Saturday, October 15, 2016

This Week in Social Justice Warrior-Dom

A fond look back at all the things that had ultra P.C. jihadists outraged ... before they forget all about them in just a few days. 

By: Jimbo X

It's official: nonviolent 'racism' is a greater societal blight than extremely violent 'anti-racism' 

I have to admit: it gets pretty boring having to write about race relations in the United States so much. But since the media is so utterly obsessed with promoting it as the absolute biggest problem in American society - citations, still needed - I really don't have much of a choice. They keep pushing a curiously one-sided discussion about racial hostilities - which, itself, seems to be contradicted by federal data - and I have the social, NAY, moral obligation, to keep riposting with evidence-based, factually-informed articles of my own about the uncanny similarities between today's "politically awakened" social justice mobs and the McCarthyists of yore, the indisputable fact that multicultural consumerism has already devoured the long dead vestiges of national (let alone racial) identity and the frank, rarely spoken reality that it is classism - and not the much maligned specter of racial bigotry - that truly undergirds America's wealth inequality and social mobility problems

About a year or so ago, I made the absolutely insane suggestion that while porting about racist sentiments is clearly a bad character trait - even if surveys conducted by, of all publications, The Huffington Post, reveals that MOST Americans, of all races and ethnicities, tend to not give a shit if someone has a prejudiced worldview - it's not necessarily the worst thing a person can be. Indeed, I made the awful, awful presupposition that - compared to being a murderer, a rapist, a career criminal or a negligent parent - simply being a non-violent racist really isn't all that bad. At heart, it seems about the simplest thing in the world to grasp; doing something bad to someone is infinitely worse than merely THINKING something bad about someone. Granted, we can all agree that calling someone the dreaded, despicable and utterly unthinkable "n-word" is an impolite act, but is it truly a human rights violation on par with setting an old woman on fire during a home invasion robbery, or raping a young woman and later explaining to police she deserved it because of slavery, or even failing to pay child support for an entire decade?

Alas, over the last few years, there has been some sort of inexplicable geomagnetic reversal in the way Americans - especially the impressionable college-aged ones - think about such things. Pledging eternal allegiance to the new-new-new wave cult of political correctness, we now find ourselves in a cultural climate where millions of people believe "emotional harm" and "physical harm" are one hundred percent equal as cultural transgressions. Calling someone "stupid," they honestly believe, is no different than punching them in the face, merely having to look at a "Make America Great Again" hat is akin to aggravated assault, and since a bruised ego and a bruised rib are moralistically equivalent, they have no qualms about using direct physical violence in response to clearly non-violent, verbal or written criticisms of their ideals and declaring them acts of legitimate self-defense. The law means nothing, because the only civil code they believe in is their own feelings ... and if you slight those, no matter how indirect, they feel totally justified in taking physically aggressive actions.

This stuff happens all the time, folks. It happened recently at the University of Missouri, where black student government members responded to accusations that somebody said a racial slur by describing members of the Delta Upsilon fraternity as "fucking crackers" and "fucking rednecks" (yep, no irony there, whatsoever), threatening to burn down their home and physically trying to goad other students into fist fights. It happened at Swathmore College in Pennsylvania, where a student dropped out of school after she wrote an article in favor of more selective admissions policies in the campus newspaper and people threatened to cut her tongue off and left notes on her belongings stating "kill yourself bitch." (Thankfully, the university later apologized ... not to the student being criminally harassed, but for even running the "offending" article in the first place.) And it most certainly happened in Alabama, where 17-year-old Brian Ogle was mercilessly beaten by a gaggle of pro-Black Lives Matter activists, who allegedly stomped him into critical condition because he had the audacity to declare he supported police officers. Not that you would gleam as much out of The Washington Post's recent account of the incident, which - astoundingly - fails to acknowledge the minor was nearly killed by a gang of "nine to 60" African-American males. Call me cynical (I prefer the term "realistic"), but do you think all of these mass media monoliths would still be as mum on the details had the script been flipped, and five dozen white kids had shattered the skull of a lone black child in Dixie instead?

Which brings us to perhaps the ultimate display of this great transvaluation of values - the saga of one Duane Buck

On Oct. 5, the Supreme Court of the United States heard from Buck's attorneys, who argue that their defendant deserves a retrial because evidence was submitted in the trial from a psychologist, one Walter Quijano, who - citing indisputable data anyone can cull from literally a minute Googling FBI recidivism stats - said that Buck was likelier to re-offend than the aggregate felon based simply on the mathematically indisputable fact that black criminals, for whatever psychosocial reasons, are likelier to be re-arrested than whites, Hispanics or Asians

Well, in 2011 the state of Texas terminated its services agreement with Quijano, whose unabashedly racist inclinations towards statistically verified fact eventually led the state Supreme Court to grant retrials to several individuals who were convicted in cases in which Quijano supplied testimony. Now it's up to the high court to decide whether Buck, too, gets a second shot in the courtroom. Or as Chicago Tribune columnist/alarmist Leonard Pitts, Jr., put it? "If the state of Texas executes Duane Buck, it'll be because he is black." 

This is the world we live in, folks. We are rapidly approaching a social cosmos in which merely stating factually accurate data about racial discrepancies in behavior and outcomes are becoming cultural crimes on par with LITERALLY murdering people. Things are bad enough already, but unless someone - or something - manages to drop a serious load of common fucking sense on the aggrievement-addicted masses, we're slowly but steadily traipsing our way down the road to true Orwellian tyranny.

And this nightmarish American fascism won't be accompanied by the sound of clomping jackboots on city streets. Instead, I'd imagine it sounds like a rather innocuous speech emanating from the ivory lecterns of our most prestigious venues of higher education ... only with the cultural Marxist chestnut "deconstruct" replaced by the far more appealing verb "destroy."

Two stories, two continents, one overlying theme and two totally different responses from the global media

Now here's an interesting little social phenomenon. Let's say you have two stories that, all things considered, are about the very same thing - in this case, people saying some very pointedly racist things. Now, the variable here is twofold. In one instance, the scenario involves whites in the United States saying some very impolite and inconsiderate things about black people. And in the other? Well, it involves blacks in South Africa saying some very impolite and inconsiderate things about white people. The great global sin of "racial bigotry" being equivalent, one would assume that each scenario would receive equal play in the international media, with each instance being treated as equally lamentable and regrettable occurrences. Alas, the great stewards of international "news" really didn't see the point in highlighting one of the above-mentioned examples. Of course, publications the world over hopped on the story of two south Georgia cops who traded racially derogatory things with one another on Facebook (although I'm not entirely sure the U.S. Uncut headline "Georgia cops caught bragging about targeting black drivers in insanely racist Facebook messages" is necessarily an accurate summary of the episode. Or an objective one.) Of course, other outlets took a more sensationalist approach, but - with the possible exception of some fairly hyperbolic, loaded terms like "hunted" - these international publications are more or less circumstantially factually accurate in their no-doubt alarmist coverage.

And in this case, I would say the outrage is more than warranted. It's one thing to go after two civilians who drop the "n-word" in casual, private discourse, but to have two police officers text the term "niggs" to each other while on the clock? Forget the racist angle, the fact that those two lugheads were that stupid and careless is reason enough to fire their asses. And in the wake of this clearly prejudicial incident - which inspired worldwide ire - one just naturally assumes that there would be an equivalent amount of anger over #FeesMustFall supporters in South Africa, whom in addition to telling white students they have to join their campaign or else, have also been threatening their colleagues with voice messages declaring "at least one white student must die, whether male or female" in order to advance their vendettas? Well, think again - despite the very linchpin of the story being one ethnic group calling for the goddamn murder of a different ethnic group to achieve their political ends, none of the heavy hitters of global media - CNN and Al Jazeera or the BBC or even The Daily Mail - have gone anywhere near the story. In fact, there is a grand total of two articles about the incidents on Google News, and it appears that both of them are from South African publications. 

I just don't get it. I mean, it's not like there is a fringe populist oppositional party in South Africa gaining tremendous popularity under an initiative to involuntarily seize the property of white people, and whose official members have called for the actual genocide of Caucasians or anything like that, right? And there's certainly no longitudinal data demonstrating that whites in South Africa are being directly targeted in a staggering number of racist vigilante attacks, and for sure, no international genocide monitoring organizations have ever raised any concerns about the rise in virulently anti-white politics going on in the country. And without question, anti-white sentiment isn't so steeped in South African culture that the goddamn motherfucking president of the country has ever gone on live television to sing a song extolling the joys of killing white people.

How interesting it is that "journalists" the world over have accepted America's "epidemic" of racism - especially in the criminal justice system - as the God-given truth and fancy themselves on disseminating details about any and all events that back up that narrative, but they seem oh so hesitant to address the equally apparent reality of foaming, frothing, bordering-on-genocidal anti-white rancor pulsing through the veins of the South African consciousness? I guess that just means that some clearly racist examples of state oppression, apparently, are simply more worthy of discussion than others.

Trump detractors harp on The Donald for saying things Mr. Clinton actually did

It looks like the Hillary campaign's "October Surprise" came in the form of a 2005 Access Hollywood hot mic leak, in which Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said, among other things, that he was so wealthy and powerful he could hypothetically grab women by their vaginas and kiss whoever he wanted to because goddamnit, he's Donald Trump, that's why. He also discussed his failed efforts to bed a a would-be sexual conquest, who rebuffed his advances despite his noble attempt to woo her into the sack by ... taking her furniture shopping? To be sure, it's not exactly the kind of stuff you want going public during a presidential bid, but isn't it just a little hypocritical for Clinton supporters to tear apart Trump for his comments when the fucking spouse of the person they are rallying behind literally did the very things their sworn enemy discussed in a private conversation 11 years ago? In that, is there some sort of MORAL difference between someone engaging in chauvinistic behavior as a presidential candidate and someone engaging in chauvinistic behavior as ACTUAL president? And why in the hell is Donald Trump using the words "tits" and "pussy" considered a campaign-sinking matter when Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State included borderline criminal negligence with top-secret national security intel and verified destruction of evidence

Nope, no media bias here. Absolutely none.

Certainly, this shocking audio popping up the very same day as WikiLeaks dropping hundreds of emails revealing that Hillary favors open-hemisphere trade (the exact opposite thing she has claimed in numerous campaign stops), that even she thinks it's impossible to vet all Syrian immigrants adequately, that she wants to enact more stringent gun laws by executive order, she colluded with major media outlets to promote her campaign and that her top publicist considered half of the country "functionally illiterate," while an entirely separate leak revealed the Clinton Foundation may have received misappropriated TARP funds from big bank donors is all just a wild and woolly coincidence, right? Unless there's a goldmine of sexist Trump audio recordings out there just waiting to be cracked open ahead of election day, methinks the Clinton camp is going to have to stretch this latest Donald snafu out for as long as they possibly can. After all, just one percent of the total Hillary emails in WikiLeaks' possession has trickled out to date...

I couldn't have said it better myself, random friend of a friend on Facebook.

Tim Burton accused of racism after recent media comments

I've never really thought about it before, but there really aren't a whole lot of white folks in the Tim Burton filmography. I mean, yeah, there's Billy Dee Williams in the first (and still best) Batman movie, and uh, Michael Clarke Duncan ... playing a gorilla ... in the 2001 Planet of the Apes remake, but beyond that? His movies tend to be whiter than the most historically liberal states in the union. So in that, I really can't fault an interviewer asking Burton how come there's so little melanin in his films while doing a presser for his latest halfhearted cinematic cash grab (which, apparently, is an unabashed rip-off of the X-Men.) That said, Burton himself probably could've found a better way to phrase his response:
"Things either call for things, or they don’t. I remember back when I was a child watching The Brady Bunch and they started to get all politically correct. Like, OK, let’s have an Asian child and a black. I used to get more offended by that than just … I grew up watching blaxploitation movies, right? And I said, that’s great. I didn’t go like, OK, there should be more white people in these movies."
As you would imagine, the social media hordes didn't take kindly to Burton's willful refusal to kowtow to identity politics madness unabashedly discriminatory comments, with Twitter users in particular giving old poofy head the what-fer. Granted, I doubt intrepid reporter Rachel Simon would dare aver the thought of asking the very same "how come your casts aren't more diverse?" question to directors like Ava DuVernay, Kasi Lemmons and Charles Burnett, but the fact, stubbornly, remains: as you can no doubt see for yourself, the casting in Tim Burton movies remains almost blindingly white, aesthetically and thematically.

Now that's what I call white power. 

Let's hear it for absurd violence!

You know, collectively, we spend way too much time talking about our respective differences. I've long thought the absolute best way to mend our fractured, contentious ethnoracial strife, worldwide, has been to go the opposite route of the cloying, pandering, multiculturalism uber alles enforced diversity approach. Rather, if you really want to bring about a sense of pan-global racial equality, let's focus on the indisputable fact that - regardless of our sex, race, ethnicity, language, religion, color, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity - we can all be a bunch of sick, disturbing, psychopathic cretins, all worthy of the death penalty multiple times over. Don't believe me? All you have to do is take a gander at the following quick hit transgressions below and you'll promptly be reminded that when it comes to psychosexual, sadist pieces of shit, said pieces of shit truly do come in every color of the rainbow:

And perfectly demonstrating just how bad things have gotten? It's so bad that now, Denzel Washington is beating up Aretha Franklin and the cowardly mainstream press won't even cover it. Pssh ... the fourth estate, my ass

Higher education continues to lower expectations for future of humanity

These days, the problem isn't finding stories about colleges and universities employing borderline fascist, free expression-squelching and ironically prejudicial policies in the name of political correctness. Indeed, the rub is in finding a way to limit the most recent buffet of madness before us into a single paragraph. Alas, we here at The Internet Is In America always put our best foot forward, especially when it comes to highlighting the litany of ways academia is turning the minds of tomorrow's professionals into totally unemployable, wannabe-radical mush - so grab yourself a plate and dig into the SJW smorgasbord , why don't you?

Alas, there does appear to be a silver lining in the clouds, folks ... and oddly enough, it comes in the form of the tea-sipping, ultra-liberal frosh at York University. Forced to undergo an "expected" but not technically mandatory "sexual consent" class, about a quarter of the university's first-year students walked out of the 10-minute course, which was described by many students as "patronizing" (well, technically, "patronising," since those Limeys don't know how to use the letter "z," for some reason.) "There is no correct way to negotiate getting someone into bed with you. In suggesting that there is, consent talks encourage women to interpret sexual experiences that have not been preceded by a lengthy, formal and sober contractual discussion as rape," declared one irked freshman. "If students really need lessons in how to say yes or no, then they should not be at university."

New video game allows players to experience the vicarious, virtual thrill of a race war

Operating a website that, at last estimate, is at least 40 percent content concerning old school video games, I am often asked why I don't give a toot about contemporary gaming. Overlooking the numerous articles I've written over the years explaining why, one of my primary grievances with today's video games is that they've gotten way too full of their own bullshit. They can't just be content with being fun and entertaining diversions, now they've got to justify their own existence with some sort of cornball "social commentary." To be fair, sometimes, this works incredibly well - indeed, I've long considered the Grand Theft Auto games to be the greatest overall American satirical work since the heyday of All In The Family. Alas, for every halfway decent "seriously, we want to be considered real works of art" game like Spec-Ops: The Line and Men of Valor, you also get about 40 or 50 stupid "indie" games with minimal gameplay and plot motifs about immigration policy and milking your over-diagnosed mental health disorders for all they're worth in the Great American Victimization OlympicsSo enter Mafia III, the latest entry in a fairly mediocre video game franchise that has tried and largely failed to imitate the success of the GTA series. This latest game is set in New Orleans in the late 1960s, and wouldn't you know it, you play as a heroic black Vietnam veteran who gets treated like dog shit by a bunch of gloriously one-dimensional "redneck" antagonists, with several in-game missions calling for the complete and utter elimination of the rebel-flag waving "Dixie Mafia," a gaggle of sister-pimping, thick-drawled, "n-word" spouting ne'er-do-wells with intonations so stereotypical they might as well be racial epithet hurling Elmer Fudds. Alas, despite the game itself primarily focused on the criminal exploits of an African-American assassin who mercilessly murders scores of Haitians, police officers and "good old boys" for horning in on his nefarious black market doings, the developer of the game felt the necessity to issue a stern warning at the beginning of Mafia III - not for the bloodthirsty, self-righteous, homicidal vigilantism, but for the bad guys occasionally dropping racial slurs.

Quite possibly the most profound thing ever said on Reddit.

There is absolutely no reason to ever think about visiting Roger Ebert's old website

Roger Ebert is one of those guys I admire and despise in almost equal degrees. To his benefit, his writing style greatly influenced me and even now, I often churn through busywork while old episodes of Siskel and Ebert at the Movies play on YouTube. Alas, while more often than not I agreed with his assessment of films, when he was off the mark, by golly, was he wrong every which way from Sunday. Indeed, in his scathing reviews of all-time degenerate cinema classics like I Spit On Your Grave and Goodbye, Uncle Tom, he can't help but let his personal politics creep into the "critique," which usually became some sort of slobbering screed against whatever tons o' fun considered to be "racist" or "misogynistic" (and in case you are wondering how entrenched his pioneering SJWarrior-dom was, keep in mind he once said Predator 2 was meant to capitalize on white people's fears of inner-city blacks.) Alas, despite his televised stance against political correctness, the palpable influence of Ebert's pioneering virtue signaling is GLARINGLY apparent at the vestiges of his old website, which since his death in 2014, has been taken over by a small armada of progressive-liberal types who have turned literally every movie review assigned to them into some sort of sociocultural activist mission. The blatant, self-aggrandizing propaganda has been in full swing as of late, with all of the following enlightening critiques being shat out on the Interwebs as of late:

Note, all this stuff was taken from just one week of reviews. Now tell me this, folks: if the cult of Cultural Marxism is so strong and so pronounced in the hearts, minds and souls of the media that they can't even review stupid, throwaway kids movies without turning it into a vehement attack on wholly fabricated cultural constructs like "white privilege" and "toxic masculinity," just what kind of societal endgame are they REALLY pushing for here?

Rapper draws controversy for stating he doesn't think racism is a major social problem

To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about Lil' Wayne, but judging from his glorious refusal to adopt the popular herd mentality without once stopping to critically think whether the tagline is even true, I reckon I might just have to add me some of his tracks to my iPod. In a recent interview with Skip "literal cancer" Bayless, the mastermind behind such endearing tunes as  "Pussy Monster," "Pussy, Money, Weed," and "N.O. Nigga" was asked his thoughts on racism in contemporary U.S. society. Much to the shock and horror of millions around the globe, the tender-hearted lyricist behind "Nigga wit Money" responded with "these 33 years have been nothing but a blessing. I have never - and never is a strong word - never dealt with racism." Naturally, rather than let an adult black man come to his own conclusions about the world, the paternalistic liberal media has decided to take Lil' Wayne to the proverbial woodshed, with USA Today's Maeve McDermott describing the rapper's comments as "a classic case of a celebrity conflating his personal, skewed-by-fame experiences with those of the general public" ... a rather turgid personal attack masquerading as journalism at least halfway explainable because McDermott is a classic case of an ideologue conflating her personal, skewed-by-identity politics dogma with the actual experiences of the general public.

Cop decides it's better to get beaten half to death by criminal than be accused of racism

Remember a couple of weeks back, when I told all you kids the story about the British teen who committed suicide after a photo of herself mimicking "Asian face" went viral? Well, if you ever needed further proof that society has gone on ahead and spiritually ordained "racism" as the ultimate cultural sin and an albatross worse for the white man than death itself, look no further than what happened in Chicago on Oct. 5. Responding to the rather routine incident of someone driving their car through a liquor store, a 43-year-old female officer was attacked by a 28-year-old Parta Huff, a man high on PCP (who, for the record, also had three previous weapons arrests) who then proceeded to literally beat her into a comatose state. “The offender struck a female officer in the face and body and then repeatedly smashed her face into the pavement until she was rendered unconscious,” Chicago P.D. Superintendent Eddie Johnson (who, as fate would have it, looks just like Carl Winslow) told the Chicago Sun-Times. "As I was at the hospital last night visiting with her, she looked at me and said she thought she was gonna die. And she knew that she should shoot this guy. But, she chose not to because she didn’t want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news.” A bystander described the incident unfurling: "He threw her down and he started punching her like she was  a punching bag," one eye witness claimed. "I've never seen a cop get hurt the way she [did.]" There you have it folks - we officially live in a world where our law enforcement officials, the very people designated by society itself to protect the masses from maddened crowds, have determined it's better for their well-being to let criminals COMMIT violent crimes than safeguard their own lives. No hyperbole, no exaggerations, they would literally DIE rather than be accused of even BASELESS racism now.  And if you think that's anything short of a national tragedy - if not the biggest indication yet that Pax Americana is on a downward trajectory - you're either an idiot or - the true victors in all of this anti-cop backlash - a goddamn criminal

...and a few headlines that speak for themselves...

Regrettable incident in Miami is but the latest in a long string of all out melees transpiring at Chuck E. Cheese restaurants across America

Liberals struggle with cognitive dissonance of Ruth Bader Gingsburg saying she thinks Colin Kaepernick's national anthem protests are "really dumb"

Trump supporters physically eject attendee holding "Pepe 2016" sign

Rich white liberals are totally against plans to rezone schools that would send their kids to shitty inner city facilities

To avoid offending indigenous peoples, efforts underway to rename province of British Colombia...

...while CBC talking heads demand Blue Jays play-by-play team refrain from calling the ALCS challengers "the Indians"

"Tranny granny" Halloween costume recalled from major retailers' shelves

European Union politely requests British press doesn't mention it when Muslims commit terrorist crimes

Bakery accused of racism for selling Oreos-flavored cupcake called "Mr. President" ... even though the owners of said bakery are Obama supporters and black themselves

Norfolk, Va. councilwoman says the judicial system has been infiltrated by the KKK

Muslim apologist explains why it's kosher to sexually assault 9-year-olds

Let's all celebrate cultural diversity as Covergirl begins sexualizing underage transgender models!

In Boston, 9-year-old shot while playing on a playground ... at one in the morning

Texas juveniles get their jollies setting 10-year-old special needs child on fire

Miley Cyrus literally allows concertgoers to finger her on stage

WikiLeaks confirms Clinton was in cahoots with major media outlets to promote her campaign, advocates for global trade behind closed doors, called Catholics and evangelicals "backwards," struggles to comprehend the needs of the middle class and met with "strategists" on the best way to (illegally) delay releasing her emails


Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.