Tag: holocaust

September 10th, 2024

Continued from Part II

“…the day will come when the German people will awake…and that day will be sealed in blood.” Julius Streicher 1924 DS #22

“If the Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will not only be unpleasant, but at times physically bloody…” Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson’s Perspective, October/November 1992

“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.” Ann Coulter at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 2002.

“If guns are outlawed, how can we shoot liberals?” Originally a quote from State Sen. Mike Gunn. It is now a popular bumper sticker.

Early in 2005 Americans were offered a working illustration of the extent to which those often dismissed as irrelevant crackpots have a direct pipeline to the mainstream media all the way up to the Washington Press corps. At a January 29th press conference, a “reporter” using the name Jeff Gannon asked Bush the following question:

“Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D=NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work — and you’ve said you are going to reach out to these people — how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Most readers are probably familiar with the resulting tempest, which resulted in “Jeff Gannon” being exposed as an online writer named James Guckert whose journalistic credentials are skimpy to the point of being nonexistent. To be fair, “Gannon’s“ soft-ball questions were not much more eccentric and biased than those of the venerable Les Kinsolving, who up until his recent health problems had been a regular if rather weird feature of White House Press conferences.

But Kinsolving, unlike Guckert, has solid chops as a reporter and Guckert has some embarrassing connections to gay websites uncovered by liberal bloggers. So “Jeff Gannon” resigned his post as a “reporter,” with much eye dabbing on the part of his right-wing fans and regretful sighs on the part of deliberately obtuse mainstream commentators like Howard Kurtz, all of whom helped to paint Guckert as the unfortunate victim of liberal bigotry and harassment.

In fact, a truly interesting, but overlooked aspect of Guckert is not his sexuality or his affiliation with Talon and GOPUSA, or even the undeniably fascinating question of how he got access to White House briefings using an alias, but his connection with a popular right-wing website called Free Republic, to which Mr. Gannon frequently contributed.

Free Republic is more than just a forum where like-minded people can post their opinions. It is used as a contact point for mobilizing right-wing activists on a grassroots level in a manner that sometimes goes beyond simply campaigning for a favorite candidate or pushing for changes within the context of our legal system.

Bands of right-wing toughs are not physically beating up the opposition, as was the case in Streicher’s Germany. After all, in the 1920s and 30s, there was no mass media as we know it. Political expression more often took the form of a speaker communicating directly with an audience in a hall. In such a society, one silences the opposition by physically preventing them from speaking, breaking up the meeting, making people afraid to either speak at such gatherings or attend them.

Today, in a world with television, an Internet and widespread access to computers, silencing the opposition can be done more indirectly, through attacks not on the body of the person making a speech in an auditorium, but on the show, and more directly on the web site or discussion board where they are expressing their opinions. The right wing website and forum Free Republic early on established a reputation for fomenting organized efforts among their members to skew national polls, flood discussion boards, and bring down websites they deem too “liberal.” In fact, they ended up coining a term for this kind of activity — “freeping.”

From the standpoint of physical safety it’s obviously preferable to be figuratively rather than literally elbowed aside, silenced not by having your ribs cracked but by having your website brought down or your poll skewed or your online forum over-run. It remains, however, a disturbing symptom in a free society, particularly given that the Free Republic forums have shown a tendency to target not just polls and websites, but individuals. And the language used about these individuals often does more than merely border on the violent. David Brock’s Media Matters pointed out the reaction on Free Republic to the reporter who had filmed an American soldier shooting to death an injured Iraqi.

“Turn [Reporters name] over to the terrorist.”

“Fragamundo.”

“No need for anything overt. Unfortunate things happen in combat zones, and if the reporter fails to hear someone yell ‘Sniper!!’, well, c’est la guerre.”

“I don’t want the punk killed, I’d just like to see his hair mussed. Jaws wired shut for a few months, food through a straw, that kind of thing.”

It might be argued that, as an embedded television reporter, the reporter was a public figure, and thus inevitably prone to harassment and death threats. In some cases, however, the individuals targeted for “freeping” have not been public figures at all, but ordinary Americans who have marched, signed petitions, or posted websites about their opinions. In this eagerness to target ordinary citizens as well as in its virulent language about those whom they target, Free Republic and other right wing websites increasingly parallel Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer.

As Randall Bytwerk notes in his biography of Streicher, “in 1933 Streicher began the pillory column, giving the names and addresses of German women purportedly having relations with Jewish men…The very popular brief items section of the paper served similar functions. Perhaps the best way to understand the despicable nature of such material is to summarize the twenty items from a typical 1937 issue:”

Bytwerk goes on to cite the items, which include “In a village, the populace is concerned because a well-known Jew-lover has been given the guardianship of a farm; A town councilman lets his daughter date a Jew; A printer is represented by a Jewish attorney; A German attorney represents a Jew…”

“In each case,” Bytwerk continues, “the names of the accused and their towns or districts are given…And in addition many longer letters were printed, and interior articles were based on materials supplied by readers…those who feared appearing in the Sturmer had good reason. Even if most were not officially prosecuted, they could lose friends and business…in 1934 a reader reported that a German married to a Jew had been expelled from an organization after the Sturmer published the marriage…”

In the summer of 2001, after Jenna Bush was carded at an Austin Texas restaurant and arrested for underage drinking, the name of the restaurant manager who had turned the girl in was posted on the Free Republic website, as well as personal information about the manager and her infant son, her social security number, her telephone number, and her home address. Free Republic forum members suggested ways of “dealing with” the manager, from vandalism, to arson, to identity theft, and other crimes.

To give at least minimal credit to those who run Free Republic, the messages containing the woman’s personal information and those advocating outright crime were quickly removed, but not before they had been greeted with vociferous approval from many Free Republic posters. There were Free Republic members who disapproved and said so, but the overwhelming response on Free Republic was venom. The messages that were not removed include the following:

FWIW, a call place to [name of the restaurant] yesterday confirmed that [name of the manager] was still employed as of 1700 hrs. CT.”

“If we have to destroy [restaurant] and [name] to send you the message to cut it out, so be it. If we have to destroy ten, a hundred or a thousand more leftists to make the point, that is OK too.

“the health dept. HAS been alerted and are going to go check ’em out. i got “sick” there eating last friday and HAD to report that fact to the health department…”

“I haven’t heard of any husband, so I suppose that she’s unwed…I wonder if she knows who the father is? That being said, I wonder if she’s a fit mother… I wonder if child protective services shouldn’t get involved, in order to make sure that there is an appropriate, stable environment for the child?

Free Republic itself became so alarmed at the level of vituperation that a planned demonstration by local Freepers in front of the restaurant was called off. The story was picked up by Salon and several other outlets, and resulted in such bad publicity for Free Republic, that one would think its administrators would have learned some caution when it came to targeting private individuals.

But in the March of 2004, a member of Free Republic posted what he described as an “Enemies List,” triumphantly announcing, “Here you are, FReepers. Here is the enemy. Working in conjunction with A.N.S.W.E.R., they have given us their names.” What followed was a list of signatories for an online petition posted by ANSWER. The obvious purpose of posting this list on Free Republic was for “Freepers” to target individual names on the petition for harassment, and the original post made this plain by adding, “How about this one — — [Name Omitted], U.S. Coast Guard, [Location omitted]. Well, sailor, I guess it is time for me to call your commanding officer and see what he thinks about this.”

Responses included:

Don’t forget [Name Omitted], Military/Navy, [Location omitted] while you’re at it.”

“You already made the call? Good work…by his name is he probably a Muslim. The CO will love to have a disgruntled Muslim in his unit.” “The poor moron is never going to know what hit him.”

And it was not only members of the military who were targeted. Some Freepers were apparently poring over the list in search of names from their own areas.

“Here’s an Enemy in the County — [Name Omitted] Roman Catholic Priest, [Location Omitted]”

“Well shiiiite! None of this pond scum live [City name]. Too bad, I was looking for something to do this evening.”

“Ah, too bad we don’t have some pictures, so we could make a rogues gallery of some of the individuals.”

“I sure do hope to see a round of hangings soon. After a fair trial of course.”

This zest for going after individuals is by no means confined to Free Republic. During the controversy surrounding the Dan Rather/George Bush Memos, a university professor posted to his website the first draft of an examination of the memos and his cautiously worded opinion that they were genuine. He was denounced as a “liar and a charlatan” on a right wing website, his name, the university where he worked, his email address, as well as that of his employers was posted online. It ended, fortunately, in his university threatening legal action against the website that had spearheaded the campaign and a rather half-hearted apology by the website’s manager, but not before the professor and the university had been inundated with Internet hate-mail, attacks and demands that he be fired.

Apologists for the right-wing blogsophere often claim that it’s all hyperbole, that the people who describe Democrats and liberals as traitors worthy of beatings, imprisonment, and execution don’t really mean it. This good-natured assumption is undermined by the fact that right-wing posters on forums like Free Republic, Lucianne.com, and Little Green Footballs are unfazed by genuine tragedies involving liberals and leftists. In April of this year, a young activist named Marla Ruzicka was killed in Iraq when a suicide bomber attacked a convoy. Ruzicka’s work in Iraq was strictly humanitarian, but her affiliation with Medea Benjamin’s CODE PINK made her the enemy in the minds of many right-wingers.

There were some lonely voices raised on the right wing Internet in respectful acknowledgement of Ruzicka’s humanitarianism, courage, and accomplishments, but they were drowned out by a roar of chest-thumping contempt:

am trying to muster up some tears — but it just ain’t happening.

She hated this country and everything about it. She played with matches and got burned. Good riddance to the idiot gene pool I would say.

She wasn’t one of their victims; in her case, it was ‘friendly fire’ that did her in.

Good riddance to this piece of filth,

Because the Bush administration validates this kind of language by conflating dissent with disloyalty it’s not surprising that these “jokes” and “hyperbole” have morphed more and more into organized actions.

Continued in Part IV
September 10th, 2024

Continued from Part I

“The relatively recent successes of New Left ideas in law and legislation have only been made possible because their proponents were able to capture the cultural institutions — e.g., the media, academia, publishing houses, advertising agencies, Hollywood — some years earlier…We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them.” Eric Heubeck, The Integration of Theory and Practice

Substituting contempt for reason is not a new phenomenon in this country, nor is it a vice confined to the far right. A thorough search of the Internet will uncover leftist sites containing gross, sometimes threatening statements about conservatives. This kind of mindless garbage has always to some degree been present in political commentary in every time, belief, and nation. It only becomes truly dangerous when it mirrors the aims and tactics of powerful interests.

In the years immediately preceding the Third Reich, political violence by right-wingers and left-wingers was a fact of life on the streets of Berlin. Unlike their leftist counterparts, however, the Nazis came to enjoy widespread, if often tacit support of wealthy industrialists and influential members of the military, many of whom, as educated people, saw Hitler’s more outrageous statements as a form of political theater. “In fact to a certain extent, Hitler succeeded because he was dismissed as being more ridiculous than dangerous,” write James and Suzanne Pool in their 1978 book, Who Financed Hitler. “The man who shouted crude anti-Semitic slogans in public could, to the amazement of those who met him in private, discuss complex political and economic issues with logic and penetrating insight. He was able to convince his financiers that he was not a rabble-rouser at heart but had to act that way to attract the masses away from the Communists.”

The resulting infusions of financial support to the Nazi Party helped make Streicher more than an individual crackpot ranting from a soapbox on a street-corner. He was a hatemonger promoting a political party that had generous financial backing and friends in very high places. Whether or not it was taken seriously by most Nazis, Streicher’s language of dehumanization, by sheer repetition, ceased to shock Germans and helped prepare the ground for the policy of annihilation Hitler enacted not only against Jews, but against all who opposed him.

By the same token, Coulter, Savage, and other such commentators are not merely obscure bloggers or occasional posters to Internet bulletin boards. They are commentators who have been given greater access to the media than most leftist pundits, and thus greater leeway when it comes to outrageous statements. It would be hard to find a writer for a prominent liberal publication who had, for instance, suggested that the Bush twins should be executed, as John Derbyshire did about Chelsea Clinton in the February 15, 2001 issue of National Review Online.

There are, of course, differences. Streicher embraced the notion of Jews as genetically evil, so inherently corrupt that their moral “taint’ could be spread through rape. So far no prominent modern American right-winger has claimed that a conservative woman who has sex with a liberal man is “irredeemably lost” to conservatism, as Streicher claimed about Gentile women who had even nonconsensual sex with Jewish men. The National Review has stopped short of claiming that liberals drink the blood of conservative children in unholy rites.

But the similarity in language remains. If they don’t present liberalism as an inherent genetic taint, they do present liberalism — or even membership in the Democratic Party — as an irrefutable sign of an inherent moral or mental malaise. “”Liberals are in my estimation, just not bright people. They don’t think deeply, they don’t comprehend, they don’t understand…” said Republican Senator Dick Armey in 2002. “They don’t seem to have a fundamental understanding of good versus evil in the world, and the need to destroy those that would otherwise destroy innocent life,” said Sean Hannity on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. In short, to be a liberal is to be “evil,” “not bright,” afflicted with a “mental disorder.”

And as with Streicher’s propaganda, whether or not everyone who uses this kind of language actually believes it beside the point. In 2001, an essay appeared online that briefly garnered attention on the Internet. “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement” was written by someone named Eric Heubeck for the Free Congress Foundation.

It’s important to note that the Free Congress Foundation is not merely an obscure right-wing blog but a well-funded conservative think tank headed by right wing strategist Paul Weyrich. An article about Karl Rove in the April 30th 2001 issue of Time Magazine (“The Busiest Man in The White House” by James Carney and John F. Dickerson) mentions the influence the foundation wields:

“Each Wednesday Rove dispatches a top administration official to attend the regular conservative-coalition lunches held at Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation… When Weyrich heard a few weeks ago the Bush’s budget slashed funding for a favorite project called the Police Corps, which gives scholarships and training to police cadets, he complained to the White House. To Weyrich’s surprise, Rove called back. “We’ve taken care of it,” Rove said. ‘The problem is solved.’ Weyrich, who says his memos to the Reagan and Bush Sr. White Houses were rarely read, was impressed. ‘That,’ he gushes, ‘is what it means to have friends in the White House.’”

Heubeck’s essay outlines a strategy for a grassroots movement of “cultural conservatism,” one that, as Heubeck put it, “must channel undesirable impulses to serve good purposes.” An example of these “undesirable impulses” can be found in the following quote:

“We must always operate based on this cardinal principle: Leftists are never morally responsible for the evil they commit; but we as conservatives are morally responsible for not having done more to prevent them from committing that evil. We must learn to treat leftists as natural disasters or rabid dogs.”

One does not debate natural disasters or rabid dogs, or even treat them as if they were capable of framing an argument. Both are problems to be prevented, if possible and if they occur, contained or destroyed.

This is not to say that Heubeck and others like him relish the idea of liberals being physically destroyed. It is to say that they would like to destroy any rational public discourse on the subject of anything they label as “liberalism.” They want any liberal or anyone labeled as such to be dismissed out of hand no matter how valid their arguments might be, denounced as mad, stupid, or evil.

That an inevitable byproduct of this approach is a significant number of people believing that liberals are the equivalent of natural disasters and mad dogs and relishing the idea of liberals being physically destroyed is apparently unimportant to them.

The tactic of delegitimization promoted in Eric Heubeck’s piece has been echoed in Bush administration statements, most notably those made in the wake September 11th. One of the most well known of these is then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s comment at a press conference, in which he both implied that administration critics were irrational or dishonest, and equated dissent with giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies. “…to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.” (December 6, 2001)

Even opposition within the context of an opposition party is increasingly depicted as illegitimate. Not content with control of both the Executive and Legislative branches, the Republican Party has attacked some of the most basic tools of dissent within government. The judicial filibuster has been denounced by Senate Majority leader Bill Frist as “radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome.” This kind of language, the use of terms like “dangerous” and “radical” to describe a tactic that Republicans — including Frist — have used in the past, should be at least startling to Americans. Unfortunately, the quality of modern political rhetoric has been so lowered that it doesn’t seem that unusual. Compared with some of the comments about Democrats and liberals heard regularly on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, it seems downright benign.

If reasoned debate is eliminated as the way to deal with dissenters, even those who dissent as members of the opposition party within the halls of government, how does one respond to those who refuse to be silenced? How does one deal with the “problem” of those liberals and Democrats who are, with increasing frequency, being referred to as dangerous, radical, as traitors, lunatics, rabid dogs, and haters of America?

Continued in Part III

Pam Troy

A Writer’s Website

Tag: holocaust