On January 29th, 2022, a protest convoy
of long-haul truckers and their supporters converged on Ottawa, Canada to
display their rejection of a vaccine mandate imposed upon truckers crossing the
US-Canada border into Canada.
The protest had picked up steam in the
preceding weeks and tens of thousands of people from around Canada and the
world rallied in support of the cause and to reject the ever-expanding medical
authoritarianism that has metastasized during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As predicted, the media and left-wing
politicians denounced or attempted to minimise the convoy and related protests.
Some even suggested that the Russians were involved in the convoy, whilst spokesmen
for the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), including its chair, Bernie Farber,
stated that the movement had been hijacked by neo-Nazis and that swastikas were
being flown at the protest.
Now, I can only find evidence of one swastika being flown by one person who was also flying a 'F*ck Trudeau' flag, and the reaction is somewhat telling.
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen its fair share of protests, and in some cases Nazi imagery has been used to demonise the subject of the protest in question.
Across the US in 2020-2021, Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported that anti-lockdown protesters used Nazi imagery to analogise their own governments' policies. In Michigan, protesters likened their governor Gretchen Whitmer to Adolf Hitler - often with her image vandalised with the iconic 'Hitler-stache' and coupled with swastikas. Similar instances were seen in New Mexico, Ohio, Alaska, and other states wherein people wore 'yellow stars' and made Anne Frank references.
Even before the pandemic, however, Nazi imagery has been used in Hong Kong by pro-democracy protesters to liken the Chinese government to the Nazis and pro-Palestinian protests have used swastika bedecked Israeli flags, too.
That people use these symbols is one
thing, but why? It is because of its political cache.
Nazis represent threats to the open
society, and their symbols are used to tarnish people and groups who are deemed
to be such threats - either real or imagined. The Left does this to the Right,
and the Right does this to the Left.
The point here isn't to go down the
laundry list of grievances and tally up the numbers to see which side is worse
at name-calling. You see, calling your political opponents 'Nazis' or
'fascists' is just what political opponents do in the Anglosphere. The point is
to acknowledge that the Right lacks cultural dominance and thus cannot use
symbols in the way that the Left can. Furthermore, the Right is viewed to be forever on
the 'wrong side of history' and as the embodiment of the very thing those
symbols are said to attack. That is why the flying of a Nazi flag/making
Holocaust references at a protest against COVID tyranny is immediately viewed by the Left as an endorsement of Nazism and not as a symbol of condemnation of said
tyranny.
What people who use such symbols have
done is detect a narrative weapon that gets wielded against the opponents of
the ‘open society’. They view phenomenon X as a threat to the open society, and
thus think that they can wield the symbols in the service of their own cause.
But since the Right is deemed by the Left to be prima facie 'anti-open society', and the
Left is in power, any right-wing use of Nazi/Holocaust imagery, even in an
accusatory fashion, will invite immediate condemnation. The whole thing
backfires. Its like they're characters in a sci-fi film who try to use the
alien technology against the aliens - they just don't know how its used.
The Left can condemn Trump's handling of the US-Mexico border as neo-fascist and compared the detainment of minors to 'concentration camps', only to receive moralistic praise for doing so - even by Holocaust survivors themselves. But when the Right claims that there are 'COVID concentration camps', they're called conspiracy theorists exploiting the Holocaust.
(Ditto for using the term 'racist'. For more, please check out this earlier post on the meaning of racism in the West.)
Despite this, folks like Farber and Greenblatt say that using the imagery ‘is insulting to the memory of all those who were persecuted and murdered’. I don’t see how this is the case. To my understanding, these protesters are finding common cause in the suffering of the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust by drawing comparisons to that suffering and their own lives (even if it is misguided). The Farbers and Greenblatts of the world instead see cynical people who are willing to weaponise history for political gain. (They’d never do that, right?)
But I don’t see how Farber and
Greenblatt can have it both ways: they want robust Holocaust education that educates
all people about the consequences of bigotry and hatred and to critically
reflect upon and internalise the lessons of the Holocaust. But they don’t want people to utilise Holocaust
imagery for their own purposes. So which is
it? Is the Holocaust and World War II, in general, a rich and tragic trove of informative
analogies through which we could understand our time and caution us against slipping
into barbarism? Or is it just a dogma to be genuflected towards?
Its neither.
Its a weapon. And you don’t
get to use it.
