Using airplane seating as a propaganda tool

Quantas Airlines has come under fire for having a man change seats because he was seated next to an unrelated pre-teen girl. Opp0sing Views reports:

Daniel McCluskie, a nurse, was forced to switch seats when he was seated next to an unaccompanied young girl on a recent Qantas flight.

McCluskie, who did not do anything improper, was flying from Wagga Wagga, Australia to Sydney, Australia in June when he wasked to move seats, reports smh.com.au.

After an airline safety demonstration, a flight attendant asked a woman to swap seats with McCluskie, who was sitting next to a girl, who was thought to be 10 years old.

McCluskie later asked why he had been moved. He was told it was the policy of Qantas not to allow men sit next to non-related unaccompanied children…

“After the plane had taken off, the air hostess thanked the woman that had moved, but not me, which kind of hurt me or pissed me off a bit more because it appeared I was in the wrong, because it seemed I had this sign I couldn’t see above my head that said ‘child molester’ or ‘kiddie fiddler’ whereas she did the gracious thing and moved to protect the greater good of the child.”

But of course. If you’re a man, then obviously you’re a dangerous pedophile. It goes without saying, right? It’s disturbing that some of the comments agree with this policy.

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it turned out that British Airways has a policy of seating black men next to white women, or that Air France has a policy of seating right-wingers next to the morbidly obese. Air Sweden probably has a policy of seating Muslim men next to native Swedish girls.

I foresee a day when some men will have their boarding passes stamped with a large “B” for “Beta”. Those men will be forced to sit next to either other men or ugly women. This is the sort of nonsense we can expect when feminists have taken control. It’s not enough for them to control the Earth. They also have to stick their filthy paws into what goes on in the heavens.

I wanted to add that I’d bet dollars to donuts that, had the man been black, they would have ignored this policy for fear of appearing racist.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Using airplane seating as a propaganda tool

  1. iforgot says:

    I don’t agree with the policy, but I think Qantas should be able to set any policy it sees fit on ITS airline: No fat passengers, no aboriginals etc. I sure that any of THOSE policies would have Qantas hauled up before the Australian equivalent of a discrimination lawsuit. But why is it that the only person it’s ok to discriminate against is white males?

  2. Alaskan says:

    You are not White,you’re Jewish. Jews are not White. quit deluding yourself.
    Jews are Middle Eastern

    • jewamongyou says:

      Perhaps you should read the “about” section.

    • newdist says:

      Jews are white. They’re also Jews.

      Overall, they seem to be hostile to white interests, but JAY is a good guy.

      • That’s right, we like Jay, and those like him, like Nick Stix and Laurence Auster (correct me Jay if I’m wrong about LA).

        Sincerely,

        – Arturo

        crimesofthetimes.com

    • destructure says:

      JAY looks white to me. You view yourself as white and Jews as an outgroup so you don’t consider him white. Similarly, some Jews view white gentiles as an outgroup so that compounds the perception. But that’s a matter of group psychology not genetics. In fact, the genetic distance between Jews and other whites is no greater than between other white ethnics. That’s not to say the ethno political differences aren’t real. But they’re not racial.

  3. iforgot: Because the white male has not stood up and said “enough!”. Pure and simple. Stop being scared of screeching feminists and social engineers. Stop sitting in silence every time you see a white male out to be a bumbling fool in commercials or television series.

  4. Remnant says:

    The motivation for this policy is, on some level, similar to the Boy Scouts’ policy of excluding gays from their organization. Except that the Boy Scouts actually have the numbers on their side: a disproportionate amount of pedophilic crime is by men against boys. Yet I am willing to be that the same type of person who protests against the Boy Scounts thinks the Quantas policy is an admirable thing….

  5. sabril says:

    I agree with remnant. The policy is reasonable and if my daughter were travelling alone, I would prefer that she not sit next to a man on the plane.

    The problem is that reasonable policies are so condemned when the shoe is on the other foot. For example, women should be excluded from exit rows since they are much more likely to fall to pieces emotionally if the plane needs to be evacuated.

    Similarly, people who are Arab or Muslim or both are a lot more likely to hijack planes and should be limited to taking flights where there is a uniformed air marshall aboard the plane.

    As Steve Sailer would say, it’s all about who, whom.

    • Remnant says:

      To clarify my previous comment: I wasn’t actually condoning the Quantas policy, just pointing out that — at some level along a sliding scale of risk — its has the same motivation as the Boy Scout policy. It is funny that the MORE rational and supportable a policy is, the LESS acceptable it is to society.

      Thus in the case of the Boy Scouts, there are several rational bases behind the policy (leaving aside issues of freedom of association and freedom of conscience, which ALSO justify the policy): 1. A disproportionate amount of pedophilic crime is committed by gay men. 2. Any gay man that is interested in a leadership role in the Boy Scouts has SELF-SELECTED himself as someone interested in being around young boys. Thus, the policy has an arguable basis, yet it attracts protests and opposition. Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, yet profiling – or at least a policy of profiling – is illegal. Etc. etc.

      In the case of the Quantas policy: 1. The seating arrangements are random: there is no self-selection of men TRYING to be seated beside minors, in contrast to the Boy Scout situation. 2. The entire situation takes place in a semi-public area with numerous witnesses as well as policing by stewardesses etc. So the Quantas policy is vastly over-inclusive. I’m not saying the policy is unjustifiable, just that it is much less so than the Boy Scouts’ policy.

      • Probably the next Hitler says:

        Psychiatry’s official position is that males who are attracted to other post-adolescent males are very seldom attracted to preadolescent boys, and vice-versa. If that’s true, the Boy Scouts’ policy is a lot more suspect. If it’s Marxist Leftist Jew propaganda, enlighten me.

  6. Great you also see the issue of men’s rights.

    I personally don’t see too much wrong in this policy. If it were not a sign of large scale general suspicion of males. If they were not kept from their own children because a judge believes the absurd accusations that a good middle class family man and true father (not stepfather) would abuse his children. Instead of seeing this as an extremely rare aberration.

    Or males being afraid to help children in need and emergencies. A friend of mine saved a 10 year old girl from drowning. I joked he was lucky not to have been arrested.

    So being kept away from children in a plane is not bad in itself. It is bad as a sign of a general prejudice and suspicion.

    And, as you said, suspecting Blacks of criminal intent is more justified then suspecting any decent man of sexually abusing pre-pubertal children.

  7. Gorbachev says:

    Why not just arrest all men and then release them on parole. If they sneeze in a troubling way, put them back in jail.

  8. rjp says:

    The real issue is people who put a 10 year old girl on a plane alone, and expect Quantas to babysit. They won’t let the kid stay home alone for an evening but dropping her off at the airport is okay?

    I don’t know airline procedure in Australia, but it seems that if this type of behavior by parents is going to be tolerated, that Quantas needs to be better prepared from the start. Aisle seats front two rows only, or the row nearest the attendants seats/station, children under 16 must get an assigned a seat when the flight is booked.

    As for the black man sitting next to her? I like to think Australia isn’t as far gone as the USA that it would sacrifice a 10 year old girl over feelings.

    Daniel McCluskie, a nurse …… I have no doubt he was of no danger. But who knows what diseases he is infested with, and I say that not because he is a nurses, but because HE is a nurse.

  9. JI says:

    This policy is complete BS! There is no way in heck I and my family will ever fly Qantas or any airline with such a policy. I have a daughter the same age as this girl and I’m darned if I’ll put up with the idea of declaring an innocent man some kind of freak. This is just one more step of many toward the complete demonization, and subsequent emasculation, of men.

    Further, I’ll bet Jew is right that, if the man had been black, then the airline would not have done this for fear of appearing “racist”. And that just goes to show the utter insanity of political correctness – it always contradicts itself.

    Finally, I hope this guy sues the shyte out of Qantas.

  10. Californian says:

    Great you also see the issue of men’s rights.

    Perhaps it is time for race realists to look at an alliance with Men’s Rights Activists?

    There are a lot of movements out there which are fighting against the system. They need to bury their ideological differences and start working together.

  11. Bay Area Guy says:

    This is getting beyond ridiculous. I’ve already made some comments on this very same topic over at Robert Lindsay’s blog, but I think I’ll add some more here.

    As much as MRA types like to rant against feminists and their enablers (as justified as those rants may be at times), such online ranting ultimately does little good. Don’t get me wrong, I do it every now and then, just to blow off some steam.

    But for practical purposes, if we ever want to put an end to such insanity, we need to stop putting up with it. Think about it. How is it that these feminists and their allies wield so much power? Is it because they actually possess any real power, or is it because we allow them to get away with their antics?

    For any fellow nerds out there, to quote Varys from the great HBO series Game of Thrones, “power resides where men believe it resides.”

    To the extent that these feminists have power, it is because we, through our submission, cowardice, and lack of brotherhood, allow them to act as though they are powerful. If we men were to actually band together and collectively stand up to this nonsense, and let it be made known that we are not going to stand for this baloney any longer, then their “power” would be significantly reduced.

    Well, I say we should no longer allow the ignorant masses to believe that power actually resides with these radicals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s