The NYT's long war on Arizona continues. The NYT editorializes:
Arizona, in the Classroom
Last week’s memorial service in Tucson, which began with a blessing by a professor of Yaqui Indian and Mexican heritage, showcased Arizona’s rich diversity as well as the love and tolerance of many of its citizens.
Unfortunately there is another Arizona, one where its state government all too often promotes discord and intolerance. This was painfully clear in the state’s immigration law, which empowers the police to demand the papers of suspected illegal immigrants. And it is painfully clear in a new education law that injects nativist fears directly into the public school classroom.
The law, which took effect Dec. 31, bans any courses or classes that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”
Promoting resentment might seem like divisiveness and vitriol, but in Tucson the taxpayers were being forced to pay for the promotion of resentment of whites, so that's A-Okay. Discord and intolerance is not subsidizing resentment toward a class, as long as the class is whites.
Posts
43 comments:
Steve, given the fact that white Europeans virtually exterminated Native Americans in North America and utterly subjugated them in South America, I'd say that allowing Hispanics to vent a little bit isn't too much out of line, no? I seriously doubt that there's going to be a Mestizo insurrection in the United States anytime soon. I say let the Hispanics in America today blow off a little steam. Usually people behave better in real life if they're allowed to vent a little every now and then.
So, a story revealing (or an interpretation of) an aspect of Arizona is now a "war" if that story is not flattering?
Aren't we being a tad, I don't know...
The person who wrote that doesn't live in Arizona. I would guess.
When I read this particular editorial, my first thought was: self-parody. It must be self-parody.
Arizona was rightly criticized in the 1980s and early 90’s when it refused to join the nation in declaring Martin Luther King’s Birthday a holiday. It finally agreed in 1992, and the whole country has since traveled closer toward racial harmony.
About this part: self-parody with treacle.
Not sure how they measured the harmony part for comparison, but the US has certainly moved further toward Whites being a minority. Perhaps for the NYT it's the same thing.
Yawn.
Good God!!!,
And here I am after all those years believing that the essence of good anti-racism was precisely what the NY Times rails against ie trying to eliminate ethnic divisions and to treat all persons as purely individuals and not as representatives of a race.
Whitey just CANNOT win.
The only interpretation of the NY Times posion that makes sense is this: - '"Minorities" must be backed to the uttmost hilt at all possible times - whether knowingly right or wrong or not'.
The NYT pontificates:
The law, which took effect Dec. 31, bans any courses or classes that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”
So the NYT thinks that laws proscribe education that "promotes resentment" or "advocates ethnic solidarity" actually "promote discord and intolerance".
The NYT editorial board obviously needs to take a break from work and spend some more time with its family.
The Times embarrassed itself over the Arizona murders.
You've got to wonder why they don't just shut up.
Promoting resentment might seem like divisiveness and vitriol, but in Tucson the taxpayers were being forced to pay for the promotion of resentment of whites, so that's A-Okay.
I really believe the thinking of a substantial number of white ninnies who support "hate whitey" education is something like, "Gosh, we dare not take away their ethnic pride [ie "hate whitey"] classes because then they'll really start to hate whites."
Thing is, if you ban it, the students won't even know it's gone.
Just like it's ongoing immigration that gets noticed, not the absence of immigration (the absence that would result from a moratorium, that is), it's ongoing hate whitey education that has adverse effects, not the absence of it.
Didn't Soviet-era writers also inject simple logical contradictions and obvious absurdities in their pro-Soviet paeans as a subtle form of dissent?
Perhaps a long-oppressed writer at the NYT is rising up? The use of the term "illegal alien" is also strikingly unusual for the NYT which bans such terms.
This comment may get some young writer exiled from the MSM to a journalist gulag like the Wichita Penny Saver.
The next logical steps are to (1) outlaw "hate speech" and then, (2) label such haters as mentally ill so they can be locked away from normal society and right-thinking individuals.
"Leftism" is a far more effective tool of control for power-obsessed elites. The more radical and brutal, the more effective the control. History is almost always on the side of change, even with that change is illusionary and morphs into naked counter-revolutionary oppression used to maintain the status quo.
Alexandr Podrabinek
Well, as the NYT editorial points out, there's been absolutely no attempt to apply the law to ethnic studies programs for black, Asian, or Amerindian students, which leaves me a little suspicious that the whole effort just amounts to cynical political grandstanding. And apparently the law explicitly exempts classes in Holocaust Worship.
Personally, I think these sorts of ethnic-studies programs are generally worthless and perhaps even harmful, but banning some of them while continuing to promote others doesn't seem like the best path to fostering good ethnic relations.
We have been down this road before. Immediately after the Kennedy assassination there was a very similar campaign to demonize Texas. Even at the time it seemed strange to me.
I was in Texas at the time so maybe I was somehow under the influence of the "climate of hate" that was posited as the true cause of the shooting. I didn't think so - I had voted for JFK. But who can say just how one of these climate thingees effects you.
It was pretty clear to me that Oswald who had also taken shots at General Walker - a very far right political figure - was a commie. He had been involved with "Fair Play for Cuba" - a commie front group. I was quite certain of that since I had been involved in Fair Play for Cuba and my friends who were more deeply involved than I was were certainly commies.
Yet somehow after this "climate" theory was floated, attention was diverted away from Oswald's defection to the USSR and all we heard about was the attitudes of Texans. Soon a complete flip was made and we got the theory that Kennedy was shot by right wingers in the CIA.
The whole concept of "geographical guilt" would seem incredible if I hadn't seen it all before.
Albertosaurus
Who cares what the NYT says?
"Who cares what the NYT says?"
Most of American intelligentsia does.
You see an analogy to "demonizing" Arizona, to demonizing Texas after 1963?
This analogy does not fit. Kennedy was a president, not a senate member, and there were oodles of people out to get him, not one schizophrenic. Also, his enemies were bipartisan. Many Texans did like him, obviously, but in the days before he went, ominous leaflets bearing his photo as "Wanted" were circulated; JFK and Jackie looked at them with sinking hearts the night before they left for Texas. I have heard people in the deep south as being glad over JFK's demise. Heck, I even knew a Catholic kid from Cleveland who who said he and his buddies were glad -- they were Italians, but that's not why.
Had to do with 'civil rights.'
The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was not a "commie."
Re Oswald: "During this time up until the assassination Oswald was on the FBI payroll, receiving $200 per month. This startling fact was covered up by the Warren Commission even though it was stated by the Commission’s own general counsel J. Lee Rankin at a closed-door meeting on January 27, 1964. The meeting had been declared “top secret” and its content only uncovered ten years later after a lengthy legal battle by researcher Harold Weisberg. Douglass claims Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960 to 1964, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA hstation that Oswald worked for te agency.” JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Douglass, James. (Orbis Books, 2008).
He went defected to Russia and returned with little fanfare during the depths of the cold war? A commie? Who are we kidding.
I am very sorry that you felt bias as a result of being Texan after 1963; however, that does not make it ok to swallow the government-approved conspiracy theory over any number that make infinitely more sense. In fact, like HBD, the evidence has been hiding in plain sight.
the whites are the majority. And the whites have shown that they will become leftist if they are allowed to have a nation for themselves. See e.g., Western europe.
Therefore the elite must divide america in order to increase profits.
They divide america by racial integration and mass immigration.
The tools for such integration and immigration are white race guilt and suppression of white pride. Thus the current propaganda regime that instills race guilt into whites and tabooizes certain areas of speech for whites.
It is all about investor profits.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled pseudopolitical discussion
OOPS - wrong anti-government activism:
Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 15, 2011
nytimes.com
This article was reported by Jo Becker, Serge F. Kovaleski, Michael Luo and Dan Barry and written by Mr. Barry.
...But Jared, a curious teenager who at times could be intellectually intimidating, stood out because of his passionate opinions about government — and his obsession with dreams.
He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.
“I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.”
Breanna Castle, 21, another friend from junior and senior high school, agreed. “He was all about less government and less America,” she said, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies and that the government censored the Internet and banned certain books from being read by us”...
Not long after showing up intoxicated at school, Jared dropped out. He also dropped out of band. Then, in September 2007, he and a friend were caught with drug paraphernalia in a white van...
Mr. Loughner seemed to meet rejection at every turn. He tried to enlist in the Army in 2008 but failed its drug test...
"I say let the Hispanics in America today blow off a little steam."
It's not Hispanics who are blowing off steam -- it's bi-coastal Jews.
So the NYT supports using "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" in public school classrooms? Have they seriously looked at it? I don't think so.
And here I am after all those years believing that the essence of good anti-racism was precisely what the NY Times rails against ie trying to eliminate ethnic divisions and to treat all persons as purely individuals and not as representatives of a race.
There are two kinds of "ethnic divisions" in this world - those which can be manipulated to the benefit of the [ethnic] tribe which runs the NY Times, and those which cannot [i.e. those which are detrimental to the tribe].
Leon Wieseltier was very clear about this.
***I say let the Hispanics in America today blow off a little steam. Usually people behave better in real life if they're allowed to vent a little every now and then.***
I think you'll find that black crime has increased dramatically at the same time that venting has been encouraged. I think your theory is dangerously wrong.
Lesley, those are some interesting rumors, anecdotes and bits of hearsay you have. But I put more stock in Albertosaurus's firsthand account than in the thoughts of some kid in Cleveland.
"I think you'll find that black crime has increased dramatically at the same time that venting has been encouraged."
Other way around.
"Anonymous said...
OOPS - wrong anti-government activism:
Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 15, 2011
nytimes.com"
Yes, it was interesting how they manipulated facts in that NYT article. They mentioned that Loughner would get angry even at the sight of G.W. Bush. Elsewhere they mention his bimetalist obsession (i.e. paying debts with gold and silver), and hasten to add that this is characteristic of "right-wing extremists". But they never characterize his vitriolic hatred of G.W. Bush as characteristic of left-wing extremists. So when Loughner, in his mental derangement, fixes on some crazy right-wing idea, it's right-wing. But when he fixes on a crazy left-wing idea, it's just crazy.
What happens when Whites stop feeling guilty?
Is White guilt over stuff done 150 or 50 years ago an inexhaustible resource?
Yes Whites did bad things to Blacks a long time ago. Blacks do bad things to Whites now. Who cares about Civil Rights? After all Whites are not included, according to sworn testimony in front of Congress by former DOJ Civil Rights attorneys (including J. Christian Adams).
Civil Rights and MLK are "Black things" like Crunk, or Do-rags, or various dances and so on.
THAT is the legacy of excluding Whites from Civil Rights and betting it all on White guilt.
The NYT itself is in free-fall, relying on loans from Carlos Slim to keep the presses moving.
So, a story revealing (or an interpretation of) an aspect of Arizona is now a "war" if that story is not flattering?
Claudia, if you seriously read that as an implication that a single story constitutes a "war", then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Sorry, I have to respond to the nutcase who wrote:
"Re Oswald: "During this time up until the assassination Oswald was on the FBI payroll, receiving $200 per month. This startling fact was covered up by the Warren Commission even though it was stated by the Commission’s own general counsel J. Lee Rankin at a closed-door meeting on January 27, 1964. The meeting had been declared “top secret” and its content only uncovered ten years later after a lengthy legal battle by researcher Harold Weisberg."
So it has been public since 1974 and nobody has mentioned or cared aout it except you and this other guy?
"Douglass claims Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter."
Oh, so now it just "seems".
Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960 to 1964, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA hstation that Oswald worked for te agency.” JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Douglass, James. (Orbis Books, 2008)."
And nobody but you and this other guy has cared about it since 1978.
I just hate people who read some book, take it as the gospel, and then assume they know everything.
"Lesley, those are some interesting rumors, anecdotes and bits of hearsay you have. But I put more stock in Albertosaurus's firsthand account than in the thoughts of some kid in Cleveland."
...even if Albertosaurus does have more first hand stories than Forrest Gump ;-)
Gilbert Pinfold
"You see an analogy to "demonizing" Arizona, to demonizing Texas after 1963?
This analogy does not fit. Kennedy was a president, not a senate member, and there were oodles of people out to get him, not one schizophrenic. Also, his enemies were bipartisan. "
Lesley, first off, this lady wasn't a senator - she is in the House of Reps. Secondly, I think you missed Albertosauress's point, which was that the media reaction to single out a whole State is analogous to back then, not the shooting itself.
Anon: "virtually exterminated"? Not likely. "Utterly subjugated"? Are you talking about Hugo Chavez? Pancho Villa? Vincente Fox? Or some other brown subjugator?
There is some weird cognitive dissonance about our Little Brown Brothers screaming “Gringo oppression!„ and then crawling over broken glass and burning sands to get the hell out of their native villages to America where white folks can take care of them better than they ever took care of the tribe down the street.
Guatemalan Indian girls dose up on abortifacients and antibiotics to survive the inevitable rapes and robberies by their little brown brothers in Mexico in order to throw themselves on the tender mercies of American white folks.
Forgive me if I don't have any patience for their wailing and ulullating about gringo oppression. It seems like they would be intimately aware of how twisted their homeboys are.
But that, perhaps, is Steve's point. They are not the whiners. They know what utter sh!tholes their countries are and how lucky they are to escape the tender ministrations of their countrymen.. It is their leftist postmodern would-be spokesmen who are doing all the whining and posturing. They lack, after all, the native talent and ability to succeed in America as anything other than government subsidized activists, and for that they need a peasant base from which they claim spokesmen status.
"Lesley, those are some interesting rumors, anecdotes and bits of hearsay you have. But I put more stock in Albertosaurus's firsthand account than in the thoughts of some kid in Cleveland."
Have I wandered in to the "Why Johnny Can't Read" thread?
What are you talking about?
Did you read my comment? The kid in Cleveland had nothing to do with my point, he was just a sideline of commiseration on a certain note.
The point is: was Lee Harvey Oswald guilty as not-charged? And what you are calling "rumors" is documented testimony and records brought out in court because they had been deliberately suppressed during the Warren Commission. We don't need rumors. We have the evidence. Even after all this time. Determined researchers in law, politics and history have been at this for going on 50 years despite powerful MSM discouragment; and the truth is there, somewhat in pieces, but there. While the quote below is obtainable from any number of sources, I got mine (as I quoted in my comment you apparently did not read)from "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." Douglass, James. (Orbis Books, 2008), an extraordinarily well-researched book.
I'll repeat myself, at the risk of being a tool: there are 50 years of research:
Re Oswald: "During this time up until the assassination Oswald was on the FBI payroll, receiving $200 per month. This startling fact was covered up by the Warren Commission even though it was stated by the Commission’s own general counsel J. Lee Rankin at a closed-door meeting on January 27, 1964. The meeting had been declared “top secret” and its content only uncovered ten years later after a lengthy legal battle by researcher Harold Weisberg. Douglass claims Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960 to 1964, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA hstation that Oswald worked for te agency.” JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Douglass, James. (Orbis Books, 2008). Or try, "Dr. Mary's Monkey" by Ed Haslam, another extraordinary research document on what happened in the early 60s in New Orleans.
I don't deal in "rumors" when there are facts at hand. For this subject especially, you sure as hell don't need to. You just have to dodge those magic bullets the Lone Gunman fraternity keeps in readiness.
Lesley, first off, this lady wasn't a senator - she is in the House of Reps. Secondly, I think you missed Albertosauress's point, which was that the media reaction to single out a whole State is analogous to back then, not the shooting itself."
Sorry, I knew she was a representative, not a senator. I should have said "Congress." And I did get his point about the media singling out a state. But frankly, Lee H. Oswald and all that name conjures up, just grabs me more. It's something I've been studying for years.
As far as Arizona goes, somehow it doesn't surprise me too much that the "left" has found a means to play the grand victim to the "right." The poor woman and the other people who were shot were the victims, not the "left." Both terms are just conjurers tricks.
So, yes, I missed pont du jour. But that other point was, for me, the point of the century.
"given the fact that white Europeans virtually exterminated Native Americans in North America and utterly subjugated them in South America, I'd say that allowing Hispanics to vent a little bit isn't too much out of line, no?"
Considering that most Hispanics are mestizo, thus part European colonizer themselves, I don't see their resentment as especially coherent.
They lack, after all, the native talent and ability to succeed in America as anything other than government subsidized activists, and for that they need a peasant base from which they claim spokesmen status.
I think it's much worse than that.
I honestly don't think these government-subsidized activists are trying to "help" anyone - I think they are actively trying to destroy this nation.
Fascinating, the amount of vitriol that has been spent in the aftermath of Tucson in the name of encouraging "civility."
In the past I've debated with friends and family over politics. To me it's fun, mostly. This, however, is different. Even after having been proven wrong, the Left is hanging on to this issue like a pit bull. They just refuse to let it go. I've never ended a single friendship over a political issue. Never. But I've ended friendships over this one - in both cases, lifelong friendships.
I expect the attitude is widespread. The nastiness is simply amazing, and to me it suggests a more permanent political rift. Two weeks ago I believed there was a lot of nastiness and incivility on both sides of the political divide. I thought that the Left was a lot more venomous than the Right, but in any argument, for comity, I would've conceded that they were pretty close. No more. This time they've taken the trophy.
One of the friendships I ended dated back to high school. He is a far left lawyer, who is so well-informed that he thinks Massachusetts is politically moderate and that George W. Bush is far-right wing. These people are all blind from their anger, or a lot less well-informed than they're willing to concede.
"for that they need a peasant base from which they claim spokesmen status."
"Spokesmen" do not exist. The word you're looking for is "spokeshole."
White children in minority-white schools should be protected from their liberal teachers stirring up ethnic hatred towards them no matter how unpopular that is with the NYT.
Loughner shot a Democratic congressman. No, he shot his congressman. Interestingly, Tucson is split between two congressional districts - the 7th and 8th. The 8th district is held by "Blue Dog" Gabrielle Giffords. The 7th is majority Hispanic and held by Raul Grijalva (D), who also lives in Tucson. Grijalva is well to the left of Giffords (or at least the persona Giffords presents to the voting public). He even supports the boycott of Arizona.
Loughner, according to all reports, lives in Giffords's district. Grijalva, though, probably gets about as much media coverage in the Tucson media market. So who did Loghner choose to shoot? The more conservative of Tucson's two House reps. So you could argue that Loughner shot the more conservative rep because she was more conservative.
But of course with all their prior arguments falling flat on their face, the Left and the LSM has taken to complaining that the shooting had nothing to do with Loughner's political views, but with the climate of hate supposedly nurtured by the right.
You can find refutations of the nutcase's "facts" by searching Posner's and Bugliosi's books at Amazon.
"You can find refutations of the nutcase's "facts" by searching Posner's and Bugliosi's books at Amazon."
"I just hate people who read some book, take it as the gospel, and then assume they know everything."
Nutcase? That's a funny epithet to be using here, blog of so many heretical notions. But then this site is well-monitored, I'm sure, by people with varying interests.
I did not just read "one book." I have read many of various povs. As I said, I've studied this for YEARS.
So should I take the first commenter's advice and rely on two books rather than one? I believe he also said, "Who cares anymore?" another line detractors throw out to squash any protesting squeeks about lies and cover-ups. A lot of people care, many of them young. The executors of the 1963 coup d'etat were hoping people would not care after even 5 years, but here it is nearly fifty on and people still care. Because we are still living with the repercussions and many of the players are still around and in action, dude. Or their immediate descendants, political and/or biological are.
Douglass' is one of the best studies and extolled by reviewers of every stripe. He does view the whole thing with a spiritual slant, as he believed Kennedy, for all his foibles, had a real conscience was going through shock at what he was finding out--how politics really worked at his level and higher. But that does not take the place of cold, hard evidence and documentation.
Who wonders why a Warren Commission packed with JFK's enemies and people he fired (Dulles) would be, perhaps, suspect even if they had done their job?
Bugliosi and Posner? Posner admitted he wrote the "Oswald did it" book because that's what the pubishers wanted. And Bugliosi?
Don't make me laugh.
I don't know if you'd want to call it "right" or "left" but
Robert Morrow, JFK researcher has this to say, "The Far Left, the Far Right and the libertarians (Lew Rockwell) have figured out the JFK assassination. It is the Depraved Middle that murdered John Kennedy and is still covering it up. That is why so much radioactive horse manure has come out of the Council on Foreign Relations; the CFR for decades was and personified "the Establishment." Lyndon Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, George Herbert Walker Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon ... that is your Depraved Middle that murdered and/or covered up the JFK Assassination. Call them the "murdering moderates" if you will."
Here is the email address of D.L. Adams: dladams@ahollowreveille.com . I suggest shooting him some emails and giving him your best information on the 1963 Coup d'Etat."
Here is his bio:
http://www.familysec...thor_detail.asp "
All I have to say is read "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs. You may not agree totally, but you'll never think the same again. Maybe not about anything.
The story about Oswald being on the FBI's payroll was made up by two reporters who thought that they were being monitored. They discussed informant numbers and Oswald to try to confirm their suspicions.
This, according to Alonzo Hudkins.
Speaking of the JFK assassination, let's fight about whether the moon landing was faked.
"The story about Oswald being on the FBI's payroll was made up by two reporters who thought that they were being monitored. They discussed informant numbers and Oswald to try to confirm their suspicions.
This, according to Alonzo Hudkins."
I can check that out; I'm in touch with researchers who would know better than I. But considering the countless lies and deliberate oversights of the Warren Commission and its "supporters" (who are still around and still on the offense), it would not matter to the overall assertion of a massive conspiracy. LHO was first and foremost, a CIA operative who found out too late he couldn't back out. They have you once, they have you for life.
I'm a bit late to this blog posting but "Gray Lady Down" by William McGowan is a great read. It talks about how the NYT has dropped all pretense at being balanced (in every sense of the word) on a number of issues and has a whole chapter devoted to race and one on immigration.
"So you could argue that Loughner shot the more conservative rep because she was more conservative."
Then why, exactly, did he not drive to Phoenix and shoot Juan McCain?
Post a Comment