0 comment Monday, September 29, 2014 | admin
Gilchrist: Don't fall for media's spin about the Minutemen
Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, and the target of a recent attack by the enlightened students at Columbia University, answers the race-baiting critics of the Minutemen, responding to a specific column by professional Raza mouthpiece, Ruben Navarrette Jr. Navarrette, whose columns are syndicated around the country, seems to write almost exclusively about Hispanic issues. In other words, he is one of those affirmative action 'journalists' who are hired for the express purpose of providing 'diversity', and promoting the viewpoint of 'historically underrepresented populations' in the newspapers.
[Note: See the Society of Professional Journalists website for their guidelines on 'diversity',and it becomes obvious why there are so many ethnic names among the bylines in all the major media, and why it seems to be that mostly writers with Hispanic names write about illegal immigration and Hispanic issues, while writers with Arabic/Moslem names write about Islam. Whatever happened to objectivity? Instead, the idea seems to be that we are spoon-fed a subjective, pro-minority viewpoint to 'cure' our assumed bigotry. Obviously whitey cannot write about 'minority' issues.]
So Navarrette's role is apparently being the champion of La Raza, and of putting whitey in his place, rather than writing dispassionately about the Minutemen, or about the border issue in general. The problem is that our MSM give us many, many such viewpoints: Hispanic writers writing sob stories about poor beleaguered immigrants and their children; polemics about 'racism' and bigotry. Moslem writers arguing that poor Moslem immigrants are in fear because of 'hate crimes' or 'Islamophobia.' Gay writers like Deb Price in Detroit write exclusively about gay issues, and always from a pro-gay perspective. In our media we are constantly force-fed 'diverse' viewpoints, while nobody represents the majority American viewpoint. That fact alone explains the proliferation of blogs like this one: certain views are not welcomed in our biased media.
Dialogue is one thing; in a dialogue, the person with the opposing viewpoint should have the ability to consider others' views and to listen in good faith, with an open mind. There is no 'dialogue' when one side is haranguing, accusing, and guilt-tripping, or name-calling, as Navarrette is doing in this puerile piece to which Gilchrist is responding.
Navarrette throws around such phrases as 'gang of misfits', referring to Gilchrist's Minutemen, 'nativists and hooligans' (notice he lumps the two together) and of course, true to form, resorts to the cheapest shot of all: the argumentum ad Hitlerum.
Good enough for the Nazis, good enough for the Minutemen.''
Yeah, resort to the old 'Nazi' analogy, when you have nothing better.
As this blog post points out, ..if you're debating someone, and they compare you or people who espouse ideas that you support to Hitler -- you've won the argument. Of course Navarrette would never concede that; besides, the race-baiting pro-illegals have little but name-calling on their side, anyway. Take away that arrow from their quiver, and they have nothing. Besides, the old 'Hitler/Nazi' slur is a sure-fire debate stopper, low and dishonest though it may be.
There is a place for opinion pieces, but virtually all of the 'news' being put out by our mass media is opinion and propaganda, masquerading as information. Almost all the 'news' is agenda-driven and blatantly biased. We even saw the BBC admitting to their bias this past week, but I won't hold my breath till our biased media admit their leftist agenda. No, they will continue pushing their leftist views, and stubbornly claim to be fair. Navarrette is just one cog in the big media machine, just one of many such shills for ethnic interests.
He is simply doing what he was hired to do: push a 'minority' agenda on the rest of us.
Gilchrist does a capable job of defending himself against Navarrette's cheap shots, but he really shouldn't bother to try to deflect the inevitable 'racist' charges. He always mentions the multicultural, multiracial makeup of his group as a refutation, but that never works. The other side will simply call the non-white Minutemen 'self-haters', 'Uncle Toms' 'sellouts' or simply 'racist', as they called Marvin Stewart in that recent Columbia melee.
As I often say, there's little defense against the r-word, because it is simply hard to prove a negative; how does one prove oneself not racist? Having nonwhite friends and associates? That won't work, as we've seen in this case. If even being non-white is no defense, then how can it help to claim nonwhite friends? It also doesn't help because the liberals inevitably say that denial of racism is proof of racism. 'Racists always deny it', they say. So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Gilchrist will defend himself as he sees fit, and I wish him luck and success. As for me, I won't deign to argue with the name-callers. Life is too short for such futile pursuits. And if we who are trying to defend our country, our culture, our civilization, our heritage, our kin, are to be successful, we have to develop a tough hide and refuse to be cowed by names and slanders.
Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, and the target of a recent attack by the enlightened students at Columbia University, answers the race-baiting critics of the Minutemen, responding to a specific column by professional Raza mouthpiece, Ruben Navarrette Jr. Navarrette, whose columns are syndicated around the country, seems to write almost exclusively about Hispanic issues. In other words, he is one of those affirmative action 'journalists' who are hired for the express purpose of providing 'diversity', and promoting the viewpoint of 'historically underrepresented populations' in the newspapers.
[Note: See the Society of Professional Journalists website for their guidelines on 'diversity',and it becomes obvious why there are so many ethnic names among the bylines in all the major media, and why it seems to be that mostly writers with Hispanic names write about illegal immigration and Hispanic issues, while writers with Arabic/Moslem names write about Islam. Whatever happened to objectivity? Instead, the idea seems to be that we are spoon-fed a subjective, pro-minority viewpoint to 'cure' our assumed bigotry. Obviously whitey cannot write about 'minority' issues.]
So Navarrette's role is apparently being the champion of La Raza, and of putting whitey in his place, rather than writing dispassionately about the Minutemen, or about the border issue in general. The problem is that our MSM give us many, many such viewpoints: Hispanic writers writing sob stories about poor beleaguered immigrants and their children; polemics about 'racism' and bigotry. Moslem writers arguing that poor Moslem immigrants are in fear because of 'hate crimes' or 'Islamophobia.' Gay writers like Deb Price in Detroit write exclusively about gay issues, and always from a pro-gay perspective. In our media we are constantly force-fed 'diverse' viewpoints, while nobody represents the majority American viewpoint. That fact alone explains the proliferation of blogs like this one: certain views are not welcomed in our biased media.
Dialogue is one thing; in a dialogue, the person with the opposing viewpoint should have the ability to consider others' views and to listen in good faith, with an open mind. There is no 'dialogue' when one side is haranguing, accusing, and guilt-tripping, or name-calling, as Navarrette is doing in this puerile piece to which Gilchrist is responding.
Navarrette throws around such phrases as 'gang of misfits', referring to Gilchrist's Minutemen, 'nativists and hooligans' (notice he lumps the two together) and of course, true to form, resorts to the cheapest shot of all: the argumentum ad Hitlerum.
Good enough for the Nazis, good enough for the Minutemen.''
Yeah, resort to the old 'Nazi' analogy, when you have nothing better.
As this blog post points out, ..if you're debating someone, and they compare you or people who espouse ideas that you support to Hitler -- you've won the argument. Of course Navarrette would never concede that; besides, the race-baiting pro-illegals have little but name-calling on their side, anyway. Take away that arrow from their quiver, and they have nothing. Besides, the old 'Hitler/Nazi' slur is a sure-fire debate stopper, low and dishonest though it may be.
There is a place for opinion pieces, but virtually all of the 'news' being put out by our mass media is opinion and propaganda, masquerading as information. Almost all the 'news' is agenda-driven and blatantly biased. We even saw the BBC admitting to their bias this past week, but I won't hold my breath till our biased media admit their leftist agenda. No, they will continue pushing their leftist views, and stubbornly claim to be fair. Navarrette is just one cog in the big media machine, just one of many such shills for ethnic interests.
He is simply doing what he was hired to do: push a 'minority' agenda on the rest of us.
Gilchrist does a capable job of defending himself against Navarrette's cheap shots, but he really shouldn't bother to try to deflect the inevitable 'racist' charges. He always mentions the multicultural, multiracial makeup of his group as a refutation, but that never works. The other side will simply call the non-white Minutemen 'self-haters', 'Uncle Toms' 'sellouts' or simply 'racist', as they called Marvin Stewart in that recent Columbia melee.
As I often say, there's little defense against the r-word, because it is simply hard to prove a negative; how does one prove oneself not racist? Having nonwhite friends and associates? That won't work, as we've seen in this case. If even being non-white is no defense, then how can it help to claim nonwhite friends? It also doesn't help because the liberals inevitably say that denial of racism is proof of racism. 'Racists always deny it', they say. So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Gilchrist will defend himself as he sees fit, and I wish him luck and success. As for me, I won't deign to argue with the name-callers. Life is too short for such futile pursuits. And if we who are trying to defend our country, our culture, our civilization, our heritage, our kin, are to be successful, we have to develop a tough hide and refuse to be cowed by names and slanders.
Labels: Gilchrist, Media Slander