The Defeat of the Anti-Semiters!

By -
Described here.

They lost when mainstream Jewish commentators began calling the smear campaign against Hagel "disgusting" "character assassination."

Sometimes the good guys win.

Comments

  1. Anonymous4:33 PM

    Wow, so Carter is an anti-Semite because he understands the plight of the Palestinians? The funny part is that I absolutely despise most everything Carter stands for, but I agree with him on the point about an apartheid state. He says that Israel could become one, I say that it already is one.

    The thing that I am failing to understand is what the state of Israel has to do with Jews in general. It's like if you criticize the acts of a state, one that considers itself a Jewish state (which is a claim for theocracy), that all of the sudden you're accused of criticizing all Jews.

    I have no problem with Jews, they're good people. My problem is with the actions of Israel (the state), which coincidentally many Jews also share my feelings.

    This whole thing is a smear, that's all that it is. I don't even like Hagel all that much, but I can see things for what they are. I am happy to see that other people, including American Jews, also see it this way, and that they've been willing to speak up. Because this shit has been getting out of hand lately.

    It used to be that it was quite clear if a person was an anti-Semite or a racist, because they would say so. These days, you only need to criticize the President or Israel, and you meet the criteria. Which is quite confusing, considering that those same people attributing anti-semitism to Obama are the usually the same complaining about being called racist with regard to criticizing Obama. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

    The world has absolutely lost its mind!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more