administrator
Administrator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 60
Jackie Robinson and Don Imus
The controversy generated by Don Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment and Major League Baseball's annual worshipping of Jackie Robinson do not seem to be related; however both are linked by a disturbing trend that if not altered will result in disastrous consequences for American society.
Regarding Imus  question: Were most of the Rutgers girls "nappy-headed"? Answer: Yes. Did they look like "hos"? Some might say yes. So where is the controversy? The controversy occurred because Imus is white, the Rutgers players mostly black, and the media completely pathetic.
The Imus comments were considered "tasteless" and "cruel." But Imus is a disc jockey who makes his living being entertaining and thus he is a comedian of sorts. Comedy is about insulting. There is no other level of comedy popular in our culture. A comedian either insults a group (usually whites), a person, or himself. If they don't then they aren't considered funny. And Imus' comments were mildly funny. The women basketball players did look like ghetto ho's and thus it was funny for him to point it out.
Enter the race angle. The same week that Imus made his comments, the new prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax announced that the charges, always a joke, had been officially dropped against the three white men falsely accused. This should have been an embarrassing moment for the media and the race card players, mainly Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They behaved abominably through the whole phony episode.
The media rushed to condemn some good young men for a crime they did not commit because they either wished to deflect attention away from the virtual crime wave dominating the headlines by black athletes, or as an attack on white culture. In doing so they made a mockery of any pretense of decent standards of news reporting and personal behavior.
Furthermore, they signaled once and for all their real intentions, which were not that of truthful reporting or a search for justice, but rather a manipulation of the news media to further an ideological agenda. Hence when their scam was finally and officially exposed, instead of facing whatever weak retribution that would have come their way by the few talking heads that were on the right side of this issue, they instead opted for a feint. They manufactured a new racial controversy, based upon the flimsiest of pretenses, merely as a smokescreen to cover for the exposure of their anti-white agenda.
After Imus made his comments they lingered a few days. The story was not a particularly interesting one. After all who really cares if a "shock jock" makes some un-PC comment, especially an inside the Beltway crustly old fart like Imus. Clearly the public didn't care. But the media did. Imus' comments were run and re-run, story after story was piled on, and so the requisite talking heads, instead of talking about the Duke incident  a much more serious and popular matter to the public  went after those silly comments.
Al Sharpton and his "un-elected co-dictator for life of black America" Jesse Jackson, were in dire need of a diversion. They had both been at ground zero of the Duke hoax and were largely responsible for turning the drunken comments of a real "nappy headed ho" into some kind of condemnation of the entire culture of white male athletes.
Sharpton made his reputation with the granddaddy hoax of them all, the Tawana Brawley fraud of two decades ago, which is the gold standard for race crime fakery. In the meantime, Jackson has become a shakedown artist attacking companies and demanding pay-off in the form of contributions in exchange for keeping his flock of attack protestors and media sycophants away.
Obviously the final unraveling of the Duke case would have shed some much needed light under the rock where these two charlatans dwell. Undoubtedly they seized on the highest profile race issue that was available at the time in an attempt to keep their sizable racial extortion rackets alive. Mission accomplished.
Instead of getting apologies from these two professional race hustlers, they instead were on the receiving end of an apology from another weak-spined and cowardly white person of influence. Thus, once again, a high profile representative of white people could not muster the courage to stand up and confront his accusers with a plain defense of the right to speak freely.
And to top it all off, Imus' apology, SURPRISE! was NOT accepted. The ungrateful scam artists, after manufacturing a non-issue into a media event, coming off exposure in a case where the freedom of three young men was at risk due to their unconscionable behavior, still had the unmitigated gall to refuse to offer any public absolution to the victim. That is just flat out ridiculous.
So what does this have to do with the Jackie Robinson celebrations by Major League Baseball? Each year MLB, under the misdirected guidance of its buffoonish commissioner, Bud Selig, ratchets up the Jackie Robinson rhetoric and festivities. Originally it was a celebration of the first black player in baseball. Then it was about diversity. Now it's about payback.
This year each team was forced to have a player wear Jackie Robinson's number "42" in honor of Robinson on his anointed day. The Dodgers, Robinson's team, ALL had to wear the number. Soon everyone in baseball will have to wear the number and eventually at this rate all players every game will have to wear the number. "Now batting for number 42, number 42, followed by number 42 and on deck. . . number 42. . ."
Let's get something straight. Before 1947 blacks were not allowed into Major League Baseball because they were not wanted. End of story. The people that ran the game and the people that played the game and the people that watched the game were happy with that. Society was happy with that. Society, like baseball, was segregated, in most cases voluntarily, and people were just fine with it. And society was fine also. There is no intrinsic "right" to play baseball or any other sport. It is entirely at the behest of the owners and their customers.
And to the extent that Jackie Robinson can be celebrated as a figure that helped desegregate American society the question needs to be asked: celebrated by whom? If you consider the state of white and black society at that time and what passes for civilization in our country now, you would do well to try and figure out what the celebration is all about.
Those bad old segregationists warned us about the problems that would occur if the social barriers that had kept whites and blacks apart were removed. More crime, violence, murder, a decaying social structure, the ruin of our institutions. Looking back those segregationists sound more like sooth-sayers than the mean, backward-looking fogies that they were painted out to be by every media outlet in the country.
Look at the increase in the amount of crime. FBI figures put the amount of crime committed by blacks against whites at about 3,000 murders a year and 15,000 rapes. Those are staggering numbers. It amounts to a whole lot of human suffering inflicted on one race by the other.
A first-year police detective can tell you that one of the most crucial factors in a crime is "opportunity." Along with "motive" it is an important part of any criminal investigation. Did the perpetrator have the "opportunity" to commit the crime against the victim? In other words were "they" in that "place" at that "time."
In a segregated society there is little "opportunity" for blacks to kill and rape white people. And in the days of segregation there was very little of it. And surely if we still lived in a segregated society, white people would not be "replacing" those rates of crimes against other whites. Thus forcible government mandated desegregation has brought us over the years hundreds of thousands of dead and ruined lives.
Ask yourself this: How many hundreds of thousands of white people should die so that we can live in a forcibly desegregated society? The answer you give to that question will tell you everything you need to know about yourself. That question should also be asked every time someone is forced to wear the number 42 and treat it as a "wonderful" thing.
Thus the Jackie Robinson "holiday" (and someday soon it will surely be a government-sanctioned holiday) is an opportunity for the Bud Seligs of the world to force every white person in the country to not only ignore the genocide of their people that is taking place along with the destruction of their culture but to CELEBRATE it. And no one is allowed the slightest dissent from the accepted norm of anti-white culture lest they face the Imus treatment times a thousand.
That is how the Imus incident and the Jackie Robinson celebration are linked. In both cases they are fundamental attacks on whites and white culture. In both cases the people driving the issue wish to force upon white people a voluntary surrendering of the right to speak and associate freely. They don't want apologies, since they never accept them. They want the opportunity to exercise the raw power to force someone to apologize for something either they did not do or was not a wrong in the first place.
This exercise of the power to force a people to acquiesce in their own slaughter is a frightening example of what a non-white America will look like. If this is the state of "our" country after 40 years of civil rights and after 40 years of non-white invasion, what will it be like in 20 or 30 years? One shudders to think of it. Each and every one of these incidents should be a dire warning sign of the land our children will inherit. If this is our fate when we are a majority what can possibly be hoped for when we are a minority?
Jackie Robinson was probably a decent man. There are many black men like him. If one could pick and choose, like Branch Rickey did, who to associate with then one could insulate themselves from the rest. But that freedom is no longer allowed to us. We are forced at the literal point of a gun to live in a desegregated manner. Furthermore, any attempt to express even the mildest objections to this type of dysfunctional social engineering is ridiculed, censored, or punished.
Will this lead to a better world for us, for our children, even for blacks? Obviously no! Many years of an attempt at a "Great Society" has only brought us a more miserable one. Trillions have been spent and tens of thousands have died. There is little hope for a better future, especially with the likes of Sharpton and Jackson leading the way. And now a whole new violent, anti-white group has large numbers of its members inside our borders with grievances every bit as bitter as the ones held by blacks.
The realization of what the future holds if the current paradigm is not altered is the real meaning of the Jackie Robinson "celebration" and the Imus controversy.
The controversy generated by Don Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment and Major League Baseball's annual worshipping of Jackie Robinson do not seem to be related; however both are linked by a disturbing trend that if not altered will result in disastrous consequences for American society.
Regarding Imus  question: Were most of the Rutgers girls "nappy-headed"? Answer: Yes. Did they look like "hos"? Some might say yes. So where is the controversy? The controversy occurred because Imus is white, the Rutgers players mostly black, and the media completely pathetic.
The Imus comments were considered "tasteless" and "cruel." But Imus is a disc jockey who makes his living being entertaining and thus he is a comedian of sorts. Comedy is about insulting. There is no other level of comedy popular in our culture. A comedian either insults a group (usually whites), a person, or himself. If they don't then they aren't considered funny. And Imus' comments were mildly funny. The women basketball players did look like ghetto ho's and thus it was funny for him to point it out.
Enter the race angle. The same week that Imus made his comments, the new prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax announced that the charges, always a joke, had been officially dropped against the three white men falsely accused. This should have been an embarrassing moment for the media and the race card players, mainly Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They behaved abominably through the whole phony episode.
The media rushed to condemn some good young men for a crime they did not commit because they either wished to deflect attention away from the virtual crime wave dominating the headlines by black athletes, or as an attack on white culture. In doing so they made a mockery of any pretense of decent standards of news reporting and personal behavior.
Furthermore, they signaled once and for all their real intentions, which were not that of truthful reporting or a search for justice, but rather a manipulation of the news media to further an ideological agenda. Hence when their scam was finally and officially exposed, instead of facing whatever weak retribution that would have come their way by the few talking heads that were on the right side of this issue, they instead opted for a feint. They manufactured a new racial controversy, based upon the flimsiest of pretenses, merely as a smokescreen to cover for the exposure of their anti-white agenda.
After Imus made his comments they lingered a few days. The story was not a particularly interesting one. After all who really cares if a "shock jock" makes some un-PC comment, especially an inside the Beltway crustly old fart like Imus. Clearly the public didn't care. But the media did. Imus' comments were run and re-run, story after story was piled on, and so the requisite talking heads, instead of talking about the Duke incident  a much more serious and popular matter to the public  went after those silly comments.
Al Sharpton and his "un-elected co-dictator for life of black America" Jesse Jackson, were in dire need of a diversion. They had both been at ground zero of the Duke hoax and were largely responsible for turning the drunken comments of a real "nappy headed ho" into some kind of condemnation of the entire culture of white male athletes.
Sharpton made his reputation with the granddaddy hoax of them all, the Tawana Brawley fraud of two decades ago, which is the gold standard for race crime fakery. In the meantime, Jackson has become a shakedown artist attacking companies and demanding pay-off in the form of contributions in exchange for keeping his flock of attack protestors and media sycophants away.
Obviously the final unraveling of the Duke case would have shed some much needed light under the rock where these two charlatans dwell. Undoubtedly they seized on the highest profile race issue that was available at the time in an attempt to keep their sizable racial extortion rackets alive. Mission accomplished.
Instead of getting apologies from these two professional race hustlers, they instead were on the receiving end of an apology from another weak-spined and cowardly white person of influence. Thus, once again, a high profile representative of white people could not muster the courage to stand up and confront his accusers with a plain defense of the right to speak freely.
And to top it all off, Imus' apology, SURPRISE! was NOT accepted. The ungrateful scam artists, after manufacturing a non-issue into a media event, coming off exposure in a case where the freedom of three young men was at risk due to their unconscionable behavior, still had the unmitigated gall to refuse to offer any public absolution to the victim. That is just flat out ridiculous.
So what does this have to do with the Jackie Robinson celebrations by Major League Baseball? Each year MLB, under the misdirected guidance of its buffoonish commissioner, Bud Selig, ratchets up the Jackie Robinson rhetoric and festivities. Originally it was a celebration of the first black player in baseball. Then it was about diversity. Now it's about payback.
This year each team was forced to have a player wear Jackie Robinson's number "42" in honor of Robinson on his anointed day. The Dodgers, Robinson's team, ALL had to wear the number. Soon everyone in baseball will have to wear the number and eventually at this rate all players every game will have to wear the number. "Now batting for number 42, number 42, followed by number 42 and on deck. . . number 42. . ."
