Eliminationist Rhetoric
Jan. 12th, 2006 03:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI complain about the way the Right speaks of the left.
Then I see things like this:
That, my friends is one of a line of products (coffee mugs to baseball caps, hoodies and softball shirts) all sporting the same thing. I look at that, and wonder where the idea that such a thing is acceptable to wear in public might come from. It's right up there with Liberal Hunting Permits
For more on that, see this piece of Orcinus.
People will defend this, say it's meant as a joke (never mind that when the tables are turned and someone on the Left tries to make a point in the same vein, and obviously; to me at least, in a satiric vein, the people who were saying Liberals ought to be strung up like, "strange fruit," are all of a sudden calling out the FBI (Dean Esmay which was a response to this. The contextual post of Sadly No can be seen here)
But it isn't, it's part and parcel of an environment of active hatred. One person, maybe a whack-job. A lot of people, might be a group of whack jobs, but when the people they are attacking make up a large group, and the people who have bully pulpits are some of those who do the inciting, and those who claim this is the fruit of a few bad apples don't take those bad apples to task, in fact continue to pay them large sums of money and give them access to the airwaves... then I must assume that, at the very least they don't care if one group is actively inciting another to go out and abuse the other. I might even be justified in thinking they wanted such a thing to happen.
Perhaps they think it will intimidate the oppostition. Perhaps they actually want (as Coulter said) some liberal to be killed, so the rest of us will know it can happen and shut up.
For a list of those who've said such things, and the things they've said (and this politicians in office, former politicians, religious leaders, pundits and and the like. These are names. People who can't really be brushed under the rug with, "nobody listens to them," because people do; and in the millions. Some of the people who listen to them think them worth electing as Representatives and Senators (one of my favorites, if that's the right word) is Phil Grahm saying, "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." and not in some back room, but in an interview with Mother Jones.
Or this gem from John Derbyshire, "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- National Review, 02-15-01
For more, go to Paperweight's Fair Shot
Then I see things like this:
That, my friends is one of a line of products (coffee mugs to baseball caps, hoodies and softball shirts) all sporting the same thing. I look at that, and wonder where the idea that such a thing is acceptable to wear in public might come from. It's right up there with Liberal Hunting Permits
For more on that, see this piece of Orcinus.
People will defend this, say it's meant as a joke (never mind that when the tables are turned and someone on the Left tries to make a point in the same vein, and obviously; to me at least, in a satiric vein, the people who were saying Liberals ought to be strung up like, "strange fruit," are all of a sudden calling out the FBI (Dean Esmay which was a response to this. The contextual post of Sadly No can be seen here)
But it isn't, it's part and parcel of an environment of active hatred. One person, maybe a whack-job. A lot of people, might be a group of whack jobs, but when the people they are attacking make up a large group, and the people who have bully pulpits are some of those who do the inciting, and those who claim this is the fruit of a few bad apples don't take those bad apples to task, in fact continue to pay them large sums of money and give them access to the airwaves... then I must assume that, at the very least they don't care if one group is actively inciting another to go out and abuse the other. I might even be justified in thinking they wanted such a thing to happen.
Perhaps they think it will intimidate the oppostition. Perhaps they actually want (as Coulter said) some liberal to be killed, so the rest of us will know it can happen and shut up.
For a list of those who've said such things, and the things they've said (and this politicians in office, former politicians, religious leaders, pundits and and the like. These are names. People who can't really be brushed under the rug with, "nobody listens to them," because people do; and in the millions. Some of the people who listen to them think them worth electing as Representatives and Senators (one of my favorites, if that's the right word) is Phil Grahm saying, "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." and not in some back room, but in an interview with Mother Jones.
Or this gem from John Derbyshire, "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- National Review, 02-15-01
For more, go to Paperweight's Fair Shot
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Liberal Propagandists
Date: 2006-01-17 10:36 pm (UTC)I can't speak for all of them, but the one's I know are sincere. The NOW Chapter in Lompoc has a weekly protest of the War.
Every six weeks, or so, they get together afterwards and mail out about 60 care packages.
