The Four Color Media Monitor: Mangaka Ken Akamatsu makes a good representative for free speech values in Japan

In light of bizarre developments lately in Australia (and France), where the political system decided to ban adult manga, I thought to look at what some manga specialists in Japan had to say about the subject, and I came across the mangaka who authored Love Hina, Ken Akamatsu, who had the following to say after a UK resident was prosecuted for possession of lewd manga 6 years ago:

Akamatsu pointed out that Japan's recently passed child pornography law also forbade possession of sexually explicit images of children, but emphasized that manga and anime are creations without real children anywhere. "They aren't even close to the law's purpose of 'protecting children from sexual exploitation and abuse'; instead, they blur the purpose and hinder it." He went on to suggest that the Japanese law would eventually be applied to manga and anime as well. "If they were just asked if sex acts in school uniforms were 'O.K.' or 'no good,' almost all Japanese would say 'no good.' In other words, without appropriate explanation, created material is destined for regulation eventually. The key is appropriate explanations. I think the days of quietly drawing whatever you like are already over."

Well he's more right than you think. Censorship's not only made a sad comeback in the past decade, now you have products of bad universities actually condoning it too. It's gotten to the point where you have professional writers practically on the verge of disavowing their work for all the wrong reasons. If Fredric Wertham hadn't come off his high horse in 1973, when he started talking favorably about comics for a change years after all the harm he never tried to prevent (in his last book titled "World of Fanzines"), he'd probably be very proud if he saw what's going on now. I don't find "lolicon" a tasteful genre, but it certainly is a double-standard to be making a fuss over that from a marketing perspective instead of worrying about live action smut like Cuties, which in sharp contrast to adult manga was vigorously defended by the leftist MSM, in one of the most blatant examples of hypocrisy, and if the film is still allowed in France and Australia, it'll only compound the double-standards at work.

More recently, this past year, Akamatsu addressed the subject of western cartoons like the Simpsons going the PC route of casting POC to play characters of same background:

"It may look like an excessive reaction when looking at things from Japan, but foreign countries have their own particular issues, so I will refrain from simplistic criticism and instead observe the situation for a while," he said. "However, I will say that the move to select actors on their race rather than their individual talents appears to go against the path that humanity has walked throughout history."

When asked how he would feel as a creator about casting decisions regarding foreign-language dubs of his works, he responded that, based on his prior experiences, "In Japan, a voice actor of an animated work wouldn't change because of race, but for a foreign-language dub, I leave those matters to the discretion of the dubbing company."

Regarding any concerns he has about freedom of expression, he said, "I am very curious about the current movement overseas to erase or remove past works. Osamu Tezuka's manga had quite a few discriminatory expressions, but it's standard in Japan to leave an explanatory note about that while preserving the work as it was in the past. As works that feature discriminatory expressions undergo more and more regulation, it may become impossible to see those old works. However, when it comes to the works that will be created in the present and future, I see absolutely no problem in creators such as myself individually applying our own discretion and consideration while having our freedom of expression protected. I hope that both sides can maintain a good balance."

Finally, he commented as follows on the claim that anime characters are modeled on white people: "[Japanese] creators such as myself are not thinking of our characters as white people when we draw them. Take the Sailor Moon protagonist Usagi Tskuno, for instance. She may have blonde hair but that's simply a manga-like expression. In her previous life, she was a person from the moon world, after all. It may be possible that fantasy worlds such as this may become the subject of criticism. Dark elves and other fantasy races may also come under fire. I foresee various issues coming into debate in the future."

This has already been happening stateside, as Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast, to whom the late Gary Gygax's now defunct TSR later sold the franchise, is now preaching political correctness when it comes to fantasy creatures who don't literally represent any particular race, such as Orcs and Kobolds. It's very sad how a whole franchise Gygax worked hard to build into the phenomenon it became is now being ruined, and his memory desecrated as a result. One can only wonder if Sailor Moon, considered big in its time among western audiences, will end up being shunned by the PC crowd as a result, all because of some petty issue over hair color, and it won't make any difference that women can dye their hair in all sorts of odd colors.

Akamatsu also spoke before the Diet (Japan's parliament) more recently to express his concerns:

Manga author Ken Akamatu (Love Hina) was invited to speak to the Japanese government; expressing his concerns of manga being “regulated by overseas standards,” while praising Japan’s “freedom of expression.”

Speaking on Twitter, Akamatu (A.I. Love You, Love Hina Itsudatte My Santa!, Negima!: Magister Negi Magi) revealed that he had been invited to speak tothe Japanese Diet; Japan’s legislature, formed from the House of Representatives and House of Councillors.

One member asked him how manga can “survive in the world.” Akamatsu states he explained to them that Japan’s “freedom of expression”, allowing manga to be freely created, was to its advantage.

However, he expressed concerns that Japanese works could be held to foreign regulation. This would be due to the few number of large foreign distributors and publishers dominating the market (an oligopoly), giving few alternative options for manga creators or publishers who wished to thrive outside of Japan.

See, this is why Japan's publishers have to start setting up competition of their own in the distribution service. And if it needs to be through one of their own local marketing services, so be it.

