Posts
"This should be extremely clear: Those who, like Trump, have spent years using words to constantly inflame and incite their own supporters, ultimately bear responsibility for this attack on the heart of American democracy. We see all around the world what happens when radical populists come to power and systematically stir up resentment against democratic institutions. Yes, democracy thrives on contradiction, even disagreement. But it dies when brute force silences the other, when sheer hatred breaks all bounds of decency and respect." (Heiko Maas in Der Spiegel Int'l. 7 Jan 21.)
Let us extremely parse the idiot's logic:
"Those who use words to inflame and incite their supporters bear responsibility for an attack committed by those supporters."
Notice how he does not define "inflame" or specify what these supporters were incited to do. Were they incited to violently break into the capitol? To physically disrupt the proceedings? What were the inciteful words used? Heiko does not say.
Instead he rattles on to prattle about "radical populists" who "systematically stir up resentment against democratic institutions." Like Lenin perhaps? Or maybe John Adams inflaming Bostonians against entirely legitimate Parliamentary rule which, in the misinforming fake news of the day, he falsely described as "monarchical tyranny".
So we are left to infer that "incitement" really means "stirring up resentment" This is precisely the language of notorious statutes against seditious libel, the Mother of All Statutes being the English law that prohibited any speech which had a tendency to bring the Crown or into "hatred or contempt" or if it promoted discontent or hostility between citizens. The American statute followed faithfully, prohibiting any malicious statement against the government or exciting "the hatred of the good people of the United States."
Aha.
From this lofty heap of insults dressed in pieties, Heiko tumbles into the deep bullshit of "Yes, democracy thrives on contradiction, even disagreement" Yes! in a democracy we can contradict one another EVEN to the point of disagreement and surpassing agreeing contradiction.
Whu????
Well maybe he means agreeable contradiction; i.e. disagreements HE doesn't particularly mind.
Paddling around in this verbal swill he attempts to extricate himself by pontifically postulating that democracy "dies when brute force silences the other, when sheer hatred breaks all bounds of decency and respect."
Oh ... it is just too choice. Brute force? This from the man who three years ago pronounced "free speech ends where the criminal law begins."
Uh huh? Exactly whose "brute force" are we talking about here?
But let us be charitable! Let us suppose that that what Heiko has in mind is some band of radicalized thugs who go beyond "inflaming" or "disparaging" and fall to beating up on their opponents. No one in his right mind would disagree that resorting to violence to make a political point (or even to make no point at all) is bad. Very bad. It should even be punished!
Let us be even more charitable and, for the sake of argument at least, assume that the riotous breaking into the Capitol was "brute violence." What has that to do with "sheer hatred break[ing] all bounds of decency and respect."
This is exactly how sophists insinuate and confuse.
Note the "," and the lack of either an "and" or and "or." Does Heiko mean to equate "brute force" with "sheer hatred" or does he mean to contrast brute force with sheer hatred? He intentionally leaves it ambiguous.
Why? Because he knows the "brute force" is not the same as "sheer hatred." One can hate intensely without resorting to force. One can shout and scream filled with anger and hatred and still not resort resort to brute force. Brute force is physical violence. Sheer hatred is speech and/or emotion. One is criminal; the other is protected speech.
So how does Heiko fuse the two together, so that "hatred" becomes indistinguishable from "brute force"? He does so with the phrase "breaks all bounds of decency and respect."
So, Oh German, what do you do with Martin Luther, whose "sheer hatred" of the "Whore of Bablyon" certainly "broke" all bounds of "decency and respect".... at least from a papal point of view?
Here too, "break" has both a literal and a metaphorical meaning which is left insinuatingly ambiguous. In this manner Heiko equates indecency and disrespect with brute force... so that speech can end and the criminal law begin.
Notice how he does not define "inflame" or specify what these supporters were incited to do. Were they incited to violently break into the capitol? To physically disrupt the proceedings? What were the inciteful words used? Heiko does not say.
Instead he rattles on to prattle about "radical populists" who "systematically stir up resentment against democratic institutions." Like Lenin perhaps? Or maybe John Adams inflaming Bostonians against entirely legitimate Parliamentary rule which, in the misinforming fake news of the day, he falsely described as "monarchical tyranny".
