Genocide and Juice

by Belle Waring on September 29, 2004

Feel like getting really scared, but don’t have time to rent 28 Days Later? I invite you to read this open “Letter to Our Enemies”, posted on the blog “Horsefeathers.” (via an excellent post at Obsidian Wings.) The enemies in question appear to be Muslimofascistislamonazis (i.e., all adherents of Islam).

Ordinary Americans are arming themselves for war with you. I and many of my friends have closets full of handguns, rifles, shotguns and thousands of cartridges.

If we had enough ammunition and time, we would kill every last one of you.

We completely support our President and our armed forces. We only wish they would destroy you faster, but we are certain that they will.

This is the type of thing that really makes me reconsider my support for the second amendment.

One day soon, our planes and missiles will begin turning your mosques, your madrasses, your hotels, your government offices, your hideouts, and your neighborhoods into rubble.

We’ve actually already started working on that, Prof.

And then our soldiers will enter your cities and begin the work of killing you, roaches, as you crawl from the debris….

We will transport arab-muslims to our deserts, where they can pray to scorpions under the blazing sun.

The scorpions are a nice touch. And I’m glad to see we don’t have anything against the non-arab muslims of, say, Iran. Oh, wait, what’s that? As Edward of Obsidian Wings says, “Congratulations Professor Kozloff. I am now officially and sincerely more afraid of you than I am the terrorists.”

ObWi commenter Martin contacted the author (see thread), who is a Professor of Education at The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and he declined to disavow his comments. Well, to be more accurate, he said:

One diff between us may be that (given what I take to be the magnitude of the threat to (broadly) our civilization), I am willing to make (serious) errors of overgeneralization if that’s what it takes to get people to see that this in not a war on terror or terrorists; it is a war against the fundamental beliefs of Islam and followers—often wahabi—of those beliefs—that have been dormant for centuries. Also, I believe there are times when savage violence is not ONE thing that will work, but may be the only thing that will work.

Ah, a man brave enough to make serious errors of overgeneralization; that’s just what’s been missing from our political discourse lately. Now, I’m generally no fan of the whole “this nut should lose his job as a professor” school of thought, since it’s more likely to be applied to radical leftists who say dumb things about the revolution, but this guy shouldn’t be teaching anyone, anywhere. Perhaps our vast N.C. readership would like to inquire more closely into the affair? And maybe the ATF could go pry some of those guns from his warm, still-living hands?

{ 37 comments }

1

Kieran Healy 09.29.04 at 2:23 am

You forgot to quote the last paragraph:

[fapfapfap]

Uhh, Nnnnnuhh Uh uh uh uh! Baby!
[fapfapfap]
Nrrgh!!
[Pause]
Shit, where’s the Windex?

2

Greg Hunter 09.29.04 at 2:36 am

The christians need to deal with this issue. Please leave the 2nd Amendment alone. What happens when this guy is your neighbor? Or are duped into electing a facist government?

3

Russell Arben Fox 09.29.04 at 2:39 am

Um, yeah. I’m not sure the comparison holds up. 28 Days Later was scary, but not Kozloff-level scary.

4

bob mcmanus 09.29.04 at 2:53 am

Why do you do this to yourself? What a hobby.

Oh! I don’t think I’ve linked Orcinus on CT yet. Or at least not today.

Psuedo-Fascism and the Conservative Movement, pt 2

5

Carlos 09.29.04 at 2:56 am

I personally am tired of our Facist government. But then, I voted for Baracus.

6

david 09.29.04 at 3:16 am

Goddamn leftwing professoriat, always overusing parentheses with all their nuances.

7

paul 09.29.04 at 3:31 am

I might rethink my support for the 2nd ammendment but I get the sick feeling that one day I may need the guns when these mutants come for the rest of us.

8

George Williams 09.29.04 at 3:41 am

My favorite quote from the comments on the Horsefeathers post is by some guy named Chuck: “It’s getting worse, because things are getting better.”

No, he’s not being sarcastic.

9

the other paul 09.29.04 at 4:09 am

Jesus, what a Walter Mitty case. He must be a riot at departmental meetings. He’s a professor of education in North Carolina, fer cryin’ out loud. I think the chances of him ever shooting anyone, except maybe himself or his wife, accidentally, are pretty slim.