There is a lot about Japanese culture as seen in entertainment that could use some modification for building up to better taste in what elements you use in a story. But those seeking to ban manga and anime while allowing European and US filmmakers to do similar stuff in live action throughly unquestioned have no business dictating how things should be handled. I think Akamatsu's one manga specialist in Japan who certainly makes a great spokesman for free speech and market values, and hope he'll continue to confront what's still an extremely serious problem involving modern censorship and cancel culture.

Labels: censorship issues, Europe and Asia, good artists, manga and anime

Well, I'll give Ken Akimatsu credit where credit is due by calling out the whole self-censorship crap that's going on right now, including the very blatant racial hirings over hiring those actually skilled at the trade.

Unfortunately, Akimatsu is one of the reasons this whole left-wing politically correct crap is currently going on. Let's not forget that he was the guy responsible for Love Hina, which basically acted as a blueprint for the notoriously SJW-type stuff that's going on right now, including glorifying or at least siding with girls who act like absolute abusive jerks to a guy due to "perceiving" him to be a pervert even when he did absolutely nothing to warrant the label, not to mention said guy being reduced to being an utter beta male who constantly "apologizes" for the so-called "perversion." Oh, and said girls also being complete hypocrites regarding the perversion element since not only do they not mind at all baring their bodies in a public bath, but in at least one case the girls groped each other. Pretty much the same crap as one of Greg Berlanti's shows, or any other SJW show on the CW and others, for that matter. Can't say I'm going to be forgiving him anytime soon. As far as I'm concerned with him, his chickens are coming home to roost with him. He made the bed with this SJW crap that eventually culminated in the self-censorship crap via Love Hina, he might as well lie in it. Can't say I liked Love Hina originally, anyways, not after learning about it's girls being whiney jerks as early as 13 years old. It's thanks to their crap that I'm determined to bring Misty back onto Pokemon after the latter made the mistake of following that formula starting with May.

Besides, even Voltaire and Diderot spoke for anti-censorship and freedom of speech, and they weren't exactly good guys by any stretch, being directly responsible for the anti-Christian persecution and violence of the French Revolution, and there's actually quite a bit of evidence that at the very least the attempted genocide of Christians was fully intentional on their part, and heck, their anti-censorship and freedom of speech promotions was specifically done to CENSOR Christians and basically leave the French court too afraid of silencing Voltaire and his ilk even when they're openly trying to spread lies to inflame people against Christianity via their Encycloedie and various other forgeries.

Posted by eotness | 6:04 AM

Public baths are very old institutions in Japan; there was nothing unusual or hypocritical about girls using them, or taking off their clothes to bathe in them, although mixed-sex public bathing in Japan has been on the decline over the past few decades.

Where can you find evidence that Voltaire advocated genocide of Christians? He and Diderot died before the revolution, living at a time when Catholicism was a dominant force in French culture and politics. And why do you think the Encyclopedie was a forgery? It is not like its authors were pretending it was something other than what it was.

Posted by Anonymous | 6:43 AM

"Public baths are very old institutions in Japan; there was nothing unusual or hypocritical about girls using them, or taking off their clothes to bathe in them, although mixed-sex public bathing in Japan has been on the decline over the past few decades."

It is hypocritical when they beat up Keitaru Urashima for "perversion" simply because of Franz Kafka-esque bad luck regarding those saunas, though, which is the point. To say little when they decry him as engaging in perversion yet have absolutely no problem doing this amongst themselves (heck, the manga even had Naru let Keitaru do a Marshmallow Hell on her because she mistook him for Mitsune due to a lack of glasses leaving her near blind and encouraged it before realizing her mistake): http://img.rule34.xxx/images/91/12edb180f04def32b834c7d48a72da06d7016bf0.gif?90840 And a fair bit of warning, the following link, while taken directly from the anime, is very much NSFW.

As far as Voltaire and Diderot, the Jacobins specifically used them as inspirations for their actions. It's like saying Karl Marx had nothing to do with the creation of the Soviet Union due to dying before the Russian Revolution. So yes, they had everything to do with the French Revolution. Also, Timothy Dwight made it very clear Voltaire and Diderot's links to the anti-Christian persecutions amounted to in a July 4, 1798 sermon. This part, in fact, which will be in the next post.

Posted by eotness | 7:14 AM

"Timothy Dwight, “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis,” July 4, 1798,

“About the year 1728, Voltaire, so celebrated for his wit and brilliancy and not less distinguished for his hatred of Christianity and his abandonment of principle, formed a systematical design to destroy Christianity and to introduce in its stead a general diffusion of irreligion and atheism.

"For this purpose he associated with himself Frederick the II, king of Prussia, and Mess. D’Alembert and Diderot, the principal compilers of the Encyclopedie, all men of talents, atheists and in the like manner abandoned.

"The principle parts of this system were:

"1. The compilation of the Encyclopedie: in which with great art and insidiousness the doctrines of … Christian theology were rendered absurd and ridiculous; and the mind of the reader was insensibly steeled against conviction and duty.

"2. The overthrow of the religious orders in Catholic countries, a step essentially necessary to the destruction of the religion professed in those countries.

"3. The establishment of a sect of philosophists to serve, it is presumed as a conclave, a rallying point, for all their followers.

