I write about the things that matter to me. All opinions are my own.

Search This Blog

Friday, March 2, 2018

Attacking Pamela Geller's Kids as a Proxy for Attacking President Trump

Reprinting today's Twitter thread (March 3, 2018) as a post. Edited slightly for readability. Some links added.

I was shocked to see this article in The Daily Beast by Taylor Lorenz, who actually devoted an article to the "guilt by association" of two young women whose mother has been targeted for death for reporting on terrorism

For those of you who have not read the article, let's examine some of its central claims.
"GirlWithNoJob, JackieOProblems, and the rest of the Instagram-famous family have gone to great lengths to conceal the identity of their Islamophobic mother."
 This appears to be accurate.

The author demonstrated that Pamela Geller's kids don't associate themselves with her publicly. And Pamela Geller can reasonably be described as Islamophobic, meaning she is afraid of Muslims. (The word "phobia" means "a fear of," not "racist" or "hater".)

Let's start with the first issue. Why the public distance from mom?

There are many reasons I can think of.
I completely understand where the Oshry sisters are coming from. At a very minimum, they need their space; at maximum, they are walking targets.

I don't think it's worth examining whether the Oshry sisters' political views are genuinely held. They have a right to their views, and the McCarthy era was a terrible time. 


Ivanka Trump should not answer for her dad.

I don't agree that Lorenz should be bullied or doxxed (her personal information revealed) in the same vicious way as she targeted these young women. Even though she appears to relish every blow she has caused to their career.

‏I imagine it would be easy enough to go through all of Lorenz's statements over the years, her friends and her family and all of her associations, pick stuff out that makes her look bad, and broadcast it. But that would be hate, and not journalism, and it's wrong.

‏What we need to do is examine the second issue, the one people seem to be avoiding: Is Pamela Geller a hater of the Muslim faith or of Muslim people? (Note that hate is different than fear.)

As we do this, we keep in mind that:
Maybe we should fire all the comedians. They make a lot of jokes that could be perceived as offensive, do they not? Humor is frequently based on superficial things like skin color, gender, and age.‏

Is President Trump a racist? A lot of people seem to think so. (Author's note: He denies it.) Again, I don't see any evidence of that. I do see a lot of words strung together: "demagogue fascist p***y-grabbing...." (Those people seem to get all the check marks.)

Of course there is such a thing as real racism, and I definitely know what it is, being Jewish and all. But common sense would dictate the following: Facts are not racist.

When a Jew does something bad, it is not racist to report it.

When a Jew wearing very religious garb does something bad, it is not racist to report that the Jewish person who did the bad thing espouses Orthodox Judaism.

In just the same way, a well-known Christian who professes to be religious, but who violates the tenets of their faith, will absolutely be called out on that, and doing so is not "racist" or "hateful" or "anti-religious" or any of those things. It is simply reporting fact.

I cannot tell you how many times anti-abuse Jewish activists were called "haters"(author's note - or the equivalent) by other Jewish people over the years, simply by calling out pedophiles.

We now arrive at the central question of Lorenz's article for The Daily Beast: Is Geller a racist, by the actual definition of racism, which for our purposes means hatred of Islam (a religion, not a race). 

We should examine this question about Geller dispassionately, because it has larger implications. To wit: 
  • If she is telling the truth, and we call her a racist for doing so, then truth-telling has become a racist act in our country.
  • ‏If she has an opinion "we" don't like, and we call her a racist because of this, then having an opinion of your own has become a racist act in our country.
Let's go to the Geller Report. (Other links: Book | Breitbart | Huffington Post | Wikipedia | Southern Poverty Law Center

Let's have a look around. Which of these headlines is racist?  Are any of them untrue or misleading? Which of them present a perspective that reflects hate?

‏These stories focus more specifically on Geller's belief that extremist Muslims are waging a religious war against the West in order to conquer it. Which of them are racist - meaning untrue or misleading or deliberately skewed so as to stir up hate?

‏Meet Mohammad Tawhidi, a.k.a. @Imamofpeace, a vocal opponent of radical Islamic extremists. Is he a racist? Is he a Muslim-hater?

Meet Omar Saif Ghobash, author of "Letters to a Young Muslim." He is a Muslim calling out Muslim clerics who preach violence from the mosques.

Is he a hater? Is Omar Saif Ghobash a racist against his own people?

There is in fact an entire discourse around the concept of Muslim reform.  Is that discussion racist? Colonialist? Wrong?

I don't have a problem with journalism.

I do have a problem with people who don't seem to know the difference between "facts," "opinions," and "racism."

An even bigger problem with people who claim to be altruistic, but don't give a damn about other people.

As others have noted -- and this would be a whole other thread -- what we know of as radical Islamic terrorism is facilitated, at least in part, by cynical, and yes, racist, White Westerners who use brown bodies to fight their wars for oil.

‏It is patently obvious that the West, in exploiting the good people of Islam, bears responsibility for the terror epidemic that has arisen as a result.

‏I would argue that Geller is nothing more than an aggregator of the facts. And that the facts paint a very disturbing picture.

Of people paid, trained, and used to fight wars that have nothing to do with them.

Of the few, as in every culture, profiting off the many.

‏I wonder if Taylor Lorenz will talk about this: Hillary Clinton - perhaps the most racist person I know, when it comes to physical aggression against brown bodies -- has a daughter on the board of IAC, which owns The Daily Beast.

‏Chelsea Clinton is financially tied to her mother. Wikileaks emails show that her lavish wedding was funded by the disgraced, corrupt Clinton Foundation.

‏Chelsea Clinton is also reputationally tied to both her mother and her father. And as such, it makes sense that she would use her influence at The Daily Beast to encourage editorially biased articles.

‏Who can forget this article by Jennings Brown for The Daily Beast, a "hit job" about David Seaman?

Who is David Seaman, you ask? 

As it turns out, during the 2016 campaign, David Seaman wrote an article published in (then yanked from) The Huffington Post questioning the state of Hillary Clinton's health. 

Seaman also spent a significant amount of time analyzing the Wikileaks emails, in particular those emails which suggested that John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager and a longtime Clinton associate, could be a pedophile.

As it happens, Seaman has been permanently banned both from Twitter and from YouTube.

You can watch his videos on bitchute now.

It seems to me that the Taylor Lorenz article is more honestly viewed not as an attempt to stop the spread of racism in our country -- which is a laudable and important goal -- but rather as an attempt to silence certain political views under the guise of fighting racism.

‏Just like CNN, MSNBC, Vice, Fox News, and many other media outlets, The Daily Beast claims to report the news objectively, but the truth is that it focuses only on one side of the story so as to school the reader in a certain view of the world. A view that serves the Clintons.

‏Where the The Daily Beast is concerned, this statement may not even go far enough.

It is possible that Chelsea Clinton's influence guarantees they are weaponized to attack President Trump in particular.

Just because Hillary lost.

In fact, the whole purpose of the Lorenz article is to attack Geller as a strong Trump supporter
"one family member in particular....their mother, the anti-Islam activist, hate-monger, and diehard Trump supporter Pamela Geller."
‏Payback. 

Remember when Valerie Jarrett said this? (The source is anonymous and disputed, but I followed that particular source for years and believe it. Judge for yourself.) 

‏Payback. 

Remember when John Podesta said this? Who murdered Seth Rich?

‏Like many of you, I alerted the Secret Service when Podesta recently said this, too.

‏In Hillary Clinton's world, facts do not make a difference. She has been very clear on that point. ‏In Hillary Clinton's world, the only thing that matters is power. 

In the words of her mentor, Saul Alinsky: "If the ends don't justify the means, what does?"

‏Alinsky taught Hillary to viciously attack individuals, to hurt them personally, to do anything necessary so as to attain power. 

‏It is in this context that we can understand Taylor Lorenz, a "useful idiot" for the Clintons, who to say nice things while doing some very bad ones - to white people, brown people, Jewish people, Muslim people, in fact anyone who serves their needs.

Fortunately for us, Hillary Clinton is not a very intelligent woman. Unfortunately however, her political and financial resources remain vast.

To President Trump I ask only this: How long will it take before you finally lock her up?
__________
Copyright 2017 by Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are Dr. Blumenthal's own. This post is hereby released into the public domain. Photo source: Screenshot from "Pam Geller Answers Trump Slam By Invoking Rosa Parks," a Youtube video by The Young Turks (May 5, 2015).