The Multicultural Agenda in the Media & Media Fakery

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

The Multicultural Agenda in the Media & Media Fakery

Postby jumpy64 on January 10th, 2016, 9:12 pm

I think multiculturalism is a key issue of our time and is central in media propaganda. But other than this I will not expound a thesis in this first post, as I did in the “Open Conspiracy” thread. I will leave the issue open, with (a lot of) questions that everybody here is invited to answer. Or anybody can ask other questions, of course, and make other examples.

Starting from the “media fakery” angle, which this forum specializes in, do media hoaxes like the Charleston Church shooting or the Utoya (fake) massacre (or others you can name) promote multiculturalism, directly or indirectly?

Image

Is the Utoya (fake) incident, for example, in any way connected with the (future at the time) invasion of immigrants in Scandinavia?

And do media hoaxes like the ones I’ve just mentioned, or others, imply something negative about nationalistic movements or ideologies?

We know better than most other people how prevalent media fakery is. Does this mean that everything the media insistently promote is fake or wrong or negative?

For example, how do the media portray different ethnic groups?

Is how the media portray White people real or fake?

Is how the media portray Black or Colored people real or fake?

Is how the media portray White or "Colored" people biased in favor of one or the other?

Is how the media portray Muslims real or fake?

Are Whites as dumb as television portrays and other ethnicities as intelligent as the television portrays, especially in America?

And is how the media portray Jews real or fake?

Image

Talking about Jews, Barbara Spectre - the Jewish activist and academic who founded and directs Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden - declared:

I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.


Do you agree with what she says about this "necessary" transformation of Europe?

Do you agree with her statement that Jews have a leading role in the multicultural transformation of Europe, as also the very influential "Kalergi Plan" seems to demonstrate?

And is it a legitimate thing for them to do? Or is it a blatant case of double standards on their part, since they advocate for DNA tests as a prerequisite for Israeli citizenship and refuse to take in Middle Eastern refugee in Israel but actively promote their (forced?) reception in Europe?

Back to multiculturalism, is how the media portray it real or fake?

Are multiculturalism and the idea of race as a "social construct" connected?

And if they are, do the media generally promote multiculturalism and this idea of race as a "social construct"? And if they do, as it seems to me, why? Can it be a good thing? And if it is, can you make other examples of “good things” promoted by the mainstream media?

Do you think multiculturalism can facilitate respect for other cultures more than incite hate between different cultures forced through immigration to co-exist in the same places? And in any case, why would the media promote it?

Do you think multicultural ideals are rigged against White European people or not?

Do they deprive White European people of their basic right of “freedom of association” by forcing them to coexist with other races? Is this really inevitable, as people like the former French president Francois Sarkozy said?

Are these multicultural ideals fairly applied to all ethnic groups, or to the advantage of some groups and to the detriment of others?

Some see multiculturalism as an attempt at "White genocide". Do you agree with this perspective?

Do you perceive multiculturalism as more protective of certain races and more accusatory towards others?

Do you think it promotes the idea that all races should merge into one? And if so, do you agree with this idea?

Do you see any exception to this idea, any race that is portrayed by the media as worthy of a special protection? A race whose extinction we should be worried about? And are we allowed to worry about the possible extinction of other races too?

Can the creation of the “islamic terrorist” boogeyman be interpreted also as a warning against the dangers of nationalisms and religious beliefs? Why is the media telling us to distrust such phenomena? Are they saying this to their benefit or to ours, or both? Are there cases in which what benefits the media controllers can also benefit us?

Is how the media portray White nationalism or other forms of nationalism real or fake? Do they promote it or oppose it?

Do you see multiculturalism as something that has roots in the past, or arising only from the 20th century onward? Can you name thinkers, philosophers or intellectuals who, before the 20th century, spoke in favor of multiculturalism? And from the 20th century onward, did these promoters of multiculturalism belong equally to different ethnic groups or to one in particular?

Do you think multiculturalism could benefit a particular ethnic group? Did it arise in concomitance with the rise to international power of any particular ethnic group?

And finally, do you think it's important to try and find answers to these questions, or at least some of them?
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

The Multicultural Agenda in the Media & Media Fakery

Postby fbenario on January 11th, 2016, 1:22 am

The movement of the USA toward a more multicultural society provides one huge benefit to me at least - it makes many white folk very uncomfortable, and brings into question their assumed privilege as the 'best', most favored Americans.

For example, while I don't like or trust Obama, Democrats, or even the American political process, I was so happy when Obama was first elected because I knew it would expose the underlying racism, hatred, and intolerance many white folk still feel and believe in. As all of you know, I despise arrogance, feelings of superiority, bias, bigotry, and anything else that makes one person/group think he/they are inherently superior to anyone else. (I hope the political rise of Donald Trump constitutes the last gasp of elderly scared, angry, rural, uneducated whites. As they die off we should see less 'acceptable' public fear and hatred.)
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby SacredCowSlayer on January 11th, 2016, 1:54 am

I truly don't think there is nearly as much actual racism in America as the media would have us believe. It was becoming a nearly dead issue, but then the 0bama scam came along to stir up all kinds of apparent bickering.

It seems clear enough to me that peace just isn't a money maker at any level. Unfortunately racial division is highly profitable for select hucksters and political groups. They all win as long as there is fighting.

The elite (through their media stooges) want people fighting and lobbing pre programmed talking points back and forth at one another. The media controls the narrative and sets up the rhetorical battlefield. They don't care what side one takes as long as he participates.

Race based hoaxes over the summer speak for themselves (yes Charleston was a big one).

My view is that people should be able to associate freely without being coerced through social engineering, whether by law or through media manipulation.

I'll expand on some of the other questions later. You posed some very good ones.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 238
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby hoi.polloi on January 11th, 2016, 2:29 am

Hi jumpy64, so you're starting another thread like this one: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1636&p=2386618&hilit=ethnicities#p2386618?

Or do you think it's important to explicitly lead a new topic on it with the "let's play as a White team sometimes" theme?

It will be interesting to see where the present membership takes this topic, since earlier, moderators have been quite "liberal"/"left-wing"/"progressive" in the sense that multiculturalism is seen as a more-or-less okay thing, but with occasional acknowledgment of the obvious agenda to "open the borders" of various legitimate nations in order to drown out the culture within with a sort of globalist agenda that serves its masters — whomever they may be. Hmm, a heady topic indeed, and one that touches right on the core issue with the problem with the world. Maybe. Is it worth exploring? Always! Is this site the best place for it? I still am not sure.

Anyway, my personal view, before I go into your post, is that I have seen many researchers say "the culprit" is either rich nationalists, rich anti-nationalists, rich religious fanatics or just some kind of religious fanatical movement — and I have yet to look into it much myself since I am still trying to listen very carefully to a wide variety of "teams" as you call them, which organize both as races and as cultures that go beyond "race"; I look at it this way to see if a "team of teams" might be able to contribute delegates to a multicultural effort to root out the problem — even if that problem ends up being, indeed, a particular ethnicity. I have the sense it may be a culture that explicitly develops out of a combination of wealth, privilege and psychopathy, however, and not any particular genetics — since I am also so skeptical of so many prevailing theories and rumors. And yet we all seem to favor some of them, eventually, given each of us practices our own science.

Anyway, here are my answers to your cornucopia of fascinating questions, which are worthy of being answered by not just CluesForum "believers" but by all people living in this world. Again, still not sure if it helps us unpack media fakery to give good people (rather than insane pro-colonialist arrogant self-righteous types) control of it, or if it makes sense for our site, but since you are seeming thoughtful about it ...

jumpy64 wrote:I think multiculturalism is a key issue of our time and is central in media propaganda. But other than this I will not expound a thesis in this first post, as I did in the “Open Conspiracy” thread. I will leave the issue open, with (a lot of) questions that everybody here is invited to answer. Or anybody can ask other questions, of course, and make other examples.

Starting from the “media fakery” angle, which this forum specializes in, do media hoaxes like the Charleston Church shooting or the Utoya (fake) massacre (or others you can name) promote multiculturalism, directly or indirectly?


I think they promote both multiculturalism and its antithesis in various cultures. In general, it seems to incite various extremisms and apathies in pacifists and warhawks — in both nationalists and racists and cultural vagabonds alike. It promotes strife. It creates fictional problems for which "legal" answers are proffered.

Is the Utoya (fake) incident, for example, in any way connected with the (future at the time) invasion of immigrants in Scandinavia?


Yes, it is. I also think that because of the immigration issues all over the world they both had to and delighted in incorporating it into the story. I think this is because there is a Venn Diagram overlap between the media hoax writers and those controlling cultures and nations, though they are not always exactly one and the same groups — person for person.

And do media hoaxes like the ones I’ve just mentioned, or others, imply something negative about nationalistic movements or ideologies?


They both do and don't. They seem to target specific nationalist movements. The Europeans seem to love targeting their own nationalistic groups without outside help, however. In fact, it seems that the fascinating fiction of some unifying "White"-ness has been the bane of European culture for some time, given all the tribal in-fighting and group vs. group fighting within the hopelessly divided Europe. It actually resembles, to me, much of the human race.

We know better than most other people how prevalent media fakery is. Does this mean that everything the media insistently promote is fake or wrong or negative?


No, indeed. I would say a "great deal" (but not necessarily the majority) of what the media promotes is "true" either as an accurate reflection of people's beliefs (be they wrong or right — accurate or inaccurate about some one true reality) both when you chop up the sentences into constituent parts and if you simply take the "thrust" of the argument as an artistic depiction of the world. The problem is the way those parts are arranged to create mental programs that manage various populations by appealing to their basic core beliefs and/or irritations without actually helping to inform those people of the intention behind those freaky programs. An even weirder problem is the sheer amount of blatant lies, non-facts and fictions promoted as reality by those little samples of truth.

That is how simulation works. It samples from familiar reality and remixes it to make fiction. In the case of mainstream media, fictions designed to program our brains based on our own prejudices! :ph34r:

For example, how do the media portray different ethnic groups?


A combination of the those ethnic groups' pressure on the population, on the media and artistic fictions and truths.

Is how the media portray White people real or fake?


As a whole, largely fake, but catered to a particular reading by various cultures being programmed to view things in a particular way that we are trying to decode.

Is how the media portray Black or Colored people real or fake?


Same as above. As a whole, largely fake, but catered to a particular reading by various cultures being programmed to view things in a particular way that we are trying to decode.

Is how the media portray White or "Colored" people biased in favor of one or the other?


It really depends who you ask. It seems the media is really good at making everyone think that they are being targeted by the rest of the human race, but cultures which push and whine and bully and/or "fight" it seem to gain control in that media.

Is how the media portray Muslims real or fake?


Extraordinarily invented and fake, it seems to me, based on any and all Muslims I know. But again, it's targeting us all for mind control on our own particular demographic basis.

Are Whites as dumb as television portrays and other ethnicities as intelligent as the television portrays, especially in America?


This is a question that is loaded with a preconceived opinion that Whites are portrayed as dumb and ethnicities intelligent for some reason other than protection against racism. We have been trained to believe that Whites are okay to "pick on" because they have historically been very nasty to other peoples in the world. Which, in fact, is somewhat true — though it doesn't quite "fix" the issue of many other medias and national programming around the world being rather nasty to everyone as well.


And is how the media portray Jews real or fake?


Somewhat real and somewhat fake, I believe, since Jews have a great deal of power in the media and they flaunt it by painting both "pretty" and "ugly" pictures of themselves in it.

Talking about Jews, Barbara Spectre - the Jewish activist and academic who founded and directs Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden - declared:

I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.


Do you agree with what she says about this "necessary" transformation of Europe?


Yes, I think that it's going to happen. No, I don't think it's necessary. I think some people in key positions of power have deemed it necessary and positioned the Jews in this role. It probably has a lot to do with Jewish bullying and bullying by their allies such as other power circles.

Do you agree with her statement that Jews have a leading role in the multicultural transformation of Europe, as also the very influential "Kalergi Plan" seems to demonstrate?


Yes.

And is it a legitimate thing for them to do? Or is it a blatant case of double standards on their part, since they advocate for DNA tests as a prerequisite for Israeli citizenship and refuse to take in Middle Eastern refugee in Israel but actively promote their (forced?) reception in Europe?


It's not legitimate. It's a totally blatant case of double-standards as you've astutely pointed out.

Back to multiculturalism, is how the media portray it real or fake?


It's so complex that no one person — let alone culture — can possibly know what is "real" about it, but the media is undoubtedly biased more towards those which control it — not to mention the faulty idea that capitalism or some other weird "market" force is going to make the real facts come out.

Are multiculturalism and the idea of race as a "social construct" connected?


Yes, they are. Of course. They are part of a similar discussion, if not excuses/justifications for one another.

And if they are, do the media generally promote multiculturalism and this idea of race as a "social construct"?


Generally, yes. There is clearly a dominant force trying to push its ideas of race through the people. Specifically, it's more complicated.

And if they do, as it seems to me, why?


To promote the agenda of those in control.

Can it be a good thing?


