The meaning of the media’s response to the Connecticut mass murder
From the Times (also see this):
“The Hollander family is probably one of the most venerated families in the Hartford area in the Jewish community,” Larson said. “There isn’t a charity that they haven’t contributed.”This adds to the “Amy Biehl” quality of the crime that I discussed yesterday. Those who are most compassionate and open toward blacks and most eager to help them are the ones who most often get killed by them.
Meanwhile, the central horror continues. Steve Sailer quotes the beginning of the transcript of Omar Thornton’s 911 call:
Dispatcher: State Police.Did this lead to the classification of the mass murder as a hate crime? No. Sailer finds virtually no stories using the terms “hate crime” in the context of the Hartford mass murder. Instead we have the opposite, phenomenon occurring, of which Sailer gives many examples in the mainstream media:
A racial mass murderer says his victims were “racists.” Therefore it is assumed to be possibly or likely true, and the main focus on the crime becomes whether the victims were really racists or not.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anything so disgusting as the mainstream media’s giving credence to the word of a racial mass murderer.
If a white man mass murdered blacks, saying he did it because blacks are evil, he would be considered a racist mass murderer. If a white man mass murdered Jews, saying he did it because Jews are evil, he would be considered an anti-Semitic mass murderer. But when a black man mass murders whites, saying he did it because whites are racist, i.e., evil, our society takes seriously the killer’s word on the matter, and launches a discussion about the putative racism of the victims, and the victims’ friends and family are required to demonstrate that their dead loved ones were not really racists.
This shows how the keystone of the modern liberal order remains what it has always been: the belief in white guilt. The ultimate though unspoken premise of modern America is that whites deserve to be killed by blacks. What else can explain the fact that it is the white victims of the black mass murderer whose moral character is being questioned, not that of the black mass murderer?
Jim C. writes:
You wrote:Alan Roebuck writes:
Perhaps it’s already been said, and perhaps it’s in some sense obvious, but it still needs to be said:LA replies:
And I haven’t even mentioned the mass black ecstasy in response to the O.J. Simpson acquittal in 1995, one of the most revelatory moments in modern American history, when millions of whites, to their horror saw, if only briefly, what black America really is. They stopped seeing it in response to a mass propaganda media campaign which portrayed the black joyousness at the acquittal of a black murderer of whites to be the moral equivalent of whites consternation at the same event. Both views were conditioned by the respective races’ “perspective”—the blacks’ “perspective” consisting of experiencing police racism.Jeremy G. writes:
“The ultimate though unspoken premise of modern America is that whites deserve to be killed by blacks.”David B. writes:
The MSM will soon drop the Connecticut mass murder story. They have made their point. It is hard for the truth to catch up when a lie has been given a huge head start.Van Wijk writes:
As an anonymous commenter at Stuff Black People Don’t Like said recently, labeling your victims racist is like killing them twice. Thornton knew exactly what he was doing. No one will admit it, but in this case the murderer has become the hero of his own crime.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 06, 2010 10:52 AM | Send