By Lance Freeman / Jun 10
Escape from the prison you call home
Americans, I have some bad news for you:
You have the worst quality of life in the developed world – by a wide margin.
If you had any idea of how people really lived in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many parts of Asia, you’d be rioting in the streets calling for a better life. In fact, the average Australian or Singaporean taxi driver has a much better standard of living than the typical American white-collar worker.
I know this because I am an American and I escaped from the prison you call home.
I have lived all around the world, in wealthy countries and poor ones, and there is only one country I would never consider living in again: The United States of America. The mere thought of it fills me with dread.
Consider this: You are the only people in the developed world without a single-payer health system. Everyone in Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand has a single-payer system. If they get sick, they can devote all their energies to getting well. If you get sick, you have to battle two things at once, your illness and the fear of financial ruin. Millions of Americans go bankrupt every year due to medical bills, and tens of thousands die each year because they have no insurance or insufficient insurance. And don’t believe for a second that rot about America’s having the world’s best medical care or the shortest waiting lists: I’ve been to hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Singapore, and Thailand, and every one was better than the “good” hospital I used to go to back home. The waits were shorter, the facilities more comfortable, and the doctors just as good.
This is ironic, because you need a good health system more than anyone else in the world. Why? Because your lifestyle is almost designed to make you sick.
Let’s start with your diet: Much of the beef you eat has been exposed to fecal matter in processing. Your chicken is contaminated with salmonella. Your stock animals and poultry are pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics. In most other countries, the government would act to protect consumers from this sort of thing; in the United States, the government is bought off by industry to prevent any effective regulations or inspections. In a few years, the majority of all the produce for sale in the United States will be from genetically modified crops, thanks to the cozy relationship between Monsanto Corporation and the United States government. Worse still, due to the vast quantities of high-fructose corn syrup Americans consume, fully one-third of children born in the United States today will be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at some point in their lives.
Of course, it’s not just the food that’s killing you; it’s also the drugs. If you show any sign of life when you’re young, they’ll put you on Ritalin. Then, when you get old enough to take a good look around, you’ll get depressed, so they’ll give you Prozac. If you’re a man, this will render you chemically impotent, so you’ll need Viagra to get it up. Meanwhile, your steady diet of trans-fat-laden food is guaranteed to give you high cholesterol, so you’ll get a prescription for Lipitor. Finally, at the end of the day, you’ll lay awake at night worrying about losing your health plan, so you’ll need Lunesta to go to sleep.
With a diet guaranteed to make you sick and a health system designed to make sure you stay that way, what you really need is a long vacation somewhere. Unfortunately, you probably can’t take one. I’ll let you in on little secret: If you go to the beaches of Thailand, the mountains of Nepal, or the coral reefs of Australia, you’ll probably be the only American in sight. And you’ll be surrounded by crowds of happy Germans, French, Italians, Israelis, Scandinavians and wealthy Asians. Why? Because they’re paid well enough to afford to visit these places AND they can take vacations long enough to do so. Even if you could scrape together enough money to go to one of these incredible places, by the time you recovered from your jetlag, it would be time to get on a plane and rush back to your job.
If you think I’m making this up, check the stats on average annual vacation days by country:
The fact is, they work you like dogs in the United States. This should come as no surprise: The United States never got away from the plantation / sweat shop labor model, and any real labor movement was brutally suppressed. Unless you happen to be a member of the ownership class, your options are pretty much limited to barely surviving on service-sector wages or playing musical chairs for a spot in a cubicle (a spot that will be outsourced to India next week, anyway). The very best you can hope for is to get a professional degree and then milk the system for a slice of the middle-class pie. And even those who claw their way into the middle class are but one illness or job loss away from poverty. Your jobs aren’t secure. Your company has no loyalty to you. They’ll play you off against your co-workers for as long as it suits them; then they’ll get rid of you.
Of course, you don’t have any choice in the matter: The system is designed this way. In most countries in the developed world, higher education is either free or heavily subsidized; in the United States, a university degree can set you back over US$100,000. Thus, you enter the working world with a crushing debt. Forget about taking a year off to travel the world and find yourself – you’ve got to start working or watch your credit rating plummet.
If you’re “lucky,” you might even land a job good enough to qualify you for a home loan. And then you’ll spend half your working life just paying the interest on the loan – welcome to the world of American debt slavery. America has the illusion of great wealth because there’s a lot of “stuff” around, but who really owns it? In real terms, the average American is poorer than the poorest ghetto dweller in Manila, because at least they have no debts. If they want to pack up and leave, they can; if you want to leave, you can’t, because you’ve got debts to pay.
All this begs the question: Why would anyone put up with this? Ask any American, and you’ll get the same answer: “Because America is the freest country on earth.” If you believe this, I’ve got some more bad news for you: America is actually among the least free countries on earth. Your piss is tested, your emails and phone calls are monitored, your medical records are gathered, and you are never more than one stray comment away from writhing on the ground with two Taser prongs in your ass.
And that’s just physical freedom. Mentally, you are truly imprisoned. You don’t even know the degree to which you are tormented by fears of medical bankruptcy, job loss, homelessness, and violent crime because you’ve never lived in a country where there is no need to worry about such things.
But it goes much deeper than mere surveillance and anxiety. The fact is, you are not free because your country has been taken over and occupied by another government. Fully 70% of your tax dollars go to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon is the real government of the United States. You are required under pain of death to pay taxes to this occupying government. If you’re from the less fortunate classes, you are also required to serve and die in their endless wars, or send your sons and daughters to do so. You have no choice in the matter: There is a socio-economic draft system in the United States that provides a steady stream of cannon fodder for the military.
If you call a life of surveillance, anxiety, and ceaseless toil in the service of a government you didn’t elect “freedom,” then you and I have a very different idea of what that word means.
If there was some chance that the country could be changed, there might be reason for hope. But can you honestly look around and conclude that anything is going to change? Where would the change come from? The people? Take a good look at your compatriots: The working class in the United States has been brutally propagandized by jackals like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Members of the working class have been taught to lick the boots of their masters and then bend over for another kick in the ass. They’ve got these people so well trained that they’ll take up arms against the other half of the working class as soon as their masters give the word.
If the people cannot make a change, how about the media? Not a chance. From Fox News to the New York Times, the mass media in the United States is nothing but the public relations wing of the corporatocracy, primarily the military industrial complex. At least the citizens of the former Soviet Union knew that their news was bullshit. In America, you grow up thinking you’ve got a free media, which makes the propaganda doubly effective. If you don’t think American media is mere corporate propaganda, ask yourself the following question: Have you ever heard a major American news outlet suggest that the country could fund a single-payer health system by cutting military spending?
If change can’t come from the people or the media, the only other potential source of change would be the politicians. Unfortunately, the American political process is among the most corrupt in the world. In every country on earth, one expects politicians to take bribes from the rich. But this generally happens in secret, behind the closed doors of their elite clubs. In the United States, this sort of political corruption is done in broad daylight, as part of legal, accepted, standard operating procedure. In the United States, they merely call these bribes campaign donations, political action committees, and lobbyists. One can no more expect the politicians to change this system than one can expect a man to take an axe and chop his own legs out from underneath him.
No, the United States of America is not going to change for the better. The only change will be for the worse. And when I say worse, I mean much worse. As we speak, the economic system that sustained the country during the post-war years is collapsing. The United States maxed out its “credit card” sometime in 2008, and now its lenders – starting with China – are in the process of laying the foundations for a new monetary system to replace the Anglo-American “petro-dollar” system. As soon as there is a viable alternative to the US dollar, the greenback will sink like a stone.
While the United States was running up crushing levels of debt, it was also busy shipping its manufacturing and white-collar jobs overseas and letting its infrastructure fall to pieces. Meanwhile, Asian and European countries were investing in education, infrastructure, and raw materials. Even if the United States tried to rebuild a real economy (as opposed to a service / financial economy), do you think American workers would ever be able to compete with the workers of China or Europe? Have you ever seen a Japanese or German factory? Have you ever met a Singaporean or Chinese worker?
There are only two possible futures facing the United States, and neither one is pretty. The best case is a slow but orderly decline – essentially a continuation of what’s been happening for the last two decades. Wages will drop, unemployment will rise, Medicare and Social Security benefits will be slashed, the currency will decline in value, and the disparity of wealth will spiral out of control until the United States starts to resemble Mexico or the Philippines – tiny islands of wealth surrounded by great poverty (the country is already halfway there).
