Republicans: Eliminating Muslims

Its always startling when a nasty bout of hate breaks out close to home. There’s a lot of nastiness in Herndon, VA. I was living in Reston when this joyful little gathering took place. So again I was startled when I came across this item over at Feministe (Jill):

19t489nj.jpg

That’s a short metro ride away. The post itself is about the comments by Rudy’s Aide, suggesting we need to “get rid of” Muslims. Jill goes into a bit more depth:

Deady later clarified:

“When I say get rid of them, I wasn’t necessarily referring to genocide. What I was referring to is, stand up to them every time they stick up their heads and attack us. We can’t afford to say, `We’ll try diplomacy.’ They don’t respond to it. If you look into Islamic tradition, a treaty is only good for five years. We’re not dealing with a rational mindset here. We’re dealing with madmen.”

“I wasn’t necessarily referring to genocide?” That may be more telling than the original comment.

Indeed. I hadn’t caught the clarification. It is worse than the original comment, all the more so in that its unfolding in a responsibility vacuum on the part of Giuliani.

Via Jill, Ali continues:

I will leave it to each individual to determine whether the GOP’s “gaffes” are just that, or that they are part of a sustained campaign to not only lose as many American-Muslim votes as possible (you guys are succeeding!), but to further demonize Islam in order to perpetuate some kind of religious standoff consistent with Tim Lahaye’s vision.

I think we have two things going on here. The first is that the Republican field is rife with riffs on the original Southern Strategy. We see it with Huckabee’s winks and nods to hardline evangelical Christians and anti-immigrant rants, Ron Paul’s winks to the white supremacist set, and Rudy’s Islamophobe nods.

The second is a rising tide of eliminationist rhetoric on the right, targeting Women, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, and of course, Liberals. Sometimes this speech is hidden, as in the references to “New York/Hollywood liberals” (Jews) or “San Francisco liberals” (Homosexuals). And sometimes it is right out in the open, as is the case with the Georgetown poster up above targeting Muslims. In each case, the right wing in the country is working its base into a violent frenzy. All of this virulent hate seeping into and around the mainstream is normalizing notions of inferiority and “otherness”, as well as the appropriateness of violent reactions.

We cannot stand silently by while this tide of hatred and violence rises.

UPDATE: Just a note, the poster is satirical (the actual poster, which you can see here, is arguably worse than the satire (which adheres nicely to Tom Tomorrow’s rule of right wing reality).)

Advertisements

18 Responses

  1. Excellent article, excellent site – I applaud your efforts

    regards

    John Demetriou

    http://boatangdemetriou.wordpress.com/

  2. COME ON Fitness! why havent you jumped on board by now?
    My friend, the polls are very, very, wrong and you know it. RP isnt going to hurt you and your family…you have no reason at this point to be posting this crap. You are a smart guy. I have visited your blog regularly since July, what is going on with you??? Dont be afraid. This guy wants to straighten the ship out before we ALL go broke. He isnt looking for anything from you except for your determination to stand on your own two feet. Is that so hard? You know it isnt…Happy Holidays friend!

  3. dw,
    Thanks for the compliment, but I haven’t jumped on board because I don’t agree with Ron Paul on a lot of core points. I like some parts of libertarianism, but not all of them. And Ron Paul isn’t a libertarianism. He’s just an anti-federalist. There is a distinct difference.

    But in addition, he is in fact a racist. As I observed in an earlier comment:
    Explain his stance on Cross Burning.
    We all know what he means when he champions the anti-civil rights battle cry of States Rights.
    And then there are his nakedly racist comments (Pandagon):

    Verbatim Ron Paul:

    Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.

    How can I support such a man?

    Happy Holidays

  4. Not many people are aware of Ron Paul’s consistent racism. His PR staff have done a fine job covering up his rather checkered past on racial issues, which is more than enough to make me not want to vote for him.

  5. Indeed. And some are aware, but just refuse to acknowledge.

  6. I may consider acknowledging it if I saw substantive evidence of it. But then even after I acknowledged it I would still vote for him for many of if not all of these reasons.

    I guess what I’m saying (repeating) is that if we are playing the lesser of evils game, Ron Paul is the least evil of all the candidates to me and many others that are sick of empty suits and empty promises from the bigger evils.

    Please look at this for this site sees the problem but does not appear to recognize it.

  7. Ron Paul isn’t the lesser evil. ANY of the Democratic candidates would be better than him. Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich would be an order of magnitude better.

  8. I don’t buy the “lesser evil” argument with respect to Ron Paul. The alternatives would have to pretty evil indeed to make me vote for an explicit (or implicit!) racist, and as pathetic as I find most of the other candidates, Paul doesn’t do it for me.

    Incidentally, regarding his mantra of “limited federal government, pro-states rights”, I think Noam Chomsky’s objection deflates this quite nicely (full transcript here):

    In response to the statement: “Ron Paul is in favor of dismantling Big Government.”:

    “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

  9. Noam Chomsky’s take on Ron Paul was pretty damaging. Good quote.

  10. Its in fact a critique of the libertarian philosophy. Works well when you are naked walking around a garden with lions sleeping with lambs, but in the real world…not so much.

  11. Noam didn’t do a good job at all there. It’s all conjecture and bogey men. Sure you may call them questions if you like but they are dumb questions. Al this supposed insight is speculative not substantive. Reads more like the scary part in a fairy tale than political scrutiny. As far as that goes I will never vote for a member of the CFR as that bunch is truly evil. Looks like I’m still voting for Paul.

    I only lend the “lesser of two evils” paraphrase for comparison to how some view their vote, I do not subscribe to that message. Nothing can replace voting your conscience.

  12. As a person who would say ” I’d like to see the power of the federal government increased”, I’d say that removes Chomsky from the “politically unbiased and informed” category. I don’t care about his laureates. I care about his political alignment.

