The Narrative of Contempt for Refugees Being Propagated by the Right Wing Noise Machine is Now Hardening in the Minds and Heart of the Party of Crazy

The Narrative of Contempt for Refugees Being Propagated by the Right Wing Noise Machine is Now Hardening in the Minds and Heart of the Party of Crazy September 10, 2015

Pope Francis called upon Catholics and people of good will to help the desperate refugees fleeing ISIS and the various horrors of war being visited on their victims (a situation we labored mightily to create both with our war of choice and with our chaotic bi-partisan support of anti-Assad “freedom fighters” who turned out to be ISIS).  But that makes the Party of Personal Responsibility look bad, much as Sandy Hook made it look bad.

Solution: blame the victims and paint them as cowards, invaders, terrorists, parasites, and monsters.

Special incoherency bonus points:  Just a couple of days ago, the accusation was that cowardly men (like the grieving father of the dead toddler photographed on the beach) were sending wives and children ahead of them into Europe as anchors to ensure their own safe passage.  This was supposedly why the father of the drowned boy was a moral monster, making his family go first.

Now the charge is that men are going first and are therefore moral monsters.  The point is, it is the victims of war, oppression and ISIS who are somehow to blame, not the Party of Personal Responsibility’s reckless war or feckless nativism.

Not to let Obama off the hook here either.  Note the date:

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

"But you're searching and questioning …. and, in Jack's experience, people without any sense of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'm very sorry to hear about your illness. Of course I hope the cancer never ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"A "hard Brexit" will never happen. Britain will leave with a deal of some sort. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"How are you? Getting ready for a hard Brexit?"

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    Much as Sandy Hook made it look bad?

    Actually, I don’t think it had anything to do with parties at all. Nor do I think the solutions have anything to do with them. Which makes me wonder about the rest of this post.

    • chezami

      Bunk. One political subculture and one only is gung ho for the gun zealotry and it was that subculture and that one only that produced an entire movement, supported by the NRA, which accused the parents of Sandy Hook of conspiring to murder their children/fake their deaths in order to make the Gun Cult look bad.

      • Dave G.

        The fact that some crazies went to horrible extremes with absurd theories is no worse than the crazies in any other group. Taking the fact that there are radicals who celebrate 9/11 or have loony theories doesn’t mean anyone who is critical of our response to 9/11 is in the same boat. Same here. There is a problem with violence in our society. I’d like us to look to solving it. Not simply hand pick the cases that help give weight to opinions we already have. And that goes for any other crisis in which we run to draw ideological lines around issue, the immigrant crisis included.

        • chezami

          These nuts were encouraged by the NRA: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/sandy_hook_truthers_the_nra_has_actively_encouraged_the_paranoid_fears_of.html Sorry, but you don’t get to pretend that the Gun Cult hasn’t had this crap fueled from its highest eschelons.

          • Dave G.

            And I’m sure that those 9/11 nuts were encouraged by others. I’m sure those who assassinated police officers were encouraged by the rhetoric. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate concern about police violence. Extremes are everywhere, and take their cues from anything. Trying to insist that extremes in one group makes that group guilty and all who hold opinions guilty is a good way of getting those proverbial other three fingers to point right back.

            • chezami

              Not “others”. The NRA. Stop pretending.

              • Dave G.

                Nope. I read the opinion piece on Slate and I don’t buy it. That comes from a lifetime of being told you can’t blame something (like the NRA, like Black Lives Matter, like Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll) for the results of those who go to extremes or take thing the wrong way. I certainly can’t draw a line in the sand and say the entire ‘Right’ is somehow looking bad after Sandy Hook, any more than the ‘Left’ looks bad for the same.

                • chezami

                  Which would really matter if I said “the entire Right” was to blame for Sandy Hook. But since I don’t say that, it’s pointless argument. What I say is that it was not the fringe, but the *leadership* of the Gun Cult that gave aid and comfort to the nuts who tried to attack the parents as conspirators. And it is likewise the makers and manufacturers of Right Wing opinion and “thought” (so called) who are busy teaching the base that thousand of fleeing refugees are, in fact, parasite, invaders, terrorists, and monsters and not, you know, refugees and deserving of help and compassion. This is the party line on the right.

                  • Dave G.

                    Saying the right at all is the issue. The too common internet tendency is to make some vague charge against some vaguely defined group, and then insist ‘I didn’t mean them.’ You shouldn’t go down that path. You’re better than that. I was at an atheist site some months ago when I pushed back on the whole ‘Catholics slaughtering scientists’ thing. I was told ‘nobody ever said they all do that’. No, but let’s face it, you know as well as I do they’re meaning something when they say it at all.

                    Same here. Sandy Hook, like most horrors – including the immigration crisis – had little to do with party politics or ideologies. Both ‘sides’ have their feet in the problems, both have their radical elements, both have their examples of clear thinking. A friend of mine in Hungary shot me an email last week with an article from a local paper that basically said ‘Please Americans, stop blaming Bush.’ He went on to blame Bush in the article, but his point was ‘when people are dying on the shores, we don’t want to hear Americans point fingers, and then help. We just want them to help, and we’re frankly tired of the finger pointing.’ After all, he said, the problems are more than right or left, they’re human. That’s my point.

                    Whether it’s bodies floating down the French Quarter, or dead children in an elementary school, or a black man lying dead in the streets, or a cop lying dead in the streets, or a child washing up on the shores, our reactions shouldn’t be ‘this side/that side, this group/that group is the problem.’ Our reactions should be just what Pope Francis said – how can I help. And if we really look to actually solve the problems once we’ve helped, we’ll notice that sides and groups quickly melt away and there are plenty of errors, and plenty of extremists, to be shared across the board – and sometimes good and bad at the same time! Since all are humans on all the sides, and like you once said so well, humans are part angel, part alley cat. An observation that applies to all sides pretty much all the time.

                    • chezami

                      Please. There is only one political subculuture from which the Gun Cult springs and there is only one political culture that is busy generating the nativism, racism, and jingo contempt for refugees. Your argument is like the constant refrain that Islam is a religion of peace and No True Muslim is responsible for all the jillions of acts of violence committed by Muslims. The Party of Personal Responsibility *never* takes responsibility for the crap its member pump out and propagate.

                    • Dave G.

                      Of course those particular crazies would come out of the right. Just like those cheering for dead cops tend to come from the left. That means nothing but people will be crazy and cling to whatever to be crazy. Certain movements and groups have their distinct nuttiness, that is true. But that says nothing about the group as a whole unless the group officially endorses that form of nuttiness (or evil).

                      And just the opposite of no true Scotsman, I’m saying anyone in any group is capable of being bad and/or good. Finding extremes and trying to make it seem like it’s unique to one particular group ignores the complexities that make up the human experience.

                      BTW, racism only on the right? You’re joking, right? Ask GOP pols who are black, women, Jewish to find out where some of the hippest, newest forms of racism, antisemitism and sexism are dwelling. Heck even non-GOP but non-Democrat (think Joe Lieberman). But again, that means nothing for the bulk of those on the Left anymore than it means for the bulk on the Right. Or the NRA. Or those who focus on a single slice of the problem with police violence, or whatever.

                      It’s more than media driven ideologies and partisanship. Look past the media narratives and you’ll see the old blue state/red state went the way of the butter churn years ago. Despite what Comedy Central and Fox News may suggest.

                    • chezami

                      Where would the Party of Personal Responsibility be without the Tu Quoque and the shout of “They do it too!”

                    • Dave G.

                      No, just pointing out that trying to link an entire people group to the extremes associating with that group is so 20th century. Well, not really. It’s so ‘why learn from the 20th century?’, since it does seem to be all the rage. And since your blog overwhelmingly focuses on the sins of one particular side, that’s why it’s the focus here. If you had said ‘lefties looked bad after those cops were assassinated when a bunch of people came out and called for more violence against cops’, I would have said the same thing. But you didn’t. At least in the case of the cops and the Left. And rightly so. But you did with Sandy Hook and the Right. Hence my response.

                    • chezami

                      So “They do it too” is okay when you are shifting blame, but not when your tribe is faced with taking some responsibility for the people and ideas consistently emanating only from your tribe. Classic Party of Personal Responsibility stuff.

                    • Dave G.

                      No, it’s wrong whoever you do it to. Taking extreme examples of any group, and then trying to paint that group – no matter how vaguely defined – as culpable because of extremes, is never a good idea (see the 20th century for examples). Whether Left or Right. What is so hard about that? Unless the majority of ‘the Right wing whatever’ or the NRA said ‘yes, we agree with those radical Sandy Hook theories’ then they have nothing to do with them, and shouldn’t look bad because of them, any more most concerned about police violence have anything to do with those calling for dead cops. It’s not a matter of right or left. It’s a matter of right or wrong.

  • jrb16915

    Donald Trump has called for the US to accept Syrian refugees. Really need to stop with the left wing partisan lies on this blog.

    • chezami

      Yep. It’s the one thing we agree about, and good on him. But that does not alter the fact that the Right Wing Noise Machine is busy constructing a narrative of contempt for the refugees and that the consumers of conservative media, such as the maker of that meme, are eagerly embracing it.

