Tag Archives: guns

The Jewsmedia Script, Vegas Edition

manipulate_emotions_be_dishonest

A man with white skin is alleged to have shot into a White crowd in Las Vegas, injuring over 500 people and killing some five dozen. How does the anti-White jewsmedia react?

Cohencidence #1. Two professional anti-White jewsmedia house niggers, one a transracial fraud, the other some kind of tragic mulatto, push the same reality-inverting narrative.

The White Privilege of the “Lone Wolf” Shooter, by Shaun King:

No expensive wall along the Mexican border would’ve prevented this. No Muslim ban stopping immigrants and refugees from a few randomly selected countries from reaching our shores would’ve slowed this down.

Paddock, like the majority of mass shooters in this country, was a white American. And that simple fact changes absolutely everything about the way this horrible moment gets discussed in the media and the national discourse: Whiteness, somehow, protects men from being labeled terrorists.

The privilege here is that the ultimate conclusion about shootings committed by people from commonly nonwhite groups often leads to determinations about the corrosive or destructive nature of the group itself. When an individual claiming to be a Muslim commits a horrible act, many on the right will tell us Islam itself is the problem. For centuries, when an act of violence has been committed by an African-American, racist tropes follow — and eventually, the criminalization and dehumanization of an entire ethnic group.

America’s white man problem: After Las Vegas, a familiar script unfolds, by Chauncy DeVega:

Whenever a white man commits an act of mass gun violence in America — politically motivated or otherwise — there is a cultural script that is closely followed by the mainstream news media, politicians and too many members of the public. This narrative is obvious and predictable. Alas, it provides some small measure of comfort to many, even if that familiarity is rooted in gross hypocrisy and flagrant contradictions.

Unlike the impulsiveness he has shown when Muslims are accused of committing a terrorist act, either in the United States or abroad, Donald Trump will be reserved and careful in his statements. The American news media will respond by observing that Trump has now magically become “presidential,” as if his sins could be washed away by a chattering class desperate to make the abnormal into something palatable and routine.

Cohencidence #2. The brainiacs at Vox and Newsweek invoke statistics while pretending they don’t understand proportions.

White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners, says Vox:

But in the eight months since Trump took office, more Americans have been killed in attacks by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners.

Adopting extremist views and committing horrendous acts of violence in the name of some “righteous” cause, be it religion or politics or just plain old hatred, isn’t something that only Muslims, or Arabs, or immigrants, or any other group of people do. It’s something humans do.

White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings than Any Other Group, says Newsweek:

Statistics show that since 1982, the majority of mass shootings — 54 percent — were committed by white men, according to data from Mother Jones. Black people were the second largest perpetrators of mass shootings based on ethnic background, but only accounted for roughly 16 percent of the total incidents during the same time period.

Here behind the stupid act they’re pushing the same fundamental delusion, reading from the same script as the house niggers. “Oy vey, the mass media is always unfairly blaming non-Whites, especially aliens, and especially muslims. We should start blaming Whites, because we never blame Whites for anything!”

The details of such articles hardly matter. The payload is in their headlines. The point is that race matters. The premise is that Whites are evil, non-Whites are good. The author sees their own perception of someone’s Whiteness as evidence enough to justify condemnation. Actual identity and motives are regarded as irrelevant. It doesn’t even matter whether the individuals in question were doing the shooting or getting shot. They’re White. That’s the problem.

Cohencidence #3. The jewsmedia’s late night comedy wing takes a different tack, refers to race only implicity, but pushes the gun grab agenda hard.

Jimmy Kimmel Calls Out Lawmakers By Name, Says They Better Pray For Forgiveness

Seth Meyers Is Fed Up With Congress Responding To Gun Violence Only With Prayers

Who’s driving the anti-gun agenda? Organized jewry. Why is the jewsmedia anti-White? Because it’s driven by jews.

By the way, this behavior isn’t a reaction to Trump. The jewsmedia faults Trump, and would not have faulted Clinton, but the anti-White premise doesn’t change. In 2013, for example, jewsmedia jews were blaming Whites for the Boston marathon bombing before any suspects had even been identified. It was the same script they’re using today, right down to the “oy vey, won’t somebody pity the poor muslims who don’t have White privilege” shtick.

hittin_da_boozeye

Puttin da Muhfugging Bullit Throo da Muhfugging Boozeye

Women Ready For SHTF

Youtube hosts a broad selection of gun-related videos. The titilating sub-genre sandwiched in the middle of the video above is probably among the more popular. In fact, the gun video genre as a whole represents just the tip of an enormously popular and vibrant American gun subculture. The Constitution-reading, law-abiding portion of this subculture is also overwhelmingly White. Even so, it’s hard to find videos like this on YouTube. This video doesn’t just titilate. It expresses a pro-White political position.

The black man is alarmed because he sees that, when the Schumer Hits The Fan, Whites will not only be well armed but better prepared. The contrasting sights and sounds – vulgar threat, bonny poise – stir deep, primal emotions. The women shooters don’t have to say a word. Any White man with a properly functioning limbic system gets this message. As disgust and tingle pass, there is anger. White women shouldn’t need to take up arms. Something is wrong in a society where they see such a need. Racial pride wells up, however, with the recognition that we do prepare well to face challenges, in whatever form they come.

Where we are weak is identity, which compounds our difficulty in properly identifying threats to us. Whites don’t have a problem hitting the bullseye. Whites have a problem deciding which bullseye to hit. Ultimately, this is because Whites have a problem thinking clearly about who “we” is.

The 1960s-era Wally Butterworth voice-over at the end adds historic context. What has gone wrong started going wrong a long time ago. The Butterworth commentary is a reminder that for decades now the struggle for cultural and political power in the US, for it’s identity, hasn’t primarily been with blacks, but with jews. Neither he nor Rockwell tried to fool themselves or others into thinking that someday blacks would run America. Like George Lincoln Rockwell, Butterworth rightly made a point of calling upon Christian Whites to defend the country they had built. Today it is only more obvious that the assault is on White interests as a race, not constrained by borders or creed.

omega

Omega Man

From Charlton Heston’s speech, Winning the Cultural War, delivered 16 February 1999, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School:

Let me back up a little. About a year or two ago, I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms of American citizens. I ran for office. I was elected, and now I serve. I serve as a moving target for the media who’ve called me everything from “ridiculous” and “duped” to a “brain-injured, senile, crazy old man.” I know, I’m pretty old, but I sure Lord ain’t senile.

As I’ve stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I’ve realized that firearms are — are not the only issue. No, it’s much, much bigger than that. I’ve come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain accepted thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 — and long before Hollywood found it acceptable, I may say. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else’s pride, they called me a racist.

I’ve worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life — throughout my whole career. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out the innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution I’m talking about, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they’re essentially saying, “Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that. You are using language not authorized for public consumption.”

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we’d still be King George’s boys — subjects bound to the British crown.

He followed with a series of anecdotes typifying the absurdities of our times. Then he continued:

Now, what does all of this mean? Among other things, it means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can’t be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America’s campuses? And why do you continue to — to tolerate it? Why do you, who’re supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let — Let’s be honest. Who here in this room thinks your professors can say what they really believe? (Uh-huh. There’s a few….) Well, that scares me to death, and it should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in this fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River. You are the cream. But I submit that you and your counterparts across the land are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that and abide it, you are, by your grandfathers’ standards, cowards.

Here’s another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they’ll lose their jobs. But why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayors’ pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.

Now, I don’t care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Democracy is dialogue. Who will defend the core values of academia, if you, the supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, “Don’t shoot me.”

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does — does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don’t celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don’t let America’s universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. That’s what it is: New McCarthyism. But, what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?

Heston spoke in liberal terms and accepted their conventional wisdom on McCarthy and MLK. Even so he could not help but notice and point out the symptoms of our rotten politically correct anti-White regime. He, in person and under his own name, called on future leaders to oppose it.

No wonder he was smeared and ridiculed in his twilight years.

(I haven’t read the book on which the movie Omega Man was based, but I’m guessing the race-mixing was a Hollywood addition. Just a wild guess.)