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.

Thornton: Yeah, this 911?

Dispatcher: Yeah, can I help you?

Thornton: This is Omar Thornton, the, uh, the shooter over in Manchester.

Dispatcher: Yes, where are you, sir?

Thornton: I’m in the building. Uh, you probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up. This place here is a racist place.

Dispatcher: Yup, I understand that

Thornton: They treat me bad over here, and they treat all the other black employees bad over here too, so I just take it into my own hands and I handled the problem—I wish I coulda got more of the people.

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?

- end of initial entry -

August 7

Jim C. writes:

You wrote:

This shows how the central belief of modern America, and 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.

Well argued, but I’d like to address seriously how whites can protect themselves in the future. We need to consider revocation of citizenship and deportation for violent felons.

Alan Roebuck writes:

Perhaps it’s already been said, and perhaps it’s in some sense obvious, but it still needs to be said:

There’s another reason why liberals (and some conventional conservatives) are acting as if Thornton’s victims had it coming. Liberals and conventional conservatives don’t want to acknowledge how much hatred for whites exists among America’s blacks. Aside from the fact that it contradicts their basic beliefs and is deeply upsetting just on this account, it’s frightening (at least if you’re white.) White liberals (left-liberal and right-liberal) will accordingly have a deep desire to find that the victims did something to warrant the attack, for if they did not, then all whites are in danger from a powerful and irrational force.

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.

Here is my own response to the event at the time, a call I made to the Bob Grant program.

Jeremy G. writes:

“The ultimate though unspoken premise of modern America is that whites deserve to be killed by blacks.”

I would change this slightly to refer to non-liberal whites. Why else are white liberals so obsessed with finding out if the dead white men were racists? Liberal whites are trying to decide whether or not the slaying of these 8 white men was justified. Did these men listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck? Or did they devote their time and money to non-white uplift? Inquiring white liberals want to know.

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.

The white victims are presumed guilty of the worst charge imaginable in liberal society, and are supposed to prove their innocence. It gets worse all the time.

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.

You write: “The ultimate though unspoken premise of modern America is that whites deserve to be killed by blacks.”

In our society, a racist has essentially ceased to be a human being. The Caucasian race is seen as inherently racist. Dehumanization is one of the prerequisites for genocide.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 06, 2010 10:52 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):