Monday, January 30, 2017

There Is No Rational Reason And Certainly No Moral One For Groups With A Record of Murdering Thousands and Millions To Be Allowed Free Association To Spread Their Poison - Hate Mail

Well, there's one big difference between me and the libertarian-liberals such as Duncan Black and Nat Hentoff, I think it's sheer idiocy, on the basis of a bunch of words put on paper by 18th century, slaveholding, landstealing, Indian murdering aristocrats, to think that we must permit such ideologies as Nazism the opportunities that the First Amendment has given them.  The idiocy of our Constitution - next to impossible to amend in any important way - is that the lessons learned at such a horrific cost of how dangerous some ideologies can get, now many tens of millions and more they can murder, how many billions they can oppress and enslave - those lessons are not to be learned and those groups not to be suppressed so they can't get a second chance to do it again.  Nazism, Marxism, fascism of various sorts, white supremacy, and, let's not forget one of the the most effective of all ideologies that have effected a reign of terror and oppression, male supremacy.

During the Rwanda genocide, as the rapid murder of the minority by a majority incited to kill by radio, was at its most bloody, Bill Clinton's administration refused so much as jam, the dictator-genocidalist's radio station that was instructing killers how to find their victims because of "freedom of the press".  Reading about that shameful, insane, stupid and cowardly inaction might have been the beginning of my skepticism on such absolutism.  The elevation of the imaginary rights of untrue words over the lives of people, even words instructing active killers on how to find their victims was the exact opposite of that old canard about lying to the Nazis about the hidden Jewish children.

I had someone, this weekend, when I said that Steve Bannon was a neo-Nazi installed with real power in the very White House say that he'd been a naval officer, having taken whatever oath he had to take to get that position so he wasn't dangerous.  I guess we're supposed to pretend that a white supremacist, neo-Nazi is above lying when they swear to uphold the Constitution or something. What I think it shows is that the failure to de-Nazify the American military and media was a betrayal of those people who fought to defeat Nazism and fascism and, yes, communism.  The idea that Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, etc. just be permitted to organize, publish and spread their poison, now with the support of one of our two major parties because of Tommy Jefferson and Jimmy Madison and Al Hamilton wanted to strike a pose in minor 18th century poetry is one of the stupidest mass delusions among American liberals.  There is no reason to pretend that the distinction between murderous, racist, advocates of grotesque and and, eventually, inevitably deadly inequality and people who favor equality and justice can't be made.

As things go to worse, I don't think we can avoid having an actual, genocidal, fascist if not Nazi period happening here unless we stop pretending that we can't distinguish between the National Alliance,  a group begun under the leadership of the overt advocate and promoter of genocide, the Nazi William Pierce and groups such as Pax Christi and Green Peace.   One thing the FBI is, apparently and certainly under the likes of James Comey,  more likely to target Pax Christi and Green Peace than it is a crypto-nazi "alt-right" group advocating discrimination.   The "free speech-free-press-free-association" clauses have always been applied so as to favor the the wealthy, the connected and, certainly the enemies of equality, justice and freedom.  It's way past time we gave up the pretense that they aren't used that way, even as it is pretended that distinctions between egalitarian democrats and Nazis can't possibly be made or acted on.

The maintanence of that pretense is one of the stupidest, most cowardly and irresponsible stances commonly taken on the alleged left.  I strongly suspect it was a pose promoted by Marxists who figured it would turn into opportunities for them to push their species of anti-democratic crap when it's been obvious all along that it was the fascist-Nazi brand that it would be made to favor.  And, look at the mountains murdered by Marxists, there was never any reason to give them any credit anymore than the Nazis or the Klan.   For Pete's sake, we had an inauguration concert where someone advocated lynching last week.  How many friggin' clues do you guys need?

*  This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

It was, in fact, worse than that.  The State Department said that to even jam them would violate the spirit of freedom of the press, even as they were instructing murderers of where their victims were to be found, the free-press in Rwanda murdering an average of 8,000 people a day.

Whatever the limitations of radio jamming, which clearly would have been no panacea, most of the delays Wisner cites could have been avoided if senior Administration officials had followed through. But Rwanda was not their problem. Instead justifications for standing by abounded. In early May the State Department Legal Advisor's Office issued a finding against radio jamming, citing international broadcasting agreements and the American commitment to free speech. When Bushnell raised radio jamming yet again at a meeting, one Pentagon official chided her for naiveté: "Pru, radios don't kill people. People kill people!"

