Ms. Magazine: Rush Limbaugh is “Like The Taliban”

On its web site, Ms. Magazine recently posted an article in which it bizarrely compared Rush Limbaugh to the Taliban. The author of the article, Marcia Ann Gillespie, wrote,

No, they are not the Taliban. No, our internal terrorists aren’t named Osama bin Laden. Our homegrown terrorists have names like the Lambs of God and William Pierce (author of the Turner Diaries). And then there are the Jerry Falwells who clutch their holy books while spewing hate speech, blaming and damning and demonizing feminists and homosexuals for this assault on America. Or Rush Limbaugh who routinely and obscenely labels people who believe in the social, economic, and political equality of women and men — as the dictionary describes feminism — as “feminazis” on America’s airwaves. No, they are not the Taliban, but like the Taliban, the demonization and oppression of women to save us, or purify the race, or preserve the family, or uphold patriarchy is central tot heir beliefs. And like the Taliban, many of them use religion to justify their words and actions.

First, although he holds to some utterly disgusting views, it is a bit odd for Gillespie to label William Pierce a terrorist since he has never been convicted of an act of violence to my knowledge. Pierce certainly writes racist, inflammatory books and gives speeches that advocate violence, but as far as I know he’s never engaged in an act of violence or terrorism.

It was odd that Gillespie mentioned Limbaugh after first mentioning Falwell, because her comments about the radio commentator are just as absurd as were Falwell’s nutty claims that the terrorist attacks occurred because America had turned its back on God by allowing homosexuality and abortion.

Limbaugh is quite clear that “feminazi” applies to the leaders in the pro-abortion movement. Such euphemisms are repugnant, but Gillespie herself is engaging in precisely this tactic when she compares Limbaugh to the Taliban. Or, as kids on the playground might retort, takes one to know one.

The scary thing is that Gillespie refers to Limbaugh’s use of the term “feminazi” as obscene, which may just be rhetoric, but may actually be meant literally given that she characterizes Falwell’s comments as “hate speech.” It’s a bit incongruous to see someone decrying the Taliban while turning around and endorsing the idea of hate speech, which is much closer in accordance with the ideals of the Taliban than is Limbaugh’s euphemisms for abortion advocates.

Source:

Ms. responds to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Marcia Ann Gillespie, Ms. Magazine, undated editorial, 2001.

Share

Camille Paglia on NOW’s “Flush Rush” Campaign

Like me, Camille Paglia is apparently still receiving letters from the National Organization for Women begging for money for their “Flush Rush!” campaign. After all of these years trying to get Limbaugh off the air waves without even a modicum of success, I would have thought NOW would have long ago moved on to something more productive, but alas such is not the case.

As Paglia recounts, the rhetoric in the NOW letters borders on hilarious.

NOW believes that Rush Limbaugh is truly a dangerous man. We need the help of every progressive person to expose the hateful, divisive fanaticism of Rush Limbaugh.

As opposed to the hateful, divisive fanaticism of an organization that rejected a resolution affirming the importance of fathers in children’s lives as being far too right wing.

As Paglia notes, whatever one thinks of Limbaugh, he is successful precisely because he has tapped a broad spirit of populism.

I don’t quite agree with her positive assessment of Limbaugh — “His daily radio show is the one reliable place ordinary citizens can turn to for a different perspective in the blizzard of propaganda and disinformation from the Northeastern media establishment” — but her description of NOW is on the money,

…a group that should be impartially devoted to the advancement of women is shamelessly whoring for the Democratic Party by trying to shut down alternative political points of view.

Source:

The peevish porcupine beats the shrill rooster. Camille Paglia, Salon.Com, December 6, 2000.

Share