April 11, 2012

NYT: Toulouse anti-Semitic murders really are fault of "exclusionists" after all

A few weeks ago, the New York Times made a fool of itself by running an article gloating over how the anti-immigration mass murderering terrorist in Toulouse would hurt the evil immigration restrictionists in the upcoming French election. Of course, there's never any accountability, so this embarrassing screw-up largely was almost instantly forgotten. 

But, evidently, the memory of the humiliation rankled. And when you own the Bullhorn, you can keep shouting. So, on the New York Times op-ed page, a former member of the paper's editorial board now explains why Mohammed Mera's killing spree really is the fault of evil "exclusionists" who aren't sensitive enough to diversity.

Maybe next, the NYT will run something explaining how the Shaima Alawadi hate crime hoax that they had splashed big really was the fault of, uh, I dunno, SB1070 in Arizona.


ivvenalis said...

Well, the campaign to blame AIDS on "homophobia" instead of, you know, IV drugs and anal sex has been pretty successful. Not to mention the entire "white privilege" faerie castle. Why couldn't a similar strategy be repeated here?

Anonymous said...

In the first paragraph of the article the author states the French language is particularly clear.

That implies other languages are lesser. Which is racist.

Here's to the author's successful re-education.

Anonymous said...

I agree. If Zionists weren't so exclusionist against Arabs, Arabs around the world wouldn't be so angry.

Anonymous said...

Okay, if the liberal elite allows me into their club and gave me a million dollars, I'll join in with their agenda. But as long as I'm excluded, I'm gonna be bitter. So, it's liberal elite's fault.

Matthew said...

So what the author proposes is that one can be a true Frenchman by embracing an identity that is emphatically separate from a French one?

The goal of multiculturalism is to put native whites of the receiving country at a disadvantage. The Others are allowed to embrace an identity that is separate, distinct, and even oppositional to the country in which they live, such as France. They are allowed to place other loyalties above those of their adopted homeland.

But the natives aren't allowed to define themselves as separate from the arrivistes, and they are forced to embrace The Others as part of their own. The immigrant is allowed an identity to distinguish himself from the native, but the native is not allowed in any way to distinguish himself from the immigrant. Thus fair ansd equal treatment is a one-way street, entirely favoring the immigrant to the detriment of the native.

You want real "multiculturalism?" Fine, let's have it. Real multiculturalism would allow natives to be as exclusionary towards immigrants as immigrants are toward the natives.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Traymerica.

Though a trial may be a problem in maintaining the Traycorpera-approved narrative.

Anonymous said...

The NYT set has a fixed idea of multiculturalism--without trying to be jaundiced here: that no member of any of traditional or new Other may be viewed in a more negative light than an example from the historic-oppressor group; a fervent, monomaniacal devotion to "balance" that constitutionally can't acknowledge trends of divergence between victim group and HO group (I'd welcome a more neutral summary)

I think the NRO crowd (shorthand, I realize they're not monolithic) adheres to a view that is not diametrically opposite, just a slightly and imho unhelpfully modified type of multiculturalism--everyone happening to reside in the post-Enlightenment-pre-Marxist U.S./West/"Anglosphere" needs to somehow unify against the evil empire. They're not making a connection between "Islamofacism" and the strife at home whenever a Rodney King event transpires, which will surely repeat as long as there's a free press around to abet it. In short, they don't see the latter as one extension of multicult think (often straight out of 1970s campus radicalism). Sad because I doubt right-wingers of the Reagan period or even the early talk radio/Anita Hill/Gingrich/David Horowitz years would have been unable to perceive that. Ah well, sic transit

Anonymous said...

Toulouse is a LOVELY city to live, but like most French cities, it is an expensive place to live. There is no better place on Earth to live than Europe, but you do need to have money, because it is a very expensive place and this has been true historically.

The millions of European immigrants who left Europe to America in the 19th century did so not because America is a better place to live, but because it is CHEAPER. Much cheaper. The Rotschilds never felt compelled to leave Europe for a reason...because if you have money, there is no better place on Earth to live. But you do need the money.

The Arabs who are revolting in France are doing so because they have been denied the French lifestyle of sitting at expensive cafés drinking fine wines and eating Camembert, living in expensive penthouses in the center of Paris and working white-collar jobs or as high-paid bureaucrats of the French government. They cannot afford expensive penthouses at the center of France's large cities, and much less châteaus on the country side.

The French believe that intellectual ability puts you in your place, and that a man with little wits should conform to a modest lifestyle. This makes the Arabs enraged, because since so many of them lack the intellectual ability to succeed in a Society that is historically obsessed with intellect and organized on a pyramid of intellectual ability, they assume that they are being discriminated because of their religion or because of their race. But this is not true. It truly isn't. The French are VERY tolerant of racial and religious differences. As long as you speak French, they truly don't care. Foreigners have always felt welcome in France. The Arabs assume that their low status in Feench Society is because of US vs THEM, when the French simply see it as the CLEVER vs the DUMB, and a lot of the Arabs fall into the latter category. This is one of the fundamental characteristics of the French: unlike America, which worships the common man, the French are elitists who openly dislike lack of wits, style and sophistication. The French aristocrats have always tried to distinguish themselves from the plebes as much as possible. And in France, even the simplest of laborers tries to speak in the most eloquent and convoluted way he can so as to fake a level of intelligence he does not posses.

The bottom line is this: Europe is a lovely, LOVELY place to live, but you need to be a man of means to live there. I cannot think of any American city that can compare to Paris, Florence or the Côte D'Azur, but these are not places for poor or even lower middle-class people. The average European has a modest standard of living compared to the average American because Europe is so expensive. In fact, even in this day and age there are many Europeans who would love to immigrate to America. The reason why they don't is because since the 1960's the American Government has an open policy of favoring immigrants from other continents. Why the hell would poor Arabs emigrate to Europe is beyond me. Why would poor people emigrate to the most expensive of all continents?

Maya said...

"Why the hell would poor Arabs emigrate to Europe is beyond me. Why would poor people emigrate to the most expensive of all continents?"

I lived in France for 2 years, working in an Arab-heavy suburban school. Here's what you fail to understand--> France is expensive only if you pay your own way. Their welfare benefits are friggin INSANE, even compared to ours. Having many children, literary, makes these people rich. They go on long vacations every year, on the government's dime because with 4 children or more, it's very easy to save enough. The government provides them with free housing, free school, free daycare, free transportation, free medical care (which includes spas and massages), free membership in their local cultural house (a place that offers all kinds of lessons and takes people skiing in the winter for a reasonable fee which the welfare recipients don't have to pay, of course )and a lot of spending money. Plus, there are a lot of very lovely places in France that aren't as expensive as Cote d'Azure or Paris. And there is a lot more freedom allowed in one's personal life. They can leave their children alone for hours or beat them, if they see fit.

Maya said...

Oh, and you are wrong about the wine and Camembert. That stuff's crazy cheap. I lived on 550 euros/month, and, along with the fresh baked bread, local wine and Camembert were my ramen noodles. The only people I ever saw hanging out at the suburban cafes/bars (same thing) were Algerian men who seemed unemployed because they were always there. Average middle class French don't eat out much. They eat dinner at each other's houses a lot, but going to a cafe is a very rare treat.

Hunsdon said...

Meyer wrote, with his wife, a pretty good book on the Great Game, called "Tournament of Shadows." It complemented, but was not as good as, Hopkirk's "The Great Game." Maybe he should stick to books?

Mr. Anon said...

These aren't the murderers you're looking for.

These aren't the murderers we're looking for.