Arizona Dreamin'

My sincerest condolences to Congressmember Giffords, all of the victims of this "tragedy," and their families. I have to put that word in quotes because even if everybody else refers to this predictable and despicable act of terrorism as a tragedy, I have to call it as it is. I find it funny that the same "conservative" wankers who get all blubbery about 9/11 and used it as a pretext to wage aggressive, unprovoked war on any muslim country they felt like somehow refuses to admit that this rash of rightwing political violence is anything more than a series of disconnected crimes that have no larger significance or connection to their hate speech. As if by some stroke of Orwellian logic, liberals really are the fascists and the Tucson shooter can can be dismissed as a liberal by one thing he said/wrote when every other thing he said/wrote points the other way.

I do not dismiss the horror of an assasination by not calling it a tragedy, nor do I seek to advance an "agenda" by analyzing the pattern of violence. What can I gain by writing about this event? Nothing. And neither does any other sincere leftist by thinking about what the hell is happening to this once-great country. The path back to civility doesn't run through finger-wagging, but someone has to put the blame where it belongs. When I see some real violence perpetrated against beck, hannity, o'reilly, savage, palin or some other right-winger I'll be willing to call it a civil war, until then it is an unmitigated campaign of terror against liberals and anyone who might be sympathetic to a non-ultra-rightist worldview.

You do not have to be a leftist conspiracy theorist to see a pattern in these recent acts of violence since 2008, the victims all share a common identity as being outside the "conservative movement," and all of the perpetrators being inside that movement. Thing is, I spent all last semester studying conservative intellectuals and there was nary a hint of the legitimacy of violence in political action. A few months ago I wrote about "eliminationism" and the adherents that David Neiwart termed "parafascists," I'd like to think there is a better term (like the real thing perhaps?) but that will do. At least the nazis owned what they did, and made no bones about why they used violence to attain power, here the parafascists do the same thing, but it if far less acceptable so they are happy to employ violent rhetoric to incite acts of terrorism without ever owning the fact that this is what they are doing. Liberalism grants a free hand to its assassins by extending rights to free speech to those sociopaths who will use their giant microphones to incite violence against responsible leaders. Such as the democratically elected congressmembers who dare to go against the vast rightwing conspiracy by voting for measures to that could actually help people instead of turing over more power and money to the machine.

Less well known about the nazi seizure of power was that they were not the only paramilitary force in Germany, most political parties had paramilitary arms. The communists basically were a paramilitary force in and of themselves; there was also the Stahlhelm or steel helmets, conservative but not officially aligned with a party; and there was the Reichsbanner, or paramilitary arm of the Social Democratic Party. The leaders of the last organization sat and waited during the crucial time after hitler was named chancellor when the nazis quietly arrested members of the opposition, for a signal from politicians to act. It never came and the rest is pretty much history. This is not the case in America, there is no force capable of meeting this slippery, right wing threat to the Republic. The victims of right wing violence in America impotently call on the very people orchestrating this bullshit to denounce violence, circulate meaningless petitions and so forth (yes, I signed two of them myself but with no pretension that it means a Goddamn thing). Cries to denounce hate and violence could only work if they weren't handy tools to gain and hold power, intimidating anyone who might challenge the fascist right. I'm sure some unconnected right-winger out there is upset and pouting that I'd make this impolite assertion. That there is a connection between the venom spewed and sputtered forth on the airwaves and the unbalanced freaks and psychos actually putting the rhetoric into action. I'd love to hear the defense/apology from the gun fetishists who in other days make no effort to hide the fact that they hoard weapons in case the government or criminals (no distinction between the two are neccessary) break into their homes.

The leaders orchestrating the hate and now even openly calling for killing their opponents in some cases (Julian Assuage anyone?) are fox news as individual hosts and as an institution, all kinds of cowardly pussy AM radio hosts (lots of crossover there as well) and various bloggers, websites, etc. They share a personality trait with the deranged psychopaths actually pulling triggers: they are bullies. How well, in your experience, does "please stop hurting me" work with a bully? No, I guess I'm shedding my credentials as a lib' but in my experience only a more powerful force can stop a bully. Bullies will always use indulgences, like free speech and due process, to get what they want. Now, someone smarter and more insightful than I already coined the term "Becking" as a verb "To use violent metaphors or make thinly-veiled suggestions of violence against opponents, while maintaining plausible deniability against charges of incitement" and made a handy catalogue of the campaign against America here:  http://veniceforchange.blogspot.com/2011/01/becking-of-america-how-right-wing-media.html

I have little to add, to that posting or any of the other denunciations and analyses. All good, and basically as far as liberalism allows people to do. I guess I keep thinking of what would happen in school if the bully(s) even beat up the teacher or the teacher cannot be bothered to actually confront him(them). That is our current situation, the president sure doesn't care and the republican dicks are responsible for it. Remember John Goodman in "Revenge of the Nerds?" Only this time the Nerds are just crying and taking it from the jocks, while the rest of the campus is indifferent.

Tactically, what is the point of attacking at close range and in broad daylight? Are these clowns really so delusional that they think their guns will help their getaway? Or are they simply suicidal? On some Rambo, hollywood or song of Roland fantasy of going down in a blaze of glory to protect "their liberty, way of life, etc?" I don't know, but the practical effect is simple intimidation. If you want power and want to silence opposition, what better way than to "inspire" nutjobs to shoot at your enemies in public, thereby making others afraid to come out or peacably assemble. What bully wouldn't rather have you frightened enough to just hand over your lunch money without a fight?


These shooters must be insane, the sane ones stay anonymous. Sending a fax of a noose or emailed death threat is easier and less dangerous than showing up in person. At least some of the teabaggers who showed up at townhalls with guns were hoping to get the lunchmoney without expending real effort, the rest really were cowards hiding behind them. There has to be a strong majority in this country that does not feel violence is an appropriate political tool, and not all of them are glued to "real housewives of wherever" or "jersey shore." What they can do to stop this is beyond me though.