You say the media is trying to push a "narrative", and that you're not attempting to draw parallels between acts of random violence and the trayvon saga: so what exactly are you referencing here? What are these countless examples of white on black violent crime, which drew national interest at the expense of similar black on white stories? You are aware that your narrative of an America that behaves with prejudice towards white males, at the behest of black people, is ripped straight out of a neo nazi leaning Playbook.
1) I think the main problem i have with your statement is that you imply that cases of clear black on white racial crime are "random" - the mainstream media also use this method. This was clearly a tactic used by the media in the case of Christopher Lane. One of the young men involved in this murder made public statements that showed racial hostility towards ethnic Europeans, yet, the media portrayed the case as "
random" or, "
they were bored and wanted to kill someone". By all my accounts there is a strong racial element to this case - even if the media and members of this forum want to downplay it or blatantly ignore it. Why has no one in this case asked how many people these young men drove by before choosing to
randomly kill a young ethnic European? The media used the scape goat of one of the boys being white, so therefore, it can't possibly be racist! This is equivalent to white people saying "I am not racist, some of my best friends are black". Why is black on white violent crime that has a clear racial element always portrayed, or attempted to be portrayed as "random"? This is part of the mainstream medias and the progressive lefts narrative.
2) The narrative i am referring to is this. The mainstream media uses cases of white on black racial crime to create a false reality that there is a massive amount of racist white men killing people of colour. They do this while portraying every legitimate case of black on white racial crime as "random". Of course, if you notice this narrative and make completely logical and reasonable arguments against it, you are quickly labelled a racist by the thought police. Interesting, why do they do this? Can people not make legitimate observations about their media without being branded a racist? Or even worse, a Neo-Nazi! Why is one narrative acceptable but the other is not? What is their agenda?
3) Do i think they are pushing this agenda/narrative at the "behest of black people" as you say. No,
absolutely not. I actually think the truth to why they are pushing this narrative is way more nefariously evil than most people would care to think. You can put on your tin foil hat now if you would like, and hear me out. If you look at the most of the contemporary racial theory in the west, the majority of it is created by progressives at the Ivy League. I am talking specifically about, critical theory, critical race theory, social justice theories, etc. All of these theories are part of the German Neo-Marxist Frankfurt school. This has been the contemporary Western school of thought regarding race, gender and social justice on University campuses for the past 60 years. Therefore, if the Ivy League says critical race theory is true, then it must be true, and we must follow this narrative at all costs. Many careers and academic departments depend on these theories being true. I think this is why there is such a hostile reaction, or a complete cover up of the truth when it comes to black on white racial crime. Critical race theory is the reason why the MSM portrays most black of white racial crime as random, even if the evidence shows otherwise. What is the main theory of
critical race theory. Simply, whites = oppressive class, whiteness is not a racial reality, it is a measure of political power, whites use this power to control and subjugate people of colour. Sounds dandy on paper, but, has anyone stopped to ask one simple question.
What if they are wrong?
If blacks commit obvious racial crime against a white person, the black person is not a racist, because, racism is the measure of power and blacks don't have power in a system of white supremacy, therefore, the black person is simply killing a class oppressor. This is critical race theory. One of the greatest examples of critical race theory is: "Blacks can't be racist, racism is about power" How has the University system been able to reclassify racism in this way? Am i crazy, or is this not incredibly,
Orwellian - Doublespeak, right before our own eyes. Now, what if the truth is that, A) There are phenotypical traits that are possessed by ethnic Europeans. Ethnic whiteness is a biological reality, and you can target ethnic Europeans based on these phenotypical traits and commit racial crime against them. B) The majority of whites have little to no political power. They are a biological and racial community with their own interests, cultures, languages and history, a.k.a, the
proles. Why is it that a small minority of mostly white, wealthy elites are pushing this theory on a class of poor, uneducated whites? What is their agenda? Is this not open class warfare? The real truth, if we gaze into the abyss long enough, is that wealthy elite whites are pushing these theories to deconstruct and destroy working class and poor white people, they are doing this for political power and to radically change the United States, and the West for their own purposes, nothing more. If you notice this agenda, and make any commentary against it, then you are an apostate to the University - you racist, misogynist, islamophobe, Nazi. Being called a racist, misogynist, islamophobe, or my personal favourite(considering half my family is Polish - and we all know what the lovely SS thought of the Poles) a Nazi, is simply the Western Universities version of
Newspeak, wiki defines newspeak as
"a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit free thought" Interesting.
I don't know if you follow gender politics at all, but, a great backlash against one of the critical theories - "
patriarchal theory" has been happening for at least the last five years or so. Funnily enough, patriarchal theory follows the same formula as critical race theory. Masculinity is a social construct, males use masculinity as a form of political power to subjugate females. Sounds good on paper, unfortunately, all of our empirical evidence seems to show that patriarchal theory is a load of fukking bullshyt. Now, why has there been such a strong backlash against people who are critical of patriarchal theory and also, people who are critical of critical race theory? The first reason is horrible but not nearly as dreadful as the second. The first reason, careers depend on these theories. Journalist careers, academic careers, media careers, etc. If critical theory is wrong, most academic feminists would be out of a job tomorrow. Good bye, so long, your "Gender Studies" department is nothing more than state run propaganda. The Tim Wises and Noel Ignatievs of the world would be finished, done, goodnight uncle Tim. No more books, no more high payed speaking engagements, no more university tenure. The second reason, and this is where starring into the abyss gets really ugly, what if the last sixty years of our political discourse regarding racial, social, and gender politics has been nothing more than state run propaganda? What if their is an elite agenda to politically change the discourse and reshape the West into a "progressive utopia" What if, our university system is nothing more than a totalitarian arm of this agenda. Most people don't want to think about this, or, they simply think people who notice this trend are paranoid lunatics, so, instead of taking any logical or rational criticism of their agenda at face value, they simply double down on their theories, newspeak and doublespeak. Freethought!, how dare you question the University, off to room 101, Prole.
@ anyone who thought things improved in America. That's why I focus more on our struggle, instead of the illusion all is well.
Are you fukking serious?