Let's get something straight. Before 1947 blacks were not allowed into Major League Baseball because they were not wanted. End of story. The people that ran the game and the people that played the game and the people that watched the game were happy with that. Society was happy with that. Society, like baseball, was segregated, in most cases voluntarily, and people were just fine with it. And society was fine also. There is no intrinsic "right" to play baseball or any other sport. It is entirely at the behest of the owners and their customers.
And to the extent that Jackie Robinson can be celebrated as a figure that helped desegregate American society the question needs to be asked: celebrated by whom? If you consider the state of white and black society at that time and what passes for civilization in our country now, you would do well to try and figure out what the celebration is all about.
Those bad old segregationists warned us about the problems that would occur if the social barriers that had kept whites and blacks apart were removed. More crime, violence, murder, a decaying social structure, the ruin of our institutions. Looking back those segregationists sound more like sooth-sayers than the mean, backward-looking fogies that they were painted out to be by every media outlet in the country.
Look at the increase in the amount of crime. FBI figures put the amount of crime committed by blacks against whites at about 3,000 murders a year and 15,000 rapes. Those are staggering numbers. It amounts to a whole lot of human suffering inflicted on one race by the other.
A first-year police detective can tell you that one of the most crucial factors in a crime is "opportunity." Along with "motive" it is an important part of any criminal investigation. Did the perpetrator have the "opportunity" to commit the crime against the victim? In other words were "they" in that "place" at that "time."
In a segregated society there is little "opportunity" for blacks to kill and rape white people. And in the days of segregation there was very little of it. And surely if we still lived in a segregated society, white people would not be "replacing" those rates of crimes against other whites. Thus forcible government mandated desegregation has brought us over the years hundreds of thousands of dead and ruined lives.
Ask yourself this: How many hundreds of thousands of white people should die so that we can live in a forcibly desegregated society? The answer you give to that question will tell you everything you need to know about yourself. That question should also be asked every time someone is forced to wear the number 42 and treat it as a "wonderful" thing.
Thus the Jackie Robinson "holiday" (and someday soon it will surely be a government-sanctioned holiday) is an opportunity for the Bud Seligs of the world to force every white person in the country to not only ignore the genocide of their people that is taking place along with the destruction of their culture but to CELEBRATE it. And no one is allowed the slightest dissent from the accepted norm of anti-white culture lest they face the Imus treatment times a thousand.
That is how the Imus incident and the Jackie Robinson celebration are linked. In both cases they are fundamental attacks on whites and white culture. In both cases the people driving the issue wish to force upon white people a voluntary surrendering of the right to speak and associate freely. They don't want apologies, since they never accept them. They want the opportunity to exercise the raw power to force someone to apologize for something either they did not do or was not a wrong in the first place.
This exercise of the power to force a people to acquiesce in their own slaughter is a frightening example of what a non-white America will look like. If this is the state of "our" country after 40 years of civil rights and after 40 years of non-white invasion, what will it be like in 20 or 30 years? One shudders to think of it. Each and every one of these incidents should be a dire warning sign of the land our children will inherit. If this is our fate when we are a majority what can possibly be hoped for when we are a minority?
Jackie Robinson was probably a decent man. There are many black men like him. If one could pick and choose, like Branch Rickey did, who to associate with then one could insulate themselves from the rest. But that freedom is no longer allowed to us. We are forced at the literal point of a gun to live in a desegregated manner. Furthermore, any attempt to express even the mildest objections to this type of dysfunctional social engineering is ridiculed, censored, or punished.
Will this lead to a better world for us, for our children, even for blacks? Obviously no! Many years of an attempt at a "Great Society" has only brought us a more miserable one. Trillions have been spent and tens of thousands have died. There is little hope for a better future, especially with the likes of Sharpton and Jackson leading the way. And now a whole new violent, anti-white group has large numbers of its members inside our borders with grievances every bit as bitter as the ones held by blacks.
The realization of what the future holds if the current paradigm is not altered is the real meaning of the Jackie Robinson "celebration" and the Imus controversy.