  13. Noam didn’t do a good job at all there. It’s all conjecture and bogey men. Sure you may call them questions if you like but they are dumb questions. Al this supposed insight is speculative not substantive. Reads more like the scary part in a fairy tale than political scrutiny.

    Would you care to back up these criticisms with some references and arguments, Michael? In some ways, I think Chomsky has similar criticisms of Paul, namely, that his positions are largely conjecture and non-substantive, and when they are the implications are somewaht chilling.

    As a person who would say ” I’d like to see the power of the federal government increased”, I’d say that removes Chomsky from the “politically unbiased and informed” category.

    First of all, would you also then remove Paul from the “politically unbiased and informed” category, since he is a person who says “I’d like to see the power of the federal government decreased”? Because if Chomsky is biased on that criteria, than so if Paul and so is any other politician and political commentator.

    Secondly, the point Chomsky is trying to make is that it isn’t the size and/or power of the government that’s the problem, it’s what part of the government is powerful. As a Libertarian-Socialist, Chomsky is definitely in favor of scaling back things like the Patriot Act—-where I suspect he’d differ is that things like, say, Healthcare and Education are worthy of support.

    The real “bogeyman” here is that Paul makes Government out to be some kind of terrible monster—-and certainly, it can be with the wrong people in charge and the wrong type of funding. But the solution isn’t to simply declare war on all types of government, as that first quote from Chomsky should make clear.

  14. And the question are not none sense. They represent the possibilities of such policies. Its easy to say that “big goverment” is bad, is another thing entirely to believe that a modern state can survive without a fully functioning goverment.

  15. 1. “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean?”

    2. “Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability?”

    3. “Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)?”

    1. The “dismantling of big government” is very vague and completely leading. “The pruning of big government” is how he may have more aptly phrased it. Is he intending to infer that Ron Paul will be shutting down the entire government? That is conjecture obviously. Fortunately there are large generally agreed upon obvious departments to start with. How would dismantling the IRS be a bad thing? There is speculation of how i would be a good thing so let’s start there. Then the hairs begin to be split. My idea of what programs or departments or bureau’s to cut may not be the same as the ones you might see as needing to be trimmed but I bet you can think of three of the top of your head that you might do away with and Dan may have three others. It’s a matter of assessment then action not just blindly slashing and burning. I don’t remember any quotes by Ron Paul stating that is his intention. So the what does it mean is a kicker to make it sound like there has been no clarification hence the non sense.

    2. The limited liability that he speaks of is impunity. And holding corporations accountable is a bad thing how? Do I need to say more about this non sense?

    3. Does it? I’m no expert but neither is Noam. The system (in it’s entirety) that is in place now took many years and scams and lobbyists and broken promises and political bi-partisanship and peoples livelihoods and tax laws, lots and lots of tax laws, to build. How can Noam suggest what possibilities exist from such policies (refer to 1. & 2.) when the components to create this monster are centuries old? The fact that change is needed is agreed upon by the majority but the ways and means to accomplish it are disputed. So Noam needs to elaborate here not me. More non sense.

    I’m pressed for time atm so my complete response is truncated for now. As to the rest of Noam’s critique it is speculated by economists that we are going to have a collapsed economy regardless of who becomes president think about that gem. Being as I’m in a rush I’ll leave it at that for now but I hope you see my criticism is valid.

    I’ll have more back up L8r.

  16. Oops, the link should have been:

    politicaly unbiased and informed

  17. Would you care to back up these criticisms with some references and arguments, Michael? In some ways, I think Chomsky has similar criticisms of Paul, namely, that his positions are largely conjecture and non-substantive, and when they are the implications are somewaht chilling.

    right on Baekho. Your points are good ones, and I’d agree with Chomsky, and differ with Paul, on the important of health care and education, while at the same time agree with both is suggesting the patriot act be scaled back.

    ralfast, indeed. The questions are ones more Ron Paul supporters should be asking of their candidate.

    Michael D,

    The “dismantling of big government” is very vague and completely leading. “The pruning of big government” is how he may have more aptly phrased it. Is he intending to infer that Ron Paul will be shutting down the entire government? That is conjecture obviously.

    Just on your part about Noam. A lot of the items he brings up, from public research to environmental protection and regulation of the market through the enforcement of workers rights, these are not issues I see Ron standing up for. In fact, I see his anti-tax at all costs policies removing the funding for some, and his anti-regulation policies as removing the legal bite of others.

    The limited liability that he speaks of is impunity. And holding corporations accountable is a bad thing how? Do I need to say more about this non sense?

    He’s talking about the ability to even have corporations. Given he discusses workers rights and other regulations in the same paragraph, and given this is Noam Chomsky, I’d hardly say he’s throwing corporate accountability out the window. In fact there is no way to say that coherently.

    3. Does it? I’m no expert but neither is Noam.

    Actually, he is an expert. He’s spent years documenting, researching and dissecting the corporatist state machine we call American Government, and he’s produced iconic analysis and papers on the topic. Manufacturing Consent is one example.

    And Lew Rockwell is hardly unbiased:

    LewRockwell.com (LRC) is a paleolibertarian web magazine run by Lew Rockwell, Burton Blumert, and others associated with the Center for Libertarian Studies.

    Occasional articles criticize the policies of Abraham Lincoln,[8] usually in context of the libertarian doctrine of the right of secession. Recently, the site has been publishing articles favorable of Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential Campaign.[9], and as such, the webmagazine registered as a 501(c)(4), in order to legally separate it from the Center of Libertarian Studies.

  18. The “politically unbiased and informed” was a two part and you missed both points again (not surprisingly). Politically unbiased Chomsky is not, Lew Rockwell is informed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: