Tag Archives: debbie wasserman schultz

Decoding the Racial Political Discourse

During a discussion on MSNBC’s The Cycle concerning Mitt Romney‘s assertion that President Obama should “take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago”, Touré, the program’s co-host and designated angry black man, got angry:

“That really bothered me,” he said. “You notice [Romney] said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.”

“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’” Touré said to the apparent shock of his co-panelists. “You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Naturally this led to a battle between Touré and conservative co-host S.E. Cupp. She took particular issue with the fact that Touré admitted that VP Joe Biden‘s “chains” comments were divisive, but is now calling Romney a “racist” for saying the Obama campaign is “angry.”

“Do you see how dishonest that is?” she asked.

Touré denied calling anyone a racist, which prompted Cupp to say, “Certainly you were implying that Mitt Romney and the base will respond to this dog-whistle, racially-charged coding, and hate Obama, the angry black man?”

“Absolutely,” he replied.

“That’s so irresponsible,” Cupp answered back.

“This is not a revolutionary comment,” Touré later said. “This is a constituency all-white party that rejects the black vote.”

Indeed, anti-White rhetoric in media and politics is a long-term trend. Touré’s comments call to mind Cassandra Jackson’s Huffington post article from June, Why the War on Affordable Health Care is a War on Blacks and Latinos, which I discussed in a podcast titled Guilt-Tripping.

Niggerization, if the term has any meaningful sense, describes a political environment such as we have today, whereby race-conscious blacks like Touré freely project their own racial fears and animosities onto hopelessly deracinated Whites like Romney. This niggerization was preceeded and is enabled by judaization, whereby race-conscious jews lecture and lord over deracinated Whites. For example, in faulting the Republican party for being too White, Touré is simply aping the attitudes and tactics of race-conscious jews. As Harold Meyerson wrote in 2008:

Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz reiterated the point in January:

There is a reason that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, because the natural home, politically on major issues to Hispanics, to women, to Jews, to Asian-Americans, the diverse spectrum — to African Americans.

The entire spectrum of diversity is comfortable in the Democratic Party because we stand up for the issues that matter to those communities and Republicans shun them.

Non-Whites who participate in the discourse hosted by the thoroughly judaized corporate media are expected to wear their racial identity on their sleeve and regularly present their race-based grievances against Whites. Any White who might respond from a perspective explicitly favorable to Whites has already been excluded or removed. The deracinated Whites who remain can only sputter helplessly about how “divisive” and “irresponsible” their unrestrained racial antagonists are, the pretense being, despite constant reminders otherwise, that the only responsible divide is ideological.

The most notorious icons of Whiteness – Romney, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity – are strictly judeo-conservative, afforded their limelight only so long as they profess love and respect for jews and Israel. Tellingly, it is these deracinated, pro-jew Whites who are most often identified as “nazis”, accused of using dog-whistles to appeal to Whites, while secretly hating jews.

What we see here are the reality-inverting, guilt-tripping tactics I referred to in my discussion of Jackson. Non-Whites are using the jewish playbook, passively-aggressively accusing Whites of sneakily conspiring to stereotype, scapegoat, and even war on them. One clear marker is how they unapologetically assert their Otherness even as they pathologize and demonize Whites for noticing. It taps into decades of cultural marxism and anti-White propaganda, and is ultimately based on a centuries-old jewish blame-shifting narrative that put Whites on the defensive back when blacks were still in chains.

The simple fact is that non-Whites are waging and currently winning a war against Whites. It is a war the vast majority of Whites will not think or speak of, much less fight. The more Whites concede, the more non-Whites demand. Their chauvinists fight more or less openly for the interests of their people, allying with each other against Whites. All Whites get in the judaized, niggerized mainstream is indirect, ineffective code-speak.

A Disagreement About Who is Firstest

The video above is part of a CNSNews article, DNC Chair: Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration ‘Should be a Crime’, 31 May 2011. It quotes Wasserman Schultz spouting the usual apologia in favor of genocidal levels of immigration into the US:

“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity,” she said. “And that it would be harmful–the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”

12 million? The backbone of our economy? The Republican solution is arresting them all? Political views don’t get much more detached from reality than this. And this is not some random US congresswoman. Wasserman Schultz leads one of the two major political parties.

The second half of the video starts with a question about a disagreement at a meeting which took place a few days earlier. Note that this question triggers a far more impassioned response:

Question: The Republican Jewish Coalition head was reported in the New York Times – Matt Brooks is saying that you were proposing a gag order on this subject.

Wasserman Schultz: Ha ha, yeah, well, uh, you know I take… one of the most tremendous sources of pride for me is that I am the first jewish woman to represent the state of Florida in Congress. And, ah, another tremendous source of pride for me is that I am a pro-Israel jewish member of Congress and I proudly support a president that is pro-Israel. Um. What I think is unfortunate and what I suggested, along with others, including members of the Republican Jewish Coalition that are not the executive director of that organization, um, is that we need to make sure, like AIPAC pushes for, like Jewish Federation pushes for, like ADL and every major jewish organization pushes for in this country, we need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue. And that’s what we talked about in that meeting.

The meeting was a bipartisan jewish affair regarding jewish interests. Jewish GOP official blasts DWS, Politico, 24 May 2011:

The top official at a Republican Jewish group blasted Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for an “unprecedented and inappropriate” effort to quell partisan debate over Israel in a private meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday at which both were present.

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks clashed with Wasserman Schultz, as I reported yesterday, after Wasserman Schultz called for partisan unity on matters of Israel policy and Brooks – whose group had criticized her for speaking before the liberal group J Street – responded that he reserved the right to attack Democrats who stray from a hawkish pro-Israel line.

Another take on the interview and the disagreement – DNC chair argues Obama isn’t losing support of Jewish voters, Los Angeles Times, 26 May 2011:

The South Florida Democrat laughed at charges leveled by the head of a Republican Jewish group that she wanted to squelch partisan criticism over Israel. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, accused Wasserman Schultz of proposing a “gag order” on criticism about Israeli policy when they and others met privately with Netanyahu this week.

“We need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue, and that’s what we talked about in that meeting,” Wasserman Schultz said. She quoted Netanyahu as saying, at the end of the meeting, that when it comes to Israel, “we need to erase the aisle” between Democrats and Republicans.

“Everyone that calls themselves legitimately pro-Israel believes that we should not make Israel a partisan issue. Unfortunately, I think there are organizations that claim to be pro-Israel that are partisan first and pro-Israel second. And I think unfortunately the way the Republican Jewish Coalition has conducted itself is they put their Republicanism in front of their pro-Israel stance. And I think that’s unfortunate. And I think it’s why the Israeli Embassy said that Israel should not be a partisan issue.”

Here are a couple of previous media reports concerning Wasserman Schultz’s background.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz picked as Democratic National Committee chair, POLITICO, 5 Apr 2011:

The congresswoman is beloved by the Democratic rank and file for her aggressive, outspoken advocacy for liberal points of view. She’s frequently deployed as a surrogate, particularly to groups of women and Jewish voters.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Picked to Chair D.N.C., NYTimes, 5 Apr 2011:

Ms. Wasserman Schultz is known inside the party for her strong fund-raising abilities, and she represents South Florida, which will be a critical battleground in the 2012 presidential race.

Some background on Matthew Brooks:

Matthew Brooks serves as Executive Director of both the Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization dedicated to enhancing ties between the Jewish community and the Republican Party, and the Jewish Policy Center, a think-tank that examines public policy from a Jewish perspective.

Matt began his political career as State Chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans while still an undergraduate at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA. Matt managed the Jack Kemp for President campaign in Massachusetts, as well as directed projects in New Hampshire and New England. Matt became the Political Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in 1988. Taking a leave of absence from the RJC, Matt served as the National Field Director for Victory ‘88 Jewish Campaign Committee, designing and implementing campaign strategy on behalf of the Bush-Quayle ‘88 campaign. Matt was appointed Executive Director of the RJC in 1990.

Matt was twice selected (in 2006 and 2008) by the Jewish Forward as one of the 50 most influential Jews in America.

In addition to his duties leading the RJC, Matt also serves as the organization’s principal spokesman. In this role Matt has been a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and has been quoted extensively in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers.

One of the many consequences of jewish influence in media and academia is that the perfectly descriptive term Zionist Occupation Government is painted as “an antisemitic conspiracy theory”. Yet, the jewish conspiracy is right out in the open. Erase the aisle. Israel first, party second. This is the state of US politics today.

What we see here is a disagreement between hyper-ethnocentric jews who hold positions of great power and have strong influence over the US government. What they care about most is what’s best for the jewish ethnostate of Israel. They all agree that in US politics the interests of Israel should always come first, across the board, for everyone, not just jews. The big question for them is whether to continue imposing this the usual stealthy judeo-liberal way, or the usual in-your-face judeo-conservative way.