You Have to Know Before You Know

Despite its final-act flailing, liberal western society continues searching for order. As a people, we simply aren’t wired for chaos. Which is ironic, given how certain our contemporary values make its arrival. Regardless, we have a need for structure even in the tumult. That’s why a sort of reporting etiquette has emerged in response to the West’s increasingly routine mass killings.

But before we can observe proper politesse we have to know the occasion. Otherwise we will not know whether to warn against a backlash or actively foment one. Whether this was an act of broad racial malice, or an opportunity to avoid scapegoating. Whether those lost had real human stories, or were simply flesh-toned emojis. Whether the killer was a poor reflection of his politics, or separate from those entirely. But primarily, we need to learn whether the victims were martyrs or meaningless. And the only way to know that is to find out who killed them.

Here’s a small example: have you ever heard of Heather Heyer? Probably you have. She was the woman killed by a “white supremacist” driver in Charlottesville, Virginia. Her death quite possibly represented the first white victim of violence lamented by liberals in the 21st Century. Ms. Heyer may have been as pleasant a person as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, yet like them she was canonized only by virtue of her assailant. Had she instead been smeared into the pavement by one of Islam’s many Grand Theft Auto enthusiasts, then #TheLeftWouldntGiveAShitAboutHerName.

What follows is a similar example from today. This article from ABC News covers this afternoon’s massacre in Texas. It references two earlier church shootings: one the media covered, and another the media covered with six feet of dirt. See if you can discern the subtle distinctions.

The massacre in Texas is at least the third deadly shooting at a U.S. church in the past three years.

In June 2015, white supremacist Dylann Roof shot and killed nine black churchgoers during a Bible study at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Roof was sentenced to death this January.

In September 2017, a gunman allegedly stormed the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch, Tennessee, fatally shooting a woman in the parking lot before entering the church sanctuary, shooting and wounding six people.

* In 6/15, the killer was a white supremacist. In 9/17: gunman (no race, no agenda). May have simply become confused while hunting quail.

* In 6/15, a specific person, Dylann Roof, shot and killed people. In 9/17, this nameless gunman allegedly stormed a building. That doesn’t sound nearly as bad as killing people. And we really can’t even verify this storming occurred, as it’s all mere allegations at this point.

* In 6/15, nine black church goers were killed. In 9/17, a faceless raceless woman who may or may not have been a church goer was shot (allegedly).

Understanding such unwritten reporting etiquette is what separates undisciplined bloggers from the professionals at ABC News. It might seem inelegant to grade a commoner’s life strictly on the profile of who ended it, but if you do not do so then some very unpalatable conclusions might be drawn. As a result, every murderous shot represents the starter’s pistol for determining victims’ moral value. With the Texas killer’s identification, white rural Christians seem to have temporarily found theirs. I hope they don’t grow accustomed to the acclaim.

——

A few other thoughts on Texas…and places unlike it.

As you know, last week an Uzbekistani national barely failed his NYC driver’s test by not coming to a complete stop on top of several of that city’s polyglot residents. It seemed to me quite a pointless loss of life, though ritualized human sacrifice has an esteemed pedigree. And few people practice it with more zealous devotion than the congregants of open borders multiculturalism.

——

Given his social media interests (civil rights, militant atheism, and a Bernie Sanders resist group), the Texas killer is almost undoubtedly a leftist. Only the depth of which seems to be in doubt. Thus it reminds me again of an ongoing habit of liberals using their own behavior as validation of their contempt. For instance, it is quite unsportsmanlike for a white leftist to say “Whites are terrorists who ruin the world!” And to then prove the point by committing a mass shooting so that his surviving peers can bang on Twitter like chimpanzees: “We told you whites were terrorists!”

Dealing with so-called countrymen this unselfconsciously duplicitous makes me even more eager for advances in the science of political speciation. The sooner they literally aren’t us, the quicker we’ll all recognize reality.

——

Fresh off every other killing since Franz Ferdinand, Sam Hyde.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “You Have to Know Before You Know

  1. Pingback: You Have to Know Before You Know | Reaction Times

  2. Imagine 10,000 years ago in NW Europe, a small community of hunter-gatherers clustered around a campfire as they listen to the tribal shaman explain why the Gods arranged for the Tribe’s best spear man to be under foot of a mammoth that suddenly changed direction.

    Then look at the “news.” Each event is sifted for meaning; Leftists look for confirmations of their latest edition of Left Dogma, Rightists look for the same.

    Gun owners wonder what kind of rifle was wielded by the civilian who shot the bad guy, trying to decide if a bolt-action 338 Winchester Magnum might be a better “trunk gun” than an AR clone or an IMI Tavor. Who survived the Killing Field, the person nearest the side door or the one who pulled a bloody corpse on top and feigned death? What “body armor” was used, the kind that stops pistol bullets or the kind that stops rifle bullets, too? How fast can I train to draw and hit the upper shoulders, throat or face of a target that is moving?

    Leftists think, all we have to do is pass some new prohibitions. Did the perpetrator use a “special” weapon (i.e., something I don’t use, don’t like, or I fear?) Was he a member of a special (and superior) class of person, a totem of one of my Narrative’s People of High Diversity Pokemon Points? Can I explain/excuse his acts on the basis of Class/Race/Creed Oppression, or blame them on White Privilege (or whatever is today’s latest fashion?)

    All of this in order to better one’s own future encounter with such a problem, despite the fact that winning the Powerball is more likely, and that one is probably 8,000 or 80,000 times more likely to experience sudden cardiac death or a massive stroke during the next year.

    Leftists are quick to note every possibly interpretation that says, “carrying a gun would not have helped, and might have hurt,” while Rightists wisely observe that no Leftist counts events that never happened (because of the presence of an armed, non-costumed person.)

    Everyone picks the interpretation most favorable to their pre-existing beliefs, forms up into groups on opposite sides of the “street” and goes to rhetorical war (so far) on the miscreants of the other side.

    The bottom line: everyone tries to take something from the “news” of the event, when in fact there’s almost always NOTHING to learn. Such events are too random, too rare and far too unique to pull any knowledge of value from them, but we expend vast effort to do so, and our modern shamans spin endless tales of “why” so as to satisfy our insatiable thirst for “explanations” and “fixes.”

    What do we know (in my opinion):
    1. Our society is sick.
    2. No proposed solution promises to heal it.
    3. There are no political solutions to problems created by politics.

    If gun prohibitions fixed sick societies, Mexico would be among the most peaceful places on Earth. This alone proves the fundamentally flawed approach of the Left. Adding new prohibitions (on anything) do not improve society because legislated rules only guide the behavior of those predisposed to follow those rules in the first place, and our society’s sickness is illustrated by both those who recognize no moral authority and by the rules that openly destroy moral authority. A law that compels a man to support and enable behaviors his conscience tells him are wrong and evil (e.g., endless coerced support for forced association, i.e., anti-discrimination laws prohibiting free choice in private matters, including private economic transactions) destroys social health as surely as does tacit approval of property destruction (like the appeasement of blacks who burn & riot over increasingly flimsy excuses.)

    Harming the law abiding and sane in response to actions undertaken by the criminal and insane is the epitome of Leftism’s baffling attempt to make their list of “what ought to be’s” into “what is.” Reality has a funny way of being utterly indifferent to people’s fantasies, especially when those fantasies are fundamentally non sequiturs.

    But people haven’t changed all that much since 10,000 years ago. We know this by the behavior of our shamans and of the rest of the tribe clustering around them, searching for human meaning in the indifference of chance, fate and large-scale shifts in the human collective.

    • Is that (((you))) Strapon Within? Go back to Heartiste and Greg will chastise you proper for such garbage.
      Kak’s comment section is not mocked.

    • You forget that there is a conspiracy to wipe out the white race and this other stuff is all just window dressing, red herrings, and other bullshit. Trying to analyse window dressing is pointless. You go around in circles and type the above pointless pointlessness, while I analyse the window dressing and come to the conclusion that it is window dressing.

      In saying that, I may spend some time to see if its false flag window dressing, but that’s just a hobby. I’m still looking at the LV farce, and regard this Texas Target Practice as a distraction.

      BTW, the left’s number one “ought to be” is that “the white race ought to be extinct” and while you come dangerously close to recognizing that you are dismissive of their real agenda as a “fantasy” – but it’s quite a solid and realistic fantasy because it’s coming true just like they want it to. To my mind that means they are doing it, but I guess we have to entertain the notion that it is just a crazy coincidence or we look crazy ourselves right?

      So how do we stop this coincidence getting even more coincidental? How do we stop that exactly balanced liberal coin landing on heads 88% of the time?

      • At the risk of sounding arrogant, I’m delving a bit deeper than you. The tl;dr version? The world goes by itself, and the trends of the last 50 (or 155, or 400) years are not permanent. This too will change.

        I agree with you, the “endgame” of the current trend is obvious, but I don’t really much fear its accomplishment because that’s not how the world works. Nature doesn’t move in one direction. It cycles, it has growth, apogee and decline…followed by another cycle of growth, apogee and decline.