    • orual’s kindred

      You seem to be a new reader. Welcome! You may soon notice the lack of “left wing partisan lies on this blog” 🙂

      • Mike Petrik

        Agreed, the adjectives are inapt.

        • orual’s kindred

          …Are you saying the adjectives should be more bi-partisan, or solely right-wing?

          • Mike Petrik

            Mark is not a left-winger, and I don’t think that his various smears and inaccuracies are grounded in any partisan bias. Mark tries hard to just be a straight-shooting Catholic, period. But no matter how perfect his aim, his targets are the determined by impulsive outrage rather than informed reason.

            • orual’s kindred

              No, I’m afraid I can’t agree that “his targets are the determined by impulsive outrage rather than informed reason”. And I find it odd to allow for the non-adjective segment of the previous comment after saying that he tries to remain a straight-shooting Catholic.

        • Joseph

          Hi Mike! So, in a previous thread, you were complaining that, because I was pointing out that the US government was actively involved with destabilising the Middle East through inciting Muslim revolutions to overthrow soft dictators, funding, arming, and training Al Qaeda, and ultimately creating ISIS that I must be a *truther* (I realise that was an insult, but unfortunately for you, I’m not a conspiracy theorist). That I’m crazy for trusting the American version of the downed plane in the Ukraine! Remember? Did you read the article Mark references here and the links contained therein? Doh. You, my friend, are a right-wing nationalist nutter who is willfully blind. Good luck!

          • Joseph

            Correction: That I’m crazy for *not* trusting the American version of the downed plane in the Ukraine!

            • Mike Petrik

              Joseph, you read as well as you reason. I never addressed your views re the downed airplane; I addressed only your assertions re the Ghouta chemical attack wherein you expressed your support for Putin’s version over that of the US, the UN, an MIT study, and Human Rights Watch.

              • Joseph

                Human Rights Watch is not an independent and objective source, first of all. That’s like saying, “I read it in the New York Times”. MIT has no leanings either way… riiiiggghhhtt. People like you have said before that the UN is the b*tch of the US. So, it appears that all of those sources happen to have a particular bias. It’s fine if you want to believe the US with all your heart even after it’s been proven that they’ve been lying to you hard core (funding, arming, and training the avowed enemy of the State just to fulfill their goals of displacing soft dictators in the Middle East, thus causing the massive humanitarian crisis we see today). You can be a good little sheep if you want to and trust only *their* official sources of information. Good little doggy. I guess everything Snowden uncovered as well has already been forgiven by the weak minded. People like you are the problem. Defiantly you remain asleep.
                .
                So, because I’ve learned a valuable lesson: don’t trust the US government’s official narratives on any world events, I’ve been called a Eurocommie (don’t even know what that is), a right-winger (which I definitely am not), a truther (don’t ask me how anyone came to that conclusion as I’ve said nothing of 9/11 and have never denied that planes were flown into buildings), and, amazingly, a Holocaust denier (by someone who didn’t capitlise the *h*). You guys are working overtime, man. Apparently, if you don’t trust the all holy US government (despite the evidence), the right wing nationalists like yourself sling all sorts of names and labels around. They’re all wrong, but that doesn’t stop the Jerry Springer culture! AMERICA! F*CK YEAH!!!

              • Joseph

                Human Rights Watch is pushing to make abortion, gay marriage, and gender reassignment a human right and accusing countries of not doing so as opposed to basic human rights… bias much? Political leanings much? They sound like a pretty objective and reliable resource to me. I’m glad you quoted them! Genius.

  • Torquemada Tequila

    Why are these folks literalists when it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis but not when it comes to entire books of the Bible where God threatens punishment against Israel for not showing proper hospitality and charity to the foreigner?

    • chezami

      Spoken like a Canadian foreign devil. 🙂

    • Alma Peregrina

      Unfortunately, they are locked on reaction mode.

      Historically, some atheists and antichristian intelectuals tried to discredit the Bible by debunking the first three chapters of Genesis.

      So, a good christian *must* have a knee-jerk reaction and desperately try to prove that the first three chapters of Genesis are literal.

      Historically, some atheists and antichristian intelectuals tried to hijack the christian social justice principle to promote an atheist and antichristian ideology named Communism.

      So, a good christian *must* have a knee-jerk reaction and desperately try to prove that the completely opposite error (Capitalism) is correct.

      It’s a sort of poetic justice, if you ask me. By abandoning sound catholic doctrine, the reformers are forever doomed to be in a constant state of counterreformation with the culture of “free-thought” they helped to create.

      • Dave G.

        Nice. 🙂

    • Ken

      It helps some Catholic’s consciousness to demean and falsely accuse people on the other side of the political spectrum. Once this is accomplished it’s much easier to justify ignoring God’s commands.