"4. The appropriation to themselves, and their disciples, of the places and honors of members of the French Academy, the most respectable literary society in France, and always considered as containing none but men of prime learning and talents.

"In this way they designed to hold out themselves and their friends as the only persons of great literary and intellectual distinction in that country, and to dictate all literary opinions to the nation.

"5. The fabrication of books of all kinds against Christianity, especially such as excite doubt and generate contempt and derision.

"Of these they issued by themselves and their friends who early became numerous, an immense number; so printed as to be purchased for little or nothing, and so written as to catch the feelings, and steal upon the approbation, of every class of men.

"6. The formation of a secret Academy, of which Voltaire was the standing president, and in which books were formed, altered, forged, imputed as posthumous to deceased writers of reputation, and sent abroad with the weight of their names.

"These were printed and circulated at the lowest price through all classes of men in an uninterrupted succession, and through every part of the kingdom.”

Cont'd

“In societies of Illuminati…the being of God was denied and ridiculed….

"The possession of property was pronounced robbery.

"Chastity and natural affection were declared to be nothing more than groundless prejudices.

"Adultery, assassination, poisoning, and other crimes of the like infernal nature, were taught as lawful…provided the end was good….

"The good ends proposed by the Illuminati…are the overthrow of religion, government, and human society, civil and domestic.

"These they pronounce to be so good that murder, butchery, and war, however extended and dreadful, are declared by them to be completely justifiable…

"The means…were…the education of youth…every unprincipled civil officer…every abandoned clergyman…books replete with infidelity, irreligion, immorality, and obscenity…

"Where religion prevails, Illumination cannot make disciples, a French directory cannot govern, a nation cannot be made slaves, nor villains, nor atheists, nor beasts.

"To destroy us therefore, in this dreadful sense, our enemies must first destroy our Sabbath and seduce us from the house of God…”

“Religion and liberty are the meat and the drink of the body politic.

"Withdraw one of them and in languishes, consumes, and dies.

"If indifference…becomes the prevailing character of a people…their motives to vigorous defense is lost, and the hopes of their enemies are proportionally increased…

"Without religion we may possibly retain the freedom of savages, bears, and wolves, but not the freedom of New England.

"If our religion were gone, our state of society would perish with it and nothing would be left which would be worth defending."

You can read it up here: https://thestoryoflibertyblog.com/2013/01/14/plot-to-destroy-christianity-revealed-by-yale-president-timothy-dwight-july-4-1798/

And as far as the Encyclopedie goes, read up on this as well in addition to Timothy Dwight: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Encyclopedists

Also this site: https://drdanmerritt.com/2019/03/16/voltaires-prediction-home-and-the-bible-society-truth-or-myth/

Bear in mind that Timothy Dwight is not a Catholic, he's Protestant, specifically Congregationalists, who aren't exactly fond of Catholics at the time, so if even he realizes just how much Voltaire and Diderot's actions would have destroyed Christianity instead of cheering Catholics destruction, it should be a big hint as to just HOW big of a threat to Christianity Voltaire and Diderot were.

I get that Dwight disagreed with Voltaire.

This whole site is dedicated to the idea that contemporary writers and artists who have great respect for and see themselves as following in the footsteps of men like Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Lee, Kirby and Ditko are actually misappropriating these men's great creations for other false ends. If that is possible, isn't it equally possible that the French Revolutionaries, even if they see themselves as Voltaire's heirs, are not being true to his ideas?

I am not sure I understand your point about the cartoon though. Lovers and close friends are allowed liberties you don't give to others. That is not hypocrisy. But I have not seen the whole cartoon, so it is hard to make sense of it. (Thanks for introducing me to the phrase marshmallow hell though; but shouldn't it be marshmallow heaven?)

Posted by Anonymous | 8:58 PM

"This whole site is dedicated to the idea that contemporary writers and artists who have great respect for and see themselves as following in the footsteps of men like Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Lee, Kirby and Ditko are actually misappropriating these men's great creations for other false ends. If that is possible, isn't it equally possible that the French Revolutionaries, even if they see themselves as Voltaire's heirs, are not being true to his ideas?"

Unlike with Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Ditko, Kirby, or even Lee (I'm not entirely sure on the last one, since he was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter and may have helped with her illegal fundraising attempts), who actually DID have quite a bit of evidence of their never supporting the crap that is going on in comics right now (including overusage of Nazis as an allegory to conservative thought or making Captain America anti-American since around the time of the War on Terror), Voltaire and Diderot more than made clear their intentions of destroying the church in their private writings and even personal sayings. A more apt comparison for Voltaire and Diderot would be more like Lenin and various other Communists seeing themselves as the heirs to Karl Marx, who BTW openly advocated slaughtering everyone in explicit comparisons to the Reign of Terror.

"I am not sure I understand your point about the cartoon though. Lovers and close friends are allowed liberties you don't give to others. That is not hypocrisy. But I have not seen the whole cartoon, so it is hard to make sense of it. (Thanks for introducing me to the phrase marshmallow hell though; but shouldn't it be marshmallow heaven?)"

None of the girls could really be called lovers, though, unless you consider them to be lesbians (though that being said, that might explain their awful treatment of Keitaru, not to mention hypocritical treatment at that). And the only explicit exceptions to the whole "don't expose your bodies to others" are to your spouse, your parents, and your doctor/caretaker, and of them, only the spouse allows for sexual reasons for the exposure. Not even close friends are allowed that liberty, not under God's definition or Christianity's definition, anyway.

Posted by eotness | 4:03 AM

Japan is not a Christian society and never has been. Christians are a very small minority there. But even in Christianity, taboos on nudity are not always that extreme. There is, for example, a long tradition of church sponsored artwork that could never exist without the use of nude models. If you were right about Christianity's rules, we would not have the Sistine chapel.

There is no explicit thou shalt not expose rule in scripture, so there can be no explicit exceptions to it.

Posted by Anonymous | 5:10 AM

There is little comparison of conservative thought to nazism in comics. There are a lot of people who see echoes of hitler in Donald Trump, who is right wing but far from conservative. His anti immigrant creed, his ethos that people of white European descent are more American than other Americans, his sense of grievance, his willingness to use excessive state force against opponents, his adoption of the Bundist slogan of America First!, his appeal to people who are losing out because of economic change, even his coming to power with a minority of the popular vote, all are reminders of Hitler circa early 1930s.

Posted by Anonymous | 5:21 AM

"There is little comparison of conservative thought to nazism in comics. There are a lot of people who see echoes of hitler in Donald Trump, who is right wing but far from conservative. His anti immigrant creed, his ethos that people of white European descent are more American than other Americans, his sense of grievance, his willingness to use excessive state force against opponents, his adoption of the Bundist slogan of America First!, his appeal to people who are losing out because of economic change, even his coming to power with a minority of the popular vote, all are reminders of Hitler circa early 1930s."

Anyone who compares Trump to Hitler is delusional. Period.

Posted by AgentofSHIELD | 9:41 AM

Tell that to the Holocaust survivors who have been getting flashbacks to early.Nazi Berlin since Trump took power.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/382270-holocaust-survivor-america-under-trump-feels-like-1929-berlin

https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/opinion/tahoe-holocaust-survivor-trump-administration-actions-starting-to-resemble-hitlers-germany-opinion/

https://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/11/17/holocaust-survivors-hitler-trump/

Among many others. If they recognize similarities, you should give it serious consideration.

There are obvious differences - Hitler was a better orator, and more concerned with destiny than his own personal fortune - but the similarities are there too.

Posted by Anonymous | 10:44 AM

Again, you're delusional, and so is anyone who thinks he's similar to Hitler.

Posted by AgentofSHIELD | 10:55 AM

"There is little comparison of conservative thought to nazism in comics. There are a lot of people who see echoes of hitler in Donald Trump, who is right wing but far from conservative."

Don't try to be cute with me. Conservative and Right Wing are one and the same, as this site makes clear here:

https://conservapedia.com/Conservative#Conservatives_in_continental_Europe

https://conservapedia.com/Right-wing_politics#Conservatism

Besides, every Republican President since either Nixon or Eisenhower has often been called the next reincarnation of Hitler by our LSM.

"His anti immigrant creed"

He's not anti-immigrant, he's anti ILLEGAL immigration. Besides, if he were truly anti-immigrant, wouldn't he, I don't know, nuke every single country outside the United States and make sure that, other than the USA itself, no humans exist on Earth? That's how I would operate if I were truly anti-immigration of ANY sort.

"his ethos that people of white European descent are more American than other Americans"

Last I checked, he only inferred that Americans who either were born into the country via legal immigration, or at a bare minimum were naturalized citizens, were more American, not necessarily their being white. Heck, if anything, he helped a lot of black americans and legal latinos get jobs.

"his sense of grievance"

You mean you and your left's sense of grievance, right?

"his willingness to use excessive state force against opponents"

Didn't Obama use the IRS to conduct witchunts on conservatives, last I checked?

"his adoption of the Bundist slogan of America First!"

George Washington called for America first way back when the French Revolution was occurring. Should we call him a proto-Nazi/Hitler admirer?

"his appeal to people who are losing out because of economic change"

How the heck does that make him more like Hitler? Most people would need to appeal to people who are losing out because of economic change.

"even his coming to power with a minority of the popular vote, all are reminders of Hitler circa early 1930s."

Seriously? Hitler didn't even get any votes, he was merely appointed by Hindenberg due to essentially being forced to and partly due to being senile. Not to mention America does not choose its presidents by the majority vote, it goes by the Electoral College. If you actually studied the Constitution, you'd realize that.

"Tell that to the Holocaust survivors who have been getting flashbacks to early.Nazi Berlin since Trump took power."

Oh, sure, citing those articles. I can cite plenty of articles where former Holocaust victims compared Barack Obama to Hitler if you so desire:

*https://yesimright.com/holocaust-survivor-explains-how-obama-loving-democrats-and-hitler-have-the-same-evil-plan/

*https://www.wnd.com/2014/05/hitler-survivor-obama-making-u-s-totalitarian/

https://trueconservativepundit.com/2014/05/08/holocaust-survivor-says-obamas-america-identical-to-hitlers-germany/

https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html

If anyone was more like Hitler, it's Barack Obama.

Posted by eotness | 4:45 AM

Conservatives believe that change should be made cautiously, that there is worth in stability and traditional values. They distrust mass popular movements.

Right wing populists believe in radical change, shaking things up, and that traditional values are for show and for the masses, not for themselves. They stir up mass popular movements.

Hitler got 44% of the popular vote in 1933.

George supported the French Revolution but did not involve America militarily in helping the new republic, maintaining neutrality. He did not have a slogan of America First!

And don't you remember Trump telling American citizens, elected representatives, one of whose family had been in the country longer than Trump's, to go back where they came from? Trump has put new limits on legal immigration; he is anti immigrant in general, except maybe from Scandinavian countries.

Posted by Anonymous | 6:00 AM

"Oh, sure, citing those articles. I can cite plenty of articles where former Holocaust victims compared Barack Obama to Hitler if you so desire:"

'Eotness', Of the four articles you mention, two have nothing to do with Holocaust victims, and the other two are about a single survivor, the same one in both articles, who doesn't like Obama. It is not exactly convincing evidence. It is as if you did not read any of the articles before you put them into your post.

Posted by Anonymous | 3:14 PM

"Conservatives believe that change should be made cautiously, that there is worth in stability and traditional values. They distrust mass popular movements.

Right wing populists believe in radical change, shaking things up, and that traditional values are for show and for the masses, not for themselves. They stir up mass popular movements."

While Trump himself may not be Conservative so much as Liberal Moderate, he still chose Conservative policies over liberal ones, so he's still more conservative in my book.

Also, you are aware that with the definition you gave of Right-Wing, you just called Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Che Guevara, the Clintons, Bernie Sanders, Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, and Noam Chomsky right-wing, right? Even though they're left wing. After all, they believed in radical change, shaking things up, and that traditional values are at best for show and definitely not for themselves.

"Hitler got 44% of the popular vote in 1933."

The popular vote wasn't even a factor in how he gained office, it was actually because he was appointed into the position by Hindenburg due to being forced to do so. In fact, in 1933, he and his Brownshirts antics actually had him LOSING votes by that point. Besides, Trump won the Electoral College, fair and square, and it's the ELECTORAL COLLEGE that matters, not the popular vote. Doesn't Civics teach ANYTHING these days!?

"George supported the French Revolution but did not involve America militarily in helping the new republic, maintaining neutrality. He did not have a slogan of America First!"

He might have supported them enough to accept a key from the Bastille during the first diplomatic visit (which I suspect is more due to communications being delayed during that time), but by the time of the September Massacres, he and most of the Founding Fathers save for Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine certainly stopped supporting them (if they even supported them to begin with, as John Adams certainly had them pegged from the start as being bad despite never setting foot in France). Heck, in Washington's case, he outright condemned the Jacobins as basically being part of the Illuminati as well: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4660-a-primer-on-the-illuminati

And whether he used the literal words are irrelevent, it's still pretty clear he adhered to the intended message by choosing America's interests over France's and the UK's (it even caused Jefferson to call Washington an "apostate of Liberty"). And for the record, THAT was what Trump meant by America First!, not the German American Bund (which if anything was more like "Germany First").

Posted by eotness | 3:15 AM

"And don't you remember Trump telling American citizens, elected representatives, one of whose family had been in the country longer than Trump's, to go back where they came from? Trump has put new limits on legal immigration; he is anti immigrant in general, except maybe from Scandinavian countries."

If you're referring to Ted Cruz, it literally doesn't matter if he was born to naturalized American citizens. If he was born out of country, or even outside of American soil (ie, something like an embassy or even an American military base if we must define American soil loosely), he's not a naturalized citizen. The Founding Fathers were very clear on that bit.

"'Eotness', Of the four articles you mention, two have nothing to do with Holocaust victims, and the other two are about a single survivor, the same one in both articles, who doesn't like Obama. It is not exactly convincing evidence. It is as if you did not read any of the articles before you put them into your post."

Actually, all four dealt with Holocaust victims, and if anything I cited TWO holocaust victims. One of them was Kitty Werthmann, the other, listed in the other three articles, was Anita Dittman. And for the record, the latter had a documentary of her time in Nazi Germany called "My Time in Hitler's Hell", released around the same time she made those comparisons. And besides, didn't you say earlier that you must give serious consideration to Holocaust survivors if they accused Trump of being Hitler? I'm pretty sure that means you must use the same rationale for Obama, then, if you wish to be consistent in that argument. Heck, Dittman if anything even gave a sound reasonable argument on how Trump COULDN'T have been Hitler reincarnated as well: https://thenewamerican.com/holocaust-survivor-leftists-calling-trump-hitler-are-crazy/

Kitty Werthmann isn't a holocaust survivor. She lived in Vienna while Austria was under German control during the war, but was never targeted for persecution by the nazis. She was a tea partier, but I saw no comparison of Obama with hitter in the two articles about her that are listed.

Posted by Anonymous | 4:07 AM

I wasn't thinking of Ted Cruz, although trump definitely leveled a lot of insults his way too. I was thinking of the remarks he leveled against Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley:

"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

Of course, three of those four were born on US soil, and Presley's family has been in the US longer than Trump's family, on either his mother's or his father's side. But their skin is darker than Trump's natural coloring. Hard not to see racism and distaste for even lawful immigration in those tweets.

