0 comment Monday, August 18, 2014 | admin
I am incredibly weary of these kinds of news stories, in which the liberal media hand-wringers fret about the possibility of ''profiling'' in the wake of all these racial attacks. It's all very much like the articles just after 9/11, wherein the usual media suspects wrung their hands over the possible ''backlash against Muslims.'' So we, as a nation in shock, were thrown on the defensive, and lectured by government officials about how me must not ''profile'' Moslems.
The onus is always on us to avoid offending somebody, even at the cost of our lives. When is this going to end, this craziness?
How can the media be so brazen as to keep stoking the flames of racial grievance and anti-White hatred, even as the attacks continue to happen? The media might truly be called criminal in their behavior. They are doing exactly what they constantly accuse supposed ''extremist'' Whites of doing: inciting racial violence.
Just to be clear, I am not one of those people who claim that there would be nothing but peace and brotherhood if only the ''liberals'' and Democrats would stop creating black social pathology. No; I'm enough of a realist that I can see that racial differences are real, and that those differences in themselves are enough to cause racial misunderstanding -- and a normal ethnocentricity on both sides. However, the media and the PC establishment generally work at fomenting real hatred and thirst for revenge -- based on supposed past wrongs and injustices.
And these instigators keep at it, shamelessly, brazenly, night and day. Do they have no conscience, no shame?
The CBS article seems to have none. These people who keep up the media drumbeat are obsessed, they are unhinged.
The article, by the way, bears no byline; we don't know who wrote it. It seems that most articles these days are put together by a 'team' of four or five or six reporters, most of whom have exotic and unpronounceable names. For some years now, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists have made a great point of recruiting 'underrepresented minorities' to write for the media, supposedly to present 'neglected points of view' and 'diverse opinions.' Well, the only neglected point of view is that of the White population. Strangely, though, we are allowed to hear only the minority or pro-minority point of view. These professional associations make it clear that they have an agenda, and they crusade against 'profiling'-- which is in fact a healthy commonsense measure, intended for self-protection.
I surmised that minority ''journalists'' are necessary to keep cranking out these anti-White template stories. Can't have Whitey (unless the White in question is a feminist woman) writing about 'sensitive racial issues', can we?
As to the poor beleaguered victims of ''racial profiling'', I can only say this to them: the onus is on YOU to prove that you are not a marauding 'youth' out to do bodily harm. If you are, as you claim, a blameless young 'minority youth' intending no harm, then the onus is on you to persuade your not-so-harmless peers to stop their violent and lawless behavior. If you are "unfairly profiled'' then take it up with those of your folk who are the reason for the existence of the profiles in the first place. Blame them, not us. They are the authors of your trouble; no one else is.
The same goes for Moslems and Mexicans and whoever else who pleads victimhood because of 'profiling.' If some, or a great many, of your peers did not behave lawlessly, you would not be profiled.
Requiring the rest of us to be willing sacrificial lambs so that somebody need not have their feelings hurt by 'profiling' is asking us to forfeit our right to look out for our own safety.
The people who come off the worst in these articles (in addition to the journalists who 'write' them) are the officials, usually White men or women, who betray their own people by siding with the troublemakers. Shame on any White official who berates or scolds his own brethren so as to ingratiate himself with the powers that be, or with 'minority' outgroups. People of this sort are quislings, and are in their way worse than the roving thugs who are committing the violence.
The onus is always on us to avoid offending somebody, even at the cost of our lives. When is this going to end, this craziness?
How can the media be so brazen as to keep stoking the flames of racial grievance and anti-White hatred, even as the attacks continue to happen? The media might truly be called criminal in their behavior. They are doing exactly what they constantly accuse supposed ''extremist'' Whites of doing: inciting racial violence.
Just to be clear, I am not one of those people who claim that there would be nothing but peace and brotherhood if only the ''liberals'' and Democrats would stop creating black social pathology. No; I'm enough of a realist that I can see that racial differences are real, and that those differences in themselves are enough to cause racial misunderstanding -- and a normal ethnocentricity on both sides. However, the media and the PC establishment generally work at fomenting real hatred and thirst for revenge -- based on supposed past wrongs and injustices.
And these instigators keep at it, shamelessly, brazenly, night and day. Do they have no conscience, no shame?
The CBS article seems to have none. These people who keep up the media drumbeat are obsessed, they are unhinged.
The article, by the way, bears no byline; we don't know who wrote it. It seems that most articles these days are put together by a 'team' of four or five or six reporters, most of whom have exotic and unpronounceable names. For some years now, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists have made a great point of recruiting 'underrepresented minorities' to write for the media, supposedly to present 'neglected points of view' and 'diverse opinions.' Well, the only neglected point of view is that of the White population. Strangely, though, we are allowed to hear only the minority or pro-minority point of view. These professional associations make it clear that they have an agenda, and they crusade against 'profiling'-- which is in fact a healthy commonsense measure, intended for self-protection.
I surmised that minority ''journalists'' are necessary to keep cranking out these anti-White template stories. Can't have Whitey (unless the White in question is a feminist woman) writing about 'sensitive racial issues', can we?
As to the poor beleaguered victims of ''racial profiling'', I can only say this to them: the onus is on YOU to prove that you are not a marauding 'youth' out to do bodily harm. If you are, as you claim, a blameless young 'minority youth' intending no harm, then the onus is on you to persuade your not-so-harmless peers to stop their violent and lawless behavior. If you are "unfairly profiled'' then take it up with those of your folk who are the reason for the existence of the profiles in the first place. Blame them, not us. They are the authors of your trouble; no one else is.
The same goes for Moslems and Mexicans and whoever else who pleads victimhood because of 'profiling.' If some, or a great many, of your peers did not behave lawlessly, you would not be profiled.
Requiring the rest of us to be willing sacrificial lambs so that somebody need not have their feelings hurt by 'profiling' is asking us to forfeit our right to look out for our own safety.
The people who come off the worst in these articles (in addition to the journalists who 'write' them) are the officials, usually White men or women, who betray their own people by siding with the troublemakers. Shame on any White official who berates or scolds his own brethren so as to ingratiate himself with the powers that be, or with 'minority' outgroups. People of this sort are quislings, and are in their way worse than the roving thugs who are committing the violence.
Labels: Dishonest Media, Political Correctness, Profiling, Racial Conflict, Racial Marxism
0 comment Monday, June 23, 2014 | admin
Over at Moonbattery there is a post about the fact that November 18 is the anniversary of the awful Jonestown events -- whether you call the 900+ deaths suicide (as many do) or a massacre, it was a shocking scene.
Van Helsing at Moonbattery emphasizes that cult guru Jim Jones was a collectivist, a leftist, and not simply some crazed preacher as he was depicted in most of the media coverage. He was, first and foremost, a leftist, not a Christian. There is every evidence that he did not believe in Christianity, or religion in any form, unless he was to be its 'god.'
The Moonbattery piece links to a post by Petr at the old Original Dissent forums; it makes for interesting reading.
I know I've alluded to Jones and his 'People's Temple' in previous blog entries, but it is uncanny how closely his ideology resembled 21st century multiculturalist ideals. I don't say this in a flattering way, but he was ahead of his time. In our time he would not have fled the United States (which he believed was a thoroughly 'racist' country where he and his followers were hunted people). He would have stayed here and found a comfortable niche among his kindred souls on the multicult left. Maybe he would even be the revered grey eminence of that movement.
He was ahead of his time in that his obsessions and fetishes match those of today's cultural Marxists. He preached to his very diverse group of followers that America was a racist country, a fascist regime, in which their lives would be in constant danger. It sounds very similar to what the state media imply in many of their stories about 'racism.'
Jones was obsessed with the idea of 'rainbow families' much as today's trendy liberals are. He adopted 'diverse' children, and he pressured his followers to participate in interracial intimacy, which he told them was an act of love and charity.
He encouraged, shall we say, intergenerational relationships - the young with the elderly. This was recounted in a book written by a follower -- I have it in my possession somewhere, but at the moment I can't cite the name of the writer or the book. It's lost among my stacks of books for now.
