New York liberal Bloomberg on anti-American roll
the arrest of Pakistani immigrant Faisal Shahzad in the Times Square bombing attempt, and without the slightest shred of evidence supporting the statement, Mayor Bloomberg told
Katie Couric on national television that he thought the bombing suspect could be a conservative who was angry over Obamacare (see video
Today, after the arrest of Shahzad in the bombing attempt, and without the slightest shred of evidence supporting the idea of such a threat, Bloomberg warned non-Muslim New Yorkers against engaging in any backlash against Muslims. According to the AP:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the arrest should not be as used as an excuse for anti-Muslim actions. “We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers,” he said….
I repeat: Before
the Pakistani Muslim Faisal Shahzad was arrested for the bombing attempt, Bloomberg invented, out of thin air, a conservative bomber bogeyman. After
the Pakistani Muslim Faisal Shahzad was arrested for the bombing attempt, Bloomberg invented, out of thin air, the threat of a conservative backlash against Muslims.
A Muslim terrorist tries to murder hundreds of New Yorkers, and the only thing on Bloomberg’s mind is fantasies of evil white conservatives.
For a knee-jerk liberal like Bloomberg, evil coming from a non-Western or non-white group cannot be admitted; the evil must be projected onto conservative whites.
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch does a good job of explaining what is offensive about Bloomberg’s comment, and what drove him to it:
Bloomberg ought to be ashamed of himself. He should be making statements about protecting Americans of all creeds, and calling the Muslim community in America to account for its tolerance of jihadists. There has never been a backlash against innocent Muslims in the U.S. It is a fiction that we only hear about when a Muslim plots mass murder of Americans. And then we hear about it endlessly, as if Muslims were the victims rather than the perpetrators.
- end of initial entry -
Paul K. writes:
Bloomberg’s comment reminds me of a spoof British newspaper headline quoted by Mark Steyn:
“Muslim Community Fears Backlash From Tomorrow’s Subway Bombing.”
Robert Spencer says, “Bloomberg ought to be ashamed of himself.” Isn’t that a silly thing to say, tantamount to saying that it’s up to moderate Muslims to police the radicals in their midst? It’s the voters who put people like Bloomberg in office that should be ashamed of themselves. Bloomberg, like most politicians, is incapable of shame.
James N. writes:
Bloomberg’s absurdities spring from the same roots as George W. Bush’s “Religion of Peace”
They both fear that the American people will act normally in response to the endless assaults by jihadis. They fear the right more than they fear jihad.
This must change.
Kathlene M. writes:
Could Bloomberg be more insane than the insanely liberal Mark Morford who wrote this bit recently at the SF Chronicle?
The Bible is more violent than the Quran. Wait, what? Really? It’s true … sort of … [T]urns out the Bible, America’s favorite misinterpreted hunk of swiped fairy tale mythology, is packed like “Saw IV” with wraths and attacks, smitings and genocides, hacked-off limbs and fiery explosions in the sky. Whereas, despite its bad rap and its rather nasty “convert-the-world” directive, the Quran’s scriptures are largely peaceful documents that’ve been hijacked and distorted by fundamentalist jackals for political purposes, to justify all sorts of bias, intolerance and violence against those they hate and fear. Sound familiar?
Soooo, liberals tell us to just ignore the Quran’s overall “nasty convert-the-world directive,” (um, note to liberals, I think that would be called “jihad”), and proclaim it a largely peaceful document. Uh-huh. But instead, liberals ask us to focus in on the Old Testament’s history of wars, sin and violence, and ignore the stories’ overall meanings, the importance of Jesus Christ and The New Testament to that history. Liberals then declare that The Bible is a more violent document than The Quran, and that the Bible incites Christians to “bias, intolerance and violence” on a par with jihadists who cry out “Allahu Akbar!” before they blow themselves up. It seems to me that liberals are the ones hijacking and distorting the Bible and Christianity for their political purposes. Why do they extend such a forgiving and tolerant stance to Muslims and The Quran, but absolutely despise Christians and The Bible?
Again, I’m reminded of the hilarious scene from “An American Carol” in which “Rosie O’Connell” appears on Bill O’Reilly’s show and says that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam” and proceeds to show a clip of radical Christian terrorists.
Ray G. in Dearbornistan writes:
Bloomberg should be ashamed of himself and the good people of New York City need to de-elect him ASAP. Our political leaders and much of the media are at war with the American people (mostly of course, White-Americans).
Robert in Nashville writes:
It is as if Mayor Bloomberg is there to tell New Yorkers that, as far as he is concerned, they are already Dihimmi and that he is there not just to remind them, but to enforce that status.
But as I consider this, I think perhaps liberalism inherently demands that a native population subjugate itself to aggressor cultures and ideologies—without any need for Islam. Didn’t he express a similar scorn when he learned Arizona citizens intended to do something to protect themselves from foreign invasion?
A common impulse at work there somewhere.
Also—well, there is one time that Spencer called it right.
All this reminds me of the DC sniper. He was profiled as almost certainly a Southern right wing redneck gun nut, angry at the government. So it turns out to be a black Muslim man and his underage partner. But the stigma of the first characterization stuck, in a strange, “Well it could have been or should have been a white Christian, Southern redneck,” so we better keep a sharp eye on them.
Same thing going on here I think. A variation of “the big lie” principle.
Tim W. writes:
All of these anti-white, anti-American, anti-Western obsessions are a form of civilizational unilateral disarmament. When it comes to military weaponry, disarmament movements are always problematic. For example, how do you verify that your rival is adhering to the treaty? But at least in such cases theoretically there’s a quid pro quo. It would be absolute suicide for one world power to disarm itself while not even expecting rival powers to do the same.
Yet we’ve unilaterally disarmed when it comes to race and culture. Whites, Christians, and the West have morally disarmed ourselves while not bothering to ask anyone else to do so. We’re thus in a position where whites feel themselves to be racist if they think of themselves as white or regard themselves as having any rights or interests as white people. And simultaneously whites feel themselves racist for opposing black, Latino, or Muslim racial pride and racial demands.
Our inattention to military matters in the two decades following WWI was hurtful, but we still rallied to win WWII. Imagine if December 1941 America had regarded it as “militarist” to maintain a strong military, and equally “militarist” to object to the Germans and Japanese maintaining strong, even violently aggressive, militaries. That’s what the West is like today in terms of protecting our culture. We’re racist for having a culture, and racist for resisting when others ram their culture down our throat. Bloomberg is but one personification of this suicidal phenomenon.
I don’t think this has ever been said so clearly before. According to liberalism, racism is wrong, and we (whites) are not supposed to be racist. But, even while we strive not to be racist ourselves, liberalism also tells us that we cannot criticize the racism of others, namely nonwhites, since that would also be racist.
But doesn’t this come down to saying that racism is not what liberalism actually objects to, but white people?
Matthew H. writes:
Your recent post “New York liberal Bloomberg on anti-American roll” suggested to me that our “leaders,” much like the hapless last Emperor of China, Henry Puyi, are locked inside a fantasy world and are utterly oblivious. The difference is that our “elite” lives in a Forbidden City of the Mind.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 04, 2010 06:40 PM | Send
The blogger Stagheath writes:
Our “public figures” can project well-crafted images of themselves for the world to see, exquisitely honed iconic expressions of what they think are appropriate responses to what they think are real problems. While that DVD is playing they can be off doing whatever it is they really enjoy. And, at the same time, they live entirely in a virtual world they create for themselves to endlessly loop their own prejudices back before their eyes.
None of this would matter if, like the emperor (or “President” Obama), they were merely powerless figureheads. The problem is that they wield real power. They can levy taxes and wage war. They can ruin a nation with their insane “laws” (how can the lawless create just laws?).
They are like a child wandering in a crowd wearing a virtual reality helmet, blasting at phantasms with a real shotgun. The real people it is their job to defend appear to them as monsters while real predators appear as victims in need of help.