One of the persistent bugaboos of Equus africanus asinus americanus is the supposed "mainstreaming" of "insanity", which is to say, the occasional newspaper profile of some kooky character whom the Donk believes to be beyond the pale, a purveyor of "dangerous rhetoric" or what have you, a hate-monger, a "genocidal maniac." Now I will stipulate that Pam Geller is an hysterical ninny, and yet I want to offer up a challenge to La Digs: compare the number of Muslims killed by Pam Geller to the number killed by yer boy, Barack. The numbers don't lie, sister. I mean, lemme aks you this: if penning fulminating diatribes on the internet makes you a genocidal maniac, then what does orchestrating the open occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan along with secret wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa make you?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Come on, IOZ, they were threatening castration!
Pakistan
Winner of the Nobel peace prize.
Joan Sutherland died.
They're just worried people will notice that the "mainstreaming of insanity" has already happened.
test
Digby believes in representative government, so she identifies propagandists with the politicians they support. Obviously the implied comparison is between Bush or (prospectively) Palin and Obama on the one hand, and Digby and Geller on the other.
This post is like Diderot making fun of transubstantiation. Once you deny the meaning of party, representative rule, and more generally (I think) political identification as an abstract principle you're no longer in the same conversation.
Hey man, those aren't mean ol' Cheney bombs anymore, those are freedom lovin' O-Bombs! He's doing it for their own good, the women and stuff!
The only thing that can save us now is the release of the Palin-Barrack sex tape.
Actually someone just called the hilarious Duke Fuck List an Obama teachable moment
Did she fuck Obama too? Does that mean Duke is Ivy League now?
compare the number of Muslims killed by Pam Geller to the number killed by yer boy, Barack. The numbers don't lie, sister
The Good One doesn't kill people; it's Bush's fault; and, he's got to kill them for their own good. You know, for the women and gays and stuff. Schools! Jobs! For the children. Barack's greatest weakness is that he loves too much! Love is no crime!
But this woman Geller? Hateful. Extreme. Racist. If she hasn't killed anyone -- and that is by no means proven! -- it's only because she lacks the power to kill. If we slack even for a second in holding the line against thoughtcriminals, then the next thing you know, BAM! -- Auschwitz is back.
It's true, Len old boy. If we stop killing people for even one moment, then the people who want to be killing people will seize power and immediately start killing people.
You can't reason with partisans. You really can't.
What will Digby say when Oilbummer eviscerates Soc Sec? I can't come up with something off the top of my head--but I'm sure she will. It's what she does.
I think what it comes down to is a perceived difference between how the two Muslim-killing factions will behave on the home front. The Digbys of the world can accommodate themselves to killing foreigners, agonizing for all to see. I think they are afraid, or at least, are playing to fears, that this allegedly more extreme faction of the right wing may become interested in killing people at home.
Again, wearing blinders with respect to the FBI raids in Minnesota and Obama's assassination list.
I think they imagine dormant white trash militias ready to spring.
What it means really, is the Democrat Party has become so unbelievably atrocious, so bereft of any marketable feature, so entirely lacking in any kind of credibility, that their only course is to convince 'centrists' and liberals that Nazis are outside the gate.
It's never clear how much the Digby's of the world believe this shit. I think it's weird that she never engages with her commenters. She seems unwilling to have to defend herself and that says phoney to me. Like she couldn't keep up the act under assault.
@leonard
Pres.Barrak Obama IS an Imperialist pig, that cant be denied by anyone who is paying attention. That does NOT mean that Pam Gellar is NOT an ignorant, lying, biggoted,paranoid, self glorifying attention whore, a horrible person who does not deserve the attention she gets.
anon @anon whoops i fucked that one up. where am i? is this my apartment? whos baby is that? whats my name? meanwhile, pam gellar is STILL a dick, even though, she has not been elected president.
Given that Pajamas Media has as much power as NBC/GE, I can see why Nonny is having a big Holstein dairy cow over Pammy Geller's "influence" and the "attention" she gets. I mean, if we don't quickly start paying serious attention to Pam Geller's shrugging, people might get hurt!
another windmill in the form of a blog post by digby!!
for fucks sake leave this hack behind and pick some new targets.
No.
yeah, I think I gotta agree with Nony @ 4:27.
Obama and the Democrats, and a certain group of cruise-missile liberals, are certainly cold-blooded killers who execute the affairs of the American imperial state with technocratic efficiency... but they don't particularly take any joy in it. It's business, not personal.
On the other hand, it's very personal with the likes of Pamela Geller and her fellow deranged, right-wing, racist loons with their Muslim and Arab genocidal fever dreams. You really don't want to see the results if these people actually had power.
Anon @ 7:03
Talk about the 2 party complicity in war crimes in verboten--especially to weak kneed liberal. They believe they are without blame and are good people. That's why you'll never see Digby countenance a more radical viewpoint like ours--if you want to call it radical. I call it common sense.
