Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The site is a sister to Atlantic Free Press and Brick Ogden an American Expatriate in Amsterdam has been a key supporter of this project.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
Death Cult: The Violent Vision of the Radical Right
by Chris Floyd
Dave Neiwert picks up on the accelerating eliminationist rhetoric issuing from Rad Right poster boy Mark Steyn and his slathering acolytes such as Mark Noonan. Taking off on a story about German efforts to stem a spate of infanticides (23 to be exact, in a nation of 82 million), Steyn cracks wise, then turns the story into a bizarre attack on "the welfare state." First he notes the continuing economic ravages in eastern Germany then, in the very next paragraph, forgets all about this and scornfully dismisses the idea that any woman in "a land of socialized health care and lavish welfare" could ever be desperate enough to get rid of a child. (His obsessive concern with the fertility rates of white women is also a prominent feature of the piece.)
Steyn follows up this pretzel logic with a leap from scorn to the genocidal imputations that are an increasing feature of his work:
It's getting harder not to conclude that parts of Europe are evolving into a kind of post-human society.
Neiwert nails the implications of this brutal theme, and follows its slimy trail to Noonan:
"Post-human?"
The clear implication of this coinage is that these people are also
sub-human, or in any event non-human -- and by extension, fully worthy
of extinction or elimination.
And then Mark Noonan at Blogs for
Bush picked it up and ran with it, extending the reach of these "post
humans" to America as well, and concluding thus:
There are two
things which can stop this slide into barbarism and death: the conquest
of the west by people who believe in something, or the revival of a
west which has returned to its moral and intellectual roots. Those are
the choices - be conquered by Moslems (who at least believe in
something higher than themselves and their personal pleasures), or
become Judeo-Christian. Death or conversion, take your pick.
You
know how these things spread. I now look forward to hearing from the
usual right-wing suspects -- Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Malkin --
describe their pet targets, particularly liberals, as "post-human" as
well. Not to mention having it pop up among the trolls. And all points
in between.
These people are treading down this path on their
own inevitable momentum, and probably nothing can be said to stop that.
What we have to wonder, though, is how many people are going to go
along with them.
What's more, Noonan's panicky outburst is a
prime example of another waxing trend among the gooberati: their
ever-growing attraction to the "enemy," the "Islamofascists." More and
more, we see these expressions of admiration for the Islamic
fundamentalists "who at least believe in something higher than
themselves and their personal pleasures." There is also great regard
for conservative Islam's virulent opposition to homosexuality, its
emphasis on patriarchal rule in the home, its opposition to abortion
and family planning. Indeed, the Bush Administration has often aligned
the United States with the most retrograde Islamic regimes in opposing
international initiatives to give women control over their own bodies,
their own fates.
The ludicrous yet revelatory new book by Dinesh
D'Souza, The Enemy at Home, carries this tendency to its penultimate
extreme. D'Souza blames the "Cultural Left" for causing 9/11 and
Islamic terrorism in general. The Islamic extremists, says D'Souza, are
actually justified in hating "the West" because of all our loose women,
fags, dopeheads, boozehounds, jungle be-bop music and nasty sexy sexy
movies, etc. But D'Souza too evinces the same muddled logic that
afflicts Steyn, for he goes on to argue that these Islamic extremists
are making common cause with the very same loose women, fags, dopeheads
and sexy sexy moviemakers of the "Cultural Left" in an effort to
destroy America. But then, logic means little to these peddlers of
hate-porn: stirring up enmity toward the objects of their bilious
prejudice is all that matters.
D'Souza's book is the penultimate
extreme, because he doesn't call outright for liberals to be killed.
But as Jeffery Feldman noted in an excellent dissection of "D'Souza and
the Violent Right," the call for mayhem and murder against the
"Cultural Left" is the clear subtext of the book. As Feldman puts it:
Dinesh
D'Souza is a paragon of the "violent right"--a new breed of pundits who
seek to control public debate by framing all issues through an
authoritarian logic of violence....D'Souza explains that the "cultural
left" in America is fighting a "war against the war" with agenda of
humiliating Bush that supersedes any concern for protecting the
country. The key to this agenda, he explains, is an alliance between
Osama bin Laden and the left--bin Laden supplying "the terror" that the
liberals subsequently put to use at home...
But D'Souza is a
different kind of voice to emerge in the violent right. Neither angry
nor animated, D'Souza cuts a media image similar to that of a boring,
middle school substitute teacher. He is a quiet, unassuming man using
soft tones as he both writes and speaks about the need to battle and
destroy liberals with the same ferocity as we kill terrorists...The
already relentless accusations from the Republican right that liberals
are "weak"--this critique is the political equivalent of an ignorant
oversight, according to D'Souza's argument. Liberals, he tells us, are
not weak. They are active accomplices to murder--or rather, they are
actively engaged in seeing that others commit murder.
The
image of a boring, middle school substitute teacher, masking a
ferociously violent mind -- hmm, that sounds familiar, like some figure
out of the not-so-distant past:
An exaggeration? Feldman goes on:
But
D'Souza does not stop at accusing liberals of murder qua individuals.
In his writing there is a far larger problem that requires a far more
comprehensive application of violence. It is the "actions" of liberal
"culture" that lead to the murder of Americans:
The left is
responsible for 9/11 in the following ways. First, the cultural left
has fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses
traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world, that are
being overwhelmed with this culture. In addition, the left is waging
an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal
family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures. This
campaign has provoked a violent reaction from Muslims who believe that
their most cherished beliefs and institutions are under assault.
Further, the cultural left has routinely affirmed the most vicious
prejudices about American foreign policy held by radical factions in
the Muslim world, and then it has emboldened those factions to attack
the United States with the firm conviction that "America deserves it"
and that they can do so with relative impunity. Absent these
conditions, Osama Bin Laden would never have contemplated the 9/11
attacks, nor would the United States today be the target of Islamic
radicals throughout the world. Thus when leading figures on the left
say, "We made them do this to us," in a sense they are correct. They
are not correct that "America" is to blame. But their statement is
true in that their actions and their America are responsible for
fostering Islamic anti-Americanism in general and 9/11 in particular.
Guilty
of murder, penalty: death...Thus, in his own quiet way, spectacles
slipping gently down his nose, D'Souza incites his reader to see
liberals as an immoral foot on the neck of the nation. The only
logical conclusion is to rise up against them. Talk is how we ended up
here in the first place. D'Souza's argument coaxes his reader to reach
for the knife...
Americans who dismiss the power and danger of
D'Souza's argument do so at great risk to the public sphere of free
debate in this country. By the time the arena of public ideas is
overtaken by D'Souza's toxic and contagious language of violence, it
will be too late to turn it back. Violence for D'Souza is not a turn of
phrase, but a worldview. His goal is not expertise, but power...The
violent writing of Dinesh D'Souza should serve a warning of what
America may soon face if Congressional leaders fail to reawaken a clear
understanding between power and violence in all aspects of American
policy. And Americans must all relearn these basic lessons before the
violent right grasps the full extent of its political collapse--for in
that moment, all restraints on right-wing responses to the progressive
political participation will vanish.
This is the sulfurous flame
burning in the blast furnaces of the Radical Right: the ranting radio,
the TV tirades, the politicized pulpits, the deep-pocketed publishing
houses and think tanks that pump out their poison to millions of people
every day. As Neiwert astutely notes, the momentum of this rhetoric --
this deliberate choice to embrace eliminationism and the language of
violence as mainstream political tools -- is carrying the Right
hurtling down the path toward brownshirts and murder, toward night and
fog. You think "it can't happen here?" It's happening right in front of
your eyes.