One Bernardo V. Lopez writes in Business World:
Both Republicans and Democrats in the US support Israel in their Gaza invasion because the rich and powerful American Jewish community, which controls media, Hollywood, hedge funds, investment banks, among other things, gives funds to their campaigns and their cause. It is a "power quid pro quo."
Their political power is dependent on this small rich community. That is why they are but glorified puppets of the power behind their power. They, in their myopia and failure to see the global perspective — they who turn inward to see only the face in the mirror on the wall — are under the mercy of this elite group which holds the destiny of the planet in its hands. This Jewish elite virtually controls not only America but also the world. ... The US-Israeli partnership actually antedates both Obama and the Palestinian conflict. The Jewish tycoons became rapidly and intensely wealthy by funding both sides of World War I. They came to America and started taking over the economy. Today, they control media, filmdom, banking, large corporations and have people in Washington, the State Department, the National Security Agency, etc.
Meanwhile, the prime minister of Turkey has denied that his criticisms of Israel's actions in Gaza reflect anti-Semitism, but added that the situation is Gaza is being distorted by the "Jewish-backed media."
" Nobody can disrupt this powerful partnership. Getting a non-pro-Israel American president on the throne is virtually impossible. The American Jewish community will simply pour massive election funds on his rival. They have the capability to choose the president. Even if a non-pro-Israel president wins, he will be roasted at the stake by the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
It is a repeat of history. The Christian Crusaders and Muslim Saracens were the giants who hemmed in the tiny Jews. They massacred Jews throughout history. But the Jews had a secret formula — participation in the ruling class of their enemies. The Jews participated in almost all powerful monarchies of the Middle Ages, Christian or Muslim. They participated in the Arab rennaissance and the Western industrial revolution. It was like Moses being in the inner circle of the Pharaohs. The key to this success was participating without being absorbed. Throughout history, the Jews were conquered but their culture and religion remained intact. It is something they learned from the days of the Pharaohs. Whereas other conquered races are absorbed by the conquerors, whereas Filipinos became Christians, the Jews always maintained their culture and religion within other powerful cultures.
When can we expect an installment of "David Bernstein, Infrequent Commenter on Legal Issues in This, A Blog About The Law"?
Ouch.
In other news, "czar" seems to be on the up-and-up these days...
Nor did I suggest you stop posting about Israel, anti-Semitism, etc. Knock yourself out, and if you feel like informing us that the online version of a Filipino business journal printed an ugly article, go for it. But in between seeing those posts, I do wonder: do you have interesting things to say about the law? And: if so, why don't you post them very often?
I think the co conspirators are perfectly aware of what is being written on the blog and don't seem to have a problem. This is also where I point out that law professors don't have a monopoly on blogging, and that the barrier of entry for you to do so yourself isn't exactly high.
You forgot to demand a refund. Oh and by the way, if you are interested in DB's views on the law (though I am sure your interest is disingenuous), I suggest you search SSRN for his papers on use of scientific evidence and the Daubert rule - interesting stuff.
Plus, I was given to understand that the first rule of the International Zionist Conspiracy was don't talk about the International Zionist Conspiracy.
Meanwhile, this post led me to Google and hence to learn something about anti-Semitism and the Philippines that I did not know before. That's a good thing. Even if it was not about ponies.
"Dammit Glenn, stop trying to get your readers to buy discounted watches on Amazon and get back to blogging about the law!"
"For crying out loud, Andrew, I don't want to read another edition of Sully's Adventures in Bearland. Get back to writing about how circumcision is as horrible as Obama is awesome."
"Oh for eff's sake, Mickey, no one cares what you think about cars. Get back to dumping on members of your own political party."
It is antisemitism to say that "the Jews control Hollywood", because that suggests that the guy who runs the kosher deli down the block bears some sort of responsibility for Steven Spielberg's decisions.
Get the difference, folks?
maybe anti-semitism in the phillipines did produce this author's misapprehension of who is running our israeli foreign policy.
