March 14, 2012, - 1:38 pm

No Tears Over Arabist, Anti-Israel Encyclopedia Brittanica

By Debbie Schlussel

You’ll see no tears from me over the end of the published hard copy version of Encyclopedia Brittanica.  My only regret is that the anti-Israel, pan-Arabist screed pretending to be an objective, impartial encyclopedia is still published online.  Fortunately, the Brittanica folks were late to the game online and will never catch up to take a top spot–or even a top 100th spot–in google searches on much of anything, except the term “Encyclopedia Brittanica.”

In its revisionist rendition of Israeli history, from the founding of the Jewish State through every war, Brittanica repeatedly portrayed Israel as the aggressor, including the 1967 Six Day War, which is well known to be the result of aggression by each of Israel’s neighbors, whom Israel asked not to go to war against it.  But they chose to anyway, joining Egypt’s Nasser in his military salvos.  Israel merely responded.  Winning over enemies who come to kill you ain’t aggression.  But it is, according to Brittanica.

Words common to the lingua franca of the Muslims, and Palestinians in particular, are rife throughout Brittanica.  Loaded, biased phrases such as “Israeli occupation” are commonly used in the so-called encyclopedia.  And it’s no coincidence that Brittanica is frequently cited by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sites all over the net.  The fraud in the supposed “encyclopedia” serves as confirmation for the anti-Israel narrative.  At one point, Brittanica even called the United States a “potential ally of Israel” to describe the United States at the time of Israel’s founding and afterward.  The United States has always been an ally of Israel, from the time of its founding (which the U.S. helped shepherd) and thereafter.

It’s no coincidence that Brittanica’s emblem includes a thistle.  It looks nice on the outside, but it’ll prick ya if you come into contact.

Unfortunately, the online “replacements” for Brittanica, including and especially Wikipedia, aren’t better.  They’re worse.  Wikipedia is notoriously left-wing and anti-Israel and ruled by the mob of Arabs and Muslims and their co-propagandists.

Still, you won’t see me crying over the death of the massive tomes of Brittanica.  Things are much better with the Net, as we can finally get the real information on Israel out there.  And we don’t need door-to-door salesmen to do it.

7 Responses

Debbie, to be honest with you I didn’t know that Encyclopedia Brittanica was virulent anti-Israel with a hidden agenda, I always suspected that Wikipedia was a left-leaning website, but I didn’t know it leaned too far to the left wing, and I also didn’t know that that website (Wikipedia) was controlled by muslim propagandist and arab propagandist either.

Speaking of which, yesterday I was reading an article and this article in which it says that “Israel is the number one enemy to Egypt”. I’ve read most of the comments on that site and nothing neo-nazi muslims, neo-nazi dhmmi’s, etc., the comment section was filled with Adolf Hitler’s lineages.

“A naiton is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on March 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Encyclopedias are supposed to be objective sources of information. The articles in them though are as fallible as their human authors. Check to see who signed the article and compare it to other sources of information. Never take anything you read on faith and do your homework. Keep in mind the “fallacy from authority” before you quote from EB, Wikipedia or anything else that purports to be a reference source.

NormanF on March 14, 2012 at 2:24 pm

I guess it was more important for EB to swing with the left-wing in crowd than to jealously guard its now shredded credibility.

adam on March 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm

The left is quick to take anything that was previously respected as objective, neutral and truthful and steal their honor and built their house of lies on top of the previously honorable foundation.

Years ago, many years ago, you could count on the evening news as being impartial.
And a documentary was all but guaranteed to be objective and true.
Those days are long gone.
The left uses any and every avenue to spread their lies.

Islam is perfect example of building lies on top of truth. Instead of Mohamed having a revelation of a completely new god he instead chose to make his imaginary god a continuation of the God of the Bible.
He claimed Abraham was the father of Islam and many of the Old Testament Prophets were actually Muslim.
He even claimed Jesus Christ was a Muslim.

The same thing happens to this very day.
Whenever some nut-job comes along with a new way to god they usually claim to have had a revelation from Jesus and then they want to reinvent Christianity in a way they like.
Many of the “churches” you drive by every day don’t believe anything in the Bible, don’t believe Jesus was even divine but use the name Christianity simply to hijack the respectability that comes with the name.

smg45acp on March 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Wikipedia is the funniest encyclopedia I ever heard of, given the ‘Edit wars’ that have gone on over certain topics. Yeah, it is Left wing b’cos there are more Leftists w/ free time on their hands all too ready to edit Wikipedia, like CA state employees.

I find Wiki a ready reference just to jog my memory, but as far as content goes, I mainly use it for some of the more technical subjects (no, not Global Warming), or to get an approximate idea of a countries area or population, or things of that sort, where there ain’t many ways to go wrong. One thing I find amusing is the gazillion topics out there in Wikipedia. If I want more details, particularly on controversial subjects, I steer clear of them.

Incidentally, I have quite a liking for Uncyclopedia, which is a spoof of Wiki. It doesn’t remotely pretend to be factual, and its articles are a riot to read. 😀

Infidel on March 14, 2012 at 11:02 pm

In fact, check out the Uncyclopedia articles on Islam – that one is too funny! The ones about Israel and Palestine ain’t bad either.

Infidel on March 15, 2012 at 2:42 am

I thot they’d stopped publishing long ago. We had the Encyclopedia Britblahblah in our house when I was a kid, but even back in the 70’s, Nat’l Review and other conservative news sources noticed an aggressive shift away from objectivity. When it came time to buy the updated, whitewashed version in the 80’s, my dad said no way.

Curtin/Dobbs on March 15, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field