New York Times Bid To Make Obama Genuflect More?

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 13 April 2008 17:32.

Men in the prime of their working lives are now less likely to have jobs than they were during all but one recession of the last 60 years… The government breaks down the figures by race, and those figures show that over the last year almost all the jobs lost by men in the 25 to 54 age group have been lost by whites[emphasis JAB], with most of those losses affecting men ages 35 to 44.

The second sentence above was relegated to the end of the article.

Now we all know, from reading many articles about it in VDARE over the years, that this is old news.

The question for us to ask ourselves about the New York Times is “Why now?”

The most obvious answer is that in the absence of a “terrorist attack” on the US, Obama looks likely to be the next President and is cutting deals now to lock in that victory.

Might the New York Times authorities be saying to the next President: “See what we could do if we just changed the order of these paragraphs?”

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by 2R on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:36 | #

This is an excellent observation Mr. Bowery. There’s been some concern in the Hebrew power structure whether Obama is a good goy who will obey his Hebrew masters. This article appears to be telling the Obama people that insolence from Obama regarding Israel might carry an opportunity cost which includes pointing out “news” that may be of interest to white men. Be on the look-out for Alan Dershowitz suddenly becoming concerned about black on white rape.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:40 | #

I’m voting for Obama. A black man in office when the economic shit really hits the fan will provide priceless propaganda opportunities.

Posted by Top on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:48 | #

I’ve noticed that something is going on in the English-sphere MSM these days. It started in Britain where mainstream newspapers have become neutral and sometime even almost pro native British in some of their commentary. US newspapers aren’t nearly is blantly anti-white as they used to be. And even in multicultural Canada things are changing a little bit.

I was a local Wendys eating a hamburger, flipping through the local rag called the Ottawa Sun which bills itself to be conservative, but in the past has always sides with a multi-cultural agenda when it came down to it (albeit not as strongly as other newspapers.) I am casually scanning the articles when I start reading an article by Pat MacAdam in one of the main pages of the editorial section. 80% of the article is about Muslims, terrorism, and the problems this creates - but to my surprise it doesn’t try to balance things out it is just plain critical of Muslims in Europe. But that wasn’t too shocking. What made me almost choke on my hamburger is the following passage, which comes out of the blue and is totally unrelated to the Muslim discussion before it:

“Forty years ago British Shadow Cabinet member, Enoch Powell, was sacked for his “rivers of blood” speech in Birmingham. Powell warned Britons of the dangers of allowing too many Commonwealth immigrants.

Powell received 43,000 letters and 700 telegrams of support and 800 letters and four telegrams opposed. The battle cry was: “Back Britain—not Black Britain”.

Today, inner city residents say: “Enoch was right” or “Come back, Enoch Powell, we should have listened”.

A Gallup Poll indicated 74% agreed with him and 15% disagreed.

When Janet and I lived in London, 82% of violent crimes on the “Tube”—the subway—were committed by 4% of the population—all immigrants from African countries.

Last week I was in a west-end produce store. When I looked about I saw myself as a visible minority. I didn’t like the feeling one bit. “

Full article:
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/MacAdam_Pat/2008/04/12/5270266-sun.html

Seriously… what is going on? 10 years ago the above passage would have been unthinkable in any MSM outlet. But today I see more and more of this. There is no doubt in mind that pro-white anti-race-replacement forces have won the discusison on the Internet. Is this line of thinking finally propagating to MSM? Or have the MSM Jewish owners decided to go with a new strategy on race relations? Or have they lost some degree of control over the local pawns in MSM? Or have we reached a point where whites are going to start taking more and more risks because they sense the end-game?

Something is changing…

Posted by D.E. Johnson on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:53 | #

If Powell and roughly 50,000 vocal adherents were able to predict the eventual outcome of the perverse immigration policies of their day, then there is no reason to presume that the instigators and promoters of such policies were ignorant of it. In anticipation of the results feared by Powell and others - and known to be inevitable - a police state was built where none had existed before. The MSM all the while promoted multicult and smeared Powell and all similar people. Eventually, the police state was justified as being necessary because of terrorism of a very different sort than the one actually threatening us. And so we have arrived at the point of being mystified by the MSM’s apparent change of direction on the matter.

It is no coincidence. The very people who initiated and supported those vile immigration policies, and besmirched and imprisoned those opposed to them, also hold control of the MSM, and it does their bidding even today. Those people intend to ride to their perceived destiny on the shoulders of the truly oppressed and dispossessed, who will be convinced by the MSM that they are doing the right thing. Yesterday’s villains will become tomorrow’s heroes, almost magically. Hardly anyone will notice.

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:01 | #

Something is changing…

I’ve felt that for some time and that my own actions and opinions are almost being directed for me by the Zeitgeist. There’s a lot going on in the collective white unconscious and has been for some time: I was struck by the Union Jacks during the World Cup in 2002.

Posted by haramzada on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:09 | #

So…..Union Jacks at the Cup = White Revolution?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:19 | #

Yes, haramzada. Your “Day of the Rope” has already come and gone and you’re still “boots on the ground”. Happy?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:26 | #

Top,

And what about this article by Barbara Kay in the National Post.

Posted by Robert Reis on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:53 | #

Barbara Kay’s article tells us that the Jews who rule Canada are running scared of the Islamic juggernaut they imposed on Canuckistan.

She does not mention Ignatiev’s fame as a warrior against whiteness.

Cheers,

RER

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:04 | #

It may be spring, but there’s still a real chill in the air in the Great (no longer so ) White North.

Warman’s suit would censor the conservative blogosphere

Warman’s not just suing me [Levant]. He’s suing some of the biggest names in the Canadian blogosphere – from Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals to Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury (or, Five Feet of Furry, as the lawsuit says on page 2), to Free Dominion, the largest conservative chat site in Canada. Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative Internet. It’s not just his goal – it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet – or at least those voices they disagree with. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the CJC was bankrolling Warman’s lawsuit – they’ve done joint legal work together before, and Warman’s number one defender is on the CJC’s legal committee. The CJC hates conservatives, and this would be a way for them to do damage to the conservative blogosphere without taking the political flak for it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:11 | #

In Canadian law, Warman does not actually need to prove damage to reputation…

...In a defamation action, a plaintiff need only prove the following:

(a) the statement referred to the plaintiff;

(b) the statement was published (i.e., was communicated to third parties); and

(c) the statement is defamatory - which is to say it would tend to discredit or lower the reputation of an individual in the eyes of the community; certain types of statements (e.g., of illegal activities or professional misconduct) are presumptively defamatory.

That’s it. In a libel action (i.e., defamation by means of written word), the plaintiff does not need to demonstrate actual damage to his or her reputation. It is not a defence to a libel action that no damage to reputation was caused.

Broadly speaking, the only defences to a defamation action (where the plaintiff has proved their required elements), are: truth; consent (i.e., the plaintiff authorized the publication); privilege (only applicable in certain limited circumstances and certainly not in the cases we’re thinking of); and “fair comment” - but fair comment, in order to be successful, must be based on an underlying truth.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:43 | #

I don’t get the conclusion of D.E. Johnson’s comment — the final three sentences. I don’t get the point he’s making there. (I’m curious because everything before that was magnificent.) D.E., if you explain yourself and must refer to the Jews, use my little trick of putting a blank underline where “Jews” would ordinarily go, preceded by “fill in the blank,” thus: “The people who wrote the Bible were the (fill in the blank) _____ .” Something like that. In that way others can’t accuse you of dwelling excessively on the (fill in the blank) _____ .

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:15 | #