See other Resistance Articles
Title: The Crucifixion of Naomi Wolf for Daring to Question the ISIS Story
Source:
You Tube
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0XCHj2Jy0s#t=519
Published: Oct 6, 2014
Author: Lionel
Post Date: 2014-10-08 23:08:32 by Southern Style
Keywords: None
Views: 141
Comments: 7
The Crucifixion of Naomi Wolf Naomi Wolf dared to suggest that the ISIS beheading videos weren't real and that various stories were a tad fishy so she demanded verification of the allegations by media resources. Well, as you can imagine this caused quite the stir, primarily from the media sheeple who've never questioned a story in their life. Where were they when scores of stories questioned various aspects? Take for instance the Telegraph that reported that video of James Foley’s execution may have actually been staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera. Where were they when the entire narrative was subject to critical review? Apparently, they never got the memo. Because as Wolf found out in our day and age, the media sheeple dare question nothing. Ever. Whatever the official story is, whatever the narrative you repeat it. Verbatim as instructed. I applaud Naomi Wolf for daring to question anything.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Southern Style (#0)
That jewish-whore is a POS, I'm glad to see her get roasted for any reason, she's NOT my political brethren.
-Alex Kurtagic
#2. To: X-15 (#1)
Naomi Wolf is not my favorite columnist either. She's a one trick pony. I like Greenwald's reporting. He's Jewish like Wolf. But Greenwald seems more true to reporting on issues that negatively impact all people.
#3. To: X-15 (#1) (Edited)
It's intellectually dishonest to simply attack someone for being Jewish. (Or you pick the irrational allegation). The truth is that most of the so-called "Jews" are actually gentiles that had ancestors that converted to Judaism. I'd agree with anyone that has noticed a disproportionate and negative "Jewish" impact upon America and the world, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim "every" Jew is involved. All blacks can't dance or play basketball and all Jews aren't conspirators. If you'd like to make the 4UM aware of Ms. Wolf's misdeeds please do. Ad hominem attacks serve little purpose. EDIT: The real problem is our condoning their mischief through participation in their monetary schemes and compliance with the government they OWN. That jewish-whore is a POS, I'm glad to see her get roasted for any reason, she's NOT my political brethren.
"I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.". Étienne de La Boétie
#4. To: Southern Style (#0)
Media/reporter's role is not question (except in the rare case where he has appropriate knowledge from study/training, perhaps as an actual witness). Media can only report any questioning by those with relevant knowledge. the media sheeple who've never questioned a story in their life
#5. To: noone222 (#3) (Edited)
She went to bat for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, that's enough to earn her eternal damnation from me: "Wolf was involved in Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election bid, brainstorming with the president's team about ways to reach female voters. During Al Gore's unsuccessful bid for the presidency in the 2000 election, Wolf was hired as a consultant to target female voters, reprising her role in the Clinton campaign. Wolf's ideas and participation in the Gore campaign generated considerable media coverage and criticism. According to a report by Michael Duffy in Time, Wolf was paid a monthly salary of $15,000 "in exchange for advice on everything from how to win the women's vote to shirt-and-tie combinations." This article was the original source of the widely reported assertion that Wolf was responsible for Gore's "three-buttoned, earth-toned look." She's also a gun-grabber: August 03, 2012 Dear Naomi Wolf, I read your article about the Aurora theater shootings. While I have enjoyed a lot of your work in the past, I must say that I believe you have missed the boat with this one. It seems to run counter to your normal tendencies of questioning government tyranny. It’s also not very realistic. For one thing, I think you are over-doing it. Yes, 12 people died. But let’s face it, you care no more about these deaths than our Murderer-in-Chief Obama did when he shed his crocodile tears about them. This is normal; we care about those around us. It’s impossible to invest our emotional reserves into everyone on this planet. Every day in this country, about 7,000 people die (if my calculations are correct -- 160,000 per day in the entire world). Admittedly, most die in a manner less newsworthy and spectacular than these twelve, but they were no less important to the people around them. Their lives had just as much value to themselves. Why are these twelve somehow more important than the 7,000 who die daily? Why more important than our own death, which all people must face some day? Is it that you worry about the American reputation? But why? Isn’t our reputation infinitely more harmed by droning innocents in Pakistan and killing thousands (official government policy) in Iraq and occupying multiple countries for the purpose of installing puppet regimes and plundering oil? You write, “But surely there can be a balance between Second Amendment rights and rational constraints on the ability of mentally unstable people to accumulate arsenals.” It’s already illegal for crazy people to own guns. Holmes was on no one’s radar screens, even though he was getting some kind of psychiatric care. What filter are you going to devise to capture the rare Holmes, that does not make more difficult legitimate defense? Imagine a woman suffering in a worsening abusive relationship. She’s already in an abnormal mental state due to the long-term stress and punishment. Do you really want to make it harder for her to qualify as “acceptable” (in some heartless bureaucrat’s eyes) for owning a means of defense? Are all people at the level of care Holmes was receiving to be disarmed and made defenseless? Isn’t there a cost in lives to that as well? There is a reason gun owners call “gun control” by the somewhat less euphemistic term, “victim disarmament.” You write, “Medication manages such psychotic symptoms,” in advocating more mental health spending. Such trust in government institutions is astounding, given your background. Are you that sure that the same sorts of sociopathic tendencies and empire-building so rampant in our military-industrial complex and in the police state, do not also occur in medical and pharmaceutical institutions? Are you not aware that virtually every mass shooter in recent history was already under medication with psychotropic drugs? With 270 million guns in this country and sales shooting through the roof (rightly so, given the economic disaster on the horizon), crazy people will always have access to firearms if they want it. That is a given. Gun prohibitionists have not made their case to gun owners, so reductions in that number are not happening voluntarily. And doing it non-voluntarily will enhance the police state you rightly decry and cause huge numbers of deaths in the civil war that would result. The answers are not more drugs and health care and dependence on self-serving institutions. The answer is more decent, armed people in theaters so the rare Holmes can be taken out if need be, just as happened with other incipient massacres in the past. The answer is to not let yourself be manipulated by scheming politicians over statistically rare events (“hard cases make bad law”). The answer is to stop fearing. “Man up,” so to speak. http://www.strike-the-root.com/dear-naomi
-Alex Kurtagic
#6. To: X-15 (#5)
Now you're cookin with gas !!! Thanks !
"I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.". Étienne de La Boétie
#7. To: X-15 (#5)
Why not just outlaw sick, troubled, nut-jobs? leave the inanimate objects alone.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest