In chronicling the ongoing anti-White, anti-male, anti-heteronormative ideological full-court-press of our judicial, media, and governmental overlords, it is all-too easy to find oneself flogged into a perpetual state of spluttering outrage, or thrust towards a inveterate inclination to indulge in gloomy-doomy prognosticatications.
Such reactions are, in a way, understandable. After all, the campaign afoot to criminalize and/or stigmatize the most innocent, healthy, and normal of human impulses-- such as the preference for one's own culture, heritage, or traditions-- is indeed an outrageous, obnoxious, and nefarious assault on decency. That said, however, one should take care not avoid the snare of becoming an angry, snarling-- but ultimately impotent--curmudgeon, compulsively soaking up the latest ridiculousness, blared luridly from various right-wing scandal sheet tabloids, which record all of these malefactions and atrocities with grinning, almost obscene relish.
In the first place, it does no one any good to let his nose be ground into the muck and morass of the dreadful excesses of our Zeitgeist's cruel and perverse guardians, principalities and powers. In willfully being led to indulge such an appetite for indignity, one both grows to overestimate the oppressive extent of our enemy's reach, scope, and control and also to despair of the efficacy of one's own dissident activism, whatever form such activism may take. One should instead cultivate a hearty and cheerful spirit of defiance, while never losing sight of the enemy's feet of clay. He is human, just like we are; he is no Colossus or Juggernaut; he will fall, just as surely as we stand here today.
Another reason why we should resist the urge to be bowled over by the volume and extent of the PC- horror stories that threaten to overwhelm our ears and eyes daily is because if we only comprehend events in the short-term, we miss the subtler, more meaningful aspects that often lie buried within such the details of such accounts.
I had a particular "ah ha!" moment when scrutinizing the particularly infuriating case of Liam Stacy, a young Brit who has now finished serving extensive jail time for saying rude things of a racial nature via a social network.
Stacy was sentenced to 56 days in the slammer after he used his Twitter account to make fun of Fabrice Muamba, a Black soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest on the field during a game. When other Twitter-dwellers objected to this sentiment, Stacy apparently upped the ante, reportedly telling one duskier-complexioned Tweeter to "go pick some cotton," as well as other, seemingly unspeakable and truly shocking Archie Bunker-esque put-downs and one-liners, no doubt inducing swooning unconsciousness, if not cardiac arrest, among all righteously pious and properly sensitive denizens of the Twitter-verse.
I hold no brief for Stacy's drunken obnoxiousness and belligerence, and even less brief for his attempt to weasel his way out of responsibility by initially claiming that someone else hacked his account. But really... two months in jail for the crime of tastelessly Tweeting? If one were of the snarling, angry variety, one may ask: "Have you gone utterly mad, Great Britian? I know your anthem is 'God save the Queen,' but have all your judges become queens, with their foppish little wigs, throwing poncey, priggish little hissy fits and throwing college students in jail for making juvenile wisecracks on the Internet?"
And one is correct to have just such a reaction, or one quite like it, but it is also important to scrutinize coverage of the story more closely, and one begins to discern the sweeping historical implications, or the "bigger picture," as it is sometimes called.
When one studies the stories in British newspapers regarding Liam Stacy, one is struck by the propensity of the writers of these stories to editorialize, quite brazenly, quite huffily, and rather inappropriately, within the confines of what is supposed to be an objective and unbiased account of the controversy. They frequently drop descriptors like "offensive," or even "vile"-- without quotation marks-- to characterize the messages Stacy left on his Twitter account. Now a word such as "vile" is on no account precise or crisply self-explanatory; a joke or a sentiment thought by one man to be "vile" might well be no big deal to another. I don't mean to defend Stacy's comments in any way, only to point out that calling them "vile" in a news story is, journalistically speaking, an abomination. A writer of a news story is supposed to give us the facts of the given case, and let us decide on our own which moral to draw, rather than pull us by the hair and manipulate us into share an already-decided-upon ideological conclusion.
Of course, disingenuous claims to objectivity among deeply biased members of the media is certainly nothing new. What strikes me about the manner with which this story was covered is the prissiness of Stacy's critics. It calls to mind the sort of lurid, breathless, prurient journalism one might have found in the Victorian age surrounding a sex scandal. A dissenter from racial egalitarianism and multiculturalist dogma in 2012 is treated the same way a sex pervert was in 1890.
Of course, this also gives racial heretics an allure of fascination, the glamour of the forbidden. And it's probably the reason why many otherwise good little boys and girls sneak away to read publications like Alternative Right when their parents or guardians aren't looking. We are "vile," and that's precisely what makes us so sexy.