All abstract things can be "good" things in theory, but even things beyond our control can seem to be in our control when they are abstracted.

And if it is, can you make other examples of “good things” promoted by the mainstream media?


Yes, each person including myself could innumerate the number of things which we have seen in the media that we consider good things depicted by an abstract simulation of those things. This is where distinguishing various media becomes key, and which is why I don't think it's so important to put on our site, since this site is a valued refuge from the worldwide religion of media worship.

Do you think multiculturalism can facilitate respect for other cultures more than incite hate between different cultures forced through immigration to co-exist in the same places?


I think the media does both, and the whole subjects of Public Relations, propaganda and media analysis are about the very methods of doing so for various reasons.

And in any case, why would the media promote it?


You already asked this, but my answer is the same. To promote the agenda of those that control the media — be it as conciliation or purpose.

Do you think multicultural ideals are rigged against White European people or not?


It depends on which multicultural ideals. All cultures are multicultural. In fact, I think instead of pushing for more multiculturalism forced by the media, the media could do well to help each culture explore its past and history by serving as an open vessel for various world views instead of the world view of its present zealous controllers. I think the various "White" European peoples could sincerely do with some understanding between and amongst themselves, if not just to help reach back into their indigeneity and recognize the various lands they have been colonized in, kicked from, moved to and/or connected to in various ways. We "White" descendants who have so often traded in our indigeneity for serfdom in the latest empire (by force, choice or otherwise) have not really taken a lot of time to look at where each of us has come from, and connected with it. Instead, we seem swept up in a huge program to turn the entire world into a single "White" (really: gray) super-State. By this, I mean we are too disconnected from our roots and from reality itself to understand anything but an abstract pathetic "reconstruction" of what's really going on — hence the development and endorsement of any cultural (multi- or otherwise) worship of total fictions.

Do they deprive White European people of their basic right of “freedom of association” by forcing them to coexist with other races?


Does the media force people to coexist with other races? Not exactly. Our own governments and their real controllers seem to do it. It just so happens those controllers also have near perfect influence on the media (probably through bribes, bullying, common owners, etc.), and if you want to be employed by the mainstream or "alternative" media — as many do — you better goose-step with them.

Is this really inevitable, as people like the former French president Francois Sarkozy said?


It seems fairly inevitable, because the problems of the world are very complex and I don't think White Nationalism has manifested a great self-sustaining culture. Europeans have been colonized and re-colonized for so many centuries, it seems the only thing "they" (really "we" and many other groups, including Europeans who are "people of color" such as southern Italians, southern Spaniards, or otherwise) are good at is being colonized and helping the colonizers colonize further. European religions don't seem to be helpful either, not that it's a wonderful idea to just invent a religion.

Are these multicultural ideals fairly applied to all ethnic groups, or to the advantage of some groups and to the detriment of others?


Ask groups of every type. That's what I've been doing. In America, that's surprisingly easy, despite myths about a so-called "melting pot". There is a very complex series of different understandings and misunderstandings. Some the media help, others they attack. Others they can't or won't attack because the understandings are strong and therefore seen as useful.

Some see multiculturalism as an attempt at "White genocide". Do you agree with this perspective?


No. Not really. But just because I don't see an anti-White hate movement that would use multiculturalism for such a purpose doesn't mean the result of multiculturalism doesn't achieve what an anti-White hate movement would want to accomplish.

Do you perceive multiculturalism as more protective of certain races and more accusatory towards others?


It really depends on the form of multiculturalism. Even "pro-White" movements are comprised of different cultures and hierarchies. In general, the collective versions of multicultural movements — if they promote the races leading those movements — would not be pro-White because most races are not "White", and even ones that some would consider "White" would rather call themselves something else like Caucasian or European or Celtic or other names.

Do you think it promotes the idea that all races should merge into one? And if so, do you agree with this idea?


Multiculturalism in its American/globalist/imperial form definitely promotes the idea that all races will inevitably merge into one. That is different from the multiculturalism which various actual ethnic groups, peoples and nations tell me about — which neither predicts nor promotes such an idea that is so close to "transhumanism". I agree the idea might be a possibility but I have no idea when that could happen or if humans will all die out before that happens or if certain races — even if they are "multicultural" — should survive a little longer or much longer.

Do you see any exception to this idea, any race that is portrayed by the media as worthy of a special protection?


Yes, I have seen "special protection" invoked for every single race, culture, even sexualities. Different protections for different peoples and groups. American media seems to delight in new forms of "protection" for every kind of person that has a single outspoken critic against a so-called stereotype. Arabian people lately have been portrayed as an expendable commodity that you get brownie points for destroying, "White" people have been portrayed as an inevitable imperial superior force that shyly dumps its technological achievements into the hands of Asian people. And there are many other ways it's "okayed" to destroy and undermine various sovereign people. But the "sanctioned" ways of destroying and undermining people shifts constantly based on various media powers and seemingly (promoted) artistic interpretations — for good or ill.

A race whose extinction we should be worried about?


I don't know if I am really all that concerned about "extinction" as much as genetic variety and strength — and this discussion becomes very sexual too since it deals directly with how and why people are attracted — sexually and otherwise — to others.

And are we allowed to worry about the possible extinction of other races too?


I am not really worried about the "extinction" of any races but perhaps I am just too aloof for people concerned with such things.

Can the creation of the “islamic terrorist” boogeyman be interpreted also as a warning against the dangers of nationalisms and religious beliefs?


It is meant to be interpreted that way, absolutely. I don't necessarily agree that is the best interpretation of the "Islamic terrorist" fictions lately.

Why is the media telling us to distrust such phenomena?


This question doesn't quite make sense to me, based on the site you are on. Are you asking why the media is telling us to distrust Arabs?

Are they saying this to their benefit or to ours, or both?


Both. Neither. Whatever keeps the powermongers in power, I imagine.

Are there cases in which what benefits the media controllers can also benefit us?


Presumably, the media controllers are human. I believe all people deserve respect and can be entrusted with responsibilities; but if they abuse those responsibilities we should be able to remove those people from power and redesign our makeshift system if necessary.

Is how the media portray White nationalism or other forms of nationalism real or fake?


Largely fake. It is like everything else used to divide everyone along controllable demographics.

Do they promote it or oppose it?


They do both in different ways, for different people.

Do you see multiculturalism as something that has roots in the past, or arising only from the 20th century onward?


It has deep roots in the past, but there are modern variations constantly being born, and new forms will be born tomorrow and so on. As long as there are different cultures trying to figure out how to coexist on our planet, multiculturalism will be a subject.

Can you name thinkers, philosophers or intellectuals who, before the 20th century, spoke in favor of multiculturalism?


I can't really think of any thinkers, philosophers or intellectuals before the 20th century who would know how to talk as well as we do in 21st century terms. So this is a bit of a loaded question. There have always been progressives and conservatives in every political branch, though. Is that a safe (if modern) way to say that you would find people to disagree with you and agree with you in every age? I suspect the particular "anti-White" multiculturalism you rightfully distrust has its roots in something very current. And we might be able to stop it too, if we can identify a more specific source than "some Jewish culture in the media." I especially think if we first broaden it to "some people in the media" and then add to it the various branches of suspects including Zionists and Talmudists, like Masons and so forth, we would be getting closer. However, perhaps the source of the "anti-White" agenda is from Black Panthers and anti-European Zionist pests and others.

And from the 20th century onward, did these promoters of multiculturalism belong equally to different ethnic groups or to one in particular?


Whoops, it seems I preempted this question a bit. It has belonged to a huge variety of groups, especially those that benefit from any kind of foothold in the aggressively "Euro" (especially "Anglo") colonialist culture/empire. However, there is the largest population of concentrated Jews in America — even more than Israel, right? And in New York, which was once considered for a Capitol for the United States, so you can expect that group to have a huge sway in the globalist Statist media promoted by the empire.

Do you think multiculturalism could benefit a particular ethnic group?


It has the potential to be used, like any tool, to benefit a particular group that uses it for domination. I think it also has the potential to be used to benefit many groups when we discuss it as intricately as we are discussing here. As I mentioned before, I think European cultures could very much benefit from multicultural understandings, especially before making specific decisions that act to create multiculturalism.

Did it arise in concomitance with the rise to international power of any particular ethnic group?


Yes, sort of: the latest Anglo power, the U.S.A., which even broadly states in its founding documents that "all men" should be treated equally (even though slaves were explicitly considered only 3/5 ("three fifths") of a human being.) No, in another sense. Power seems to have gravitated largely to the traditional religious powers, the gnostic "opposite" (which may be secretly leading the former), the strange success and proliferation of pathetic "fraternities", the conflation of royalty and sacredness, and particular nations which harbor values deemed "universal" by the globalists — and the optimistic force that came from the few things that came of European-Iroquois (among other) multicultural (or perhaps "coexisting") understandings, which even White supremacists might even classify as "good" (except for those extreme ones which hope to subjugate and colonize other cultures, as aforementioned "sweeping movement" brings up).

And finally, do you think it's important to try and find answers to these questions, or at least some of them?


Personally, I am not sure if any of these questions are the right direction to solve the world's problems with media fakery. However, they are certainly close to the hearts of people concerned with these questions. To me, I find them absolutely fascinating and important. I think they are as important as the question of the true (and truly mysterious) history of the world, of humanity, and/or ideas. They are almost as big as ontology.

However, since ontology and other subjects are the most interesting to me, I can only view these questions as specifically related to your particular culture that you share with ... well, those that share it. And I don't see "majority rules" being the most important determinant of any given world view.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4772
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby simonshack on January 11th, 2016, 5:31 am

hoi.polloi wrote: I am not really worried about the "extinction" of any races but perhaps I am just too aloof for people concerned with such things.

Huh? :huh:

'Just too aloof for people concerned with such things'.

Reminds me of an aristocratic old lady I once met who - during a discussion about the dwindling numbers of gorillas in Africa - suddenly started shouting on the top of her lungs: "WHY should I fecking worry about the fate of bloody gorillas?! WHY should I care?"

Tell me you were just a bit tired when you wrote that line, Hoi. Please.

ps: Btw, it's "enumerate" - not "innumerate".
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6351
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby Painterman on January 11th, 2016, 11:01 am

Whatever you think of multiculturalism as such - good, bad or indifferent - there is clearly a policy to impose a transformation of Europe through multiculturalism. We can better understand this policy in terms of a wider NWO operation in evidence around the world: a unified war on society. Likewise, there is controlled opposition to this agenda worldwide as well.

So we see that social institutions, and their social capital, are under siege at every level - from the traditional family, to the university (e.g. science and cultural literacy), to economic viability (e.g. industrialization), to the nation state itself - in order to phase out civilization as we know it in favor of easily-controlled populations of ignorant, unorganized, narcissistic voyeurs, each immersed in his favorite brand of spectacle, without a notion of civic responsibility.
Social capital is a form of economic and cultural capital in which social networks are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good.

The term generally refers to (a) resources, and the value of these resources, both tangible (public spaces, private property) and intangible ("actors", "human capital", people), (b) the relationships among these resources, and (c) the impact that these relationships have on the resources involved in each relationship, and on larger groups. It is generally seen as a form of capital that produces public goods for a common good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

Two propaganda weapons in this war are the mainstream media - e.g. pop-culture garbage, which is consumed globally - and astroturf counterculture: from the 1960s hippies, to Rockefeller's anarcho-capitalism, to the politically correct Unisex Revolution (feminism, transexualism, "cyborgization", etc.), to the recently debuted New Agey anti-science campaign, all of which use negative marketing to induce loss of confidence leading to nonparticipation in foundational social institutions (which have obviously been corrupted - in aid of the same agenda).

The object of this war is easy to discern - just ask yourself the following question. To the extent the traditional family, the nation state, or other social institution is abolished or abandoned by a society, who will have the means, motive, and opportunity to fill the resulting power vacuum by replacing or co-opting that institution? In every case, the answer is an organization controlled by existing astronomical concentrations of wealth: a think tank, commercial cartel, NGO, political interest, etc. that can take over from outside the local cultural context. For an idea of the endgame this leads to, recall the "scientific dictatorship" described by Aldous Huxley in his Brave New World and the related 1971 "predictive programming" film THX 1138.

Something the aforementioned native social institutions and NWO social engineers have in common is that they both assert a claim against the freedoms of the individual person (for whom the autonomy of life as an "island" is rarely a practical option). Thus, the social engineers consider these institutions of the world's peoples to be "the competition" in their quest for world domination.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby jumpy64 on January 11th, 2016, 1:33 pm

fbenario wrote:The movement of the USA toward a more multicultural society provides one huge benefit to me at least - it makes many white folk very uncomfortable, and brings into question their assumed privilege as the 'best', most favored Americans.

For example, while I don't like or trust Obama, Democrats, or even the American political process, I was so happy when Obama was first elected because I knew it would expose the underlying racism, hatred, and intolerance many white folk still feel and believe in. As all of you know, I despise arrogance, feelings of superiority, bias, bigotry, and anything else that makes one person/group think he/they are inherently superior to anyone else. (I hope the political rise of Donald Trump constitutes the last gasp of elderly scared, angry, rural, uneducated whites. As they die off we should see less 'acceptable' public fear and hatred.)


