|
Responding to Alt-Right’s argument that ending our relationship with Israel will “calm” Muslim hatred of the U.S.
Alan Roebuck writes:
In an article at Alternative Right, “Treason, Thy Name is Israel,” Patrick Ford recites many standard anti-Semitic talking points. At the end, he says:
Or imagine a Constitutional policy where we cut off aid to Israel and let them defend themselves, and adopt a Middle East policy of neutrality, calming hatred directed at the US for its unquestioning support of Israel.
I just posted the following:
It is naive at best to think that withdrawing all support (including the spiritual support of wishing them well) from Israel would make our Moslem enemies hate us less. If we conspicuously distance ourselves from a nation they regard as a brother and ally of the U.S., our Moslem enemies will have increased contempt for us as being too cowardly to stand by our allies, and they will consequently redouble their efforts to destroy us.
Given that Moslems (primarily on account of their religion, not our actions) hate both the U.S and Israel, our neutrality would be siding with our enemies, a decidedly foolish enterprise.
And no, supporting Israel does not mean “approving of everything they do and always saying ‘Yes, Sir!’ to their requests.” That’s a particularly foolish straw man. It means what it obviously means: favoring Israel over our enemies. You are not leveling legitimate criticism at our Israel policy; interpreting your words according to their commonsense meaning, you are counseling us to side with our enemies.
The above is the conclusion of common sense. It can only be overcome by a Gnostic-like “secret knowledge,” a la “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” that makes the Jews out to be totally different from what common-sense observation of the evidence makes them out to be: our eccentric brothers in Western Civilization. And they are, sadly, mostly liberal and leftist, which is the worst valid accusation one can make against them.
LA replies:
So that answers the question we wondered about earlier, how Patrick Ford, a Christian, became an editor for a website which has very strong anti-Christian content and appeals to virulently anti-Christian and anti-religous readers. He has other things in common with the site’s mission, namely the usual hostility to Israel. It’s interesting to learn what concerns have priority over others in Ford’s scheme of things.
You write:
And no, supporting Israel does not mean “approving of everything they do and always saying ‘Yes, Sir!’ to their requests.” That’s a particularly foolish straw man.
And it’s a straw man that anti-Israelites in general rely on constantly. Though they deny that they are anti-Israel and claim to be neutral and only concerned about the U.S., they give themselves away by never stating honesty what Israel’s defenders are concerned about: the defense of the existence of Israel and the lives of Israelis against a vast campaign aimed at the destruction of both—a campaign condoned by much of Western opinion. No, instead they invariably characterize Israel’s supporters as tyrants who call anyone an anti-Semite if he “doesn’t agree with Israel 100 percent,” or if he “doesn’t kowtow to Israel,” or if he “doesn’t genuflect to Israel.” Their constant big lie about the actual concerns and statements of Israel’s supporters reveals them as the haters of Israel—and as the objective allies of Israel’s Muslim enemies—that they really are.
- end of initial entry -
Richard Hoste, a contributor at Alternative Right, writes:
I’m not going to talk to you about Israel, but you once again referred to Alt Right as an anti-Christian site. The only article we’ve posted on religion is a case against Paganism. You seem to be judging the site by the comments. If you’re going to do that, Frum Forum has a white nationalist component.
LA replies:
I did not call it an anti-Christian site. Here’s what I wrote:
So that answers the question we wondered about earlier, how Patrick Ford, a Christian, became an editor for a website which has very strong anti-Christian content and appeals to virulently anti-Christian and anti-religous readers. He has other things in common with the site’s mission, namely the usual hostility to Israel. It’s interesting to learn what concerns have priority over others in Ford’s scheme of things.
A site that regularly posts very anti-Christian comments is a site with very strong anti-Christian content. To demonstrate my point, would you post comments calling for, say, incest? I would imagine no (thought one can’t tell with you Odinist types), because (as I guess) you think calling for incest is over the line. But you have no probelm posting many comments that are virulently anti-Christian. So you exclude some comments, and post others. Therefore you can’t say that your decision as to which comments to allow is not an editorial decision and that the comments you post are not part of the content of the site. This is particularly the case when there are so many comments pursuing a strong anti-Christian angle, as in the comments following Patrick Ford’s article, that it establishes a definite tone. Also, some of the commenters spoke about Alt Right as though it were understood that it is an anti-Christian or at least non-Christian site, and therefore they felt that Patrick Ford’s article had no reason being there. Where did they get that idea about Alt Right within a few days of the site being launched? The site must have been sending out clear signs that it is a place where comments by hard-bitten enemies of Christianity will be welcome.
Richard Hoste replies:
This is absurd. I can’t count how many times I’ve gone to stories about black crime in major mainstream papers and have seen the overwhelming majority of comments be ones that wouldn’t be allowed on StormFront. Are all these papers National Vanguard?
While you only post a select amount of the comments you receive, most sites take a laissez-faire attitude. Obviously death threats and gutter language may be banned, but not the vast majority of opinions. Would Alt Right allow a pro-incest comment? Maybe, if it was argued from a libertarian perspective. Arguing for skinning children alive? Probably not.
Judge a site by the actual articles, not comments.
Richard Hoste continues:
My response still stands. You write
Also, some of the commenters spoke about Alt Right as though it were understood that it is an anti-Christian or at least non-Christian site, and therefore they felt that Patrick Ford’s article had no reason being there. Where did they get that idea about Alt Right within a few days of the site being launched?
What are you trying to say, that there’s some Alt Right mailing list that we sent anti-Christian material to before the launch? The commentators see what you see. And the only articles dealing with Christianity have been positive. (Not only Ford, but Jim Kalb too)
LA replies:
Ok. Pending my reading of more of your site, I will qualify the comment that you protested as follows:
I amend:
” … a website which has very strong anti-Christian content and appeals to virulently anti-Christian and anti-religous readers.”
to this:
” … a website which posts many strongly anti-Christian comments and appeals to virulently anti-Christian and anti-religious readers.”
Also, I would point out that my statement about Alt Right’s being anti-Christian was a passing remark. The main point of this entry is that Alt Right is anti-Israel.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 18, 2010 04:57 PM | Send
|