The horror that whites have brought on themselves
C. informs us, the BBC
and the Guardian
are reporting an unprovoked assault by a group of young “Asian” (read Muslim) men against a young white man who was walking along a street in Manchester with a friend when they began to attack the pair. The 17 year old victim suffered two broken eye sockets and will need a metal plate inserted in his cheek bone. Remarkably, the über-PC British police are calling it a hate crime motivated by “race.”
The video posted in the previous entry (“Black man on French train threatens whites with genocide”), which Julian also sent, concludes by stating, in printed text on the screen, that “Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-white.” The categorical assertion provokes further thought. Why have the nations of the West imported and given special privileges to Muslims, Afro-Caribbeans, and others who include in their ranks many who hate, threaten, assault, rape, plunder, and kill whites? As we all know, they imported them to advance the ideology of “anti-racism.” Anti-racism thus means the mass importation and empowerment of people who terrorize and kill whites. Anti-racism is anti-whiteness.
And please, let no one say that the “elites” are solely to blame for foisting this catastrophe on the regular people of the West. Apart from passive, incoherent, impotent grumbling, the regular people of the West have never opposed this policy, and still are not opposing it to this day. Why? Because they also believe that to oppose anti-racism would be racist, and that to be racist is the worst thing there is. Meaning, for white people to exist and to defend their existence as white people is the worst thing there is. - end of initial entry -
Christopher B. writes from England:
Regarding your post on the white boy attacked by “Asians,” note the convoluted language in the Guardian describing the attack:
A 21-year-old man has been arrested after a white teenager was chased and assaulted by a group of young Asian men, in what police have described as a hate crime.
In other words, is the man who was arrested one of the suspected attackers? The Guardian dances around this. In the second section above, the falling to the ground and the attack itself are all jumbled together so we do not know what caused the fractured skull and the broken eye sockets. Also, notice “suffered a fractured skull.”
Stringer-Prince fell to the ground and suffered a fractured skull and two broken eye sockets in the attack, and will need a metal plate in his right cheek.
I noticed the same about the Guardian story, which suggests that the victim suffered all his injuries by “falling to the ground.” Then I read the BBC story, which is far more direct about what happened, telling that the attackers struck the victim in the face.
- end of initial entry -
From the BBC:
Daniel Stringer-Prince, 17, was assaulted by a group of young Asian men on Market Street on Saturday night.
So they threatened him and his friend with a knife, then chased them. As he ran, Stringer-Price fell to the ground, and as he lay on the ground they kicked and hit him in the face and head. (Notice, by the way, how Muslims are now imitating the universal African style of assault, repeatedly kicking the head of a prone, helpless victim.)
He was kicked, punched and left with a broken eye socket and a fractured skull and his friend was punched in the face….
Police believe there were about seven or eight men in the group, who are described as being Asian and in their late teens or early 20s.
Mr Stringer-Price has said he believes the unprovoked attack may have had a “racial” motive and police have confirmed it is being treated as a hate crime.
He and friend Kavan Brown were walking past a takeaway on Market Street at about 22:15 GMT when the gang were sat inside.
One of the men pulled out a knife and made a threatening gesture at the pair, who ignored them and walked on.
The gang then came out of the takeaway and chased the pair, who tried to run away.
Mr Stringer-Prince fell and was attacked on the ground and Mr Brown was punched in the face.
But the Guardian describes the same event as:
Stringer-Prince fell to the ground and suffered a fractured skull and two broken eye sockets in the attack …
making it sound almost as if he suffered the fractured skull and two fractured eye sockets from the fall, rather than from the assailants kicking him in the head as he lay on the ground after his fall—facts that the Guardian entirely leaves out.
Think for a moment of the perverted, evil nature of journalists who would describe a grave assault the way the Guardian did.
James P. writes:
And please, let no one say that the “elites” are solely to blame for foisting this catastrophe on the regular people of the West. Apart from passive, incoherent, impotent grumbling, the regular people of the West have never opposed this policy, and still are not opposing it to this day. Why? Because they also believe that to oppose anti-racism would be racist, and that to be racist is the worst thing there is.
Do you think it is irrelevant that the elites have been propagandizing regular people against “racism” for decades in schools, the media, and in popular entertainment? That it is explicit government policy to promote tolerance and fight racism? The beliefs of regular people do not arise in a vacuum. If regular people believe that racism is the worst thing there is, this is because the elites taught them to believe that. Propaganda works—that’s why governments use it!
But the larger point is that the notion of a division (so widespread among conservatives) between the “elites” and the “regular people” is false, because ALL societies are led by “elites.” In ALL societies, the elites teach the regular people what to believe, what is right and wrong. A society is a single entity, and is responsible for what it does.
To say that only the elites are to blame is like saying that only a man’s brain is to blame for something blameworthy that he did. That’s not the way reality is. A man is a single entity—head, body, limbs. What the man does, the whole man is responsible for. We don’t say that only his head was responsible for something he did, while his hands and feet were innocent.
So a society as a whole is responsible for what the society does. Yes, people who explicitly and publicly dissent from what their society is doing are not responsible as individuals for that policy. But in effect, such dissenters are attempting to set up a counter elite.
Paul K. writes:
I would agree that the blame for our societal degradation must not be blamed solely on the elites, but I think the elites bear most of the responsibility. In our history, has there ever been a time when the attitudes of the elites have been in such stark opposition to those of the average American? Time and again we see that after we enact conservative policies through the democratic process, the elites negate the effect through the judicial system. This has happened with gay marriage, which while being constantly defeated in referendums is inexorably being instituted through the courts. Similarly, while a large majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration, the federal government and the courts undercut every effort to control it. At this point many Americans have become alienated from politics, feeling that trying to resist the elite agenda is like banging your head against a wall. As Claire Wolf famously observed,
America is at that awkward stage.
It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
Your points are well taken, and I have to modify what I said in response to James P. While it is generally true that the elites represent the society as a whole, when the elites are so powerfully arrayed against what ordinary people want, and persistently block and frustrate what ordinary people want, even bending the Constitution and laws out of shape to do so, as shown in the examples you gave, then the general truism no longer applies and must be qualified.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 08, 2012 11:08 PM | Send