ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, May 22, 2015

The media litmus tests

A New York Times reporter fact-checks ethnic identity:
A Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Berkeley, David McCleary, wrote to me this week with a complaint about being subjected to what he called “a Jewish litmus test” during a Times interview.

The interview (conducted by a Times stringer, or regular freelancer, who is not on the full-time staff) was done for an article that eventually appeared on the front page, “Campus Debates on Israel Drive a Wedge Between Jews and Minorities.” It took up efforts on college campuses to pressure Israel over its policies toward Palestinians and its occupation of the West Bank.

Mr. McCleary, who is Jewish, said that the reporter, Ronnie Cohen, asked him “insulting and demeaning questions,” including whether he “looked Jewish,” after telling him that his name didn’t sound Jewish and asking if he had been bar mitzvahed. He also said that after talking with the reporter for more than an hour, he was displeased to find that none of that interview made its way into the article, and that no other Jewish student who supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement was quoted or represented in the story....

After speaking to Ms. Cohen, who confirmed, in general terms, the nature of the questions to Mr. McCleary, Ms. Mitchell told me, “If she indeed pursued that line of questioning, it was inappropriate.”
These litmus tests are the way SJWs in the media and elsewhere attempt to shoehorn people into their anti-white narrative. You've probably noticed that they absolutely hate to admit that I am a Native American, because that blows their "white supremacist" angle to Hell. You can tell they don't really care about Hispanics because they have no similar problem admitting that I am Mexican... except for the few who were trying to raciss-DISQUALIFY on the basis of my statements against open immigration.

In the case of the intrepid Ms Cohen, it's obvious that she didn't like the fact that a Jewish man was taking what she believed to be the wrong position, ergo she tried to DISQUALIFY him as a Jew. This is one of the many inevitable consequences of identity-based ideology. As one professor objected:
I am distressed about the lack of evidence in the piece to support the authors’ assertions about this deeply sensitive and volatile issue. Divestment is supported by a large group of individuals — some of them members of minority groups, and some Jews. (I, incidentally, do not support the movement). To make this into a “Minority vs. Jewish” question, without supplying evidence, is to distort the issue.
Of course, distorting the issue is the main objective. But this story of ethics in ethnic journalism also points to something more important. When talking to the media, ALWAYS record them. It's clear that the national editor doesn't want to fire Ms Cohen, hence the statement "If she indeed pursued that line of questioning". Since Mr. McCleary probably didn't record his conversation with the reporter, he probably can't prove it and she'll get away with it.

So, I repeat: when speaking with the media, ALWAYS record your conversation. This prevents them from playing their usual game of attempting to spin what you said even as they deny what they did and said.

Labels:

65 Comments:

Blogger Rantor May 22, 2015 5:53 AM  

Interesting point about recording calls. There are apps for that which make it easy to record any calls on your smartphone.

Blogger Thordaddy May 22, 2015 6:25 AM  

Vox...

"They" may hate to admit that you are a "native american" (a misnomer IMHO) because it puts a crimp in the idea that you are a WHITE Supremacist, BUT this lack of admittance does nothing to change the fact that you believe in and worship Perfection and thus embrace a Supremacist orientation.

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 6:47 AM  

I am an elitist. That I will admit to openly. And a eucivic civilizationist as well. But I don't believe in any form of human supremacy. I simply don't.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 22, 2015 6:57 AM  

"White Sooooopremacist" now there is some prime demonization rhetoric, frankly speaking in less free countries in regard to speech the people who use that should go to jail.

Fill in the blank Sooooopremacist is only aimed at one group no matter how much rhetoric from any other so called representative of any other group. But NO here we are these days where just the degraded existence of modern life where you dare to be a descendant of some newly minted way dead criminal you become a White Sooooopremacist by just daring to exist.

And worse, conservatives respect the people who call them White Soooooopremacists, typical.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 22, 2015 7:12 AM  

But I don't believe in any form of human supremacy.

This is like saying that, as a statist, I don't believe in abusing power.

