Saturday, August 04, 2018

Who is allowed to hate?

It would be funny if the War For The Jews against Syria created cooperation which damaged the prospects of the War For The Jews against Russia:  "Exclusive: Despite tensions, Russia seeks U.S. help to rebuild Syria".  See also:  "Russia to deploy military police on Golan Heights" and "China Says Willing to Team with Syria’s Assad in Push to Retake Territory" (!) (the Chinese are always mad at Turkish efforts to stir up problems amongst 'Turkic' peoples in western China, with Turkish irredentism an ongoing problem in many places, so helping to remove Turkey from Syria is good payback).  "Turkey in panic as Assad seeks to reclaim occupied territory" (Bhadrakumar).

"China Defies Trump, Rejects US Request To Halt Iran Crude Imports" (Durden).  You get the impression, on multiple fronts, that everybody has had more than enough of the Assholians.

"USA’s Aggressive Intentions against Peaceful Iran" (Mikhin).

"The West has Performed a “Philosophical Coup” Against the Left" (Vltchek).

"Kuwait Joins Tunisia in Granting Women Full Political Rights".  Ever since the Gulf War, Kuwait has been slowly and steadily, and quietly, fixing itself.

Classic Sailer:  "Vox: "In Defense of Sarah Jeong:" She Would Never Insult Jews, Because Jews Are Marginalized, But She Insults Whites, Because Whites Are Powerful".  I'm surprised the NYT is going to the mat on this, as allowing racist attacks on the basis that it is impossible to be racist against a powerful group - this feels Foucauldian - opens a big door for attacks on the most powerful, tiny group, which is represented, of course, by the JYT.  It is also funny that their defenses alternate between the philosophical one about the nature of 'racism' and power, and the 'can't you take a joke' theory, generally beloved by racists, that her tweets were just parodies of the attacks being made against her.

See the remarkable piece by Andrew Sullivan and the even more remarkable responses to him:  "When Racism Is Fit to Print" (Jeong is the first part, but the rest of the column is also interesting) (see comment by Anon[422] which comes with a disclaimer due to its obvious dangerousness).  Key sentence:
"What many don’t seem to understand is that their view of racism isn’t shared by the public at large, and that the defense of it by institutions like the New York Times will only serve to deepen the kind of resentment that gave us Trump."
The Deplorables have no power (and remember that the 'Deplorables' concept was informally focused grouped by Killary at 'donor' parties on Martha's Vineyard, where it went over really well, prompting her to take it on the campaign road where it may have cost her the election), but they are fair game for racist attacks as they share a skin color with rich assholes like Trump, and someone in a position of extreme privilege, like a writer for the NYT or any random Khazar, has complete carte blanche to attack people based on the group they are said to be in just because the writer is powerless due to being in the non-white group (of course, as Fellow White People know, the Khazars shift seamlessly from being 'white' to being an oppressed minority depending on where the most rhetorical benefit happens to lie).  That seems to be about as racist a way of being racist as you can be!  It is fundamentally better to hate based on class rather than race, which tends to confuse things.

Related:  "Bizarro Zionism: Zionists Call Human Rights Supporters Racist" (Engler).
blog comments powered by Disqus