It is as if the MSM is testing the waters to see just how blatant they can be, in their anti-white diatribes and headlines, without triggering an outright revolt against them. Though we are all accustomed to anti-white bias in the media, it seems that there is an ongoing effort to escalate the intensity of their campaign. Typically, they bash whites in a roundabout way, by promoting non-whites. In this way, it is understood that whites are the “bad guys” without actually coming out and saying it. But now and then the attacks are more brazen. For example, the recent A.P./Yahoo headline that states:
“Report says too many whites, men leading military”By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press – Mon Mar 7, 7:50 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes … the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.”
“This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change,” said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians.
Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said…
Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.
The boundless stupidity of this article, and the tax-payer study that spawned it, speak for themselves. A glance at the comments gives a small degree of hope that many are getting fed up with the naked hatred displayed toward whites by the media. I fear, however, that many of the comments are from the same small group of motivated online activists who are always on the lookout for this kind of garbage.
I do think it is interesting that Jelinek will barely even recognize the one form of diversity that matters in an organization, diversity of skills and backgrounds, as “diversity”. To her, it is “stretching the definition of diversity”. In other words, the “diversity that really counts”, in her view, is the advancement of her own favorite races and gender. All other diversity is just along for the ride. The last time I attended “diversity training”, I asked the instructor, “if diversity is all around us, why do we need to push it so much?” Her answer was that some forms of diversity are “more important” than others.
What I want to know is what actually motivates these people. Are they really so full of hatred that they cannot refrain from spewing their venom for more than a few days? Is this all part of a campaign to desensitize the public to anti-white propaganda and, at the same time, demonize whites to the point where they will gladly march off to extermination camps “for the greater benefit of society”? Or perhaps it is a scheme designed to push the issue so far in one direction that it will generate a backlash. Be it as it may, the “two-minutes hate“, directed against Emmanuel Goldstein, never seemed to have any positive outcome in Orwell’s novel 1984. Ironically, the protagonist’s girlfriend, Julia, was the most hysterical of all the haters in her group. This was her way of both having fun with an absurd situation she had no control over and of deflecting suspicion from herself. I wonder how many “Julia’s” silently lurk among reporters.