Religion versus opinion

There are several atheists to whom I’m close. All of them exhibit a lot of respect toward organized religion, but they show no such respect toward conservatives. This got me thinking: Why does a belief in the supernatural garner more respect, from these people, than a belief in traditional values?

I think a lot of it goes back to our mental habit of compartmentalizing. If some adherents of  a particular opinion get together and choose to sanctify their group-opinion as a religion, with certain rituals and requirements, then they’re given a stamp of legitimacy. They now enjoy the protection of The Law. They can take certain days off of school, or work, for their “holidays” and they can demand certain types of food while incarcerated. They can get away with certain behaviors that the rest of us would be severely punished for.

In a perfect world, all opinions would be judged on their own merit, not on whether or not they constituted a “religion.”

Therefore, it seems to me that there’s a flaw in the First Amendment. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps it should have said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of opinion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By giving special consideration to “religion,” our founding fathers gave special status to some opinions over others. If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you have more rights than somebody else who believes in Southern Heritage and Southern symbols. A woman was successful in asserting her right to wear a spaghetti strainer on her head for her drivers license photo – and there’s little doubt that Christian, Muslim or Jewish headgear would likewise be tolerated. But what about wearing a hat that features the Virginia Battle Flag? When it comes down to it, the major Abrahamic religions have all been responsible for far more hatred, persecution and bloodshed than the South.

For that matter, what about wearing a hat the features the Stars and Stripes? Many atrocities have been committed under that flag: Massacres of Native Americans, slavery, the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Vietnam come to mind. Whatever offence can be inspired by the Virginia Battle flag can just as easily be inspired by the Stars and Stripes. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t that long ago that a Muslim-owned bakery refused to bake an American flag cake for a returning veteran. Apparently, Indiana allows business owners more freedom than does Colorado. Both of these flags pale in comparison to the offense that can be inspired by papal headgear or that of a mullah.

If you’re a patriot, whether Southern or Yankee, your patriotism is merely an opinion – and Muslim bakery owners can refuse to honor your opinion by denying you your American flag cake. But that same Muslim bakery cannot refuse to bake a bar mitzvah cake for a Jewish family, because Judaism is not just an opinion; it’s a RELIGION.

It’s a game they play. Call yourself a religion, and your beliefs have status. We can win at this game. We can start a new religion. This religion would feature a basic code of right and wrong, respect for other life, especially other human beings and loyalty to family. This loyalty to family would extend to one’s larger family – to one’s race. It would include a sense of white solidarity, and encourage symbolism that conveys this. The Virginia Battle flag is a good candidate for display, because it symbolizes (for us) freedom of expression, freedom of association and a love for one’s heritage. On top of this, it symbolizes courage and a willingness to stand up for one’s beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds.

Once we’ve established this religion (we’d probably need at least a dozen or so individuals to start), certain legal rights would follow. I know there are already some contenders that are based on European pagan traditions. I’m thinking of something new, so that we can honestly say that our stance on current issues is firmly established within our religion; no novel interpretations would be necessary.

Armed with this new status, would one of us be able to walk into a black-owned bakery, in Colorado, and demand that they bake us a cake with our (Virginia Battle flag) religious symbol on it in honor of one of our holidays? If they refused, would we be able to sue them for damages? According to legalzoom.com, the answer would seem to be yes:

… no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.

Incidentally, what about the religion of Islamic terrorists? Barack Obama likes to say that Islamic terrorists are not Muslim, and he’s not alone in claiming this.  If this is so, then why are they given hallal food while in prison? If this is so, then why was Osama bin Laden given a Muslim burial? If this is so, then I’d like to propose that the young orphans of ISIS suicide bombers be placed, for adoption, with Jewish or Christian, families. Why not? If these vile creatures are not Muslim, then which religion ARE they following?

 

Posted in activism, libertarian thought, Muslims, the South | 3 Comments

Police officers who look like themselves

It’s no secret, nor is it disputed, that the Establishment Left considers it right and good for “people of color” to be served by people who “look like themselves.” We’ve seen them clamor for “doctors who look like their patients,” and for “teachers who look like their students.”

Will we see demands for garbage collectors who look like their customers? Not likely. It’s only important for “people of color” to be represented when the occupation in question carries a certain amount of status or power.

Police officers have plenty of power, and they’re held in high esteem by large segments of the population. A New York Times article tells us that…

Experts say that diversity in the police force increases a department’s credibility with its community. “Even if police officers of whatever race enforce the law in relatively the same way, there is a huge image problem with a department that is so out of sync with the racial composition of the local population,” said Ronald Weitzer, a sociologist at George Washington University.

The article goes on to list a number of districts where the proportion of white police officers is higher than the proportion of whites in the general population. A couple of districts have an overrepresentation of black officers – but this is not seen as a problem. The assumption is that black, and Hispanic, officers can police a white population without problems, but that white officers should not police a black/Hispanic population.

The article mentions a few districts where the population used to be majority white, but transformed to be majority black. Without saying so explicitly, the understanding is that white officers, in these transformed neighborhoods, should be either  let go or transferred.

The dynamics of how these neighborhood became transformed is not explored. The plight of whites who were forced from their homes, by high-crime rates, bullying, ethnic hostility and loud parties, is not addressed. These whites are internal refugees, but their status as such is not recognized by any official body, nor is their story told in any organized, or official, way.

I agree that white officers should not police majority black, or Hispanic, neighborhoods; it’s too dangerous for them, and “the community” will oppose them every time they use force against a non-white criminal. We’ve seen this numerous times, most recently with Michael Brown in Ferguson.

Black officers should not be trusted to police white neighborhoods either. There’s too much racial animosity, and too much opportunity for abuse.

Let’s give the Establishment Left what they want. Let black doctors treat black patients, and white doctors treat white patients. Let black teachers teach black students and white teachers teach white students. Let black police officers patrol black neighborhoods, and white officers patrol white neighborhoods.

In other words, let there be segregation – of the voluntary kind. Let each group take care of its own. This would save countless lives and billions of dollars. This is what freedom of association brings: Peace and tranquility. Harmony and good-will.

 

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Teachers who look like themselves

I recently got into a heated debate about the importance of having “people of color” as teachers. My opponent, a relative of mine  and a school teacher, claimed that it’s a well-known fact that black students do better with black teachers, and Hispanic students with Hispanic teachers. He became exasperated when I challenged this – but he did look up a study or two that seemed to support this claim.

He mentioned how one of his Hispanic students, upon being assigned a Hispanic teacher, expressed his joy at having a member of his own ethnic group as a teacher.  My relative’s take on this was that having teachers who “look like themselves” helps students of color overcome their default attitude that they’re destined for failure. Seeing black/Hispanic teachers is a living reminder that they, too, can succeed.

I challenged his assertion because it just so happens that the teacher who most inspired me in high school was black. He taught geography so well that I gained the ability to draw a map of the world by memory, and I even gave him a gift to show my gratitude. It was a crude medal made of coins from around the world; I had collected coins as a child. If he’s still alive, I’m certain he still has it.

I also brought up Yo Yo Ma, the famous musician, born in France and of Chinese parentage. I’m fairly certain that he had no Asian school teachers as a child, his main role model being his father. Though he’s Asian, he seems to have had no issues with “culturally appropriating” classical European music, and making it his own.

My relative countered that children of “privileged upbringing” don’t count. Only the children of downtrodden minorities need role models who “look like themselves.” I suppose the lack of fathers is one factor that makes so many American blacks “downtrodden.”

Since our discussion, I’ve given the matter much thought, and I’m willing to concede the likelihood that children learn better, all else being equal, from teachers who “look like themselves.”

However, I do not accept his assertion that the reason for this is that black/Hispanic students suffer from low self-esteem. It’s well-established that blacks have higher self-esteem than do whites.

One of my objections to his point of view is that this may well be a self-fulfilling prophesy so to speak. Schools, government and the media put a lot of effort into building ethnic consciousness, and pride, among non-whites. From Dora the Explorer to Black History Month, students are bombarded with the message that their particular ethnic group is an essential part of their identity. If kids were not constantly reminded that they are “Hispanic students” or “African American students” or “Asian students,” perhaps they would simply view themselves as “students” – and then there would be little need for race-specific role models. They would then be free, like Yo Yo Ma, to have role models from any background, and learn the best from anybody.

Instead of interpreting the “teachers who look like themselves” phenomenon as evidence that “students of color” are disadvantaged, we could just as easily interpret it as evidence that ethnicity and race are overemphasized in our schools, and by the media.

When I attended ghetto schools, back in the 70s, we were inventoried by race. I remember our gym teacher going through each of his pupils, clipboard in hand, and marking us off: Black, black, black, black, Mexican, Mexican, white, black, black… And then he got to me, and asked me “what are YOU?” I told him I was just a regular American. He looked confused, and asked if I wasn’t Mexican. When I gave no more information, he just shrugged his shoulders and marked something on the clipboard. Yes, we were inventoried, as if we were products on the shelf. I’m fairly certain that this state of affairs has gotten even worse over time, especially with the “No Child Left Behind” act. Schools are required to racially inventory their students. What kind of message does this send to the kids? That they wear their ethnicity like some sort of barcode on their foreheads. Is it any wonder, then, that they learn better from teachers of their own group?

What if we were all the same, except for eye-color. If some of us have brown eyes, while others had blue eyes – and the entire educational system, and media, identified us as either “brown-eyed” or “blue-eyed.” Studies would then show that blue-eyed kids learn better from blue-eyed teachers, and brown-eyed kids learn better from brown-eyed teachers. This would be the criterion for in-group and out-group.

Of course, race has far more significance that eye-color. Recognition of racial differences appears to be built into our psyche. Most likely, this is for our own safety; recognizing your own people could mean the difference between life and death. People care for their own families more than they care for strangers, and one’s race is one’s super-extended family. By giving preference to your own race, you’re actually protecting your own genes.

While the jury is still out when it comes to the benefits of having “teachers who look like themselves,” most of the concern focuses on “students of color.” Nobody seems to care about white students, and I took my relative to task for this. For all the concern about black/Hispanic students in school, I’d like to see some concern for white students. Does their academic performance suffer when they’re forcefully integrated with blacks and Hispanics? What about their safety? The silence of academia speaks to their neglect, neigh, their hatred toward whites as a group.

If black and Hispanic students benefit more from having teachers who “look like themselves,” perhaps it has nothing to do with their own so-called “marginalization,” but with the fact that the default condition of humanity is to learn better from those who “look like themselves” – but since white students are taught, almost from birth, that they’re not allowed to have a white group identity (this would be “hate” and “racism”), their natural inclinations are suppressed. At the same time, the preference for teachers who “look like themselves” is exaggerated among “students of color.”

To assume that the reason “students of color” benefit more from same-race role models is that they’re “marginalized,” while white/Asian students are “privileged” is a clear sign of prejudice and dogma not of any scientific analysis.

What if we eliminate the dogma, or at least most of it. What if we examine whether boys learn better from male teachers, and girls from female teachers? Unlike white students, the Establishment actually does care, somewhat, about boys as a group, and it’s not hard to find studies, in mainstream publications, that show how boys do better when their teachers are male. This is not considered controversial. If it were, then USA Today, for example, would not have published it.

We might also examine the situation in parts of the world where race and ethnicity are not national obsessions. I’m not aware of such studies, but I did ask a couple of my coworkers, one from Kenya, and another from Iraqi Kurdistan, whether the skin-color of their teachers would have made a difference for them when they were growing up. The Kenyan told me of a Zimbabwean teacher who was black as coal, but his speech, and mannerisms were very British. He said the students couldn’t relate to him. His appearance made no difference to them, but his speech and mannerisms did. The Iraqi Kurd told me that some of his teachers were Arabs, and their Arabic-accented Kurdish was a distraction. There was some animosity due to the fact that they represented an oppressive regime, but their sometimes darker skin made no difference to the students. Of course all this is highly anecdotal, but it does have the virtue of complying with common sense: If adults don’t make a big fuss over the racial/ethnic affiliations of students and their teachers, then neither will the kids.

The Left Establishment DOES make a big over it, so it would be surprising if students didn’t do so as well.

 

 

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Tagged , | 14 Comments

Doctors who look like themselves

When black patients prefer black doctors, the New York Times is sympathetic to them. In the article “A Case for Black Doctors,” Damon Tweedy writes:

As a general rule, black patients are more likely to feel comfortable with black doctors. Studies have shown that they are more likely to seek them out for treatment, and to report higher satisfaction with their care. In addition, more black doctors practice in high-poverty communities of color, where physicians are relatively scarce.

As a psychiatrist, I’ve seen this up close. I’ve frequently been the only black doctor (or one of very few) in clinics with large black populations. Quite often, patients ask to see a black doctor, but the sheer volume of people seeking help prevents me from accommodating most of their requests.

Black patients, compared with those of other races, tend to be far less trusting of physicians and their medical advice. Much of this is rooted in a dark history of experimentation on black people without their consent (the four-decade-long Tuskegee syphilis study is the most notorious modern-day example). Too often, however, this mistrust is to the patients’ detriment. I’ve met countless black people who have either delayed or refused needed treatments because they were skeptical about their physician’s motives and honesty. Some wound up far sicker than they should have been; others died.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence that black patients are more likely to trust black doctors comes from the mental health field, where a patient’s relationship with his or her provider is especially important. Black people have often fared poorly in their interactions with the mental health care system. For example, they are nearly half as likely as whites to receive treatment for diagnosed mental health disorders of comparable severity. When black patients do receive treatment, it is far more likely to occur in an emergency room or psychiatric hospital than it is for whites, and less likely to be in the calmer office-based setting, where longer-term treatment can take place.

In this context, it is easy to understand a 2011 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology that observed that black people strongly preferred to be matched to black therapists and were more likely to view them favorably, and that these preferences and perceptions translated into slightly better clinical outcomes.

I’m not doubting that there was abuse, in the past, against some black patients, but it’s not reasonable to extrapolate from this to the present era. I seriously doubt that many black patients truly believe they are going to become unwitting participants in some nefarious experiment. The most common reason that is cited for this preference is a common cultural background, and similar communication styles.

There’s nothing wrong with this. But what about white patients preferring white physicians? Unlike with black patients, there’s not much material on this topic; whites are not supposed to feel any solidarity with other whites.

I did find an article in The Medical Blog titled “Many White Patients Don’t Want Black Nurses or Doctors.” Granted, unlike the previous article, this one is framed as a negative; it doesn’t examine whether white patients prefer white doctors, but whether they have an aversion to black doctors. Nevertheless, the implication is that their preference is for one of their own. It reads, in part:

When African-American nurse Tonya Battle of the Hurley Medical Center (NICU) in Michigan was reassigned because a white father didn’t want her anywhere near his newborn child, she was floored. The racist father had made the request after showing the charge nurse a picture of his swastika tattoo. As it turns out, however, Battle is not alone in being discriminated against in this way.

In Battle’s 2012 case, a staff meeting ended with the hospital indulging the racist father and not allowing African-American nurses near the infant. According to Al Jazeera there was even a note posted to alert staffers: “NO AFRICAN AMERICAN NURSE TO TAKE CARE OF BABY.”

Battle later sued Hurley Medical Center for employment discrimination and settled out of court, but this sort of discrimination is far more common than most people think…

Since patients know it’s politically incorrect to be overtly racist, they often make up reasons for getting rid of their black health care providers.

“They come up with different ways to do it. I talked to this one doctor who said there are these older ladies who will say, ‘You know, I want a Jewish doctor, I just think a Jewish doctor is better,” wrote Paul-Emile.

Dr. Meghan Lane-Fall, who is African-American, says the bias impacts black doctors as well as nurses.

So, when black patients prefer doctors of their own race, it’s understandable, and necessary to accommodate them. But when white patients do the same, it’s “discrimination” and “racism.”

Cultural issues aside, blacks can point to the Syphilis study of decades ago. How can whites rationalize their white-doctor preference? The most compelling argument is Affirmative Action. What do you call the medical student who finishes last in his class? “Doctor!” It’s not that black doctors are not qualified, it’s that they don’t have to be AS QUALIFIED as white doctors. This can be an important distinction when your life is on the line.

Astoundingly, the same Establishment that implements Affirmative Action policies, and requires them, will then consider the inevitable reactions to Affirmative Action as “white privilege!” For example, this tolerance.org article:

People do not assume that I got where I am professionally because of my race (or because of affirmative action programs).

By that reasoning, there’s also “poverty privilege.” We can claim that…

People do not assume that I was released early from jail because of my wealthy parents (or because of my access to expensive attorneys).

Another reason white patients might avoid black doctors is that the media, schools and the government (mediagov) has been waging a relentless propaganda campaign to vilify whites as a group. All major newspapers, magazines and television stations (with the exception of FOX – sometimes) depict whites as the source of all evil – and “people of color” as their long-suffering victims. As a result, it’s not uncommon for said “people of color” to act out against whites. Sometimes this takes the form of “random” crime. Other times, it’s in the form of rioting, vocal outbursts – or possibly caring for your white patients a bit less carefully. There’s no way to tell, so why take the chance?

Posted in Africa and blacks, examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites | Tagged , | 11 Comments

A black race-realist finds his way

Robert Lindsay thought there might be some mutual benefit to be had if I corresponded with a certain acquaintance of his. He’s a race-realist who happens to be black. I’ve always said that the Truth is in the public domain. No race, or ethnicity, holds a monopoly on race-realism. Obviously, a black American must overcome more barriers than would an Asian or white American. So any black American who does so has my encouragement – even more so than usual. He also has my respect if he uses this knowledge to make a positive impact on the world – even more so than usual. This is what “overcoming” should really be about.

So now I present to you Phil’s introductory post. I did help with the editing.

Hello, my name is Phil. I’m a friend of Blogger Robert Lindsay and I study Sub-Saharan African History and Anthropology.

Originally, I’d pretty much belong in the crowd of African-Americans who, while not hating themselves, acknowledge Black traits that hold us back. This knowledge and understanding I owe much to my father.

My father, a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity, once told us about magazines at the fraternity that asked, “Why are ‘we’ so behind?” They pointed to internal issues in the Black population. He explained to me, even as he lived a somewhat thuggish life, that “they start taking your beer, your dope, and you realize that they want people to just GIVE them something.” Another lesson he taught me was that you couldn’t help those who won’t help themselves. He told me that you need to focus on people who have the potential to help themselves, whether they’re Black or White. Still, he told me I can acknowledge those who don’t fit that description, and animosity isn’t necessary.

However, one lesson that he taught me, which is my sole mission, is that my brother and I should bring one “with us.” He said we didn’t need to stop at one, but one was the mission. The working idea is that if enough progressive Blacks do this, we could have a huge effect, bearing in mind the previous lessons regarding people’s character.

Later, around the beginning of this year, I actually did research and learned about racial differences, such as IQ and Testosterone. To be honest, the fact that we were different didn’t shock me; it was what Blacks were doing that had hurt me because I had a subconscious habit of comparing myself with other blacks who were deviants.

However after a period of denial, I learned that there is no point in denying it by citing claims about Sub-Saharan Africa, or by “debunking” HBD. What helped though was understanding averages and accepting that while I do have impulses like many Blacks, I’m not like the many of the others, who are criminals. Especially since the ability to control one’s impulses correlates with higher intelligence.

Regarding my politics on race, I want to eliminate Affirmative Action. At least have a system that isn’t biased against whites. Additionally, we must do away with biased reporting, screen all immigrants, and acknowledge racial differences.

I often find criticism of Blacks to be accurate, despite the disparaging attitude that many, but not all, have. I came to the conclusion that I should separate the message from the messenger, because the facts they bring up are clouded by emotion. While this is understandable and natural, it doesn’t lend itself to efficient communication.

The biggest flaw that I find with them however, is the tendency to personify the problem on the level of a religious principle rather than a scientific one. I understand the act of presenting a common trend as an immutable law of nature, but it compromises any objective attempts to find root causes.

For example, I had a friend who is a passionate critic of pathological groups, especially blacks, but he honestly feels that many have potential, and understands that there are good Blacks and Bad whites.

When we first started talking, he thought that the distinction between savages and the civilized could be IQ. He asked me if I had any other metrics to distinguish between the two. I actually did, which was that it should be by behavior rather than simply IQ.

I’ve seen Blacks who were clearly of a different IQ than surrounding whites, but they weren’t all necessarily thugs. It could be that some are maybe closer to 90 than others, but it still suggests that an IQ that is equal to that of Whites isn’t necessary to be functional amongst whites. Rather, a lower IQ is a risk factor for falling behind economically.

A deeper line of investigation would be to examine the Baltimore riots, and how Jamal Bryant’s group managed to stay organized during the chaos, and tried to cool down “hot spots.” That led me to the conclusion that churches could work as a decent filter towards favorable Black traits.

One could utilize this by inspiring a culture of separation, speaking “their language” as a man of the people to uplift black people by steering them away from crime, at least those who can be receptive of the message. I explained this to my friend, that while Black crime would still be an issue, the public doesn’t have to worry about the Black community defending Black criminals on a massive scale. This way, the police could do their job. He thought it was a good idea. I’ve also read about more primitive societies having forms of self-help through community efforts.  I believe that those affiliated with churches could become a valuable tool to solve problems in the Black community. In Africa, while backward in may ways, certain populations were capable of disassociating with criminals and upholding justice. While problematic, US Blacks are among the cream of the crop, so if less advanced Blacks could do so, why not more advanced Blacks?

I have studied Sub-Saharan documentation and cultures, and I found a lot of trends that correlate with New World ones as well. These similarities could be key to form solutions. Polygamy was a common practice amongst African cultures, and it was known that the father wasn’t around very often. So the mother did most of the work while extended family helped only with the children. Focusing on mothers who ARE working, and stricter laws toward child-support on the father’s end, could be a start to finding a solution to the single mothers issue for US Blacks.

I have a few more thoughts that I have towards education and poverty but I’ll just leave it at that for now – until anyone is interested in more of my thoughts.

 

Posted in Africa and blacks | 44 Comments

The chess-board view of the Establishment Left

If you’re a chess piece, you’re either black or white. There is no in-between; your color defines what you are. If defines your loyalties and your entire purpose in life. There is no gray in chess. There’s no such thing as a traitor among chess pieces.

This is how liberals view human beings, and this is why they repeatedly claim that since most influential people in the US are white, white people don’t need representation. For example:

I read with amazement the Thursday letter asking why we can’t have a White caucus in Congress. The answer is obvious.

Through the magic of legislative gerrymandering, the representation of the 38 percent of Americans who are a minority are represented by 17 percent of Congress. By forming these caucuses, these minorities amass enough voting clout to get a seat at the legislative table.

The Whites of Congress don’t need a caucus. They own the table!

It would be helpful if somebody would document, in some way, that white members of Congress feel any loyalty to other whites – but this can never happen, because they don’t. Their loyalties are to the wealthy interests that pay for their campaigns, to their lobbyists, to their own political party or, in the best case scenario, to their constituents (of all races). If any white member of Congress were to even hint at any racial loyalty to other whites, his political career would be over. In the chess-board of real life, white pawns have no representation. Black pawns, at least ostensibly, do.

Do liberals really believe that all whites, who find themselves in positions of power, are benefactors of working-class whites? Of course not. They only believe this when the subject is race. But as soon as the conversation turns to economic matters, their tone changes. Ask any liberal if the billionaire one-percenters represent the interests of the 99 percent, and his answer will certainly be “NO!”

Only through convolutions of mental gymnastics (to borrow a term from Jared Taylor) can one hold both views simultaneously.

In theory, once you get a liberal to acknowledge that wealthy whites do not represent the interests of poor whites, said liberal should be on his way to recovery… In theory. But if he does conjure up enough courage to admit this, then it follows that whites, as an ethnic group, lack representation in government, on campuses and in the media. The next question might be: Doesn’t EVERYONE deserve representation?

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The “Sports Page” is good for something

I’ve never been a fan of organized sports; it’s a state religion, and a way for the powers that be to keep the ignorant masses occupied so that they don’t notice how they’re being enslaved. When I hear people talking about professional athletes as if they’re personal friends, I feel a mix of pity and disdain. They waste much of their lives watching men throw balls around, and they’re relatively ignorant of the sciences, history, anthropology or linguistics. Their opinions, on matters of sports, are valid ones – because they’re experts on that. But they often lack the tools to form meaningful opinions when it comes to politics. So they adopt the “default” opinions on political matters. The “default” opinions are whatever they’re told on television, billboards and newspapers. In other words, their minds are controlled. When they vote, they’re simply validating the opinions of those already in power.

I was recently sitting in the break room at work. An edition of the Oregonian was on the table, so I perused it. Almost the entire thing was shameless propaganda. Almost every article was anti-white, anti-gun rights, pro-big government, Afro-centric, pro-Islam and pro-man-made global-warming. Everything was framed within these givens – and this was the so-called “Front Page!” It’s not even supposed to be editorials, just “news.”

Needless to say, it upset me. I was thinking that such drivel shouldn’t even be allowed in a workplace. A porn magazine (if they still make them) would be more appropriate.

But then I noticed that hardly anybody even reads the front page; instead, workers gravitate to the Sports Page. A few read the comics or try the crossword puzzle. Some even cut out the crossword puzzle, sacrificing Dilbert in the process. This is a crime against humanity.

So yes, the Sports Page is good for something. It’s better that the masses fill their heads with “man throws ball” stories than with propaganda that’s designed to mold their minds to the whims of the hostile elite.

Posted in examples of propaganda | 6 Comments