Another quotation from the article that is teh funny... I've seen the claim that Israel was set up to serve as a proxy to control Arab oil before, and am once again struck by the astonishing incompetence of the scheming Zionist-Colonialist powers who failed to note the complete and utter absence of oil fields in Judea...
Garth's quoted material seems a more sober take on it, although I think it goes a bit too far.
Who exactly are the American politicians critical of Israel? Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and........?
BTW, Cole's entire premise is laughable, given that the right-wing (including the Likud Party) is excluded from the current Israeli government, and the war in Gaza has broad support across the entire Israeli political spectrum. Not to mention that public opinion surveys show Americans favoring Israel over the Palestinians something like 8 to 1, which would be even higher if it was limited to Israel v. Hamas. The fact that Glenn Greenwald chooses to repeat such nonsense is informative.
Very ecumenical!
Asians have their own prejudices, but they haven't managed to infiltrate the west. For example, Americans haven't taken the Japanese prejudice against Koreans as their own.
recall not long ago when the concern trolls wondered whether obama could get the jewish vote and how it depended on how hard he came out for israel.
maybe we should ignore the fact that most americans condemn the israeli actions in gaza.
forget about the fact that our politicians are paid money by aipac to do things contrary to the wishes of their constituency.
ignore the fact that the tail is wagging the dog.
Ad hominem attacks on Juan Cole aside, can you explain why American politicians are so OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of Israel? What other issue has over 95% support in Congress?
You know it is possible to believe that the Israeli lobby in the United States has inordinate power and NOT be an anti-semite.
On the other hand, this piece suggests that Zionists are running Saudi Arabia, so maybe Jews are playing a really, really deep game! The article suggests that the founder of the Al-Saud was actually one Mordakhai who was even more awesome in the use of his 'fleshly sword'. He bred with every Arab tribe imaginable, thus begetting both the Al-Saud and their sexy ways.
Antisemitism? I think 'loony' is the more apt description.
I doubt this. Link, citation?
Depends what you mean by "infiltrate the west." The prejudices are here, but non-Asians are unlikely to adopt them: Asians I know think that Caucasians are lazy and unfilial, quick to divorce their wives and neglect their children. Loudmouth drunks, the lot of them.
I am guessing that Philippino anti-semitism probably derives from its status as a Spanish colony for over 400 years and, unlike the rest of Asia, of Roman Catholicism as the dominant religion.
I do not want to imply that all or even most Catholics are anti-semitic. Rather, Spain, during much of this period, was intolerant of all other religions.
I am an avid reader of both Volokh and Informed Comment. I haven't come across any "anti-semitic" comments (on a semi-related note I am Jewish). I think saying he "dabbles" in anti-semitism is kinda just name-calling without specific examples. I would be interested if you had any though.
The Philippines is also, culturally, among the most westernized of Asian nations, at least among the elite who provide writers for business dailies. It's not too surprising that the virus of anti-semitism would migrate there among other cultural imports.
He just plays one on the Internet.
I kid, though. I don't think Cole is an anti-semite; I just think he's a loudmouth and a fool who knows far less than he pretends about the subjects on which he blathers. But he's less annoying than all the other people who tout his nonsense.
Those Jews are incredibly clever to keep all that covered up for so long.
alright, 56% of american don't support israel's use of force... NOT condemn it. this is from mcclatchy yesterday.
furthermore, this obscures the fact that this skews down party lines.
Let's not forget that the Holocaust was only about 65 years ago, and the only thing actually stopping another one is the power and will of the United States.
Also, is it just me or is it really really easy to know where someone is going with their commentary and political leanings as soon as they type the words "Concern troll". It's the new special word of the day for a certain type of internet warrior.
A point entirely lost on the "dual loyalty"/"foreign control" crowd. Or, at least, a point they never acknowledge. For them, it's not enough to simply disagree with public opinion; they must claim black magic and mind control.
So is this like not being a racist but dabbling in racist rhetoric? Cause Republicans have been telling me for years that either you are a racist or you aren't.
I get so confused when it comes to teh outrage.
I guess Americans are just particularly gullible.
Poll: American Public Backs Israel Firmly in War with Hamas, excerpt,
"Forty-four percent of Americans support Israel's use of force, while only 18 percent considered Hamas' use of force appropriate. Fifty-seven percent think that Hamas is using excessive force, while only 36 percent said Israel was."
And that, despite an often skewed set of reports fed out of Israel by western and other news services. To hi-light one example only, it's telling that this is depicted as a recent war - or battle within the larger existential conflict - when in fact this more recent conflict began in 2001/2002 when Hamas began firing rockets, mortars, sniper fire and other munitions into Israel. It subsequently escalated greatly in late 2005 when Israel rendered Gaza Judenfrei, when Israel forced all Jews out of Gaza.
Hence, if the public at large were better informed, it is likely the poll would favor Israel's actions and disfavor Hamas's actions, since 2001/2002, all the more.
I keep looking for them but I can't seem to find them.
if people knew that the total number of people killed by rockets from Hamas totaled something like 20 in the past several years, and that in response, thousands have been killed and wounded, in a futile attempt to once again put off the necessity of coming to a peacable solution, i doubt all the money in the world will prevent american politicians from coming around to a less friendly view of current and future israeli action.
Knowing that Maxine Waters is on pretty much the opposite end of every political spectrum from me, this was easy to find: Link.
Sometimes people may disagree with you for reasons other than ignorance or evil.
Bwaahahahaaa...!!!!!
And we run the whole operation from...??? (Hint: "Volokh" is Russian for "Worldwide Jewish")
2.) These issues are relevant to the law and public policy because scapegoating Jews has been a worldwide pastime in the formation of law and public policy.
3.) Americans are overwhelmingly on one side of most issues. We just don't often have to hear much from the tiny minority on the other side of issues because most people are ashamed of their more ridiculous views. Apparently being anti-Zionist and shamelessness correlate at much higher rates than shamelessness and, say, opposing vaccination, supporting segregation, supporting pedophilia, ...
I mean, how else can we explain what we see? Jewish mind-control rays? I rest my case.
(And in general, a poll such as this is a very rough-hewn device at best. It is that, but it is no more than that, not least of all because of the media related caveat I've already raised.)
As to what Hamas has perpetrated since 2001/2002, as you should know they have been targeting Israeli civilian populations. Here's one view that few Americans ever see during the typical nightly or 24/7 news cycle. And of course we discussed aspects of this at some length in the recent Bar Kochba thread - the link being to a particularly apt analogy - apt, that is, for citizens of the U.S.
On a decidedly brighter note, here's a link to more historical information, concerning the Philippines during WWII, specifically the Freider family and Philippine President Manuel Quezon - the latter was a staunch Roman Catholic, btw.
David, you don't have to look at the philippines for examples of irrational beliefs to complain about, you can look at the posters on this very site.
In a sense, ethnic pride is the flip side of ethnic hatred. Who was the market for Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood Anti-semites, movie buffs, or Jews? Despite the absurdity of claiming Jews control the media when people like Rupert Murdoch is in charge, it's true, for example, that most of the businessmen in the movie industry were Jewish. Much like it's true most of America's industrial beer brewers were German, but there was no sinister reason behind that -- German immigrants were the ones with experience producing thirst-quenching lager beers, which supplanted the heavy native ales.
Hmmm. Just tried. Couldn't do that.
Opposition to Kyoto and prohibiting regulation of credit default swaps.
But to point out nearly two millennia of anti-Jewish teaching, legislation, doctrine, slander, and organized persecution (including at time torture and murder) on the part of the Roman Catholic church is hardly "conspiracy theories about catholics." Unless Paul IV, John Paul II and other popes are among the conspiracy theorists.
I hope you mean Pope Paul VI, not Paul IV (1555-59), who created the Roman Ghetto (and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum).
Herr Cole wanted to name his group "America First" just like that
pro-Naziisolationist group of an earlier age. The more things change...One of them is being sworn in on Tuesday as President of the 47% of the country that voted for McCain.
But fortunately, thanks to the internets, we don't have to go as far as the Philippines to find Jew-haters; we can just read Ha'aretz (which is full of criticism of government policy and actions - and we know that anyone who ever questions the Israeli government hates Jooz).
Now, rather than ask Professor Bernstein for that explanation, why don't you go back and read his blogging in response to Walt and Mearsheimer, which made very clear his thinking on this.
so what.
some guy publishes a critique of american israeli policy and gets it wrong. we don't know if the writer is merely ignorant or truly anti-semitic.
what do you mean to suggest by blogging about one piece of from the philipines.
just pointing things out?
After all, the type of influence claimed by Olmert - and his crowing over Rice - isn't outsized to Israel's importance to the US and to the sympathy Americans feel for the poor Israelis who are forever forced to kill Palestinians.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/12/cynthia- mckinneys-gaza-peace-boat-rammed-
by-israeli-navy.html
Clearly, logic is not your forte. (And you said this even after Michael B supplied you with the McClatchy link?!)
/but would Israel want that?
Yankev,
So you can list 10 politicians, most of them discredited, over the last 20 years that were critical of Israel? Wow, clearly we have a diverse field of opinions on that nation.
Bob in Ohio,
"Anyone who seriously uses the term "Israeli lobby" or "inordinate" influence is per se an anti-semite. Like those who spit out "gun lobby" are always anti-Second Amendment. So, I agree with Harry Eager."
You don't believe there is an Israeli lobby? I don't much care if you call me an anti-semite, it's the right's equivalent of calling someone a racist. But I do hope you aren't ignorant enough to believe that Israel does not have a very strong lobbying force in the United States. Its entire existence is predicated on American support. Israel would be beyond foolish NOT to have a strong lobby in this country. I have to say that this is the first time I have ever been accused of being an anti-semite for using the word inordinate. Just so I can find the appropriate demarcation line, if I called Israel a nation of big meanies, would I still be an anti-semite or would that be acceptable? What about poopie heads? I just want to get an idea of what level of criticism is acceptable because clearly tepid criticism is not.
""In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said."
Maybe Olmert is an anti-semite? Hey if the New York Times can be anti-semitic, why not the Prime Minister of Israel?
H/T to Tokyo Tom for the link.
Referring to the 2006 retaliation against Hezbollah, Friedman writes:
He hopes Israel is pursuing a similar outcome again. Isn't it rather anti-Semetic to accuse the Israelis of intentionally inflicting damage on civilians? Looks like he's calling them terrorists. I'm outraged.
I also find it interesting that the support for Hamas by critical political and religious leaders in Iraq has gotten no coverage on this blog.
The most recent opinion poll (2004 by Foxnews) I could find shows about 75% of Americans believe there was a cover-up in the aftermath of the JFK assassination.
The Philippines does appear to promote those who engage in virulent smear campaigns into the upper echelons of journalism, though. For instance, there was an op-ed published several months in one of the premier newspapers in the country comparing current President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Hitler. The kind of nonsense that would be relegated to fringe blogs in the U.S. gets featured prominently in "news" publications in the Philippines.
Maybe somewhat related, journalists in the Philippines have a higher murder victim rate than journalists in nearly every other country in the world.
Nonsense.
Second, as I suggested above, a reaction consistent with the argument that Israel deserves this pull - and Americans are A OK with it - would be to criticize Condi Rice, for not immediately agreeing with his demands on the UN vote and making him pull rank with the President.
Third, as I noted in response to David Bernstein on another thread, why worry about keeping the foreign press - you know, those propaganda agents for Hamas - out of Gaza when you've got the head of Israel himself giving Hamas and other Jew-haters his actions would appear to be a tremendous PR coup? With this much chutzpah and hubris in Israel, why would Hamas ever need propaganda agents?
Former Barak staffer and Jew-hating Israeli peacenik Daniel Levy, has this to say about the consequences of Olmert's bragging:
Aaah those Israeli peaceniks, forever looking for a silver lining, and hoping that someday the dog will again wag the tail!
""I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.
"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."
So Olmert has no problem saying that the most powerful nation in the world does what he wants them to.
But what I find laughable on this thread (and others) is that because there are Jews who criticize Israel or Israel's actions, no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic. Anti-Semites are fond of saying that Jews, in order to deter criticism of Israel, falsely brand all critics of Israel as anti-Semitic. In fact, the reverse is true: anti-Semites often level that accusation in order to pre-emptivley deter people from pointing out anti-Semitic aspects of their critiscism.
A more useful test is Natan Sharanksy's 3-D test -- see http://www.forward.com/articles/4184/ -- criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic if it uses Demonization (attributing evil deeds and motives to Israel and only Israel, or exaggerating or fabricating mistakes or misdeeds on Israel's part, or dragging in the idea of inordinate Jewish control or conspiracies), Delegitimization (Israel has no right to exist and therefore no right to defend itself, or Israel because of actual or perceived misdeeds has forefeited any further right to exist), Double Standard (e.g. Israel and only Israel must forego acting in self-defense, or must wage war while causing zero civilian casualties regardelss of what efforts Israel takes to avoid or minimize them and what efforts its enemies take to maximize them).
For flyerhawk and others who can't distinguish among legitimate (though at times inaccurate) critics such as Haartez or the incredibly stupid and dishonest Tom Friedman on one hand and true anti-Semites on the other, let me give you a hint: criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic if it relies on accusations that Jews manipulate others into waging wars for the Jews'own economic benefit (Business World stops just short of this accusation, but Pat Buchanon and Hamas have both embraced it), or secretly manipulate history and all major world events, or control the world's economy, press, entertainment mediat (sure, that's why it's so easy to get a pro-Israel movie made today), or world leaders, or if it includes ridicule or distortion of the Jewish religion, or attributes Israeli "aggression" to the "Old Testament" or Talmud (given that Israel is overwhelmingly a secular society and that the religious parties tend to be more focussed on religious accommodation than on foreign or military policy) or incorporates medieval stereotypes of Jews.
Got it now?
Olmert has no problem saying a lot of things. That doesn't make them true. How long was his investigation for corruption going on? Does the story sound credible to you?
As for Levy, I don't understand your point. He said that even if Olmert's story was true, making the story public was incredibly stupid for a number of reasons. I may think Levy is naive for thinking that Hamas wants or will settle for anything less than Israel's destruction, but I agree with all 4 of the reasons Levy gave as to why Olmert was stupid to tell this story. That said, I still don't believe the story is true.
I think that the tone of the criticism may make or break the question of whether it is anti-Semitic.
For example, if one says "I think that the idea of a state based on the identity of one ethnic group or religion is a bad idea," or "The idea of a Jewish state has to go so that Druze, Muslim, and Christian citizens of Israel will be first-class citizens as well" I don't see antisemitism there.
On the other hand, if one says "The Jews are causing all the problems in Israel" I think that is anti-Semitic.
I don't think, however, that criticism of the state of Israel by itself and absent other factors (for example "Jewish-controlled media" comments) can ever rise to the level of antisemitism. Do you disagree?
I personally think that the Balfour Declaration was a horrible mistake, and I think the world would be better off if the British hadn't decided to play God with the Middle East (it wasnt the only mistake in British policy regarding the Middle East either), but the state is there now, so the question is despite the mistakes of the past how do we ensure fairness and justice (i.e. ensuring that all Israeli citizens are equal in the country)? Certainly not by banning Arab parties from elections, and certainly not by treating them as the demographic time bomb!
A legitimate view, though one with which I disagree. Why among all the world's ethnic groups are only the Jews unworthy of a self-governing nation state? Remember, Israel (unlike various countries that legally define themselves as Christian or Muslim) is based on Jewish ethnicity, not the Jewish religion.
You keep coming back to this issue. There is no legal impediment to Arab parties running in the election. There is an impediment against parties that are opposed to the existence of a Jewish state, or that commit treason by aiding those who are commiting war or terrorism against it.
Query whether Japan would permit a party that advocated that Japan no longer be a Japanese state.
there's a group like that up in canada. IIRC, based in montreal. the party is definitely permited to exist.
Are you trying to give us a lesson in how to set up strawmen, Yankel, or do really believe that anyone on these threads thinks, much less suggests here, that no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic?
Thanks for trotting out another nice slur/strawman: it's very easy to document that critics of Israel are frequently branded as anti-Semitic - or as "haters of Israel" or even "self-haters" (!!), and you suggest that anyone who tries to make this case is "anti-Semitic"? Would I, by any chance, be "anti-Semitic" if I linked to a number of Jews and Israelis who make precisely that point, and who object to this type of bullying and false victimization?
Cries of anti-Semitism are a distraction from a consideration of the actions and consequences of Israeli government actions on their own merits and are a victimization act that just doesn't ring true in America, where there is great sympathy for Israel and great respect for Jews (who have great political pull) - and where amny of those targeted by the claim are themselves Jews!
Surely that is not entirely an internecine discussion among Jews, to which goyim are not invited.
in a world were merely criticizing the government is seen as giving aid to the enemy, yes.
True, when the cries are indiscriminate and incorrect. That happens, and when it does it's obnoxious. But so are the too-frequent knee-jerk claims that anyone who criticizes Israel is accused of anti-Semitism. There are probably more of the former here, reflecting the general inclination of the commenters on this site. But for the other flavor in the extreme check out any Alan Dershowitz thread on Huffington Post.
Just yesterday or the day before I pointed out to one commenter who complained that Dershowitz was accusing Israel critics of anti-Semitism that neither "anti-Semite" nor "anti-Semitism" appeared anywhere in Dershowitz' post. I continued scanning the comments and found so many others had made the same false accusation it was way too big a job to correct them all. And probably pointless anyway.
This is just one of the more irritating aspects of human nature. Neither the left nor the right, and neither pro nor anti-Zionists have anything closer to a monopoly on it than their opposites do.
This is just one of the more irritating aspects of human nature. Neither the left nor the right, and neither pro nor anti-Zionists have anything closer to a monopoly on it than their opposites do
LL, I agree, but don't you realize that in your attempt at a balanced you have just declared yourself an anti-Semite? After all, what balance is possible? The Jews have had their Shoah, so they are the only true victims, and whatever they do to Palestinians short of butchering most of them just doesn't warrant anyone's crocodile tears for them, much less concern for how US support for Israel affects how others view us. Such concern is proof of anti-Semitism!
BTW, Dershowitz doesn't always and everywhere trot out charges of anti-Semitism, but sometimes he very clearly does so and often that is very clearly what he intends to imply.
I'm not sure who you mean besides me under the heading of "you and yours" (and I'm not sure I want to know), but I have never said anything remotely resembling that as much as you and yours try to convince the rest of us that Jews who disagree with me are somehow no longer Jews. I do remember saying that some leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish were leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish. I do remember discussions of whether Burg and Lapidus were unhinged (Lapidus certainly is, and has in the past urged violence against religious Jews simply for their not sharing his secularist extremist outlook). I have no idea who you mean by Kahane supporter and frankly don't care.
LL, I agree, but don't you realize that in your attempt at a balanced you have just declared yourself an anti-Semite? No, but such caricatures are often evidence of of it.
This time with the typos crossed out:
TTom, look up internecine some time. It means a conflict that leads to the destruction of both parties. Is that what you meant to say?
I'm not sure who you mean besides me under the heading of "you and yours" (and I'm not sure I want to know), but I have never said anything remotely resembling that
as much as you and yours try to convince the rest of us thatJews who disagree with me are somehow no longer Jews. I do remember saying that some leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish were leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish. I do remember discussions of whether Burg and Lapidus were unhinged (Lapidus certainly is, and has in the past urged violence against religious Jews simply for their not sharing his secularist extremist outlook). I have no idea who you mean by Kahane supporter and frankly don't care.LL, I agree, but don't you realize that in your attempt at a balanced you have just declared yourself an anti-Semite?No, but such caricatures are often evidence of of it
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.