Friday, July 18, 2008
44 YEAR-OLD "News" You Can Use For Power-Greed Gratification & Racial Conflict Enhancement
FBI seeks new clues into 'diabolical' killing See how the propaganda method works, there doesn't have to be even the slightest new aspect to the 44-year old story, for officials to work symbiotically with journalists on picking one item out of hundreds of thousands of murders. They're operating as if they believed the public will register it as current events in some way. The requirements to pick this story out are that the victim must not be of the majority, and there needs to be an unnamed white suspect at least. The intentions would seem at least to be to inflame anti-Caucasianism, and excuse the power to force racial quotas that officials gleefully luxuriate in. That the government feeds so eagerly this journalistic corruption, is yet another declaration by them of psychological war on the majority. The unleashing of the black man's freedom-for-aggression, in the decades since the time of the "news" story, is such that the inter-racial murders are actually many times more likely to be by blacks, than as the "news" item would suggest the pattern is. Statistics may be verified here: 30,000 or more are whites killed by blacks, but this excludes attempted murders which did not result in immediate death, and more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
At least once a year, PBS pays a homage to the "Scottsborogh" boys, Tuskegee, Emmit Till or whatever.
Since 1950 or so, what would be your guess as to how many MORE whites have been victimized by blacks than vice versa?
About 20,000 would be my guess.
Since 1970, almost forty years ago, the numbers would be tremendously skewed.
People are more worried about presenting themselves as "victims" thesedays than anything else. They will tell you anything possible, as long as they can cling to that victimhood. I get a kick out of how real-life- "turnaround" stories usually sound alike. They go like this: I was a fuck-up, then I (insert 'found Jesus', 'hit rock-bottom', decided I 'wanted more', etc. here) and over the next decade became the success I am now. This is what rags-to-riches stories usually sound like. To pathetic-whiny liberals, who cant concieve of doing a hard days work, or putting in extra hours to make that business go, its inconcievable that success is apart from someone giving it to you "from above" or that you earned it.
One blog lately put it best: They mentioned why liberals disdained the accountrements of high living and wealth so much. The answer was that most liberals didn't really earn their wealth, but inherited it or won it in a lawsuit, or have a job that would never pay the bills if people had the choice (tenured university professors in social courses that no one would ever take if they had a choice), etc. The people who earned their wealth enjoy it because if it was all taken away, they know they could go out and earn it again. The liberal, ever fearful of what he knows he didn't earn could be taken, hates the things deep down he knows he doesn't deserve to have. I think the blog hit the limousine liberal right on the snout.
My addition to that is that the liberal simply wants to heap poor minorities on the striving white lower-middle and middle class to keep them down because they truly fear competition from them, as opposed to minorities whom they secretely think are never going to be intellectual competition for themselves or their offspring...
A lot of the jobs liberals have would not exist without a huge redistributional apparatus. Doctors for the poor, teachers social workers, psychologists, heaps of bureaucrats, affirmative action managers, and on and on. They would either have to get by on small pay, or not even have that sort of job. They are a built-in constituency for making the memory of 50, 60 even 100 year old events be continually refreshed as if they happened just the other day; since they need the redistribution from the majority to the disadvantaged minorities to keep going. Whatever the current propaganda line is, as to why blacks can't help it and deserve more aid, they will line up behind it.
Anon beat me to the punch. The exact same pattern can be heard on NPR. Also, over the last three years and continuing into the present, New Orleans surely must be the city NPR 'reports' on more than any other, probably in an absolute sense (and certainly if population size is taken into account).
A hurricane is a news event, then when years pass by, you have to keep the memory continually refreshed with new stories of slow recovery. No one is supposed to notice that there was huge culpablity on the part of the reputed victims, nor that minority and female leadership managed to brainstorm a second storm of incompetence.
Post a Comment