a student of German history, particularly National Socialist Germany, I know that’s bullshit.
Brennan was just parroting the view, widely held among progressives, that speech needs to be policed. Is that what you believe?
Brennan got her ass handed to her. She would be ashamed, were she capable
On the heels of the 60 Minutes Harris Interview scandal, this is worse than a simple faux pas.
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of history knows that dictators don’t allow freedom of speech. The fact that a supposedly intelligent person could say something like that is an indictment of echo chambers.
This will happen as long as our schools fail us.
Obviously, I’ve been labouring under a delusion, as heretofore, I’d always thought that Rachel Maddow was the dumbest person on TV.
Rachel is probably one of the smartest people I know.
This diatribe about Brennan is very ignorant. All these little trite comments are so smug. JD Moron was way off base citing the “enemy within” to Germans no less. Then meeting with the ADf with ties to nazi’s. You can’t make this up.
This admin is so corrupt and stupid. I can’t wait to see what all you geniuses say when it all blows up in your faces.
You’ll have a long wait. I bet everything you don’t like is racist or Nazi. So sad.
You are right oh great one, I don’t care for racism or Nazis. It may be a month, maybe a few months, maybe a year or two but we are in for some serious problems caused by your orange pumpkin and his minions. MAGAs are in the fuck around and find out stage.
Let’s review. Margaret Brennan makes a surpassingly stupid claim linking freedom of speech to the Holocaust, and it’s her critics who are ignorant. What process of reasoning led you to that conclusion? Inquiring minds want to know…
Thomas, she was most likely referring to the fact that free speech means the nazis were able to lie like Musk and Trump are doing now. They then took over the the govt by coup. It’s what is happening right now or they are trying. We’ll see if the courts can stop them.
Bullshit. Brennan was giving voice to the po-mo progressive view that freedom of speech is dangerous, and that speech should be regulated by the government. No doubt she regards with approval the authoritarian speech policing carried out by the authorities in Germany.
Oh for gods sake, Germany does like giving Nazis a voice. It’s equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. It happened there once and that was one too many, many millions incinerated because of a megalomaniac got the power. It’s happening again but this time we’ve got an orange dickhead and his trusty billionaire sidekick spewing such bs and the gop are giving him all the fools for his cabinet to bankrupt our country then say look it’s the D.E.I. or the woke or progressives. It’s their fault. Always their fault. Trump/Musk or Musk/Trump is the biggest scam ever known to man. Can’t wait to see how it all turns out.
I knew you’d lose your shit eventually. Defending the indefensible is hard work!
Well, there’s a lot of competition for that title…
Actually, yes. It’s just that in the eyes of the Authorities, he has the wrong idea about God…
Not in America. But in the Islamic world…
I think that the pragmatics of what she was saying were these: She was saying that if Mein Kampf was banned during the Weimar Republic, the Nazis would not have risen. It’s interesting to think about, and I suppose that it is not out of the question.
But it begs the question: What book or speech would you have had to ban, in order to keep fascism from rising in Italy and Spain, or to keep totalitarianism from rising in Russia, in 1917. Should Europe have banned The Communist Manifesto, in 1848, because it prescribed a dictatorship, to cure modern society of its ills?
And are there actual historical instances of book bannings making society BETTER? Does Margaret Brennan want to ban all speech by populists in the Western World? How would that WORK? Who makes those judgements? People like her, I assume.
But yes - definitely an odd take, from a journalist. LESS of an odd take, if you think of her as a propagandist. It’s worth thinking about, insofar as constructing counterarguments is concerned.
ASa matter of fact, the authorities in Germany placed various restrictions on the Nazi Party for a time. They also banned Hitler from public speaking. All in vain of course, you can't suppress a mass political movement by censoring it.
The fascist government banned all opposition parties, including the Nazi party, in pre-Anschluss Austria
I think the “weaponizing of free speech” was supposed to have happened in the 1920s, allowing the Nazis to rise.
I don’t think anybody thinks that anyone weaponized free speech after the Nazis were actually IN power.
You’re wrong.
You think that that is what Margaret Brennan meant?
Brennan wasn’t entirely clear on that, but you’re rationalizing and excusing her anti-freedom stance. Whether she meant that Nazis used “too much freedom of speech” to gain power, or had, or allowed, too much free speech after gaining power, she was wrong
Did they ban Mein Kampf?
No, but do you seriously think that would have made a difference? Hitler’s political biography was a minor factor in his rise to power.
Probably not. But I would like to see Margaret Brennan’s claim dismantled head-on. As in: “This is what she was saying, and this is why it was preposterous.”
I did that already.
It was said in Germany that it was the least-read bestseller of all time.