Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
stevo, I tried to show in other posts, who is most enthusiastic about fjordman's writing. Consider who his message attracts. For example, I make it a rule to always take the opposite POV of a David Horowitz (FrontPageMag), or L. Brent Bozell III, and this strategy has served me well. Here is what "Bill" says about fjordman and his "message":
The preceding "article" os critiqued here:
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/d...6-ce125d8e5dcd
Here is one of several posts by "Bill", he says in his post that follows this one that he is a longtime employee of the SF Chronicle:
stevo, we've pointed you toward information and opinion that shows what "fjordman" is about, and who his message appeals to. Horowitz's approval of fjordman and the "message" is "telling". You've obviously bought into thinking that is, charitably described as "counterproductive". It's up to you to decide if you want to continue to embrace it, or not. I cannot stress enough that you should consider who your fellow "believers" are. IMO, they do not seem like folks who are all that trustworthy or accurate in what they say and do, and in their past agendas. |
Well, host, you haven't done a good enough job. So you're backtraking from "its a racist blog" to "his blog attracts racists." I think there's a big difference. I can see why racists would be attracted to his blog. It speaks ill of people who aren't white. Does that make the blog racist? Not in and of itself it doesn't.
I see you posted a news article about muslims raping australian women. Is that a racist newsarticle because it points out the ethnicity and/or religion of the rapists? Whats racist in disclosing the ethnicity and religion of a gang of rapists, especially if they justify their crimes with their religion?
Interestingly enough, you can find news articles all over the web that are reporting on the same problem: gangs of young muslim men attacking and raping western women and saying they've commited no crime because under sharia law they're allowed to because the women were not wearing a veil and were not escorted by a man while in public. Is that the kind of stuff you're trying to defend?
I still miss your point. Maybe I didn't, let me see if I get it:
1. We're not at war with islamofascists because there's no such thing as an islamofascist.
2. Fjordman's blog is racist because it attracts a racist crowd.
3. News stories specifying the race/ethnicity/religion of a rapist are a racist news stories.
4. There is no problem in australia, sweeden, denmark, or norway with gangs of muslim immigrants raping white girls and justifying it by sharia law.