Posted by Anonymous | 6:11 AM

Eotness wrote that:

"The popular vote wasn't even a factor in how [Hitler] gained office, it was actually because he was appointed into the position by Hindenburg due to being forced to do so. In fact, in 1933, he and his Brownshirts antics actually had him LOSING votes by that point. Besides, Trump won the Electoral College, fair and square, and it's the ELECTORAL COLLEGE that matters, not the popular vote. Doesn't Civics teach ANYTHING these days!?"

I think that what you do not understand is that the German Weimar Republic was basically a parliamentary democracy; the usual pattern is that the leader of the party that gets the most seats in Parliament is given the chance to form a government. In Germany, that meant the President appointed the leader of the winning party as Chancellor. If no party gains an absolute majority, the President gives the largest party leader an opportunity to form a coalition, then if that doesn't work another party leader gets to try to form a working coalition with other smaller parties. So President Hindenberg's appointment of Hitler was grounded in the results of the Parliamentary election, and the popular vote.

In the US the Electoral College chooses the presidency, but when the choice does not reflect the popular vote, it undermines the legitimacy of the choice, and of the electoral college. In any event, that does not have anything to do with one of the many points of similarity between Hitler and Trump: that both won power in a democracy without winning the popular vote due to quirks in the democratic system. Trump was always a minority taste, whose popularity ratings never reached 50% except perhaps in the first flush of his 2016 victory.

Posted by Anonymous | 7:51 AM

"Kitty Werthmann isn't a holocaust survivor. She lived in Vienna while Austria was under German control during the war, but was never targeted for persecution by the nazis. She was a tea partier, but I saw no comparison of Obama with hitter in the two articles about her that are listed."

Well, of course you don't. You pretty much agree with him and deem any conservative (not RINOs, but genuine conservatives) to be Hitler. You've made that far too clear in prior posts. You guys did it with the Bushes, you guys did it with Nixon, etc., etc.

"Of course, three of those four were born on US soil, and Presley's family has been in the US longer than Trump's family, on either his mother's or his father's side. But their skin is darker than Trump's natural coloring. Hard not to see racism and distaste for even lawful immigration in those tweets."

He certainly had no problem with Ben Carson, who last I checked had darker skin than those four, AND had most likely had his family live in America far longer than Pressley ever did. Besides, living in America or even staying in America longer than someone else =/= liking America. Take Michel Foucault for example. That guy spent far more time in America than Alex de Tocqueville did in his lifetime, yet the latter actually spoke positively about America in his limited stay there, while Foucault pretty much made it clear multiple times that he was at best aloof to America and at worst fundamentally hated the country (probably the closest Foucault gave to a genuine compliment towards America was that America was even more sexually liberated than Europe was).

Posted by eotness | 5:59 PM

"I think that what you do not understand is that the German Weimar Republic was basically a parliamentary democracy; the usual pattern is that the leader of the party that gets the most seats in Parliament is given the chance to form a government. In Germany, that meant the President appointed the leader of the winning party as Chancellor. If no party gains an absolute majority, the President gives the largest party leader an opportunity to form a coalition, then if that doesn't work another party leader gets to try to form a working coalition with other smaller parties. So President Hindenberg's appointment of Hitler was grounded in the results of the Parliamentary election, and the popular vote."

That wasn't even close to the reason why Hitler took power. As a matter of fact, Hindenburg actually REFUSED to confer the chancellorship to Hitler in large part because of the SA's behavior, and thanks to Hitler stupidly threatening to unleash three days of rioting and getting scolded at by Hindenburg, not to mention the SA and Communists engaging in literal street battles that caused a lot of carnage, the Nazis lost votes overtime. In fact, a large part of the reason why Hindenburg even decided to make Hitler chancellor was because he grew scared about a possible military coup by Schleicher, a false rumor that most likely was orchestrated by the Nazis. Read this if you don't believe me: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

I can tell you one thing, Hitler certainly never got in by votes, nor did his party, even when they DID get a majority.

"In the US the Electoral College chooses the presidency, but when the choice does not reflect the popular vote, it undermines the legitimacy of the choice, and of the electoral college. In any event, that does not have anything to do with one of the many points of similarity between Hitler and Trump: that both won power in a democracy without winning the popular vote due to quirks in the democratic system. Trump was always a minority taste, whose popularity ratings never reached 50% except perhaps in the first flush of his 2016 victory."

Actually, the Electoral College was in place specifically to AVOID reflecting the popular vote, and such was done by design by the Founding Fathers. They specifically wanted to avoid a democracy in order to ensure America didn't become like Ancient Greece, or even the French Revolution to use then-contemporary events. Besides, Hillary only won the "popular vote" due to illegal voters.

And even IF you were completely correct regarding Hitler comparisons, which you are not, Hitler comparisons got old a long time ago, and if anything, I can easily point to Lenin, who actually got in despite up and out LOSING the elections via engineering a coup: https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-lenins-bolsheviks-brought-communism-to-russia_2241179.html

Posted by eotness | 6:06 PM

What really got old a long time ago is the claim that Clinton won the popular vote due to illegal voting. Prexy Trump appointed a commission to investigate and substantiate that claim, then closed down the commission when it did not find any evidence.

But, convicted and pardoned criminal Michael Flynn is urging Donald Trump to "temporarily" suspend the constitution and declare martial law in order to hold a new election that would choose Trump instead of Biden. You know, what they used to call treason and insurrection and a coup. So maybe you are right and that Lenin comparison to Trump is not so far off after all.

Posted by Anonymous | 5:39 AM

"Well, of course you don't. You pretty much agree with him and deem any conservative (not RINOs, but genuine conservatives) to be Hitler. You've made that far too clear in prior posts. You guys did it with the Bushes, you guys did it with Nixon, etc., etc."

The Bushes and Nixon were all what you would call a RINO; the Republican Party leadership had been all RINO since at least the Second World War, with the exception maybe of Goldwater. Nixon at the end of his presidency, when everything was closing in on him, can seem a little like Hitler in his bunker as the war drew to a close and the Allies were closing in; but otherwise, he was nothing like Hitler. On a lot of issues, his policies were more liberal and big-state than anything that would be acceptable to post-2015 Republicans; he passed major environmental legislation, enacted wage and price controls in peace time, and opened up diplomacy with Communist China.

The Bushes don't seem anything like Hitler. They were very patrician, the kind of thing Hitler hated.

None of them were anything like Trump. So I cannot agree with you, and don't think there is any ground of comparison.

Oh well, at least we seem to now be in agreement that Kitty Werthmann isn't a holocaust survivor. It would have been decent of you to actually acknowledge that msinformation.

Posted by Anonymous | 5:59 AM

"Foucault pretty much made it clear multiple times that he was at best aloof to America and at worst fundamentally hated the country (probably the closest Foucault gave to a genuine compliment towards America was that America was even more sexually liberated than Europe was)."

I dunno - coming from Foucault, that is a high compliment indeed! He seemed to like America; because of the sexual liberation, and also because he wasn't as well-recognized on the street in New York or San Francisco as he was in Paris, so he could get away from being a celebrity when he spent time in the States. You are right that he spent a lot of time in the US.

Posted by Anonymous | 6:10 AM

"The Bushes and Nixon were all what you would call a RINO; the Republican Party leadership had been all RINO since at least the Second World War, with the exception maybe of Goldwater. Nixon at the end of his presidency, when everything was closing in on him, can seem a little like Hitler in his bunker as the war drew to a close and the Allies were closing in; but otherwise, he was nothing like Hitler. On a lot of issues, his policies were more liberal and big-state than anything that would be acceptable to post-2015 Republicans; he passed major environmental legislation, enacted wage and price controls in peace time, and opened up diplomacy with Communist China.

The Bushes don't seem anything like Hitler. They were very patrician, the kind of thing Hitler hated."

Trust me, you leftists always denounced those guys and Reagan as being "the next Hitler," regardless of whether they were RINOs or not. For goodness sakes, George Lucas called Nixon a fascist and even modeled the Empire partly on him. And he pretty much did the same thing with George W. Bush, and there was even an ABC ad that basically depicted Bush as Darth Sidious.

"Oh well, at least we seem to now be in agreement that Kitty Werthmann isn't a holocaust survivor. It would have been decent of you to actually acknowledge that msinformation."

I don't recall actually agreeing with you on that bit. And for the record, that article made it very clear she was a holocaust survivor, and just so we're clear, Christians weren't exempt from the Holocaust, as there were plenty that got killed in the Holocaust. One of our Catholic saints died in a Concentration camp, for example.

"What really got old a long time ago is the claim that Clinton won the popular vote due to illegal voting. Prexy Trump appointed a commission to investigate and substantiate that claim, then closed down the commission when it did not find any evidence."

Really? Because this source says differently: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-report-exposes-thousands-illegal-votes-2016-election

"But, convicted and pardoned criminal Michael Flynn is urging Donald Trump to "temporarily" suspend the constitution and declare martial law in order to hold a new election that would choose Trump instead of Biden. You know, what they used to call treason and insurrection and a coup. So maybe you are right and that Lenin comparison to Trump is not so far off after all."

Well, I wasn't actually comparing Trump to Lenin. If anything, the Democrats were more like Lenin in that regard.

Posted by eotness | 6:03 PM

"I dunno - coming from Foucault, that is a high compliment indeed! He seemed to like America; because of the sexual liberation, and also because he wasn't as well-recognized on the street in New York or San Francisco as he was in Paris, so he could get away from being a celebrity when he spent time in the States. You are right that he spent a lot of time in the US."

This was the same guy who decried America as being no different from Stalin's Russia, basically denounced America as a police state with mass surveillance (while conveniently ignoring Iran's constant mass surveilance under the Ayatollahs), and viewed true freedom as being akin to the September Massacres where people killed each other for a sick laugh. He definitely didn't like America in the slightest, as Dinesh D'Souza, who fun fact actually had to escort him to one of his lectures during his time in college, AND around the time Foucault was dying from AIDS, mind you, pointed out: https://www.wnd.com/2014/08/america-exceptionally-good-or-exceptionally-evil/ Heck, forget anti-American, Foucault was up and out anti-Western Civilization, probably even hated his own home country of France most likely.

