The MSM reports that an 11 year old girl in a small Texas town was gang-raped by almost 20 young men. The girl's age prevents her from being identified. But there are pictures of trailers and talk about "working-class areas". All the people interviewed and identified have Anglo names. Are we to assume it is a bunch of white trash doin' what they do?
But, not a hint of info about the men. Hmmm.
My radar is up right away. Certainly in the Duke University (false) rape case, the white race of the (unjustly accused) boys and the black race of the (lying) woman were trumpeted from the housetops.
It has come to seem a rule to me, that when details about perpetrators of crimes are absent or in vague code, they are very likely black or Latino. Why? Because everybody knows that black and Latino men have crime rates out of proportion to their percentage of the population. And because this fact makes them angry and they play victim, we have to coddle their false self-image and make believe we do not know what we all know.
In a British paper, the whole story comes out. The little girl is Latino. All the accused are black.
QED.
This kind of stuff is part of why I became a conservative, because the liberal paradigm forbids me from recognizing facts. Truths that are inconvenient to liberals. It's a condescension, a lying by omission that masquerades as higher ethical sensitivity and invites my complicity. That infuriates me.
And in typical contrast with the Duke story, don't get me started on the utter silence of the so-called press about the savage torture and murder of two white kids by a gang of blacks back in 2007?
As I've said, it would create real family problem for me if any of my nieces and nephews were either A) to marry a Muslim or b) become a journalist.
HT to FiveFeetOfFury
1 comment:
I suppose it goes without saying you wouldn't want any of them to convert to Islam — or to marry a journalist?
Post a Comment