You might think that under these circumstances the papers are conveying to you all known useful information to you so you can (a) adjust your activities to ensure your and your family's safety and (b) support appropriate long-term civic initiatives to deal with the problem.
But you would be wrong.
Unamusement Park has this great rundown on newspaper thinking when it comes to the knotty issue of reporting on naughty black scum:
The real reason the news media refuse to report Propositions 1–4 is that they inevitably lead to Proposition 5: the recognition of an epidemic of racially motivated Black-on-White violence. Now why would that recognition that be a bad thing? Well, here for comparison is the [Chicago] Tribune’s argument:"Black Mobs Hit Chicago; Tribune: Why Aren’t You Worried About Seventh Day Adventists?" By Unamused, Unamusement Park, 6/26/11.
Proposition 1: Black people, and only Black people, are responsible for the assaults and robberies.
Proposition 2: They target White people.
Proposition 3: The attacks are characterized by extreme, senseless violence.
Proposition 4: None of Propositions 1–3 are true if you replace “Black” by “Christian” or replace “White” by anything but “White.”
Proposition 5: Propositions 1–4 are further strong evidence for an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated Black-on-White violence.
Assumption X: Black people couldn’t possibly be more criminal/more racist/less intelligent/etc. than White people.
Assumption Y: Racism against Black people is the worst thing in the whole world.
Proposition 6b: If the Tribune reports Propositions 1–4, readers will believe there is an ongoing epidemic of racially motivated Black-on-White violence (by Proposition 5).
Proposition 7b: Believing negative things about Black people is racism, because it can’t possible be true (by Assumption X).
Proposition 8b: The Tribune must not report Propositions 1–4 (by Propositions 6b and 7b, and Assumption Y).
8 comments:
For refreshingly frank reporting on this subject, I refer you to the web site: Stuff Black People Don't Like (SBPDL). (Hat tip, Egghead at GoV)
If the media reported with this sort of clarity, both the White and Black communities would have benefited as compared to the hush-up, coverup mentality of Liberal media when confronted with obvious racial differences in behavior, conduct and ethics.
There is little better proof of how useful such clarity is than the speech, "MCall Me Uncle Tom Ruckus, Please Sir" by the Hon. James David Manning, PhD.
His searing indictment of Black people is spoken with a sincerity that is almost heartrending. Watch the video and see what I mean.
I've started to read SBPDL much more (as well as Unamusement Park). That "Dr." Watkins is pathetic in his inability to get a grip. Absolutely nothing can be laid in the lap of blacks. Period. Period. Full stop.
The Rev. Manning is a man I admire greatly. He has been way out front on a lot of issues and right on the money all the time. The man is fearless and his deadpan humor is world class, although I realize that adjective could be taken as an insult.
I'm a great believer in the question, "What problem are we trying to solve?" It's a good one to have in the back of your mind when forced to attend a meeting of any kind. With a guy like Watkins, you know it's just hopeless. Not ever will there be a possibility of IDing the problem.
Completely missing from this man's tool kit is the thought "Compared to what?" His view of America and whites just floats out there like an untethered balloon.
I like to point out that lynching resulted in the deaths of 5,000 blacks (and the odd white man here and there) in the entire history of the U.S. Triple that total just to be on the safe side. Now compare it to the Soviet toll of 66 million over the entire 82 years of the U.S.S.R. -- a daily total of 2.261. The entire inflated 15,000 figure was surpassed by the Sovs in less than a week and they continued the arbitrary, lawless killings for another 81 years and 51 weeks. Murder and deadly privation all day, every day for that period of time. Halve the total Sov. carnage and you're still only looking at a measly two-weeks worth of murder on the U.S. side.
Was there anything of value in the U.S. that kept the U.S. figures so low? Not so's Watkins would notice. By an absolute standard of perfection 5,000 is just unacceptable and by an absolute standard of perfection the U.S. is corrupt and never to be supported by blacks. ANY kind of a tyranny or crap third-world country would be preferable to the U.S.
To paraphrase Cyrano de Bergerac:
I recognize Dr. Boyce Atkins as a man of letters. Three, to be precise.
A … S … S
For perpetually aggrieved types like Watkins, there is no surpassing carnage that can possibly outdo the crimes of Whitey.
If his true objective was the lamenting of needlessly lost Black lives, he would need to look no further than Rwanda, where almost ONE MILLION African lives were lost.
As we all know, Black on Black violence does not fit Dr. Watkins' narrative of blame, so perish the effing thought that he look any farther than White America for his bogey man.
I'd love to lock Dr. Watkins in a room with Bill Cosby and then come back in an hour or two to mop up the quivering blob of protoplasm that an honorable Black man like Cosby would have quickly reduced him to.
That is good. I'll have to add that to my limited repertoire of great insults.
Cosby's been outstanding. One of a really tiny group of black men who have been willing to tell the truth.
It's just tragic that there is the extraordinary degree of denial on the matter of black crime and rejectionism. I wonder where Dante placed lying journalists in Hell. Way in from the edge, I hope. Probably he lumped them with "deceivers." Funny. Some biblical categories of miscreants take on more meaning as I get older. Those who have a duty to tell the truth but lie is a grievous sin. Betrayal is far harder to bear than opposition.
Hey Colonel, just found your blog - followed your link from the Park. We had a few words a while back at Eternity Road. I'm that racist White South African AnalogMan, who disagreed with you on the "Good blacks" issue. I see you're still pushing that Noble Savage theme; Bill Cosby, for Pete's sake!
Anyway, I moved on from the Road, those people are just too clueless - present company excepted, of course. And they just lap up that tripe that Rachel Peepers writes. (Ask her to tell you about Prom Night sometime; you will be amazed).
Unamused is a recently awoken liberal, and it shows, but he's doing some excellent work. You're in good company. Keep up the good work, I'll be checking up on you!
Greetings, Cephaplus, thanks for stopping by and keeping me honest. :-)
I reread your and the other comments at ER and it was an interesting discussion.
I confess I write about blacks with the imaginary bank of photos on my wall of black luminaries in public life and black friends. They're out there and I revere them the more for what they surely have had to overcome in terms of resistance and obloquy.
Still, I also require such excellent people to summon up objectivity, observational skills, and analytical tools to deal with the obvious fact that the vast majority of blacks live in physical or mental prisons that are beyond worthless and positively hostile to whites in just about every area of life. That blacks have a scintilla of respect for the liberating structure of the Constitution or have an alternative in mind that doesn't include the concepts of "dictatorship of the proletariat," reparations, "revenge against Whitey," black privilege, manipulation of the legal system, intimidation, aggression, "Islamic brothers," and promiscuity is laughable.
Cosby gets points for swimming against that tide in a forthright manner but I have it in my mind that he recently retreated some onto safer anti-white ground. I didn't mention it above because I can't source that idea and didn't want to give it unjustified exposure. So, it's still firmly in the unsubstantiated rumor category and I hope I can be disabused of this idea.
You're kind to except me from any cluelessness. I don't consider my ER friends clueless and don't know for a fact where they come down on racial issues. I'll let them say. Sometimes I don't post on other sites where I have posting privileges when I'm being particularly negative about race relations and prospects. That's proving to be par for the course these days, since stark facts permit no other approach. Perhaps they do the same.
I've noticed that Rachel hasn't been posting much and don't know why. I'll see if she's said something in the past about Prom Night, now that you've piqued my interest.
I pray for a white reawakening from this sappy slumber on the matters of third-world inundation through immigration and self-abasement before the Black Other. Watch the movie "Congo" to see an extreme Hollywood version of that (and the utter mangling of an otherwise entertaining and instructive Michael Crichton novel). Observe the treatment of the white woman, the blacks, the white guy.
Whites need to recover some of their lost courage. I like Hesperado's proclamation that he posted at GoV:
"You are welcome to participate in and enjoy the benefits of our societies, but you have to earn it, and when you behave in ways that show you have not earned it, we will apply our laws and rules equitably and the practical effect of this application may, or may not, be that you will seem to be disproportionately punished (in myriad ways,ranging from ostensible discrimination in education and jobs, to statistical over-representation in prisons and searches and seizures; etc.). Our position is that whether you are, or are not, disproportionately punished in the years and decades ahead is entirely your responsibility. If over time your community is able to assimilate without disproportionate pathology, then we will congratulate you and you may justifiably take pride in this accomplishment. If not, then it will be entirely your fault for the various burdens and punishments you will be suffering. Good luck!"
It leaves the door wide open to the people in the imaginary photos on my wall but is as real as a heart attack for the scum that want the, regretably, status quo.
Thanks, I think I'll pass on Congo. I very seldom watch movies. When I do, my first criterion for selection is an all-white cast. Even when they're not being cast as Heimdall "the whitest of the gods", or as brain surgeons, nuclear physicists or computer geniuses, negroes are frankly ugly and I get no pleasure out of looking at them. I've just OD'd on black.
I also remember Cosby recently opting for black solidarity over principle, but like you, I don't remember the details. I was not surprised. I won't be surprised when Allen West does the same. Or the new black conservative hope, Herman Cain.
I differ from Hesperado; my view is "You are not us. Go home". Jefferson was correct when he said we could not live under the same government. There are only two ways this thing can develop; either the White race will be subsumed in a sea of mud (maybe the whole world, maybe the orientals will hold out and there will be two races - orientals and mongrels); or there will be violent conflict ending in extermination or separation. As terrible as it would be, my preference is for the latter, because that is the only option that holds out the possibility, not certitude, of White survival.
As for Rachel, I don't think you'll find the relevant post. It was in the comments at Pajamas Media, back in 2008 during the election campaign. I didn't save it, unfortunately, and I don't know whether PM archives the comments, so I probably shouldn't make any allegations that I can't prove. But it would be fun to ask her about it. I don't say that the things she wrote about actually happened, but the telling thing is that she apparently thought it would make her look "cool". Francis would be horrified - or maybe not. He also comments there, maybe he saw her comment.
Incidentally, re: your comment about the number of negroes lynched by the KKK. Comparing the total murder rate, including lynchings, during that period to the current murder rate, could one surmise that lynching actually saved lives? Black ones, too.
The servility of whites is what amazes and depresses me. I am aware of when someone else goes out of his way to insult me and am pretty good at detecting passive aggression too. Just a product of keeping eyes open and mind modestly alert. It's not hard to tell that someone's spoiling for a fight. It really isn't. Whites are subjected to innumerable daily slights and humiliations, and worse, however, but it's tra la la all the way.
I like the separation idea. Blacks and whites were thrown together here by colossal acts of greed and cruelty and we've been forced to live in an unnatural proximity ever since to the net detriment of all concerned. None is happy and, certainly, no white is safe anywhere outside of the Enclaves.
The greatest of black unifiers, King, was himself more and more surrounded by communists as time went by. That was the best one, the iconic "content of our character" saint but there he was in bed with the commies and any women who happened to be nearby. If that was the cream of the cream, in what way is his legacy worth anything? A proponent of limited government? Don't make me laugh.
We've been experimenting big time with adjusting the payout here and there and fiddling with admission requirements and legal privileges but all to no avail. The recent flash mobs and the exudation of the likes of Jeremiah Wright, James Cone, and Louis Farrakhan are the bright signal that our not so little experiment in reconciliation and friendship has been a pointless exercise. Well, ok, it did have a point but it was doomed to failure, the innate differences being what they are.
The West in general has been indulging in wishful thinking since maybe WWI and Greece and Ireland are examples how critical portions of the path based on self-delusion is cratering and collapsing into the valleys.
You can ignore the facts of existence for only so long before there is a necessary adjustment. Call it a tectonic event.
Coming soon to an urban center near you.
Post a Comment