I don't know what's going on, but lately, we've been having a lot of Anonymous commenters come around these parts and tells us we are Nazis, haters, etc. Some curse us, and some offer to pray for our souls. We even get the odd threat.
Anyway, I don't know if this is because we are becoming more popular, or if its some new manifestation of Leftist hysteria. I suspect it's a little of both.
Apparently, this is happening at Gates of Vienna too. From Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna:
Last weekend I discussed the idea of Islam, particularly radical Islam, as a virus within our cultural information systems. It provoked this response from a commenter:
You got it! If you replace “radical Islam” with “Jews” — you’ll find, that it’s literal the same comment, that was held in the NAZI propaganda film “Die Juden sind unser Unglueck”- where the Jews were compared with rats and needed to be completely erradicated. REALPUNDIT understood it well: He demanded a stronger chemo or even nuclear medicine.I am an average german citizen and I understand it well either:
This BLOG is intellectual propaganda for MASS MURDER.
Ooookay… so we’re propagandizing mass murder here. I’m glad to find that out. Gates of Vienna = Nazis; it’s not the first time we’ve encountered this particular equivalence.
The Nazi comparison is used to foreclose any further argument, to shut down any additional discussion. Tar your opponent with the Hitler brush so that his rhetorical feet will be stuck to the sidewalk, and he’ll be unable to defend his position effectively. Or so you hope.
The Nazis pioneered the Autobahn, so the Interstate highway system should never have been built, right?
The Nazis were big on hygiene, so I guess we should go back to outhouses and chamber pots.
I refuse to cave to this species of argument. If radical Islam does not resemble a particularly virulent virus, tell me where the analogy breaks down. If combating the Islamofascists in the world of ideas with informational antibodies is not a good idea, then tell me why. But don’t call me a Nazi.
First of all, any argument the Nazis used was about race, but I am arguing about culture and ideas; race has nothing to do with it.
And notice that my argument, which held that an immunological response within our communication systems was in order, is made equivalent to mass murder.
That is:
Proposing a war of ideas = Killing millions of people
Now that’s the same argument that the Islamists use. They say that publishing a cartoon in a newspaper is equivalent to murdering Muslims. They maintain that insulting the Prophet is equivalent to terrorism. That cutting off someone’s head is equivalent to saying something bad about Islam.
Perhaps without realizing it, our commenter has accepted the idea that an expression of opinion is the same as an act of violence. That’s why the Left habitually segues so readily from arguing with its opponents to torching cars, looting Starbucks, and punching people with whom they disagree. Those people are Nazis, after all, so it’s all right to hurt them.
There's more where that came from. Go read the rest.
5 comments:
No, thanks for giving your viewpoint. It is really hard for people to understand this. We in the West have all been taught to respect religious and cultural differences. But, some cultures truly are evil.
I think we can all agree that Nazi culture was evil.
Likewise, I think we ought to be able to agree that a culture which treats women as slaves (they have no choice over whom they marry, what they wear, whether to go to school, whether to drive, whether to go outside, etc.) is an evil culture. A culture which mandates the killing of homosexuals is an evil culture. A culture which mandates the killing of "apostates" (meaning people who exercise their right to choose which religion to follow) is an evil culture.
Certainly, if George Bush suddenly wanted to kill anyone who decided they'd prefer to be a Buddhist, we would say George Bush was evil, right? We could all agree on that. Couldn't we?
So, if Islam does all the above-mentioned things, we ought to be able to call that evil, for God's sake.
You came in to the limelight,that's all. The reactions show that you're doing good work. What bothers me more, since a week I have to clean the history of my computer to get on updates of the blog. My computer is protected, find nothing wrong with spyware or virusses.
REALITY:
FACT #1 - Nuking Hiroshima was necessary to prevent a land invasion of Japan by the USA; a demonstration would not have worked. Proof is the fact that Japan refused to surrender until a week after THE SECOND NUKE was dropped, also on a populated city.
FACT #2 - Nuking Hiroshioma and Nagasaki saved 500,000 USA miltiary lives and more than a millon Japanses lives - because a land invasion would have been worse for the Japanese.
FACT #3 - The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the nukes we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And MANY other counter-measures the US and our allies took in WW2 were worse than nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
SO GET OVER THAT, WILLYA! Dropping one or two nukes is not the end of the world. Maybe if we had dropped one on Tora Bora we'd have gotten Binladen and stopped the GWOT in its tracks. Instead we have fought the enemy with one hand behind our backs.
FDR - a great NAZI KILLER - did not fight WW2 with one hand behind his back. That's why we won. We won because we got the enemy to die for his cause, as Patton said (more colorfully - see below!). The more of the enemy we kill the better our chances at winning.
Israel was forced by the USA and the UN and the EU not only to fight with one hand behind its back, but to stop just as they were destroying the enemy. This was NUTS.
If you want peace then you gotta be willing to defeat the enemy because that's the only way to achieve peace; peace is won on the battlefield when the enemy is defeated and agrees to surrender unconditionally. Victory makes peace, not negotiating.
Half-assed "treaties and armistices" like those that ended the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the Gulf War in 1991 ALWAYS come back to haunt us.
Many of the problems we face in the world today are traceable to half-assed "peace treaties."
The enemy we face now can NEVER be trusted to fulfil any treaty with us; their "religion" explicitly allows lying to the enemy and hudnas. (LOOKITUP!)
I think we will not win this GWOT until we vanquish the enemy: IRAN, SYRIA, and all the countries which harbor, support and condone jihadism - which means we need to keep the pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, too.
But we will never get to that endgame if we allow Iran to go "nukular."
Preventing Iran from getting nukes by preemptively attacking them and eradicating their entire military and nuclear infrastructure with all/any necessary force would also sav millions of lives because preventing Iran from getting nukes will prevenmt nuclear war with jihadoterrorism.
If we need (as in NEED) to use nukes to do this then I say USE'EM.
If we don't need to then I say don't.
But the aversion to them is idiotic. a\All weapons kill; all war is hell; losing to islam would be hell, too!
NOW... as for my comment in the other thread: it was a joke. There is no such thing as u235 enema, and mecca has no "rectum."
What I meant is that we will not talk the enemy into surrendering. We must defeat him. Utterly. In a real shoot'em up war. And then change their societies so that they are not dominatable by jihadism - that means making them pluralistic democracies. And that will take time. In fact, Iraq is on record pace WHILE STILL FIGHTING AMONGST THEMSLEVES (with the help of Syria and Iran).
SURE: to keep up domestic morale and the resolve needed to fight a LONG WAR we need take the MSM away from the traitorous Leftist scum who dominate it. (And that doesn't require the use of violence.)
But that will only allow us to do what we must on the battlefield - with violence.
If 9/11 and 7/7 and the Atocha bombs and the recent foiled 10 plane, liquid SKYBOMB plot and the beheadings don't convince the Left that we are truly in an existential war, then nothing will.
And only those of us who believe that the enemy wants to convert us, enslave us or destroy us (in that order) feel that we are fighting them in an entirely half-assed way.
Ilam is not a virus, and they do not need retro-virals: they need to be killed. Islam is not like aids; it is like terminal cancer.
PATTON:
"Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything -- except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're gonna kick him in the ass. We're gonna kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're gonna go through him like crap through a goose!
Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Excellent post reliapundit, but, alas, I fear the majority -- never mind the leftards, who will never "get it" -- won't wake up until they find themselves confronted with a direct, tactile threat to their survival equivalent to that experienced by those in close proximity to the WTC towers about 9:05 AM on 9/11/2001: "Damn, the bastards are trying to kill us!" At this point the best we can do is prepare ourselves and do our best to alert those around us who have not fallen into a stupor or who are not so eaten up with Bush-hate, anti-Semitism, and/or political correctness that they don't retain some glimmer of self-preservation.
I wonder if I rented a horse and rode up Massachusetts Avenue in the middle of the night yelling "The Islamofascists are coming!" would I get as far as Lexington before the cops pulled me over...
Kris,
Thanks.
I have no idea what is wrong with our site, if anything is wrong.
But, you are not the first person to tell me something has been wacky this past week.
Post a Comment