Posted on 01/21/2019 12:52:13 PM PST by servo1969
One of the most chilling aspects of the hatred fanned by the duplicitous reporting on the videotaped incident regarding the Covington students and the 60-something Native American has been the venomous rage directed against the face of one of the students, as well as the conclusions drawn about the expression on the face and what it might signify about the person.
I've talked about Orwell before in connection with all of this, and I'm going to bring him up again, because the anger unleashed resembles Orwell's Two Minutes Hate (although this hasn't been limited to two minutes at a time). In Nineteen Eighty-Four Orwell wrote of the feeling stirred up in the audience--interestingly enough, by a propaganda film designed for the purpose:
A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.
The image that provoked a truly hideous rage in an enormous number of people on the left and some on the right was of a teenaged boy named Nicholas Sandmann, whose statement can be found here along with the video screenshot that seems to have sparked the most outrage:
"Bullying" doesn't even begin to describe what has been done to Sandmann by supposedly responsible and thoughtful adults. Even if the original story of what occurred had been true--and it was most definitely not--the depth of the rage would be way out of line.
Here's just one example:
That smug, entitled smile is instantly recognizable. https://t.co/rOs0ybXDD5
-- Slate (@Slate) January 21, 2019
From the article by Ruth Graham, which shows us what the author is fantasizing based on the manipulated story and video:
I think the real reason the clip has spread is simpler: It's the kid's face. The face of self-satisfaction and certitude, of edginess expressed as cruelty. The face remains almost completely still as his peers hoot in awed delight at his bravado. The face is both punchable and untouchable. Many observers recognized it right away.
What is it they "recognized"? A face that is now permissible to hate, apparently; they're not shy about writing about their hate and signing their names to it. That face is white, male, and supposedly "privileged" (whether they know a single thing about that person's actual life circumstances or not). I have come to think of it in a kind of shorthand as hatred towards the "frat boy" in their minds. And it's not new, although I've never before seen a national eruption of this hatred expressed towards someone who is not yet an adult
This hatred is bigoted and prejudiced, pure and simple. The hatred's origins lie not just in the work the media had undertaken to shape its audience towards feeling this hatred--although that is most definitely part of it--but it also is an opportunity for the viewer to draw in all sorts of historical references to other white men and/or boys they have grown to hate, and to make often-absurd parallels.
Graham obliges by telling us who those other white men she hates might be, the ones Sandmann supposedly resembles and conjures up in her fevered brain [emphasis mine]:
The face is in this photo of a clutch of white young men crowding around a single black man at a lunch counter sit-in in Virginia in the 1960s, and in many other images of jeering white men from that era. The face is the rows of Wisconsin high school boys flashing Nazi salutes in a prom picture last year. The face is Brett Kavanaugh--then a student at an all-boys Catholic prep school--"drunkenly laughing" as he allegedly held down Christine Blasey Ford. Anyone who knew the popular white boys in high school recognized it: the confident gaze, the eyes twinkling with menace, the smirk. The face of a boy who is not as smart as he thinks he is, but is exactly as powerful. The face that sneers, "What? I'm just standing here," if you flinch or cry or lash out. The face knows that no matter how you react, it wins.
There are hints there of what's going on in the minds of the haters. A reversal in which the white Sandmann--who actually had been "crowded" by the Native American, Phillips, and was also the object of bigoted racial taunts towards whites from the Black Israelites--becomes falsely identified by Graham with bigoted white aggressors from the past, solely on the basis of their races. Blacks and Native Americans are victims, whites are victimizers, because of the way they look.
The Kavanaugh reference is obvious, and shows the damage done by that entire brouhaha--the stirring up of this same rage against the supposed predations of the "laughing" preppie. Before that, we had the "Jackie" lies in Rolling Stone and the demonization of a fraternity as a result. And prior to that, of course, the Duke lacrosse team falsely accused.
Graham also alludes to more personal origins of this feeling, which for some people at least comes from high school experiences in which some white jock or frat boy was mean to them. That has become a stereotype, reinforced by countless teen flicks and TV shows where this is a stock character. The person is seen as entitled, self-centered, rich, powerful. And hated, well into adulthood.
It's a pernicious, dangerous game being played here. People such as Graham are now perpetrators who see themselves as the righteous ones. This hatred is growing thanks to the awfulness of Twitter, although it was around long before Twitter ever came to exist. One of the most memorable examples comes from 2003, when TNR's Jonathan Chait wrote a piece that begins "I hate George Bush" and goes on to say [emphasis mine]:
There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism--"I inherited half my father's friends and all his enemies"--conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudopopulist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing--a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling." Columnist Robert Novak described it as a "hatred ... that I have never seen in 44 years of campaign watching."
Bush, at least, was a grown man and a public figure who had put himself in the limelight. Sandmann is not. And yet the root of the rage appears to be the same.
The people hating on Sandmann ought to be ashamed of themselves, but there is no indication of even a flicker of that feeling. Nor are they likely to damp down their hatred based on the evidence of Sandmann's innocence.
They know that face, you see, and it's the face of their enemy.
[ADDENDUM: Some people on the left have been deleting their most rabid tweets, apparently. I would bet a large sum of money that this is because they are afraid of lawsuits. These boys were not public figures, so Sullivan would not apply even for the newspeople.]
The media deliberately left the frist part of the video out in order to totally fabricate a story to fit their agenda -
But here’s the truth - (And google ‘uncle Nathan’ - he’s a know activist agitator )
fast forward to minute marker :28 and make this go viral. email it, post it, everywhere. This young man has been named and marked for violence up to and including being murdered.
These rabid media hacks need, somehow, to be called to account. This was no mistake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ28BH0WUM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ28BH0WUM8
Very nice explanation of the Pavlovian response of the Left.
The “all-embracing” Church is a growing problem....
Maybe off topic, but with cell phone cameras being everywhere, some events such as this will be used to whip people into a frenzy. Whereas before we had these cameras everywhere, this event would not even have been in the news at all.
Get a lawyer and sue the hell out of every writer and news outlet who incited this outrageous hate fest against innocent boys. It is bigoted malice based on their own feelings of inferiority and envy, their lives an empty shell.
The one word reason the Second Amendment exists, Liberals.
They only confirm the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
Party ownership of the print media
made it easy to manipulate public opinion,
and the film and radio carried the process further.
|
....... The Ministry of Truth, Winston's place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further. The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary. Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. When his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify. In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and on the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building. As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames. What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. In the cubicle next to him the little woman with sandy hair toiled day in day out, simply at tracking down and deleting from the Press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed. And this hall, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one-sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs. There were huge printing-shops and their sub editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices; clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall; vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored; and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed. And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence. |
It reminds me of the crowd/priests who called for the release of Barabbas. Different rabbis but the same mindless hatred for the facts.
If it fits the lefts narrative they sensationalize it to hyperbolic extremes....Even to the point of altering it so as it DOES fit the narrative.
If it doesn’t remotely fit the narrative, they simply ignore it regardless of it’s actual significance.
These 2 rules have superseded all else in modern “journalism”.
Wow Bob - you are pretty old then. “It reminds me ...”
Use this Diocesan website contact form to communicate with the Diocese of Covington KY and VERY RESPECTFULLY explain why their response is a violation of Catholic teachings on human dignity:
https://www.covdio.org/contact/
Here's mine:
www.covdio.org/contact
Dear Diocese of Covington,
Would that Catholic teaching apply also to Catholic high school students and their human rights and human dignity?
Their right, as accused,to the presumption of innocence?
Their right not to be subjected to condemnation with scant evidence, with no evidence, or against the evidence?
Their right to confront their accusers and defend themselves from moral defamation?
This order of action...
How would you like it if priests --- or bishops --- or Catholic school teachers --- were accused , convicted, and sentenced within 24 hours by mob justice?
I watched the videos with a gimlet eye. The boys had been doing school cheers. They did not surround, harass or mock the Black Hebrews, nor Philips and his retinue of videographers, They kept to their own group, approached nobody, confronted nobody, did not respond tit-for-tat with the Black Hebrew group (who, as you probably know by now, were apparently the original provocateurs)
Notably, it was Nathan Philips and his videographers who waded right into the students' group, drumming in their faces.
On what do you base your condemnation?
The boy in the center, Nicholas Sandmann, as of now --- at the present state of the evidence --- stands accused to responding to overt provocation by smiling patiently for minutes at a time with what might have been ineptly-calibrated warmth.
This is no indictable offense, since it involves scrutiny of an interior disposition, which is not possible.
On the other hand, Nathan Philips and his videographers deserve a second look.
Another look, as well, to the reactivists who have already doxxed Nicholas Sandmann; solicited battery against him, his family, and his classmates; and contacted the admissions offices of colleges and universities round about, to make sure his personal destruction is as permanent as they can make it.
You owe these boys an apology. It ought to be sent to all your press contacts and read from every pulpit in the Diocese of Covington this coming Sunday.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
[signed]
The world of the left is populated by legions of Dostoevsky’s “Underground Man”, seething with rage, consumed by inadequacy, but no longer isolated and impotent. Through the faceless social media they can spew their venom, find the like minded, and seek violence by proxy.
That young man did it just right....he did nothing....not an inkling of wrongdoing on his part. That’s one great group of young people we can be proud of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.