The Eternal Culprit

The valiant American journalists have found the true culprit in the San Bernardino massacre: a mouthy Jew.

No, seriously.

23 thoughts on “The Eternal Culprit

  1. Nicholas Thalasinos’ story was also noted in the U.K.’s “Guardian” and several other similar rags. Apparently none of the reporters writing these articles are familiar with the legend of the “WONDERING JEW,” the unfortunate Seed of Abraham who mocked Christ on the Cross, and as a result was condemned to immortality, doomed to wander the Earth until Christ’s still-distant future Second Coming.

    There are many anti-Semitic stories all the way from the Middle Ages to the present about this knave, showing up at various locations to make trouble and then free to move on without being hurt himself or suffering any consequences.

    Apparently Nicholas Thalasinos is the immortal character’s current incarnation. Who knows where we’ll see him reappear, and under what name and circumstances, in say, the 23rd Century? 🙂

    Like

  2. A nice example of people having their own interpretation of the text. Elsewhere this same column is being used as an example of liberals hating conservatives and their values.

    Like

    1. Of course, a Jew is more sensitive to anti-Semitism than a non-Jew. But the article starts with a photo where the man is dressed in a way that leaves no mistake about who he is ethnically. So I think the authorial intention is very clear.

      Like

        1. “Even though the article gives that impression, Thalasinos was not an ethnic Jew”

          What a bizarre statement. Unless you have personally seen his DNA tests, you cannot possibly make such a statement.

          Besides, it doesn’t matter. Look at the article. A man who is dressed in a way that marks him as a Jew is identified in the article as a Jew and placed within the age-old “Muslims and Jews keep killing each other” paradigm.

          I find the degree of resistance to this way too strong and a bit scary.

          Like

          1. I don’t deny that the article you’ve linked to gives the impression that he was Jewish, I’m merely pointing out that that is an instance of sloppy journalism since Thalasinos had no known Jewish ancestry and identified himself as a Gentile.

            Like

            1. No matter what this man’s reality was, the anti-semitic message has already been sent by the piece’s author. And that was the whole point of the article.

              Like

  3. My first impression, even after getting subconsciously biased by your interpretation (because I did not happen on that article on my own) was that the point author was making is that Thalasinos was a hateful religious fundamentalist. Hence mixing born-again Christian and a messianic Jew in one sentence. Can one even be simultaneously a born-again Christian and a messianic Jew? But, anyway, the author went too far. As much as I hate the hateful religious fundamentalists, Thalasinos did not actually kill anyone.
    So I am with Cliff here, or rather with the commenters Cliff is mentioning.

    Like

    1. Have you seen the large photo that starts the article and sets up the mood in it? What does the photo tell the reader before the reader even read the text?

      “Can one even be simultaneously a born-again Christian and a messianic Jew”

      • Of course. Messianic Judaism is based on a belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah. It brings together elements of Judaism and Christianity.

      Like

      1. Yes I have seen it. My point was not to argue about if he REALLY was a Christian OR a Jew. I was describing my first impression. Which was that the author attached to Thalasinos all negative epithets she could think of, even if they cannot coexist (you said they can, I hear you). For me the negative common denominator of these epithets is “fundamentalist”, not “Jew”. Along the same lines, in the expression “messianic Jew”, it is “messianic” that has negative connotations for me, not “Jew”.
        But in the light of the new information about the… experiences of the author, I agree she likely is a Jewish conspiracy nut in particular, among other things.

        Like

  4. There are lots and lots of stuff around, that could be re-cycled and used again
    Like movies from 1940. I am sure that the killer couple scanned the web, found this man’s postings, located where he worked and killed him. And just happened to shoot dozens of other people too And prepared to shot hundreds more by stockpiling thousands of cartridges, as well as making pipe bombs. So, if I get an urge to kill, I just have to find somebody writing stupid stuff, and then spring in action, killing that person and a lot who just happen to be around at the time?

    Is this a hoax or a scam? Was there a ring in the first place – or did she just borrow one for a week? Or didn’t she pay the mortgages, and got it re-possessed? Is it an insurance fraud?
    Who takes off an expensive ring in the “rest-room” – and leaves it out of sight?

    “Columnist Linda Stasi revealed on Facebook Saturday that her diamond ring was snatched at work.
    “To The Scum Bucket who stole my engagement ring in the women’s bathroom of the NY Daily News yesterday: Please know that you have just given yourself the worst possible karma. Taking someone’s ring means you’ll never have a good relationship yourself. Taking someone’s ring takes the love from your own life. The cops are looking through the video. They will find you. If you try to sell it, they will find you.”
    Stasi included a picture of the sizable rock, telling the culprit that if it’s returned anonymously, she would not press charges.”

    http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/columnists-engagement-ring-stolen-from-daily-news-office/

    Like

    1. ” I am sure that the killer couple scanned the web, found this man’s postings, located where he worked and killed him. And just happened to shoot dozens of other people too And prepared to shot hundreds more by stockpiling thousands of cartridges, as well as making pipe bombs. ”

      • Yeah, absolutely, makes TONS of sense. 🙂 But that’s the quality of today’s mainstream journalist.

      Like

  5. Is Linda Stasi a Muslim, a Scientolog, or what? In her novel “The Sixth Station”, the heroine clears a Muslim(?) or Middle East Christian(?) accused of being a terrorist – and discovers a vast conspiracy – is it the New World Order or the Zionist Occupation Government? The Free Masons? Black/False Flag Ops? The Rosicrucians? The Bilderberg Group? The Chemtrail Conspiracy?

    “On the run from unknown enemies, Alessandra finds herself on the trail of a global conspiracy and a story that could shake the world to its foundations. Is Demiel ben Yusef the Second Coming or the Antichrist? The truth may lie in the secret history of the Holy Family, a group of Templars who defied the church, and a mysterious relic stained with the sacred blood of Christ Himself, in Linda Stasi’s The Sixth Station.”

    Déjà vu – The da Stasi Code? And the found lost “Gospel of Judas” is already written too – I heard it read as a sequel for radio at our summer place decades ago.

    Like

          1. No, I’m just shocked that the owners of the paper even let her publish her terrible screed. The First Amendment applies to government suppression of speech. It doesn’t mean that her employer is obligated to give her a large platform and a column to print vicious victim blaming crap framed as being as being connected with Thalosino’s religion. And I get that the owner doesn’t supervise the paper, but I don’t understand why the EIC didn’t nix it, even in the interest of job security. Why even piss off the owner in such a personal way? Newspapers are basically filler between ads, and online profits are low to non-existent. It’s a national paper, but most of the people who’d even buy the physical version are in the NY metro. Why piss off a large percentage of the people who are most likely to buy your actual paper and patronize the businesses that advertise?

            Like

  6. Maybe the owner have a greater loyalty to money than the Jewish people…
    Or he let it pass as a proof for that he isn’t giving Jews any special favours?

    I haven’t sorted it out really – there seems to be several ways you could be considered a Jew – or be considered to be a Jew byt others –
    1. “Genetical heritage” Jew AND religion and/or culturally “Jewish”;
    2. “Genetical heritage” Jew BUT NOT religion and/or culturally “Jewish”;
    3. “Genetical heritage” NOT Jew BUT religion and/or culturally “Jewish”;
    4. Israeli citizen BUT NOT Jew BUT religion and/or culturally “Jewish”;
    5. Israeli citizen BUT NOT Jew AND NOT religion and/or culturally “Jewish”;
    6. All of us other Gentiles that at least don’t know if we got any percentage “Jewish blood” in our veins or not.

    I wonder if you could tell by the DNA if a person with roots in western countries are a Jew or not – and I wonder if you could tell by the DNA if a person with roots in Middle East countries countries are a Jew or and Arab? I rather doubt it as a default presumption. But at least, contrary to the Arabs, the Jews haven’t practiced cousin marriages extensively? That, or cultural reasons, for the many Jews winning Nobel Prices – and the very few Arabs that have?

    Nazi Germany had some precise rules to differ Aryans from Jews – I can’t remember the figures, but it would be interesting to compare them with the rules for “passing as white” in the US?

    Like

    1. “I wonder if you could tell by the DNA if a person with roots in western countries are a Jew or not – and I wonder if you could tell by the DNA if a person with roots in Middle East countries countries are a Jew or and Arab? ”

      • Yes. The Askenazi Jewish heritage is visible on DNA tests even in the slightest degree. It’s important because there are genetic conditions associated with the ethnicity.

      Newspaper owners don’t pre-read and vet the articles that their media publish. Just like WordPress’s owners don’t pre-read and vet my posts.

      Like

Leave a reply to Shakti Cancel reply