There's a church group in Los Osos that does the same.
TK
Re: Liberal Propagandists
Date: 2006-01-17 10:41 pm (UTC)Yes. Because it feeds on stereotype.
Trivia Question, who has perpetrated more terrorism in the US, Islamic types, leftish types, or rightish types?
The Islamic type are at the bottom.
Are the people with those "terrorist hunting permits going to think Eric Rudolph looks suspicious, and shoot him? Did they think it was a white guy who blew up the Murraugh Building in Oklahoma?
What about the guys in Texas who were trying to deliver bombs loaded with sodium cyanide. They were born again Christians.
The Weather Underground, they were suburban kids.
But the folks with those "permits (all number, 9-11) are planning to worry about brown folks, and other, "un-American" types. It's the rhetoric of demonising. It lets them practice bigotry in public.
It's wrong.
TK
Re: Liberal Propagandists
Date: 2006-01-19 02:34 am (UTC)When you say who perpetrated more. Are you asking number of operations? Number of casualties?
If you say number of operations, then I must say that fringe right has perpetrated more operations. These include the operation rescue, shooting doctors, firebombing abortion clinics etc.
Probably followed by fringe left with ALF, PETA, driving spikes into threes to prevent deforestation etc.
Also do you mean currently? or historically? Currently, the McVeigh types are probably in the lead. Historically? Maybe the WU and BP were pretty busy.
When you say terrorism, do you include criminal activities that terrorize the populace? If you include that, then I guess gangs (apolitical groups) might take the lead.
But if you mean numbers of casualties, I think that the Islamo-fascists are in the lead. I do not have statistics, so I cannot back up what I think is correct, and my mind has been changed many times with a valid argument (you know that). New York, Washington D.C. Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran... many operations against our interests with many, many casualties.
Terrorist Hunting Permits (along with Liberal ones) are a way to vent. Like the protest signs against the war, these permits (and t-shirts) are a way for people to support their causes without actually doing anything about it. Like magnetic yellow ribbons in cars, they do not a thing to actually alleviate the situation. We are such a fascist/racist nation, that after 9-11, maybe one person died from revenge (and he wasn't even an Arab).
Want to hear something funny? My roommate is from Iraq. He can travel freely within our borders, be gainfully employed, enjoy the freedoms our country stands for, and even joke with me (the fascist army guy) about how fucked up things are in Iraq, and how badly we are handling things.
Besides the morally superior elite in Europe, I find it very difficult to name countries that would allow something like this to take place.
So, we are not as bad as many people think. We could be better, but overall, we are not a bad people. I cannot say that about everybody (some people in the administration come to mind), but I can say it with certainty that the majority of the "American" people, are pretty squared away.
My two cents plus a quarter.
Re: Liberal Propagandists
Date: 2006-01-19 02:18 am (UTC)I remember the first demonstration I saw after returning from over there. Broadway and Brand in Glendale, CA. Nice group of people. Expressing their feelings and opinions in a free environment (I kept thinking how this would have turned out if it was during Saddam's regime, in Baghdad).
A nice old lady had a big sign that said: "Support Our Troops". I kind of giggled. I approached her to thank her for such a great sign. We chatted a while, she found out where I've been, and I asked her what organization she belonged to. I also asked what steps were they taking to "Support Our Troops". She said that demonstrating against the Bush Regime was all she needed/wanted to do. I asked her how many letters to the troops she or her organizations have written, how many care packages they've sent, etc...
What I am saying with this is: sitting in a corner with a placard will accomplish nothing. Be it a right wing loonie or a left wing psycho, without action, nothing happens. Granted, a placard shows dissent, it spreads the message, it shows unity. But in the end, its just the egoists way, a way that makes you feel all warm and fussy, like you accomplished something, but only shows how arrogant you truly are, so sophisticated and more in tune with whats going on.
I am not saying that the troops need to be showered with care packages and letters of approval. We have the system for that (the military and our families). But if they are going to politicize my profession, then at least show some effort.
So it is refreshing to hear that these people in Lompoc put their money where their mouth is (same thing with the church in Los Osos).