The Coming Purge
[posted by Callimachus]
They say the Right ignored George Soros' message and only reacted to his words when he said, "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process."
Some on the right take umbrage at that sort of talk. [Never mind that "deNazification" in the U.S. zone was a rather half-hearted process.] But perhaps they should start packing their bags when some on the left write:
So Godwin's law (whoever calls his opponent a "Nazi" first, loses) is simply a subject of body count, and now it's moot because of some number they won't name for us. The definition of "Nazi" is a matter of statistics, and we have now qualified for it.
Now they want to literally treat us as the Nazis were treated. We're all to be Little Eichmanns now. Say good by, for instance, to the Star-Spangled Banner.
I don't consider myself "the right" or any part of it. But I did, and still do, support the overthrow of Saddam, and I don't think "neo-con" is a cuss word, and that's enough for what claims to be "the left" to tar me with the Nazi (or "fascist") brush.
Get ready for it. Those of you who initially supported the war, then turned against it, may get by. The rest of us? I felt a chill wind when I read the left side blogs reacting to Soros (or, more properly, reacting to one right-wing reaction to Soros). All insist, once, that he merely was using a metaphor. They then go on to approve of it as a literal proposal.
Here, for instance. "Jewish issues" are referenced, and the post World War II reality in the defeated lands is approvingly cited: "[P]olitical and military leaders -- and some social, educational, and business leaders -- were purged from their offices in order for those of different political ilk to come into positions of power."
As for why some of us object to Soros's remark, well, we're just jealous of him:
Yeah, it had to be that and not the enthusiasm for American purges he inspires in this same blogger, who just wrote: "We do need a political purge in this country ...."
Or here. Again, it's just a metaphor, so why is the Right overreacting so. Then again, maybe it's more than a metaphor:
Read the verbs: "correct ... impose ...." Once again, though, we are told we reject Soros because we live in the delusion that we are, on some level, not drenched in guilt and we can't "handle" the truth he's laying down:
Ah, "come to recognize wisdom." Where have I read that before? If you disagree with Soros that you are guilty, then that proves you are guilty. And if you can't bring yourself to "wisdom" and self-correction, we have ways ....
One reason I oppose George W. Bush's bid to rebuild the potent presidency of Nixon's years and extend its powers is that, whatever his motivations, the powers will be there when the next incumbent takes office. And that incumbent may be backed by George Soros' money and Soros and his friends on the left may have his (or her) ear.
They say the Right ignored George Soros' message and only reacted to his words when he said, "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process."
Some on the right take umbrage at that sort of talk. [Never mind that "deNazification" in the U.S. zone was a rather half-hearted process.] But perhaps they should start packing their bags when some on the left write:
For the record, I think we have gotten past the point in this country where "Godwin's Law" is applicable. When we can't even be bothered to tally the number of Iraqi deaths this war has caused, it's a little difficult to argue moral equivalencies.
So Godwin's law (whoever calls his opponent a "Nazi" first, loses) is simply a subject of body count, and now it's moot because of some number they won't name for us. The definition of "Nazi" is a matter of statistics, and we have now qualified for it.
Now they want to literally treat us as the Nazis were treated. We're all to be Little Eichmanns now. Say good by, for instance, to the Star-Spangled Banner.
I don't consider myself "the right" or any part of it. But I did, and still do, support the overthrow of Saddam, and I don't think "neo-con" is a cuss word, and that's enough for what claims to be "the left" to tar me with the Nazi (or "fascist") brush.
Get ready for it. Those of you who initially supported the war, then turned against it, may get by. The rest of us? I felt a chill wind when I read the left side blogs reacting to Soros (or, more properly, reacting to one right-wing reaction to Soros). All insist, once, that he merely was using a metaphor. They then go on to approve of it as a literal proposal.
Here, for instance. "Jewish issues" are referenced, and the post World War II reality in the defeated lands is approvingly cited: "[P]olitical and military leaders -- and some social, educational, and business leaders -- were purged from their offices in order for those of different political ilk to come into positions of power."
As for why some of us object to Soros's remark, well, we're just jealous of him:
The necons too have wanted to change the world -- albeit with guns, while Soros did it through education and political and civil institution buildng [sic]. One must surmise then that they are both jealous of his success and have a counterproductive obsession with military-driven social change, something that rarely if ever works.
Yeah, it had to be that and not the enthusiasm for American purges he inspires in this same blogger, who just wrote: "We do need a political purge in this country ...."
Or here. Again, it's just a metaphor, so why is the Right overreacting so. Then again, maybe it's more than a metaphor:
How do we deal with a fundamentally illegitimate Republican Party in a two party system? How do we correct a money-driven lack of democratic process and an increasingly militarized state? How do we correct the irresponsible actions of our corporate ruling class, and impose accountability on this increasingly global and unaccountable elite? How do we deal with politicians who will not admit error?
Read the verbs: "correct ... impose ...." Once again, though, we are told we reject Soros because we live in the delusion that we are, on some level, not drenched in guilt and we can't "handle" the truth he's laying down:
If you can't admit error, if you can't handle the words that Soros is holding as a moral mirror to our guilty faces, then you need to look within yourself, and work to bring yourself to a position where you can eventually come to recognize wisdom.
Ah, "come to recognize wisdom." Where have I read that before? If you disagree with Soros that you are guilty, then that proves you are guilty. And if you can't bring yourself to "wisdom" and self-correction, we have ways ....
One reason I oppose George W. Bush's bid to rebuild the potent presidency of Nixon's years and extend its powers is that, whatever his motivations, the powers will be there when the next incumbent takes office. And that incumbent may be backed by George Soros' money and Soros and his friends on the left may have his (or her) ear.
Labels: George Soros, history
