Saturday, March 8, 2014

A Brief History Of Delegitimization

Sometimes you just can't trust people. And humans are weird because while we really don't like when another group tries to claim they're legitimate when they're totally like not, we usually happen to be oppressing someone while this is happening.

Here's the former president of Iran in his noble defense of the lying Jews:
 PELLEY: Mr. President, you say you love all nations. I have to assume that includes the Nation of Israel.

AHMADINEJAD: Israel is not a nation. Well, we like the people, yes, because they are victims as well. They used to live in their own countries, in their own cities.

Here's the former president of Israel in 1970 setting the record straight:

I’m not saying that there are no Palestinians, but there
is no such thing that can be entitled Palestinian people (Meir, 1970a).

So did Jews make it up? No. It goes back farther than either Meir or Ahmadinejad:

Is it actually true, one may ask, that the Jews have no real fatherland? The short summary of Jewish dispersal does not by itself answer this critical question. We cite Ferdinand Fried’s book The Rise of the Jews [1937] for the answer: “They are not rooted in any land, but they proliferate everywhere, acting as destructive parasitic bacteria in each host people."
Okay so Jews and Palestinians don't have any legitimacy. What about Filipinos? Nope:

[T]here is no people in the Philippines. There are a number of distinct tribes... none really civilized.

What about just democracy in general?

When, therefore, Marcius saw that the senate was in pain and suspense upon his account, divided, as it were, betwixt their kindness for him and their apprehensions from the people, he desired to know of the tribunes what the crimes were they intended to charge him with, and what the heads of the indictment they would oblige him to plead to before the people; and being told by them that he was to be impeached for attempting usurpation, and that they would prove him guilty of designing to establish arbitrary government, stepping forth upon this, "Let me go then," he said, "to clear myself from that imputation before an assembly of them; I freely offer myself to any sort of trial, nor do I refuse any kind of punishment whatsoever; only," he continued, "let what you now mention be really made my accusation, and do not you play false with the senate." On their consenting to these terms, he came to his trial. But when the people met together, the tribunes, contrary to all former practice, extorted first, that votes should be taken, not by centuries, but tribes; a change, by which the indigent and factious rabble, that had no respect for honesty and justice, would be sure to carry it against those who were rich and well known, and accustomed to serve the state in war.

That's all folks. I'd be interested to learn if other parallels exist.

No comments:

Post a Comment