The whole disastrous episode which ended in hundreds of people dead in Jonestown is a cautionary tale about the all-too-American tendency to blindly follow charismatic personalities, and to accept what authority figures say without examining it. There is no reason why his early followers, who were Christians, should have followed this deranged pied piper over the cliff. If they had done what Christians should do, and examined his 'teachings' from a Biblical perspective, as the Bereans of the Bible did, they would not have had a tragic end.
Why are many Americans so willing to follow false shepherds, and to uncritically accept the authority of these people? This seems to be a trait that is more common than it should be in our country. And the last couple of years seem to show us that it is ever more common.
What is most appalling about figures like Jones is that their compliant followers come to believe that they are serving 'God' or the cause of 'right' and justice. Totalitarianism in the name of do-goodery is the worst kind.
As I think I said before, Jones is something of a founder of postmodern 'America'; his ideology is the offical one, the default one, the one which most leftists today will fight for and maybe even die for. The leftists' 'America' should be renamed in honor of their inspiration, Jim Jones.
Maybe one of these days he will in fact be revered and his birthday honored. Maybe he will be the co-honoree on that January holy day that honors another leftist.
Van Helsing at Moonbattery emphasizes that cult guru Jim Jones was a collectivist, a leftist, and not simply some crazed preacher as he was depicted in most of the media coverage. He was, first and foremost, a leftist, not a Christian. There is every evidence that he did not believe in Christianity, or religion in any form, unless he was to be its 'god.'
The Moonbattery piece links to a post by Petr at the old Original Dissent forums; it makes for interesting reading.
I know I've alluded to Jones and his 'People's Temple' in previous blog entries, but it is uncanny how closely his ideology resembled 21st century multiculturalist ideals. I don't say this in a flattering way, but he was ahead of his time. In our time he would not have fled the United States (which he believed was a thoroughly 'racist' country where he and his followers were hunted people). He would have stayed here and found a comfortable niche among his kindred souls on the multicult left. Maybe he would even be the revered grey eminence of that movement.
He was ahead of his time in that his obsessions and fetishes match those of today's cultural Marxists. He preached to his very diverse group of followers that America was a racist country, a fascist regime, in which their lives would be in constant danger. It sounds very similar to what the state media imply in many of their stories about 'racism.'
Jones was obsessed with the idea of 'rainbow families' much as today's trendy liberals are. He adopted 'diverse' children, and he pressured his followers to participate in interracial intimacy, which he told them was an act of love and charity.
He encouraged, shall we say, intergenerational relationships - the young with the elderly. This was recounted in a book written by a follower -- I have it in my possession somewhere, but at the moment I can't cite the name of the writer or the book. It's lost among my stacks of books for now.
The whole disastrous episode which ended in hundreds of people dead in Jonestown is a cautionary tale about the all-too-American tendency to blindly follow charismatic personalities, and to accept what authority figures say without examining it. There is no reason why his early followers, who were Christians, should have followed this deranged pied piper over the cliff. If they had done what Christians should do, and examined his 'teachings' from a Biblical perspective, as the Bereans of the Bible did, they would not have had a tragic end.
Why are many Americans so willing to follow false shepherds, and to uncritically accept the authority of these people? This seems to be a trait that is more common than it should be in our country. And the last couple of years seem to show us that it is ever more common.
What is most appalling about figures like Jones is that their compliant followers come to believe that they are serving 'God' or the cause of 'right' and justice. Totalitarianism in the name of do-goodery is the worst kind.
As I think I said before, Jones is something of a founder of postmodern 'America'; his ideology is the offical one, the default one, the one which most leftists today will fight for and maybe even die for. The leftists' 'America' should be renamed in honor of their inspiration, Jim Jones.
Maybe one of these days he will in fact be revered and his birthday honored. Maybe he will be the co-honoree on that January holy day that honors another leftist.
Labels: Authoritarianism, Cultural Marxism, Multicult, Racial Conflict, Totalitarianism