Ann Coulters latest spiel has brought me back to this. Didn't she, along with the rest of her right wing blow hards attack this guy?
Anne's rant serves nothing more than to prove that these people are nothing more unprincipled morons. Especially when you take what Churchill was really trying to convey and pin it up against the latest venom getting spewed by the right.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am the man, it is said on the talk shock radio in the Denver area, who has called for the deaths of millions of Americans. Someone show me where I said that. I am the man who has justified what I consider to be natural and inevitable. You do not justify the natural or the inevitable, you may comment on it. You do not have to advocate it, you don't have to justify it, you simply point to it.
And, no, I did not call a bunch of food service workers, janitors, children, firefighters and random passers-by 'little Eichmanns.' It says clearly in that passage, which perhaps I should've amplified further in terms of the connotation of 'Eichmann,' because I understood people would understand as I did what Eichmann symbolized, but apparently not.
It says clearly in that passage, the reference is to a technical corps of empire, the technicians of empire. Someone want to give me a coherent definition of technician by which someone is eighteen months old, or someone who serves food for a living or someone who pushes a broom or someone who is trying to save people in the building or someone who is just walking by, becomes a technician of any sort? Obviously I was not talking about these people. I was talking about some very specific technical technocrats who make this particular system hum, and I'm going to come back to that in a second. But the people at issue and these are the only people who have been raised the construction is fairly clear; I've been told it was a bad rhetorical device, well I don't think so. You got a better rhetorical device, go use it. Make people think about this your way. This was mine. The people at issue, on that red herring, would be referred to by Don Rumsfield or Norman Black I mean, Schwartzkopff, any other people who stand at the podiums, the official forum to make pronouncements on behalf of the federal government of the United States, those people, or those firefighters, those service workers, those children would be referred to as something called 'collateral damage.' Not even as human beings. And that was implicit to the formulation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7290
Yet the righties posture to feign dissagreement (many of the talking heads not so) with Anns rhetoric and say we need to pare out what she was trying to say. When it's taken down to it's bare bones it's really a whole lot of nothing.
Yet, when someone does offer a commentary on that day, based on other studies of Eichmann (Milgram), we are supposed to take their word for it and ignore what was really conveyed. Churchill was talking about obedience and it's destructive effects on history, foreign policiy and civillian life. He was trying to get at why the events of that day occurred.
This is a perfect opportunity to shove their rhetoric back in their faces.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