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 7:14 AM  

This is like saying that, as a statist, I don't believe in abusing power.

How? Do you not understand the difference between superior and supreme? A rejection of absolutes is not a rejection of gradations.

Blogger ScuzzaMan May 22, 2015 7:22 AM  

Vox

Can you define the term "eucivic" so I am sure I understand from it what you mean to convey, please?

Not a gotcha, I just could not find any reference to the term on the net.

Thanks
SM

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 7:24 AM  

Eucivic: That which sustains and improves civilization. Antonym: dyscivic. It's related to the concept of eugenics.

Blogger ScuzzaMan May 22, 2015 7:26 AM  

Thanks.

Much obliged.

Blogger Jack Ward May 22, 2015 7:34 AM  

Is the legal prohibitions against secret recording of conversations still in effect? If so, do you have to inform the people being recorded and, if so, and they refuse then you do not do the interview?

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 22, 2015 7:43 AM  

VD,

I'm coming at this from a different angle. People do elevate traits and take advantage of race, the same way some people abuse state power.

If you're permitted the one, I'm permitted the other. And vice versa.

Anonymous dantealiegri May 22, 2015 7:49 AM  

Vox, along the superior but not supreme line..

I, for a long time was ok with allowing the best and brightest of 3rd world countries into the US. But now I feel like it is stripping top soil from land - not a nice practice. Sure more will be generated, but especially in conjuncture with your thought of time to civilization, it seems more and more discivic.

Does this match with how you see it?

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 7:50 AM  

I'm coming at this from a different angle. People do elevate traits and take advantage of race, the same way some people abuse state power.

The analogy doesn't hold. How does a belief in existing and observable differences equate to a belief in the state's right to impose force? How does one abuse an observation?

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 7:51 AM  

Does this match with how you see it?

Yes, it is bringing in the best and brightest from elsewhere is destructive of both societies. It reduces social harmony in the new society and reduces the prospects for progress in the old society.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother May 22, 2015 7:54 AM  

Eutopia vs Dystopia

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 22, 2015 8:10 AM  

The analogy doesn't hold. How does a belief in existing and observable differences equate to a belief in the state's right to impose force? How does one abuse an observation?

It most certainly does hold. But you're comparing one's cart and the other's horse.

It can't be lost on you that race is used as an organization force for violence... you even write about it yourself. Or that I need not accept other's abuses of statehood to see it as a viable solution to some problems.

Blogger James Dixon May 22, 2015 8:23 AM  

> Is the legal prohibitions against secret recording of conversations still in effect?

In most localities I believe you still need the permission of both parties, yes. It does vary by locality, so check you local and state laws.

> ...and they refuse then you do not do the interview?

Of course. Why would a legitimate interviewer with no axe to grind object?

Anonymous Athor Pel May 22, 2015 8:24 AM  

" NorthernHamlet May 22, 2015 8:10 AM
...
It can't be lost on you that race is used as an organization force for violence... you even write about it yourself. Or that I need not accept other's abuses of statehood to see it as a viable solution to some problems.
"



When the brownshirts show up looking for recruits I'll be sure to send them your way. Sounds like you're just what they're looking for.

Blogger VFM 188* May 22, 2015 8:37 AM  

Hmmmm. Isn't "eucivic civilizationist" redundant? Like saying "eugenic geneticist" or "eugenic genetics enthusiast"? As opposed to eugenicist? So wouldn't a more accurate word be "eucivicist"?

Sorry everyone. Just wool-gathering here....

Anonymous Lulabelle (68) May 22, 2015 8:49 AM  

Like saying "eugenic geneticist"

A geneticist may have no interest in eugenics. So, "eugenic geneticist" isn't redundant.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 22, 2015 8:59 AM  

Is the legal prohibitions against secret recording of conversations still in effect? If so, do you have to inform the people being recorded and, if so, and they refuse then you do not do the interview?

