Black is not white

When you’re dealing with people in an alternate universe, they’ll often try to convince you that the evidence of your own eyes is wrong and that black is actually white or vice versa. This is happening on the far Left side of the blogosphere where the new meme, apparently, is that LGF is anti-Semitic. The reasoning is that, by highlighting Muslim atrocities, LGF is trying to foment hatred against the Jews who are forcing the Muslims to commit these atrocities. (I’m not kidding. Check it out here.)

Because we’ve all learned that you need to defend yourself against even the most stupid attacks — and that it’s nice if your friends help out — let me just say, as a Jew who likes being Jewish, that LGF is just about the most rational, pro-Jewish site there is. Please note the use of the word “rational.” In other words, LGF’s positive attitude towards Jews is not the mirror image of the irrational anti-Semitism that exists on so many sites. It’s a manifestation of an intelligent brain that has examined the world stituation and concluded, rightly, that Jews are not the enemies.

UPDATE: Welcome, LGF readers! Thank you for dropping by. Needless to say, I’d be delighted if you took a minute to look around. If you’re a conservative thinker, you might like what you see.

del.icio.us | digg it

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    The reasoning is that, by highlighting Muslim atrocities, LGF is trying to foment hatred against the Jews who are forcing the Muslims to commit these atrocities.

    Say whaaat, Book?

    Man, I knew that quote about the web we weave when we first practice to deceive but this is fracking ridiculous don’t you think?

  2. says

    I am no longer surprised when the Islamists blame Israel for their own violence. I’ve heard it too many times already. When they take responsibility for their actions, and not blame the “evil Zionist conspiracy”, then they will be like an alcoholic admitting that he has a problem and can begin to change. The Lefties are the same way…

  3. greg says

    Say, Book, speaking of things that appear to be anti-Semitic but are understood by the Right as being deeply rational, I wonder if you could parse yesterday’s meeting between our President and Walid Jumblatt. Jumblatt is that member of the Lebanese Parliament who claims the real axis of evil is “oil and Jews.” And of course, he’s a full-throated cheerleader for more American deaths in Iraq (which does cause pause to some, but I guess not the President). Jumblatt’s trump card is his advocacy for an American-led regime change in Syria. It got him in to meet Bush.

    Anyway, any ideas on how I should comprehend this meeting between our President and a virulent anti-Semite? who thinks it’s a good thing when American troops die? who, following his meeting with Bush, was feted and applauded at the American Enterprise Institute?

  4. says

    There’s nothing illogical about it. It’s a sad commentary on the Middle East when we realize that Jumblatt represents the lesser — and, in that insane environment, the more rational — of the evils confronting the world. In the hierarchy of evil, Syria is indeed worse, since it’s been active against America while Jumblatt, so far, is just talk. Politics has always made strange bedfellows and Jumblatt has a big mouth, but no blood on his hands and no weapons in his back pocket.

  5. says

    The ability to doublethink really is amazing. For example, Bush is supposed to be one of those undiplomatic monkeys that make a bumbling sort of diplomacy. If only we could talk to Iran face to face… let them know.

    It is fine for people on the Left to talk about diplomacy, in their world view America has no enemies. Or rather, everyone is an enemy of America. Sunni, Shia, Druze, Syrian, Iranian, etc.

    I mean, it is very hard to figure out global political alliances if people are still arguing about “should America be fighting for….”

  6. says

    The realists have it all wrong. This policy was tried for decades on end and it resulted in scenarios where the only prominent opposition to a secular dictator came in the form of even worse religiously fanatical masses. Look for a moment at Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood and likeminded Salafists are the main resistance to Mubarak’s rule. Look at the Jordanian kingship, where its people tended to sympathize with Abu al Zarqawi before he started blowing them up. Look at Kuwait – a nation that was liberated by the United States and subsequently ethnically cleansed all Palestinian nomads – where its people polled the highest anti-American sentiment in the region. Look at the Saudi royal family, which brainwash and indoctrinate their youth in systematic fashion in order to get them hating our liberalism just a little bit more than they hate their lack of significance.

    Not only must we not talk to our enemies – just ask Sharansky how much he and his fellow dungeon dissidents preferred Reagan’s unapologetic and open moralism to Nixon’s detente – but we must become increasingly suspicious of our once-cherished Arab allies. Dwight Eisenhower once remarked that if one could not solve a problem, he would be wise to enlarge it. The solution to our current quandary in the Mideast is not a reversal and return to the old order, but to rile up a few more hornet nests. We are engaged in an audacious counterinsurgency across hostile Sunni municipalities with hundreds of thousands of indigenous Iraqi allies at our side. If we were to accept any of the ridiculous Vietnam comparisons, at least let us acknowledge that we have not only toppled the adversarial government (which was not done then), but we have also, wisely, skipped the half-decade as loner and have moved on to contemporary Vietnamization.

    Keeping the historical analogies alive, if this is in fact the decades-long struggle we are told it is, and victory, as only a determined few define it, rests not only with the capture of specific terrorists or with the continued prevention of domestic attack, but with the transformation of an undemocratic, self-righteously puritanical, and intolerantly hierarchical part of the planet, then let us not embrace a new detente. George Bush Sr., the stone-cold pragmatist, should creep out anyone who champions the promotion of human freedom. Like his associates, the so-called “wise men” from Powell to Baker, Bush the elder served the United States with credit and as he saw fit, in service and in government. But as he saw fit – as Baker, Gates, and that gang see fit – is wrong.

    We must never forget their keeping Hussein in power, or their reinstalling of the Kuwaiti thugocracy, or their assurances to the Iraqi people they would receive American assistance in the event of an uprising – and then their ensuing butchery when the aid they believed we would provide never showed up. We must never forget their golfing with loon tyrants and crass despots for the sake of dictatorial constancy. We should not forget Scowcroft apologizing for Wahhabism, or his lunching with the slaughterers of Tiananmen to “avoid isolating China.” We must never forget their nonchalance as the Berlin Wall fell, or their attempts to preserve the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and continued existence of the Soviet Union. We should not overlook their aversion to change – democratic change, above all.

    A commenter reminded me of this post, curiously enough unconnected with here, presumably.

    http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/11/realpolitek-from-bush-senior_24.html

Leave a Reply