Friday, July 08, 2016

The Stupidity of Statements + SM Review-Preview 51

Why does America need to hear the president make a statement on a cop shooting that the media selects to spotlight? Is it a special need since our president is black? Is this why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton disliked Obama? He was going to steal their role as President of Black America. His statement of course was before facts were known, but I did notice that he shifted the lines to say this was an issue for all Americans, not just blacks.


Obama stepped into it though way back, way way back, when he decided to comment on Henry Louis Gates' arrest. Obama called that stupid despite not knowing the full facts, and here we are years later, hearing him spout off on every brush up the media shoves in our face. This takes the obvious Left race narrative and places it into the symbol of authority (the president) on television. For the system, he was a perfect selection to aggravate racial and ethnic tensions rather than be the post-racial healer.


It is horrible that traffic stops turn into shootings. We have seen it both from cops shooting crooks and crooks shooting cops. It is horrible to have snipers taking pot shots at police ordered to protect a march. It is completely irresponsible to have symbolic figures trying to score political points, especially when one such figure is a bizarre vessel of hope for a class of people that eats up the Left's message like syrup.


The media and its symbols do not care. This is going to get worse.


-----------------------
Last week I covered how the State Dept tried to end Vietnam in '63. State was all set to hand Vietnam to the commies, but the Pentagon did not cooperate. Red Empire thought they were in a fair fight. Nope. Weimerica Weekly covered the Ferguson Effect, and might be the most perfectly timed podcast I have done so far.


This week should cover the kingdom Robert Moses created and Weimerica Weekly will tackle the normalization of sex work. Many of you sent me the Vanity Fair article on the casual approach to sex work of many women.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Regarding your upcoming Weimerica Weekly, I currently see three girls a month through these services. I never considered going this route until I discovered that many of my colleagues (managers, directors, Vice Presidents, etc.) have such arrangements. A lot of these guys are divorced, have busy schedules, and of course lots of cash. In the past, it would have been affairs with secretaries but these men dare not do so due to sexual harassment laws. So it's nothing new.

NZT said...

Great point about Obama. He's really done a lot to turn the presidency into being Celebrity-in-Chief, where he has to comment about every little ginned-up media controversy (or celebrity death, or tranny coming-out, or whatever) in that droning faux-paternal tone of voice. In a sane country the POTUS would not be commenting on local police blotter items, even if the media tries to blow them up.

@Anonymous: You do realize there are more options than just banging your secretary or paying whores, right? The point of WW is that all kinds of degeneracy is being rapidly normalized, often in ways that mirror Weimar. You're supporting SoBL's thesis with your comment that you have lots of colleagues who pay for sex; not long ago that was considered a shady, shameful thing to do for both parties involved, but now between internet-enabled discretion and collapsing sexual morality it's becoming NBD for a cute co-ed to earn extra cash fucking bankers/lawyers/athletes, never mind the effect on her ability to intimately bond with a future husband. That's Weimerica for you.