It varies widely by state. Some places you need permission of all parties to the conversation, some only one party, some, none.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 22, 2015 9:08 AM  

Where does the "Beale" come from? What race? If you are Native American/Mexican, where does the "Beale" come from? English? German? Theodore is basically Greek meaning "God's Gift". Your first name is from a Catholic saint and you were raised in a nominally Catholic home. Is that English Catholic or German Catholic?

Anonymous Sun Xhu May 22, 2015 9:14 AM  

@W.LindsayWheeler

The Beale surname appears to be of English origin.

Anonymous Lulabelle (68) May 22, 2015 9:17 AM  

" Is that English Catholic or German Catholic?"

Or,

Spartan Catholic or Catholic Spartan?

Sorry, Wheeler, I just couldn't resist.

Anonymous Heh May 22, 2015 9:17 AM  

New York Times channels Hermann Goering -- "I decide who is a Jew!"

Film at 11.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown May 22, 2015 9:25 AM  

Mr. McCleary, who is Jewish, said that the reporter, Ronnie Cohen, asked him “insulting and demeaning questions,” including whether he “looked Jewish,” after telling him that his name didn’t sound Jewish.....

This is another one of those repeating patterns regarding the "half-Jewish".

1. By cultural tradition if your mother was Jewish and your father Goyim, then you are Jewish. If your father was Jewish and your mother Goyim, you are not Jewish. Matrilineal transmission is the official method, correct?

2. But, if your father was Jewish and your mother Goyim, your surname still "sounds Jewish" and everyone just assumes you're Jewish. For all intents and purposes, you're Jewish.

This is just a "heads I win / tails you lose" mechanism for ensuring the ethnic/cultural solidarity of the diaspora, right? Very clever.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 22, 2015 9:27 AM  

It's "Spartan Catholic---This is SPARTAAAAA!, Spartan", to you all.

Anonymous Lulabelle (68) May 22, 2015 9:35 AM  

lol.
Wheeler.......the proper spelling is "y'all".

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 9:50 AM  

Where does the "Beale" come from? What race?

English. My paternal lineage was pre-Revolutionary English American. Protestants, not Catholics.

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 9:53 AM  

It most certainly does hold. But you're comparing one's cart and the other's horse. It can't be lost on you that race is used as an organization force for violence... you even write about it yourself. Or that I need not accept other's abuses of statehood to see it as a viable solution to some problems.

First, the analogy does not hold. Second, you clearly don't have a correct understanding of the term "statist".

Mindless repetition of your original statement is not how to convince anyone of anything. If you believe the analogy holds, explain it. Don't start waving your hands and babbling about what can't be lost on me or what you need not accept.

Just walk everyone through your analogy one step at a time. If you can't do that, then obviously you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Blogger Danby May 22, 2015 10:02 AM  

Is the legal prohibitions against secret recording of conversations still in effect?

If they're recording the conversation, which they usually are, they've already given permission for the call to be recorded.

Wheeler, let me tell you about my high school friend, Carlos Mendez. Carlos was blond, 6'4", and descended directly from Leif Erikson. One Mexican 3 generations back didn't make him a Mexican, and one Anglo 3 generations back does not make Vox a WASP.

Blogger Marissa May 22, 2015 10:19 AM  

Some states, like Texas, are one-party-consent states. That means I can automatically record every phone call that comes into my cell phone (which I do, with Voice Recorder) without telling the person on the other line. However, some states are two-party-consent states. I think Virginia was one, where a motorcyclist with a headcam who filmed an altercation with a dirty cop was charged with a strange 20-year charge for the non-consensual recording. I'm not sure of the outcome of that case though...

Anonymous BGS May 22, 2015 11:01 AM  

But I don't believe in any form of human supremacy. This is like saying that, as a statist, I don't believe in abusing power.

I think Vox means that if a black existed in reality similar to what is seen on TV. Vox would consider the professor doctor rocket surgeon to be an equal. Anyway ask the interviewer if this is being recorded, and if they say yes. The right needs to go after secrete recordings like the leftists do.

Anonymous Lulabelle (68) May 22, 2015 11:01 AM  

"non-consensual recording. " = recording rape!

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) May 22, 2015 11:21 AM  

"non-consensual recording. " = recording rape!

You called. You clearly wanted it.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) May 22, 2015 11:22 AM  

And no, I wasn't taking advantage of a butt dial.

Blogger CarpeOro May 22, 2015 11:46 AM  

"If they're recording the conversation, which they usually are, they've already given permission for the call to be recorded."

When you consider the context of the conversation - an interview - I'd say as the interviewee you fully expect to be recorded. If not you would wonder what the reason behind the false pretense of an interview was. Flowing from that, I'd say you recording it also would simply be considered making your own copy for your own edification/protection. #105

OpenID kbswift May 22, 2015 11:53 AM  

@ NorthernHamlet

Are you saying you can't be statist and against abuse of power? Because those are not mutually exclusive.

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 11:53 AM  

I think Vox means that if a black existed in reality similar to what is seen on TV. Vox would consider the professor doctor rocket surgeon to be an equal.

No. I don't consider the professional credentialed elite to be my equals. On average they're about 2 SD my intellectual inferiors.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 22, 2015 12:29 PM  

Recording a conversation strikes me much like carrying a gun: do it legally if you can, or illegally if you must. If you need it, better to have done it illegally than not at all.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 22, 2015 12:32 PM  

VD,

Just walk everyone through your analogy one step at a time.

I will try the best I am able.

We must operate within their reach as political and social realities. You believe some races of men are more intelligent, and though you yourself do not convey any supremacy to that observation, the vast majority of people do and still operate as such. Let's say liberals believe some men are less able to manage violence, money, whatever as well as the state and though they themyselves do not convey any supremacy to the power differential created by state, some people will and do operate as such.

They are the same in that they both point out what is to be believed are observable facts about the human condition and how that relates to power and violence. And then make decisions within those systems. You say it's only relevant that you don't assign supremacy, yet do not acknowledge the possibility that a liberal could say the same about the power differentials created by the system they believe to be a fact.

kbswift
Are you saying you can't be statist and against abuse of power?

No, I am not.

Anonymous Heh May 22, 2015 12:33 PM  

Recording a conversation strikes me much like carrying a gun: do it legally if you can, or illegally if you must. If you need it, better to have done it illegally than not at all.

If you are dealing with reporters, then recording the conversation is like bringing a gun to a meeting with a gangster -- if you don't bring your weapon, then you'll be the only one there who is unarmed.

And also, to continue the analogy further, why do you want to have anything to do with the sleazy piece of shit, anyway?

Anonymous Gunnutmegger May 22, 2015 12:36 PM  

RE: Recordings

The laws very by state, and sometimes by county or even city.

And the rules for recording telephone conversations are generally different than the rules for recording live conversations. Conversations via computer (Skyke, Webex) are a gray area.

In CT, for example, a person can record any face-to-face conversation that he/she(/it) is participating in without notifying anyone or asking permission.

But telephone conversations that a person is participating in cannot be recorded unless the other party is notified. If the other party is making a recording, and you choose to participate in the conversation, you are consenting to be recorded. And I believe that in that situation you are allowed to record as well without giving notification.

Anonymous Roundtine May 22, 2015 1:04 PM  

Making it minority vs Jewish distorts the issue to at hand, but it doesn't distort the large battle.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami May 22, 2015 2:05 PM  

If he wants to be taken seriously as a Jew, McCleary should clearly change his name to McJewbergstein, or something.

Anonymous Giuseppe May 22, 2015 2:17 PM  

When I was interviewed on tv for my Face on Mars book, i assumed the interviewer would edit any reply I gave in the worst possible way. i kept my answers very short and focussed on one point only. It helped a LOT. Since they could not discredit anything I said they used the interview as was, but then superimposed an alien head on my face at the fade out point of the interview. Something a friend of mine had predicted they would do in a joking manner.
Seriously, no one lies like journalists and reporters.

