Wednesday, July 4, 2007

A Sorites of Beans and Small Potatoes on July 4th


The other day, Rev. Jim Sutter responded breezily in a comment to my previous post that, in conjunction with two lengthy Appendices, analyzed one massive, seemingly impressive aggregate of information (among several) that he had piled up in order to demonstrate the various sins & errors of Robert Spencer.

In my analysis, this aggregate’s seeming mountainousness dissolved, and what was left wasn’t a hill of beans nor, at the end of the day, even a sorites.

Now, maybe Rev. Jim Sutter just doesn’t have the time to take the trouble to actually read through my analysis—since I suppose he considers me to be small potatoes: and I am small potatoes, compared with a Robert Spencer, a much more important and increasingly influential “hatemonger”.

At any rate, his recent response to my analysis betrays his apparent failure to peruse my analysis, his apparent failure to understand elementary logic, and his apparent failure to digest data:

Interesting but fruitless attempt at misdirection, Erich. Citing the HISTORICAL domestic terrorist groups instead of the CURRENT ones, "overlooking" Director Mueller's use of the term "domestic" terrorism when you try to show that he implied foreign terrorism is worse, (which he didn't, he spoke on them as two seperate threat categories) all to your shame.

Here, Sutter is accusing me of citing historical domestic terrorist groups instead of current ones—when, if he would have read my essay carefully, he would have seen that the historical domestic terrorist groups I cited were merely reporting what Sutter himself was citing in order to beef up the danger of domestic terror, and I clearly and pointedly—and repeatedly—adverted to the fact that they were historical and defunct: thus Sutter’s citation of them was the attempt at “misdirection” (at least, as long as the reader did not bother to check into them), not mine.

Secondly, let me break down Sutter’s claims about what I did in my analysis of his use of Director Mueller’s Congressional testimony:

a) Sutter claims I overlooked Director Mueller’s use of the term “domestic terrorism”.

I did not overlook it: I pointedly and clearly adverted to it, I even quoted Director Mueller’s first two long introductory paragraphs about it.

b) Sutter claims I ignored Director Mueller’s separation of domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism as “two separate threat categories”.

I did not ignore this. I clearly and pointedly discussed this separation, in terms of contrast and comparison.

c) Sutter claims that my failures noted in (a) and (b) above was my attempt to try to show that Director Mueller implied that foreign terrorism is worse, which—Sutter claims—Director Mueller didn’t.

First of all, as any reader of my analysis of Director Mueller’s Congressional testimony will see, the distinction between domestic and foreign terrorism is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of threats to the U.S.A. and its people, insofar as foreign terrorists are plotting to attack the Americans and American infrastructure in the U.S.A. And it was this threat of attacks in the U.S.A. that Director Mueller, in his Congressional testimony, described as the “gravest threat”. Director Mueller was not merely—and certainly not primarily—talking about foreign terrorism in its capacity to strike at our foreign embassies overseas, or at American business overseas, or at American tourists overseas: he was talking about foreign Islamic terrorists and their desire and active plots to bring their terrorist violence to our shores, to the land of America—as they did in 1993 in the car bomb against the World Trade Towers, as they did on 9/11, as they have plotted numerous times since 9/11 (most recently, the Fort Dix plot in New Jersey, and prior to that, a multiple airline plot originating in the UK that involved destruction over American air space if not also on American soil). Thus, the “separation of categories” which Sutter so dearly and tenaciously wishes to hang onto becomes meaningless—and foolishly dangerous—when the foreign terrorists which are defined by Director Mueller as worse (“our gravest threat”) are plotting to attack us in our domestic homeland.

As for the rest of Sutter’s response:

“See the type of fans your effort attracts? Lady Predator, aka Jeanette Runyon, herself the subject of an article on Hatewatch Hall of Shame.”

Sutter thinks that because someone has appeared as the subject of one of his witch-hunts, that makes them a witch. After all his apparent knuckleheadedness, sloppiness and shoddiness which I have seen on his laughably titled “Hatewatch Hall of Shame”, I remain eminently unimpressed.

“Spencer now finds access to his Jihad watch site banned by the Bank of America, the government of the city of Chicago, the Chicago PD, Fidelity Investments, and the filtering software of Site Coach. The expose' on Spencer is featured in Time Magazine's online feature "The Sphere", exposing his hate speech, and two government agencies have opened investigations into his activities.”

This either attests to the fact that the mainstream is right, and Spencer is a “hatemonger”—or it attests to the fact of the mainstream dominance of PC Multiculturalism, whereby anyone who dares to criticize Islam and most Muslims, thereby breaking the axiomatic commandments of the PC paradigm, becomes vilified in a prejudicial kangaroo court as a “bigot”, a “hatemonger” and a “racist”.

6 comments:

Lady Predator said...

Excellent analysis. The problem with Sutter and people like him is they belong to the cult of tolerance and they believe in the universal truth of liberalism, that all people are the same and that all religions are one religion, pointing to a single universal order in which all people get along as brothers. (Larry Auster's excellent point about liberalism)

Erich said...

