Sontag and her ilk render statements with deliberate ambiguity by addressing "the concept of Whiteness" as something socially constructed and scientifically invalid. By framing race as an abstraction and not a reality, self-hating liberals may simply proclaim that they disavow "white privilege" in order to divest themselves of "white cancer" baggage. Thus, the "fine print" is what matters when dealing with thinking, bourgeois people.
Yes, our enemies will always distort what we say, but I don't think we should make their job easier by allowing ourselves to be pigeon-holed into caricatures that the Jew media has drawn of us.
Iran's Ahmadinejad is often quoted in the controlled media as saying that he wishes to see "Israel wiped off the map." However, what he actually said is that he wishes to see the aggressive, Zionist Occupation Government [of Palestine] come to an end ("
ehtelal bayad az bayn berad"). I have pointed this out to a number of people on campus, both liberal and conservative, who found this distinction very important. In fact, some wondered aloud questions like, "Why would our media collectively distort an already inflammatory geopolitical statement?" and "If they are willing to distort the words of a Statesman, what else are they lying about?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander
I am aware of that, but if you don't read the fine print, their statements aren't any different than Linder's; and yet their tribe doesn't treat them as lepers. Besides, where's the ambiguity in a statement like "the white race is the cancer of history"? Substitute any other race in that sentence and have a white man saying it and suddenly, no one would buy that he wasn't implying physical extermination. I think my point remains valid.
|