Now, to be clear there are the facts that
make up what the Holocaust ‘is’ (I’m not talking about those), and there
are the symbols and tropes that the Holocaust ‘represents’. When we talk about ‘the
Holocaust’, we are often not just relaying facts – many people, in fact, are thin on the facts. Instead, we are talking about the grander meta-narrative that the
Holocaust signifies, and that meta-narrative has largely replaced the history. This partly explains the incongruence between persistent 'Holocaust education' and actual knowledge of its history. And what does the Holocaust signify? Well, the answer is a
boring, ‘it depends’.
Like all societal symbols – whether from
monuments to myths – the Holocaust represents or expresses certain dominant
ideas that are intended to be passed on from generation to generation. As such,
individuals in society will often internalise the dominant ideas in the
construction their own identity, and this process brings into existence an
individual's 'subjectivity': how one experiences one's self in the larger
scheme of society and its rules, stories, history, and destiny. This can give
one a sense of superiority as one sees one's self as connected to the dominant
culture and its ideas, or one can feel alienated from it.
Given that the Holocaust is so engrained in our society it is no mystery why its symbolism is used in social and political discourses. It also isn’t a mystery that the use of Holocaust imagery is controlled and relegated to certain groups. As stated before, the Right isn’t in power, the Left is, and the Holocaust is used to express certain dominant ideas. Since those dominant ideas are at odds with how the Right is viewed, or even at odds with what the Right wants, the symbolism is denied to it.
This shows one of the conceits of the discourse surrounding the Holocaust: generally speaking, the Holocaust is supposed to represent the depths of human depravity – Man’s inhumanity to Man. It represents the horrors of authoritarian politics predicated on the unjustified hierarchisation of human groups and the resulting dehumanisation. However, one can see how this general description is at odds with how the Holocaust functions – one glaring example is found in the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Anti-Semitism. (Feel free to check out a previous post on this definition and its problems).
In this definition, there are eleven (11)
examples of what the IHRA sees as anti-Semitic. While some examples are
uncontroversial – being instances of violence, vandalism, and abuse – there are
some debateable examples.
First, there is Example 8 which is
‘applying double standards by requiring of [the State of Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’ There is also Example 10:
‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’.
These two examples clash in an obvious
way: if Israel is to be held to the same standards of any other nation (as per
Example: 8), and, if like any other nation, Israel could fall into fascism
and/or racism, a la Nazi Germany, then why is it anti-Semitic when such
comparisons are applied to Israel? Surely other democratic nations are held to
standards that proscribe racism, genocide, targeting of civilians, expanding
territory through war, and the like – and so Israel should be held to such
standards and criticised for transgressing them when it does. If not, as it
seems the IHRA definition contends, then the IHRA is allowing the Jewish State
of Israel to be an unjustified exemption from the principles it proports to be
subject to.
These are but a couple examples of the use
and abuse of the Holocaust and its power.
It is something that is universal in that
is universally imposes guilt, but it can only ever be used exclusively in the
service of some favoured group or other. We're supposed to see it as a window
into the darkness of our hearts, but we cannot use it as a lens to view our own
victimisation.
This dead end is evidence that the new
approach is in order. We should really ditch the use of such symbols since they
are not only inaccurate for representing our time, but the use of such symbols
by us provides nothing but opportunities for abuse by our political and
cultural opponents.
We are not in the 20th century
anymore and being corralled its ambitions, pretensions, and symbols hampers our
ability to think clearly about our current state and the future. (Sure, we can
and ought to still learn from history – I’m not suggesting that we ditch
anything and everything prior to 2000AD. I’m saying that we can find ourselves
uncritically accepting narratives, symbols, and assumptions that hamstring
political action and messaging.)
Trudeau
isn't like Hitler: Trudeau is a worker bee for neo-liberal techno-capital and
global homogenisation. He is a destructive force in his own way, but a
pro-LGBT, cosmopolitan feminist and anti-White egalitarian isn't Hitler,
Stalin, or any other of the dictatorial leaders of the 20th century. He is a
spokesman for a whole new system of totalitarianism that we’ll have to grapple
with.
The protesters are right point out the authoritarianism of our
elites, but they are confused on the history and are wrong to think that their
opponents will listen. They are not only using inaccurate imagery, but
they’re also using imagery that is denied to them. They don't know how the
system is tilted and in whose favour it operates.
We need to get out of the 20th century.
____
No comments:
Post a Comment