Honestly, I have started this thread not to criticize anybody or to accuse anyone of anything, but just to ask questions I consider relevant to this forum's research and to our lives in current Western society, and ultimately to try and find some answers, if possible.

So I'm sure, fbenario, that you have your reasons for wanting "many white folks" to feel "very uncomfortable", and also to bring into question "their assumed privilege as the 'best', most favored Americans", and to expose their "underlying racism, hatred and intolerance".

I just would like to understand if you think that racism, hatred and intolerance are exclusive traits of the "white folks", or characteristic of them more than of other people of different color or ethnicity. And if so, why do you think this is the case? What have "white folks" done in history that is worse than what other races or ethnic groups have done, so that now they deserve to be singled out or particularly criticized for their racist behavior?

And frankly, when you say that you "despise arrogance, feelings of superiority, bias, bigotry, and anything else that makes one person/group think he/they are inherently superior to anyone else", I wonder why you've never criticized for this reason the ethnic group that seems to me more blatantly proclaming, or even flaunting, that kind of "inherent superiority" that you say you hate. Or at least you didn't do it in the "Open Conspiracy" thread that was dedicated just to exposing supremacist behaviour on the part of Jews in general and JPMs in particular. If you've done it somewhere else, please tell me where and I'll be glad to read the point of view you may have expressed in other posts.

Anyway, could you please explain here why you seem more eager to condemn "white folks" than Jews or other ethnic groups for considering themselves inherently superior to anyone else? This is my impression, at least, and I hope you'll forgive me if it's wrong.

I think many current examples of Jewish supremacist mentality and behavior have been presented in the aforementioned thread. I've repeatedly done that myself, but I really can't think of really significant examples of a general supremacist behavior on the part of Whites in our current society. Of course some examples can be found, but it seems to me that they are generally considered extremistic and harshly criticized by Western society as a whole, while even worse - or at least more effective - behaviors on the part of Jews are not even questioned, not only by the general public, but also by free and independent thinkers like yourself.

This is how I see it, but please help my widen my perspective, if you can.

As I said, I started this thread more to listen and learn than to "preach" something, so I personally welcome any perspective here, no matter how different from mine it can be or appear. I'll just ask questions to try and understand it, if I can.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby sharpstuff on January 11th, 2016, 1:53 pm

MULTICULTURALISM v. RACISM
____________________________

The first thing we must do is to define what we mean by 'multiculturalism'.

What is a culture?

A culture (as I see it) derives from a number of people who by some means have come together, within whatever their geological localities and have become a group who must work together for their mutual survival. Safety in numbers, if you will.

Thus, with many different locations, climates and so forth, they work together to survive. They build mutual 'systems' to aid their survival. They create their own specific notions to aid that survival, thus 'religions' and other paraphernalia to make themselves 'comfortable'.

Thus, a particular 'culture' is born.

'Multiculturalism' is the mixing of different 'cultures' by, in my view at least, the deliberate mixing of different cultures towards whatever agenda those who deem to control their population of their 'World' by artificial means.

Different 'cultures' may mix, of course and they do without hindrance until one particular 'culture' tries to 'take over' or there are severe conflicts from which 'wars' emanate.

What then is racism?

Racism is a deliberate response to contrived 'multiculturalism' as an act of controlling.

When a group of individuals threatens (in whatever way) their survival (for whatever reasons) that of any other group, a conflict may/will be established. That is the nature of the persistence of survival.

Multiculturalism is the deliberate attempt to class all as one and therefore the notion of 'racism' exists because people will not accept this except under severe coercion; i.e. that is that everybody is the same 'under the skin'; that deviations from the 'norm' of survival are acceptable even if they do not follow regular biological behaviours for survival of 'humans'.

In all, it is down to words and labels. The labels are at 'adult' level, not the level of the unindoctrinated, such as babies and young children of any age or species where 'racism' and 'multicultural' are incomprehensible.

The labels are not at the level of those of us human enough to realise 'differences' between even humans that appear to be like us.

The notion of 'racism' is a desecration of human feelings towards others.

If interested I, personally have had friends from all different nationalities during my life (as many of you) including Australian aborigines.

Neither their 'culture', their 'skin' colour, their 'ethnicity', language 'religion' or anything else had any effect on my life except for their differences that were positive to my well-being. My own Jamaican parents-in-law were some of the loveliest people I have known. I am not alone.
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 79
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby jumpy64 on January 11th, 2016, 2:49 pm

I agree with most of your sharp ;) analysis, sharpstuff. Individuals of different cultures and/or ethnicities can coexist, and it may even be beneficial for them to understand and maybe overcome cultural differences, but IMO only if this is a sponatenous process, while "multiculturalism" is clearly enforced by people in power as "an act of controlling", as you say. And this is what exacerbates forms of intolerance like "racism", again as you say yourself.

So I think the point here, relating in particular to the influence of the media, is this: are the media controllers forcing different races and cultures to coexist in order to make us all understand each other better in the end and live happily ever after, or are they following another, much more hostile agenda?

And why are they enforcing this kind of multiculturalism (almost?) exclusively in the (still) White-dominated West? Why don't we hear in the media that Africa is too Black, or Japan is too Yellow, for example?

As as for the last point you make, I'm sure your Jamaican parents-in-law are lovely people, but would you prefer to live in Jamaica than in Europe or in any other Western country you may be living right now? Maybe you live in Jamaica already, I don't know, but why is it that so many people from different cultures want to come and live in the West? Is it just a form of reparation, because White people in the West have destroyed their wonderful societies in the past and so now they should feel morally obliged to take care of them, or is it because Western civilization, dominated by Whites, has created on the whole a better and not only more affluent but also more civil, tolerant and enlightened way of living than other societies?
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby jumpy64 on January 11th, 2016, 10:31 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Hi jumpy64


Ciao Hoi, it's been a while... I've read all your answers with interest, and I've taken some notes only on things that didn't seem particularly clear.

hoi.polloi wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:Are Whites as dumb as television portrays and other ethnicities as intelligent as the television portrays, especially in America?


This is a question that is loaded with a preconceived opinion that Whites are portrayed as dumb and ethnicities intelligent for some reason other than protection against racism.


So are you saying that Whites are actually portrayed as dumb and other ethnicities as intelligent, but this is justified as a protection against racism? This way you seem to think that racism is a one-way street, i.e. only Whites are racists and other races must be protected against their racism. This is actually the kind of interpretation that also the media seem to give. But don't you think that racism can go both ways? Why should we have this kind of double standards in which it is racist only to portray other races as dumb and not Whites? Are we supposed to fight racism with racism?

hoi.polloi wrote:Arabian people lately have been portrayed as an expendable commodity that you get brownie points for destroying.


Really? Maybe in America, I don't know. Here in Europe, Arabs or Muslims are portrayed by the media both as evil terrorists and as poor refugees. The first may be considered "expendable", as you say, but the second are portrayed as precious people to save and help at all costs, as if there were two totally separate categories of Muslims that, for some reason, can't possibly overlap (i.e., some "refugees" could not become "terrorists"). This way, a sort of cognitive dissonance is created to get people even more confused than they already are by media conditioning in general.

hoi.polloi wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:Can the creation of the “islamic terrorist” boogeyman be interpreted also as a warning against the dangers of nationalisms and religious beliefs?


It is meant to be interpreted that way, absolutely. I don't necessarily agree that is the best interpretation of the "Islamic terrorist" fictions lately.

jumpy64 wrote:Why is the media telling us to distrust such phenomena?


This question doesn't quite make sense to me, based on the site you are on. Are you asking why the media is telling us to distrust Arabs?


Maybe by cutting my question in two in order to insert your answer in the middle you got a little confused here. Arabs are not phenomena, anyway, so I was quite obviously referring to nationalisms and religious beliefs, as in "Why is the media telling us to distrust nationalisms and religious beliefs?"

hoi.polloi wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:Do you see multiculturalism as something that has roots in the past, or arising only from the 20th century onward?


It has deep roots in the past, but there are modern variations constantly being born, and new forms will be born tomorrow and so on. As long as there are different cultures trying to figure out how to coexist on our planet, multiculturalism will be a subject.


Please help me out with these "deep roots in the past" you talk about. Can you name thinkers, philosophers or intellectuals who, before the 20th century, spoke in favor of multiculturalism? I'm having difficulties in finding them.

Image

I had high hopes for Abraham Lincoln, for example, since he was the American president who freed Black slaves, so you can imagine my surprise when I came across his "racist declarations" at http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/top-5 ... 203268709/

1. On the expansion of slavery, Lincoln said:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

2. On shipping blacks back to Africa, Lincoln said:

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers."

3. On outlawing slavery in the south (before the rebellion), Lincoln said:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

4. On equality, Lincoln said:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

5. On inter-racial marriage, Lincoln said:

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.


So who can I turn to at this point, I wonder?
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby ICfreely on January 12th, 2016, 2:49 am

jumpy64 wrote:So who can I turn to at this point, I wonder?


Dear Jumpy,

Sometimes I get the strange notion that life is a soap opera and you're All My Children. :P So in that sense, you can always turn to me! :) Simply put, Lincoln freed Jack $chitt. 'Honest' Abe was a lawyer, pro wrestler and politician - a bullshitter, thrice great!

Here's Mr. Cheeks reminding us of the importance of being 'plugged in' to the sweeping wave of globalism:

Lost Boyz - Plug Me In

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KZ_x80Mqds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KZ_x80Mqds

RIP Freaky Tah!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby ICfreely on January 12th, 2016, 7:02 pm

jumpy64 wrote:Do you see multiculturalism as something that has roots in the past, or arising only from the 20th century onward?


Multiculturalism, a direct consequence of imperialism, has been at play throughout recorded history. America, for all intents and purposes, is Iran v. 2.0.

Cyrus's conquests began a new era in the age of empire building, where a vast superstate, comprising many dozens of countries, races, religions, and languages, were ruled under a single administration headed by a central government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Politics_and_management


Sound familiar?

According to Professor Richard Nelson Frye, Cyrus – whose abilities as conqueror and administrator Frye says are attested by the longevity and vigor of the Achaemenid Empire – held an almost mythic role among the Persian people "similar to that of Romulus and Remus in Rome or Moses for the Israelites", with a story that "follows in many details the stories of hero and conquerors from elsewhere in the ancient world". Frye writes, "He became the epitome of the great qualities expected of a ruler in antiquity, and he assumed heroic features as a conqueror who was tolerant and magnanimous as well as brave and daring. His personality as seen by the Greeks influenced them and Alexander the Great, and, as the tradition was transmitted by the Romans, may be considered to influence our thinking even now."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Legacy


The United Nations is modeled after The Gate of All Nations of Persepolis. The entrance to the United Nations General Assembly Hall bears the following inscription by a 13th century Persian Poet:

The sons of Adam are limbs of each other,
Having been created of one essence.
When the calamity of time affects one limb
The other limbs cannot remain at rest.
If you have no sympathy for the troubles of others,
You are unworthy to be called by the name of a Human.

-- Saadi Shirazi, Golestan (The Rose Garden)


A replica of the Cyrus Cylinder is on display at the UN:

Cyrus’ legacy as a humanitarian monarch continues to this day. Xenophon, a student of Socrates, wrote The Cyropaedia, a biography of Cyrus which extolled his virtues. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar carried copies with them. America was directly founded under the benevolent monarch model offered by Cyrus’ example. Thomas Jefferson read the Cyropaedia frequently.

Cyrus’ empire, which we now call the Middle East, was a far-reaching ménage of different cultures and faiths. The Cyrus Cylinder decreed a paradigm for coexistence — a blueprint which established an enlightened order.

In addition to the influence of the Cyropaedia on the US founding fathers, its core principles resonate with those of the United Nations. The high-minded concepts fathered by Cyrus in Persia thousands of years ago have found expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Brought to life by John Peters Humphrey and the UN Commission on Human Rights chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, the Declaration was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
https://perribirney.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/the-cyrus-cylinder-eleanor-roosevelt-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights/


I repeat; there’s a perennial philosophy at play here!

List of English words of Persian origin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Persian_origin#K
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby jumpy64 on January 12th, 2016, 7:54 pm

ICfreely wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:Do you see multiculturalism as something that has roots in the past, or arising only from the 20th century onward?


Multiculturalism, a direct consequence of imperialism, has been at play throughout recorded history. America, for all intents and purposes, is Iran v. 2.0.

Cyrus's conquests began a new era in the age of empire building, where a vast superstate, comprising many dozens of countries, races, religions, and languages, were ruled under a single administration headed by a central government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Politics_and_management



Very interesting. Thank you, ICfreely. I know it's worth putting up with your rap videos sometimes... :P I consider it a kind of price to pay for you brilliant contributions ;)

Seriously, I want to study this more in depth as soon as I can find the time.

I'd like to know, in particular, if all the different racial populations were left in their own original countries that were subjected to Cyrus' empire, or if they were thrown all together in the same territories and forced to coexist side by side.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby ICfreely on January 14th, 2016, 12:31 pm

Great Scott, Jumpy! I would need a DeLorean, a flux capacitor and some plutonium in order to answer that question. But alas, I have no Libyan scareorist connects. I’m not sure Cyrus the ‘Sun King’ even existed. Legend has it that he was the most benevolent King of all time hence, shah-en-shah (King of Kings). He purportedly afforded religious and cultural autonomy to all the nations that willingly or unwillingly joined his Aryan empire so long as they paid tribute and agreed to provide military support. Unlike the Greek & Roman emperors he did not allow his troops to loot & pillage defeated nations. Moreover, he recruited the best & brightest people from his conquered territories…

Anyhow, I can only speak on my firsthand observations and experiences. I was born in Tehran a few years before the ‘glorious revolution.’ I can honestly say that my childhood there was akin to Leave it to Beaver. We lived in a three story condo in north Tehran. Mr. Lovine (an elderly Jewish widower) lived in the unit below ours and Mohandas Reza (a Muslim engineer); his wife & two sons lived in the unit beneath his. Ali & Amir (M. Reza's sons) and Mr. Lovine’s grandchildren were basically my closest childhood friends.

I was baptized in St. Sarkis Cathedral and attended a private Armenian School. We summered in Shomal (Caspian Sea) and skied in Danbar. We also toured Europe and visited my mother’s family in the states at least once or twice a year. There’s photographic evidence of a young IC pulling on Goofy’s tongue in Disneyland to prove he was really a person pretending to be Goofy. A straight up perpetrator!

You may be asking yourself, ‘If life was so good in Iran, then why did they move to the states?’

Well, one of the main reasons we traveled so much was due to the fact that my mom had been diagnosed with 'cancer.' My dad, a surveying engineer & a staunch believer in 'SCIENCE', spared no expense in taking my mom to the ‘best of the best’ oncologists in Europe & America :( . No health insurance = paying top dollar for everything (i.e. $2,000-4,000/night hospitalizations). Other than being mindful not to get kidnapped by gangs of thugs ‘helping’ the war effort (using kids as mine sweeps in battlefields) we weren’t really exposed to the ugly side of the Iran-Iraq war. That is until:

Iraq Planes Bomb Tehran, Two Other Cities; Iran Jets Retaliate
May 27, 1985|United Press International
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-05-27/news/mn-6285_1_iranian-cities

Sirens went off & the lights went out citywide. We all took shelter in the basement. I was sitting on a couch with four adults & when one of the bombs hit, the couch jumped about a foot (no bullshit!). I could have sworn it had dropped across the street. That was pretty much it for my mom. Due to the top dollar chemo, radiation & surgeries she endured her condition (surprise, surprise) worsened. She was worried about what would happen to us in a war torn country with an uncertain future upon her passing.

We moved to L.A. because she wanted her siblings to look after us in the event she died. Lo and behold, she succumbed to the cutting-burning-poisoning in 1987. RIP Mom!

Here’s a quick glimpse of Tehran:

IRAN - Christmas in Tehran
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaVy_uSWv9k

Jews in Tehran, Iran
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm_kIPGV7b4

Tehran Parks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0iq4ChMO44

IRAN - Tehran's Jurassic Park
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0JL--ULioE

Disclaimer: PressTV is the Iranian equivalent of Russian Times.

The following clip (with a Persian guy rapping in Farsi :rolleyes: ) proves that kids in Iran are as vapid & materialistic as their counterparts in the west.

What the real Iran is like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK34bdOQXck

Tehran's top neighborhoods put Beverly Hills & Bel Air to shame.

The Real Iran (NOT SEEN IN US MEDIA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNMuA-EJS8

Can you say high maintenance? As they say, ‘show me a beautiful girl & I’ll show you a guy who’s sick of her shit.’ :P BTW, Tehran is the nose job capitol of the world!

Persian Women (Iranian People)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B36KlEmjS_4

Iran is a diverse multicultural nation with a rich history. Practically everyone is multilingual and, for the most part, everyone gets along. The government, most definitely, does not reflect the character of its people. Nobody hates the republic more than Iranians themselves. As opposed to most Diasporas, the Iranian Diaspora has thrived all over the world. Iranians quickly assimilate anywhere they go. That's a fact!

Prostitution is illegal in Iran without a one hour ‘marriage license.’ Homosexuality is also illegal. The gracious mullahs, in all their wisdom & kindness, have decided that if gay men get sex change operations, then in the eyes of the good Lord, they are ‘legally’ women so they can have sex with men provided they have marriage licenses. Hardcore drug use is rampant among the jobless youth. The brain drain continues to exponentially increase. Hollywood movies are available on the black market before they’re released in the states. Unsurprisingly, the kids dream of getting rid of their black robed oppressors & living the ‘good life’ of the American kids they see in the movies.

I neither promote or fear multiculturalism. I do agree with Simon about diversity being the spice of life. If people want to maintain their racial identity, then good for them. If they want to get into interracial relationships, then so be it. It’s a personal decision. I say live & let live. Just some food for thought, Jumpy. Make of it what you will.


P.S.

There’s a running joke amongst Iranians; if you lift a mullah’s beard, you’ll see a ‘Made in England’ label on his Adam’s apple :lol: . Another prevalent Iranian proverb is, ‘A stranger (foreigner) is a gift from God!’

Googoosh - Gharibe Ashena (Familiar Stranger)

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcZ9abjbudY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcZ9abjbudY
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Multicultural Agenda in the Media and in Media Faker

Postby Apache on January 15th, 2016, 10:44 am

The following has been going on since the 1990s and the media only reported on it when they were forced to. I'm passing on information that can be freely found in the public domain, but which is quietly ignored by pro-multiculturalists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

Widespread organised child sexual abuse took place in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, between 1997 and 2013.

Local investigations into the abuse began in 1999, although some reports were never finalised or made public by the authorities.[1] In 2010, five men of Pakistani heritage were found guilty of a series of sexual offences against girls as young as twelve.[2]

An independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in the town, led by Professor Alexis Jay, was established in 2013 for Rotherham Council.[3] The inquiry's initial report, published on 26 August 2014, condemned the failure of the authorities in Rotherham to act effectively against the abuse and even, in some cases, to acknowledge that it was taking place.[4][5][6] It conservatively estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.[7] Abuses described by the report included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children.[6]

In September 2012, investigations by The Times based on confidential police and social services documents, found that abuse had been much more widespread than acknowledged.[22][23] It uncovered systematic abuse of white girls by some Asian men (mostly of Pakistani origin)[24] in Rotherham for which people were not being prosecuted.[25][26]

The newspaper cited a 2010 report by the police intelligence bureau which discussed "a problem with networks of Asian offenders both locally and nationally" which was "particularly stressed in Sheffield and even more so in Rotherham, where there appears to be a significant problem with networks of Asian males exploiting young white females".[23][26] It also referred to a document from the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board that reported the "crimes had 'cultural characteristics...which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity'".[26]

Because the majority of perpetrators were Asian or of Pakistani heritage, several council staff described themselves as being nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others, the report noted, "remembered clear direction from their managers" not to make such identification.[31]

One Home Office researcher, attempting to raise concerns with senior police officers in 2002 about the level of abuse, was told not to do so again, and was subsequently suspended and sidelined.[32] The researcher told BBC Panorama that:

... she had been accused of being insensitive when she told one official that most of the perpetrators were from Rotherham's Pakistani community. A female colleague talked to her about the incident. "She said you must never refer to that again – you must never refer to Asian men. "And her other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues."[17]


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang

The Rochdale sex trafficking gang was a group of men who preyed on under-age teenage girls in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, England. They were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child, on 8 May 2012.[1] Forty-seven girls were identified as victims of child sexual exploitation during the police investigation.[2][3][4] The men were all British Pakistanis (except for one from Afghanistan) and from Muslim backgrounds, and the girls were White; this led to national discussion of whether the crimes were racially motivated, or, conversely, whether the failure to investigate them was linked to the authorities' fear of being accused of racism.[5] In March 2015, Greater Manchester Police apologised for its failure to investigate the child sexual exploitation allegations more thoroughly between 2008 and 2010.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_sex_gang

The Derby sex gang was a group of men who sexually abused up to a hundred girls in Derby, England,[1][2] in one of the most severe cases of sexual abuse in recent times.[3] In 2010, after an undercover investigation by Derbyshire police, members of the group were charged with 75 offences relating to 26 girls. Nine of the 13 accused were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old.[1][2] The attacks provoked fierce discussion about race and sexual exploitation.[4]

The judge in the case agreed that the race of the victims and the abusers was "coincidental" and that the crimes were not racially aggravated.[8]


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_sex_gang

The Oxford sex gang was a group of seven men who preyed on pre-teen and under-age teenage girls in Oxford, England, from 2006 before their arrest and prosecution. In May 2013, they were convicted of sexual offences including rape, conspiracy to commit rape, arranging or facilitating child prostitution, trafficking for sexual exploitation, and procuring a miscarriage. Their victims were "subjected to sexual violence marked out by its sadism: sexual assaults designed to draw blood, multiple rapes, [and] physical attacks in which [they were] choked".[1] As in the similar Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby and Telford prosecutions, all gang members were from Muslim backgrounds, and the girls were white, leading to renewed discussion as to whether the crimes were racially motivated and whether the initial failure to investigate them was linked to the authorities' fear of being accused of racism.

The Daily Telegraph reported Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, as saying that "race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls":

The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy—sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers. Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.[15]

Hargey blames the agencies of the state, including the police, social services and the care system, who ″seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes. Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse."

In the same newspaper, journalist Allison Pearson claimed that "fear of racism" had allowed sex crimes against white girls by Pakistani Muslims to become a serious problem not only in Oxford but throughout the country. She described the Pakistani Muslim community as "essentially a Victorian society that has landed like Doctor Who's Tardis on a liberal, permissive planet it despises".[16] She criticised the views of Sue Berelowitz, the Deputy Children's Commissioner, who has attempted to downplay the over-representation of certain groups in sex-crimes against children. While expressing relief that some action was now being taken against the problem, she concluded that trouble was still in store: "what remains is a political class still far too timid to challenge growing and alarming separatism in Muslim education and law."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_sex_gang

The Bristol sex gang was a large group of Somali men who committed serious sexual offences against underage teenage girls in Bristol, southwestern England. In November 2014, they were convicted of offences including rape, paying a child for sex, causing or inciting child prostitution, sexual acts with children and sex trafficking.[1] As in the Oxford, Derby, Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford prosecutions, the abused girls were almost all white and the gang were of Muslim heritage,[2] but were Somali rather than Pakistani.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_sex_gang

The Telford sex gang was a group of seven men of Pakistani descent who preyed extensively on pre-teen and under-age teenage girls in Telford, England before their arrest and prosecution.[1] In cases stretching over two years to late 2012,[2] they were convicted of sexual offences including rape, controlling child prostitution, causing child prostitution and trafficking for the purpose of prostitution.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_sex_abuse_case

The Peterborough sex abuse case involved groups of men who committed serious sexual offences against under-aged girls, some as young as 12, in the English city of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. In a series of trials in 2014 and 2015, they were found guilty of rape, child prostitution and trafficking for sexual exploitation, among other offences.[1] The men, who were of Pakistani,[2] Iraqi Kurdish and Slovak Roma[3] heritage, were convicted as a result of Operation Erle, in which Cambridgeshire police investigated sex exploitation in the area following a complaint by a teenaged girl against Mohammed Khubaib, a restaurant-owner in Peterborough.[4] Police had been alerted by the Rotherham and Rochdale child abuse cases to the possibility of widespread abuse taking place.[5]


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_sex_gang

The men targeted vulnerable girls using social media to organize parties at which the girls were groomed. As in the Oxford, Rochdale, Derby, Rotherham, Telford, Bristol and Peterborough prosecutions, the men used gifts and apparent displays of affection towards the girls, winning their trust before initiating abusive sexual relationships. Offences took place in cars, woods and in the men's private homes. Charges against seven victims aged from 13 to 15 were included in the prosecution case. The offences were rape, sexual activity with a child and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The men were named as Ahmed Hassan-Sule AKA Fiddy Baby, 21, Kagiso Manase, 20, Takudzwa Hova, 21, Mohamed Saleh, 21, Said Saleh, 20, Alexandru Nae, 19, Zsolt Szaltoni, 18 and they were found guilty at Oxford Crown Court[2]


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesbury_sex_gang

The Aylesbury sex gang was a group of six men of South Asian heritage who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged white girls in the English town of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. In July 2015, they were found guilty of offences including rape and child prostitution over a period extending from 2006 to 2012.

One girl gave evidence that she had had sex with 60 men, almost all of Asian heritage, when she was only 12 or 13, having been "conditioned to think it was normal behaviour".[3] Sex took place in various locations in Aylesbury, including the girls' own homes. The men were friends living in the area, some married with children, some working in the market and some as taxi drivers. During the trial they required the services of Hindi, Urdu, Pashto and Punjabi interpreters.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Next

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests