| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Tommy" |
| Date: |
26 Oct 2005 03:31:50 PM |
| Object: |
Who decides what is hate and what isn't? |
Who decides what is hate and what isn't?
THE DRUDGE REPORT is at this moment linking to two stories that by
themselves aren't very interesting, but when taken together are most
revealing.
Let's start with the story titled Young Singers Spread Racist Hate. It's
about a pair of twin 13-year-old girls who call themselves Prussian Blue
and who sing about white nationalism, or, at least that's what the story
claims they sing about, and it's laced with captions like "Teaching Hate"
or "A Taste for Hate" that suggest that the writer/producer really wants us
to believe that these are really very hateful 13-year-old girls.
The only thing is, they can't really make the case for that. There is this
quote, attributed to one of the girls, which reads:
""We're proud of being white, we want to keep being white," said Lynx. "We
want our people to stay white ? we don't want to just be, you know, a big
muddle. We just want to preserve our race."
Is that hate?
I ask because DRUDGE links to another story on the same page titled Palm
Beach County: 'More Jewish' than N.Y., from which it can be quoted:
If Jews can assert their heritage by going to a show at the Kravis featuring
a Jewish comedian or by enjoying a bowl of matzo-ball soup at their local
deli, they may not feel the need to join a synagogue, local Jewish leaders
say. Add to that the challenges the religion has faced in recent decades
from interfaith marriages.
Clearly, the desire is being expressed here that Jews continue to marry
other Jews.
Prussian Blue expresses the desire that whites marry whites. So that's hate.
But when Jews express a desire that Jews marry Jews, that isn't hate?
Nor is it hate when Israel, the Jewish state, passes legislation aimed at
preventing Muslims from marrying Jews?
Nor is it hate when foreigners who work in Israel are forced to agree to not
have sex with Jews?
Readers who've read my previous blog entry titled Why didn't you know know
where I'm going with this. Hatred is in the eye of the beholder. And in
these cases, the eye of the beholder sees things through a decidedly Jewish
filter.
The Prussian Blue story is by ABC News. The President of ABC News is David
Westin, who is a Jew. ABC News of course is owned by The Disney Corp. The
President of Disney is Robert Iger. Who is a Jew. The Chairman of the Board
at Disney is still Michael Eisner. Who is a Jew as well.
A news organization that answers exclusively to Jews sees hatred in one race
expressing a desire to foster "racial identity", but declines to see the
same when their own express the very same desire.
It's worth noting that Matt Drudge is Jewish as well.
If by white nationalism the producers means white supremacy, then yes, I
agree that the implication of such an agenda must be considered hateful.
White supremacy as I understand it means seeing to it that America become a
nation of whites-only, on the basis that it is God's will, and which
implies that everybody else is made to leave. And it isn't difficult to
imagine what apparatus would be employed to see that happen.
White separatism on the other hand is quite a bit different. As I understand
the term, this is about whites seeking to live amongst other whites, and I
don't find that to be necessarily hateful. After all, if you look at most
civilizations around the world, you will see that the vast majority of
people live amongst people of their own race. The complication here is
that, in America at least, we have groups like Native-Americans and
African-Americans who have been historically denied that choice, and
continue to bear hardship because of it. In the context of creating
opportunities for equality for those who still suffer their ancestors'
inability to exercise free choice ? to the extent that such a thing exists
? the idea that whites should continue to seek to live amongst themselves
is worrisome. But is it hateful? No, I don't believe that.
The difference ultimately comes down to force. Forcing people to leave
because you don't like their race is wrong. But then too, forcing people to
live together because you don't like their attitudes towards race is wrong
as well. Integration will happen over the course of time. The great cities
are like huge magnets attracting our young and who with each new generation
are less and less concerned with questions of race. Just let it happen.
So, getting back to hatred for a moment, if a white supremacist is somebody
who believes that God meant for white people to rule this land and that
therefore they are entitled to use violence to drive all others from it,
doesn't that then mean we should describe those Jews who advance the notion
of the Jewish state ? as opposed to a Jewish homeland ? as Jewish
supremacists?
They see that land as being given to them by God, and that therefore they
have the right to use violence against all others who would stake claim to
it, do they not?
Somebody please, tell me... what is the difference?
Why is the hatred expressed by Jewish supremacists any less offensive than
that expressed by white supremacists?
And how do Jews in the media here in America get away with continually
pointing at white hatred while never paying any attention to Jewish hatred
in Israel, even though it can be reasonably argued that it is the reason
we've been made to fight this so-called war on terror?
Yeah, I know, we're there because of the oil too.
But you know what? Bush is on his way out. Come 2008, Karl and Libby and
Condoleeza and Rummy and Cheney and the dullard himself will all be gone.
But Sulzberger will still be here. And though Judy Miller is certain to be
gone, there's lots more where she came from. Most of the bad guys are going
to stick around.
We can keep them in check. We just need to be willing to call them on their
hatred if and when they show it.
Who decides what is hate and what isn't?
People who have the moral clarity to see it and the personal courage to
speak out when they do.
http://holocaustnow.blogspot.com/2005/10/who-decides-what-is-hate-and-what-isnt.html
.
|
|
| User: "Bernardz" |
|
| Title: Re: Who decides what is hate and what isn't? |
27 Oct 2005 07:23:43 AM |
|
|
In article <5236965.mxyQJPgrtj@FreeBSD>, 127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1 says...
Prussian Blue expresses the desire that whites marry whites. So that's hate.
But when Jews express a desire that Jews marry Jews, that isn't hate?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The song Sacrifice goes
<snip>
Rudolph Hess, man of Peace. He wouldn't give up and he wouldn't cease,
to give his loyalty to our Cause. Remember him and give a pause.
<snip>
Dr Pierce, a man so wise, helped so many of us open our eyes, and see
the future for what it could be: a future for our Race=3Fs eternity.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is hate.
--
The oil for food scandal shows that the UN valued Saddam's money more
then peace and/or humanitarian considerations.
Observations of Bernard - No 87
.
|
|
|
| User: "Qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: Who decides what is hate and what isn't? |
29 Oct 2005 01:37:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1130411479.e9c4e94c524502766d0543204cf741a6@bubbanews>,
Bernardz <bernardz@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <5236965.mxyQJPgrtj@FreeBSD>, 127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1 says...
Prussian Blue expresses the desire that whites marry whites. So that's hate.
But when Jews express a desire that Jews marry Jews, that isn't hate?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The song Sacrifice goes
<snip>
Rudolph Hess, man of Peace. He wouldn't give up and he wouldn't cease,
to give his loyalty to our Cause. Remember him and give a pause.
<snip>
Dr Pierce, a man so wise, helped so many of us open our eyes, and see
the future for what it could be: a future for our Race=3Fs eternity.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is hate.
What silliness. Where is the hate?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Who decides what is hate and what isn't? |
27 Oct 2005 07:00:02 PM |
|
|
funny you should mention the UN , today's news talk revolved around kick
backs and the negro population of the UN with one very prominent jig in the
middle of it all
On 27-Oct-2005, Bernardz <bernardz@nospam.com> wrote:
The oil for food scandal shows that the UN valued Saddam's money more
then peace and/or humanitarian considerations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
