Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    A NY Times Column Which Shall Live In Infamy

    A NY Times Column Which Shall Live In Infamy

    So much for all the talk of civility.

    In one of the most deranged columns yet (and that’s saying a lot for NY Times columnists), Joe Nocera unleashed an unhinged attack on the Tea Party movement, calling Tea Partiers terrorists, jihadists and suicide bombers:

    You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

    These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took….

    For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough. After all, they’ve gotten so much encouragement.

    Reader Tom, who sent me the link, writes:

    Terrorists? Jihad?  Really? From the paper that won’t use those terms when they
    actually apply?  This column can incite violence against duly elected members of
    Congress.  What would Gabby Giffords think – she who voted with the so-called
    terrorists?

    Nocera replaced Frank Rich.  I didn’t think it could get any worse.  It did.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Subotai Bahadur | August 2, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Since the 2010 campaign, when a main thrust of the memes the Left has been pushing was the violence and “incivility” of anyone who disagreed with them on any point; their own rhetoric has become routinely violent and threatening. This has included, during the battle in the Wisconsin legislature a few months ago, specific threats of death and harm to Republican legislators, the Republican governor, and their families for the “crimes” of having a different political point of view. One of the greater mistakes made was that after the specific perpetrators were caught, no one went to jail thus legitimizing the tactic.

    Words do mean things. The Democrats try to redefine them on an ad hoc basis to their advantage, but they mean things on a far deeper level than even a column in the New York Times.

    If I may give an example from history. British Lord MacCartney headed the first diplomatic mission from Britain to China in 1793. It was an unmitigated fiasco. The misunderstandings on both sides, each side perfectly reasonable from their own viewpoint, were horrendous. MacCartney left having done nothing but convince the most powerful Emperor China had had for centuries that the British [and all Europeans] were not worth the effort to deal with. Leaving aside the clashes over court etiquette, MacCartney’s letters from the British government were horribly insulting and threatening when translated into Chinese. Mind you, Emperor Qianlong’s relies were less than conciliatory when translated into English.

    One key linguistic problem was that if a culture does not have a concept, the language will not have a word for it, and vice-versa. MacCartney’s letters had a number of references to “freedom” and “free” meant in the English sense of “liberty under the rule of law”. China under the Emperors had no such concepts in their culture, and the best that they could translate the meaning was what we would call “license” as in licentiousness. The Chinese court was horrified, and wanted nothing to do with those immoral, crazed barbarians. That was an ongoing problem in early contacts between Asia and the West, and there are a large number of Chinese compound characters trying to put words to alien western concepts. A lack of a common reference point in words, means that the actions and reactions to those words can and will be very different.

    The American Left, including the Democrats and the New York Times [sorry for the redundancy], does not have the cultural concept of “legitimate disagreement” or “legitimate political opposition”. Their beliefs are built on an innate sense of self-righteousness that would be appropriate in a Knight Templar on Crusade. [and that particular comparison would make Leftist heads explode!] The closest thing that they have to the concepts are when Republicans capitulate. Any delay, any reduction in the scope of their victory, any effective opposition in objective terms is considered by them to be illegitimate, criminal, immoral, and deserving of correcting by any means necessary. 99%+ of Leftists and Democrats have never read or heard of Lenin’s 1901 work “What Is to Be Done?”; but its tenets are ingrained in their worldview.

    Words and cultural mindsets define and guide actions. For everyone.

    A little more history, if I may. I ran across this from a commenter at BELMONT CLUB, and found it striking.

    12. Ignominious

    I was reading Michael Braddick’s history of the English Civil War, “God’s Fury, England’s Fire.” It’s a huge, complicated work. The footnotes alone almost constitute a book of their own.

    There’s a lot of things that could be said, but if I were to put into nutshell one possible lesson to draw from Braddick’s history, it would be this: the descent into societal chaos is accompanied by a breakdown in the meaning of the terms of mutual political discourse. For a big segment of Americans to get dismissed as “terrorists,” tells me that many in the ruling segment of our republic no longer have the wherewithal to even understand what a whole category of Americans are talking about, or what their concerns are. This is very bad news, and besides that it degrades and confuses the meaning of the term “terrorist.”
    August 1, 2011 – 8:13 pm

    For American Leftists, Democrats or their accomplices farther Left, to actually lose either by a vote of the people or in a legislative or judicial body is both shattering to their worldview and proof of justification of going outside the law to restore the rightness of the world.

    Their increasing use of violent rhetoric and acts, and the rhetorical projection of claims of similar acts unjustified by facts on those who disagree with them, means that they are going to feel justified in moving further and further outside the law. Physical acts of terrorism, real ones, are inevitable as a byproduct of their redoubling their efforts to restore their world when they are opposed or actually lose. It is going to happen, and the fact that the columnists of the New York Times, or the Vice President of the United States are willing to dub their political opposition as terrorists while refusing to condemn or admit real physical acts of terrorism by name means that we have moved past the point mentioned in the exposition of Braddick’s History.

    There are at least three Republican politicians who are being actively demonized by the Left, and deemed illegitimate to exist. I hope that they have their own tight security arrangements, because especially when dealing with the Department of Justice, Federal law enforcement is explicitly guided by political expediency and what the military calls “unlawful command influence”. Acts of violence by the Left against their opponents are going to occur. When they do, the reaction, both by the criminal justice system and the media [including the New York Times] and by the victims are going to determine where our country goes in short order.

    Subotai Bahadur


     
     0 
     
     0
    Aarradin | August 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    “This column can incite violence against duly elected members of Congress.”

    Not just Republican members either. Given that Democrats and their operatives, from the President on down, are routinely denouncing the Tea Party as terrorists, is there really much political downside to any of them actually resorting to violence? Fortunately, violence is still almost exclusively a tool of the Left, and the typical Tea Partier is someone that former President’s refered to as ‘My Fellow Americans’ (an expression the current occupant seems never to use).

    The typical Tea Partier has a job and pays taxes, or is married to someone that does, and is a lifelong law-abiding citizen. These are people that used to be routinely refered to as “Patriots”. Now, they’re terrorists – because they don’t want to see the country bankrupted in a futile attempt to establish some socialist utopia.

    The Left should count themselves very fortunate that the Right is not inclined to violence. But perhaps they already know – otherwise why would they be so openly provocative on such a regular basis?

    Subotai, It was this sort of one-sided “revolutionary justice” that culminated in Spain’s Calvo Sotelo moment in Spain in Spring 1936, which convinced Primo de Rivera, Franco, Mola and a bunch of other Spanish officers there was no other option left than military revolt. We may be approaching our moment.

    I will proudly accept their label of “Terrorist”, if it comes with the footnote that the Liberals have often proclaimed “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. “Compromise” has now become another euphemism for unconditional surrender.

    “So much for all the talk of civility.”

    Civility always was, and always will be, a cheap prop of convenience in the Liberal theatre of the absurd.

    Remember, the Left (and their friends in the media) use 1984 as a guide, not a warning. The tea party is the Emmanuel Goldstein today, then whomever is the GOP Nominee next year.

    I await the day that the Left defends OUR Free Speech rights. Never gonna happen.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend