The Politics of Obscurantism: Next You Control the Message

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"His full conquest of the masses came only after [he] had silenced oppositional opinion and had acquired total control of the media." Konrad Heiden (1)

The next component of Obscurantism, a concept that a friend suggested I explore, is message control. I've covered most of these things before but was amazed at how well they fit with this definition. So if you feel uncomfortable calling Stephen Harper a Fascist, call him an Obscurantist. Both fit.

In the pragmatic exposé of Stephen Harper, in his new book Harperland, Lawrence Martin devotes a chapter to Harper's "control fixation". But control is a key element of neoconservatism, as espoused by Leo Strauss.

According to Martin:

The PMO was in the course of putting in place a message-control system, a vetting operation unlike anything ever seen in the capital. No other government had even come close to such a system of oversight.

The new regimen called for all public pronouncements by civil servants, diplomats, the military, cabinet members, and Conservative MPs to be approved by the Prime Minister's Office or its bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office (PCO). The vetting was by no means a quick rubber-stamping procedure. If a government official or a caucus member wanted to say something publicly, he or she would first have to fill out a Message Event Proposal (MEP) and submit it to central command. This form had sections with such titles as Desired Headline, Strategic Objective, Desired Sound Bite, and the like. It also had areas for supplying details on the speaking backdrop, the ideal event photograph, and even the speaker's wardrobe.

Once submitted, the MEP was studied by PMO and PCO officials, often bouncing back and forth between apparatchiks before getting final approval. Some MEPs required less vetting than others, but the massive centralization caused logjams, delays, and in some cases, cancellation of planned events because the requester never heard back in time. Keith Beardsley recalled even events for cabinet ministers being derailed. "Every communications director for every minister was trying to get stuff through. Their ministers wanted to do things," he said. But "because of the backlog [sometimes an event] got delayed and delayed and it was cancelled." In the past, while there was sonic vetting, departments produced their own news releases and scheduled events for ministers independently. Under Harper, such freedom was not allowed. (2)　

Time Magazine 1936:

Because Adolf Hitler's speeches may be used to prove almost anything, the Nazi Commission of Inspection of Nazi Literature announced that Hitler's speeches may not be quoted in print hereafter without the Commission's express permission. Hearing that the rebellious pastors of the German Evangelical [Lutheran] Church plan to print and circulate privately their unanswered protest to the Reichsführer against practically everything going on in Nazi Germany, the Gestapo (secret police) raided Confessional Synod offices, lugged off typewriters, mimeograph and printing machines. (3)

"Such freedom was not allowed".

The German version of the "Message Event proposal" was handled by Philipp Bouhler, who was "the Chairman of the Official Party Inspection Commission for the Protection of National Socialist Literature, which determined what writings were suitable for Nazi society, and which were not." (4)

Before you can even hope to set up a system of obscuring the message, you have to be able to control the message. And Stephen Harper incrementally created a system whereby he controls every word that comes out of the mouths of not only his caucus, especially his ministers, but the public service as well.

And the media has become so conditioned to this, that they rarely question it. Matthew Brett wrote recently for Global Research:

Not surprisingly, the Globe and Mail and other news organizations ran a press release from the PMO's office verbatim, with no critical commentary, analysis or insight. The state of media today is such that copy-pasting a press release from the PMO and slapping it on the front page of a national daily newspaper is accepted practice. Indeed, Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan writes that “compared to most countries with which I have any familiarity, the Conservatives in Canada actually have friendly media to work with.” The ‘Propaganda Model’ is more than alive and well, but sometimes without even bothering to ‘filter’ news content. (5)

The Conservatives in Canada have friendly media to work with, or just lazy media. Either way they should be ashamed. And this certainly contradicts their stance that the media is out to get them.

But besides just writing their own copy, the Conservatives now also take their own photos. After an image was published and incorrectly labelled as an actual event, Steven Chase wrote:

Since the spring [of 2009], the PMO has effectively set up its own picture service, e-mailing photos to Canadian media almost daily in an effort to find a market for publicity shots of Mr. Harper's activities. It's a service that ultimately competes with the work of photojournalists, but one, they argue, that should not be relied upon as a record of events. (6)

And they didn't stop at providing photos, but now also provide videos.

Taxpayers are being asked to pay an extra $1.7-million this fiscal year to help bolster Stephen Harper's communications support services – just as the Prime Minister's Office begins distributing government videos of Harper to the news media. Supplementary estimates tabled last month by the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's bureaucratic back office, boosted internal operational spending by almost $7.3-million for 2009-10. That's on top of existing budgets. (7)

By doing things in small steps, the public remains mostly unaware that everything they see and hear from our government, as reported by the press, is staged for our amusement. But when you look at the big picture, that's when it becomes frightening.

Sometimes the media, and pundits, must feel the hairs on the back of their necks stand up, so they will dismiss it by suggesting that other prime ministers have done this. But as Lawrence Martin says, it's: "... a vetting operation unlike anything ever seen in the capital. No other government had even come close to such a system of oversight."

"No other government had even come close." Worth repeating.

By dismissing this, journalists and columnists are only creating an enabling condition that further threatens our democracy, which is already hanging on by a thread.

Previous:

The Politics of Obscurantism: First You Obstruct

Sources:

1. Der Fhehrer, Hitler's Rise to Power, By: Konrad Heiden, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1944

2. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 58

3. GERMANY: Tyranny, Time Magazine, August 03, 1936

4. Philipp Bouhler - Wikipedia

5. Canadian Politics: The Newly Benevolent Stephen Harper, By Matthew Brett, Global Research, March 14, 2010

6. Is Stephen Harper going too far in trying to control his image? By Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, November 06, 2009

7. Taxpayers on hook for $1.7-million as PMO rolls out video, By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press, December 08, 2009

Chapter Thirty-Eight Continued: The Poisonous Mushroom

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Next to Joseph Goebbels, the best Nazi propagandist was a man named Julius Streicher, founder and publisher of Der Stürmer newspaper, which became a central element for Nazi messaging .

A devout anti-communist, he joined the German Nationalist Protection and Defiance Federation, a group formed in response to the failed German communist revolution of 1918.

And like many Germans at the time, be believed that the Jewish people were working with the Bolsheviks. However, his resulting anti-Semitism did not fit well with the group and he was asked to leave.

Then in 1921, he went to Munich to hear a man speak, who was gaining a reputation as a powerful voice for change.

I had never seen the man before. And there I sat, an unknown among unknowns. I saw this man shortly before midnight, after he had spoken for three hours, drenched in perspiration, radiant. My neighbour said he thought he saw a halo around his head, and I experienced something which transcended the commonplace. (1)

That man was Adolf Hitler, and from that day on, Julias was a devout follower. He marched with Hitler during the Beer Hall Putsch and two years later, started his newspaper, with the purpose of promulgating anti-Semitic propaganda. “We will be slaves of the Jew, therefore he must go." Hitler declared that Der Stürmer was his favourite newspaper, and saw to it that each weekly issue was posted for public reading in special glassed-in display cases known as Stürmerkasten".

As a reward for his dedication, when the Nazi party was re-organized in 1925 Streicher was appointed as head of the Bavarian region of Franconia, which included his home town of Nuremberg. His favourite hang out was a local pub called Cafe Blattnersberg, owned by a man named Werner Droege. Streicher and Droege became friends and when war broke out Droege's son Walter, joined the Lutwaffe, fighting for the Third Reich.

The "Education" of Children

While Streicher's newspaper incited hatred against the Jews, another project was more despicable. He published children's books, with an attempt to embed intolerance in young minds. The most popular of these was Der Giftpilz, or the Poisonous Mushroom.

“Look, Franz, human beings in this world are like the mushrooms in the forest. There are good mushrooms and there are good people. There are poisonous, bad mushrooms and there are bad people. And we have to be on our guard against bad people just as we have to be on guard against poisonous mushrooms. Do you understand that?”

“Yes, mother,” Franz replies. “I understand that in dealing with bad people trouble may arise, just as when one eats a poisonous mushroom. One may even die!”

“And do you know, too, who these bad men are, these poisonous mushrooms of mankind?” the mother continued. Franz slaps his chest in pride: “Of course I know, mother! They are the Jews! "

Julias Streicher was tried at Nuremberg after the war and executed on October 1, 1946, but his legacy lived on in the family of his friend Werner Droege. Droege's son would marry a woman named Margot and they had a son named Wolfgang or "Wolfie", born in 1949 in Forchheim, Bavaria.

At the age of eight, he went to live with his grandfather Werner:

Wolfie was entranced by the exploits of Hitler and Streicher. At the age of eight, he resolved that he, too, like his father and like his grandfather, would grow to be a Nazi. (2)

In 1963, after his parents divorce, he arrived in Canada with his mother and younger brother Werner, and in time would get his wish, becoming one of the most powerful neo-Nazi leaders Canada has ever known. And he would also create quite a stir when it was discovered that he was the Ontario policy chair for the newly created Reform Party.

Continued: Wolfgang Droege and "Militant Conservative Activism"

Sources:

1. Testimony of Julius Streicher, Nuremberg Trials, April 26, 1946

2. Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network, By Warren Kinsella, 1994, Harper Collins, pg 205

Chapter Twenty-Eight Continued: The State of Exception

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I had written in an earlier chapter about Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt, in their historical context, but I believe after studying the actions of the Bush administration, I think they were influenced more by Schmitt, than Strauss.

This wouldn't be unusual, given the relationship of the two men, but many Straussians argue that he would not have supported the war in Iraq or the torture. Schmitt on the other hand, had very finite views on these topics as well as dictatorial power.

And at the end of WWII, when he was captured by the Americans, he refused every attempt at de-nazification, even though it barred him from positions in academia.

Understanding Carl Schmitt

According to Eugene Sheppard, Strauss's devotion to Schmitt was "because Strauss perceived him as not only a senior ally en­gaged in the critique of liberalism, but as a fellow searcher on the quest to dis­cover an alternative political cosmos. At the same time, Schmitt is important as a thinker outside the German-Jewish subculture who conferred legitimacy on Strauss's abilities and scholarly project." (1)

He thought of them as being on an even keel. Elitists who saw something that others were incapable of seeing. And when Strauss's suggestions for revisions to Schmitt's most famous work; The Concept of the Political, were adopted and included in future versions, it truly was his legitimacy as a political philosopher, not a Jewish philosopher.

Schmitt's theories are also suggestive of a theocracy, because he relates a dictatorship as being "the fundamental godlike character of sovereignty."

Sovereignty is not defined by governing conventions and norms, but rather emerges in full clarity at the fateful moment when the suspension of legal and constitutional norms is authorized. Rather than view the imposition of martial law and the suspension of political procedural norms as an excep­tional case, applying only to emergency situations, Schmitt conceives this ex­traordinary moment of an emergency (Ernstfall) as defining the fundamental basis of rule. The state of exception in politics is analogous to the miracle in the­ology. God's majesty over the world used to be clearly determined by his decisive ability to suspend the ordinary laws of nature. (1)

Sheppard states that this was an awakening for Strauss, because it provided clarity. He also then felt he understood what was wrong with liberal political systems, and that they failed "because of their principled embrace of tolerance and pluralism."

It's easier to understand this in the time period before the Nazis took power. Many countries were in disarray, after WWI. Author Richard Bessel suggested that it was also a time when monarchies had crumbled and without a central figure to pin their hopes on, many people felt lost. (2)

Monarchs had ruled by 'divine right' and many citizens still accepted that they had been ordained by God, so Schmitt may have recognized that a godlike figure was needed to make them feel secure again. And power had to be centralized, so decisions could be made immediately, without the slow down of Parliament.

And if individual rights were taken away they were being pooled for the common good. And if the leader claimed that someone was the enemy of the state, they were your enemy and you trusted your leader to do what was necessary to keep you safe. "Ultimately, subjects must decide their political loyalties based upon the real possibility of killing and being killed. How could—and why would a citizen of a state stake everything on the basis of agnosticism?" (1)

One religion, one state, one leader, one God. What could be clearer?

Thomas Hobbes on Steroids

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) political theories were formulated during the Civil War in England, so he too was looking for a "strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war."

To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace ... the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

His theories formed the basis of materialism.

But Strauss argued that liberals and socialists had forgotten that human beings are inherently evil and politics must take that into account.

The problem with these theories is that they were devised during a different time in history, when the need for a central authority was necessary. And I don't believe that all human beings are inherently evil. I prefer to think that all human beings are basically good, made evil by illness or circumstance.

But what is interesting, is how the Bush administration used the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Chicago school. Did they create a "different time"?

The Bush Administration and the "Evil Doers"

Just before 9/11 George Bush's approval rating was 55%, with a full 41% disapproval rating. Immediately after 9/11 he had a 92% approval rating with only 6% of Americans disapproving of his handling of the country. Why was that? He didn't do anything special. In fact he stayed in the classroom reading a book to children, instead of evacuating the school. He stood on the steps of the White House singing patriotic songs.

If the nation was under attack these actions seemed strange at best.

But the nation needed a strong central figure, and they turned to their leader for guidance, and even if they had doubts about his ability, they were willing to hand him their basic liberties in exchange for 'protection'.

And he was able to sell them on the need to invade a country based on what most people knew was flawed logic and the notion of "an enemy." And he kept them in a constant state of fear with colourful alerts.

And as more people turned to religion during that uncertain time, he was able to create the state of Carl Schmitt's vision.

We may never know what really happened on 9/11. But just as the time of Nazi Germany will always be viewed under the dark shadow of Hitler, the Bush Administration will be remembered under the dark shadow of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and other human atrocities.

Sources:

1. Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile, the making of a Political Philosopher, By: Eugene R. Sheppard, Brandeis University Press, 2006, ISBN: 978-154865-600-5, Pg. 44-47

2. Germany After the First World War, By: Richard Bessel, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1993, ISBN: 0-19-821938-5

Was Hitler Doing God's Work? John Hagee Thinks So

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"God says in Jeremiah 16 - 'Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers' - that would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - 'Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them' - that will be the Jews - 'from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust... you can't see that? So think about this - I will send fishers and I will send hunters." - Pastor John Hagee in a sermon

"Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel." - Pastor John Hagee in a sermon

Rather astonishing words by John Hagee suggesting that Adolf Hitler was doing God's work. But it speaks to the ideology of Christian Zionists who believe that the end times are near, so they must get all the Jewish people to Israel.

But there is actually more to it than that.

Theodore Herzl (1850-1904)

"Theodore Herzl is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Herzl went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust." - Pastor John Hagee in a sermon

That is a very simplistic description of who Theodore Herzl was and in fact Herzl would never have cared much for people like John Hagee.

In fact he hated organized religion. When at university he belonged to the Burschenschaften, an association of university students inspired by liberal and nationalistic ideas.

As a Jew he saw the poison of anti-Semitism and really felt that it could not be defeated or cured, and the only solution was the establishment of a Jewish state.

“ The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America. ”

He met with with Sultan Abdulhamid II to put forward his proposal for a Jewish state in Palestine, but the Sultan was not supportive of the idea. "if one day the Islamic State falls apart then you can have Palestine for free, but as long as I am alive I would rather have my flesh be cut up than cut out Palestine from the Muslim land."

Eventually the Balfour Declaration created the state of Israel, but Herzl had already inspired the Zionist movement. But he did not intend for it to be used in the way that the Christian fundamentalists are using it. They should be ashamed.

John Hagee and Hitler

When John Hagee suggested that Hitler was doing God's work, he probably meant more than the fact that he forced the Jewish people from their homeland of Germany, which is unforgivable, but he no doubt also appreciated that Hitler went after the Communists.

As many in the Religious Right were calling Obama the Antichrist, Tim Lehaye assured them that Obama was not the Antichrist because they had to get rid of the Communists first.



What happened to the goodness of Christians? This is not spiritually, it's evil. Pure evil.

Fortunately, most Christians do not think like that but what is alarming is how many in the governments of both the Unites States and Canada do. Bruce Wilson did a lot of research into the Hitler/Hagee preaching and has written extensively on the subject. He has videos as well. I find it all very sad.

Hitler and the Nazis were sent by God, to chase Jews back to the land of Israel. Because that's where God intends them to be. So, the Holocaust was a gruesomely inefficient system of divine "persuasion", and Hitler and the Nazis were doing "God's work". But Hagee also depicts this divine ethnic cleansing imperative as a future project: it will happen.

In Hagee's 2006 "Jerusalem Countdown", Hagee says anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust, were and are the fault of Jews - a divine curse for worshiping idols.

What a horrible man. What the Religious Right may not realize is that they have probably created more atheists that communism ever could. I no longer believe in God because of them and it makes me mad as hell.

Hagee is no better than Hitler because that man supports the genocide of the Muslim people. Evil did not die with Adolf Hitler.

Chapter Nineteen Continued: Leo and Carl

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Carl Schmitt, was a German philosopher, law professor and devout anti-Semitic. On May 1, 1933; he joined Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party or NSDAP (name changed from simply German Worker's Party) and was quickly appointed to the position of Prussian State Counselor by Hermann Göring.

He was also made the president of the Union of National-Socialist Jurists and it is believed that many of his theories became the ideological foundation for a Nazi dictatorship, and the basis for it's extreme authoritarianism.

Professor Alan Gilbert wrote recently of Schmitt:

There is a kind of darkness here that emanates from his writing and penetrates the reader. As a longstanding fighter against the pseudoscience of eugenics, ingredient to IQ testing, and Nazism, I thought myself pretty steeled (so far as one can be) against lethal anti-semitism. But Schmitt’s Catholic and medieval anti-semitism I found hard to absorb – it has a creepiness, an indiscriminate murderousness, and a demonism about “masks” which goes right to the gut. (1)

As chairman of a law teachers' Convention in Berlin in October 1936, Schmitt demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" and future publications by Jewish scientists be marked with a small symbol.

The Beginnings of a Strange Relationship:

In 1926, Schmitt had published one of his most famous works: The Concept of the Political, that very much impressed the budding Jewish philosopher, Leo Strauss.

Strauss would send Schmitt a list of comments and criticisms, that so inspired him that he would make changes in future editions based on Leo's notes. He just wouldn't acknowledge that they came from him.

The two men did engage in regular correspondence, and Carl Schmitt was instrumental in Strauss' receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship *, enabling him to leave Germany for Paris, thereby escaping the fate of many others. At that time, they broke off their relationship and Strauss wrote from Paris fuming that Schmitt would not acknowledge his contribution to the later editions. He obviously forgot that he was Jewish and how the other man felt about Jews. (1)

However, Strauss would later tell a girlfriend, Hannah Arendt, that "he wanted to join a party which would not have him because he was a Jew." This of course was the Nazi Party. Strauss says of Hitler, that his “political theology” was hostile toward “me and my kind,” but Gilbert suggests that Strauss was not put off by Schmitt’s anti-Semitism because Strauss, too, had quite a streak of it. (1)

Many have suggested that Neoconservatism, based on Leo Strauss's teachings, was deeply influenced by Carl Schmitt. This authoritarian nature has certainly been adopted by neocon leaders like George Bush and Stephen Harper**.

However, while Strauss is often blamed for the actions of the Bush administration, there are at least some who attribute them to Schmitt himself.

"... although some analysts have suggested that the Bush Administration has operated under the guidance of the ideas of German emigré Leo Strauss, it seems far more plausible to suggest that the true éminence grise of the administration, particularly with regard to issues surrounding the possible propriety of torture, is Schmitt."

In a similar vein, Scott Horton, chairman of the International Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association and adjunct Professor at Columbia University published a note on "Balkanization" on Nov. 7, titled "The Return of Carl Schmitt." In discussing Justice Department lawyer John Yoo's advice that the Executive Branch was not bound by the Geneva Conventions and similar international instruments in its conduct of the war in Iraq, Horton writes, "Yoo's public arguments and statements suggest the strong influence of one thinker: Carl Schmitt." (2)

Schmitt died on April 22, 1985, and his obituary appeared in Time Magazine:

DIED. Carl Schmitt, 96, controversial German legal and political philosopher, sometimes called the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich, whose pro-authoritarian theories of government profoundly influenced the course of his country; in Plettenberg, West Germany. From 1929 to 1933, he provided legal and theoretical justifications for the Hindenburg government's dictatorial emergency decree system. Schmitt warned against a Nazi takeover, but his right-wing views became identified with the movement, and when Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, Schmitt opportunistically switched with the tide, becoming Prussian state councilor under Hermann Goring. He avoided prosecution as a war criminal at Nuremberg and later largely kept his vow to retreat "into the security of silence." (3)

Chapter Twenty: Mixed Blessings

Footnotes:

*Heinrich Meier wrote a book on the shared philosophies of the two men: Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue

** According to Donald Gutstein in his piece Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy: "What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement."

Sources:

1. Enmity and Tyranny, By: Alan Gilbert, March 5, 2010

2. Dick Cheney's Éminence Grise, by Barbara Boyd, Executive Intelligence Review, January 6, 2006

3. Milestones: Apr. 22, 1985, Time Magazine

William Aberhart, Adolf Hitler and the Brown Shirts

William Aberhart would not have been a supporter of Adolf Hitler, and he would never have condoned the Holocaust.

But his Socreds were part of a broader populist movement, that spread across the Western Hemisphere; in the period between the Great War and the Depression.

A fierce sense of nationalism, had justified the horrendous actions of war, so it is easy to understand why some of these groups would want to adopt a uniform; to renew that nationalistic fervour.

In Great Britain, there were "Blue Shirts", "Black Shirts" and "Green Shirts". There were also "Black Shirts" under Mussolini in Italy and of course the infamous "Brown Shirts" of Adolf Hitler.

And while Aberhart never worked with Hitler himself, he did have the support of John Hargrave; founder of the "Green Shirts", and Oswald Mosley; founder of Britain's fascist "Black Shirts".

Mosley was indeed a Hitler supporter, right to the end; and he also provided columns for Aberhart's Social Credit Chronicle. Another contributor to the paper, was Father Coughlin, who was also a huge Hitler fan, and was known to regularly give the Nazi salute.

Another thing shared by these populist movements (with the exception of the blueshirts), was the notion of a Jewish conspiracy, as laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's unfortunate that there wasn't an actual Jewish conspiracy, because they may have been able to better mobilize against this hatred.

Adolf Hitler's Brown Shirts:

Though the term Nazi has become the definitive name of the party of Adolf Hitler, it was not a name taken by them.

They were more commonly referred to as the Brown Shirt Fascist Party or formally known as the Nationalsozialist (National Socialist) Party.

'Nazi' was a derogate term, given them by journalist Konrad Heiden, who led university students in protest against them. It is actually a Bavarian slang word, meaning "country bumpkin."

Early news stories used Fascist Brown Shirt or National Socialist, and when they did refer to them as 'Nazi', the name was always in quotations. So I guess the term 'Neo-Nazis', actually translates to 'new country bumpkins'.

I would never call them that though. Not to their face anyway.

Konrad Heiden, Nazis and Social Credit

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Konrad Heiden was a popular journalist who covered the rise of the Nationalsozialism (National Socialism) movement in Germany.

This populist crusade was spreading like a prairie fire in the 1930s, but after hearing it's leader speak in the beer halls of Munich, Heiden became alarmed at the message.

And when the followers of this charismatic and powerful speaker began to march in the streets, Heiden led university students in protest against them.

It was he who gave this future ruling party a nickname that would stick with it even today. He called them 'Nazi', a Bavarian slang term for "country bumpkin." (1)

Often writing under the pen name "Klaus Bredow", Heiden tracked Adolph Hitler for 23 years, and even after he was forced to flee to the United States, he would continue to sound the alarm, and actually predicited the 'Final Solution'.

In his book, "The New Inquisition", published in New York in 1939:

"To drive 600,000 people by robbery into hunger, by hunger into desperation, by desperation into wild outbreaks, and by such outbreaks into the waiting knife -- such is the cooly calculated plan. Mass murder is the goal, a massacre such as history has not seen -- certainly not since Tamerlane and Mithridates. We can only venture guesses as to the technical forms these mass executions are to take. In his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler suggested that the people to be killed be kept "under poisonous gas"; however, he speaks of a mere twelve to fifteen thousand. Doubtless the destructive instinct in the ruling class of the regieme has grown in the meantime..."

Social Credit and the Nazis

There are many books written on Social Credit, including several linking the movement to the Reform Party under Preston Manning and Stephen Harper.

However, I don't know if the history of the Social Credit crusade has been examined in it's latest form: The Conservative Party of Canada, which arose from the populist movement of William Aberhart.

And the populist movement of William Aberhart emerged simultaneously with the populist crusade of Adolph Hitler and his Nationalsozialism. Both were based on antisemitism and the notion of a Jewish conspiracy theory.

But as I've said before; at the time Adolph Hitler was much admired by the western world, and was in fact the Time magazine "man of the year" for 1938. So while Harper's authoritarian and secretive style is pure Aberhart, it is steeped in early Nazi ideology (not the Holocaust, which is a separate issue)

Harper was Never a Tory but a Socred

In his book; Blue Thunder: The Truth About Conservatives from MacDonald to Harper, Bob Plamondon attempts to trace the history of the party from Sir John A. MacDonald to Stephen Harper. However, as many of us know, the party under our current prime minister, never evolved from Sir John A. at all.

Former conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, once toyed with the idea of bringing the Socreds into his party, which prompted a member of his caucus, Jim MacDonnell, whose father was a friend of Sir John A.'s; to exclaim that he "would now turn over in his grave!" (3)

When Dalton Camp learned of earlier attempts at a merger of the Progressive Conservative party with the Alliance, under Stockwell Day, he said of Day that he "is viewed by most Tories as embedded in the lunatic fringe."

And when Peter MacKay sold out the Progressive Conservatives by disbanding the party and joining his handful of MPs with the Reform-Alliance, longtime MP, Flora MacDonald stated that it was:

... the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country ... The party's future lies not in some right-wing alliance that would violate the progressive and moderate traditions of its former leaders, but with a renewed emphasis on the values that the great majority of Canadians feel represent their views." (4)

So Plomondon's attempt to rewrite history falls short, simply because he should have subtitled his book: The Truth About Conservatives from MacDonald to MacKay: The End!

This blog is actually my research for a book I'm currently writing under the working title: Aberhart and Harper on Crusade, but that won't be the title I publish it under, if I eventually do. I intend to dedicate it to Flora MacDonald ... oh, and my family ... who have had to endure years of my yammering about politics.

I have copyrighted this body of work, which doesn't mean you can't use it for personal research, provided the credit is given to 'Emily Dee' with links to this blog. You can click on all images to find their source, many of which are also copyrighted. I won't be publishing them with my work, unless I first obtain permission. I can't draw worth a lick, so won't attempt my own illustrations, though I do enjoy a bit of photo-shopping.

Sources:

1. Books: Master of the Masses, Time Magazine, February 7, 1944

2. Wikepedia, Konrad Heiden

3. One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, 1956 to 1962, John G' Diefenbaker, the MacMillan Company of Canada, ISBN: 0-7705-1443-X, pg. 3-4

4. Flora MacDonald’s Comments, The Toronto Star, November 14, 2003