OpenID kbswift May 22, 2015 2:29 PM  

@ NorthernHamlet

The fact that both elitism and statism can be abused or used unjustly doesn't make that system of belief wrong as any ideology can be abused.

@ VD

What about a black 40 something former collegiate sprinter currently playing forward in a senior division.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 22, 2015 4:29 PM  

kbswift,

You're missing point. I'm saying that Vox is being inconsistent if he doesn't recant one of his views that I've compared. He's claimed the comparison doesn't hold, pointing to a possible difference. I claimed he was highlighting the beginning of one of the compared and the end of the other, so we would expect a difference. He told me to stfu and walk us through my analogy. I did so.

Blogger VFM 188* May 22, 2015 4:57 PM  

NorthernHamlet, the weak link in your argument (and syllogism) is that you're adding in a variable that neither you nor Vox have any control over, i.e. third parties acting upon beliefs relating to perceived inferiority or superiority of certain groups based on various metrics. But the fact that neither you nor Vox have any control over what third parties do with truthful observations obviates any responsibility for any actions---good OR bad---by those third parties. E.g. Darwin had no control over what other people would do with his ideas relating to evolution. Copernicus had no control over where people would go with his ideas regarding the heliocentric solar system. And so forth.

Back in the beginning you and Vox had the following exchange:

Vox: But I don't believe in any form of human supremacy.

You: This is like saying that, as a statist, I don't believe in abusing power.


Yet you later confirmed to kbswift that you believe you CAN be a statist and yet still be opposed to abuse of power. Just as Vox can recognize the innate differences between human subgroups---and the inescapable inferiority and superiority based on any given metric---and still be opposed to the misuse and abuse of power based upon any of those truths.

Q.E.D.? What am I missing?

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 22, 2015 5:15 PM  

VFM188

What am I missing?

That Vox argues the analogy doesn't hold. The comparison is being made to show Vox must choose his beliefs on statists or his beliefs on race, else be inconsistent.

OpenID kbswift May 22, 2015 5:17 PM  

I'm not following you since I don't know Vox's position on statism and abuse of power. I see how your analogy of one group being better than other can be used to support both racial supremacy and statism, but how does abuse of power factor into it?

Blogger Thordaddy May 22, 2015 5:19 PM  

"But I don't believe I any form of human supremacy." -- Vox Day

Then you do not believe in Christ and you do not believe in man's will to do all right. Ergo, you are an anti-Christian who rejects Perfection and man's desire to seek true omnipotence.

I've read you too long to hold the above thought as true. There is a cognitive dissonance rooted in a lifetime of brainwashing over the exact meaning of "white Supremacist." And you refuse to correct it?

Blogger VFM 188* May 22, 2015 6:02 PM  

Hmm. Here's more: After the above exchange I quoted, you and Vox said the following:

NorthernHamlet: This is like saying that, as a statist, I don't believe in abusing power.

Vox: How? Do you not understand the difference between superior and supreme? A rejection of absolutes is not a rejection of gradations.


Vox also asserted that, [Y]ou clearly don't have a correct understanding of the term "statist".

Then kbswift confirmed in several comments that you agreed with that "you can be a statist and still be against the abuse of power." If that is so, and if Vox believes the same thing, then he is not in error and not contradicting himself. Although I appreciate your line of attack and find it interesting, this should resolve the discussion in favor of the Evil Lord of Evilness.

Besides, I am a vile faceless minion. I couldn't take your side against the Dark Overlord of the Evil League of Evil any more than I could take the position that being a statist requires one to favor and exercise abusive power.

Blogger Thordaddy May 22, 2015 6:29 PM  

If one believes in no form of human supremacy then one believes in Universal Equality, ie, anti-Singularity and "reign" of The Redundant Phenomenon.

Blogger The CronoLink May 22, 2015 7:08 PM  

Wow, Thordaddy takes idiotic insanity to new heights!

Blogger VD May 22, 2015 7:40 PM  

You say it's only relevant that you don't assign supremacy, yet do not acknowledge the possibility that a liberal could say the same about the power differentials created by the system they believe to be a fact.

That's not a statist. Unless you believe that liberals advocate "the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty."

Furthermore, you STILL don't seem to understand how to construct an argument. Look, I understand you're working your way out of pure rhetoricism, so I'm quite willing to be patient here. The first thing you have to understand is that your argument has nothing to do with me per se. Every time you try to address me, you're likely to go off the rails. Just stick to the explanation of the analogy.

Try again, but drop all the "you say" stuff and stick to your original terms, don't try to substitute liberal for statist and so forth.

Blogger Thordaddy May 22, 2015 8:54 PM  

The CronoLink...

In the proper paradigm are Supremacists and anti-Supremacists. "We" have now progressed to that level. There is predictable resistance BECAUSE a very tiny minority are "white supremacists" with an historical narrative as infamous as Satan's. Of course, in the REAL WORLD, it is perhaps "The Biggest Lie." The genuine white Supremacist is simply the spiritual, intellectual and physical ideal to which each white male is absolutely free to epitomize...

EXCEPT...

All "white" males are successfully brainwashed into believing The Most False Equation:

Supremacy = degeneracy

Such that...

White Supremacy = white degeneracy

This ^^^ is what CronoLink ATTESTS to?

No high IQ "white" male is given the benefit of ignorance. YOU know your equations, high IQ "white" male!

Anonymous Heaviside May 22, 2015 9:32 PM  

BDS has accomplished some good things, but on the whole it is a jewish-supremacist movement that has betrayed the Arabic people. Where are the sanctions? Israel should be placed under a total economic blockade, all Israeli assets in foreign countries seized, and all Jewish people put into internment camps. If Israel wants to commit crimes against humanity it should have to produce its own oil, grow its own food, provide its own water, and mine its own uranium. The goal of the BDS movement was originally the return of all Arab lands, but they have compromised, or rather, have been compromised. Any movement that genuinely is a movement for the liberation of the Arab peoples must call for the destruction of Israel and the end of world jewry.

Unlike jews, who do everything they can to subvert genuine Palestinian leadership, Japanese people helped teach the Palestinians the method of kamikaze martyrdom operations, such as in the heroic attack at the Lod Airport. Just as Japan taught Indians and Chinese how to resist the seemingly invincible British empire, so too we have taught the Palestinians that even when all of the technical advantages lie with the enemy, so long as the spirit is there you cannot be defeated, even in death. I have no doubt that the Arabs will expel the jews from their homeland.

I don't agree with Thordaddy about everything, but it's better to be a white supremacist than anti-white.

Anonymous zen0 May 22, 2015 10:22 PM  

@ Heaviside

Israel should be placed under a total economic blockade, all Israeli assets in foreign countries seized, and all Jewish people put into internment camps. If Israel wants to commit crimes against humanity it should have to produce its own oil, grow its own food, provide its own water, and mine its own uranium.


You should be careful what you wish for. If Israel is hamstrung, Gaza and the PA lands will revert to random have-not Arab shitholes. The Arabs, and the EU, and Obama all know this.

In the age of the internet, no one should be as ignorant as yourself as to how dependent Gaza and the territories are on Israeli largess. Food, electricity, water, medical care.........

Check it out, if you dare:

Behind the headlines

Blogger Patrikbc #0344 May 22, 2015 11:32 PM  

TD, you are theologically retarded, Jesus wasn't a supreme man, he IS the God/man, referring to Jesus as the perfect
Man, or the supreme man cheapens who Christ is... So it seems it is You who does not believe in Christ.

Anonymous Heaviside May 22, 2015 11:52 PM  

>If Israel is hamstrung, Gaza and the PA lands will revert to random have-not Arab shitholes.

And what if it's not just hamstrung, but destroyed? Jews will deny Europeans even the tiniest glimmering of race-consciousness, but they have no reservations against this kind of racism themselves. "Have-not Arab shitholes"? Would you be so quick to say "have-not African shitholes" or "have-not Latin American shitholes?" Ah, but racism against Arabs is one of the few kinds of racism which the jew allows you to exercise.

>In the age of the moving picture, no one should be as ignorant as yourself as to how dependent jewish KZ Lager inmates are on German largess. Food, electricity, water, medical care.........

We might as well be consistent in the application of this logic. Why should we negotiate with hostage-takers?

>Check it out, if you dare:

I would sooner believe the KCNA than any official organ of the Israelis. Perhaps it was air-dropped breadbaskets and cocktails they were using to wage humanitarian intervention against the Gazans?

Anonymous zen0 May 23, 2015 7:22 AM  

@ Heaviside

> In the age of the moving picture, no one should be as ignorant as yourself as to how dependent jewish KZ Lager inmates are on German largess. Food, electricity, water, medical care.........

Cute switch but the analogy does not hold. Gazans and the PA get billions in foreign aid while conducting terror attacks and launching missiles, using donated cement to build tunnels instead of hospitals.

> Would you be so quick to say "have-not African shitholes" or "have-not Latin American shitholes?"

Yes. In fact, there are numerous shitholes all over the planet. The specific character of the shithole is dependent on the dominant culture that inhabits it.

>I would sooner believe the KCNA than any official organ of the Israelis. Perhaps it was air-dropped breadbaskets and cocktails they were using to wage humanitarian intervention against the Gazans?

Perhaps the missiles fired from Gaza and the ongoing terror attacks were love offerings.

One more thing. The Arab is not the son of the desert, but the Father of the desert.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 23, 2015 8:44 AM  

VD,

Thank you for your patience.

That's not a statist. Unless you believe that liberals advocate "the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty."

Sure. Liberal Fascism if you will.

Furthermore, you STILL don't seem to understand how to construct an argument.

Why is it necessary to construct a logical argument if I'm drawing a connection between your beliefs? Wouldn't you have to lay out your two arguments for us since you believe there's a difference?

Look, I understand you're working your way out of pure rhetoricism, so I'm quite willing to be patient here.

What's wrong with using analogy? Or... do I have to construct an argument proving the analogy holds now?

The first thing you have to understand is that your argument has nothing to do with me per se.

But I want to prove your statements as inconsistent. Maybe I am getting muddled there by not starting from the ideas first. But if I drop "you say," can't you merely play the Sam Harris "You've Misread Me" Card?

Try again, but drop all the "you say" stuff and stick to your original terms, don't try to substitute liberal for statist and so forth.

If that's a distinction without a difference, can't I swap them back and forth? Anyway...

- If one may observe that humans can be divided into races with differences but without assigning value or abuse, one may observe that the state can divide men with differences without assigning value or abuse.
- If observing political differences may lead to abuse, observing racial differences may lead to abuse.

Still struggling here. And assuming you're trying to trap me into saying something outrageous. Am I any closer?



Anonymous Heaviside May 23, 2015 11:56 AM  

>Gazans and the PA get billions in foreign aid while conducting terror attacks and launching missiles, using donated cement to build tunnels instead of hospitals.

Then we should give them hundreds of billions!

You deployed the same rhetoric against me that you would have deployed against a leftist, but I don't care about Palestinians for humanitarian reasons. If bourgeois-humanitarianism was all that mattered, Palestinian refugees might be able to carve out pretty good lives in economic niches created by the Palestinian diaspora. I have a friend whose father left Palestine for another Arab state and he is now fairly well-off. No, the reason why I care about Palestine is because it's a major front in the struggle against World Jewry, and the jews should be forced to bleed out as much money, young jewish lives, and political capital there as possible.

Blogger Thordaddy May 23, 2015 2:57 PM  

Patrikbc...

Only in the wacky world of radical autonomy can one cheapen a man by asserting that he is indeed The Perfect Man to those who have never VALUED said Perfect Man to any esteem worthy of cheapening.

And what is God-slash-man IF NOT The Perfect Man?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts