About two years ago, not long after Channon Christian and Chris Newsome were murdered in a hateful and all-too-typical act of interracial crime–complete with the obligatory rapes–I parted ways with AFF Brainwash on account of my strong language regarding the issue. We can’t be too passionate on these things, you see. Budget deficits and the tax code, yes. Things that happen every day and that destroy lives and worry ordinary people a great deal, they are confined to whispers and the scrawl on bathroom walls.
Well, the victims are still gone, and their families are still grieving, but at least some small measure of justice took place as the first of these four predators, Letalvis Cobbins, was found guilty today.
Subscribe To This Feed
[...] http://mansizedtarget.com/2009/08/26/christiannewsome-murderer-found-guilty/ [...]
From an article at takimag:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_white_people_party/
“The GOP doesn’t have a “white guy” problem, the Democrats do. In 2008 whites still made up 76.3 percent of the electorate—and only 60 percent of Democratic voters. Despite white’s shrinking percentage of the population, the GOP share of the vote will likely go up in 2010. The more the Democrats get attached to their anti-white agenda, the higher percentage of the white vote can win. Mississippi and Alabama have huge minority populations, but the GOP can continue to win elections when whites vote en bloc, as they do across the board in the South.”
If stories like the one in your post were covered in the MSM like the Duke Lacrosse case, then we would probably see that white bloc at election time. And we all know what that would mean.
I don’t know anyone who has even heard about this case. I only heard about it on blogs like yours and Malkin’s.
I was reading the comment thread on the first post, and I came upon this comment from Roach which I feel sums up the racial aspect pretty well:
“Murder is rare, as are other violent crimes. Most people are not violent felons. But when a group of people is 10X more violent, that’s a big difference. Why? Because even the low rates of violence among whites cause problems. We know that; we’re not indifferent to crime. Look at the numbers above, it’s about 1 in 100 whites incarcerated, i.e., 100/10,000. When that goes up to 7 or 8, that’s a big difference. Not knowing anything else, we must take that into account in making decisions about where to live, which bus to get on, which neighborhoods to walk through, etc. There’s no reason to “blame the race” and there’s no reason to hold it against any individual who shows himself to be civilized. But we don’t always have a time to play 20 questions and look at someone’s 1040 form. That’s the nature of statistical inference; it’s what we rely upon in looking at groups as groups, and it’s what we rely upon when we don’t have other, more granular data.
Finally, the cultural aspect and the “whites are the epitome of evil” message of our culture is undeniably a factor in all of this. How could it not be? Remember the LA Riots, the liberal media called it a “rebellion” and said it was time to get even for “12 Years of Neglect.” This background assumption that whites are evil easily translates into whites are rob-able, rape-able, etc. Until black leaders jettison their collective guilt-tripping of whites, whites will be collectively targeted for violence by that percentage of the black population that is inclined to be violent. There is nothing worse than the combination of the natural tendency of some people to be violent and the not-so-subtle message that such violence is justified. This is why wars are such cruel things; the sociopaths in our midst are given license to kill and, contrary to everyday life, are rewarded and praised for it.”
I have long wondered why these horrific stories are confined to whispers. In a free market, a news station or true crime writer should be able to exploit these stories as shamelessly and as profitably as Nancy Grace or Truman Capote. There are other restrictions at work.
My suspicion is that anti-discrimination laws, not mere social ostracism, have themselves shaped the bounds of acceptable discourse within newsrooms (and book publishers, entertainment studios and colleges).
Too hardline a criticism on racial topics, feminism, or sexual totems would attract a horde of lawyers and non-profits eager to represent a disgruntled employee. Diversity officers and sensitivity training must be used as insurance against legal action, so these also shape the newsroom culture and thus public discourse.
This provides an economic, not simply ideological, explanation for why something like AFFBrainwash represents (and polices) the rightmost boundary of acceptable opinion.