Commentary on the importance and interplay of media and identity evident in the wake of the Boston bombing.

The main theme of the leftwing jewsmedia is two-pronged:

• denigrate, pathologize and demonize Whites
• elevate, normalize and lionize the immigrant/alien/Other

“White privilege” is their inversion of this reality.

The rightwing jewsmedia considers muslims and Islamic terrorism a more serious threat than Whites.

A jewish code of silence prevails on all sides. Nobody on the leftwing calls out the jewish nature of rightwing anti-islamism. Nobody on the rightwing calls out the jewish nature of leftwing anti-Whitism.

Joan Walsh, Are the Tsarnaev brothers white?, Salon.com, 22 Apr 2013:

Our confusion about whether the Tsarnaevs are “white,” and the right wing’s determination to say they aren’t, just underscores the eternally silly project of racial categorization anyway. Race is a social construct, mainly used to establish invidious hierarchies and scapegoats. Despite the persistence of racism and white advantage, these lines are beginning to blur in our increasingly mixed, multiracial society – but right-wingers are going to police these lines as long as they can.

The main point of Sirota’s piece – which I wouldn’t have written in quite the same way – was that since white Americans tend to escape scapegoating and profiling when members of their tribe do something bad, a white Boston bomber wouldn’t trigger a destructive new wave of racial profiling, anti-Muslim agitation or generalized xenophobia. Somehow it’s hard for the right, and even for many in the media, to see white abortion-clinic bombers, or even Timothy McVeigh, as every bit as guilty of terrorism as the Tsarnaevs, if not more so.

The determination to define the Tsarnaevs as non-white, no matter what the Census Bureau says, as well as label them “enemy combatants” based on no evidence, proves that in many ways, Sirota was absolutely right.

“White privilege” is confusing. What it means to professional anti-Whites like David Sirota, Tim Wise and Joan Walsh is that only they have the moral authority to decide who is or isn’t White – for them White identity is only valid to the extent it can be used for scapegoating.

S.E. Cupp Takes Joan Walsh To Task Over Liberal Hopes That Boston Bomber Would Be White, Mediaite, Noah Rothman, 24 Apr 2013:

Cupp asked Walsh to explain why outspoken liberals were so keen to link the Boston bombing with white people and conservatism in wake of the attack. Walsh replied that incidents of prejudice and discrimination would be reduced if the bombers had turned out to be white.

“We’re spending all this brainpower trying to figure out what sort of racial, ethnic box we can put these guys into,” said Krystal Ball of the Tsarnaev brothers. “Why is that important and why is it so hard to figure them out?”

“In the end, it’s not important,” Walsh replied. “I really do think that this whole discussion shows us – you know, proves once again that race is entirely a political and social construct.”

David Sirota, Americans should expect acts of terror, Salon.com, Apr 26, 2013:

With America having killed thousands of civilians in its wars, we should be appalled by acts of terrorism — but we shouldn’t be surprised by them. We should know that violence will inevitably come from those like the Boston bombing suspect who, according to the Washington Post, “told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack.”

Noting this is not to argue that such attacks are justified or that we deserve them. It is only to reiterate what Brokaw alluded to: Namely, that blowback should be expected in this age of Permanent War and that one way to potentially avert such blowback in the future is to try to deescalate the cycle of violence.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download