I know, I know. The I Fucking Love Science guy had the dad who hated the Mayor for not wanting Sharia law, and so he put some ticking electronic stuff in a briefcase and brought it to school, was snarky with the cops, and got suspended because of racism, and then Google and Baraq invited him to celebrate diversity, which proves that Baraq is a Muslim in disguise and that up is down and right is left, etc. And then Baraq made the white children's cancer demonstration move so that he could visit the Congressional Black Caucus to talk about problems of racial exclusion, which inverts reality so hard it leaves nipple burns.
All very well and good, and the writing seems to be in the sky that Baraq is in fact a hypocritical lying insider Muslim mole, at least, if you look at the facts such as they are. But then, the facts such as they are continue to include Barack's weekly signing of kill orders for lots of Muslim people. So he's not so much extolling Muslim virtues as he is murdering Muslim babies, as well as Muslim teenagers, including Muslim teenagers who presumably actually know how to build IEDs and do "scientific" stuff, as opposed to taking apart clocks. But how does Adam Lanza figure into this? There are so many opportunities for satire. Like, if the cops had caught Adam on the way to school, would he have been apologized to for the ruination of his science project involving projectiles? No, of course, not, but Tamir Rice's parents didn't get invited anywhere either. So the plastic gun is worse than Michael Brown's three hundred pound charge, even when you figure in the age difference.
It's possible that this is all random, and that there is no pattern. Maybe when they wind themselves up each morning, they're not sure what they'll do or say during the day, whom they'll murder or whom they'll praise, and it's left up to Sulzberger and Cohen to rationalize everything. If Baraq were a Muslim sleeper agent, would he really be willing to kill so many Muslims? And effective, utilitarian ones, who can survive and do materially useful things, rather than C-grade taqiyya that would've passed by completely ignored without help from Jenome's ministry of schtick. He's killed more than Dubya; he might still not have reached Clinton's body count, but he's certainly piled up a mountain notorious enough in its own right.
There is actually a pattern, though: the behavior that's being encouraged here is simpering docility. The American media downplays certain kinds of racial violence, and comparatively-excessively hypes others, but at the same time, it doesn't promote candidates who promise to arrest Congress and the Board of CCA for the whole prison-state thing. So it's not just about "police state." And it simultaneously encourages both the mass murder of Arab Muslims and the immigration of Arab Muslims, so it's not just about "the spread of Islam." And it builds memorials to Michael Brown, but doesn't care at all about the astronomical levels of black-on-black violence, so it's not about "black lives."
The media/political/TWMNBN/whatever denigrates "white" and "Euro" culture, but it also massively subsidizes the traditional white European culture of meddlesome benevolence, providing unskilled upper middle class people (Numerically, a colossally disproportionate benefit of now-show salaries to women and minorities, but amply funded worthless administrative layers and redundant FIRE, STEM, and political jobs keep many millions of useless white men afloat and prominent, too) with endless HR, bureaucratic, charitable, and marketing make-work, microbreweries and sitcoms, VR basements for thirtysomething adolescents. So it's not designed to be against whites or Euros, either; it can't be a war, per se, on them.
No, what the clock-guy situation, juxtaposed alongside Obama's murders and tortures of many similar-looking young teenagers, exemplifies for us is that--at least, according to the evidence we know of--the idea is to make war on independence itself. Muslims who try to nationalize oil resources and build cultures separate from the crypto-Chosen "House of Saud," the insane Pakistani and ISIS projects established by London and Columbia, and the various petty Africom kingdoms, will be droned. By contrast, Muslims who whine and beg and socially agitate will be welcomed. White people who shoot back become infamous as villains, while white people who bleat about privilege and want to pay more in taxes are celebrated. Across every race, nation, spectrum, etc., the evidence shows the system reacting in such a way as to punish the seeking of self-generated solutions. Even in Israel, the Jews who would reject all foreign aid and stand on their own are denigrated or ignored in favor of the vast majority who prefers to whine about unfairness and victimization and beg the E.U. and the U.S. to kill all the naughty Arabs because of lampshades and typhus.
It's easy enough to say "victim culture," but what does that really mean? Is it really possible that somewhere, somehow, one person or one group is sufficiently clever to not actually feel like a victim, but only pretend to be so in order to manipulate others? Maybe for a while, but at what point do you start to believe your own story? And more so, if you were such a person/group, then you wouldn't want to encourage too many others to be victims. There has to be at least one bugbear against which to unite, and "whites," despite its remarkable staying power, is getting smaller and smaller, as first women, then the disabled, then homosexuals, then transsexuals, then tiny-quotum mixed-race people, et cetera, were carved away. Someone has to be the aggressor, and in the absence of visible ones, there're always djinn, discriminators, or witches, but that, too, only lasts so long, for the petty victim craves the heady thrill of a real honor killing.
Is it possible that, somewhere beyond the boundary of the twenty-fourth hour, all of us actually do believe, in the total privacy of even our own subconscious thoughts, that we are exactly that sorry?