The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Narrative Formation Case Study: NYT's Role in the Ferguson Fiasco
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Over at 28 Sherman, SoBL has links to all 106 New York Times articles referencing “Michael Brown” that the Newspaper of Record published just from August 10 to August 30. That’s five per day!

As you’ll recall, the Myth of Michael Brown collapsed in mid-August due to two revelations. On August 15, the convenience store video appeared showing gentle giant Michael Brown violently shoving the poor little Asian store clerk who tried to stop him from stealing. Then two days later, the Brown family’s privately-hired coroner announced Brown wasn’t shot in the back. His wounds were fairly consistent with the cop’s story.

Unfortunately for the New York Times, the national media in general, the town of Ferguson, the Democratic Party in November, Zemir Begic, NYPD Officers Liu and Ramos, and America in general, the Megaphone had apparently passed its Point of No Return by August 14, 2014. Here’s SoBL’s list of New York Times headlines datelined the day before the revelatory video:

08/14/14 Perlroth “Hackers’ Efforts to Identify Officer Create Turmoil”

08/14/14 Kennedy and Schuessler “Ferguson Images Evoke Civil Rights Era and Changing Visual Perceptions”

08/14/14 Vega “Vigils Planned Nationwide Over Ferguson Shooting”

08/14/14 Peters “Missouri Unrest Leaves the Right Torn Over Views on Law vs. Order”

08/14/14 Southall “Protest in Missouri at Police Killing of Teenager Is Chronicled on Social Media”

08/14/14 Beavers and Shank Opinion article “Get the Military Off of Main Street”

08/14/14 Schwartz, Shear and Paulson “New Tack on Unrest Eases Tension in Missouri”

08/14/14 Nyhan “How Race Undermines Obama’s Bully Pulpit on Ferguson”

08/14/14 Blinder and Eligon “For Missouri Governor, Test at an Uneasy Time”

08/14/14 Bosman and Apuzzo “In Wake of Clashes, Calls to Demilitarize Police”

08/14/14 the NYT editorial Board convene for an opinion piece. “The Search for Calm in Missouri”

As they say: Wow, just wow …

The next day, August 15, the store video came out. I hadn’t been paying much attention to this distant police blotter item, but that day I posted:

Ferguson Fiasco: It’s an Election Year …

There are a lot of advantages in terms of self-respect to waiting until you know what you are talking about. It’s easier to look at yourself in the mirror if you don’t rush to judgment in accordance with your resentful rages and dreams of exploiting some remote random event as a political masterstroke.

For the New York Times, however, which had pushed all its chips into the center of the table, htey must have realized they were in too deep with no hope of extricating themselves gracefully so they just had to brazen it out.

So there was a Plan B: Shout louder and don’t mention the camera footage in any headlines. None of the scores of NYT headlines for the rest of the month mention the existence of security camera pictures of Brown setting off on his violent crime spree in the convenience store.

New York Times subscribers would have to read closely to find out the truth. For example, here is the peeved NYT article on 8/15 grudgingly admitting the existence of the store footage. It’s a pretty bizarre piece of reporting that makes palpable The Megaphone’s anger that authorities are revealing facts that undermine The Narrative:

Emotions Flare in Missouri Amid Police Statements
By TANZINA VEGA, TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and ERIK ECKHOLM AUG. 15, 2014

FERGUSON, Mo. — One day after roiling tensions over the police shooting of a black teenager here began to subside, emotions flared anew on Friday as the police identified the officer involved but also released evidence that the victim was a suspect in a convenience store robbery moments before being shot.

The manner in which the police here released the information, which included a 19-page police report on the robbery but no new details about the shooting, led to the spectacle of dueling police news conferences, one led by a white officer who seemed ill at ease and defensive, and the other dominated by a charismatic black officer who expressed solidarity with the crowd even as he pleaded for peace.

The white officer, Thomas Jackson, the police chief in Ferguson, gave a series of incomplete accounts that sowed confusion about whether the officer who shot the teenager knew he was a suspect in the robbery. The black officer, Capt. Ronald S. Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, expressed his displeasure with how the information had been released.

“I would have liked to have been consulted,” he said pointedly about the pairing of the shooter’s identity with the robbery accusation.

All week, community members had demanded the name of the officer who killed Michael Brown, 18, last Saturday, but when it finally came, it was accompanied by surveillance videotapes that appeared to show Mr. Brown shoving a store clerk aside as he stole a box of cigarillos.

Mr. Brown’s family, their lawyer and others in the community expressed disgust, accusing the police of trying to divert attention from the central issue — the unexplained shooting of an unarmed young man.

“It is smoke and mirrors,” said Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for the Brown family, of the robbery allegations. “Nothing, based on the facts before us, justifies the execution-style murder by this police officer in broad daylight.”

The videotapes seemed to contradict the image portrayed by Mr. Brown’s family of a gentle teenager opposed to violence and on his way to college.

Captain Johnson, who grew up in the area and had been brought in by the governor on Thursday to restore peace after days of confrontations between demonstrators and the police in riot gear and military-style vehicles, said he had not been told that the authorities planned to release the video of the robbery along with the name of the officer. But he sought to calm people down, saying, “In our anger, we have to make sure that we don’t burn down our own house.”

Captain Johnson won over many but also faced skepticism over his role along with anguished questions about who the police really represent and the lack of educational and economic opportunities in Ferguson.

“I find it utterly disgusting,” one man shouted at him. “What am I supposed to tell my people? It looks like you’re a figurehead.”

Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, stood next to Captain Johnson at their news conference and emphasized that the details released Friday were not “the full picture.” He added, “I think the focal point here remains to figure out how and why Michael Brown was killed and to get justice as appropriate in that situation.”

Later Friday, the Justice Department, which is conducting a separate civil rights investigation into the killing, announced that teams of F.B.I. agents would be canvassing the neighborhood where shooting took place in the next several days.

The day began when Chief Jackson said at a news conference that the officer who shot Mr. Brown was Darren Wilson, who has served almost three years in Ferguson and two in another local department and had no disciplinary charges. Officer Wilson, who is white, has been placed on leave, and his location is unknown.

But the release of his name was overshadowed by the simultaneous announcement of the robbery allegations, leading to questions about timing and motives.

In a later news conference, on Friday afternoon at Forestwood Park, a sports complex in Ferguson, Chief Jackson said that Officer Wilson had not been aware that Mr. Brown “was a suspect in the case” and instead had stopped him and a companion “because they were walking down the street blocking traffic.”

But that only highlighted the central issue: How did an officer’s interaction with an unarmed young man escalate into a deadly shooting?

The videotapes, from an unidentified convenience store, show a tall burly man, identified by the police as Mr. Brown, shoving aside a clerk as he left the store with an unpaid-for box of Swisher Sweets cigarillos. According to a police report, Mr. Brown was accompanied at the store by his friend Dorian Johnson, who was also with him when he was shot.

Mr. Johnson has admitted being in the convenience store with Mr. Brown and told investigators from the F.B.I. and St. Louis County that Mr. Brown did “take cigarillos,” Mr. Johnson’s lawyer, Freeman Bosley Jr., a former mayor of St. Louis, told MSNBC.

Standing near a store that was vandalized during protests this week, Mark Jackson, who has participated in the demonstrations, expressed skepticism about police motives in describing the robbery. “They just want to make the case seem more reasonable on their side,” he said. “But at the end of the day, the man didn’t have a gun, so they didn’t have to shoot him.

In his afternoon appearance, Chief Jackson sought to explain why the information was released on Friday.

And isn’t that the real story here? It’s not about what Michael Brown did, it’s about how dare anybody who doesn’t own The Megaphone, such as the police chief, try to make The Narrative more factual? This Narrative is way, way above Chief Jackson’s pay grade, and nobody who is anybody wants to hear his stupid facts until The Megaphone has at least had a chance to come up with a strategy for spinning them. Because he surprised The Megaphone, all we can do now is just try to distract from the facts by shouting louder until Election Day.

 
    []
  1. countenance says: • Website

    Likewise, notice how you’re hearing very little “Redskins” hoopla since Election Day. Harry Reid admitted that “Redskins” was to goose up American Indian turnout for Democrats; in reality, Indians don’t really care about that matter.

    If you are not already well versed, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the general geography of North St. Louis County. Ferguson already sparked, and now Berkeley. That knowledge will probably come in handy in 2015; safe bet that some other North County suburb will go off very soon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/narrative-formation-case-study-nyts-role-in-the-ferguson-fiasco/#comment-814785
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Steve,

    I am curious. The week before Christmas, NYT laid off over a hundred employees. I wonder if any of those who lost their jobs were among the by-lines promoting the “Narrative” of the gentle giant Mike Brown,
    victim of needless police deadly force.

    Some thing tells me, NO!!!

    I’ll come back and check later and post what I can find out.

    In the meantime perhaps 28 Sherman can check as well.

    Read More
  3. I might be overreaching again but I draw some parallels to the Citizen Kane brouhaha where the internet is now challenging the Newspapers and TV much the same way the movies did. I am sure that there are editors at the NYT that would like to abandon the field but they realize that if they lose their position as #1 they will never get it back. Maybe they should just give up on covering racial issues the same way some newspapers have given up their sporting or business sections. Either cover it well or don’t do it at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hacienda
    The internet seems to be as left as the NYT- Huffpost, Young Turks, Daily Show, Guardian.

    http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites

    ISteve occupies a tiny corner of a tiny paleo right. It's like a visit to Mayberry, the Beverly Hillbillies, The Andy Griffith Show, The Donny and Marie Show. Now with a tortured cast. It's great, but you've got to see the context.

    , @Mike Street Station
    I disagree with that. I think the New York Times would rather cover nothing but racial issues if it could. Editorially, it's Salon but with business sense and and a sense of it's own reputation. So the newspaper still tries to pretend it's a conscientious, responsible gatekeeper by carrying boring stuff about Russia and the Ukraine, when really it wishes it could be race, race, RACE all day long.

    I suspect that in a few years the New York Times really will turn into Salon, but by then I doubt we'd barely notice.
  4. Meanwhile, a number of malls around the country have exploded with post-Christmas mahogany mobs doing what they do best. I can’t wait for summer.

    Read More
  5. Lot says:

    Respectfully, I think you’re way off base thinking that Democrats pushed Ferguson to gin up votes for the midterms.

    A better macro model of what happened is that Democrats have lost control of the media. People like David Axelrod aren’t idiots, they know that black crime, and law and order issues generally, is the absolute worst thing for voters to be focused on for them. They’re still, 25 years later, trying to shame Republicans over the Willie Horton ad! The Crown Heights riot caused them to lose control of the New York City Mayor’s office for 20 years.

    Have you picked up a newspaper lately? They are 1/4 the size of what they used to be, and their online operations are, at best, running at breakeven. The NY Times is now thinner that my old small hometown paper was in the mid-90′s. Meanwhile magazine after magazine are going bust. Their online replacements are now relentlessly competitive, running on the labor of unpaid and barely paid writers who are pressured every day to deliver more eyeballs. The NY Times isn’t immune from this, they wrote about Ferguson because that’s what the public demanded.

    As you’ve said before in the predicting outcomes context, easy cases aren’t interesting, 50/50 ones are. Most police shootings are easy cases and involve thugs with long records and armed with guns. This one, at the outset, was atypical, looking more like an interesting 50/50 case: seemingly a thug and physically huge, but unarmed with no adult record. Shot not once, but shot multiple times and dead. At some point the officer knew Brown was a suspect, but when? And while nasty, the shove on the video isn’t something that would even leave a bruise.

    For the people who actually run the NY Times, “police brutality” is somewhere around priority number 37, between Cambodian sweatshops and campaign finance reform. And the national democrats wish black crime issues would just disappear.

    What’s happened is that the large portion of the public that is far-left and anti-white can now push their agenda without the old gatekeepers who were worried about “scaring the horses” (average suburban whites), to stop them. But this is far from a “megaphone” situation, which implies a powerful person speaking to many. Instead it is a hashtag situation, where some random anti-white loonie bird strikes a nerve with her twitter followers and the overworked, underpaid, no-fact-checkers writers in the new news media take notice and rapidly churn out clickbait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff W.
    Here's my explanation:

    1) Newspapers and news websites are broke and desperate.

    2) Anti-whites have some money and an agenda. Some of them will work for free, or nearly for free.

    3) Anti-white narrative gets into the media.

    It probably doesn't take a big bribe to get newspapers to do what you want these days. A small bribe would do it, or else, "I'll work real cheap if you let me write what I want."

    I also believe that the Zimmerman and Brown cases were carefully chosen as cases where the courts would exonerate the white (or white Hispanic) killers. That way the outrage could be perpetuated indefinitely.
    , @WhatEvvs
    I often disagree with Steve but I think he's spot on here.

    If what you are saying is correct, then "the Democrats" shouldn't have had Al Sharpton in the White House 61 times. Yep, 61 ever lovin times.

    The thing about US parties is that they are ungodly top down. And if the top dog in your party is president, he rules. We really do have an elected king as president.

    Think of it. Three branches of government.

    Legislative = 535 people
    Judicial = thousands
    Executive= 1 man.

    With Obama as President, and his Sharptonized political base, I consider it absolutely plausible that "the Democrats" pushed Ferguson as a get out the vote wedge issue.

    The participation of the major media is the one that is too opaque to argue one way or the other, but gee, any fool can see that white criminals get all the ink, and black criminals don't.
    , @Art Deco
    they wrote about Ferguson because that’s what the public demanded.

    See Rod Dreher's reminiscences about his time at the Dallas Morning News. Reporters and editors were stupefyingly indifferent to their own market research. Dreher suggested that the paper cover stories that might be of interest to the paper's actual readers: disproportionately aged and disproportionately suburban. The response from his co-workers was crickets. They covered what they felt like covering. When you're part of a duopoly and the shnooks working for your competitor think just like you, that's what happens.
  6. Hacienda says:
    @Prof. Woland
    I might be overreaching again but I draw some parallels to the Citizen Kane brouhaha where the internet is now challenging the Newspapers and TV much the same way the movies did. I am sure that there are editors at the NYT that would like to abandon the field but they realize that if they lose their position as #1 they will never get it back. Maybe they should just give up on covering racial issues the same way some newspapers have given up their sporting or business sections. Either cover it well or don’t do it at all.

    The internet seems to be as left as the NYT- Huffpost, Young Turks, Daily Show, Guardian.

    http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites

    ISteve occupies a tiny corner of a tiny paleo right. It’s like a visit to Mayberry, the Beverly Hillbillies, The Andy Griffith Show, The Donny and Marie Show. Now with a tortured cast. It’s great, but you’ve got to see the context.

    Read More
  7. Svigor says:

    The NY Times isn’t immune from this, they wrote about Ferguson because that’s what the public demanded.

    Sure, that’s why the NYT ruthlessly polices its comments sections. Because they’re all about public opinion.

    Seems like some folks can’t handle the fact that people and companies can walk and chew gum at the same time: pursue profit within the confines of their ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Sure, that’s why the NYT ruthlessly polices its comments sections. Because they’re all about public opinion.
     
    I don't see the connection between blocking troll comments and public opinion. They need to stay respectable to keep the ads flowing.


    Seems like some folks can’t handle the fact that people and companies can walk and chew gum at the same time: pursue profit within the confines of their ideology.
     
    My point was the MSM, in its old fat and happy years, used to be able to engage in ideological quests. Now they are desperately trying to stave off the next round of mass layoffs in the MSM, and writers of Internet native content, which is actually what counts now, never had that luxury. Any appearance of ideology is dictated by whims of the market OR consists of people who aren't getting paid.
  8. JimB says:

    For fun Steve should hop into his way back machine and show how the media triggered the LA riots in ’92. Apparently the press relentlessly hyped the story of a black teen shot by a Korean shopkeeper on ’91. This set the stage for $1billion in property damage, 57 deaths, and the big Korea Town shootout. Seemed to me like the Rodney King affair was fairly incidental to what actually happened. It was merely the match lit by the press put to the tinder which was they had been heaping up for guess what? A Presidential election year!

    If I didn’t know any better I’d say black riots are an official part of the election cycle now.

    Read More
  9. @Prof. Woland
    I might be overreaching again but I draw some parallels to the Citizen Kane brouhaha where the internet is now challenging the Newspapers and TV much the same way the movies did. I am sure that there are editors at the NYT that would like to abandon the field but they realize that if they lose their position as #1 they will never get it back. Maybe they should just give up on covering racial issues the same way some newspapers have given up their sporting or business sections. Either cover it well or don’t do it at all.

    I disagree with that. I think the New York Times would rather cover nothing but racial issues if it could. Editorially, it’s Salon but with business sense and and a sense of it’s own reputation. So the newspaper still tries to pretend it’s a conscientious, responsible gatekeeper by carrying boring stuff about Russia and the Ukraine, when really it wishes it could be race, race, RACE all day long.

    I suspect that in a few years the New York Times really will turn into Salon, but by then I doubt we’d barely notice.

    Read More
  10. Jeff W. says:
    @Lot
    Respectfully, I think you're way off base thinking that Democrats pushed Ferguson to gin up votes for the midterms.

    A better macro model of what happened is that Democrats have lost control of the media. People like David Axelrod aren't idiots, they know that black crime, and law and order issues generally, is the absolute worst thing for voters to be focused on for them. They're still, 25 years later, trying to shame Republicans over the Willie Horton ad! The Crown Heights riot caused them to lose control of the New York City Mayor's office for 20 years.

    Have you picked up a newspaper lately? They are 1/4 the size of what they used to be, and their online operations are, at best, running at breakeven. The NY Times is now thinner that my old small hometown paper was in the mid-90's. Meanwhile magazine after magazine are going bust. Their online replacements are now relentlessly competitive, running on the labor of unpaid and barely paid writers who are pressured every day to deliver more eyeballs. The NY Times isn't immune from this, they wrote about Ferguson because that's what the public demanded.

    As you've said before in the predicting outcomes context, easy cases aren't interesting, 50/50 ones are. Most police shootings are easy cases and involve thugs with long records and armed with guns. This one, at the outset, was atypical, looking more like an interesting 50/50 case: seemingly a thug and physically huge, but unarmed with no adult record. Shot not once, but shot multiple times and dead. At some point the officer knew Brown was a suspect, but when? And while nasty, the shove on the video isn't something that would even leave a bruise.

    For the people who actually run the NY Times, "police brutality" is somewhere around priority number 37, between Cambodian sweatshops and campaign finance reform. And the national democrats wish black crime issues would just disappear.

    What's happened is that the large portion of the public that is far-left and anti-white can now push their agenda without the old gatekeepers who were worried about "scaring the horses" (average suburban whites), to stop them. But this is far from a "megaphone" situation, which implies a powerful person speaking to many. Instead it is a hashtag situation, where some random anti-white loonie bird strikes a nerve with her twitter followers and the overworked, underpaid, no-fact-checkers writers in the new news media take notice and rapidly churn out clickbait.

    Here’s my explanation:

    1) Newspapers and news websites are broke and desperate.

    2) Anti-whites have some money and an agenda. Some of them will work for free, or nearly for free.

    3) Anti-white narrative gets into the media.

    It probably doesn’t take a big bribe to get newspapers to do what you want these days. A small bribe would do it, or else, “I’ll work real cheap if you let me write what I want.”

    I also believe that the Zimmerman and Brown cases were carefully chosen as cases where the courts would exonerate the white (or white Hispanic) killers. That way the outrage could be perpetuated indefinitely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I agree with everything you wrote except "carefully chosen." I think they just picked up on whatever was trending on social media. The anti-white bloc is the dumbest and poorest group in America, and as a consequence also poorly led by people who constantly embarrass themselves (like Sharpton).
  11. Lot says:
    @Svigor

    The NY Times isn’t immune from this, they wrote about Ferguson because that’s what the public demanded.
     
    Sure, that's why the NYT ruthlessly polices its comments sections. Because they're all about public opinion.

    Seems like some folks can't handle the fact that people and companies can walk and chew gum at the same time: pursue profit within the confines of their ideology.

    Sure, that’s why the NYT ruthlessly polices its comments sections. Because they’re all about public opinion.

    I don’t see the connection between blocking troll comments and public opinion. They need to stay respectable to keep the ads flowing.

    Seems like some folks can’t handle the fact that people and companies can walk and chew gum at the same time: pursue profit within the confines of their ideology.

    My point was the MSM, in its old fat and happy years, used to be able to engage in ideological quests. Now they are desperately trying to stave off the next round of mass layoffs in the MSM, and writers of Internet native content, which is actually what counts now, never had that luxury. Any appearance of ideology is dictated by whims of the market OR consists of people who aren’t getting paid.

    Read More
  12. Priss Factor [AKA "terrapin gape"] says:

    Journalism that abuses facts accusing the police of abusing facts.

    Read More
  13. TomB says:

    I don’t dispute that The Times was trying to erect a ruling narrative concerning the Ferguson matter. Nor that it endeavors to erect ruling narratives concerning any number of other issues. But I think it’s a mistake to allow an exclusive focus on this to the detriment of perceiving the Republican Right’s similar efforts, not to mention what seems to me their already entirely successful establishment of a ruling narrative concerning the Mideast and our need to immerse ourselves in its conflicts.

    It is pointed out, for instance, how the Times (and Governor Nixon, and Eric Holder and Obama no doubt) tried to keep that convenience store footage from being shown.

    Fair enough. Indeed as I said at the time this was nothing less than the attempt to preserve the racial discord that was going on at the time in a somewhat red-hot fashion by deep-sixing a piece of evidence that tended to rob what had happened of any racial explanation or basis. (I.e., showing at a minimum what mood Mr. Brown was in right before his interactions with the Officer.)

    As base as it gets, no doubt.

    But what about Mr. Bush’s fundamental lie that was equally base and yet went (and continues) to go so incredibly unexamined that it has succeeded in becoming the accepted narrative?

    I.e., his incredibly vacuous—and thus just simply and obviously intentionally dishonest—claim that we were attacked on 911 for no reason other than “who we are”?

    And then his further one, repeated time and again, linking his invasion of Iraq to 911?

    These of course form somewhat of the very founding plinth upon which our people have approved or at least not violently rejected our full-bore entry into all our wars in the Middle East, so that it isn’t even just an attempted narrative construction but a completed and successful one. Already costing thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of arab/moslem lives, and the expenditure of trillions.

    While even a mild dishonest stirring of our racial pot is a serious thing, c’mon, comparatively speaking what has transpired with Ferguson and were it will lead (probably nowhere other than a lost opportunity to reduce racial antagonisms) is of nothing when compared to the costs of Mr. Bush’s successful narrative construction, is it not?

    Especially given what seems to me to be the only reasonable outcome regarding racial relations here which is of continuing our admittedly slow path to accommodation, as opposed to the unknown future we face vis a vis the Mideast with at least its guarantee of continued long war?

    The problem isn’t with false narratives that have such opposition that their falsity prevents them from becoming accepted. The problem is with false narratives that aren’t opposed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris B
    And who pushed the mid east narrative you muppet? Bush or the same editors involved in fergusan. (clue Bush didn't get to dictate editorial policy on the NYT)
    , @ben tillman

    But what about Mr. Bush’s fundamental lie that was equally base and yet went (and continues) to go so incredibly unexamined that it has succeeded in becoming the accepted narrative?

    I.e., his incredibly vacuous—and thus just simply and obviously intentionally dishonest—claim that we were attacked on 911 for no reason other than “who we are”?

    And then his further one, repeated time and again, linking his invasion of Iraq to 911?
     
    What about these claims? The NYT, the TV networks, and the rest of the Leftist media all presented them as true. You might want to consider the possibility that your "Republican Right" is on the Left, just like their forebear Trotsky.
  14. I remember the ABC News broadcast of that day taking the same tone as the NYT. They showed the video but stressed that it was wrong of police to release it because it “enflamed tensions.” All of the people shown commenting said it was disrespectful and insulting to Brown’s memory. Even months later the identity of the person shown robbing the store in the video was still portrayed as questionable with reporters always saying that “police claim” he is Michael Brown.

    Read More
  15. Did anyone else notice how the racist writers for the NYTimes describe the man on camera robbing the convenience store as “burly” Guess they didn’t get the memo that that word is verboten when describing colored men errr I mean men of color

    Read More
  16. Lot says:
    @Jeff W.
    Here's my explanation:

    1) Newspapers and news websites are broke and desperate.

    2) Anti-whites have some money and an agenda. Some of them will work for free, or nearly for free.

    3) Anti-white narrative gets into the media.

    It probably doesn't take a big bribe to get newspapers to do what you want these days. A small bribe would do it, or else, "I'll work real cheap if you let me write what I want."

    I also believe that the Zimmerman and Brown cases were carefully chosen as cases where the courts would exonerate the white (or white Hispanic) killers. That way the outrage could be perpetuated indefinitely.

    I agree with everything you wrote except “carefully chosen.” I think they just picked up on whatever was trending on social media. The anti-white bloc is the dumbest and poorest group in America, and as a consequence also poorly led by people who constantly embarrass themselves (like Sharpton).

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The anti-white bloc is the dumbest and poorest group in America, and as a consequence also poorly led by people who constantly embarrass themselves (like Sharpton).
     
    I don't think that Harvard professors like Noel Ignatiev and Harvard alumni like Nicholas Kristof are dumb and poor. Tim Wise? I don't think so. And Morris Dees? Hardly.
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    his incredibly vacuous—and thus just simply and obviously intentionally dishonest—claim that we were attacked on 911 for no reason other than “who we are”?

    You’re being intentionally dishonest yourself there, assuming you’re not simply ignorant. The fact that you seem to think that “vacuous” means “intentionally dishonest” tends to point in the latter direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomB
    So let me get this straight:

    You really think that after 9-11, with all the ocean of briefings and memos and etc. that must have literally poured over Mssr.s Bush and Cheney from CIA and Defense and State and NSC and elsewhere as regards what happened and why, that they didn't know that bin Laden didn't attack us simply because of "who we are"?

    And you believe that they then continued so innocently saying same even after bin Laden himself wrote to us explaining his motives and offering a truce if we changed our policies?

    And you accuse me of being dishonest or ignorant?

    I'd keep being anonymous if I were you too.

  18. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    The interesting thing is that Carlos Slim increased his stake in the NYT earlier this month–which is not the behavior of a man who thinks his investment will do poorly–and 100 NYT reporters got bounced out of their jobs right before Christmas. The latter is classic ticked-off owner behavior, if you paid attention Slim’s timing. Getting axed right before Christmas is when your owner is really trying to grind his heel into your faces. Several black reporters lost their jobs. Methinks the NYT is heading for a serious makeover. I doubt that Slim, as a Mexican, has been impressed by all the ‘goody for violent blacks’ writing. Violent blacks make things miserable for Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    It's the behavior of a man who is monstrously wealthy that covets a prestige asset. The NY Times investment represents less than a fraction of his wealth. Obviously he'd like it to make money but that's probably not the driving force for him.

    Now it is the driving force for the family that controls the paper. They want the dividends.
    , @Jim
    Carlos Slim is not a Mestizo. I doubt he gives a flying fuck about Hispanics affected by rioting in American cities.

    Interestingly Hispanics never riot. I wonder why?
    , @Anon

    Getting axed right before Christmas is when your owner is really trying to grind his heel into your faces.
     
    Actually, it's probably to avoid paying bonuses. Compared to comparably-sized rivals, NYT is run like a non-profit.
    , @Anon

    I doubt that Slim, as a Mexican, has been impressed by all the ‘goody for violent blacks’ writing. Violent blacks make things miserable for Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones.
     
    Slim has non-voting shares, and as a crony-capitalist telecom monopolist who's been overcharging Mexicans for decades, he couldn't care less about Hispanic neighborhoods stateside.
  19. IBC says:

    For the people who actually run the NY Times, “police brutality” is somewhere around priority number 37, between Cambodian sweatshops and campaign finance reform. And the national democrats wish black crime issues would just disappear.

    You’re right that they don’t care that much about police brutality, they only seem to care when an incident is white on black. Watch the footage of Dillon Taylor being shot in Salt Lake City. He was an unarmed white man shot by an officer “of color” and the NYT paid almost no attention despite the timing of the incident and the details of the case.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58472404-78/taylor-cruz-hands-gill.html.csp

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection&region=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/dillon%20taylor

    But this is far from a “megaphone” situation, which implies a powerful person speaking to many. Instead it is a hashtag situation, where some random anti-white loonie bird strikes a nerve with her twitter followers and the overworked, underpaid, no-fact-checkers writers in the new news media take notice and rapidly churn out clickbait.

    Some random anti-white loonie bird like Sabrina Rubin Erdely? You’re right that there’s an artificial “what’s trending” aspect to these stories’ prominence, but what makes you think it’s coming from outside the mainstream media? In the case of Travon Martin, his name was supposedly tweeted two million times before the story was covered by the mainstream media. But how many people would have ever heard about him if the mainstream media hadn’t finally paid attention? Were they really worried about missing out?

    The NYT alone, currently has over two million subscribers (including digital), not to mention probably millions more people reading it for free. What news it chooses to print and the prominence it gives to it, really is like holding a megaphone. Not only do more people hear them, but more people in positions of power and influence. You’re right that this isn’t just one powerful person holding a megaphone. Any media outlet that people pay attention to is a megaphone. The problem is that on certain issues, regardless of the facts or lack of facts, these megaphones all blast the same faulty message.

    Read More
  20. TomB says:
    @Anonymous
    his incredibly vacuous—and thus just simply and obviously intentionally dishonest—claim that we were attacked on 911 for no reason other than “who we are”?


    You're being intentionally dishonest yourself there, assuming you're not simply ignorant. The fact that you seem to think that "vacuous" means "intentionally dishonest" tends to point in the latter direction.

    So let me get this straight:

    You really think that after 9-11, with all the ocean of briefings and memos and etc. that must have literally poured over Mssr.s Bush and Cheney from CIA and Defense and State and NSC and elsewhere as regards what happened and why, that they didn’t know that bin Laden didn’t attack us simply because of “who we are”?

    And you believe that they then continued so innocently saying same even after bin Laden himself wrote to us explaining his motives and offering a truce if we changed our policies?

    And you accuse me of being dishonest or ignorant?

    I’d keep being anonymous if I were you too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Why is it so hard for you to accept that, at least in part, it was "who we are" that did motivate the attack. One of myriad reasons why I became completely disillusioned with Ron Paul is his incessant dishonesty in pretending that al-Qaeda attacked us only because of "where we are." Then when needing a rhetorical prop to attack our foreign policy vis a vis Russia Paul turns around and claims that we are "attacking" Russia because of "who it is" not because of its foreign adventurism and conflicting geopolitical interests.


    And you know what who cares if bin Laden doesn't like that we are in the Middle East. At that time we were in the Middle East only in those places where the governments either requested or consented to our presence. Fundamentally Osama hated us for two reasons who we are and the fact that the Saudis snubbed Osama's proffered assistance to defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait.

    Never mind that who are includes the fact that we are a giant continental nation with 350 million people all who want to drive to work.
    , @Whiskey
    Right. A "truce" after killing thousands of Americans on US soil, knocking down two iconic skyscrapers, hitting the Pentagon, after previously blowing up two embassies.

    Putin would have nuked Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan out of existence, just to make his point -- attacking his nation was suicide. Sadly Bush was overcome with Christian charity when the sensible thing was Derbyshire's Rubble Does Not Make Trouble. At least nuke Afghanistan out of existence to make people afraid.

    Of course bin Laden attacked us for who we are -- that's nothing special if you read Amy Chua's "World on Fire." America is basically a global Market Dominant Minority in the face of failed Muslim peoples the world over. With movie after movie showing: people can go to the store and get cheap food that won't kill them without paying bribes past checkpoints or facing tribal militias and such. If you don't think that generates rage you haven't read your Sayyid Qutb screaming about how decadent "Its A Wonderful Life" was. Muslim peoples are a failure in every possible way, and we only reinforce how much of a failure they are -- so they hate us for that. Bush got that right if he got everything else wrong. Which he did.

    I'd take issue with the idea that the NYT pushed Ferguson all the time -- I think it came up from the bottom, with the Times, the Obama Admin, and others surprised and reacting slowly, unprepared.

    After all, had the Holder Justice Dept. been on the ball they would have seized the video and never let it come out, ever. They would have suborned witnesses and run their very own kangaroo court.

    I think rather, like the Trayvon Martin fiasco, they were caught unprepared and reacting slowly to what Black people want -- no ability of non-Blacks to either enforce the law against Blacks or defend themselves against Blacks attacking them. Basically, what Black people want is to be Edo Period Samurai, who could deal out violence to ANYONE of a lower class and status in the hierarchy without any consequence. Resistance being criminalized. It was not uncommon for Samurai to behead random peasants just to test their swords. For no other reason. And Black people want that.

    Why?

    Because Black people mostly (there is a Black class struggle between Upper Class Blacks like Holder, Obama, Charles Barkley, and the ghetto guys like the Game who came out in support of Mike Brown) feel (wrongly of course) they are the majority population and their demographic power and intimidation factor makes them the drivers of social power.

    It is easy to see why they might think this -- most ghetto Black people see only other Black people in daily life, are not very numerate, and have no real conception of the size and make up of the American population nor relative abilities and attitudes either. This is a tragedy in the making, and has been since JFK started relying on the Black vote to replace troublesome White Southerners and White working class/middle class voters.

    Democrats, the media, government, etc. have no choice but to dance with who brought them -- Black underclass voters (the Black middle/upper class is just too demographically small to have any impact voting wise). Thus the Megaphone failure.

    Again, if this were planned the video of gentle giant Mike Brown shoving a clerk to the ground during a strong-arm robbery would never have seen the light of day. It would have been locked up or destroyed by Holder's order.

    The "good news" is that the Democratic party, media, government, academia, etc. is open warfare against Police allied with Al Sharpton. This will not end well for anyone.
    , @AnAnon
    "And you believe that they then continued so innocently saying same even after bin Laden himself wrote to us explaining his motives and offering a truce if we changed our policies? " - "First I want you to convert to Islam."
  21. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Notice that the identity of the guy who was shot and killed by LAPD at Hollywood & Highland first week in Dec. hasn’t been released? He was armed with a Swiss Army knife, and within a day or two some news emerged that he portrayed I mean harassed tourists as a Scream character posing for photos. Did he just not fit the narrative so he disappeared down the memory hole?

    Read More
  22. Tom says:

    Now check CNN, the BBC etc.

    If you want an even more instructive experiment, search “white supremacy” in any of their respective search bars. The last time I checked, CNN had pages of hits for this search term.

    Now search “x supremacy” and insert any ethnicity or political group of your choice for the variable. It won’t return anything.

    The media agitation for the Ferguson and NYC unrest is just the latest, most visible campaign in their war of 1000 cuts. However, the foundation has been laid for years.

    Read More
  23. @TomB
    So let me get this straight:

    You really think that after 9-11, with all the ocean of briefings and memos and etc. that must have literally poured over Mssr.s Bush and Cheney from CIA and Defense and State and NSC and elsewhere as regards what happened and why, that they didn't know that bin Laden didn't attack us simply because of "who we are"?

    And you believe that they then continued so innocently saying same even after bin Laden himself wrote to us explaining his motives and offering a truce if we changed our policies?

    And you accuse me of being dishonest or ignorant?

    I'd keep being anonymous if I were you too.

    Why is it so hard for you to accept that, at least in part, it was “who we are” that did motivate the attack. One of myriad reasons why I became completely disillusioned with Ron Paul is his incessant dishonesty in pretending that al-Qaeda attacked us only because of “where we are.” Then when needing a rhetorical prop to attack our foreign policy vis a vis Russia Paul turns around and claims that we are “attacking” Russia because of “who it is” not because of its foreign adventurism and conflicting geopolitical interests.

    And you know what who cares if bin Laden doesn’t like that we are in the Middle East. At that time we were in the Middle East only in those places where the governments either requested or consented to our presence. Fundamentally Osama hated us for two reasons who we are and the fact that the Saudis snubbed Osama’s proffered assistance to defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait.

    Never mind that who are includes the fact that we are a giant continental nation with 350 million people all who want to drive to work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn

    Fundamentally Osama hated us for two reasons who we are and the fact that the Saudis snubbed Osama’s proffered assistance to defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait.
     
    FBI testimony before the 9-11 Commission:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
    , @Jim
    Becoming involved in Middle East conflicts was one of the most disastrous decisions this country ever made. Wise men like George Marshall and George Kennan strongly advised against such involvement but tragically their warnings were not heeded.

    A country like Japan has been totally dependent on Middle East oil for many decades but has never involved itself in the affairs of that region to the great benefit of the Japanese people.
    , @Jim
    As for Osama bin Laden attacking us because of "who we are", that assertion is utter nonsense. Osama didn't attack Japan even though the Japanese are even more different from him then we are.

    Intervention in the Middle East and involvement in the conflicts there has imposed enormous costs on the American people. The idea that these costs are necessary to preserve access to Middle East oil is false. Japan and China never got involved in the struggles of the Middle East and both have complete access to Middle East oil.
  24. Chris B says: • Website
    @TomB
    I don't dispute that The Times was trying to erect a ruling narrative concerning the Ferguson matter. Nor that it endeavors to erect ruling narratives concerning any number of other issues. But I think it's a mistake to allow an exclusive focus on this to the detriment of perceiving the Republican Right's similar efforts, not to mention what seems to me their already entirely successful establishment of a ruling narrative concerning the Mideast and our need to immerse ourselves in its conflicts.

    It is pointed out, for instance, how the Times (and Governor Nixon, and Eric Holder and Obama no doubt) tried to keep that convenience store footage from being shown.

    Fair enough. Indeed as I said at the time this was nothing less than the attempt to preserve the racial discord that was going on at the time in a somewhat red-hot fashion by deep-sixing a piece of evidence that tended to rob what had happened of any racial explanation or basis. (I.e., showing at a minimum what mood Mr. Brown was in right before his interactions with the Officer.)

    As base as it gets, no doubt.

    But what about Mr. Bush's fundamental lie that was equally base and yet went (and continues) to go so incredibly unexamined that it has succeeded in becoming the accepted narrative?

    I.e., his incredibly vacuous—and thus just simply and obviously intentionally dishonest—claim that we were attacked on 911 for no reason other than "who we are"?

    And then his further one, repeated time and again, linking his invasion of Iraq to 911?

    These of course form somewhat of the very founding plinth upon which our people have approved or at least not violently rejected our full-bore entry into all our wars in the Middle East, so that it isn't even just an attempted narrative construction but a completed and successful one. Already costing thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of arab/moslem lives, and the expenditure of trillions.

    While even a mild dishonest stirring of our racial pot is a serious thing, c'mon, comparatively speaking what has transpired with Ferguson and were it will lead (probably nowhere other than a lost opportunity to reduce racial antagonisms) is of nothing when compared to the costs of Mr. Bush's successful narrative construction, is it not?

    Especially given what seems to me to be the only reasonable outcome regarding racial relations here which is of continuing our admittedly slow path to accommodation, as opposed to the unknown future we face vis a vis the Mideast with at least its guarantee of continued long war?

    The problem isn't with false narratives that have such opposition that their falsity prevents them from becoming accepted. The problem is with false narratives that aren't opposed.

    And who pushed the mid east narrative you muppet? Bush or the same editors involved in fergusan. (clue Bush didn’t get to dictate editorial policy on the NYT)

    Read More
  25. Whiskey says: • Website
    @TomB
    So let me get this straight:

    You really think that after 9-11, with all the ocean of briefings and memos and etc. that must have literally poured over Mssr.s Bush and Cheney from CIA and Defense and State and NSC and elsewhere as regards what happened and why, that they didn't know that bin Laden didn't attack us simply because of "who we are"?

    And you believe that they then continued so innocently saying same even after bin Laden himself wrote to us explaining his motives and offering a truce if we changed our policies?

    And you accuse me of being dishonest or ignorant?

    I'd keep being anonymous if I were you too.

    Right. A “truce” after killing thousands of Americans on US soil, knocking down two iconic skyscrapers, hitting the Pentagon, after previously blowing up two embassies.

    Putin would have nuked Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan out of existence, just to make his point — attacking his nation was suicide. Sadly Bush was overcome with Christian charity when the sensible thing was Derbyshire’s Rubble Does Not Make Trouble. At least nuke Afghanistan out of existence to make people afraid.

    Of course bin Laden attacked us for who we are — that’s nothing special if you read Amy Chua’s “World on Fire.” America is basically a global Market Dominant Minority in the face of failed Muslim peoples the world over. With movie after movie showing: people can go to the store and get cheap food that won’t kill them without paying bribes past checkpoints or facing tribal militias and such. If you don’t think that generates rage you haven’t read your Sayyid Qutb screaming about how decadent “Its A Wonderful Life” was. Muslim peoples are a failure in every possible way, and we only reinforce how much of a failure they are — so they hate us for that. Bush got that right if he got everything else wrong. Which he did.

    I’d take issue with the idea that the NYT pushed Ferguson all the time — I think it came up from the bottom, with the Times, the Obama Admin, and others surprised and reacting slowly, unprepared.

    After all, had the Holder Justice Dept. been on the ball they would have seized the video and never let it come out, ever. They would have suborned witnesses and run their very own kangaroo court.

    I think rather, like the Trayvon Martin fiasco, they were caught unprepared and reacting slowly to what Black people want — no ability of non-Blacks to either enforce the law against Blacks or defend themselves against Blacks attacking them. Basically, what Black people want is to be Edo Period Samurai, who could deal out violence to ANYONE of a lower class and status in the hierarchy without any consequence. Resistance being criminalized. It was not uncommon for Samurai to behead random peasants just to test their swords. For no other reason. And Black people want that.

    Why?

    Because Black people mostly (there is a Black class struggle between Upper Class Blacks like Holder, Obama, Charles Barkley, and the ghetto guys like the Game who came out in support of Mike Brown) feel (wrongly of course) they are the majority population and their demographic power and intimidation factor makes them the drivers of social power.

    It is easy to see why they might think this — most ghetto Black people see only other Black people in daily life, are not very numerate, and have no real conception of the size and make up of the American population nor relative abilities and attitudes either. This is a tragedy in the making, and has been since JFK started relying on the Black vote to replace troublesome White Southerners and White working class/middle class voters.

    Democrats, the media, government, etc. have no choice but to dance with who brought them — Black underclass voters (the Black middle/upper class is just too demographically small to have any impact voting wise). Thus the Megaphone failure.

    Again, if this were planned the video of gentle giant Mike Brown shoving a clerk to the ground during a strong-arm robbery would never have seen the light of day. It would have been locked up or destroyed by Holder’s order.

    The “good news” is that the Democratic party, media, government, academia, etc. is open warfare against Police allied with Al Sharpton. This will not end well for anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Muslim peoples are a failure in every possible way, and we only reinforce how much of a failure they are — so they hate us for that.
     
    Too much psychoanalysis here. The fact is that the Muhammad offered the desert dwellers of Arabia a template to get the good things in life - invade the infidel's civilized lands and Allah will personally see to it that you win. And for close to a thousand years, it seemed to work. These people are cargo cultists hoping that attacking the infidel will once again trigger Allah's divine intervention.
  26. FWIW says:

    The Berkeley Missouri case is done. The Times dropped that one quickly, and after the initial headlines, realized that it was a stone cold loser. The guy had a record of violent crime, was packing, and pulled his gun on the officer. The Times dropped that one after Dec 24, one day after the shooting. They also published this: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/24/us/ap-us-killings-by-police-berkeley-glance.html?_r=0

    In addition, the New Orleans Christmas Eve mall shooting disappeared as soon as it was recognized as black on black.

    Every instance of a white cop killing a black will get enough media exposure that the narrative will take a beating, given that most of the vics will have serious criminal records or gang ties and also be armed.

    And, “Kajieme Powell, 25, was shot and killed by St. Louis city officers on Aug. 19 after he moved toward them with a knife. Each of the two officers fired six shots. Powell died at the scene.

    Police said Powell had stolen two energy drinks and a bag of doughnuts from a convenience store. They said the officers who responded to the call shot him after he acted erratically, refused to drop the steak knife and told them “Shoot me now. Kill me now.””

    I don’t really get how they had to unload 12 shots into the guy. They have a belt with all sorts of non lethal stuff — at least tase the guy first. Technically, the officers were ‘following policy’ and right .. but really. I have to wonder if in the ‘old days’ when cops carried wooden batons they wouldn’t have just given him a serious beatdown. That has a strong element of rough justice. My steak knives will barely cut a steak.

    My comments have nothing to do with the guy being black. It seems like bad (though legal) policing. Anyway .. no one wanted to make an example of Kajieme .. but the cops have 9mm’s or 45′s or whatever and I wonder if there was much left to autopsy.

    Read More
  27. Dennis Dale says: • Website

    one led by a white officer who seemed ill at ease and defensive, and the other dominated by a charismatic black officer who expressed solidarity with the crowd even as he pleaded for peace.

    My. God. As if written by children raised on West Wing reruns.

    Read More
  28. iSteveFan says:

    Never mind that who are includes the fact that we are a giant continental nation with 350 million people all who want to drive to work.

    Sam, a point of clarification. We are still just a puny nation of 320 million, but with our current immigration policies, heartily endorsed by McCrazy and company, will reach 350 million in barely the blink of an eye. And we should hit 400 million by 2050. And from there, who knows? Maybe we can compete with China and India for the title some day.

    As far as Russia, if you think they are engaged in ‘foreign adventurism’, I’d like to know your choice of vocabulary in describing us.

    Read More
  29. Jefferson says:

    “Likewise, notice how you’re hearing very little “Redskins” hoopla since Election Day. Harry Reid admitted that “Redskins” was to goose up American Indian turnout for Democrats; in reality, Indians don’t really care about that matter.”

    I read that the Republican Party did quite well in the midterm elections among voters who self identify themselves as Native American.

    Now the question is how many of those self identified Native Americans who voted for the GOP have a Caucasian phenotype ? Especially since for many tribes all it takes is as little as 1/32 Amerindian ancestry to get on the rolls.

    Read More
  30. Jefferson says:

    “I also believe that the Zimmerman and Brown cases were carefully chosen as cases where the courts would exonerate the white (or white Hispanic) killers. That way the outrage could be perpetuated indefinitely.”

    So-called “White Hispanic” George Zimmerman should go on a talk show like Maury and do a racial DNA test.

    Once the results reveal that he is Triracial, maybe The New York Times can do an article about how racially murky George Zimmerman is.

    Read More
  31. Ed says:
    @Anon
    The interesting thing is that Carlos Slim increased his stake in the NYT earlier this month--which is not the behavior of a man who thinks his investment will do poorly--and 100 NYT reporters got bounced out of their jobs right before Christmas. The latter is classic ticked-off owner behavior, if you paid attention Slim's timing. Getting axed right before Christmas is when your owner is really trying to grind his heel into your faces. Several black reporters lost their jobs. Methinks the NYT is heading for a serious makeover. I doubt that Slim, as a Mexican, has been impressed by all the 'goody for violent blacks' writing. Violent blacks make things miserable for Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones.

    It’s the behavior of a man who is monstrously wealthy that covets a prestige asset. The NY Times investment represents less than a fraction of his wealth. Obviously he’d like it to make money but that’s probably not the driving force for him.

    Now it is the driving force for the family that controls the paper. They want the dividends.

    Read More
  32. Ed says:

    I’m a digital subscriber to both the NY Times & Washington Post. Honestly I thought the Times coverage of Ferguson was suburb definitely superior than WaPo. The WaPo was dripping with bias I recall them running a story about Wilson’s background. They mentioned he went to an overwhelmingly white high school. Also since he was part of a police force that was terminated cause of racial strife was proof that he was a hopeless bigot.

    If you followed Wesley Lowery, who is biracial, on Twitter he left no doubt which side he came down on. Conversely the NY Times reporters on Twitter like Julie Boseman kept it on straight & narrow.

    It’s forgotten now but the Times came under intense criticism from Left for an article that said Mike Brown was ‘no angel’.
    In that same article there are suggestions that he was suffering from the beginning of some mental break. He told family members he was seeing angels. This was overlooked.

    As for the Times comments it depends on subject but there was a recent article on school segregation. The comments were uniformly against the pro bussing/desegregation author. The commenters cited their own history dealing with unruly black kids and not wanting to submit their children to that enviroment. The comments after an immigration article can get pretty conservative especially if it’s an editorial.

    Read More
  33. TomB says:

    @ Sam Hayson:

    Hi Sam. I guess I just respectfully disagree with your opinion that, to any significant degree, we were attacked on 911 just “because of who we are” as opposed to our policies. Now, that’s not to deny that bin Laden didn’t like our culture, but so long as that culture wasn’t in the way of his agenda why would he care?

    And then there’s the fact that he clearly didn’t like the culture of *most* of the rest of the world, and yet didn’t attack them.

    And then, again, what he himself wrote, and that offer of his.

    I mean … your position to me seems to come down to saying that there’s *no* evidence whatsoever that would change your mind, because if even the supreme, indisputable evidence to the contrary has already failed to do so, well ….

    That doesn’t strike me as being in a strong position.

    @ Chris B:

    We don’t disagree one iota. As I said, it was a matter of a false narrative being pushed, and then being unopposed.

    In no way did I mean to absolve those who’s job is to be rightful opposers such as the media, but who were in fact non-opposers nonpareil.

    I guess I could have been more clear about that, but the big point I was driving at was that it seems to me the Mideast narrative that got pushed and accepted is a bigger scandal than the NYTimes-type Ferguson scandal, which in no way minimizes the latter however.

    Read More
  34. George says:

    A mini crime mystery story:
    2 persons entered the store that specialized in selling beer and blunts to poor blacks. Later on the way home one was shot dead by police, the other has not been charged with any crime. Did the person who was shot dead rob the store that sells beer and blunts to poor blacks? If a robbery occurred, Micheal Brown and Dorian Johnson were working together, so if Johnson was not charged I would assume no robbery occurred and you are just misinterpreting the events in the video. Narrative collapse?

    Narrative collapse:
    A video of the police officer harassing (and it appears falsely arresting) a random white person pressure washing his house appeared. Mathematically if you randomly pick fights with people, even if you are a cop, you will get into a fight. Logically the person that eventually fights back will not be the nicest smallest person in the world. The person who fights back will be more like Michael Brown than Rosa Parks.

    Video shows Officer Darren Wilson in new confrontation?

    The video surfaced years after it was taken indicating that that white homeowner really hated Officer Wilson. You might think about how much that person was abused by officer Wilson to risk a lifetime of retribution from the police to get even.

    Just wondering:
    What was the “poor little Asian’s” story? Haven’t heard from him. Why? But it is nice to see VDare being more respectful of our immigrant entrepreneurs doing jobs Americans won’t like selling beer and blunts to poor blacks.

    Read More
  35. You really think that after 9-11, with all the ocean of briefings and memos and etc. that must have literally poured over Mssr.s Bush and Cheney from CIA and Defense and State and NSC and elsewhere as regards what happened and why, that they didn’t know that bin Laden didn’t attack us simply because of “who we are”?

    (1) You do agree that bin Laden and his cohort did the 9/11 attack?

    (2) Please explain why you think the 9/11 attackers did the deed. Don’t merely keep repeating, “… bin Laden didn’t attack us simply because of “who we are”.”

    Read More
  36. Jim says:
    @Anon
    The interesting thing is that Carlos Slim increased his stake in the NYT earlier this month--which is not the behavior of a man who thinks his investment will do poorly--and 100 NYT reporters got bounced out of their jobs right before Christmas. The latter is classic ticked-off owner behavior, if you paid attention Slim's timing. Getting axed right before Christmas is when your owner is really trying to grind his heel into your faces. Several black reporters lost their jobs. Methinks the NYT is heading for a serious makeover. I doubt that Slim, as a Mexican, has been impressed by all the 'goody for violent blacks' writing. Violent blacks make things miserable for Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones.

    Carlos Slim is not a Mestizo. I doubt he gives a flying fuck about Hispanics affected by rioting in American cities.

    Interestingly Hispanics never riot. I wonder why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    "Interestingly Hispanics never riot. I wonder why?"

    51% of Riot Arrests Were Latino, Study Says : Unrest: RAND analysis of court cases finds they were mostly young men. The figures are open to many interpretations, experts note.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-18/local/me-734_1_los-angeles-riots


    Actually it is not a serious riot unless the Hispanics riot.
  37. fnn says:
    @Sam Haysom
    Why is it so hard for you to accept that, at least in part, it was "who we are" that did motivate the attack. One of myriad reasons why I became completely disillusioned with Ron Paul is his incessant dishonesty in pretending that al-Qaeda attacked us only because of "where we are." Then when needing a rhetorical prop to attack our foreign policy vis a vis Russia Paul turns around and claims that we are "attacking" Russia because of "who it is" not because of its foreign adventurism and conflicting geopolitical interests.


    And you know what who cares if bin Laden doesn't like that we are in the Middle East. At that time we were in the Middle East only in those places where the governments either requested or consented to our presence. Fundamentally Osama hated us for two reasons who we are and the fact that the Saudis snubbed Osama's proffered assistance to defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait.

    Never mind that who are includes the fact that we are a giant continental nation with 350 million people all who want to drive to work.

    Fundamentally Osama hated us for two reasons who we are and the fact that the Saudis snubbed Osama’s proffered assistance to defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait.

    FBI testimony before the 9-11 Commission:

    Read More
  38. Jim says:
    @Sam Haysom
    Why is it so hard for you to accept that, at least in part, it was "who we are" that did motivate the attack. One of myriad reasons why I became completely disillusioned with Ron Paul is his incessant dishonesty in pretending that al-Qaeda attacked us only because of "where we are." Then when needing a rhetorical prop to attack our foreign policy vis a vis Russia Paul turns around and claims that we are "attacking" Russia because of "who it is" not because of its foreign adventurism and conflicting geopolitical interests.


    And you know what who cares if bin Laden doesn't like that we are in the Middle East. At that time we were in the Middle East only in those places where the governments either requested or consented to our presence. Fundamentally Osama hated us for two reasons who we are and the fact that the Saudis snubbed Osama's proffered assistance to defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait.

    Never mind that who are includes the fact that we are a giant continental nation with 350 million people all who want to drive to work.

    Becoming involved in Middle East conflicts was one of the most disastrous decisions this country ever made. Wise men like George Marshall and George Kennan strongly advised against such involvement but tragically their warnings were not heeded.

    A country like Japan has been totally dependent on Middle East oil for many decades but has never involved itself in the affairs of that region to the great benefit of the Japanese people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Is this a serious position? Japanese culture doesn't have 1/1000000th the global influence American culture does. That's why they didn't attack Japan and as the poster above succinctly quotes Osama's peace offer was you convert to Islam maybe we work something out.

    Like I said it is a little both "who we are" and "where we are" as most even-handed people are willing to admit. A certain segment of paleocons seem to want to ignore the array motivations offered by Osama and claim 9/11 is entirely because of American foreign policy and Israel.


    Moreover, George Marshall's comments on the Middle East were limited largely to objections about recognizing Israel.
    I understand that he has been co-opted by paleos as a neo-isolationist but in this context his views are completely non-germane. He died in 1959 when our "involvement" in the Middle East was very limited. Certainly he offered no objections to either the Eisenhower Doctrine or US assistance Baghdad Pact.

    As for Kennan you couldn't be more wrong. He supported the overthrow of Mossadegh and argued that should the Russians respond by invading Iran, that it would be worth starting a war to stop them. In fact Kennan went so far as to state any strategic western asset in the middle should "be militarily secured with the greatest possible despatch." His words. That's Pax Americana avant la lettre. Does the fact that Kennan could not disagree more with your take on western involvement in the Middle East change your mind? Yes he opposed the Iraq War, as did I, but he understood that American military involvement in the Middle East was imperative.
  39. Jim says:
    @Sam Haysom
    Why is it so hard for you to accept that, at least in part, it was "who we are" that did motivate the attack. One of myriad reasons why I became completely disillusioned with Ron Paul is his incessant dishonesty in pretending that al-Qaeda attacked us only because of "where we are." Then when needing a rhetorical prop to attack our foreign policy vis a vis Russia Paul turns around and claims that we are "attacking" Russia because of "who it is" not because of its foreign adventurism and conflicting geopolitical interests.


    And you know what who cares if bin Laden doesn't like that we are in the Middle East. At that time we were in the Middle East only in those places where the governments either requested or consented to our presence. Fundamentally Osama hated us for two reasons who we are and the fact that the Saudis snubbed Osama's proffered assistance to defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait.

    Never mind that who are includes the fact that we are a giant continental nation with 350 million people all who want to drive to work.

    As for Osama bin Laden attacking us because of “who we are”, that assertion is utter nonsense. Osama didn’t attack Japan even though the Japanese are even more different from him then we are.

    Intervention in the Middle East and involvement in the conflicts there has imposed enormous costs on the American people. The idea that these costs are necessary to preserve access to Middle East oil is false. Japan and China never got involved in the struggles of the Middle East and both have complete access to Middle East oil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Intervention in the Middle East and involvement in the conflicts there has imposed enormous costs on the American people.

    There were no American troops in the Near East or North Africa or Central Asia during the entire period running from 1946 to 1990 other than an air base in Turkey. We had no treaty of alliance with any government in the region other than Turkey, a brief and bloodless deployment to Beirut in 1958, and a brief (and regrettably bloody) policing deployment to Beirut in 1982-84). We sold some military equipment to this government and that government now and again and had an aid program for Israel. American aid to Israel was inconsequentially small prior to 1973. It grew contextually large during the period running from 1973 to 1984 and then went into a monotonic decline and is again contextually unimportant. We also aided various insurrectional groups fighting the Russian occupation in Afghanistan.

    For all that, we still had antagonistic relations with various Arab governments prior to 1990, because that's how they roll. There are reasons and there are excuses. Chuffering about American troops in Saudi Arabia between 1990 and 2002 (who numbered about 6200 on average in a country with a seven-digit population of expats) is an excuse.

  40. sobl says: • Website

    Here are the NY Times layoffs. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/12/8558880/new-york-times-layoffs-watch-2014

    Thanks Steve for the linking. The scary part is this is just 1 paper for 1 month. The narrative created an environment that pushed that nut in NYC to kill 2 cops in revenge. The group identification trait is strong in US blacks so it is dangerous when played with.

    Read More
  41. Hersh says:

    Is commenting on juries and grand juries a new thing in the age of Obama/Holder? I don’t recall Bush or Clinton commenting on juries. Old Bush did start the civil rights federal prosecution ball rolling with the “Rodney King” cops. Probably hurt him with his reelection effort though never a media issue. I do recall Nixon being criticized for saying something about Charles Manson.

    Read More
  42. Mr. Anon says:

    “Lot says:

    For the people who actually run the NY Times, “police brutality” is somewhere around priority number 37, between Cambodian sweatshops and campaign finance reform. And the national democrats wish black crime issues would just disappear. ”

    The Times doesn’t care about police brutality in New York, because that’s where they live, and the NYPD is their police department, keeping the streets safe for them. Police brutality (or even “police brutality”) in fly-over-land – that’s another matter – it’s a convenient stick with which to beat fly-over-people. When it is white on black, that is. White-on-white or black-on-white police brutality is of no interest to them.

    “The anti-white bloc is the dumbest and poorest group in America, and as a consequence also poorly led by people who constantly embarrass themselves (like Sharpton).”

    Al Sharpton has never embarrassed himself because he is completely devoid of shame. He should embarrass those he associates with, like the Democratic party, but apparently he does not. Evidently they are without any shame too. You make it sound as though the anti-white bloc is ineffectual. They certainly are not. That the nation’s attention can, for months at a time, be directed to worthless losers like Rodney King, Trayvon Martin, or Michael Brown proves that they are not.

    Read More
  43. Mr. Blank says:

    There are a lot of advantages in terms of self-respect to waiting until you know what you are talking about.

    This ought to be plastered up in ten-foot-high letters in every journalism school and every newsroom in the country. I can say from my own experience in journalism that making sure you’ve got all your ducks in a row before going to press always, always, always pays off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes


    There are a lot of advantages in terms of self-respect to waiting until you know what you are talking about.

     

    This ought to be plastered up in ten-foot-high letters in every journalism school and every newsroom in the country. I can say from my own experience in journalism that making sure you’ve got all your ducks in a row before going to press always, always, always pays off.

     

    I have every confidence that most reporters are confident they know what they are talking about--no plastering of ten-foot high letters will affect their attitude of arrogance, etc.
  44. AnAnon says:
    @TomB
    So let me get this straight:

    You really think that after 9-11, with all the ocean of briefings and memos and etc. that must have literally poured over Mssr.s Bush and Cheney from CIA and Defense and State and NSC and elsewhere as regards what happened and why, that they didn't know that bin Laden didn't attack us simply because of "who we are"?

    And you believe that they then continued so innocently saying same even after bin Laden himself wrote to us explaining his motives and offering a truce if we changed our policies?

    And you accuse me of being dishonest or ignorant?

    I'd keep being anonymous if I were you too.

    “And you believe that they then continued so innocently saying same even after bin Laden himself wrote to us explaining his motives and offering a truce if we changed our policies? ” – “First I want you to convert to Islam.”

    Read More
  45. @TomB
    I don't dispute that The Times was trying to erect a ruling narrative concerning the Ferguson matter. Nor that it endeavors to erect ruling narratives concerning any number of other issues. But I think it's a mistake to allow an exclusive focus on this to the detriment of perceiving the Republican Right's similar efforts, not to mention what seems to me their already entirely successful establishment of a ruling narrative concerning the Mideast and our need to immerse ourselves in its conflicts.

    It is pointed out, for instance, how the Times (and Governor Nixon, and Eric Holder and Obama no doubt) tried to keep that convenience store footage from being shown.

    Fair enough. Indeed as I said at the time this was nothing less than the attempt to preserve the racial discord that was going on at the time in a somewhat red-hot fashion by deep-sixing a piece of evidence that tended to rob what had happened of any racial explanation or basis. (I.e., showing at a minimum what mood Mr. Brown was in right before his interactions with the Officer.)

    As base as it gets, no doubt.

    But what about Mr. Bush's fundamental lie that was equally base and yet went (and continues) to go so incredibly unexamined that it has succeeded in becoming the accepted narrative?

    I.e., his incredibly vacuous—and thus just simply and obviously intentionally dishonest—claim that we were attacked on 911 for no reason other than "who we are"?

    And then his further one, repeated time and again, linking his invasion of Iraq to 911?

    These of course form somewhat of the very founding plinth upon which our people have approved or at least not violently rejected our full-bore entry into all our wars in the Middle East, so that it isn't even just an attempted narrative construction but a completed and successful one. Already costing thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of arab/moslem lives, and the expenditure of trillions.

    While even a mild dishonest stirring of our racial pot is a serious thing, c'mon, comparatively speaking what has transpired with Ferguson and were it will lead (probably nowhere other than a lost opportunity to reduce racial antagonisms) is of nothing when compared to the costs of Mr. Bush's successful narrative construction, is it not?

    Especially given what seems to me to be the only reasonable outcome regarding racial relations here which is of continuing our admittedly slow path to accommodation, as opposed to the unknown future we face vis a vis the Mideast with at least its guarantee of continued long war?

    The problem isn't with false narratives that have such opposition that their falsity prevents them from becoming accepted. The problem is with false narratives that aren't opposed.

    But what about Mr. Bush’s fundamental lie that was equally base and yet went (and continues) to go so incredibly unexamined that it has succeeded in becoming the accepted narrative?

    I.e., his incredibly vacuous—and thus just simply and obviously intentionally dishonest—claim that we were attacked on 911 for no reason other than “who we are”?

    And then his further one, repeated time and again, linking his invasion of Iraq to 911?

    What about these claims? The NYT, the TV networks, and the rest of the Leftist media all presented them as true. You might want to consider the possibility that your “Republican Right” is on the Left, just like their forebear Trotsky.

    Read More
  46. David says:

    At first, reading these cops say they don’t intend to do their jobs kind of pissed me off. But when I think about what is being asked of them, to take the blame for the chaos caused by America’s underclass, I find it difficult to blame them.

    I wonder if the cops finally saying, “No, the problem is this coddled and criminal population and if you refuse to see that, we’ll just stand on the sidelines until you beg us to drive our armored vehicles back into your freefire downtowns,” will force an adjustment realitywards in the narrative.

    http://nypost.com/2014/12/29/wary-cops-letting-minor-offenses-slide/

    I doubt Dylan would appreciate it, but I’m thinking, “And the cop’s name is used it is plain for the politicians gain while the poor black remains on the caboose of the train but it ain’t him to blame, he’s just a pawn in their game.”

    Read More
  47. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Lot
    Respectfully, I think you're way off base thinking that Democrats pushed Ferguson to gin up votes for the midterms.

    A better macro model of what happened is that Democrats have lost control of the media. People like David Axelrod aren't idiots, they know that black crime, and law and order issues generally, is the absolute worst thing for voters to be focused on for them. They're still, 25 years later, trying to shame Republicans over the Willie Horton ad! The Crown Heights riot caused them to lose control of the New York City Mayor's office for 20 years.

    Have you picked up a newspaper lately? They are 1/4 the size of what they used to be, and their online operations are, at best, running at breakeven. The NY Times is now thinner that my old small hometown paper was in the mid-90's. Meanwhile magazine after magazine are going bust. Their online replacements are now relentlessly competitive, running on the labor of unpaid and barely paid writers who are pressured every day to deliver more eyeballs. The NY Times isn't immune from this, they wrote about Ferguson because that's what the public demanded.

    As you've said before in the predicting outcomes context, easy cases aren't interesting, 50/50 ones are. Most police shootings are easy cases and involve thugs with long records and armed with guns. This one, at the outset, was atypical, looking more like an interesting 50/50 case: seemingly a thug and physically huge, but unarmed with no adult record. Shot not once, but shot multiple times and dead. At some point the officer knew Brown was a suspect, but when? And while nasty, the shove on the video isn't something that would even leave a bruise.

    For the people who actually run the NY Times, "police brutality" is somewhere around priority number 37, between Cambodian sweatshops and campaign finance reform. And the national democrats wish black crime issues would just disappear.

    What's happened is that the large portion of the public that is far-left and anti-white can now push their agenda without the old gatekeepers who were worried about "scaring the horses" (average suburban whites), to stop them. But this is far from a "megaphone" situation, which implies a powerful person speaking to many. Instead it is a hashtag situation, where some random anti-white loonie bird strikes a nerve with her twitter followers and the overworked, underpaid, no-fact-checkers writers in the new news media take notice and rapidly churn out clickbait.

    I often disagree with Steve but I think he’s spot on here.

    If what you are saying is correct, then “the Democrats” shouldn’t have had Al Sharpton in the White House 61 times. Yep, 61 ever lovin times.

    The thing about US parties is that they are ungodly top down. And if the top dog in your party is president, he rules. We really do have an elected king as president.

    Think of it. Three branches of government.

    Legislative = 535 people
    Judicial = thousands
    Executive= 1 man.

    With Obama as President, and his Sharptonized political base, I consider it absolutely plausible that “the Democrats” pushed Ferguson as a get out the vote wedge issue.

    The participation of the major media is the one that is too opaque to argue one way or the other, but gee, any fool can see that white criminals get all the ink, and black criminals don’t.

    Read More
  48. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    Steve

    For fun, could you please put up the You Tube video of Noam Chomsky talking about Ferguson and Eric Garner. Noam Chomsky goes off on a long tangent about how the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson was another White Racist attack on African Americans…and how Ferguson could easily have been turned into a wider social justice movement organized around the theme of Racist White American Society.

    It would be lots of fun to go after “The Great” Man Noam Chomsky…honestly, I think there is a Divine Edict for you to put the video up and start a discussion.

    Read More
  49. @Lot
    I agree with everything you wrote except "carefully chosen." I think they just picked up on whatever was trending on social media. The anti-white bloc is the dumbest and poorest group in America, and as a consequence also poorly led by people who constantly embarrass themselves (like Sharpton).

    The anti-white bloc is the dumbest and poorest group in America, and as a consequence also poorly led by people who constantly embarrass themselves (like Sharpton).

    I don’t think that Harvard professors like Noel Ignatiev and Harvard alumni like Nicholas Kristof are dumb and poor. Tim Wise? I don’t think so. And Morris Dees? Hardly.

    Read More
  50. George says:
    @Jim
    Carlos Slim is not a Mestizo. I doubt he gives a flying fuck about Hispanics affected by rioting in American cities.

    Interestingly Hispanics never riot. I wonder why?

    “Interestingly Hispanics never riot. I wonder why?”

    51% of Riot Arrests Were Latino, Study Says : Unrest: RAND analysis of court cases finds they were mostly young men. The figures are open to many interpretations, experts note.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-18/local/me-734_1_los-angeles-riots

    Actually it is not a serious riot unless the Hispanics riot.

    Read More
  51. Svigor says:

    I don’t see the connection between blocking troll comments and public opinion. They need to stay respectable to keep the ads flowing.

    You probably don’t see the connection between you and leftism, either. “Respectable” is the leftists’ code word for censorship.

    My point was the MSM, in its old fat and happy years, used to be able to engage in ideological quests. Now they are desperately trying to stave off the next round of mass layoffs in the MSM, and writers of Internet native content, which is actually what counts now, never had that luxury. Any appearance of ideology is dictated by whims of the market OR consists of people who aren’t getting paid.

    The better part of a century of boiling the frog doesn’t tell me much about what frogs want. It tells me a lot about what the chef wants.

    Read More
  52. iSteveFan says:

    2) Please explain why you think the 9/11 attackers did the deed. Don’t merely keep repeating, “… bin Laden didn’t attack us simply because of “who we are”.”

    Because the US was dumb enough to grant them visas and train them to fly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Because the US was dumb enough to grant them visas and train them to fly.

    They trained at private vocational schools, not at an Air Force base. Not sure what about them you fancy should have led INS officials to deny them a visa.
  53. peterike says:

    @ various folks

    In all the years of hearing the Ay-rabs attacked us “because of who we are,” why have I never seen anyone respond: “No, they attacked us because of who they are.”

    Really, it’s not even that clever of a response, it’s just utterly obvious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    In all the years of hearing the Ay-rabs attacked us “because of who we are,” why have I never seen anyone respond: “No, they attacked us because of who they are.”

    Really, it’s not even that clever of a response, it’s just utterly obvious.
     
    Completely dovetails into my comment about Muhammad's template for Arab advancement (i.e. fight the infidel and Allah will make sure you win).
  54. Camlost says:

    I thought that all NeoCons had decide to follow in lockstep with Bill O’Reilly’s mantra that Al-Qaeda attacked us “because they hate freedom.”

    These are the same people who find it unthinkable that American foreign policy (especially support for Israel) could be a root cause, as even the 9/11 commission came to this conclusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I thought that all NeoCons had decide to follow in lockstep with Bill O’Reilly’s mantra that Al-Qaeda attacked us “because they hate freedom.”
     
    It sounds less extreme (not to mention parodic, in this day and age) than the reality that they want our stuff and our women, and believe that if they get the ball rolling by fighting us, Allah will provide the divine intervention necessary for them to win. It's not that complicated.

    Al Qaeda isn't fighting to overrun Israel. It's fighting to rule the world. It's not attacking the US because we support Israel. It's attacking us because we are the last line of defense for the Gulf states that al Qaeda wants for itself as its base for a global caliphate. Until we leave, al Qaeda will have significant difficulty getting support from coup-minded military people in Gulf state governments, since Uncle Sam provides the ultimate veto - significant Gulf state bases that include a sizeable contingent of Marines to turn back any al Qaeda-sponsored coup attempt.

  55. 2) Please explain why you think the 9/11 attackers did the deed. Don’t merely keep repeating, “… bin Laden didn’t attack us simply because of “who we are”.”

    Because the US was dumb enough to grant them visas and train them to fly.

    That’s plausible. Before you clarified your opinion, I thought you were a 9/11 denialist.

    Read More
  56. 2) Please explain why you think the 9/11 attackers did the deed. Don’t merely keep repeating, “… bin Laden didn’t attack us simply because of “who we are”.”

    Because the US was dumb enough to grant them visas and train them to fly.

    That’s plausible. Before you clarified your opinion, I thought you were a 9/11 denialist.

    Read More
  57. TomB says:

    I just have to say I am boggled at the number of people who don’t believe Bush was being consciously disingenuous when he repeatedly said that we were attacked on 911 just because of “who we are.” Especially in light of his even more blatant and even more frequently repeated falsehood that the invasion of Iraq was part of “the war on terror.”

    Why in the world do people think that an Obama ought not be allowed to get away with his whopper about insurance (“if you like your policy you can keep it”) when they are so willing to grant Bush and Cheney and Co. a pass on what they were saying?

    It’s funny; elsewhere just yesterday or so here on another thread, not to mention any number of times in the past elsewhere, I’ve argued strongly against what I’ve seen as the all-too-common if not now invariable calls to impeach damn near every Executive we’ve had since Nixon. Too much civic division and rancor created, and etc., etc.

    Maybe I’m wrong though: Maybe at least one more in the wake of Nixon is worth the cost, esp. as we have no national re-call election option. One more purely on the grounds that there’s a limit to the degree to which you can blatantly lie to the people. One more to put at least a little fear of God into our Executives (and other leaders). One more to establish at least some accountability. To suggest that they do indeed work for us, and we’re not just putty to be put to work for their further careers and glory.

    Reminds me of yet another great false narrative that’s been successfully pushed (and allowed by an incestuous, corrupt media): That the greatest and most important division(s) that plague and ought to occupy us is between … races, or economic classes, or ethnicities, or ideologies.

    Whereas, just as the Founders saw, THE great, dangerous divide was between we the people and our political class.

    With the degree of how greatly we have been conned out of that realization being nowhere near shown to be so bloody obvious by what is now our common way of speaking of that class not as our most dangerous group, nor even by their strictly proper title as our “representatives,” but instead, incredibly enough, as our “leaders.”

    Enough to make one sick. No wonder our situation seems so hopeless.

    Read More
  58. @Jim
    Becoming involved in Middle East conflicts was one of the most disastrous decisions this country ever made. Wise men like George Marshall and George Kennan strongly advised against such involvement but tragically their warnings were not heeded.

    A country like Japan has been totally dependent on Middle East oil for many decades but has never involved itself in the affairs of that region to the great benefit of the Japanese people.

    Is this a serious position? Japanese culture doesn’t have 1/1000000th the global influence American culture does. That’s why they didn’t attack Japan and as the poster above succinctly quotes Osama’s peace offer was you convert to Islam maybe we work something out.

    Like I said it is a little both “who we are” and “where we are” as most even-handed people are willing to admit. A certain segment of paleocons seem to want to ignore the array motivations offered by Osama and claim 9/11 is entirely because of American foreign policy and Israel.

    Moreover, George Marshall’s comments on the Middle East were limited largely to objections about recognizing Israel.
    I understand that he has been co-opted by paleos as a neo-isolationist but in this context his views are completely non-germane. He died in 1959 when our “involvement” in the Middle East was very limited. Certainly he offered no objections to either the Eisenhower Doctrine or US assistance Baghdad Pact.

    As for Kennan you couldn’t be more wrong. He supported the overthrow of Mossadegh and argued that should the Russians respond by invading Iran, that it would be worth starting a war to stop them. In fact Kennan went so far as to state any strategic western asset in the middle should “be militarily secured with the greatest possible despatch.” His words. That’s Pax Americana avant la lettre. Does the fact that Kennan could not disagree more with your take on western involvement in the Middle East change your mind? Yes he opposed the Iraq War, as did I, but he understood that American military involvement in the Middle East was imperative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neutral
    "That’s why they didn’t attack Japan"

    You see many Japanese army bases and puppet regimes for Japan in the middle east ? Neither do I. The stupidity of the neocon ideology is truly boundless, you expect to essentially run a global empire and never once ask the question if everyone would desire this.
  59. iSteveFan says:

    Is this a serious position? Japanese culture doesn’t have 1/1000000th the global influence American culture does. That’s why they didn’t attack Japan and as the poster above succinctly quotes Osama’s peace offer was you convert to Islam maybe we work something out.

    First, I doubt that Japanese culture doesn’t have 1/1000000th the global influence American culture does. Now I might be conflating Japanese products with culture, but even if one leaves out the in-your-face proliferation of Japanese cars, electronics and other high-end manufacturing, you clearly have to acknowledge the things like sushi, Iron Chef, anime and other items that would easily exceed 1/1000000th the global influence of American culture.

    Second, part of the reason the US’ culture is so much more dominant than Japan’s is that in addition to our large economy, we also have enormous influence on the global financial system and a huge military, the de facto world cop, with bases around the world. So compared to Japan, we are in the faces of most of the world’s inhabitants, whether they want us to be or not.

    Third, it is because of this overarching presence that we probably rated a higher priority on the AQ hit list than Japan.

    Read More
  60. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    The interesting thing is that Carlos Slim increased his stake in the NYT earlier this month--which is not the behavior of a man who thinks his investment will do poorly--and 100 NYT reporters got bounced out of their jobs right before Christmas. The latter is classic ticked-off owner behavior, if you paid attention Slim's timing. Getting axed right before Christmas is when your owner is really trying to grind his heel into your faces. Several black reporters lost their jobs. Methinks the NYT is heading for a serious makeover. I doubt that Slim, as a Mexican, has been impressed by all the 'goody for violent blacks' writing. Violent blacks make things miserable for Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones.

    Getting axed right before Christmas is when your owner is really trying to grind his heel into your faces.

    Actually, it’s probably to avoid paying bonuses. Compared to comparably-sized rivals, NYT is run like a non-profit.

    Read More
  61. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    The interesting thing is that Carlos Slim increased his stake in the NYT earlier this month--which is not the behavior of a man who thinks his investment will do poorly--and 100 NYT reporters got bounced out of their jobs right before Christmas. The latter is classic ticked-off owner behavior, if you paid attention Slim's timing. Getting axed right before Christmas is when your owner is really trying to grind his heel into your faces. Several black reporters lost their jobs. Methinks the NYT is heading for a serious makeover. I doubt that Slim, as a Mexican, has been impressed by all the 'goody for violent blacks' writing. Violent blacks make things miserable for Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones.

    I doubt that Slim, as a Mexican, has been impressed by all the ‘goody for violent blacks’ writing. Violent blacks make things miserable for Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones.

    Slim has non-voting shares, and as a crony-capitalist telecom monopolist who’s been overcharging Mexicans for decades, he couldn’t care less about Hispanic neighborhoods stateside.

    Read More
  62. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Whiskey
    Right. A "truce" after killing thousands of Americans on US soil, knocking down two iconic skyscrapers, hitting the Pentagon, after previously blowing up two embassies.

    Putin would have nuked Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan out of existence, just to make his point -- attacking his nation was suicide. Sadly Bush was overcome with Christian charity when the sensible thing was Derbyshire's Rubble Does Not Make Trouble. At least nuke Afghanistan out of existence to make people afraid.

    Of course bin Laden attacked us for who we are -- that's nothing special if you read Amy Chua's "World on Fire." America is basically a global Market Dominant Minority in the face of failed Muslim peoples the world over. With movie after movie showing: people can go to the store and get cheap food that won't kill them without paying bribes past checkpoints or facing tribal militias and such. If you don't think that generates rage you haven't read your Sayyid Qutb screaming about how decadent "Its A Wonderful Life" was. Muslim peoples are a failure in every possible way, and we only reinforce how much of a failure they are -- so they hate us for that. Bush got that right if he got everything else wrong. Which he did.

    I'd take issue with the idea that the NYT pushed Ferguson all the time -- I think it came up from the bottom, with the Times, the Obama Admin, and others surprised and reacting slowly, unprepared.

    After all, had the Holder Justice Dept. been on the ball they would have seized the video and never let it come out, ever. They would have suborned witnesses and run their very own kangaroo court.

    I think rather, like the Trayvon Martin fiasco, they were caught unprepared and reacting slowly to what Black people want -- no ability of non-Blacks to either enforce the law against Blacks or defend themselves against Blacks attacking them. Basically, what Black people want is to be Edo Period Samurai, who could deal out violence to ANYONE of a lower class and status in the hierarchy without any consequence. Resistance being criminalized. It was not uncommon for Samurai to behead random peasants just to test their swords. For no other reason. And Black people want that.

    Why?

    Because Black people mostly (there is a Black class struggle between Upper Class Blacks like Holder, Obama, Charles Barkley, and the ghetto guys like the Game who came out in support of Mike Brown) feel (wrongly of course) they are the majority population and their demographic power and intimidation factor makes them the drivers of social power.

    It is easy to see why they might think this -- most ghetto Black people see only other Black people in daily life, are not very numerate, and have no real conception of the size and make up of the American population nor relative abilities and attitudes either. This is a tragedy in the making, and has been since JFK started relying on the Black vote to replace troublesome White Southerners and White working class/middle class voters.

    Democrats, the media, government, etc. have no choice but to dance with who brought them -- Black underclass voters (the Black middle/upper class is just too demographically small to have any impact voting wise). Thus the Megaphone failure.

    Again, if this were planned the video of gentle giant Mike Brown shoving a clerk to the ground during a strong-arm robbery would never have seen the light of day. It would have been locked up or destroyed by Holder's order.

    The "good news" is that the Democratic party, media, government, academia, etc. is open warfare against Police allied with Al Sharpton. This will not end well for anyone.

    Muslim peoples are a failure in every possible way, and we only reinforce how much of a failure they are — so they hate us for that.

    Too much psychoanalysis here. The fact is that the Muhammad offered the desert dwellers of Arabia a template to get the good things in life – invade the infidel’s civilized lands and Allah will personally see to it that you win. And for close to a thousand years, it seemed to work. These people are cargo cultists hoping that attacking the infidel will once again trigger Allah’s divine intervention.

    Read More
  63. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @peterike
    @ various folks

    In all the years of hearing the Ay-rabs attacked us "because of who we are," why have I never seen anyone respond: "No, they attacked us because of who they are."

    Really, it's not even that clever of a response, it's just utterly obvious.

    In all the years of hearing the Ay-rabs attacked us “because of who we are,” why have I never seen anyone respond: “No, they attacked us because of who they are.”

    Really, it’s not even that clever of a response, it’s just utterly obvious.

    Completely dovetails into my comment about Muhammad’s template for Arab advancement (i.e. fight the infidel and Allah will make sure you win).

    Read More
  64. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Camlost
    I thought that all NeoCons had decide to follow in lockstep with Bill O'Reilly's mantra that Al-Qaeda attacked us "because they hate freedom."

    These are the same people who find it unthinkable that American foreign policy (especially support for Israel) could be a root cause, as even the 9/11 commission came to this conclusion.

    I thought that all NeoCons had decide to follow in lockstep with Bill O’Reilly’s mantra that Al-Qaeda attacked us “because they hate freedom.”

    It sounds less extreme (not to mention parodic, in this day and age) than the reality that they want our stuff and our women, and believe that if they get the ball rolling by fighting us, Allah will provide the divine intervention necessary for them to win. It’s not that complicated.

    Al Qaeda isn’t fighting to overrun Israel. It’s fighting to rule the world. It’s not attacking the US because we support Israel. It’s attacking us because we are the last line of defense for the Gulf states that al Qaeda wants for itself as its base for a global caliphate. Until we leave, al Qaeda will have significant difficulty getting support from coup-minded military people in Gulf state governments, since Uncle Sam provides the ultimate veto – significant Gulf state bases that include a sizeable contingent of Marines to turn back any al Qaeda-sponsored coup attempt.

    Read More
  65. Art Deco says: • Website
    @iSteveFan
    2) Please explain why you think the 9/11 attackers did the deed. Don’t merely keep repeating, “… bin Laden didn’t attack us simply because of “who we are”.”

    Because the US was dumb enough to grant them visas and train them to fly.

    Because the US was dumb enough to grant them visas and train them to fly.

    They trained at private vocational schools, not at an Air Force base. Not sure what about them you fancy should have led INS officials to deny them a visa.

    Read More
  66. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Jim
    As for Osama bin Laden attacking us because of "who we are", that assertion is utter nonsense. Osama didn't attack Japan even though the Japanese are even more different from him then we are.

    Intervention in the Middle East and involvement in the conflicts there has imposed enormous costs on the American people. The idea that these costs are necessary to preserve access to Middle East oil is false. Japan and China never got involved in the struggles of the Middle East and both have complete access to Middle East oil.

    Intervention in the Middle East and involvement in the conflicts there has imposed enormous costs on the American people.

    There were no American troops in the Near East or North Africa or Central Asia during the entire period running from 1946 to 1990 other than an air base in Turkey. We had no treaty of alliance with any government in the region other than Turkey, a brief and bloodless deployment to Beirut in 1958, and a brief (and regrettably bloody) policing deployment to Beirut in 1982-84). We sold some military equipment to this government and that government now and again and had an aid program for Israel. American aid to Israel was inconsequentially small prior to 1973. It grew contextually large during the period running from 1973 to 1984 and then went into a monotonic decline and is again contextually unimportant. We also aided various insurrectional groups fighting the Russian occupation in Afghanistan.

    For all that, we still had antagonistic relations with various Arab governments prior to 1990, because that’s how they roll. There are reasons and there are excuses. Chuffering about American troops in Saudi Arabia between 1990 and 2002 (who numbered about 6200 on average in a country with a seven-digit population of expats) is an excuse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Not only that, but the biggest intervention in the Middle East of the immediate post-war era, the Suez Crisis, was opposed by the U.S. with deleterious reprecussions for the West. But by intervention what the paleos often times really mean is our recognition of Israel. That's the only way it makes sense to bring George Marshall into the argument.

    Art Deco I don't think its right to classify it as an excuse. I think that was genuinely Osama's motivating impulse as far as American foreign policy motivated his attacks, but the reason it angered Osama was entirely egocentric and tied to the Saudi's spurning Osama's offer of assistance. It's a silly reason, but it was I'm my estimation what truly gnawed at Osama's psyche.
  67. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Lot
    Respectfully, I think you're way off base thinking that Democrats pushed Ferguson to gin up votes for the midterms.

    A better macro model of what happened is that Democrats have lost control of the media. People like David Axelrod aren't idiots, they know that black crime, and law and order issues generally, is the absolute worst thing for voters to be focused on for them. They're still, 25 years later, trying to shame Republicans over the Willie Horton ad! The Crown Heights riot caused them to lose control of the New York City Mayor's office for 20 years.

    Have you picked up a newspaper lately? They are 1/4 the size of what they used to be, and their online operations are, at best, running at breakeven. The NY Times is now thinner that my old small hometown paper was in the mid-90's. Meanwhile magazine after magazine are going bust. Their online replacements are now relentlessly competitive, running on the labor of unpaid and barely paid writers who are pressured every day to deliver more eyeballs. The NY Times isn't immune from this, they wrote about Ferguson because that's what the public demanded.

    As you've said before in the predicting outcomes context, easy cases aren't interesting, 50/50 ones are. Most police shootings are easy cases and involve thugs with long records and armed with guns. This one, at the outset, was atypical, looking more like an interesting 50/50 case: seemingly a thug and physically huge, but unarmed with no adult record. Shot not once, but shot multiple times and dead. At some point the officer knew Brown was a suspect, but when? And while nasty, the shove on the video isn't something that would even leave a bruise.

    For the people who actually run the NY Times, "police brutality" is somewhere around priority number 37, between Cambodian sweatshops and campaign finance reform. And the national democrats wish black crime issues would just disappear.

    What's happened is that the large portion of the public that is far-left and anti-white can now push their agenda without the old gatekeepers who were worried about "scaring the horses" (average suburban whites), to stop them. But this is far from a "megaphone" situation, which implies a powerful person speaking to many. Instead it is a hashtag situation, where some random anti-white loonie bird strikes a nerve with her twitter followers and the overworked, underpaid, no-fact-checkers writers in the new news media take notice and rapidly churn out clickbait.

    they wrote about Ferguson because that’s what the public demanded.

    See Rod Dreher’s reminiscences about his time at the Dallas Morning News. Reporters and editors were stupefyingly indifferent to their own market research. Dreher suggested that the paper cover stories that might be of interest to the paper’s actual readers: disproportionately aged and disproportionately suburban. The response from his co-workers was crickets. They covered what they felt like covering. When you’re part of a duopoly and the shnooks working for your competitor think just like you, that’s what happens.

    Read More
  68. @Art Deco
    Intervention in the Middle East and involvement in the conflicts there has imposed enormous costs on the American people.

    There were no American troops in the Near East or North Africa or Central Asia during the entire period running from 1946 to 1990 other than an air base in Turkey. We had no treaty of alliance with any government in the region other than Turkey, a brief and bloodless deployment to Beirut in 1958, and a brief (and regrettably bloody) policing deployment to Beirut in 1982-84). We sold some military equipment to this government and that government now and again and had an aid program for Israel. American aid to Israel was inconsequentially small prior to 1973. It grew contextually large during the period running from 1973 to 1984 and then went into a monotonic decline and is again contextually unimportant. We also aided various insurrectional groups fighting the Russian occupation in Afghanistan.

    For all that, we still had antagonistic relations with various Arab governments prior to 1990, because that's how they roll. There are reasons and there are excuses. Chuffering about American troops in Saudi Arabia between 1990 and 2002 (who numbered about 6200 on average in a country with a seven-digit population of expats) is an excuse.

    Not only that, but the biggest intervention in the Middle East of the immediate post-war era, the Suez Crisis, was opposed by the U.S. with deleterious reprecussions for the West. But by intervention what the paleos often times really mean is our recognition of Israel. That’s the only way it makes sense to bring George Marshall into the argument.

    Art Deco I don’t think its right to classify it as an excuse. I think that was genuinely Osama’s motivating impulse as far as American foreign policy motivated his attacks, but the reason it angered Osama was entirely egocentric and tied to the Saudi’s spurning Osama’s offer of assistance. It’s a silly reason, but it was I’m my estimation what truly gnawed at Osama’s psyche.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Art Deco I don’t think its right to classify it as an excuse. I think that was genuinely Osama’s motivating impulse as far as American foreign policy motivated his attacks, but the reason it angered Osama was entirely egocentric and tied to the Saudi’s spurning Osama’s offer of assistance. It’s a silly reason, but it was I’m my estimation what truly gnawed at Osama’s psyche.
     
    Again, too complicated. Bin Laden said he had defeated the Soviet Union. Next stop? The other infidel superpower. 9/11 was the second al Qaeda WTC attack. The first one occurred in 1993*. The principal aim was probably to use it as a fund-raising and recruiting tool. If he can attack the new Rome with impunity, Allah is obviously on his side. When he was driven out of Afghanistan and started losing large numbers of men, recruits and money dried up, as the ummah figured that bin Laden was just another false prophet, since Allah had failed to ensure his victory.

    * Just as Bush leaned on the intel community to show that Iraq was about to get nukes, Clinton leaned on them to show that 1993 wasn't an al Qaeda operation. That way, he wouldn't have to launch a big operation in Afghanistan, where Ramzi Yousef was trained in an al Qaeda camp.

  69. iSteveFan says:

    @art

    They trained at private vocational schools, not at an Air Force base. Not sure what about them you fancy should have led INS officials to deny them a visa.

    First, I believe when one applies for a visa you must inform the INS of your plans. So those who attended the flying schools would have indicated that. By approving their visas, the INS was giving its blessing to training those men. This is akin to the government giving its blessing to training those men.

    Second, I believe most if not all of those men overstayed their visas. The INS should have had them removed, but didn’t.

    Third, one could reasonably argue that the INS could not have apprehended the visa offenders because there are just too many visa offenders to apprehend. This is probably true and points to the real issue of my complaint; namely too many visa and immigration slots are granted nowadays because of this notion that everyone around the world has an innate right to come to America. We give out visas like proverbial candy in comparison to contemporary nations and previous generations of our own nation.

    Would these 19 men have been granted visas in the 1930s? In the 1960s? If so, would they have been removed if they had overstayed their visas?

    Would these 19 men have been granted visas to Israel? Would they have been granted visas to China? What about Japan or South Korea?

    Read More
  70. iSteveFan says:

    There were no American troops in the Near East or North Africa or Central Asia during the entire period running from 1946 to 1990 other than an air base in Turkey. We had no treaty of alliance with any government in the region other than Turkey, a brief and bloodless deployment to Beirut in 1958, and a brief (and regrettably bloody) policing deployment to Beirut in 1982-84). We sold some military equipment to this government and that government now and again and had an aid program for Israel.

    Does the deployment of American troops constitute the only definition of becoming involved?

    Didn’t the US help engineer a coup in Iran in the 50s? That seems to be becoming involved in a middle eastern nation.

    Didn’t the US train Arab officers in the US at American bases? That seems to be becoming involved in middle eastern nations.

    The aid that you mention we provided to this government and that government now and again was also becoming involved in middle eastern nations. For every autocratic regime we supported, we became an enemy to the vanquished.

    Technically your claim about no American troops being deployed in that region from 1946 to 1990 is not true. First, that region’s seas were, and still are, essentially a US Navy private marina. Second, in 1973 US Airmen most definitely deployed to Israel. I imagine there are other examples, but these are just off the top of my head.

    Read More
  71. Mr. Anon says:

    “Art Deco says: • Website
    December 30, 2014 at 2:13 pm GMT

    There were no American troops in the Near East or North Africa or Central Asia during the entire period running from 1946 to 1990 other than an air base in Turkey. We had no treaty of alliance with any government in the region other than Turkey, a brief and bloodless deployment to Beirut in 1958, and a brief (and regrettably bloody) policing deployment to Beirut in 1982-84). We sold some military equipment to this government and that government now and again and had an aid program for Israel. American aid to Israel was inconsequentially small prior to 1973. It grew contextually large during the period running from 1973 to 1984 and then went into a monotonic decline and is again contextually unimportant. We also aided various insurrectional groups fighting the Russian occupation in Afghanistan. ”

    As usual, you are wrong. Whether it is because you are stupid or lying, I cannot tell.

    The U.S. entered into a defence pact with Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, and built a whole complex of bases there for American military personnel to occupy in the event of a threat to the Kingdom. These were the bases we made use of in the Gulf War.

    Read More
  72. Mr. Anon says:

    “Art Deco says:

    We sold some military equipment to this government and that government now and again and had an aid program for Israel. American aid to Israel was inconsequentially small prior to 1973. It grew contextually large during the period running from 1973 to 1984 and then went into a monotonic decline and is again contextually unimportant.”

    Israel’s main battle tank in the six-day war was the Sherman – an american tank. One way or another, they got them with our blessing. That is hardly inconsequential.

    And three billion a year is “contextually unimportant” (a fancy, deceitful construction by the way – just what one would expect of you)? So you’d support ending the three billion dollar a year subsidy to Israel, then? Within the context of arab opinion (and, evidently, israeli opinion) THEY don’t consider it unimportant.

    Read More
  73. Neutral says:
    @Sam Haysom
    Is this a serious position? Japanese culture doesn't have 1/1000000th the global influence American culture does. That's why they didn't attack Japan and as the poster above succinctly quotes Osama's peace offer was you convert to Islam maybe we work something out.

    Like I said it is a little both "who we are" and "where we are" as most even-handed people are willing to admit. A certain segment of paleocons seem to want to ignore the array motivations offered by Osama and claim 9/11 is entirely because of American foreign policy and Israel.


    Moreover, George Marshall's comments on the Middle East were limited largely to objections about recognizing Israel.
    I understand that he has been co-opted by paleos as a neo-isolationist but in this context his views are completely non-germane. He died in 1959 when our "involvement" in the Middle East was very limited. Certainly he offered no objections to either the Eisenhower Doctrine or US assistance Baghdad Pact.

    As for Kennan you couldn't be more wrong. He supported the overthrow of Mossadegh and argued that should the Russians respond by invading Iran, that it would be worth starting a war to stop them. In fact Kennan went so far as to state any strategic western asset in the middle should "be militarily secured with the greatest possible despatch." His words. That's Pax Americana avant la lettre. Does the fact that Kennan could not disagree more with your take on western involvement in the Middle East change your mind? Yes he opposed the Iraq War, as did I, but he understood that American military involvement in the Middle East was imperative.

    “That’s why they didn’t attack Japan”

    You see many Japanese army bases and puppet regimes for Japan in the middle east ? Neither do I. The stupidity of the neocon ideology is truly boundless, you expect to essentially run a global empire and never once ask the question if everyone would desire this.

    Read More
  74. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam Haysom
    Not only that, but the biggest intervention in the Middle East of the immediate post-war era, the Suez Crisis, was opposed by the U.S. with deleterious reprecussions for the West. But by intervention what the paleos often times really mean is our recognition of Israel. That's the only way it makes sense to bring George Marshall into the argument.

    Art Deco I don't think its right to classify it as an excuse. I think that was genuinely Osama's motivating impulse as far as American foreign policy motivated his attacks, but the reason it angered Osama was entirely egocentric and tied to the Saudi's spurning Osama's offer of assistance. It's a silly reason, but it was I'm my estimation what truly gnawed at Osama's psyche.

    Art Deco I don’t think its right to classify it as an excuse. I think that was genuinely Osama’s motivating impulse as far as American foreign policy motivated his attacks, but the reason it angered Osama was entirely egocentric and tied to the Saudi’s spurning Osama’s offer of assistance. It’s a silly reason, but it was I’m my estimation what truly gnawed at Osama’s psyche.

    Again, too complicated. Bin Laden said he had defeated the Soviet Union. Next stop? The other infidel superpower. 9/11 was the second al Qaeda WTC attack. The first one occurred in 1993*. The principal aim was probably to use it as a fund-raising and recruiting tool. If he can attack the new Rome with impunity, Allah is obviously on his side. When he was driven out of Afghanistan and started losing large numbers of men, recruits and money dried up, as the ummah figured that bin Laden was just another false prophet, since Allah had failed to ensure his victory.

    * Just as Bush leaned on the intel community to show that Iraq was about to get nukes, Clinton leaned on them to show that 1993 wasn’t an al Qaeda operation. That way, he wouldn’t have to launch a big operation in Afghanistan, where Ramzi Yousef was trained in an al Qaeda camp.

    Read More
  75. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    New York Times blasts NYPD’s ‘snarling sense of victimhood’

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/30/ny-times-blasts-nypds-snarling-sense-of-victimhood/

    Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.

    Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent — from 4,831 to 300.

    Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.

    Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau — which are part of the overall number — dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.

    Read More
  76. Forbes says:
    @Mr. Blank

    There are a lot of advantages in terms of self-respect to waiting until you know what you are talking about.
     
    This ought to be plastered up in ten-foot-high letters in every journalism school and every newsroom in the country. I can say from my own experience in journalism that making sure you've got all your ducks in a row before going to press always, always, always pays off.

    There are a lot of advantages in terms of self-respect to waiting until you know what you are talking about.

    This ought to be plastered up in ten-foot-high letters in every journalism school and every newsroom in the country. I can say from my own experience in journalism that making sure you’ve got all your ducks in a row before going to press always, always, always pays off.

    I have every confidence that most reporters are confident they know what they are talking about–no plastering of ten-foot high letters will affect their attitude of arrogance, etc.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored