April 25, 2013

Rich Muslim immigrant celebrity's post-Tsarnaev advice to Americans: "Embrace Muslim communities"

Fareed Zakaria, the immigrant Muslim television personality and Washington Post columnist whose father was deputy leader of Indira Gandhi's party, has cogitated for almost a week on the Lessons of the Bomb Brothers. And this is what he has come up with in the WaPo:
A better way for America to integrate Muslims 
... The lesson from Europe appears to be: Embrace Muslim communities. ... Rather than ostracize or embarrass Muslims in the wake of Boston, the smarter move would be even greater outreach ... 

So, how much more should the Cambridge, Massachusetts, and American taxpayers have spent on the Tsarnaev family?

More generally, have you noticed that nobody even tries anymore to look disinterested and objective? You might think that Zakaria would think to himself, "I'm a Muslim, I'm an immigrant, and I've been embraced by America's elites to an embarrassing extent, so this would look really bad."

But, no, we are so far gone into Who-Whomism that Zakaria thinks to himself, "I'm a Muslim, I'm an immigrant, and therefore I should lecture Americans on how they have to embrace Muslim immigrants more ... like, for example, me!"

It's like how we're supposed to listen respectfully to Marco Rubio and Jeb and George P. Bush lecture us to elect a new people so that they, personally, can get elected President.

Disinterested is WASPish and unfashionable, while shamelessness is vibrantly diverse.


Torn and Frayed said...

If you think about it, Fareed Zakaria may just have a point here. Everyone should encourage "enlightened" communities, like NYC and Cambridge, to show that they stand with Islam, and against bigotry, by immediately implementing Sharia law. Sure, homosexuality would now be illegal, and depending on which school of Sharia, could be punishable by death. At least the boring gay marriage debate would finally end. Sure women's testimony would only be worth half that of a man's. Divorce laws would become more rational. So on and so on. Any urban blue resistance to Sharia would be an obvious sigh of racism and would be more than enough justification for the next Jihadi bomber, who for some strange reason all seem to favor liberal blue targets.

Anonymous said...

You forgot plagiarist!

Anonymous said...

Bah! I'd rather embrace a cactus.

Anonymous said...

I REALLY hate that Zakaria for some reason. He´s so effin smug...

Jeff W. said...

Being disinterested, fair, impartial, seeking justice for all, etc., is not the road to success in today's political system.

In the racial-ethnic spoils system of contemporary U.S. politics, it pays to be outspoken, aggressive and even threatening on behalf of your racial-ethnic homies. Always be ready to provoke a fight and make a scene. That way your group will get its fair share of the plunder being carved out of the defenseless whites.

Cail Corishev said...

These guys ought to be forced to define what they mean by "embrace," or shut up.

I think we can assume it doesn't mean, "speed their assimilation by requiring them to hold down a job, speak English well, and live no closer together than one Muslim family per block." But as the first commenter pointed out, they certainly don't really want to embrace the Muslim immigrants' harsh culture either; it may be a handy club to beat Christians with, but that's all.

So what's left except to let them enter the country with no fuss, let them live and work (or not work) anywhere they like, provide them with free schools and health care and welfare if they want it, give high-paying jobs to their spokesmen, and send anyone who offends them to sensitivity training? We're already doing all that.

What more can we do to embrace them? Get rid of what's left of our town-square Christmas displays? Put more Muslims on TV? Cut back our decadence by shutting down the porn industry and closing the strip clubs? (Oh wait, starting to get into things liberals wouldn't allow again.) Have the schools teach that Columbus and Beethoven were Muslims?

What does Mr. Zakaria want us actually to do besides feel guilty and keep pumping money into the groups that feed some of it up to him?

Anonymous said...

Zakaria is not a Muslim. He is an atheist. He uses to write a wine column for Slate.

Anonymous said...

How much more of having this shoved in their face will Americans tolerate? This is almost as bad as when CNN raised the pertinent question, was Omar Thornton a victim of racism?

Anonymous said...

Has Fareed Zakaria ever been anything other than an agent of India's elite? I swore never heard a commentary by him that did not include a blatant pitch for "Brand India". When was Zakaria not busying himself rationalizing the outsourcing of American jobs?

Disinterested my ass! I would have swore that the only reason CNN had Zakaria on air was, beside the air of Indio-Islamo-Davos chic which Jon Klein(the man who destroyed CNN New's credibility) found so intoxicating, Mumbai was paying his salary for them.

Icepick said...

Sure, homosexuality would now be illegal, and depending on which school of Sharia, could be punishable by death.

You see, that's why this can't happen. Butt-fucking is now being elevated to the same high & unquestionable moral plane as partial-birth abortion. Sharia law never gets accepted by the elites until men butt-0fucking each other during the five daily prayers of Islam is mandatory.

Icepick said...

And Steve, it looks like the thought that the next great wave of immigration into the country will come from Africa is wrong. After having the Bomb Brothers blowing up children in MASS, the only acceptable place for the next great wave of immigration will be from central Asian Muslim communities. So now we can import a bunch of Taliban and similar types to increase the vibrancy of America. Because NOTHING says cultural vibrancy quite like blowing up children with homemade landmines.

Anonymous said...

"immigrant communities" is why they don't assimilate. My husband is from Turkey and has been here almost 40 years. (He's 67) He is always delighted to run into someone who is Turkish and get to speak his native language. He doesn't seek them out and if we go to Paterson, NJ (an hour from home) where there are a lot of Turks and Turkish restaurants, its like we're tourists. The Turks in Paterson are deliberately holding themselves apart in order to stay ethnic. They don't have to but they want to be with their own because they are lazy. And they go on welfare if at all possible, like all the immigrants. They understand enough about the US to go on welfare.

The problem is the welfare. My grandparents didn't stay in European immigrant communities because they had to work, they had to find work and support themselves.

The elder Tsarnaev brother was the epitome of the welfare mess - a 26 year old boxer sitting around on welfare.

Anonymous said...

"The lesson from Europe appears to be: Embrace Muslim communities. ... Rather than ostracize or embarrass Muslims in the wake of Boston, the smarter move would be even greater outreach"

Embrace them like Americans embraced Jews? Ah yes, then Muslims will stop being angry and turn into a bunch of Tim Wises and David Sirotas.

Embrace them like gays? Notice how gays mellowed out and became so nicer ever since they were 'welcomed'.

Seriously, it's not up to Americans. Hollywood that has stereotyped every other Muslim as terrorist is not controlled by the masses.
US foreign policy that understandably angers Muslims everywhere is rooted in our lopsided Zionist obsession. That too has been pushed onto the American public by the elites.

A lot of mixed signals are sent to drive lots of people nuts in America.

Btw, if the bomber has been a rightwing American, would Fareed be sayingthat his elite media kind should be embracing the 'coming apart' white Ammericans more? I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Zaka was favored and promoted by the lib elite community because he's a toady to the NWO, so maybe he should advise Muslims to embrace liberal elite lordism.

NOTA said...

Well, we *should* be trying to assimilate immigrant communities in general, right? The goal is to have second-generation immigrants who are American, but maybe go to a different church on a different day (or ignore a different church on a different day), and maybe have some exotic grandparents. That's a formula that has paid off for us in the past.

That doesn't tell us how many immigrants we should let in, or from where, but it does say something about how we should interact with the ones we do have. Better to spend $10 on English immersion programs than $1 on bilingual education programs, for example.

Mostly, assimilation has worked out pretty well with Muslim immigrants--we have maybe a million or two Muslims here, depending on how you count them, and almost no home-grown terrorism, and plenty of Muslim doctors and engineers and professors and such. Again, that doesn't mean we need to keep importing people from Muslim or other regions of the world--probably, we ought to seriously cut back on immigration across the board while our unemployment rate is high and we have a growing pool of long-term unemployed people, and we clearly need to be careful about letting people into the US from places with a lot of anti-US terrorist presence.

Space Ghost said...

The late Lawrence Auster's "First Law of Majority/Minority relations" strikes again: The WORSE a designated minority group behaves, the MORE we must blame ourselves for it.

Chicago said...

He's lecturing us because India is such a great success story, including such highlights as: the Mumbai terrorist attack, never ending warfare in Kashmir, periodic Muslim-Hindu strife and riots, wars with Muslim Pakistan, the list goes on. They can't even provide an adequate toilet system for themselves, yet the country is supposedly loaded with brilliant engineers just lining up for their visas to the US.
Let's get right to the point and be blunt about it. Nobody needs Muslims. Nobody. They add nothing. They have a history of tension and conflict with every other group they've come into contact with, all along the line around the world, from it's very beginning to the present. Even Buddhists have had violent clashes with them in Myanmar. Zakaria is a glib salesman selling quack medicine that'll kill the user. Why not ask people with actual experience with Islam what they think? Just ask an Armenian, they'll tell you.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

You forgot plagiarist!"

Not to mention "arrogant douchebag".

Anonymous said...

"Disinterested is WASPish and unfashionable, while shamelessness is vibrantly diverse."

This may partly owe to the rise of talk radio and for-profit news media.

In the world before talk radio and CNN and Cable news, news was dominated by three major networks. News programs generally lost money but were maintained as a sort of prestige thing for the industry and as a form of public service. Though there was always a kind of liberal bias, the preferred style was to be 'objective'. It was respectable. NIGHTLINE by Ted Koppel was the best of such shows.

Notice Koppel's dry and objective style here:


But a bunch of things happened. Because of the liberal media bias, conservatives came to fallaciously conflate 'objectivity' with 'liberalism'. Rush Limbaugh mocked how 'dry' and 'boring' the news media people were. His style was wild and rambunctious, highly partisan. And he was having a real impact.
Though CNN was liberal-biased, it still maintained the 'objective' style somewhat. Then came FOX which was much more partisan. And this partisanship was raking in the dough for Fox. People like opinionatedness because it's entertaining. Fox had loud and brash figures like Bill O'Reilly. Conservatives had figures like Ann Coulter.
And conservatives were mocking liberal talk radio for failing because lame bland NPR libs just don't have the guts and soul of wild and rowdy conservatives.
And conservatives were embracing the new style since conservatives are, of course, always for PROFIT.

So, opinionated news became the new template, and all the news channels foxed themselves. They had their own liberal Bill O'Reillys who were loud, brash, and opinionated. And the mud-slinging really began. The whole news media turned into a CROSSFIRE.
And if libs failed in talk radio, they succeed big time with talk tv, with Stewart and Colbert now bigger influences than all the conservative talk radio types combined.

But there is a leftist reason for the change too. In political philosophy, 'objective' came to be a dirty word. If you see the world as made up of oppressors and oppressed, to be 'objective' is to be equally fair to both sides. In a world that is filled with so much 'injustice', there was the idea that journalists have the moral obligation to use their power and clout to serve the righteous cause. To be 'objective' means to tolerate the powers-that-be.

Another reason for the change is the leftization of Nietzsche and Heidegger that came to influence much of liberal thought. Neo-Nietzscheanism came to see everything in terms of POWER than principles(which were seen to be mere tools for power). So, it's all about power. Even 'fairness' is a distraction. Since it's really about power, every group(at least the 'oppressed' ones) must gain more power 'by any means necessary'--and must never embrace any core set of principles--, and progressives must similarly be cunning and ruthless. So, if the Constitution is to your advantage on a certain issue, invoke it's sacredness. If the Constitution stands in the way of your agenda, denounce it as 'dead white male' stuff. Principles are to be played for POWER.

Anonymous said...

How can there be 'fair play' when rich people and 'privileged white folks' have had a huge running start over other peoples? Thus, even though affirmative action is unfair in favoring blacks over whites, it is good for empowering blacks who'd been oppressed, or so new liberalism says.
And watered down neo-Heideggerism convinced a lot of progressives that truth is something one feels than what one knows. So, if libs and blacks FEEL in a certain authentic way, it must be true.
A form of it can be seen in MATRIX movies.

Of course, it's all very weird and convoluted because the real powers-that-be in America are now the Jews and gays, yet they are the ones who say there is a moral obligation to 'speak truth to power'. But look what happens when you speak truth to real power in the case of Rick Sanchez.
Though communism is dead, Jewish elites are like old communist elites. Commie elites ruled communist nations, but they made themselves out to be champions for the oppressed working class against the bourgeoisie. But if the people actually noticed that communist elites had the real power and were abusing it, they would have been sent to the gulag.

Another advantage of opinionation of politics is it's easier for the elites to manipulate the masses through demagoguery than reasoned thought. When America was in the hands of white Christians, Jews feared the demagoguery of men like Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy. But now that Jews control the media, they can manipulate demagoguery to their ends. So, we have so many brainwashed Americans foaming at the mouth and fainting at Obama rallies, spewing hatred at opponents of 'gay marriage' as 'less evolved', and going hysterical over some KKK-sighting at Oberlin. When Jews didn't control mass demagoguery, they hated and feared it. Now that they have the means to control it, they love it; they love strong opinions. Tim Wise loves it. And Newsweek loved gloating with 'white males, you are old and dead and bye bye dummies'.

Anonymous said...

The elites like Zakaria are unwilling to state what is obvious to everyone else would takes the time to study Islam. Islam is not a religion. Islam's central purpose is not to answer universal existential spiritual questions common to mankind.

Islam is first and foremost a political manifesto intended to aid in the indoctrination, subjugation and conversion of defeated peoples, be they Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan... that fell under the Arabic/Islamic conquests.

American is foolish to undermine itself, by admitting those who proclaim allegiance to an expansionist political movement that at it core declares itself at war with it.

Anonymous said...

America's relationship with immigrant populations explained: He wouldn't beat me if I were a better wifey. I should have remembered that he likes 3 spoons of sugar in his morning coffee. It can get tough a times, but damn he looks sexy when he mows the lawn. Well, gotta run, late for work.

-The Judean People's Front

Anonymous said...

What more can we do to embrace them? Get rid of what's left of our town-square Christmas displays? Put more Muslims on TV? Cut back our decadence by shutting down the porn industry and closing the strip clubs? (Oh wait, starting to get into things liberals wouldn't allow again.) Have the schools teach that Columbus and Beethoven were Muslims?

We need to share their view of Israel. The United States needs to incorporate into its Constitution a provision stating that “Zionism is racism” and mandating that the full force of the American military and security services be brought to bear on anyone who supports the Zionist apartheid state.

Anonymous said...

"So, how much more should the Cambridge, Massachusetts, and American taxpayers have spent on the Tsarnaev family?"

True enough, but reality isn't as it really seems.

1. While Chechens/Muslims are surely tolerated in liberal blue areas, they are not really 'welcomed' or favored like some other groups, especially Jews and gays. While the Tsarnaev brothers did live in an affluent part of Boston, most Muslims in America aren't so lucky.

2. American society loves the complainsome, the loud, the brash, the aggressive, the fighter, the 'greatest'. Muhammad Ali never shut up and became the most famous boxer. Blacks such as Thomas Sowell who appreciate America are regarded as uncle toms. America loves uppity blacks. Even affluent blacks are expected to have the 'rage of the black middle class' thing. Spike Lee complains all the time. Tavis Smiley is rich, and so are Cornel West and Mike Dyson, but they complain, complain, and complain. Jews are tremendously rich, but they still seethe about how their grandparents weren't allowed into some wasp country club 50 yrs ago. Rich white feminists who attend elite schools fume about how they are 'oppressed' by patriarchy. Asians feel lame for not being complainsome enough, by being too 'model minority-like', and so, Asians too are learning to be 'victimish'. Jamie Foxx is very rich but stars in DJANGO and yammers about how some 'racists' called him names in the 1970s in Texas. Never mind all the black crime and hostility against whites back then and since then. Gays holler that they mustn't only be tolerated but WELCOMED!!! And unless we are for 'gay marriage', we are 'less evolved' haters who hate, hate, and hate and then hate some more.
So, we can't blame the brothers for feeling the way they did. If anything, they assimilated into Complainamerica only too well.
Neo-Americanism expects EVERYONE to bitterly yammer about everything; well, everyone but white conservatives. Of course, there is a hierarchy to this.
Jews can yammer about everyone but must go easy on gays and blacks. Feminists can yammer about everyone except about Jews, gays, and blacks. Blacks can yammer about everyone except about Jews and gays; but they are still allowed to yammer about 'bitchass hos'--I guess rap music rakes in too much dough and, paradoxically, all that 'bitchass ho' talk is actually an interracist turn-on for a lot of white hos(and thus have a politically progressive use).
So, naturally, Tsarnaevs didn't want to be part of some lame 'model minority'. They too wanted to yammer since yammering is what new Americans do. Go on Twitter, and disgusting pigs like Lena Dunham yammer all the time. She twit-yammered in full support of Oberlin hysteria rally against the KKK(that was never found).

Anonymous said...

3. But what the Tsarnaevs prolly found out is that America is full of shit. Though American liberalism seem to promise equal bitter-yammering for all groups(at least all non-white/non-conservative groups), some bitter-yammering is more equal than others.
So, if blacks yammer about whites, it gets lots of press and respect. When Jews yammer about white cons and Muslim radicals, it gets a lot of press. When feminists yammer about the Pope, Putin, white males, and etc, it gets a lot of press.
When gays yammer about how 'homophobic' this nation is, homomania in the media kick into full gear.
But when Muslims yammer about how US policy has killed scores of Muslims and how Zionism is in control of US policy and Palestinians are being treated horribly, it gets no press or very hostile press. Muslims are denounced by conservatives as 'antisemites muzzie nazis' and ignored by liberals as an annoyance. All those liberals who just adore Mandela have no feeling for Palestinians. In a recent poll, 90% of Americans don't like Palestinians and feel no sympathy for them... which means even the vast majority of libs feel the same. So, apartheid against blacks in SA was a big big deal, but the continuing humiliation of Palestinians is no big deal even among progressives. It's no wonder that the bomber bros got so confused and angry. America sends mixed signals: WE ARE ALL EQUAL AND WE ARE FOR EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. But then... JEWS, GAYS, AND BLACKS COUNT A LOT MORE THAN DAMN MUSLIMS. Even liberals feel this way. While liberal Boston may not have been as overtly anti-Muslim as conservative America is, it isn't pro-Muslim in the way it is pro-Zionist, pro-gay, pro-Obama, and pro-feminist. Muslims are only used as props by liberals to accuse cons of 'Islamophobia' when, in fact, libs are hardly more sympathetic to Palestinians/Muslims than the cons are.
With cons, at least the bomber bros would have gotten a simple and clear message that they are disliked as 'muzzie scum'. And if US were dominated by anti-Muslim cons, the bomber bros might even have been fearful and thought twice about messing with America. As Chechens understand and fear only REAL POWER, they might have gotten the message not to fool around in a nation made up of hard right Christian folks. But liberal Boston seems both powerful and weak. Powerful and rich obviously as it's the center of the intellectual left and white/Jewish privilege. But also ostensibly 'weak' and 'wimpy' as all those white libs seem to prance around as pansy homosexuals or metrosexuals. (Japan was similarly confused before it bombed Pearl Harbor. On the one hand, US was a big powerful nation. On the other hand, Americans seem to be rather easygoing and lacking in the warrior spirit. If Americans were powerful and badass, Japan might have gotten the message not to mess with the US. But America seemed both powerful and 'too nice'. Japan was also frustrated by American hypocrisy, overlooking European imperialism in Asia while forcing embargo on Japan and lecturing it about the evils of imperialism.)
But then, many conservatives feel the same kind of frustration. They notice that Jews, white libs, and gays are very rich, very powerful, and very well-connected. But they also notice that so many liberal types are pansy ass geeks and nerds. That manlier white conservatives have to take orders from such people can lead to much anger, as was the case with McVeigh. Conservatives must be sick in the stomach that white men in the US military must bend over to nerdy Zionists, bitchy gays, and some precious mulatto surrounded by lesbians. Chechens and conservatives favor brawn over brain, but brains rule over brains. Chechens and conservatives look at Jews and gays and think, "I can take him" but then realize that Jews and gays got the power to blacklist them and destroy their lives.

Anonymous said...

4. As we learned from the Ron Unz article about Ivy Leagues, there are two Americas. One America says we are equal and have the means to make it. But the other America says that some people are more equal than others. Jews mock white conservatives for 'whining' about political correctness. According to the Jewish narrative, whites are still the most 'privileged' people in America and have no right to complain. But take a closer look at the machinations in places like Harvard, and some dirty stuff is happening, with the system rigged to favor Jews. And notice how almost no one went to jail in Wall Street. Notice how the so-called 'left' under Obama handed over US government to Wall Street banksters. Notice how Jews say there must be no racial favoritism but favoritize their own agenda.


Anonymous said...

Sailer speaks of the money spent on the bomber brothers, but man doesn't live on bread alone. After all, many white conservatives are still affluent and well-off in America. So, why do they complain? Why does Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and Ann Coulter--all millionaires--still complain bitterly? Because we live with visions in our heads and not just food in our stomachs. The bomber bros had full stomachs but felt their backs had been stabbed by America.
Especially Dzhokar since he had many liberal friends. I'm sure he heard many of them bitterly yammer about all the injustices against gays, blacks, feminists, and etc. But whenever he brought up the issue of dead Muslims, I'm sure he mostly got shrugs from liberals. When the subject of South Africa came up, I'm sure he heard a lot about the evil of apartheid and how wonderful Mandela is. But when the subject of Israel came up, hardly any support for Palestinians among liberals. Most Jewish libs love Israel, and most lib gentiles are afraid of offending Jews by showing sympathy for Palestinians. Besides, Holocaust cult is our national religion. So, even liberal cult of equality and fairness is a ruse and a myth. Ivy Leagues do favor Jews and discriminate against white gentiles, especially white conservative gentiles. And white liberals, for all their conceit of equality, care a lot more for Jews, gays, and blacks than for Muslims.

Anonymous said...

5. But even blacks notice how bogus the system is. Look at NY where blacks are targeted for frisking. This may be justified given the crime stats, but extensive racial profiling is happening in one of the most liberal and bluest cities in America in open daylight.
And despite all the yammering about how great Hispanics are, as Sailer pointed out, most white libs find mexicans boring and only good for picking lettuce, mowing lawns, or playing the pudgy fool on the Jimmy Kimmel show(Guillermo).
And there was that article in NY TIMES sunday edition where some yellow fellow complained about he, as a short, small-dicked, and sallow-faced Asian, ain't getting much respect.
And some women grumble that you can't break into the fashion industry because of the gay boy's network.
So, even as the liberal narrative says that we should all have the same opportunities because we all have equal natural abilities, things don't turn out that way because there are still subtle--and not-so-subtle--forms of discrimination all around(Ron Unz on Jews and Ivy leagues) and because there are natural differences in talent among groups.
Blacks are more likely to succeed in NFL, NBA, and pop music than Asians, and Asians are more likely to succeed in math and science; and Jews are more likely to succeed than Muslism, and etc. And the so-called free American media are owned and controlled mostly by Jews and gays and their allies, and for every Muslim-American voice on TV, there are a 100 or even 1000 Jewish ones even though each group makes up only about 3% of the population.
So much for 'fairness'. (And even on talk radio, even though Jews make up only a small number of conservatives, I think 40% of all the big personalities are Jewish: Savage, Levin, Medved, etc. and neocons have pretty much steered the GOP to serve Zionism and globalism. And all the 'Arabists' and people like Buchanan have been purged and people like Sailer and Derbyshire have effectively been blacklisted from MSM.)
So, while America tells every group that they should be just as successful as all other groups in every field, the facts say it's not so. And this is bound to fuel more resentment and anger in years to come as America becomes more diverse, and all the 'equal opportunities of diversity' are not met. Of course, anyone with sense knows that equality and diversity are generally incompatible. How can America equally favor the interests of Jewish-Americans and Muslim-Americans? Turkish-Americans and Greek-Americans?
Even this 'marriage equality' thing isn't equal. If its proponents are really for 'marriage equality', i.e. marriage is whatever consenting adults say it is, why don't they push for kinship marriage or poly-marriage? Why only 'gay marriage'? Because 'marriage equality' is really the agenda of privileged unequal gays.
And if libs really hate bullying, why do they only put the spotlight on the bullying of certain groups like gays? When have celebrities come forward to call attention to white, brown, or yellow victims of black bullying? And if killing civilians is terrible and US must intervene to save the 'innocents', why did US back NATO to bomb the hell out of Libya but didn't say a peep about the bombing of Gaza?

Anonymous said...

As American becomes more diverse and as it promises every group that it's equally embracing and accepting of them, the more the various groups are gonna discover that this is all just a baloney. Cons know that Jewish-controlled Ivy Leagues discriminate against them and 'fairness' is all a baloney. Even affluent conservatives with full stomachs should be angry about this as it offends our principles and interests.
Hindus are gonna find out that Hollywood has no use for them except as funny-accented clowns.
Mexicans are gonna realize that they'll never amount to much in sports, music, and movies though they make a growing audience for that stuff.
Asian men are gonna find out that their short stature and thingies are not gonna make them a hit with chicks.
Muslims are gonna find out that Americans, even libs, don't give a shit about Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.
And etc.

Anonymous said...


rob said...

Anyone remember the spate of opinion articles written subcontinentals after Zakie's plagiarism thing hit the news? The themes were that everyone does it, Zak hardly plagarized anyway, and you're just jelis.

We're so used to Jew praise Jew in the media that it's just the water we swim in. Hiding ethnic affiliation is one reason so many Jews changed their names. 'Oh, look at how much Mr. Miller likes this editorial by Ms. Propagandabaum.'

Now that other groups do it with way less finesse, maybe it'll be like training wheels in spotting the experts.

Anonymous said...

From the AP. Joker's mother on whether she regrets moving her kids to the US instead of raising them in a village in Dagestan:

"You know, my kids would be with us, and we would be, like, fine," she said. "So, yes, I would prefer not to live in America now! Why did I even go there? Why? I thought America is going to, like, protect us, our kids, it's going to be safe."

I'm dumbstruck. Her arrogant sense of victim-hood is positively vile, especially to the families of the dead, not to mention the 30 or so people who are now just about coming out of their pain meds and looking down at a truncated limb.

Anonymous said...

We should embrace muslims, as a python embraces a guinea pig.

Anonymous said...

The lesson from Europe appears to be: Embrace Muslim communities. ... Rather than ostracize or embarrass Muslims in the wake of Boston, the smarter move would be even greater outreach"
yes because they have contributed so much the UK and France....oh wait....

Anonymous said...

Zaka's way makes sense.

Long ago, when wasps ruled, minorities had most to gain by putting aside what made them different and demonstrating how much they'd been Americanized.

Today, when Jews rule, minorities have most to gain by showing how much they are different from 'privileged white majority'.

Wasps--and waspized whites--used to be the solid majority, so they promoted the majoritarian view of things: minorities must aspire to melt in with the majority.

Jews have long been the minority, so they espouse a minoritarian view of things: the majority must respect and even appease the minority.

So, if wasps and waspized whites in the past urged minorities to cave into the majority, Jews today urge the white majority to cave into minority demands, especially as defined by Jews and gays.

Since that is the only way to gain power in the new order--created by Jews than by the likes of Zaka--, naturally various minorities expect to gain more power by demanding that the white majority appease to their demands.

But, what if appeasing Muslim demands upsets Jews and vice versa?
Both Jews and Muslims will blame whites for not being 'fair'.
Whitey caught in the middle.

Anonymous said...


"Louis-Ferdinand Céline said that Europe will either be an example or it will be nothing. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that had Europe refused to offer special protection from criticism for Judaism, and refused to jail Rudolf, Irving and Zündel, that Muslims might have learned something from the western philosophy of 'freedom of the press' and been better for it.
But unlike most modern whites, they boil with a righteous rage at hypocrisy and the double-standard that gives the European press the freedom to insult Islam while protecting Judaism."

The Anti-Gnostic said...

In sum, unless the Western governments stand down from their militant faux-egalitarianism and allow people to find their own level and interact or not as they please, this does not end well.

Anonymous said...

"Zakaria is not a Muslim. He is an atheist. He uses to write a wine column for Slate.

An atheist and wine enthusiast to boot! Hey, he can't be all bad?

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Why should I listen to a South Asian impersonator of Willem Dafoe?

Dr Van Nostrand said...

I believe Fareed Zakaria once said that he feels like an American in places like NYC but not so much in say Missisipi or Texas.

I guess that says it all.

Anonymous said...

Long-winded Anon, the Borat Brothers didn't live in an affluent area, they lived in a schizophrenic area. There's a 2 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath condo currently for sale on their street listing for $775,000. There's a 20-unit Cambridge Housing Authority building six doors up.

And that's part of the problem in a lot of goofy blue cities; putting the underclass cheek-to-jowl with people making six-figure incomes is a recipe for nobody's happiness. Every day they saw people they considered neighbors with FAR more material wealth, and I'm sure it rankled.

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

Zakaria is not a Muslim. He is an atheist. He uses to write a wine column for Slate.

Well played Mr. Zakaria! What an excellent way to signal to all the people who matter that you're vibrant but not in that troublesome or unpleasant sort of way. You're a differently-tinted fellow with an exotic name but you can still be safely allowed indoors and near the good dishes. Well played indeed! Barack Obama and Fareed Zakaria should team up to fleece the rich and powerful, like the two Irish card sharks in Barry Lyndon.

Actually I think they're way ahead of me with that scheme. I'd say Zakaria is a Muslim Barry Lyndon on the make in our current world of degenerated technocracy and phony meritocracy. He's the new sort of palace courtier: a type that's maintained by the various foundations, funds, think-tanks and media outlets. The good news for them is that they don't have to fight duels or be able to ride a horse.

Anonymous said...

Scary Eyes Zakaria has recovered from his bout of plagiarism, has he?
He has such great advice, next he needs to go on a muzzy international goodwill tour and share his thoughts with other kuffar-infested countries.
This one sorely needs his peace-inducing rantings.