So we are left to infer that "incitement" really means "stirring up resentment" This is precisely the language of notorious statutes against seditious libel, the Mother of All Statutes being the English law that prohibited any speech which had a tendency to bring the Crown or into "hatred or contempt" or if it promoted discontent or hostility between citizens. The American statute followed faithfully, prohibiting any malicious statement against the government or exciting "the hatred of the good people of the United States."
Aha.
From this lofty heap of insults dressed in pieties, Heiko tumbles into the deep bullshit of "Yes, democracy thrives on contradiction, even disagreement" Yes! in a democracy we can contradict one another EVEN to the point of disagreement and surpassing agreeing contradiction.
Whu????
Well maybe he means agreeable contradiction; i.e. disagreements HE doesn't particularly mind.
Paddling around in this verbal swill he attempts to extricate himself by pontifically postulating that democracy "dies when brute force silences the other, when sheer hatred breaks all bounds of decency and respect."
Oh ... it is just too choice. Brute force? This from the man who three years ago pronounced "free speech ends where the criminal law begins."
Uh huh? Exactly whose "brute force" are we talking about here?
But let us be charitable! Let us suppose that that what Heiko has in mind is some band of radicalized thugs who go beyond "inflaming" or "disparaging" and fall to beating up on their opponents. No one in his right mind would disagree that resorting to violence to make a political point (or even to make no point at all) is bad. Very bad. It should even be punished!
Let us be even more charitable and, for the sake of argument at least, assume that the riotous breaking into the Capitol was "brute violence." What has that to do with "sheer hatred break[ing] all bounds of decency and respect."
This is exactly how sophists insinuate and confuse.
Note the "," and the lack of either an "and" or and "or." Does Heiko mean to equate "brute force" with "sheer hatred" or does he mean to contrast brute force with sheer hatred? He intentionally leaves it ambiguous.
Why? Because he knows the "brute force" is not the same as "sheer hatred." One can hate intensely without resorting to force. One can shout and scream filled with anger and hatred and still not resort resort to brute force. Brute force is physical violence. Sheer hatred is speech and/or emotion. One is criminal; the other is protected speech.
So how does Heiko fuse the two together, so that "hatred" becomes indistinguishable from "brute force"? He does so with the phrase "breaks all bounds of decency and respect."
So, Oh German, what do you do with Martin Luther, whose "sheer hatred" of the "Whore of Bablyon" certainly "broke" all bounds of "decency and respect".... at least from a papal point of view?
Here too, "break" has both a literal and a metaphorical meaning which is left insinuatingly ambiguous. In this manner Heiko equates indecency and disrespect with brute force... so that speech can end and the criminal law begin.
What a despicable little shit. Put a uniform on him and he looks just like the perfect bureaucrat of 70 years ago. And in truth he speaks the same language albeit with slightly different catchwords.
-oOo-
By and large Der Spiegel has been a reliable Atlanto-Liberal magazine; that is, it suscribes to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and supports close trans-atlantic neoliberalism. Domestically, it was known for its "telegraphic" style of reporting and a certain amount of sardonic muck-raking. In the 1970's and 1980's it did a fair amount of "retro-reporting" on the Nazi era, which was non-hysterical and somewhat like what they might have reported at the time had they been allowed to. Originally Social Democratic, the difference between social and christian democratic is nowadays more of a fine point than anything else. It has not shied away from inconvenient realities. All in all it is a more "popular" version of the Economist with a broader range of reported subject matter. Of late, however, they have increasingly become just another biased bull-horn for the Four Freedoms; that is corporate globalism dressed up in multi-cultural drag. In this regard, they resort to the usual tricks, as for instance running a report of "What Germans Think" about such-and-so, under a picture of cross-ethnic and multi-racial faces, as if to visually suggest that "Germany" is "just the world at large in all its wonderful, glowy, diversity." That rather begs a grundsatz issue. That they would publish this insidious Heiko Hogwash (Quatsch} shows that they have cast off their fig leaf without shame.
©wcg 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment