Exposing the Arguments of the Thought Controllers

thought-controllers-and-bad-argumentsOn December 30, Mark Levin posted an article on his Facebook page, stating that “Anti-Israel liberals are normalizing anti-Semitism.”

The article he linked to was an incoherent analysis on how it is true that not all views critical of Israeli politics are anti-Semitic, which is immediately qualified by pointing out that some of the criticisms are motivated by hatred for the chosen Semitic people. And of course, the article eventually negates this qualification by presuming criticisms of Israeli politics are primarily motivated by anti-Semitism. In summary, the argument offered in the article states that it is entirely possible to not be an anti-Semite while critiquing Israeli politics, but if you do, then you are most likely an anti-Semite.

From the article:

“Kerry, of course, wasn’t explicitly dismissing the idea that anti-Semitism exists, what he was trying to say was that not all criticism of Israeli policy is de facto anti-Semitic. This argument has been so popularized by the Left that it has served a pernicious purpose. That is, of course it’s true that one can criticize current policies of the Israeli government without being anti-Semitic. But it’s also true that sometimes criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Yet through constant repetition, the “not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic” straw man has effectively been translated into “no criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic.” Unfortunately, this has helped anti-Semites launder their hatred of Jews by disguising it as merely criticism of Israel.”

Although Mark Levin is considered “The Great One” his reasoning skills on this issue are not all that commendable. Considering the context of the article the exact same logic is used by progressives to criticize the vocabulary utilized by conservatives when they disapprove of Islam. That is, “Anti-Islam conservatives normalize Islamophobia.” This charge is then countered by said conservatives with the same justification used by John Kerry referenced in the article, to which, progressives argue that while it is possible to criticize Islam and not be an Islamophobe, most conservatives are primarily motivated by an entrenched psychology of Islamophobic hatred. It is the same argument applied to different groups of people for political purposes. Depending on your party affiliation, Islam and Israel should not be subject to legitimate critique.

What can we learn from this?

The thought controllers located at mainstream progressive and conservative media outlets both employ the same brutal reasoning to justify their allegiance to a chosen political ideology. Moreover, conservatives who perpetually pound the table against political correctness, and continuously complain about political debate being shut down by the left, are quick to throw out the “anti-Semite” card when a person argues that there is a moral case against Israeli settlements being built in the West Bank. How inviting is it to debate someone who is going to label you an anti-Semite? It is about as welcoming as debating a person who is going to label you a racist.

The bottom line is that Jacobin radicals utilizing Alinsky tactics when it suits their political agenda choose the framework of the argumentative spectrum of allowable opinion. Movement conservatives are just as bad as the progressives they denounce.


– Lucas G. Westman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s