Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”
Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.
● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”
Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.
● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”
Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.
● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”
Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.
● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”
Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.
● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”
But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.
Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

76 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

You still read it so I won't have to :) I agree the whole anti-semitism is essentially a tool of the liberal trade to further a particular political agenda.. Still, I honestly can't think of another article from The Economist that is quite so blatantly obvious. Silly and a little scary at the same time.

Individualist said...

Keep writing articles like this editors of the Economist and when the religious jews come to me complaining how unfair you are I will just say

"Welcome to the Republican Party"

Joel Farnham said...

Antisemitism! It is the new/old hate. Fashionable in Liberal circles. Politically correct for the discerning individual. Have a few hatreds lying around doing nothing? Well worry no more. Antisemitism is the ticket!

P.S. The Muslims will love you for it!

/sarcasm off

Didn't we finally understood that this is wrong?

Patti said...

don't you love how when the libbies hate, they're just trying to help? yet, when thinking folks point out the muslim brotherhood atrocities they're evil.

ooooookay.....

tryanmax said...

Typical. The Economist article gets it wrong from the opening sentence, entertaining the myth that Zionists "pioneered" into Palestine rather than the reality that Jews returned to Israel.

I'm going to keep reading the article and drop my reactions here.

tryanmax said...

Can't say I blame anybody for airbrushing Hilary's picture.

Libertarian Advocate said...

TJ: While I agree anti-semitism is surely the tool of the trade of more than a few media elitists, I think it it also reveals them for what they really are: mediocre talents with a strong penchant for intellectual laziness.

Frankly, Andrew Rashbass - himself a Jew - CEO of the Economist Group ought be red-faced humiliated for his editors' permitting such sophomoric schlock to encounter ink and paper. No doubt it snuck past him while skiing Gstaad or some such thing.

T-Rav said...

I'm confused. Shouldn't a publication with a name like "The Economist" be writing about economic issues, not this crap? Oh wait, I guess those dirty overzealous Jews control all the world's money so that makes it relevant.

tryanmax said...

Here is a classic piece of non-information:

Polls--the media's favorite tool for crafting news rather than reporting it--suggest--does not establish--that a high percentage--no numbers?--of religious Jews would--if they could, but they can't, so they won't--deny non-Jews the vote."

tryanmax said...

Another pull from the article: "The leaders of Israel’s largest opposition parties are secular women..."

Do such opposition parties exist in Muslim countries? I'd guess it's pretty hard to lead an opposition with acid in your face. That is, if you have a head at all.

tryanmax said...

The final sentences discuss Netanyahu's secularism. Wait a minute...the Prime Minister of Israel is secular? I thought this article was about how the Orthodox Jews were running the show in Israel.

A-a-ndr-e-e-w! I'm confu-u-used.

LawHawkRFD said...

If those Orthodox Jews start exporting their people to the US, the next thing you know they'll be dressing up like Santa Claus and committing honor killings on American soil. Where will it all end?

tryanmax said...

Some of them already kinda look like Santa Claus with their beards. It's closer than you think!

Individualist said...

"But a secular comeback may depend on Mr Netanyahu. Secular himself, he has ridden a religious tide to two election victories. Some say he regrets the religious right’s rise. But can he resist the temptation to use this winning formula for a third time?"

Did you catch the last of the article. Heh Heh heh ....

That Netanyahu guy he tied himself to the religious right and it will be his undoing. See that's what you get for doing the Hannity show...

Now we don't like you - - Geeshh!

T-Rav said...

Indi, it always fascinates me how the media can't say enough about how divided the right is, in America or elsewhere, but then is strangely silent about any rifts within the leftist camp. Curious that.

Individualist said...

T-Rav

That is because all the leftists spend their time hands joined in a circle around campfires singing Kumbaya.

The non secular version that does not reference any religious themes other than vague innacurate references to Hindu Karma teachings in Buddhism of course. It's a thing.

AndrewPrice said...

Sorry I'm late everyone, had computer problems. I shall respond shortly. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Yep, I read it so you all don't have to! :)

It is pretty shockingly blatant in my opinion. I really can't imagine anyone making this comparison with a straight face and yet, that's exactly what they did.

It just makes me wonder what the end-game is of all of this? In other words, what are they hoping happens by marginalizing the Israelis and leaving them at the mercy of their neighbors?

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, At this point, there is no reason for any thinking Jew to feel comfortable among liberals.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I thought we all understood this was wrong as well, but apparently not everyone agrees with that.

The left has long flirted with antisemitism and I guess we shouldn't be surprised they're right back at it, especially given how it's become acceptable to publicly hate people again on the left.

Still, you would think some of the more "thoughtful" members of the leftist establishment (if there are such people) would see the dangers in this and put a halt to it. But they haven't for whatever reason. I suspect they've decided to hitch their wagons to Muslims rather than Jews because Muslims are growing in numbers in the country.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, It's almost comical how they approach their hate. They always raise it in the context of just wanting to help the people they hate improve or "repair relations" or some other garbage. But underneath their false wishes and schadenfreude is pure hate.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Nice catch! The whole article begins with the premise that Israeli is somehow criminally bad for even existing, so why should anyone believe that anything else that follows will be unbiased or even based in reality?

DUQ said...

In case anyone missed it, Bachmann has suspended her campaign.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I can't blame anyone for airbrushing Hillary these days. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Libertarian Advocate, I constantly find myself shocked that American Jews either turn a blind toward or even actively encourage antisemitism. I just don't understand it. I don't know what purpose they think it serves and I don't know how they can't see the effect it has on people who want to run with it. It really is playing with the worst kind of fire and it's pretty clear the fire danger has been growing year after year since the mid-1990s.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, They stopped writing about economics when they realized they didn't understand economics. I honestly doubt that most of their reporters have ever taken an economics course, much less shown any talent for it.

Personally, I suspect the founders of the magazine are turning in their graves right now at what has become of their dream.

Joel Farnham said...

Rush just threw some red meat to the Palin supporters. He intimated that Palin nearly jumped in to the Presidential Race. That is, if they try to marginalize Ron Paul voters.

Rush says that this race is still wide open and anything can happen.

At this point, I have a strong feeling that conservatives are feeling under-represented. I do at least.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Good point about the non-information in the poll. What constitutes a high percentage?

I can't tell you how often I've seen the media take something like 40% and describe it as "a near majority" or "significant numbers of people."

It would be interesting to see if there is even a poll behind this particular assertion or if it's just another example of "people say"?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's one of the things I think is so funny in this article. They are trying to equate Israel with the worst elements of radical Islam, but they can't even come close in their worst case comparisons and then they keep saying things that completely contradict their whole point. If Israel were like Saudi Arabia, then there wouldn't be women in government, much less leading the opposition.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You need to learn to look beyond the contradictions. Just accept the parts they want you to accept, don't read between the lines, and whatever you do, don't think for yourself.

Besides, you've forgotten that this secular leader is only in office because the Taliban-like religious Jews want him there... because by putting a secularist in power they somehow get a theocracy. It's complicated. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, It will end with a ban on Santa, that's where it will end! This must be a Middle Eastern Muslim/Israeli plot to wipe out Santa. Argg.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL! You could be right!

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, It's interesting how the goes. First, it suggest the religious Jews control the state. Then it admits that secular Jews actually run both sides and currently run the government. Yet it maintains the boogeyman idea that the religious Jews really control the state. Finally, it admits that the religious Jews could be ignored, but they won't be because they can help the secular people win -- which makes no sense for their thesis.... why team with secular people if they really control the state and how could the secular types ignore them if they really are the real power?

Finally, it suggests that there is something wrong with the religious Jews' views being considered by the government. Could you imagine their outrage if we suggested "feminists should be ignored by the political parties even though they can help one party." This is pure bias.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I heard that. And it sounds like Perry is done too. It will be interesting to see where their supporters go.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I definitely do. You can't believe how much I wish someone else would jump into this race.

I think he's (and Palin) are right about Paul, by the way. His supporters need to be addressed by the party because he says a lot of things which resonate with the American people and which aren't being discussed by any of the other candidates.

Unfortunately, I suspect they plan to ignore him.

tryanmax said...

Apparently Perry is still in, even though he cancelled a bunch of his engagements. ???

Joel Farnham said...

Oh, I think she is right. If Ron Paul would just acknowledge the dangers of Muslims getting nuclear weapons, I would support him.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I just saw that. I guess he thinks that with Bachmann out he might get her 5% and he might be able to shake free some Newt people?

Or more likely, his ego is writing checks his popularity can't cash.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I think there are a LOT of people who would do the same.

I understand his idea of bringing home the troops and I actually think it's largely a good idea. We should not be fighting civil wars.

But there is a HUGE difference between picking our battles more wisely and hiding our heads in the sand. And the fact he refuses to acknowledge one of the nastiest enemies this country has ever had is disturbing and just makes it impossible to see him as President.

And it frankly frustrates me that the Republicans aren't taking a harder look at his other beliefs. I suspect his economic views are largely the future of the conservative movement.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, the vague polling works both ways, too. I've seen instances where 25% or 35% percent is described as "very few" or a "small minority" when it reflects something conservative. I've even seen over 50% called "little more than a minority." I suppose that is truth in journalism by a strict definition.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I've seen that too. It's pretty despicable spin for supposed journalists to say things like that. But that won't stop them.

Of course, sometimes they're just stupid. I once had a Federal judge (Carter appointee) cite the dissenting (losing) position in a Supreme Court case. Her reasoning, "a large number of the judges agreed with it." Yes... 4 judges. The problem is the other 5 said no, and that makes the law of the land what the 5 said. Not surprisingly, at one point, she was the most overturned judge on the bench.

Stupidity must be a side effect of liberalism.

tryanmax said...

Side-effect. Synonym. I won't quibble.

AndrewPrice said...

Yeah, they're kind of the same. In fact, stupidity might even be a cause. LOL!

Ed said...

Andrew, Excellent article as always. At one point, I thought the Economist was a good magazine, but they've really fallen apart over the years and the things you point out are just amazing.

tryanmax said...

BTW, I love the Orthodox Jews picture. Nothing says "evil" like linking arms and skipping down the street!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ed. I think The Economist was good at one point, but they've been getting more liberal and less intelligent for years now.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I thought it was an appropriate image. After all, it shows the raw terror one must feel when these clearly religious young men come skipping toward you.

... the horror
....... the horror

Individualist said...

Andrew

Orthodox Religious Jews = Emmanuel Goldstein

They are in control of everything when we need a bogeyman for the party and they are in control of nothing when we need the party to prevail.

The stars in the Heaven can be points on a curtain several miles away and giant balls of hydrogen gas fusing together at the same time. I can accept both without paradox because my mind has been indoctrinated in double think.

Who am I .....

I am a journalist for Economist and I am late for the two minute Hate os excuse me......

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, It is amazing how easily some people can accept contradictions when it suits their politics, isn't it?

AndrewPrice said...

Wow, our poor President. Why can't everyone just believe his assurance that he's perfectly legal?

El Gordo said...

I gave up on the Economist after a 2005 hit piece in Ayaan Hirsi Ali and one Paul Scheffer, who is described as "a journalist who is one of the leaders of an ideological movement that wants to counter Islamist extremism by putting more emphasis on the rule of law and less on accommodating differences."

He is even more ideological than that:

"He and his friends have been arguing that all would-be citizens of the Netherlands must be presented with a clear message. As the price of living in an open, law-governed society, they should acknowledge the right of others to individual choice, dissent and “apostasy” from the beliefs of their own community. In some European countries, such language might sound intolerant. But in the Netherlands of 2005, it has entered the political mainstream."

Or consider this nugget:

Like every Dutch advocate of what some would call touchy-feely policies, the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, is a little defensive these days. But he still argues that learning to live with immigrant cultures, including Islam, is a challenge for hosts and newcomers alike. “Both sides must take steps” to understand one another, he insists, if only for the “purely selfish reasons that society cannot function” otherwise. Such talk might sound reactionary in the municipal politics of, say, London; but in the Netherlands, it identifies the speaker as a bleeding heart.

Says a lot about London and its "newspapers".

AndrewPrice said...

El Gordo, Many times I've considered giving up The Economist. So much of it is garbage these days and even worse, much of it is politicized garbage. I get sick of their constant mention of climate change in all their articles and their reflexive "Muslims are all good and anyone who objects to anything they do or say is a racist." And it completely feels like a waste of time to read articles that are perplexed at anything that doesn't conform to the extreme liberal view.

And you're right about their Islam coverage. It's highly distorted and misleading. They downplay or ignore bad facts and stretch good possibilities into absolute certainties. And they absolutely hate anyone who dares to say there is a problem with bringing people into the country who want to destroy the existing culture.

The Economist said...

We just can't understand how a peaceful religion like Islam can exhibit signs of violence.

AndrewPrice said...

See, I know you're not the real Economist because then you wouldn't even admit there are signs of violence in Islam.

Ed said...

Andrew, I've reached a point where I don't know of any magazines I'd want to read. They aren't as up to date as the internet and they aren't really any deeper. Add in the fact they are the last bastions of intense liberalism and I have no reason to read them.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'm pretty much the same way. I can't really think of a magazine that's worth it at this point. The Economist is about it and that's pretty much gone to pot.

I don't even get National Review anymore because there just isn't anything interesting in it.

Ed said...

Andrew, I still get "National Review," but truth be told I don't read it all the way through anymore. I can't honestly say why, but it just doesn't feel as cool as it once felt.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That's probably because there are so many more alternatives plus I think they've lost their edge. When I first began reading in the 1980s it was really subversive stuff. These days its no different than you find on Fox News.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, in case anyone missed it, the debate tracker in the upper left is a T-Rav's idea and we'll be updating it whenever events change.

Ed said...

Andrew, I saw that. Snazzy! It should also be pretty handy because keeping track of the whole number of delegates needed thing is a pain.

Joel Farnham said...

The reason I stopped reading National Review is that it is two years behind the times.

It stopped being interesting prior to Buckley's death. It became part of the Republican establishment after Buckley died. It is now deathly dull.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Yeah, it's a nice idea. We're always trying to come up with new stuff that you all might like and I think this is a good idea... credit T-Rav.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Very true. In the 1980s it pushed genuine conservatism without any sacred cows. It was funny, witty and sharp. Then it became part of the establishment and just supported whatever the Republicans were doing. At the same time, it stopped being witty, it stopped being courageous, and it stopped being sharp. Now it just spits out generic garbage like you can find from any Fox analyst, which just isn't very interesting to me. I want someone using their brains, not just repeating what everyone else is saying.

tryanmax said...

The only reason to subscribe to a magazine anymore is to have access to their online archives if they have them. But that is something that a good library should have available for free, anyway.

tryanmax said...

I think what the Economist meant to say is that the religion of peace would never exhibit signs of violence, therefore what some might take as signs of violence are misunderstood. They are not acts of violence by Islam, but acts against Islam. What the Economist can't understand is how anyone could act violently toward the religion of peace.

AndrewPrice said...

That's a good point, the on-line stuff can be useful.

Unfortunately, so many magazines these days offer nothing more than you can get at a decent blog or on the front page of a news site. When I look, for example, at how much news Drudge points me to and compare it to how little you get in Newsweek, and how out-of-date the Newsweek stuff is, I just don't see a reason to get Newsweek.

At least with The Economist, I do get foreign news which is hard to find in the US. Sadly, though, I'm not sure I can trust it.

Similarly, I don't really find any worthwhile analysis in magazines anymore. Back in the day, National Review would have these really deep articles that laid out why we should support something or not. These days, the best you find tends to be repeating talking points. It's rare that any MSM source goes beyond that.

And as I think we've pointed out here, the talking points are usually garbage.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That sort of twisted logical actually, sadly seems to make sense in a twisted liberal sort of way. It's the same way they define black racism away by saying that blacks can't be racists, thus instances of black racism can't be racism and thus the lack of any incidents of black racism proves that blacks can't be racist. It makes sense to liberals, but it's nonsense.

tryanmax said...

I seem to be getting frighteningly good at dissecting liberal non-thought.

AndrewPrice said...

Yeah, I'd be careful. You might find yourself institutionalized if you try to apply this "logic" outside of a gathering of liberals.

tryanmax said...

I think I'm safe as long as I keep associating with sane folk like on Commentarama. I have this conversation going in another conservative forum where one guy tells me I'm inciting violence and another guy says I'm a wimpy pacifist. Then the first guy says he doesn't trust any politicians, but that the solution is to keep on voting for them and the second guy says I'll wind up in slavery if I don't start listening to the wisdom of the first guy.

This is a very round-about way of saying that, sometimes, liberal thinking is easier to dissect than far-right thinking.

AndrewPrice said...

Yeah, sadly, there is insanity everywhere.

Is that the place you sited the Paul article? If so, good luck with that. It sounds like you've got a seriously uphill struggle there!

tryanmax said...

It is, but that was on a different thread. I think it actually made a difference.

The whole site is a facebook clone, so there is a lot going on there at any given time.

The other day I actually talked someone off of the crazy ledge. She was going on and on about how the government is going to implant tracking chips under our skin and throwing out some loose facts claiming she connected the dots. I was like, "but the dots aren't even in the same coloring book!" and she was like, "fine, I'll just sit and gibber in the corner like you."

So I told her, "you're missing the point. You are already gibbering in the corner and I'm trying to pull you out." Her next message was thanking me for pointing out that she was talking like a crazy person. So I felt like I had a little victory that day.

AndrewPrice said...

Congrats on getting through to one of the crazies. They rarely listen and even more rarely believe that they're insane.

AndrewPrice said...

Anybody see Gingrich throwing his tantrum these days? He's whining about everything these days.

tryanmax said...

Time to bring this one back: LINK

AndrewPrice said...

Yep. The more things change, the more they stay the same. He's really gotten nasty in New Hampshire suddenly.

Post a Comment