* In a bizarre inversion of the Jew caricatures of previous decades, we now get blood libel aimed at white protestants. What foul people must create this sort of thing.
* Concomitant to that, the NYT had a front page editorial today, the first time it has done that in 95 years. And, back in 1920, the NYT was not a crucial domestic and international media choke point. Add to it that the cross town NYDN has essentially issued a fatwa against Wayne LaPierre.
The media/Democrats/left must really not want us to notice who did Paris and San Berdoo. If only I was more cynical, I would conclude that the doers happen to be faithful Democrat voting constituencies.
* Hey, look, they put Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik on the cover of the New Yorker! Spitting images of them.
* What fabulous cover art! A PR coup! Now I’m completely convinced that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik DIDN’T DO NUFFIN. Obviously a blonde woman and her side-part-haired male sidekick pulled off the San Bernadino massacre. I don’t need to read a single word, and I won’t believe any evidence presented to me now or in the future that contradicts this Platonically truthful magazine cover.
What visual poetry! Thank you for bringing this cover art to my attention, Steve. It has really opened my eyes.
* Let’s contextualize that cover by looking back on Steve’s 2004 essay on the Baby Gap:
The endless gun-control brouhaha, which on the surface appears to be a bitter battle between liberal and conservative whites, also features a cryptic racial angle. What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Bloods, don’t care that white liberals’ kids are in peril. Besides, in sparsely populated Republican areas, where police response times are slow and the chances of drilling an innocent bystander are slim, guns make more sense for self-defense than in the cities and suburbs.
White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks, such as the ones Michael Moore demonized in “Bowling for Columbine,” thus further enraging red-region Republicans.
* Here’s a link to the editorial in question:
Comments:
*The editorial is way over-written with “righteous fury”, “slaughter of innocents”, the ability to purchase weapons with “brutal speed” (brutal speed?)
*You will break your CTRL+F buttons looking for “Islam”, “Muslim”, “ISIS”, etc.
*Editorial calls for banning AR-15′s, like that makes a difference. In that sense, no one should have allowed that rifle to be called an “assault weapon”; it’s just a rifle that uses a relatively small round that tumbles. It is not a magic weapon. And, frankly, it’s not in the interests of our national defense to prevent Americans from having one. One can talk about magazine sizes, types of bullets, or full automatic — all three I am sure under some restrictions, but the melodrama about this particular type of rifle is absurd. The terrorists could have done an equal amount of damage with an M-14 or even an M-1.
*As for the New Yorker cover, I note that it is a white couple purchasing the weapons at the grocery store, including grenades, which should not be purchasable in any case. But, yeah, a loving married Muslim couple made a whole lot of pipe bombs. What do we do now? Ban pipe?
* I suppose there is nothing in the story about an immigration moratorium?
We really should have a picture of a gate at Ellis Island with DHS waving through terrorist types armed to the teeth.
It’s generally not considered best practice to pile weapons in a heap in a cart like that. I suppose these literati-types at The New Yorker and their readers don’t know much about such things.
Perhaps it’s best not to trouble their minds, as they seem to be rather limited and require framing the world in old narratives.
I don’t know about you, but I just can’t stand these evil white couples that keep shooting up the place. Let’s not even stop to think of the dead.
* Liberals love to mock us folks who own guns and have trained in how to use them.
Probably not too good an idea to push it beyond mockery, but the liberals just can’t seem to help themselves.
BTW, why should I have to engage in a discussion about gun control when liberals don’t want to engage in a discussion about Muslim control?
* In the early 90s, I think, I saw a guy on TV trying to debate some people calling for a ban on assault weapons. For a demonstration he picked up a 22 caliber rifle with a traditional wooden stock. He then asked if this was OK. The crowd responded “Yes”. He then spent 30 seconds unscrewing the stock from the receiver and then swapped out the wooden stock for a military-looking black one with a pistol grip. He then asked the same question, but the audience was confused. He explained it was the same weapon just with a different stock. It was a pretty good display.
* I think Steve is wrong about the motivations of the anti-gun people. Gun ownership is very important to American-Americans, aka real Americans. It’s a part of their folk tradition, like bull fighting for Spaniards or beer drinking for Germans. It’s something that sets their culture apart from all other European-derived cultures, so they tend to be proud of it. They like thinking of themselves as descendents of frontiersmen, which to a large extent they are.
I think that at the emotional level the attack on gun ownership is an attack against these people’s ethnic pride. And there’s not much more than emotion in this.
As urban crime fell and cities gentrified over the last 25 years, the anti-gun fervor did not decrease.
* White folks stocking up at Walmart for the day in the very near future when The One declares martial law and cancels next year’s election.
As to the hard-hitting speaking truth to power MFM, when do we get that investigative masterpiece about media oligarchs who have made fortunes on the backs of the immigrants in the shadows every time they make remittances, wire transfers and phone card calls. The New York Times can even stop by the corner office for an in depth interview.
* The rest of traditional America has a lot to learn from the gun rights folks.
The media has been trying to stampede the public on guns for years, in the same way they’ve stampeded the public on so many other issues. The gun rights activists have just told them to shove off, got down to organizing votes, and kicked in the prog’s teeth.
The media has never forgiven them for it, which is why we see things like the NYT front page editorial/cri de coeur/foot stamping on guns.
* Though intended to be viewed otherwise, I prefer to see this cover as a depiction of a true American couple preparing to defend themselves against the now-intensifying anti-White, anti-Western, anti-European attack — because their own government refuses to do so.
Because their own government is actually aiding and abetting the attack.
As is the New Yorker.
* It is worth noting that, in recent years, the biggest problem in keeping firearms out of the hands of madmen is not loose gun laws but HIPAA, the medical records secrecy laws. Deranged gunmen like the killers at Virginia Tech, Aurora, Co., the Washington Navy Yard, the Tucson gunman and the college student who shot up a classroom in Oregon all had one thing in common. They had seen mental health professionals shortly before they went on their rampages but that fact was concealed from the data base used to conduct a firearms background check.
Why liberals refuse to see that concealing mental illness from such a data base is the most glaring loophole in our gun laws is perplexing. No one is talking about making psychiatric records public just alerting gun dealers that a person cannot be sold a firearm without some sort of hearing to evaluate their present mental condition.
* The WaPo, in mocking the NYT being so melodramatic in today’s front page editorial, linked to the NYT’s last front page op-ed, back in June 1920. It was about how dangerous and farcical the just-nominated Republican Presidential ticket of Harding-Coolidge was.
Couldn’t have been all bad. Warren Harding might have been corrupt as all hell, but at least he signed a big immigration restriction bill in 1921. His running mate and successor signed further immigration restrictions three years later. And that helped to fuel real assimilation of white ethnic immigrants and a massive rise in the average standard of living for average people for the next half century.
Meaning NYT front page editorials don’t seem to have a good batting average.