Equally likely is a sudden collapse – perhaps brought about by a rapid flight from the US dollar by creditor nations like China, Japan, Korea, and the OPEC nations. A related possibility would be a default by the United States government on its vast debt. One look at the financial balance sheet of the US government should convince you how likely this is: Governmental spending is skyrocketing, and tax receipts are plummeting – something has to give. If either of these scenarios plays out, the resulting depression will make the present recession look like a walk in the park.
Whether the collapse is gradual or gut-wrenchingly sudden, the results will be chaos, civil strife, and fascism. Let’s face it: The United States is like the former Yugoslavia – a collection of mutually antagonistic cultures united in name only. You’ve got your own version of the Taliban: right-wing Christian fundamentalists who actively loathe the idea of secular Constitutional government. You’ve got a vast intellectual underclass that has spent the last few decades soaking up Fox News and talk radio propaganda, eager to blame the collapse on Democrats, gays, and immigrants. You’ve got a ruthless ownership class that will use all the means at its disposal to protect its wealth from the starving masses.
On top of all that, you’ve got vast factory farms, sprawling suburbs, and a truck-based shipping system – all of it entirely dependent on oil that is about to become completely unaffordable. And you’ve got guns. Lots of guns. In short: the United States is about to become a very unwholesome place to be.
Right now, the government is building fences and walls along its northern and southern borders. Right now, the government is working on a national ID system (soon to be fitted with biometric features). Right now, the government is building a surveillance state so extensive that they will be able to follow your every move online, in the streets, and across borders. If you think this is just to protect you from “terrorists,” then you’re sadly mistaken. Once the shit really hits the fan, do you really think you’ll just be able to jump into the old station wagon, drive across the Canadian border, and spend the rest of your days fishing and drinking Molson? No, the government is going to lock the place down. They don’t want their tax base escaping. They don’t want their “recruits” escaping. They don’t want YOU escaping.
I am not writing this to scare you. I write this to you as a friend. If you are able to read and understand what I’ve written here, then you are a member of a small minority in the United States. You are a minority in a country that has no place for you.
So, what should you do?
You should leave the United States of America.
If you’re young, you’ve got plenty of choices. You can teach English in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. Or you can go to university or graduate school abroad and start building skills that will qualify you for a work visa. If you’ve already got some real work skills, you can apply to emigrate to any number of countries as a skilled immigrant. If you are older and you’ve got some savings, you can retire to a place like Costa Rica or the Philippines. If you can’t qualify for a work, student, or retirement visa, don’t let that stop you – travel on a tourist visa to a country that appeals to you and talk to the expats you meet there. Whatever you do, go speak to an immigration lawyer as soon as you can. Find out exactly how to get on a path that will lead to permanent residence and eventually citizenship in the country of your choice.
You will not be alone. There are millions of Americans just like me living outside the United States. Living lives much more fulfilling, peaceful, free, and abundant than we ever could have attained back home. Some of us happened upon these lives by accident (we tried a year abroad and found that we liked it), while others made a conscious decision to pack up and leave for good. You’ll find us in Canada, all over Europe, in many parts of Asia, in Australia and New Zealand, and in most other countries of the globe. Do we miss our friends and family? Yes. Do we occasionally miss aspects of our former country? Yes. Do we plan on ever living again in the United States? Never. And those of us with permanent residence or citizenship can sponsor family members from back home for long-term visas in our adopted countries.
In closing, I want to remind you of something – unless you are an American Indian or a descendant of slaves, at some point your ancestors chose to leave their homelands in search of a better life. They weren’t traitors and they weren’t bad people, they just wanted a better life for themselves and their families. Isn’t it time that you continue their journey?
This article first appeared on Information Clearing House and has been reproduced with their kind permission.
Israel has admitted to previous use of false flag attacks to justify war against Middle Eastern nations.
For example, Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
Numerous high-level government officials have warned that a false flag may be launched against Iran to start a war: 2
- Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (who helped to create Al Qaeda to fight the soviets in Afghanistan) told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.
