Tom Perkins wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street
Journal about a week ago, and I responded in an article under the title: “They Smoke themselves out at
Times”. Apparently, many more people responded to that letter according to the
editors of the Journal who came to his defense because – judging from what they
say – the almost universal reaction has been one of condemnation. Poor fellow,
the world treated him badly in their view, and so they felt compelled to come
to his defense.
I am not
here taking up the subject again; I am only interested in the Journal's
reaction to the public's reaction to it. And that Journal reaction came in a
piece they wrote under the title: “Perkinsnacht” and the subtitle: “Liberal vituperation
makes our letter writer's point.” They published it on January 30, 2014 in the
Journal.
Imagine now a self-appointed leader of the Muslims – an
imam, for example – saying or writing something that would be construed as the
moral equivalent of what Tom Perkins, the Jewish self-appointed leader wrote.
Well, you don't have to go too far with your imagination because it's all there
in black and white, in thousands upon thousands of pieces written by hundreds
upon hundreds of Jews and their gentile echo repeaters over something like
three or four decades. And much of that vituperation has appeared in none other
than the Wall Street Journal.
What you would see will be not only condemnation of what the
Muslim leader has said; it would be a demonstration to the effect that all
Muslims are dangerous to Israel ,
to America
and to the World. What the imam said would be interpreted as being a sample of
what lurks in the hearts of ten percent of a Muslim population that numbers a
billion and a half people or more. And all their thinking will lead to the
conclusion that America must transfer its military to the Jews who have the
wisdom to know what to do with it, and how to use it to eliminate the Muslim
threat, thus save the world.
And so you ask: Is this not what the editors of the Wall
Street Journal did with the Perkins letter? Did it not happen that this time,
they saw the shoe being worn on the Jewish foot rather than the Muslim foot? Of
course not. What do you think they are; lackeys of the self-appointed Muslim
leaders? No, their vision could not have taken them beyond a fixation on one
foot because they are as mentally amputated as a one-footed specimen that is so
misinformed about humanity, might as well consider him to be an alien from
outer space.
If that's the case, what did the Journal editors do? Believe
it or not, they more than doubled down – they tripled down, quadrupled down and
more. They began like this: “The irony is that the vituperation is making our
friend's point about liberal intolerance – maybe better than he did.” They
repeated what he said and then blamed it not on him but on the fact that he was
forced to say what he said in 186 words. Hey, Journal editors, that's more than
the 140 characters of the twitter world … and besides, Tom Perkins wasn't tweeting;
he was writing a letter to an editor that happens to be his “friend.”
The main thing to these editors is that he did not repudiate
“his larger argument” to whose defense they came. And to make their point
clear, they attacked those who criticized their friend. To do this effectively,
they attacked the boys at Bloomberg View, the people at the IRS, the
prosecutors in Wisconsin, the New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, the New York City
mayor Bill de Blasio, the New York Times and others – all of whom the Journal
editors called liberals.
And then they added the following to end their presentation:
“The liberals aren't encouraging violence, but they are promoting personal
vilification and the abuse of government power to punish political opponents.”