Wishful thinking versus reality

Sometimes we fool ourselves and give credit where credit is not due.  While browsing the FCC’s website, I found that they actually link to (among other things) a review of the book “A Manifesto for Media Freedom” by Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer.  The first paragraph reads:

The alternative-media revolution of the last twenty years has smashed the liberal monopoly over news outlets and created a true marketplace of ideas. Rather than fight back with their own beliefs, today’s liberals work relentlessly to smother this new universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign finance reform and media regulations.

Not only that, but the FCC’s blog clearly allows some conservative oriented comments.   For a brief moment, I felt as if there may be some objectivity even within government agencies.  I soon realized my mistake and saw that the FCC, like every other government entity, does not actually have our best interests, or the protection of our liberties, in mind.  Instead, it is obsessed with controlling us and advancing the cause of non-whites.  Never is any concern, whatsoever, shown for whites.  I submitted the following comment on one of their forums:

You express concern about the needs of minorities.  But there is an entire television network dedicated to blacks: BET.  There are several dedicated to Hispanics.  I want to know what the FCC is doing to encourage the creation of a network specifically for whites.  Especially since whites are slated to become a minority in the near future (and already are in some states and many cities).  Everybody has the right to feel good about what they are – and this includes white people.  Especially white children.

My comment was rejected; any concern for the welfare of whites is perceived as “hate” and will not be tolerated.  So, seeing that the FCC is a publicly funded organization – and, therefore, its website public property – how do they justify such biased and discriminatory practices?  They do not need to justify anything – because they refuse to even acknowledge opposing views.
This is why any claims, on their part, that they are only interested in defending our freedom of speech, must be taken with great skepticism.  If they have no qualms about censuring a blog that I pay for through my taxes, then is it really such a leap for them to censure speech that is paid for with other money?  Let me pose this question differently: Right now the maximum percentage of our income that can be taxed, through the income tax, is 35%.  In the past, it has been as high as 94% (at least in theory).  This illustrates the fact that virtually all of our money is seen, by our government, as up for grabs.  All they need is some sort of excuse to take it.  The same applies to our liberties.  Members of Congress, who actually stop to consider whether the bill they are voting on is constitutional or not, can be counted on one hand.  So, there is absolutely no reason to trust criminal syndicates such as the FCC to refrain from censuring our speech based on their anti-white agenda.
But back to the apparent tolerance the FCC shows for conservatism, I think it would be better if they would simply show their true colors and allow only “liberal” views to be represented on their site.  That way people would not be fooled into thinking they have any conservative sentiments.  Most likely, any conservative statements found on such government websites are merely to give the perception of impartiality and fairness.  It is all a ruse.  To expect actual honesty from them would be like expecting good table etiquette from a pig.
Of course, this should not be a revelation to most readers.  But I wanted to underscore the ease with which we can be tricked, if only momentarily, into believing what we want to believe.  Since we want to believe that government is working toward our general welfare, it is easy for politicians to fool people into accepting their sincerity.  Since we want to believe that all people are essentially the same, it is easy to swallow the multiracial propaganda that is constantly being shoved down our throats.
We can take this to the next level.  We like to believe that our dogs, cats and hamsters are far more similar to us than they actually are.  We cling to every human-like antic, made by our pets, and we call it “cute”.  I think “cute” is a code-word for something that mimics a human baby or child – because, from an evolutionary perspective, it is advantageous to us to find the young of our own kind cute.  I have noticed a tendency among (white) racial egalitarians (so-called “liberals”).  They will go out of their way to shower praise and affection upon black children more so than white children.  My take on this is that deep down, they don’t consider those children fully human.  Their praise and affection is as if to say, “how cute!  It almost looks human!” – just as they might react to a monkey in a zoo.  Perhaps these feelings cause them guilt, so they’ll go out and adopt one just to prove that this is not so.
Many will read the preceding paragraph and cringe.  So I’ll pose a simple question: have you ever seen a “liberal” who does not find black children to be cute – and will readily admit it?  Of course I am not referring to all black children; only to those who are typical of their race.  I am fairly certain that my own standards of beauty/cuteness are fairly representative of white Americans (amongst whom I grew up).  Yet I openly admit that I do not find most black children to be cute.  I think some of them are cute – but not the ones with typical Negro features.  This is not a value judgment and it does not mean I consider them less than human, just as I would not consider an ugly woman less human than a pretty one.  It would be astounding if every single left-leaning human in the Western world just happened to find Negro features in children to be cute.  But they want to find them cute, so they act as if they are.  Not all dogs or cats are cute.  Some are ugly – and people have no qualms about expressing this.  They do not fear offending the animals. But, when it comes to some children, it is considered “racist” to not find them cute.  Of course, there are plenty of ugly white children too.  But what makes them ugly is not their Caucasian features; it is simply that they are ugly in a generic sort of way.
The common thread, in all the above, is that people believe (or say they believe) what they want to believe.  Honesty is a rare commodity these days.

This entry was posted in examples of propaganda, freedom of speech issues, government/corporate discrimination against whites, libertarian thought. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Wishful thinking versus reality

  1. Californian says:

    Well, once again, we can see the call for a “dialog on race” to be fraudulent. And again, this shows why the Internet is important in keeping alive opposition to prevailing liberal ideology.
    What episodes such as the one you describe with the FCC do is further discredit the government’s claims to objectivity and even handedness, especially when it comes to race. Pre-Internet, there would have been few venues in which to express opposition to multicultist ideology. But the Internet allows not only the expression of opposing points of view, but also for an increasing number of people to see how the mainstream media, and the government, are showing only one side of the story.
    The recent incident of the government+media trying to connect the Tucson shooter to American Renaissance is a case in point. In the old days, they would have gotten away with this (with, perhaps, a footnote of protest from groups such as Accuracy in Media). Today, the exposure of such duplicity goes viral via blogs and independent web sites.
    So it’s progress.

  2. Eugenicist says:

    “My take on this is that deep down, they don’t consider those children fully human. Their praise and affection is as if to say, “how cute! It almost looks human!” – just as they might react to a monkey in a zoo. Perhaps these feelings cause them guilt, so they’ll go out and adopt one just to prove that this is not so.”
    I think you’re entirely correct JAY. Also, liberals don’t think these kids are cute, so much as they tell themselves they think they’re cute. It’s like a parent with a favorite child, who always has to make a conscious effort to praise the other children. It’s very painful to admit “I love one of my children more than the rest” so they just tell themselves that they don’t.

  3. fred says:

    I was at a basketball game a while back. The kids were all about 2nd or 3rd grade and there was one mixed black kid on the court. He wasn’t a bad player but he wasn’t that good. Probably a little above average.
    Everytime the ball touched his hands there was a group of people who cheered like maniacs. They couldn’t have all been his relatives because I knew who is mother was and they weren’t sitting anywhere near her.
    There was also a little white kid on the other team who really was good. About 1/3 of the time he would steal the ball and dribble it all the way back for a layup. All you ever heard for him was crickets.
    That was a while back but I still remember it because it was so conspicuous. They were all in a contest to see who could cheer the loudest for the black kid. And I wondered if any of them realized just how obvious it was.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *