If It Looks Like A Goose And Steps Like A Goose 3: Ann Coulter Buys Brown Chemise At Ann Taylor

Julius Streicher in Nurmberg

Leader of the Pack (Brown Shirts)

Ann Coulter called, referred to, made a quip about, snidely remarked that, implied John Edwards as 'faggot'.
What is the problem with this? Other than the present day mania for political correctness and tickets to Re-Hab? The first theorem of Fascist Sociology: (1) Fascism requires an Internal Enemy to be the focus of Violence of the violent members of the Base. As far as I know, "sons-of-bitches" are not targets for bashings by various people in the present day. If someone were to call me a "son-of-a-bitch" (hard to imagine as it is), I would not think my life was just threatened, for I am totally unaware of guys getting drunk and deciding to go out and bash some "sons-a-bitches". I am totally unaware of "son-of-a-bitch" as being the equivalent emblem to a target being placed upon one's clothes, thereby marking the individual as an acceptable target, as a target worthy of one's violence.

The target is beyond the pale of the protection of society. The target is the other... The target remains the other until the Political Ritual of violence is over; it remains until the intoxication passes; it remains until the war is over and the camps are liberated. "Faggot" is very different from "son-of-a bitch". I am very aware that faggot bashing does indeed occur even today. To label someone a faggot can be correctly construed to be an invitation to the Base which has the time and inclination to violence to go ahead and do their thing.

I suppose the most extreme analogy would be to envision Donald Rumsfeld somehow Twilight-Zoneishly in the streets of Falluja wearing a pretty good disguise, thus passing for a local. It would be an incitement to violence if I were to yell "Oh, Arabs. Behold your tormentor!" and slapped an American flag pin on his clothes.
It is not entirely about Ann Coulter. Nor is it about her lable of choice. The leader of the Brown Shirts may not always be Julius Streicher or Ernst Roehm. The Sturmabteilungsfuehrer changes. The target may change, too, if another target with a greater violence potential presents itself. The leader may become Lincoln Rockwell. It may become Meir Kahane. It may become an Imam calling for Israeli blood as target. It may become American TV and radio personalities calling for Arab countries as targets to be 'nuked'. We all of us walk in and out of the closet of the Brown Shirts. We try on a shirt, or a chemise; maybe a pair of pants, maybe boots. We try them out. We buy them. We don't buy. Sometimes we leave, but come back next week. Sometimes we never come back. If we begin to consistently come back, the ghost of Julius Streicher smiles.  

Now, how do I know that what I have said is correct? 
 I know it because it explains a number of things in history for me. When I have set forth this particular line of thought, most of the people I have spoken to have disagreed. They think the whole thing is a tempest in a tea pot. AC has gone too far, again! But that's all it is.
The first time I had an intelligent person respond this way, I immediately flashed on Jews in Germany in 1936: why did they not leave? Why did some, even when they could get out, stay? They stayed because they would not feel the real intuition that told them they were doomed. They relied on the knowledge of the day, in the bright sun, which told them that the German nation has always had its Jew-bashing, a few heads broken, a little blood under the yarmulke, but that was it. Once the "high" spirits of the Jugend came back down from the fever temperature, things are always O.K.
My theory's reception made this immediately understandable. I felt an understanding in my gut that I had never felt before: staring into a horrible future of death and not being able to see it. There is still a lot I do not understand. However, it is comforting in one sense to know I am so much smarter than intelligent folks. In another way, it is very frightening.