Posted by eotness | 6:07 PM

Anita Dittman, one of the two women you mention, was a Christian survivor of the holocaust. She had a Jewish mother and so was considered racially Jewish under nazi law. Edith Stein, who converted to Catholicism and was later canonized, was one of hundreds of Jewish converts who were killed in concentration camps.

Kitty Werthmann, the other woman you described as a survivor, was a girl who lived in Vienna when the nazis took over Austria. She was a witness to history, but she was not one of the persecuted. Articles about her often try to fudge this by calling her a survivor of Hitler, or of the nazi invasion, or of the war. But she was definitely not a holocaust survivor. She was no different from any ethnic German who lived in Austria as far as the Third Reich was concerned.

Posted by fred | 7:08 AM

Okay, fine. I did find another Holocaust Survivor, an actual one at that, who compared Obama to Hitler, though, even wrote a letter on the subject:

https://1phil4everyill.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/holocaust-survivor-warns-of-obama-becoming-the-next-hitler/

Posted by eotness | 7:16 AM

This third survivor, "Lori Kalner", is a character in a series of novels. Supposedly they're based on a real person, who wrote the letter you give the url for, but she uses the name of the fictional character as a pseudonym, so her real name is unknown. She appears to be the daughter of a Christian minister and is a devout Christian. I have not read the novel, but from what little is known about the person on whom the fictional character may have been based she seems to be like Kitty Werthmann, someone whose life was uprooted in the hitler years but not a member of one of the categories of people who were persecuted and not a holocaust survivor.

The similarity she saw between Hitler and Obama was that they were both charismatic and both, in her eyes if not those of others, had similar ideas about abortion. And little girls sang songs for them. That is about it.

Posted by fred | 10:19 AM

Still more similarities between Obama and Hitler than there were between Trump and Hitler, which was the point behind my messages due to that anon trying to get clever and claiming that no one in comics tried to bash Conservatives and claim they were Nazis (a lie, as even Ari pointed out how they bashed every Republican president as being an evil Nazi since Nixon in another post a while back) and tried to claim that Right Wing and Conservatives aren't the same thing (which they actually are the same, as even Conservapedia made clear).

Posted by eotness | 11:04 AM

Eotness disputed " what really got old a long time ago is the claim that Clinton won the popular vote due to illegal voting. Prexy Trump appointed a commission to investigate and substantiate that claim, then closed down the commission when it did not find any evidence."

Saying instead that

"Really? Because this source says differently: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-report-exposes-thousands-illegal-votes-2016-election"

However, that source does not say differently. It does not say anything about the findings of the president's election integrity commission, which was just getting underway when the article was written. Instead, it talks about some alleged findings of a private partisan group organized by the guy who wrote the Clinton Cash book. That source does not have anything to challenge the fact that the president's commission was disbanded without finding any fraud.

Posted by Anonymous | 8:44 PM

It certainly shows there was in fact actual widespread voter fraud, and if that's not enough, even Detroit News admitted that voter fraud was rampant in Michigan: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

And just because he closed the commission doesn't mean there wasn't widespread voter fraud. Should we say Bill Clinton was faithful to his wife before Monica Lewinsky just because no one actually proved he committed serial adultery? Besides, my definition of "lack of evidence" would be literally no evidence, as in, nothing even posted by Heritage Foundation or other sources. I know if it were me in the commission, the Heritage Foundation's evidence would be all I need to start convicting, and even be done by the end of the week. Heck, if I were a judge, even a Clinton Judge, and saw the evidence from the Heritage foundation, I'd say "I don't care if I owe my job to Hillary, she committed fraud, I'm ruling her guilty due to the evidence presented." Since that's what justice and the law is all about.

Posted by eotness | 4:06 AM

Good thing you are not a judge! There is a thresh-hold before some evidence becomes sufficient evidence. Especially for a criminal charge, where you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

Lack of evidence means some evidence is missing or there is not enough evidence, not that there is no evidence.

The very partisan report you originally cited seemed to confuse voter fraud with opportunity for fraud. It found evidence that voter lists were not fully updated, so that one person might, for example, be registered twice, once at an old address and once at a new address, or a dead person was not removed from the roll. That does not mean the person voted twice. They might have been able to do so if they had wanted to, although that might well have been caught at the poll booth stage if they had tried. If the report had really found actual cases of voter fraud in 2016, they would have reported them to the authorities and charges could have been laid.

Posted by Anonymous | 10:16 AM

Are you still babbling, Anonymous? Well, then, I have but one response to your nonsense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsBnTUwJgio

Posted by AgentofSHIELD | 10:41 AM

Circling back to manga, I'm guessing the concept of slapstick is a foreign language to you guys? Still, here's something more interesting than someone using the same body designs over and over again for different series in a portfolio: https://www.deviantart.com/devilkais/art/One-word-about-GUNNM-299327365
https://www.deviantart.com/devilkais/art/GUNNM-Tribute-306226832
https://www.deviantart.com/devilkais/journal/My-Favourite-mangas-list-305805639

Posted by Anonymous | 6:52 PM