        What do we learn from the “news?” Nothing we didn’t already know. We knew that the people who choose what to tell us about, and how to word their reports, are our enemies. They are enablers of the growth of savagery. Tell me you needed to read CNN to grasp that. I know better.

        Sentiment is finally turning. I would have thought the turn would arrive decades ago, but it didn’t. The hole we’re in gets dug deeper with each passing day, but nothing I do will change that.

        I don’t forgive and I don’t forget. With luck, I have a lot of company. When the tide fully shifts there will be a seemingly endless list of people who enthusiastically marched at the head of this last 50 years’ clown parade. Maybe in a time of hardship there will be entertainment value in repaying their torments.

        Hope springs eternal.

  3. “Ms. Heyer may have been as pleasant a person as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, yet like them she was canonized only by virtue of her assailant. Had she instead been smeared into the pavement by one of Islam’s many Grand Theft Auto enthusiasts, then #TheLeftWouldntGiveAShitAboutHerName.”

    Stalin once said that one death was a tragedy.

    Well so long as they have the ‘correct’ political views.

  4. The media doesn’t even bother to hide its bias, but like a bankrupt airline, they seem to keep going, undeterred by low ratings and credibility.

    The media is selling that it’s okay to bump off Trumpkins and the public is buying.

    As appalling as it all is, what’s even worse is that this antifa was free to roam after breaking the skull of his infant stepson in 2012 ( plus assaulting his wife)
    He was severely punished with 12 months of “confinement” after which time he was roaming free.
    I’m at a loss for words at this implausible sentencing.
    Free to roam after infant assault.

    Time after time a public crime incidentally reveals a hideous past.
    It’s never discussed in the media except as an unimportant aside.
    “BTW he bashed the skull of infant and served his 12 months.”

    • There’s the collective and there’s the local/individual.

      We can’t fix the collective; it has to crash and burn on its own. Nine out of ten people who are victims of unjust violence at the hands of someone they knew are responsible for their own victimization; how many “white girls” murdered by black men were the guy’s ex-GF (or at least the girl was screwing him?) As to the child, there’s no ameliorating the suffering of a child without enabling the dysfunction of the parent(s.) Nature’s system of culling is indifferent to suffering.

      IMO, we renew the future by being better ourselves, by raising good kids to be good people, and so on, and hoping that this is enough to mean survival when this long period of collective insanity rolls inevitably into a reassertion of Nature’s implacable culling of the unfit (whatever that happens to mean.)

      Perhaps if the future yields smaller communities we’ll see a more realistic approach to dealing with savagery in the community’s midst. Those who act as savages unable to conform to civilized norms should be culled from the community, and if that means they get a .22 behind the ear and a pauper’s grave, more to the good. To me, the TX church shooting is a predictable side-effect of too-large social entities spending too much time promoting batshit crazy “values,” such as appeasing savagery instead of exterminating it. How it is deemed sane to keep an adult savage alive (much less out of prison) but cut up and remove an innocent developing baby because “it’s a choice” is beyond me.

      But then again, not enough people hunt any more, cultivating an unreal understanding of life, death, survival and the real costs of allowing evil to spread.

      • I don’t advocate enabling dysfunction in its myriad forms either. When social services swoops in and places your crack baby in a home or institution, without sterilizing and incarcerating the parents, that’s enabling. When Baby #7 is on Medicaid and food stamps, that’s enabling.
        27 people were gunned down sitting in their church because a murderous psychopath only served 12 months for a heinous crime.
        The media will talk about gun control and not incarceration.
        This little detail matters.
        Although many injustices are too far gone to even dream about reform (affirmative action, welfare, immigration) the early release of criminals could still strike a chord if it were ever discussed.

        In 1978 a 4 year old boy was kidnapped molested and murdered in a small Missouri town by Charles Ray Hatcher.
        Here’s a little snapshot of Charles:
        1947–convicted of auto theft (suspended sentence)
        1948– auto theft again. Serves half of a two-year sentence.
        A few months later convicted again of forging a check.
        Escapes from prison and is caught in attempted burglary
        1954–released from prison, steals a truck, gets sentenced, escapes and sentenced again
        1959– released from prison, attempts to abduct a 16-year-old paperboy using a knife and a stolen vehicle. Sentenced to five years.
        1961–believed to have raped and murdered another inmate but charges are dropped
        1963– released from prison
        1969– kidnaps and assaults a six-year-old boy who is rescued by a passerby who witnesses the beating and molestation.
        Spends several years being evaluated for mental illness
        1972–finally convicted of the crime
        1977–despite a failed attempt at escape, gets paroled and released
        1978–murders the 4 year old described above
        1982–rape and murder of 11 year old girl and finally gets caught. Then confesses to 15 other child murders.
        Denied the death penalty he asked for, he commits suicide in prison.

        The abduction of the 16 year old in 1959 should have ended his crime spree.
        The attack on a baby should have ended the church shooter’s.

        Yet all we ever hear about is how the prisons are full of drug offenders.

      • Watership10, could you imagine a community in the 17th or 18th century allowing a man who victimizes others to continue breathing? How far we’ve fallen, we, the Village Idiot descendants of people who once knew that the source of a man’s evil acts was beside the point; If he harmed others for money, for fame or because the voices in his head said to, no one cared (nor should they.) He got a short drop and a sudden stop at the end of a noose. Dead people do not engage in recidivism (unless the crime is polluting.)

        “Justice” is messy, like the process of turning a living animal into a sirloin. In our fat, dumb and lazy lives, we learned to delegate all the messy aspects of life to others, absolving ourselves of the responsibility for making choices and having to live with the downstream consequences. I once noted that a man should not become a dog owner unless he’s capable of shooting the dog, if need be, to end its suffering. The same holds true of maintaining civilization. A man is not truly civilized unless he’s capable of strangling someone who has proved incapable of living a civilized life, whose continued presence is an attack on civilization itself. If we can’t defend what we claim to value, then we really don’t value it. Americans (and Westerners in general) claim to value their civilization and all its benefits, but for the vast majority (including plenty of people who vote Republican) it’s just words. If a man came into their home and murdered their child, would most of those people be capable of, in cold blood, cutting that criminal’s throat and insuring that he could NEVER murder another family’s child?

        Hell, half the nation would become vegans if they had to kill, gut, skin, butcher and cook their meat. It’s going to be a long, hard slog to relearn ancient truths.

  5. Pingback: K Blog: You Have To Know Before You Know | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  6. Pingback: You Have to Know Before You Know « Los Diablos Tejano

  7. Heather Heyer was NOT run down. She was not killed by an assailant. She had a heart attack and died on the sidewalk. Whoever the woman is in the photo splayed over the guy’s hood, it’s NOT Heather Heyer. The woman on the hood has blonde hair. Heather did not. There are photos of her before her heart attack. She was wearing black and had her hair in a pony tail. Her hair is darkish. There are photos of her when they’re doing CPR and then with her on the stretcher.

    Her mother was interviewed on TV and her mother states she died of a heart attack. I wish people would quit fomenting this nonsense because it didn’t happen.

    • I can’t wait until the trial. There are six ways from Sunday different avenues the defense will obtain an acquittal. Only an inversion of Jury Nullification (the group decides to ignore the trial and convict on sentiment alone) will put this guy in prison. I can’t wait for the Left Tears when that happens.

  8. dc. sunsets

    “Watership10, could you imagine a community in the 17th or 18th century allowing a woman who victimizes others to continue breathing? How far women fallen, women, the Village Idiot descendants of people who once knew that the source of a woman’s evil acts was beside the point; If she harmed others for money, for fame or because the voices in her head said to, no one cared (nor should they.) She got a short drop and a sudden stop at the end of a noose. Dead people do not engage in recidivism (unless the crime is polluting.)

    “Justice” is messy, like the process of turning a living animal into a sirloin. In women’s fat, dumb and lazy lives, women learned to delegate all the messy aspects of life to men, absolving themselves of the responsibility for making choices and having to live with the downstream consequences.

    “I once noted that a woman should not become a dog owner unless she’s capable of shooting the dog, if need be, to end its suffering. The same holds true of maintaining civilization. A woman is not truly civilized unless she’s capable of strangling someone who has proved incapable of living a civilized life, whose continued presence is an attack on civilization itself.

    “If women can’t defend what women claim to value, then women really don’t value it. Americans (and Westerners in general) claim to value their civilization and all its benefits, but for the vast majority (including plenty of people who vote Republican) it’s just words.

    “If a woman came into their home and murdered their child, [abortion?] would most of those people be capable of, in cold blood, cutting that criminal’s throat and insuring that she could NEVER murder another family’s child?

    [dc. there – fixed it for you – flipped the script – now you read like a crazy misogynist – ha… try substituting Women for Men in your zeal for accountable responsibility – then maybe we’ll see the overall confusion. The sex’s roles in today’s “utopia” where Women and Men are supposedly “Equal” seems to be the underlying confusion. Go ahead and make Woman and Men “Equal” in your posts and see how it reads with Women getting the consequences of their choices and actions…. Equally disposable. Equally responsible. Equally accountable. ha! ya right. you see? that’s the problem = women get the choices while men get the responsibilities – now you know.]

  9. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/11/12) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s