Thanks Lady Predator. You wrote:

"they believe in the universal truth of liberalism, that all people are the same and that all religions are one religion, pointing to a single universal order in which all people get along as brothers"

-- all people except, of course, those that they deem to be "haters".

Lady Predator said...

Yes there is that, at least I'm with a distinguished group of haters.

Rev. Jim Sutter said...

Erich wrote, in part: "“Spencer now finds access to his Jihad watch site banned by the Bank of America, the government of the city of Chicago, the Chicago PD, Fidelity Investments, and the filtering software of Site Coach. The expose' on Spencer is featured in Time Magazine's online feature "The Sphere", exposing his hate speech, and two government agencies have opened investigations into his activities.”

This either attests to the fact that the mainstream is right, and Spencer is a “hatemonger”—or it attests to the fact of the mainstream dominance of PC Multiculturalism, whereby anyone who dares to criticize Islam and most Muslims, thereby breaking the axiomatic commandments of the PC paradigm, becomes vilified in a prejudicial kangaroo court as a “bigot”, a “hatemonger” and a “racist”."

Or it could mean that your analysis is wrong.

The ban on Spencer's sites has now spread 19,000 corporations, agencies and entities in the US, from there to the UK, and from there to throughout the EU, where free speech does not include hate speech. In fact, in the UK, it is a criminal offense.

All of these governments, agencies, corporations, web filtering companies, made the decision that Spencer's sites are hate speech. It is illogical to think that they all based their decisions solely on my expose' of Spencer. Other hate sites are also being banned, such a LGF, townhall, Frontpage Mag, the JAWA Report, Foehammer's Anvil... I haven't even gotten around to posting them in the Hatewatch Hall of Shame yet, so this seems more likely that there is a growing awareness of the dangers of hate speech.

As to my cyberstalker's comment about my belonging to a cult of tolerance< I guess I should take that as a compliment, since my tolerance for others is based on the Great Commandment. However, I am intolerant of actions that are evil, such as violence, terrorism, bigotry and hate speech.

Erich said...

Rev. Jim Sutter wrote:

"The ban on Spencer's sites has now spread 19,000 corporations, agencies and entities in the US, from there to the UK, and from there to throughout the EU"

Does Rev. Jim Sutter have proof of the two claims he is making here:

1) that is has spread to 19,000 corporations, agencies and entities in the US

2) that it has spread to the UK and from there to the EU?

Rev. Jim Sutter writes approvingly of the EU and the UK, "where free speech does not include hate speech. In fact, in the UK, it is a criminal offense."

Would the Rev. Jim Sutter agree that the following constitute "hate speech":

Verily, those the Jews and Christians and the Polytheists will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
Disbelievers are diseased.
Disbelievers are evil people.
For disbelievers is a painful doom.
Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
Don't believe anyone who is not a Believer.
Don't be friends with non-Believers. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
Oppose those who refuse to follow our Leader.
The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then God will consider you to be one of them.
Jews and Christians are losers.
God turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
Jews and Christians are evil people.
Don't choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians.
Stay away from disbelievers.
The worst beasts in God's sight are the disbelievers.
Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
Disbelievers are filthy (“najis”).
Christians and Jews are perverts. God Himself fights against them.

?

All the statements above are straight out of the Koran.

Rev. Jim Sutter goes on to write:

"All of these governments, agencies, corporations, web filtering companies, made the decision that Spencer's sites are hate speech."

How does Rev. Jim Sutter know "all" of these entities actually made a conscious decision to ban JW because they thought it was a hate site? Does he have proof?

Rev. Jim Sutter also writes:

"It is illogical to think that they all based their decisions solely on my expose' of Spencer."

I never said their bans were based on Sutter's exposé. People don't need isolated blogs upon which to base their Orwellian hyper-sensitivity to "hate", since the mainstream dominance of PC already nourishes such irrational hyper-sensitivity -- as the Reverend dimly perceives when he then observes: "...so this seems more likely that there is a growing awareness of the dangers of hate speech."

No, not a growing awareness of hate speech: a long-standing sociopolitical environment of Political Correctness that has at least for the past 25 years if not longer proscribed all substantive criticism of Islam (as the French philosopher Jacques Ellul complained in 1983, "You can't criticize Islam anymore!").

"As to my cyberstalker's comment about my belonging to a cult of tolerance< I guess I should take that as a compliment, since my tolerance for others is based on the Great Commandment. However, I am intolerant of actions that are evil, such as violence, terrorism, bigotry and hate speech."

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

P.S.: Spencer has posted increasing indications of the ban on JW being lifted, slowly: The ban is lifting. I have received word that Jihad Watch is now accessible again at GE, as well as at Defense Finance and Accounting Services and Dresdner Kleiwort.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017321.php#comments

Lady Predator said...

BTW Sutter is talking about Time Magazine's online feature "The Sphere". Guess what I can load that up on my blog and the world can see what a fraud the "good" rev. is. The sphere is just a blog widget.