Check out his own link to the letter. He “does not advocate violence against anyone.” The silly bastard doesn’t even have the balls to make unequivocal threats. He’ll never make it in the militia business.

Worth noting that the comments at Horsefeathers predictably attracted the White Power types.

It’s stuff like this that makes me want to just go out and get drunk out of a sense of deep, deep disappointment. How can reasonably well-educated adults be such fucking tools?

10

nick 09.29.04 at 5:04 am

Guns don’t kill people. Gun nuts with genocidal tendencies do. As long as they have guns to do it.

11

hilzoy 09.29.04 at 5:15 am

Further thoughts about this letter here.

12

washerdreyer 09.29.04 at 5:40 am

While I also find the sentiments expressed in the Kozloff’s letter quite frightening, I do question whether or not they are more frightening than the terrorists. This seems to me to be about the question of whether the danger of negative political and policy changes due to people who share those sentiments is worse than the danger of being harmed or killed, or having friends or loved ones harmed or killed. While the likelihood of the former is far higher than the latter, it seems that with almost any figures specified for theier respective likelihoods, the second is still scarier.

13

KCinDC 09.29.04 at 5:54 am

Genocide is “negative political and policy changes”?

14

Zizka 09.29.04 at 6:09 am

People who want to kill Islamofascists will settle for liberals if there’s a local shortage of the preferred target. I don’t think that these people are msotly silly Walter Mitty type. I think that they’re murderous fascists who are biding their time and waiting for the go-ahead.

15

washerdreyer 09.29.04 at 6:11 am

He personally is certainly unable to achieve genocide and is unlikely to actually use violence against anyone. I do not believe that any current US government action constitues genocide, nor that any likely future government action constitutes genocide. I do believe believe that both present government actions do and future government actions will involve killing innocent people, but am confused about where the genocide comes in.

16

madison 09.29.04 at 7:16 am

“And then our soldiers will enter your cities and begin the work of killing you, roaches, as you crawl from the debris…”

…isn’t that what they called the tutsi in rwanda? ‘inyenzi’ or cockroaches?

17

Phoenician in a time of Romans 09.29.04 at 7:42 am

Worth noting that the comments at Horsefeathers predictably attracted the White Power types.

A wingnut blog where you can still take pokes at wingnuts in the comments section?

Hell, I say HELL, boy – this is a gift! Most of the stupid bastards madly censor anyone bringing reality into their tawdry little lives.

18

bad Jim 09.29.04 at 8:39 am

I’ve got a shotgun in the closet, a box of shells on the shelf, legacies of my late father. I’ve also traveled with a neighbor who kept us out of a variety of ancient churches in Spain and Italy because she insisted on her right to bare arms (and shoulders).

What I do not understand, and what I think we need to emphasize, is the fear that folks like this exhibit. Forty years ago one nut in my town kept a spotlight on the Pacific in case the Russians or the Chinese sent in a submarine to subvert us. They probably thought their fear was reasonable. Who now would agree?

We could say, though we shouldn’t, why are people like you such cowards? Afraid to fly, when you’re more likely to be killed in your car?

The U.S. has an impressive nuclear arsenal, but we don’t find it particularly disturbing that citizens reassure themselves with their personal firearms. Just like our attitude towards taxes, one further failure of logic and imagination.

19

yakov smirnof 09.29.04 at 8:44 am

What a country.

20

larkinsjapn 09.29.04 at 8:49 am

Is it just me or do i detect the slightest bit of IRONY here. This man is a Professor? He is resposible for the education of his students? Not in my universe, he will be fired for this won’t he? My Budda, if a professor of black studies was caught writing a screed like this. Fox News would have a coronary. Limbaugh must be howling at the moon, someone stole all his talking (Stalking) points.

21

yabonn 09.29.04 at 9:17 am

[fapfapfap]

Well i don’t know. I had that Big Unifying Theory linking manhood as a political argument, fascination for big shiny things that go boom, and predilection for “power projection” (sigh…) with the ageing prostate of a certain u.s. ruling class, and professor wassisname fitted nicely.