To wit: tonight I was watching Ed Schulz (sp?) on MSNBC and he had on Joan Walsh,. She made it clear that the people who call a Obama a war criminal on the left are the crazies--just like the Teabaggers on the right. This woman was, in essence, calling me a nutbag--even though her position (endless wars are fine) is the insane position.
How do you counter this? It's so fucking frustrating.
Next week, the New York Times profiles the political views of that homeless guy shouting at me about how "that nigger stole [his] last five dollars".
I don't know. I wanted to read the whole profile to see if it actually represented Ms. Gellar better then Digby's excerpts, but I got to the first line- "PAMELA GELLER’S apartment, in the fashion of the blogosphere, doubles as her office."- and had to stop there.
I'm torn. On the one hand, it's really hard for me to share in any alarmism, given that, as you say, People like Gellar don't really tend to kill very many Muslims, and people like Obama (Or, hell, Bush) who make a big show of opposing the Pamela Gellars of the world do.
On the other hand, there was that whole Shirley Sherrod thing. I don't like that we live in a world that has to pretend that anybody who shouts loudly must be doing it because they have profound insights to share.
I was all geared up for some genocide, and then Digby leaves me hungry.
I used to read Robert Spencer, but got bored. He's really too nerdy for that sort of thing. His background is theology (which most believers are ignorant of), but if religious writings were that important Jews would be smiting left & right while Christians turned the other cheek. Depending on the circumstances, Buddhist monks might kick your ass. I think Huntington had among the more sensible takes, but there's probably one person who read his book for every hundred that denounced it.
As far as I know, Digby is still held up as a paragon of the blogosphere's intellectual left. It's almost verboten to not agree with her. So I think she's a perfectly valid target.
Next week, the New York Times profiles the political views of that homeless guy shouting at me about how "that nigger stole [his] last five dollars".
I think they did the Glenn Beck profile last week.
I'm glad this blog (and others) do take on Digby. She's a destructive influence because she directs all the energy that could be used to start a viable left movement into the tar pit of the Democratic Party.
Not even Jane Hamster will take on the A list bloggers. And plus, I don't entirely trust her.
Out of curiosity TGGP, what about Huntington did you find sensible?
IOZ is to Digby as Digby is to Pam Geller
but they don't particularly take any joy in it
“Jonas Brothers are here, they’re out there somewhere,” President Obama quipped as he looked out at the packed room. Then he furrowed his brow, pretending to send a stern message to the pop band. “Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You’ll never see it coming.”
nony@7:03 PM
check this post, yo.
Why is this individual linking to all of IOZ's posts? An apparently dogmatic unreconstructed communist.
O "anarchists" consider the likelihood that you're being had for entertainment.
C'mon IOZ, don't you see??
It's like Barack is the quarterback coming into the game halfway through the 3rd quarter. He didn't start the game, but he still wants to win it, and there's time left on the clock.
He can't just throw in the towel!!
Is that the gist?? I refuse to read Digby, so I'm only guessing this is an apt analogy.
Anon 6:44 nails it: why do people who write for free on the Internet refuse to tailor their writing to my taste? How much longer must we allow this?
Huntington was responding to the neoconservative triumphalism of Fukuyama's "The End of History". He pointed out that the rest of the world does not rejoice in the hegemony the United States, and not because they're devoted to a rival ideology like communism. Rather, people can accept the material benefits of modernity & globalization while still appealing to what John Robb would call primary loyalties (Huntington's focus is on the largest of those which do not encompass all of humanity). Leaders of the United States do not understand this and are prone to meddle elsewhere around the world thinking they are bringing the gift of freedom.
Events since then have made the Islamic civilization a focus of attention, although it was just one of those he wrote about. One of the notable things about that civilization is that it lacks a "core" state. The modern nation state is a relative newcomer to those areas, and it often does not command much loyalty. Instead, many Muslims have more loyalty to their clan (as we are seeing in Iraq & Afghanistan) or the larger ummah. Muslim states must make an effort to earn loyalty, and because there is no single "core" state there are a number of front-runners which may jockey for highest status. One way this may be done is by sending support to conflicts on the many conflict-ridden borders (his example at the time involved those who came from a variety of countries to the Balkans, but Afghanistan under the Soviets and today works as well). He doesn't view it as some sui generis violent civilization out to kill everybody (China actually resorted to violence in more of its crises), but shows that factors like a surplus of young people predicted similar conflicts for the Sinhalese & Tamils of Sri Lanka (an example of a Buddhist vs Hindu civilizational clash).
O "anarchists" consider the likelihood that you're being had for entertainment.
Probably a more serious concern in other groups, given that anarchists tend to not give a fuck about Popular Opinion (else they'd not be anarchists) and are more mature generally speaking than the typical stuck-in-early-adolescence-from-a-personal-psychology&selfesteem-perspective fools who need the approval of others in order to feel legitimated as human beings.
Post a Comment