Mascots of the Anointed

SolitaryRoad.com

Website owner:  James Miller

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Info ] [ Mail ]

The following is from Thomas Sowell. Barbarians inside the Gates. pp. 151 - 153

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mascots of the Anointed

THE NEW YORK TIMES RECENTLY RAN a front page story dripping with sympathy for a multiple murderer who is now very old and who, on some days, "cannot remember" why he is in prison. His victims, however, cannot remember anything on any days.

There are also photographs of him and other prisoners. One prisoner is described as having a disease that "brings mental deterioration." Another, with his legs amputated, is shown trying to catch a baseball on his knees. Yet another prisoner is shown in a wheelchair.

All sorts of heart-tugging stories are told about elderly inmates who are succumbing to various diseases and infirmities of age. There are, however, no stories at all about their victims, or their victims' widows or orphans, or how tough their lives have been.

Although the Times runs this as a "news" story, it is in effect a long editorial on how terrible it is to keep these prisoners locked up, years after they have ceased to be dangerous to society. This one-sided presentation includes the views of the American Civil Liberties Union and prison officials who would like to use the space taken up by these elderly prisoners. But there is not one word from a victim or from police who have had to deal with these killers.

Bias shades off into propaganda when the Times quotes ACLU figures that there are more than 30,000 prisoners who are 50 or older in the nation's prisons. Note that we started out with stories about people so old and infirm that they are supposedly no danger to anyone. Now we get statistics that are not about such people at all but about people "50 or older."

I don't know what would make the New York Times or the American Snivel Liberties Union suggest that people cease to be dangerous at 50. I am older than that and I fired a rifle and a shotgun just a few days ago. We old codgers can still pull a trigger.

One of the murderers featured in the Times' own story was 74 years old when he began serving his life sentence. What a shame he did not realize how harmless he was after age 50.

The propaganda game of talking about one thing and citing statistics about something else has been used in many other contexts. Stories about violence against women often begin with terrible individual tragedies and then move on to numbers about "abuse," which include such things as a husband's stomping out of the room after an argument. Statistics about serious violence against women are less than one-tenth as large as the numbers that are thrown around in the media by feminist activists. Moreover, serious violence against men is about twice as high.

In technique, as well as in bias, the Times story about criminals is classic liberal propaganda for one of their mascot groups. But this is not something peculiar to the New York Times. You can find the same kinds of stories in the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times, or on any of the leading television networks.

Criminals are just one of the groups adopted as mascots of the media. All sorts of parasites and predators have been displayed as if they were ocelots or other exotic creatures that adorn the world of the anointed. The deeper question is: Why is it necessary for the anointed to have human mascots? And why do they choose the kind of people that they do?

Whoever is condemned by society at large—criminals, vagrants, illegal aliens, AIDS-carriers, etc.—are eligible to become mascots of the anointed, symbols of their superior wisdom and virtue. By lavishing concern on those we condemn, the anointed become morally one-up on the rest of us.

Is that important? To some it is paramount. A quarter of a century before the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln said in a speech in Springfield, Illinois, that the greatest danger to the future of the United States would come, not from foreign enemies, but from that class of people which "thirsts and burns for distinction."

These people could not find that distinction "in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others," according to Lincoln. In other words, there is not nearly as much ego satisfaction in building up this country as in tearing it down.

For example, a Stanford law student involved in the "prisoner's rights" movement said recently, "it's precisely because prisoners are viewed as the castaways of our society—that's what draws me to them even more." She wants to know "why a person can't function in this society, what it is about this society."

Our schools and colleges are today turning out more and more people like this, who are taught to despise American society and to boost their own egos by blaming that society for sins that are common among human beings around the world. Journalism is just one of the professions being prostituted to this self-indulgence.

_____________________________________________________________________________

In thinking about Lincoln’s assertion that the greatest danger to the future of the United States would come, not from foreign enemies, but from that class of people which "thirsts and burns for distinction." These people could not find that distinction "in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others," I recall certain people I have known who would contradict anything you said. If you said something was white they would say it was black. Are these the kind of people he was talking about? Do people do this because they want to be important? There are people who are just critical and like to complain. Is that what the liberal left is all about? People who are just angry with the system or the moral outlooks of Christianity and want to turn everything upside down? I can think of one group that probably thinks that way. Homosexuals.

13 June 2024