"We were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody."

The three boys who decided to kill an Australian college athlete out of nihilistic boredom were black.

This is relevant.

Why?

For several reasons. First, because the allegedly elite media routinely chooses to suppress information that is not helpful to their narrative. We knew that Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman was white -- oops, "White Hispanic" -- from the first moments of political agitation for Zimmerman's lynching.

The media will only write about white (or White Hispanic) violence against blacks or other minorities, never the other way around.

This is ridiculous. The media is supposed to report a somewhat accurate reflection of a category of things I'll call Things That Really Happened, not employ novelistic techniques to forever cut out anything extraneous to the "plot" and pump up sections that emphasize the "theme" of the work.

Whether or not the boys are black, white, or other is not quite central to this story. And yet it remains, in itself, relevant. And then what makes it move from "relevant" to "central" is the bizarre reaction of our media in ruthlessly suppressing basic facts.

That dynamic -- this infinite and insulting condescension of the media towards blacks, the perpetual choice to treat them as children; and the related insulting condescension towards whites, the reflexive decision to omit any sort of "unhelpful" racial facts due to fears that if whites find out blacks commit street crimes we'll just go crazy with racial persecutions -- illustrates how ineffably retarded our "National Discussion on Race" is and will always be, if the media continues to have its stupid way.

The very fact that the media refuses to report such basic information illustrates that this certainly is very relevant to any discussion about it.

No one who is this determined that a fact should not be reported is actually unconcerned by this fact. The very act of such determined suppression indicates the great concern.

One does not actively endeavor to suppress that which one is hardly thinking about. If you were hardly thinking about it, you'd mention it, simply because you took no active steps to not mention it.

The other part of this, of course, is that The Narrative always requires a Bad Guy -- and fictional narratives always need a strong through-line and emotional arc -- and if we can't mention the fact that there is a nihilistic strain of thought in the less reputable quarters of the black underclass, we'll have to shift the spotlight to something else.

Like, the case of this Atlantic piece, the urgent need for universal background checks laws.

Here's the thing: I have not yet seen it reported that this gun was bought from a any reputable person who would have had the right to carry it in the first place. That is to say, if the man who sold or gave away this gun was himself a criminal not legally permitted to own it, obviously he would not have himself done the paperwork for a background check in his subsequent transfer of ownership.

Now, it is possible that the gun was procured from such a person, and that a background check might have had some usefulness here. (Although three youths looking to kill someone don't really need weapons beyond a bit of heavy metal to do so -- a length of pipe will do.)

But notice how quickly we just assume all Politically Helpful Premises here. We don't need to actually establish them. Indeed, this particular writer doesn't have curiosity enough to ask if this is a case in which background checks would have kept the gun out of the kid's hand. He isn't even aware that this is a question in the first place. It is a "fact" so deeply embedded in his worldview he's not even aware it exists at all. It's just one of the background Laws of Physics in his world, one that he doesn't even notice at all because it's just always working without much notice. Like gravity.

And thus does the media transform every story from one that might not be politically helpful to one that most assuredly is helpful. The guilty parties must always be found in the Coalition of the Right; the Right is always the designated villains. If three black kids literally kill another human being simply because they are bored, then it stands to reason that the real villain here is Eric Cantor.

It must be this way. A religious dogma does not permit blaming evil and sin upon God and His Angels. Evil must always be traced, ultimately, to The Enemy, the Author of Evil, The Betrayer Satan, and his legion of Devils.

Of course, I say the "media" but representatives of Australia's government (who I assume are on the left, because the left currently runs the government there) are joining with the media on this, but this just indicates that which we already knew -- the political class are simply the members of the New Class whose affairs and addictions are not so notorious as to keep them from winning an election. They are simply different workers in the same organization.

The New York Post reports the story in a relatively straightforward factual fashion, so you know they're racist.

The media changes storylines because they believe that people can be incensed and driven to violence if they are exposed to stories with a strong undercurrent of Tribal Vengeance.

That is, they don't want White People going out there and Getting Some of Our Own back against innocent black victims.

I completely understand that.

Here's what I don't understand: Does the media not understand the effect on young, impressionable black kids of a neverending tale of black victimization at the hands of Whites (and White Hispanics)?

Go to Palestine. Look at their media. Look at their media with their constant framing of Jews as bloody monsters.

What effect on the mentality of Palestinian kids?

Are we to understand that this effect may occur in Palestine, but could never occur in the US?

The US media ruthlessly embargoes facts which may inflame whites and spur them to take malevolent action against blacks.

I get this. As I've said, I understand this part of it.

But what of the other side of it?

If the fear is that a steady stream of messaging about the violence committed by blacks against whites may inflame whites into nihilistic murder, where is the concern that the media's carefully-crafted Paliwood Parade of black victims of white horrors may do the same to blacks?

And note: This is not necessarily a hypothetical question, is it?

[Update - Andy]: Ace writes:

But notice how quickly we just assume all Politically Helpful Premises here. We don't need to actually establish them. Indeed, this particular writer doesn't have curiosity enough to ask if this is a case in which background checks would have kept the gun out of the kid's hand.

According to this piece in the Australian press (imagine that) the suspects are aged 15, 16 and 17 - all of which are below the minimum age for legally purchasing a firearm in the U.S.

posted by Ace at 02:12 PM

| Access Comments