- Daniel Ellsberg – the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower – said “if there is another terror attack, “I believe the president will get what he wants”, which includes war with Iran
- Robert David Steele – a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer – says that elements within the U.S. government are trying to carry out a false flag operation and blame it on Iran
- Former high-level CIA officer Michael Scheuer – who was the head of the CIA unit tasked with capturing Bin Laden – says that Israel or Saudi Arabia could be setting up Iran as a way to foment war 3
- Ron Paul has warned of a “Gulf of Tonkin type incident” in Iran
- Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says many ideas have been proposed for provoking a war, including building boats that look like Iranian boats, and then putting Navy Seals on them to “start a shoot-up”
- The highly influential Brookings Institution wrote a report in 2009 called “Which Path to Persia?” which states (pages 84-85):
It would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
- A former member of the British Parliament stated that “there is a very real danger” that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran
- A number of very high-level former intelligence officers – including several that personally briefed presidents every day on matters of national security – stated that better communications between the U.S. and Iran were needed to “reduce the danger of … covert, false-flag attack”
One of America’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – writes today:
Many critics have argued that there is a concerted effort to push the United States into a war with Iran by supporters of Israel. Patrick Clawson, director of research for the highly influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, seemed intent to prove those rumors true this week in comments as a luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout.” Clawson casually discusses how to create a false flag operation to push the U.S. into war to overcome any reluctance by the public. We have been discussing how many leaders like Senator Joe Lieberman had begun to use the same rhetoric that led to the last two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the suggest timing of an attack has been tied to the presidential election.
In his remarks, Clawson helpfully lists a series of historical events used to push the country into war like the Gulf of Tonkin incident that gave us the Vietnam War. Clawson expressed his frustration in acknowledging that it is “[v]ery hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran.” However, there is hope. Clawson explains that the “traditional way” to get the country into a war is through false flags or manufactured incidents where Americans are killed. Thus, he observes, “we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier about it. So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.”
The fact that one of the leading analysis for the WINEP would feel comfortable in making such comments is itself quite chilling. It indicates that such discussions have become sufficiently regular that it has creeped into public discussion. It is a measure of the secret pressure building to push this country into a third major war despite our crippling economic conditions and losses in military personnel. The assumption in Washington is that neither Romney nor Obama could oppose such a war. Even if Obama does not publicly support Israel, the assumption is that political allies of Israel in Washington can guarantee that we would offer extensive military loans and intelligence. Even if there is a delay in such military loans and support, the assumption is that Israel can go to war with the understanding that the United States will cover a significant portion of the costs. Moreover, in his remarkably candid remarks, Clawson shows how the U.S. can easily be forced into direct combat by pushing Iran to simply kill some Americans or sink a few of our ships. Then members would be clamoring for revenge. Notably, the Israelis have been ratcheting up the war rhetoric in pushing Iran, which predictably has now reserved the right to engage in a preemptive strike not just against Israeli but U.S. interests. We would then, again, find ourselves in a war without any public debate or collective decision.
While Clawson adds a passing caveat that he is not advocating such an approach, his remarks are clearly designed to show how the group can get the United States into a war for Israel if only we can get Iran to kill some of our citizens or soldiers. Those people are of course expendable props in Clawson’s realpolitik.
By the way, Clawson has been enlisted to give his insightful analysis at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. He is also a member of the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. The World Bank connection is particularly interesting given the history with Paul Wolfowitz who pushed the U.S. into two disastrous wars in the Bush Administration and was rewarded with being made the head of the World Bank.
It is the callous disconnect that is most chilling in these remarks. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have died or have been crippled for life in these wars that have left the country near bankruptcy (and increasingly hostile “allies” in Afghanistan and Iraq). Those casualties and costs, however, appear immaterial in the discussion of supporting Israel in a war against Iran.
- Even if Iran did build a nuclear bomb – it would not be that dangerous, because Israel and America have so many more nukes. And see this
- Attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform
2 False flag attacks have been carried out against Iran in the past. For example, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
3 Saudi Arabia has also been supporting terrorists.
Bobby Spencer = Kuta ka bacha & Kuta ka baap
Hate-blogger and career bigot Robert Spencer
Hate-blogger and career bigot Robert Spencer issued an open challenge to debate numerous times on his vitriolic site. LoonWatch accepted his challenge. It has now been officially 155 days since Spencer has avoided the debate. By Spencer’s own logic (whereby anyone who dodges a debate is a chicken), this makes him a big fat chicken. This is why I recently published an article entitled JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch.
Instead of taking up his own challenge to debate, Robert Spencer now tries to take the chicken’s way out and has started throwing out wild Glenn Beck style accusations against LoonWatch. Of course, this is no different than his normal M.O., which involves saying absolutely outlandish things and then simply repeating them over and over. And so, Spencer now calls LoonWatch an “Islamic hate site.” Next thing you know, Glenn Greenwald will be an “Islamic supremacist” and “stealth jihadist” to JihadWatch!
To give “proof” that LoonWatch is an “Islamic hate site”, the best Spencer can do is reproduce a comment posted by a random reader of our site by the name of Mosizzle. Amazingly, Mosizzle (whoever he is) is not even a part of the LoonWatch team, nor has ever worked for us, nor has anything to do with us! He’s just one of the thousands of people who read our website and decided to post a comment under one of our articles.
Is Robert Spencer to be held accountable for what every commentator on his site posts underneath his articles? OK, let us apply this standard to him. Even in the blog post itself (the one in which he decries Mosizzle’s alleged “threat”), we see the crazy minions on his site saying completely absurd things, like this (posted by the always classy SaleemSmith):
Muhammad was an insane goat and camel f**ker.
Will Robert Spencer condemn SaleemSmith for saying this? And is it now fair to say that “JihadWatch calls Muhammad an Insane Goat and Camel F**ker”?
The sheer number of hate-filled comments on JihadWatch is in fact astounding. One does not need to dig far to find them. Simply clicking on the comments to any post will do. For example, just yesterday, we have one dedicated JihadWatch reader (by the user name of dumbledoresarmy) advocating ethnic cleansing of Germany:
evict from Germany, back to various parts of dar al Islam, all known Muslims (including native German converts to Islam; converts have shown a distressing tendency to involve themselves in Jihad plots).
How to reduce the danger of raids carried out from outside?
Don’t let any more Muslims into Germany. Not students, not tourists, not businesspeople, not diplomats, no nothing.
No Muslims allowed on German soil, would make life much more difficult for planners of jihad raids.
Another JihadWatch reader takes offense at this comment, arguing that it should be extended to all countries, not just Germany:
Could we not amend that fine premise to ‘No molsems allowed on non-moslem soil.’?
The next commentator (by the name of TJ) weighs in with a possible solution, arguing that Mecca should be nuked:
I believe a decent leader should prevent an attack by issuing threats that islams capital would be nuked (mecca) is theres a single attack in the country.
Another JihadWatch reader cheers on, likening Muslims to animals:
Do NOT surrender to these animals.
One has to scroll halfway down to find anyone who criticizes the “nuke Mecca” option offered by TJ. In this case, it is a user by the name of Roland, who takes issue with nuking Mecca…Except only because it would mean destroying the oil that America so desperately needs:
TJ please do not spread such vile mischief. Believe it or not, America cannot use nukes against any land that is filled with oil, it will be slow suicide.
Ronald could care less that millions of civilians would be killed. He cares about the oil over civilians, like all good neocons do.
The next commentator after Roland (by the name of El Cid) voices his support for ethnic cleansing, arguing for a policy involving “throwing them all out.” The next commentator after him decides to go back to the “nuke Mecca” option, and prays for an earthquake to destroy Mecca. (Why nuke when you can pray for an earthquake to do the same thing?)
Then R.K. MacUalraig decides to give his two thumbs up to the idea of ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Germany, saying:
Yes! Staright talk, straight solutions.
The poster after him also extends his support to the “throwing the Muslims out of Germany” solution (remember how the “throwing the Jews out of Germany” thing worked out?). Then, he says:
Fortunately, slowly but surely, we are getting to that stage.
“That stage” refers to the Final Solution, i.e. ridding Germany of Muslims.
Then finally, we have someone who opposes this Final Solution to Rid Germany of Muslims idea. Ahh, the voice of reason on JihadWatch. Of course, the same poster offers his own solution which involves “dropping a load of old shoes over the grand mosque and kaaba stone of mecca”. He argues that this is a “perfect solution” because it would “be pure insult and humiliation.” He also notes that he has many other such ideas which are even more insulting than this, and then encourages the other readers to come up with “their own creative suggestions.” So, this is the voice of reason on JihadWatch, the only user who actually opposed the Final Solution idea in the entire thread.
The next poster isn’t having any of it, and says:
I think it is time for a mass roundup and deportation, There is plenty of room in the sands of Arabia for all of them.
The commentator after that decides to give his own “creative solution”, arguing:
Pig parts, pig blood and perhaps waste towels from the bath houses of the lower east side (Village) NYC could be dropped on the holy land.
Then we have the last commentator on the page, the same one who came up with the idea to ethnically cleanse Germany of Muslims, chastise Ronald for being against the “nuke Mecca” idea. In Ronald’s defense, however, it should be noted that he never claimed we shouldn’t nuke Mecca because it would kill filthy Muslim civilians, but because of the oil. So c’mon crazy JihadWatch readers, cut him some slack!
Dumbledoresarmy addresses the crazed JihadWatch crew with the words “ladies and gentlemen” and then explains why nuking Mecca is a good idea.
And that’s the last post in the article. Thirty-five comments by JihadWatch readers, and not a single one who opposed the idea of ethnic cleansing of Germany (or the entire non-Muslim world) and the nuking of Mecca on ethical grounds (with the notable exception of Ronald who thought that it would mean losing the oil reserves and another user who thought there are more creative ways to deliver “pure insult and humiliation” upon Muslims). Not a single commentator on the thread opposed either of these two ideas on moral grounds.
Not a single peep from the ever vigilant Robert Spencer or any of the other moderators on the website either.
If Robert Spencer is claiming that LoonWatch must be held responsible for the solitary comment by Mosizzle, then by this logic, Spencer and JihadWatch are to be held accountable for the above comments advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide of Muslims. Notice that JihadWatch has a disclaimer at the bottom saying:
The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.
If Spencer can use this defense of his site, then why does not the same apply to LoonWatch? Therefore, even if–hypothetically speaking–an “Islamic supremacist” were to post a threat against Spencer on our site, it would not be (by Spencer’s own logic) attributable in any way to LoonWatch. After all, JihadWatch commentators had threats against not just one person but against an entire religious group!
Having argued that point from a hypothetical standpoint, the reality is that no threat towards Robert Spencer was ever posted on LoonWatch. Mosizzle’s comment was simply:
Like all cancers, this one needs to be cut out before it spreads.
Anyone who has ever spent more than three minutes of their lives on the internet well knows that people are “proverbially speaking” when they say such things. For example, when the Huffington Post says “Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News…” or Fox News says that “O’Reilly Destroys Eminem and Media Matters”, nobody actually seriously thinks that Fox News has actually literally been destroyed or that Eminem or Media Matters are actually dead. Or when someone says “Stewart Rips Maddow”, nobody actually thinks that Maddow has been literally ripped into little pieces. Or when someone online says “Maddow eviscerated [someone]“, nobody actually thinks that the person has been literally eviscerated.
Mosizzle’s comment, in the context of epic blog language, is the most normal thing in the world. In fact, the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase has been used only just a million times on the internet, never once being interpreted as an actual death threat. For example, this neocon clown asks “Is Progressivism a ‘cancer’ that must be cut out of the American system?” I am a progressive in the American system; should I claim that I have been threatened? Glenn Beck also uses the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase. Maybe Glenn Beck is not a good example (because he is nuts), but the point is that most people would not think that Beck is actually advocating physical violence by such a phrase. Interestingly, the “Islam is a cancer in America that must be cut out” is very familiar and Spencer never seems to object to it.
In any case, Mosizzle himself clarified his statement, by saying that he was “just implying that we must refute Spencer’s lies now before he become more influential…” So, it is exactly as I initially thought it was: it was not a threat of physical violence at all. Instead, it was a call to refute his lies before his influence spreads. The phrase was used in the same way “destroys”, “eviscerated”, etc. is used in blog talk.
Robert Spencer, on the other hand, physically threatened me (Danios), calling for me to be lashed 100 and 101 times on two different occasions respectively, saying about me (“the slick liar”):
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes
Calling for someone to get lashed 100 or 101 times cannot really be understood as “proverbially speaking” nor is it a common saying. (Admittedly, I think it was nothing more than him just losing his temper…) So basically on the one hand we have on LoonWatch a comment using a phrase most commonly used in the proverbial sense by a random reader of our site who is not even a part of the LoonWatch team…(Nowhere in the quote by Mosizzle is violent action called for.) And on the other hand we have a threat that explicitly says I should be lashed, a threat issued not by some random reader of JW, but by the main man himself!
Furthermore, this entire idea of “the commentators on my site don’t reflect on me at all” is a bunch of baloney. The fact that JihadWatch attracts so many crazy bigots speaks volumes about what JihadWatch is all about. It’s food that fuels the bigots, and that’s why so many of them are there. We at LoonWatch have some crazies who roam our site (which website on earth doesn’t!?) but unlike JihadWatch, they are just a tiny percentage. Not only that, but someone will challenge a person if he says something crazy like that. As for Mosizzle’s comment, I am sure that most loyal readers thought like me that his comment was proverbial in nature. And Robert Spencer knows that. The fact that he’s forced to use the words of random visitors to our site–and superimposing it upon us–tells us very clearly that he knows he has got nothing on us, so he must rely on indirect means. How desperate is Spencer to get at us, and how truly far he has to go to find something against us!
Remember I told you that Robert Spencer is a liar? He feels no compunction in misleadingly titling his article: “Islamic hate site says Spencer is like a ‘cancer’ that must be ‘cut out.’” Yet, our website never said that. It’s not just poor form to write like this; it’s outright lying and libel. This from the man who keeps crying about people supposedly doing that to him. He can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
The way Robert Spencer tries to superimpose a “threat” on the words posted by Mosizzle show how truly desperate Spencer is to get a death threat. In the deranged world of Islamophobia, the more death threats and fatwas you have against your head, the more cred you have and the more books you can sell. No wonder the cover of Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is emblazoned with a death threat against Spencer made by some crazy internet Islamic extremist, and no wonder it boasts “[Robert Spencer] lives in a Secure, Undisclosed Location.” And yet in an interview available to the whole wide world to see, Spencer reveals his “undisclosed location” as “New England.” If his life is really in such great peril from the Bad Guys (which no jail but Gitmo can stop apparently), why is he revealing his location? And then why is he simultaneously printing books claiming that his location is “Undisclosed”? All of this shows his sheer fraudulence. It’s all histrionic theatrics and sensationalism designed to sell books. The whole “I-have-death-threats-against-me-for-this-book” thing is as trite as the “Warning: Images too graphic for some”…These are just gimmicks designed to entice the viewer. Oh, you’re getting death threats? Then I must read your book to find out what you say!
Again, if Spencer wants to attribute one singular comment (that too which is simply proverbial in nature) to LoonWatch, then all those ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide quotes are attributed to JihadWatch. Having said that, it is not right to strike some sort of equivalency here. LoonWatch has never advocated physical violence against Robert Spencer or the people who run his site. On the other hand, Robert Spencer has himself advocated the same things that dumbledoresarmy and TJ did. Dumbledoresarmy called for a ban on all Muslim immigration, which Spencer himself advocates:
Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Because this is not a racial issue, these restrictions should not apply to Christians and other non-Muslim citizens of those countries, although all should be subjected to reasonable scrutiny.
Reduce all this to its essence and you have exactly as dumbledoresarmy said: “No Muslims allowed on German soil.”
As for dumbledoresarmy’s support for ethnic cleansing, Robert Spencer was caught joining a white nationalist genocidal facebook group that advocated the same exact thing that dumbledoresarmy did on JihadWatch: ethnically cleansing a country (Turkey in this case) of all Muslims.
As for nuclear annihilation of Muslim lands, Robert Spencer posted a video advocating the nuclear annihilation of Pakistan.
So there can be no equivalence between the singular comment found on LoonWatch and the countless comments on JihadWatch. Had anyone actually threatened Spencer, we would have called him out as a loon. Will Robert Spencer strongly condemn as loons those people who post on his site calling for ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide against Muslims? We’re not asking just to reject what they are saying, but to clearly say that any who say such things are nutjobs.
The truth is, however, that such people characterize the vast majority of JihadWatch’s loyal readers.
Anyways, it is amazing how Robert Spencer chooses to focus on one teeny-tiny comment from someone who is not even a LoonWatch writer, instead of tackling the hefty arguments I have thrown his way. Quite telling. Also interesting is the fact that Robert Spencer and his minions mine our site looking for stuff to use against us even reading our comments section (whereas I would blow an aneurysm were I to read the comments section of JihadWatch for longer than a few minutes!), and yet Spencer still can’t get himself to say the name of our website. How truly juvenile. In that regard, I dedicate this song to him.
In the above article, I eviscerated Robert Spencer–proverbially speaking I assure you.