“If you smash our skull with a mag lite, do we not bleed?” William Shakespeare, paraphrased.
It would be an understatement to say that the narrative is one-sided.
As you know, President Trump was pilloried by the media for saying that there were two sides in the Charlottesville conflict. His comments have been disingenuously interpreted to mean “Nazis are fine people,” but the point he was really trying to make, that some of the Unite the Right attendees were decent people with legitimate concerns, was correct. (In fact, his comments did not go far enough in our defense, but considering that Trump is the head executive of the federal government and hails from New York, I think he was surprisingly even-handed.)
Shortly thereafter, SC Senator Tim Scott read Trump the riot act in response to his Charlottesville comments, later explaining that Trump …”needs to hear something from folks who have gone through this painful history.” Sure. But has Senator Scott listened to the folks who attended UTR, and asked what made them decide to attend? No, and since he is a member of the Senate that unanimously condemned UTR, I think it’s fair to assume he has made up his mind to agree with those who believe there is only one side to the debate.
Perhaps he is unaware that Charlottesville city officials are openly anti-white, and vindictively targeting statues that were of historic importance to whites. Maybe he thinks nothing of importance has changed since the 1960s, when whites made up the overwhelming majority of population and positions of authority. Maybe he just doesn’t want to give up the power that “victim” status provides to black Americans in the modern US.
The Charlottesville issue was in the headlines again this past week when a warrant was issued for the arrest of DeAndre Harris. Leftists all over the country were shrieking in horror at the news that sweet, gentle DeAndre, who was brutally attacked by cruel white supremacists while skipping to church, had been arrested for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. Apparently it is beyond the ability of many Americans to even consider that there might be two sides to the story of DeAndre’s injuries, despite the fact that there is video evidence that Harris started the brawl and severely injured another man BEFORE being injured himself. I’d love to see the psychological profile of the people unable to absorb the evidence disproving their preferred version of the story.
The one-sidedness of the narrative may also be exemplified by the recent church shooting in Tennessee. The suspect in the mass shooting in a majority white church is a black Sudanese immigrant, whose social media posts were full of anti-white, black power posts and likes, prompting some to describe him as a “black Dylann Roof.” However, the crimes of Roof and testimonies of the victims were broadcast incessantly on national news media for weeks. There were countless think pieces written about White supremacy, cries to remove all vestiges of Confederate history, and guilt by association cast upon some groups simply because he had visited their websites.
Imagine the same response to the crimes of Tennessee suspect Emanuel Kidega Samson. Imagine national news media combing through his social media posts and browser history. Photos of the victims on the national news every night for weeks. Talking heads wringing their hands about the evil bigots of Black Lives Matter, and the damage caused by their hateful rhetoric. Demands to ban sales of all black power imagery, and to presume that anyone who displays it is evil and potentially violent. Calls to monitor and perhaps shut down any websites, speakers, and writers who might have inspired his evil, racist, and violent behavior.
Why is the mistreatment of blacks by white authority figures assumed to be the norm, while mistreatment of whites by black authority figures is ignored? Why is race-inspired violence horrific when perpetrated by whites, but barely worthy of note when perpetrated by blacks? The victims are equally dead. How can any honest person of good faith argue that there are not two sides to this story? The danger, I believe, is that honest examination would require acknowledging that whites are actually far MORE likely to be the victims of interracial violence, which would be a very uncomfortable discussion for those deeply invested in the “equality” narrative.
Of course there are two sides to the story, and from now on, Whites intend to make sure that our side will be heard.