Wednesday, September 27, 2006


(Note: though this post deals with a personal matter, I think it’s relevant to all of us as bloggers.)

I’m not an aficionado of Internet activism. I don’t go signing online petitions thinking they could actually change the world. I wouldn’t have started this blog at all, but then, in the middle of the last Lebanon War, I realized it was a necessity: the outcome of wars is decided today by one’s media image more than anything else, and since most of the mainstream media is sympathetic toward, if not actually owned by, the Islamic enemy (which is why I call it TreasonMedia), pretty much the only way to circumvent it is the blogosphere. LGF’s exposé of the Reuters Fauxtography Scandal was one of the blogosphere’s finest hours to date, and should soften even the most hardened skeptic into accepting the value of the New Media.


I want to pre-empt a likely strawman: “Daily Kos is in private ownership. They own it, so they can do whatever they want; you’re a guest and you have no right to complain”. This is a strawman because not once did I suggest they were beyond their rights. I’m not talking about rights here at all, I’m talking about moral integrity. Can the owners of Daily Kos delete my posts or ban me altogether? Sure they can. Can the owners of a Democrat forum, ostensibly standing for free speech and civil liberties, and bashing the other side for allegedly violating those, delete my posts or ban me altogether yet still preserve their moral integrity intact? Hell no, they can’t. This is hypocrisy of the same order as the Democrats’ forcing ABC, under threat (the threat of removing their broadcast license), to edit their docudrama Path to 9/11 just because it poses dissent to their precious view that Clinton could wash in the cleanliness of his hands with regard to 9/11.


And now for the issue of commenting on my blog. First, I welcome it. Comments to my writings are of high value in my eyes, because the purpose of my blog, as I said, is to insert my voice into the exchange of ideas which is so important in the clash of civilizations going on today. Comments that point out flaws in my blog posts are splendid, because they force me to fix them and improve my writings. Positive feedback encourages me, and negative feedback, if it contains arguments, spurs me to do better. Which brings me to the second matter: what kind of comments I intent to edit or delete.

It should be clear I’m not in favor of doing that. It would fall under Hillel’s famous quote, da’alach senei lera’ach la ta’bed, meaning, “What is hated unto you, do not do unto your neighbor”. And it should be clear I’m never going to delete a comment just because it offers a dissenting point of view. There are two cases where I would feel justified in editing or deleting a comment: 1) An opposing view but with no argument, and 2) Linking to death porn.


In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »


Kiddo said...

Wow Youngster, I never get those comments on my blog! It takes posting on YouTube to really get abused. That's where my self-proclaimed nickname came from (Neo-con Zionist Jew Bitch Whore), the comments there. Sorry the freaks found you at your home-base.

I've also been thinking of joining DailyKos just to bash them, but from what you say they just delete. Not worth it, eh?

ziontruth said...

Actually I didn't yet get any such comment, Pim. It's an "If" matter--I was laying down my concept as to what kind of post really deserves to be deleted, to contrast with Daily Kos's McCarthyist deletion policy.

I registered on Daily Kos to take part in the discussions, not to bash them, so they let me stay for about a month. If you go to Daily Kos for bashing them, I think you'll last there two days tops.

Anonymous said...

CIA, FBI and other agencies were investigating candidate Clinton's illegal apropriation given by China's army. The advisor that Clinton assigned for cover the channels of communication between the Service of Intelligence called itself Jamie Gorelick. Who is she? Well, between the favors lent by the government Clinton to the Chinese one in reward of the help of campaign, favors that the organs of Intelligence fairly were investigating, was the given permission to a subsidiary of the General Electric for sell the Chinese army equipment that, second was revealed afterwards, served for the making of intercontinental missiles directed to the American territory.

Jamie Gorelick was a lawyer of that subsidiary. But in 2003 she was a representative in the Inquiry Parliamentarian Commission whose main occupation was stifle the responsibility of the Congress by the statement of war based in inexact information and play fault of everything in George W. Bush.

Or it be: the maker of the general blockade that paralyzed the service of security and enabled the attack of 11 of September was in charge of investigate the same faults of security that enabled the attack of 11 of September. What she did? An important article is the disappearance of a DOSSIE file that, a year before of the 11 of September, revealed the presence in American territory of a cell of the Al-Qaeda led by the terrorist one Mohammed Atta, one of the mentors of the attack to the World Trade Center. In the epoch, the investigator of the Department of Defense that be following that trail, the lieutenant-colonel Tony Shaffer, simply was prevented from pass the information to the FBI, that could not dismantle the cell.

The lieutenant-colonel Tony Shaffer denounced all the filth, with the support of the representative Curt Weldon. To big media stifled the history until do it disappear completely. But Weldon said in the CNN that the secretary Rumsfeld is for liberate the Shaffer's testimony.

Weldon and Shaffer are two rottweilers maintained in the collar by the hand of Donald Rumsfeld. The secretary is measuring the size of the trouble that to double is going to arm when he loosen them in the Democrat chicken-run. And it looks that he is beginning to like the idea.