Forum > General News

The Jew York Times Company, Inc. Sweating Bullets


This is the sort of stuff the long suffering White American responds to. I just posted what's below to a local forum as "Community Organizer." The usual suspects are trying to spam me off the little-used board, as usual, but I've got a few Creative "EXPAND & ADVANCE" tricks up my sleeve for them. Any readers here interested in helping and having some fun by putting up a couple of reinforcing posts? If so, just post as "guest," or as another local concerned about the loss of race and nation:

The New York Times smells blood. Unfortunately for them it's their own.  :shock:

Q: Am I the only reader of Pat's who is wondering how a half-Jew/half-asian named Marcus Epstein can be a "white supremacist?" That's a good one. :LOL:

The Distemper of the Times[size=200][/size]
By Patrick J. Buchanan
February 06, 2009

With reports circulating of its imminent demise, The New York Times
announced in January that it had found a white knight.

Sort of. For the knight in question, who already owns 6 percent of
the sinking Times and was investing $250 million in notes carrying
14 percent interest, was Carlos Slim. Reputedly the richest man in
the world, taking the title from Bill Gates in 2007, Carlos is not
so highly regarded in his own country.

In Mexico, according to Forbes, "the media and the masses long have
held a sneaking suspicion that there is something shady about Slim.
He is described as a rapacious monopolist who built his empire on
cozy ties to Mexican presidents ... ."

For this column, however, the issue is not how Carlos bought up the
Mexican telephone monopoly, but whether this Big Enchilada has
bought up Andrew Rosenthal's editorial page.

For, two weeks after Carlos' bailout cash arrived, Rosenthal's page
launched a hysterical attack on the patriots' movement that seeks
to halt the invasion of the United States from Mexico.

Targets: my sister Bay; our American Cause foundation and its
executive director, Marcus Epstein; Peter Brimelow, the author of a
seminal work on U.S. immigration, "Alien Nation"; Jim Pinkerton of
Fox News, a White House aide to Bush I; Fox's Bill O'Reilly; and
this writer.

In the Times' editorial, "Return of the Nativists," Brimelow is
said to run an "extremist Website" ( where he and I post
"musings about racial dilution and the perils facing white people."
Pinkerton was behind the "racist Willie Horton ads." Epstein holds
"white-supremacist"views. And we all are into "racialist extremism" and
"Latino-bashing," which calls to mind "the days of the
Know-Nothings and the Klan."

Racism "is all around us," wails the Times. And the nation has a
"perpetual need for vigilance," even in this new "age of Obama."

What occasioned this wilding attack? A news conference at the
National Press Club, where the Times reporter failed to show, and
release of a dry report by Epstein that contends that GOP defeats
in 2008 had nothing to do with the strong stand most Republicans
took for border security.

The Times calls the report "nonsense." But the case is open and
shut. Of 26 House Republicans who lost, Epstein found only one who
was a strong border-control candidate defeated by a pro-amnesty
Democrat. In every other GOP defeat, either the Democrat was tough
on amnesty and border security or the Republican was wimpish.

That John McCain, who led the effort to put illegal aliens on a
path to citizenship, got less than a third of the Hispanic vote
shows that being pro-amnesty does not necessarily win the Hispanic
vote. And the 70 percent of New Yorkers who rejected Eliot
Spitzer's proposal to give driver's licenses to illegals, forcing
Hillary Clinton to abandon her own governor, should tell even the
obtuse Times which way the wind is blowing.

But rather than argue with us, the Times chose to slime us as
racists and white supremacists. This is of a piece with the Times'
sliming of the Californian electorate that voted against state
recognition of homosexual marriage. To the Times, that 52-48 vote
meant "right-wing forces, led by the Mormon Church," had "enshrined
bigotry in the state's Constitution."

Both diatribes reveal much about the fall of a great newspaper and
the degeneration of a political philosophy that was once hegemonic
in America. Liberalism has hardened into an ideology, a rabid
religion that anathematizes any and all heretics.

To the Times' editorial writers, dissent from orthodoxy on illegal
aliens or gay rights can only be explained by bigotry, hatred,
racism or xenophobia in the hearts of the dissidents. To oppose the
Times' agenda on social or moral issues is ascribed to mental illness or
moral sickness.[size=150][/size] [another good one!  :LOL: ]

Yet, as these negative views on homosexual marriage and illegal
immigration remain mainstream views, the Times comes off, as it did
in Sunday's sophomoric editorial, as loathing Middle America.

In its own mind, the Times is battling heroically the forces of
hatred. Can it not, by rereading its own words, see the hatred in
its own heart?

As Christ Himself said, Andrew, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the
beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast
out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Let it be said. There is nothing wrong about Americans fighting to
preserve the culture and country they grew up in. That is what
patriotic conservatism is all about. And if the Times can
understand and support the right of native tribes like the Navajo
and Apache to preserve their unique character and culture, why this
viral hatred of those of us who wish to preserve the Western and
Christian character of America?

Why does the Times want to see our America destroyed? From what
poisoned well comes this hatred of the America we love?

Duh! What's the most notable thing Rosenthal and all those others on the Times' masthead share in common, Pat?he New York Times smells blood. Unfortunately for them it's their own.  :shock:



[0] Message Index

Go to full version