A “white what“?
A recent Dominion Post / Stuff editorial informs us that a “white supremacist” group has been causing alarm at Auckland University by putting up posters.
It might be true, the group terrorising the campus with posters might be a white supremacist group. “Might be”, that’s the news. “Might be”, because the group is not named, so it is impossible for the reader to check. What does the reader do – trust the editor?
There was a time when I would have considered trusting a news editor. Not anymore.
We live in era of maliciously false labelling, a practice employed widely in the media – certainly in Stuff and the Dominion Post. The most common mislabelling is the label “hate speech”, which is attached to anyone who disagrees with “progressive” dogma.
However, “white supremacist” is another label used in the same way. It is attached not only to actual supremacists (who believe the “white race” is superior to others) but also to people who are simply worried that the white race faces extinction. Their worry or fear may or may not be fanciful: that’s worth discussing, perhaps some facts could calm them down. On the other hand, the facts might justify their sense of alarm.
These white worriers may not be dangerous. Or they may be. It depends on what they say and do. But they are not supremacist. Some might also be supremacist. But, some are not, they’re just afraid.
Another popular falsehood is that racial supremacism is always “white”. It is clearly not true.
Consider, for example, the Nation of Islam in the US. (I should hasten to say that this is not a mainstream Muslim organisation.) They seriously teach that the evil white race was created artificially (by close breeding) a few thousand years ago, on an island in the Aegean. They mean it.
I think we whites (I’m afraid I am one) also have a little Neanderthal in us (https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/neanderthal-ancestry-in-europeans-unchanged-for-last-45-000-years-65364). I suppose that’s as good a basis as any for working up a supremacist theory at our expense: time will tell.
Anyway, this kind of editorial is a part of the near-constant propagandising we are subjected to by Stuff.
Out with the old …..
Thomas Coughlan recommends lowering the voting age to 16:
One of his principal arguments is that we needn’t panic about possible upheaval:
History tells us that mass enfranchisement would be unlikely to change the make-up of Parliament.
The enfranchisement of women saw more than twice as many people vote in the 1893 election as in the 1890 election, yet the margin between the main two parties shifted by less than 2 per cent
True, but that was because women (and their opinions) vary. Even if some voted with (or against) their husbands, their votes varied because their husbands varied.
By contrast, 16- to 18-year olds are a cohort that has been indoctrinated in “progressive” ideology at school: they are a voting-block in waiting.
Addressing the issue of competence to vote, Coughlan gets a little nasty, saying:
The strongest argument for keeping the voting age at 18 is that it is an age at which young people reach an arbitrary level of mental competence required for voting.
It’s a fair argument – no-one would suggest giving toddlers the vote – but at the same time, we also don’t look at stripping the vote from the elderly.
This is an occasion when one makes an argument by saying one isn’t making it. It still gets mentioned and does its work. Like when a judge directs a jury to “ignore what counsel just said”. Crafty, effective, hardly admirable.
This kind of insinuated insult to elderly folk is intrinsic to the “progressive” revolution: out with the old, in with the new. The elderly used to be considered by social justice advocates, but the phenomenon we used to call “political correctness” is not about justice: justice is for everyone, but this movement is highly selective.
Being young is one of the characteristics you need to be gathered up in the new limited “inclusiveness”: I guess you have to look good in a Diversity Pride March.