Advertisement

#Ferguson’s Media Hate Speech

Advertisement

Is your baby racist?

Is your baby white? Then…YES!

“No right is absolute,” leftists will squeal. “The second amendment doesn’t allow you to walk around with suitcase nukes!” Such hyperbole is typical of leftists, as they seek to get the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent.

The camel, of course, is the absolute termination of our rights.

Of perhaps equal priority with nullifying/overturning the second amendment is the rescinding of the first amendment. We can’t have people talking however they please—the little people might get ideas! And so the mantra of leftists is that “You can’t scream ‘fire!’ in a crowded movie theater!”

This stupid example is what undergirds the entire philosophy of “hate speech”—the notion that certain language invariably foments individuals or violent mobs into doing horrendous things, and thus, in the interest of “law and order”, that language should be banned.

But, stupid as it may be, let’s take this “screaming fire” example and see if we can’t find some fitting analogies.

In March of 1991, a worse-than-useless piece of excrement, drunk and high on drugs, led police on a high speed chase that ended with him repeatedly lunging at the officers until they finally beat him into submission. The whole thing was caught on video, but the only bit the propaganda organs of the Liberal Establishment aired was of a subdued Rodney King getting beaten by the LAPD. Over and over and over again the MSM aired this seemingly incriminating bit of video without ever providing the full context of the beating. When the officers were eventually (and rightly) acquitted of assault and use of excessive force, Los Angeles—which had been metaphorically doused with gasoline over the course of a year of incessant anti-white propaganda by the MSM—literally burst into flames. Fifty three people were killed (presumably mostly whites and Asians, though I can’t find figures on this—not surprisingly), over 2,000 people injured (again, presumably mostly whites and Asians), and over $1,000,000,000.00 in property damages were incurred by residents of the city.

Would this have happened without the wildly slanted coverage of the media?

Similar anti-white propaganda was spewed forth by these same media organs on any number of occasions. Take, for just two of the more prominent examples, the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal and the Jenna Six hoax. In both cases, justice was preempted by a media intent on demonizing whites and fueling black rage against them. Facts, evidence, due process—none of it mattered. What mattered solely was the Liberal Establishment’s agenda against whites, and so they rushed to the scenes of these supposed racial atrocities only to get humiliated by the facts. At which point no apologies were uttered, no critical self-reflection ensued. Instead, it was all flushed down the memory hole in the hopes that their stupid audiences would never connect the dots.

But while there was little blood on the MSM’s hands with the aforementioned hoaxes (as a result of their anti-white narratives quickly collapsing under the weight of overwhelming contradictory evidence), this was not the case with the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin fiasco. The mendacity and [anti-white] racist hate of the MSM were on full display during this ridiculous saga, as summarized in this old post of mine. The result was untold number of whites beaten to death, or nearly to death, out of “justice for Trayvon”. How many there were, exactly, is unknown, as the Liberal Establishment does not deem it worthy of their time to count the number of enemies killed in their proxy war against whites.

Now we’re at the latest turn of the screw by the anti-white agitators, with the focal point now in Ferguson, MO. Keeping with their racist agenda, the MSM is white-washing (pardon the term) the black rioters as “protestors” while doing their best to sow the seeds of hate against whites throughout Ferguson—from the PD to the elected officials. How many people have been injured, how many killed, and how much property damage has already been incurred as a result of the MSM’s false narrative is unknown to me at this point. What I do know is that, assuming justice is served and Officer Darren Wilson is acquitted of all charges, those figures will increase quickly.

It’s also important to note that because the anti-white MSM is most concentrated at the national level, the hatred against whites that they constantly whip up knows no borders. In the case of Trayvon Martin and now Ferguson, MO, the violence against whites can crop up anywhere. For example, while everyone is looking at the Islamic connection to the “ax man“, no one seemed to home in on the fact that he appeared to be more driven by anti-white sentiment than by religious fanaticism (until, finally, now).

Where does this anti-white animus find its way into the head of an idiot like Ioon Zale Thompson? What about someone like, say, Nkosi Thadiwe, who shot three white girls because he was enraged about “white privilege”? Where do these ideas come from?

In case there are any skeptics out there of this “conspiracy theory” that our Liberal Establishment has it out for whites, keep in mind that race-baiting, racial-agitating, racial-huckstering, anti-white racist of Tawana Brawley hoax infamy, who has made millions off of doing nothing more than agitating lawsuits against whites, most of them frivolous if not outright fraudulent, has his own show on one of the major cable news networks.

Imagine Fox News hiring David Duke. Of course you can’t. But MSNBC hiring white-hating Al Sharpton? Nothing to see here—move along.

I could go on. And on. And on. But I’ll wrap it up here.

In conclusion, if we define “hate speech” as that which potentially could inflame violent reaction in people, then clearly leftists, particularly the leftists who dominate the media, engage in hate speech…All. The. Time. However, it’s wholly permissible and not even acknowledged as such because it is these leftists who hold a monopoly on power. The only thing they will deem to be “hate speech”—and therefore subject to suppression by the State—is anything that contradicts their preferred narrative.

I.e., “hate speech” is not about preventing violence; it is about preventing whites from defending themselves and their interests.

Advertisement

Related Posts