I don’t think he’s a lonely loony : that kind of, hm, “fap” is all over the place (specially usenet), to the point i’m even surprised the situation with blogs is not worse. Less anonymity, maybe.

22

mona 09.29.04 at 10:15 am

the juiciest quote has to be: “I stand by my response. It’s not, to my mind, race hatred. Besides, not to put to fine a point on it, arabs, muslims, and arab-muslims are not a race.”

If the Professor is a Jew like he says, well, is he aware that, not to put too fine a point on it, Jews are also not a race?

Is he also aware that it’s not very kosher, not to mention logical, not to mention dignified or principled which clearly is not his concern, to use being Jewish as some kind of twisted excuse for one’s own psychotic genocidal fantasies?

He even links his paper from his web page on the university’s own server – http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/ – from “Recent Papers” bottom right.

I’d like to know if the university is aware of and ok with this?

23

david g. 09.29.04 at 11:15 am

What the man said:

1. You attacked us and killed thousands, ruining lives of many more (widows, orphans). For this I want you punished.

2. If you invade us (commit more acts of terror on U.S. soil), I want you punished even more, e.g. your mosques burned.

I find this refreshing, not alarming. And quite sensational coming from a (1) professor of (2) education, the most p.c. category in all academia. It’s funny to see all you lefties getting so upset about it, though. Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of “free speech for me but not for thee” at work here.

I doubt that you would like to see Islamists kill more Americans or that you do not believe Americans have a right to defend themselves. I wonder, though.

24

Andrew Brown 09.29.04 at 11:18 am

The cream of the joke is how he links to theis “recent paper” on his site: “[Warning. Provocative language. I do NOT advocate violence against any persons or groups.]”

Heaven forfend!

25

Jack 09.29.04 at 12:56 pm

david g.,
what would your response be to a muslim saying the same thing about the US?

e.g.
You attacked us and killed (tens of) thousands, creating misery for many more.

If you invade us I want you punished even more.

Both could be claimed with larger raw numbers by Muslims. If this view is reasonable and everybody takes it, how will that make a better world? For me it looks like a death spiral.

26

George Williams 09.29.04 at 1:09 pm

“Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of ‘free speech for me but not for thee'”

“Leftists” do not have a monopoly on this principle.

27

mona 09.29.04 at 1:11 pm

Andrew – I guess he is only advocating violence against “roaches” after all, so yeah, technically it’s not people…
Or maybe he just doesn’t think of “arab-muslims” as people. Who knows? Who can penetrate the complexities of such a fine mind?

David G, thanks for the translation, I’m not sure if the roaches and scorpions part fits in your neat summary, but here’s a few things you might consider: a) free speech works both ways, ie. the Professor can write his stuff and other people can write and comment on it; b) anyone can say whatever they like, you can put to paper any kind of fantasies, be they porno-genocidal or paedophiliac or necropheliac, however, free speech usually comes attached with a thing called “responsibility”; c) no one is advocating removing the constitutional right to free speech of the Professor; d) since he has the responsibility to teach students, and since all universities usually uphold professional standards, they might want to consider whether the professor using the uni’s own website to publish this material is an acceptable trade-off for what must surely be his wondrous professional skills, and whether his choice of tone and style as well as the content of his article suits their wider principles – in other words, whether they want such an arrogant racist jerk teaching at their college. You can bet that if it was someone at say IBM who had used the company site to write something like that, you wouldn’t have even had the time to know about because they’d have fired him instantly. Even if he was the best programmer in the world.

Where does the tiresome “PC” strawman figure in there? is the concept of responsibility and standards a “PC” invention?

Would you be so tolerant of blatant racism if instead of “arab-muslims” the piece was about Jews, and if instead of being Jewish the professor was a Muslim? The very people who think like Prof. Scorpion would be first in line not just to cry outrage and demand firing, rightly so, but would also be wrongly indulging in more of the generalisations and demonisations of all Muslims. Like they’ve done a million times.

Hypocrisy stinks.

28

KCinDC 09.29.04 at 1:57 pm

David G.: Examine carefully what the word “you” means in your two points. The professor has a very broad definition of who fits into that category, and I don’t find it refreshing at all.

29

Paul 09.29.04 at 2:22 pm

Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of “free speech for me but not for thee” at work here.

You’d think a Professor of Classics would be above trotting out this old chesnut. Is this what you say when a manuscript or article of yours is rejected?

And while we’re at it, what’s all this combat frontin’ among classicists? There’s you, Kozloff calling himself an “aging hoplite,” and Ol’ Victor Hanson Davis, Master and Armchair Commander himself. Is this Renn Fest, classics stylee, or are you all just too fond of Shaw’s remark about gunpowder and professors of greek?

30

Eric 09.29.04 at 3:36 pm

Thank God for that, now that Crooked Timber has flagged up this nut job I can totally discount the threat of Islamic terrorism, secure in the knowledge that I’m more likely to be shot by a “strawman” Professor in North Carolina.

Someone tell Hitchens and Berman quick! The war is over.

31

mona 09.29.04 at 4:03 pm

eric, you’re right, it seems everyone forgot that there is terrorism, and that because there is terrorism, we can safely discount much less troublesome matters like the existence of racist jerks and bad professors, in fact, we can safely discount discussing anything at all, safe in the knowledge that the war on terror will unfold itself all of its own, in the way it sees fit, like an intelligent super antivirus, and that opinions however marginally related to it are not our concern, even if it’s fantasies of genocide, which are ok, because of terrorism. amen.

32

Edward 09.29.04 at 4:32 pm

Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of “free speech for me but not for thee” at work here.

That’s beyond lame in this context. With the right of free speech, one hopes, comes the obligation to defend what one argues.

Professor Kozloff is advocating, among other things, kidnapping, murder, censorship, destruction of private property, and discrimination based on religion.

His defense of this laundry list of atrocities is the belief that the entire Arab Muslim world is responsible for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. Guilt through association. Hardly the sort of thinking one would expect from a Professor of Education.

33

Eric 09.29.04 at 5:09 pm

Mona,

No-one is suggesting that idiots like Kozloff should not be discussed, but Crooked Timber has a bizarre tendency to focus on the kooky “itch” when it suits, in order to avoid facing up to the rather large tumour.

34

Paul 09.29.04 at 5:56 pm

No-one is suggesting that idiots like Kozloff should not be discussed

And that’s what we’re doing. So what’s your problem? Wanna discuss something else? It’s a big Internet–it’s probably out there. Wanna apologize for Kozloff? Then do so.

Crooked Timber has a bizarre tendency to focus on the kooky “itch” when it suits, in order to avoid facing up to the rather large tumour.

Which means … what? The writers here lie, is that what you’re saying? They propagandize? They just aren’t with the program? Don’t be so mealy-mouthed. Say what you mean. You sound just like Kozloff with his “I don’t advocate violence (except when I’m advocating violence)” disclaimer.

35

Eric the Unread 09.29.04 at 7:39 pm

Do I Paul? I think not.

Did I say they lie?

I’m sure I agreed with them that Kozloff was a nut.

I do say what I mean, stop projecting your fears on me.

And not once have I advocated a indescriminate slaughter of Muslims as a route forward in the War on Terror. Given that more Muslims have been slaughtered by Islamic fundmentalists than anybody else, that would be a rather stupid position to take up.

36

Tom Doyle 09.29.04 at 8:34 pm

Any mental health care professionals (or paras, for that matter)on board?

I’m a Juris Doctor, so I’m not technically qualified to offer a diagnosis. (or even a second opinion. Second guessing either of the former is as far as I can go. [;8^)> )

However, a previous thread which dealt, inter alia, with psychopharmacology, clinical indications, ethics, etc. prompted me to visit some web sites related to those subjects and mental health disorders are still on my mind.

Does anyone who knows something about these subjects think that the professor’s letter, together with his dialogue with those who inquired about it, suggest the possibity that a manic episode of bi-polar disorder (these terms may be out-dated) might be in the picture? Or ruled out?

I’m not looking for an argument about this and I don’t want to derail the thread on this issue. Any further comments I might post on this thread should be regarded as unrelated to this request. If anyone cares to respond, an email is fine with me.(I hope the last suggestion doesn’t violate blog policy, which I have no desire to do.)

TD

37

Alex 09.29.04 at 11:24 pm

Are we positve that this isn’t just a cross-dressing Michelle Malkin?

Comments on this entry are closed.