Transmitting Extremism

Dave over a FireDog Lake discusses the emergence of a "kinder" white supremacy, as opposed to the kind of Klan/Neo Nazi blantant ideological rhetoric.

I couldn't agree more, and it seems a corollary to the NeoCon rhetoric, particularly the talk radio and syndicated columnists. If we understand that the rhetoric of NeoCon commissars is, at its core, right wing to the point of actually being Fascist, then it is the talking heads of the movement that flesh out that crypto-fascist skeleton.

I remember, as a kid in the 80's, after a spate of well intentioned but often empty "USA for..." celebrity charitable records for Africa or whatnot, that Q102, if memory serves, had a "USA for the USA" in full Reagan fury. This struck me as rather odd, because, from what I could see (and can) , it is always "USA for the USA", as though we had nothing to apologize for.

At that time, before Iran-Contra, we certainly had some explaining to do, but apologize? We have lots to apologize for now, that Reagan is reaching its logical end in Bush. This defensive rhetoric is reaching its logical end as well, as an offensive rhetoric. We no longer even deign to apologize. The everyman bombast of Morton Downey Jr. has been replaced by a bombast of patriots, such as Hannity, Michael Savage et al., who claim to be down with everyman, but in reality, see the precariousness of these people as an ideological tool, a rhetorical flourish.

I really dug Neiwart's discussion of this rhetoric, and, not to put too fine a point on it, it is crucial to understand that, this crypto/fascism, on the surface, bears little resemblance, at least rhetorically, to the Fascism of Europe in the Twentieth Century. Why should it? Rhetoric as a transactional act is always tethered to time and place, and Ideology is rhetoric. Moreover, on a linguistic level, we know that tension between the sign and signifier is ambiguous, and as a result, can be exploited for Ideological ends (see Orwell "Freedom is Slavery", or Auschwitz "Work Makes You Free", or even "The Vietnam Conflict" as a "police action").

But even a cursory archeology on the signs contained in the rhetoric reveals its geneology, for the "heartland" and "patriot" reveal themselves as fascist constructs, "blood and soil" and "authentic people (Americans) vs. "decandent city dwellers" and "inauthentic people" (Liberals or Aliens). The antithesis in effect is that those outside are always not to be trusted. The roots of this thinking go back along way, but the tree they spawned is eating up the periphery.

I bring this up to point out, as Neiwart has, that this kind rhetoric is reaching its natural conclusion. If the "heartland patriots" are the authentic people, and the decandent coast people aren't, then it follows that an insular xenophobia should follow. The rhetorical-ideological construct allows for nothing else. Sure, the rhetoric is different, less bombast, and really, less tethered to the hick racism of the Klan, or the ramble rousing of the National Socialists. No this is subtle, more slick: "Niggers", in this discourse, become "Criminals" or "Welfare Moms". "Kikes" become "Media Elites". "Wetbacks" become "Security Problems, Undocumented Aliens, Guest Workers" or, judging by the House Bill that has thankfully stalled, "Criminals". Thus, its not a far stretch to Himmler's "Jews as Rats". Contained in the above signs, of course, is its opposite authentic people as white, or rather, the authentic culture as white.

Though the rhetoric is superficially kinder, the targeting of this image at working men and women is the same as in the Twenthieth Century. The precariousness of our lives, paycheck to paycheck, coupled with world instability, makes the idea that some Other can be blamed for these problems appealing, and as in the Twentieth Century, what is lacking in this discourse reveals that the Other preying upon us is not "Welfare Moms", "Guest Workers" or "Media Elites", but Proponents of these ideas themselves. The divisive bullshit is attempt to keep people from recognizing the common ground we share. Those who control the money in this society want to keep it that way. Otherwise, their hegenomy is threatened, because, once the emperor has no clothes, you find a fascist.