13 comments:



  1. One of these things is not like the other.

    "I Will Never Again Rank Victims Of Genocide On A Scale Of Valuation -- That Idiot From Maine©"

    And...

    “I mean,
    everyone's suffering in the Holocaust including obviously all of the
    Jewish people affected, and the miserable genocide that occurred is
    something that we consider to be extraordinarily sad and something that
    can never be forgotten,” Reince Priebus said."

    Oh wait -- they're exactly the same.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, there's an enormous difference, I said that the mass slaughter of the Jews by the Nazis was something THAT MUST NEVER GO UNMENTIONED EVEN AS I SAID NONE OF THE OTHER GROUPS SLAUGHTERED MUST GO UNMENTIONED EITHER.

      Reince was making a lame excuse for the obvious Holocaust denial that the Trump regime just committed under the direction of the neo-Nazi Steve Bannon who I wouldn't only never allow as a member of any government, I said in my post, today, that his neo-Nazism should be suppressed and disallowed from gaining influence.

      I know that's a distinction that's too hard for you and Duncan's Daycare inmates, but it's real.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and, yeah, Steve, you really do only care about the Jews who they killed, don't you. You and Podhoretz.

      Delete
    3. You deny that the central point and intention of the Final Solution was to wipe out every Jew on Earth.

      That's textbook Holocaust denial. Go fuck yourself.

      Delete
    4. First, the "Final Solution" as such was to kill every Jew that the Nazis could in the Europe they intended to conquer. No doubt, the intention was to kill every Jew, everywhere, but that wasn't the "Final Solution" that you're talking about, though I doubt you know that much about it.

      Second, there were other "final solutions" that were stated before the one to murder Jews, I mentioned two of those yesterday, the disabled and the Poles. Hitler stated those years before the Wannsee Conference in 1942, he actually began the implimentation of the extermination of both groups in 1939, though he also began the murder of Jews that same year the "Final Solution" was a product of the Wannsee Conference.

      Of course, as I've documented in their own words, Charles Darwin, Ernst Haeckle and other scientists proposed the genocide of other groups, specifically, other than the disabled and the poor of Europe, non-Europeans. Of course, you don't care about any of those other groups.

      Now, of course, since they're in style, you have some regard for Muslims, but that will change at the drop of a hat if that style changes. I don't go by styles, I go by the egalitarian morality as found in the Bible and as defines real democracy.

      Delete
  2. Good lord, Sparkles -- you're not really gonna be stupid enough to try to respond to this. Wow.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stupy, I said it was a distinction you were too stupid to get, I wasn't answering it for your benefit, you're not capable of getting it.

      I'm no more impressed by Jewish chauvinism than I am for any other brand of it. It's very unJewish of you. But assholes like you and Norman come in every ethnicity.

      Delete
  3. The Final Solution. The Holocaust. == Jewish chauvinism.

    Keep it up, Sparkles. Everyone will love you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Simelian and Podhoretzian exclusivity, that ONLY the Jews murdered by the Nazis are important = Jewish chauvinism.

      I really can't be bothered to think and write down to your level of stupidity, Simps. I'm not going to do it though I know you'll lie about what was said.

      You really, truly, don't care about anyone else.

      Delete
  4. The Holocaust = Jews. If you deny that, you're a Holocaust denier. Period, full stop, end of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Document where I've ever denied that. Though I agree with those Jews who objected to the use of a Hebrew word for a religious sacrifice and rite being used to describe what the Nazis did to about six-million Jews.

      The difference between us, Stuples, is that I can keep my attention on more than one thing and you can't. Of course, since everything in the Simels' mind revolves around him, anything even slightly distant from him might as well be in an alternative universe.

      Delete
  5. You refuse to admit the centrality of Jews and anti-Semitism to the Holocaust and the Final Solution.

    Which makes you a Holocaust denier. By any reasonable standard. So fuck off and die.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've learned a lot from you, Simels, about how there really isn't much of a difference between a pathological liar and someone who is amazingly stupid.

      I never did any of those things. You, as always, have nothing left to cover your lying ass so you just lie. If the Supreme Court ruling making it difficult to sue people for libel were ever changed to make it more likely that I could sue you into the flames of hell, I'd have you served with papers. I'd also serve the guy who carries your libels.

      Delete