Avoiding The Real Question
David Sirota's latest attempt to spin the Boston bombing, The huge, unanswered questions post-Boston:
1. Why did so many conservatives seem to want the suspects to be a foreign-born Muslim?
2. Will the Boston response finally change America’s posture toward public employees?
3. Does 24-7 news and technology make us more safe or less safe?
The inveterate dishonesty of the jewsmedia is a reflection of jewish nature and the illegitimacy of jewish rule.
1. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it doesn't understand the jewsmedia?
2. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it cares about "America" or "public employees"?
3. Why is the jewsmedia afraid of questions, discussion, debate and opinion forming outside the jewsmedia?
These are rhetorical questions - facets of the larger Jewish Question.
Labels: boston bombing, david sirota, jewish influence, media
posted by Tanstaafl at 4/21/2013 09:52:00 AM
16 Comments:
In a stunning new development, Hitler has become an anti-racist!
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og&feature=youtu.be&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlKDeyuM0-Og%26feature%3Dyoutu.be
David Cay Johnston, How The NRA Impeded The Boston Bomber Investigation, The National Memo, 20 Apr 2013:
The intense hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers illustrates another way that the National Rifle Association helps mass murderers — by delaying how quickly they can be identified.
Still no discussion in the jewsmedia explaining how the jewsmedia impeded the investigation by encouraging the suppression of "dark-skinned" pictures.
It is really pathetic that Sirota describes the 'public employee' as "first-responders, police officers and soldiers," when they are overwhelmingly clerks in a zillion offices, contributing only to the bureaucratic maze.
Just put it down as serial lying by Sirota.
Mark Steyn, The ‘Co-exist’ Bombers, National Review Online, 19 Apr 2013:
The politicization of mass murder found its perfect expression in one of those near-parodic pieces to which the more tortured self-loathing dweebs of the fin de civilisation West are prone. As the headline in Salon put it, “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American.” David Sirota is himself a white American, but he finds it less discomforting to his Princess Fluffy Bunny worldview to see his compatriots as knuckle-dragging nutjobs rather than confront all the apparent real-world contradictions of the diversity quilt.
This is perfectly typical of the rightwing jewsmedia's response to naked anti-Whitism in the leftwing jewsmedia. Weak sarcasm and deliberate misinterpretation, too discomforted to confront the apparent real-world contradictions created by the unmentionable jewishness of the jewsmedia - left and right.
At first glance I thought the Sirota mug was the dead bomber.
OT - it's always fun to guess the real moral impulse ("good for the jews") behind the universalist subterfuge:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/21/wall-street-tycoon-creates-300m-china-scholarship/
Please Don’t Judge All Caucasians By The Actions Of A Few, Mediaite:
Whatever you think of Sirota’s expression of his premise, or the timing of it, the results support it: white privilege means never having to say you’re sorry for what other white people did. Not now, not ever. The skin color that was so relevant early in the week disappeared like a white rabbit in a hat, replaced by a Muslim rabbit with no discernible coloration. Ta-daaa!
. . .
The way that our country diagnoses a problem when it’s a white perpetrator, it’s an individual problem.
"White privilege" works like magic - no matter what happens or who's responsible, Whites should be saying sorry. Because "White privilege".
Sirota liked this article so much he twitted it three times, calling it a "must-read".
Nobody in the jewsmedia is trying to explain why jews aren't saying sorry. Because jewsmedia. Because jews aren't White.
Kevin MacDonald on the non-debate between leftwing jewsmedia personality Sirota and rightwing jewsmedia personality Shapiro, Boston Bombing Aftermath: David Sirota and Ben Shapiro claim Jews are not part of White America:
This says a lot about Jewish attitudes toward White America. Whites are “the other”—the people who hate Jews and have historically excluded them. Jews do not identify with White America and see themselves as an oppressed minority, despite their elite status in all the areas that matter in American life. For Jews, the history of White America is little more than discrimination against Jews and other non-Whites. Jews were excluded from country clubs; they were excluded by the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act; they were excluded by Ivy League universities. These acts warrant Jewish hatred toward White America. Jews as a hostile elite.
The fact that the most egregious discrimination going on now is Jewish discrimination against Whites in elite areas of American society—Ivy League universities being Exhibit A in this regard—is irrelevant to their world view. The fact that White elites attempted to protect themselves is hardly surprising. Nor is it surprising that our new Jewish elite is protecting itself—chiefly by effectively preventing any discussion in the mainstream media and academia of Jewish power, interests and attitudes, especially with respect to White America.
Yes. Also, jewsmedia.
"1. Why did so many conservatives seem to want the suspects to be a foreign-born Muslim?"
Why did so many Jews want the suspects to be White?
"3. Does 24-7 news and technology make us more safe or less safe?"
Does the overwhelming dominance of the MSM by a hostile ethnic group make White people less safe?
"Whatever you think of Sirota’s expression of his premise, or the timing of it, the results support it: white privilege means never having to say you’re sorry for what other white people did. Not now, not ever."
Whatever you think of Sirota’s expression of his premise, or the timing of it, the results support it: Jewish privilege means never having to say you’re sorry for what other Jewish people did. Not now, not ever.
Katie Roiphe, What The Reluctant Fundamentalist can teach us about the Boston bombers, Slate Magazine, 22 Apr 2013:
Those obsessively poring over emerging news about the Boston bombers should take a break from their iPhones and laptops and newspapers and read [I stopped reading right there and skipped to the conclusion]
. . .
The novel is important not for any single message it has to offer, but for a clarity that could be useful in an emotionally fraught conversation, a careful reckoning of the particular variety of welcome we offer to children from abroad. The issue of immigration, or of our relation to foreigners living here, is too subtle, too nuanced, too delicate for newspapers, which is why we need to look to novelists. To understand the Boston bombers, we need also to understand and be honest about ourselves, the ways in which we both take in and don’t take in people from other countries, the trickier side of the American dream.
Also at Slate, Boston Carjacking Victim: Tsarnaev brothers didn't kill driver because he "wasn't American," victim says.
No explicit mention of "White privilege" = "White privilege". Shame on Slate.
Joan Walsh, Are the Tsarnaev brothers white?, Salon.com, 22 Apr 2013:
Our confusion about whether the Tsarnaevs are “white,” and the right wing’s determination to say they aren’t, just underscores the eternally silly project of racial categorization anyway. Race is a social construct, mainly used to establish invidious hierarchies and scapegoats. Despite the persistence of racism and white advantage, these lines are beginning to blur in our increasingly mixed, multiracial society – but right-wingers are going to police these lines as long as they can.
The main point of Sirota’s piece – which I wouldn’t have written in quite the same way – was that since white Americans tend to escape scapegoating and profiling when members of their tribe do something bad, a white Boston bomber wouldn’t trigger a destructive new wave of racial profiling, anti-Muslim agitation or generalized xenophobia. Somehow it’s hard for the right, and even for many in the media, to see white abortion-clinic bombers, or even Timothy McVeigh, as every bit as guilty of terrorism as the Tsarnaevs, if not more so.
The determination to define the Tsarnaevs as non-white, no matter what the Census Bureau says, as well as label them “enemy combatants” based on no evidence, proves that in many ways, Sirota was absolutely right.
According to Walsh only anti-Whites like herself have the moral authority to decide who is or isn't White. And to anti-Whites White is only a valid identity to the extent it can be used for scapegoating.
Sirota wrote about "white Americans". He cited Wise, who wrote about "white Christians in particular". They and others in the jewsmedia invoked a clear image of Whites like "white abortion-clinic bombers, or even Timothy McVeigh", to use Walsh's term. They were trying to assign guilt collectively to that specific group of people before any suspects were announced. They still are.
Walsh understands these distinctions just as well as Sirota and Wise. She knows the rightwing jewsmedia understands it too. So where"s the confusion?
It comes from their own double-talk. It comes from these expert anti-White anti-"racists" and the jewsmedia pass they get to constantly express their hostility toward Whites. Jews are "white", they say. Discrimination and prejudice are evil, they say. Yet here is this inexorable drive to blame Whites, no matter how irrational or vapid the excuse. Their double-talk is epitomized by the term "White privilege". It means blame Whites.
It's outrageous, not confusing.
MARCELO M. SUÁREZ-OROZCO and CAROLA SUÁREZ-OROZCO, Immigrant Kids, Adrift, NYTimes.com, 22 Apr 2013:
THE alleged involvement of two ethnic Chechen brothers in the deadly attack at the Boston Marathon last week should prompt Americans to reflect on whether we do an adequate job assimilating immigrants who arrive in the United States as children or teenagers.
. . .
Taking in what Emma Lazarus called the “wretched refuse,” including asylum seekers like the Tsarnaev brothers, without providing a scaffold of support undermines the promise of America.
Excusing immigrants. Blaming Americans. Because jewsmedia.
Andrew O'Hehir, How Boston exposes America’s dark post-9/11 bargain, Salon.com, 20 Apr 2013:
Since [the bombing], though, it’s mostly been a massive and disheartening national freakout, with pundits, politicians, major news outlets and the self-appointed sleuths of the Internet – in fact, nearly everyone besides those directly affected by the attack – heaping disgrace upon themselves.
. . .
We’ve watched elected officials and political commentators struggle to twist every nubbin of news or rumor toward some perceived short-term tactical advantage. It was as if the only real importance of this horrific but modestly scaled terrorist attack lay in how it could prove the essential rightness of one’s existing worldview, and — of course! — how it would play in the 2014 midterms. On the right, people were sure the Boston bombings were part of a massive jihadi plot – no doubt one linked to al-Qaida and Iran and Saddam Hussein and all the other landmarks in the connect-the-dots paranoid worldview of Islamophobia. (In fact, many people are still convinced of that.) On the left we heard a lot of theories about Patriots’ Day and Waco and Oklahoma City, along with the argument that it would be better for global peace if the bombers turned out to be white Americans rather than foreign Muslims. (I sympathize with the underlying point David Sirota was making there, by the way, but the way it was phrased was deliberately inflammatory.)
. . .
Our political culture is so fundamentally broken and divided that people on all sides seized on the story as a weapon and a symbol long before we had any idea who was behind the crime.
Hype incoherence. Complain about hype and incoherence. Blame anyone and everyone but the jewsmedia.
Because jewsmedia.
ANDREW ROSENTHAL, What’s the Difference Between McVeigh and Tsarnaev?, NYTimes.com, 22 Apr 2013:
The argument that we should treat Mr. Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant boils down to his religion and his ethnic origin. This is the kind of logic that led the United States to imprison Japanese-Americans during World War 2, and to far worse acts of ethnically and racially motivated violence in other countries.
Jewish influence in a nutshell - moralizing to others about ideals (in this case racial equality) they don't actually believe in or practice themselves.
"nearly everyone . . . heaping disgrace upon themselves . . . I sympathize with the underlying point David Sirota was making"
In other words, everyone other than Sirota acted disgracefully.
My podcast tonight, The Jewsmedia’s Impact on the Boston Bombing, is a review of what I've been writing about here for the past week.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/turning_the_camera_on_the_police_20110519/
"Law enforcement officials, of course, don’t like the cellphone cameras because they don’t want any check on police power. So they’ve resorted to fearmongering allegations about lost lives. But the only police officers who are threatened by cellphone cameras are those who want to break civil liberties laws with impunity. The rest have nothing to worry about and everything to gain from a practice that simply asks them to remember the all-too-forgotten part of their “protect and serve” motto—the part about protecting the public’s civil rights."
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/19831945622
Post a Comment
<< Home