One more foul emanation of enforced diversity: that morbid interval after an act of mass violence, as we two increasingly divided sides of our split nation wait to learn the identity of the culprit and where the narrative impact will land. Diversity not only divides by placing entire communities of strangers in our midst, it divides us–what’s left of “us”–by forcing us to take a stand regarding them.
Still, almost no one who’s chosen sides already will be swayed either way. Whoever loses the coin toss feels it as a narrative setback, a blow to morale and a lost opportunity, but rarely if ever as a challenge to his assumptions. We continue, out of habit as much as anything else, as if there’s still a fight for the acquiescence of the great distracted middle of apolitical citizens, the “normies”. But as our political polarization continues and the atrocities pile up–both direct results of diversity–that middle becomes both smaller and increasingly numbed to the arguments. To the extent they consider it at all they assume they live equidistant between two extremes that can be reconciled, if only the zealous on both sides would calm down, by some splitting of the difference. That things might be the Manichean struggle between good and evil that we out here on the battle lines see defies common sense–and it should, but common sense is insufficient for understanding a deliberately distorted reality.
In this circumstance it takes a greater shock to move anyone in the middle either way. But with the Establishment’s control of the Megaphone there is a profound disparity in the directional effect of those shocks. Not all crimes are equal; not all victims equally wronged. Through amplification of supposed right wing extremism and suppression of even the most heinous acts of, for two instances, Muslim terrorists and black criminals, we’ve long been in a situation where a drunken white’s “racist” rant somewhere goes viral and becomes an occasion for white self-flagellation everywhere, while the vast majority of Americans don’t know about such as the Bataclan massacre, and criminally rare is he who knows of its appalling nature. And as the terrorist attacks pile up and grow in brutality, the perceptual chasm widens, because it’s been decreed beforehand that an equivalence exists.
It’s a scam, by which white Americans surrender our notion of “us” and “them”. Rest assured, they, whoever they happen to be, have not. The effect for intellectual callow American blacks, Muslims and others of this deliberate double standard has been to strengthen their in-group identity and demonize us as a hostile out-group.
And the extreme nature of the violence is not just telling of the depths of the hate we’re up against, it’s an outrage we’re no longer allowed. The nature of the violence is entirely relevant, but we’re supposed to equate a disaffected loner shooting up a church in outrage over a nonetheless accurate notion of the state of affairs–Dylann Roof–with a police assassin wound up by fantastic tales of a “war” being waged against him by racist cops. We can prosecute and condemn Roof’s actions without denying reality. I’m not sure how many more Roofs can be prevented if we continue to deny that reality and fail to deal with it. Likewise the emergence of an angry loner–such as may be responsible for the Quebec mosque massacre–does nothing to negate or justify the continuing assault on our peace and heritage that Islam represents. Neither do I equate his actions with the torture of innocents by an organized band supported by a larger religious-political movement
This is the nature of tolerance: you aren’t allowed proper disgust, revulsion and outrage. Its impulse is still there, however, and it gets channeled into our own destruction; witness the zealous anger of the social justice warrior.
Where the media has no option but to cover such atrocities it hedges with irrelevant or misleading context about how terrorists don’t represent all Muslims and “right wing Christian white men” represent a greater threat. The revealing disparity in the nature of the crimes–a bullied loner shooting up a church versus the gleeful barbarity of Muslims beheading their victims–is hidden in statistics, along with the reality the Muslim terrorist represents an organized effort which “moderate” Muslims seem utterly unconcerned with, until it lands on them–in which case their efforts against it are paraded as of a piece with our own struggle, when it is not. Muslims besieged by ISIS somewhere take up a protest and it’s enthusiastically picked up in the global media as evidence of their solidarity with us. But moderate Muslims needn’t even oppose their extremists–all they need to do is flee them (or pretend to be fleeing them) and a new theme arises, such as when terrorist attacks in Europe are deemed to have no relevance to the present “refugee” onslaught, for these migrants are, after all, fleeing the same thing back home.
All variety of reality goes into the Narrate-o-Matic, but only Narrative-friendly gruel comes out.
In light of the barbarous nature of Muslim terror, and the profound betrayal of its apologists, from moderate Muslims to Western elites, the reaction of the “right wing” is tepid.
And it gets worse still. The default, taken-for-granted position of the apologists is that any reaction–muted as it is still in the West compared to what would be provoked anywhere else in the world to such a threat and betrayal, to such a humiliation, to such barbarity–is evidence of the necessity to continue on course with the actions producing it. To finally squelch this Orwellian-describe “prejudice” and “phobia”.