July 26, 2006
All eliminationist rhetoric is not equal
I'd like to examine what I consider to be a textbook example of genuine eliminationist rhetoric. (As opposed to the highly questionable variety discussed by Rick Moran.)
I found the above picture at a post by Tammy Bruce titled "Hezbollah Among Us."
Calls for destruction of Israel and the Jews are nothing new, and had the same picture had been taken in any number of places in the Mideast, it wouldn't be all that newsworthy.
But -- it was taken at a demonstration in New York.
In this country, advocacy of genocide is normally thought of as a right wing phenomenon. Had the above people been wearing Nazi uniforms, they'd have almost certainly been greeted by huge and angry counterdemonstrations, like those which greeted the uniformed Nazis here. As it happens, I consider advocates of genocide against Jews to be on the right, but it really doesn't matter whether they're considered on the left or the right. They are engaged, quite literally, in eliminationist rhetoric.
So why is it that this literal eliminationist rhetoric -- advocacy, right here in the United States, of genocide against the Jews -- would not be called eliminationist rhetoric by the people who routinely use the term against the likes of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh? (Or would it? Please enlighten me if my suspicions are wrong.)
Is it because "eliminationist rhetoric" is some sort of leftist code language? Frankly, I think it would be more likely that Tammy Bruce would be accused of using "ER" simply for suggesting that the genocide advocates be deported:
This is one example where everyone at this rally carrying signs calling for Israel's destruction and are sympathetic to Hezbollah should be considered supporters of the enemy, arrested and interrogated. And then, of course, either jailed or deported. And if they have somehow managed to become citizens of the United States, they should be stripped of that honor and then deported back to the pit from whence they came.Take another look at that picture. If the same people were from Germany and they were wearing Nazi uniforms, wouldn't there be an outcry to deport them?
I think there would be. Even though we're no longer at war with Germany, but we are at war with international terrorists.
Or am I missing something?
MORE: My confusion may touch on the definition of "genocide." As Glenn Reynolds observes, all genocide is not equal:
... in lefty newspeak, "genocide" is a code word meaning "self-defense" . . .But - but - but. Exterminating Jews as self defense?
Well, yes. There was a film with precisely that theme.
(Um, wouldn't that be "oldspeak" then?)
UPDATE: My "extremest" thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post!
Fascists organizations often have an imperial restorationist rhetorical pitch and political platform. Mussolini certainly did and Bin Laden does.
posted by Eric on 07.26.06 at 10:46 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood