Violence in Arkansas
by Eric Blair (3/29/98)
George Stephanopoulos was on ABC’s Sunday morning news and analysis
program, This Week. Everybody, he suggested, is applying their own
theory to this schoolyard slaughter in Arkansas. Guns are the problem,
some of them believe. Improper early bonding deficiencies,
say others. The entertainment media, say others. The cultural
milieu of violence, say others. I kept waiting for Reagan to be blamed,
of course, but he wasn’t mentioned by name.
So, why did it happen?
It is George Stephanopoulos who is responsible.
Not directly, of course, but rather by way of what he represents.
Why? The answer is as simple as simple could be. If you were
born before 1950, you know it in your blood.
Let’s analyze this, outside the influence
of most of the experts.
Why was the event a big news story?
What is the child killer ratio in small town
Arkansas (where gun laws are barely to be found) compared to the child
killer ratio in Washington, D.C. (where gun laws are very much in evidence)?
You’ve got it!
Okay. Now we know that big news is made
by unusual events, and that children who shoot children are, in the main,
to be found in places where the gun laws George Stephanopoulos supports
are the most restrictive. It isn’t national news when a driveby shooting
happens in D.C., L.A., Chicago, New York, Detroit or even Portland, Oregon.
It is national news when it happens in small town America.
So, why are children who shoot children so
common in our cities? Is it because they’re packed in so tight that,
like rats, they compete for survival? Is it because religion is not
the pervasive cultural influence there that it is in our small towns?
Is it because one is "invisible" in a city, and recognized in a small town?
Is it because, except for family, it's difficult for most people to casually
murder people they've known for years? Is it because the big media
outlets – the decision makers who create our news and drama, our music
and literature, our philosophy and art, are located in our cities, and
so look at the world through the big-city cultural framework -- which means
competition rather than cooperation?
Yes.
Young George Stephanopoulos is a perfect urban
citizen. He has shown the entire nation that you can be an apologist for
the sleaziest administration in American history, and be rewarded for it
by being given a professor’s job at Harvard and a chair at the analyst’s
table on This Week. This makes Harvard and ABC accessories before
and after the fact, by the way.
ABC regularly presents in programming from
news to drama the premise that European ideas and skin colors are historical
evils. When a man with dark skin color won the Masters, one of golf’s
most prestigious tournements, it was a breakthrough for goodness in a rich
white man’s game. Should Utah win the NCAA basketball tournament
in the upcoming Championship game, it won’t, however, be a breakthrough
for goodness in a rich black man’s game. (Utah has but one black
player.)
Young George Stephanopoulos completely understands
and believes the principles behind these dichotomies for the simple reason
that in so doing he will continue to personally profit from the hypocrisy.
(Rush Limbaugh, for example, has not been offered a professorship in American
Government by Harvard; neither will you find him sitting across from Kommie
Kokie and Socialist Sam as a regular member of the This Week analysis team.
Young George Stephanopoulos believes what he believes
because it pays.
If you’re curious why our President apologized for
slavery on the continent where it was invented (and flourishes to this
day), you now know the answer. If you’re curious why liberals don’t
equate the destruction of the family, and in particular the feminist degradation
of the value of the father’s role, with boys out of control on our streets,
you now know the answer. If you’re curious why conservatives like
Clarence Thomas are publicly castigated for a charge by one individual
concerning one sexist comment while Clinton is given a pass concerning
charges of physical actions by dozens of individuals, you now know
the answer. If you’re curious why E. Howard Hunt (Nixon administration)
went to the pen for the possession of one FBI file, while nobody in the
current White House (or the media) seems to be in the least distressed
by the possession of nine hundred FBI files on political opponents, now
you know the answer. If you wonder why the Reagan era is pictured
by the mainstream pundits as the corporate downsizing/takeover decade of
greed when the Clinton administration gets not only a pass, but economic
kudos, for the largest number of corporate downsizings and takeovers
in American history, now you know the answer. If you wonder why Reagan,
who won the Cold War with his brilliant strategy and tactics, was recently
portrayed by Public Broadcasting as a bit of a rambling idiot, while Al
Gore is given a pass for being unaware that he shouldn’t take five thousand
dollar political contribution checks from Buddhist nuns sworn to poverty,
now you know the answer. If you wonder why trillions of Liberal-engineered
social welfare dollars that resulted in annihilation of minority
pride and living standards gets a loving vote from the media, while the
conservative approach that is now getting people off public support and
into control of their lives is barely tolerated by the same media, now
you know the answer..
To the liberal, publically expressed intent is the
totality. The outcome, except that it keeps him in both money and
power, is unimportant.
George Stephanopoulos is a liberal. He doesn’t
have any fundamental principles. Rules, to him, are existential in nature.
Ethics are situational. Right and Wrong are political tools of convenience.
Fundamental principles of morality don’t exist for him. It is
wrong to kill convicted serial murderers and right to kill innocent babies.
It is always a hate crime when a white harms a black, but never a hate
crime when a black harms a white. (It was wrong to pay white professors
more than black professors because they were white. It is right to
pay black professors more than white professors because they are black).
So, understanding all this, you now know how to
figure out the tragedy in Arkansas. Two boys acted on their "feelings"
(the liberal Vox Prima), instead of the principles that their parent (s)
probably gave them.
Against the barrage of popular music, Hollywood,
television dramatic and comedic programming, liberal "philosophy" as championed
by the mainstream media, forty years of legislation by liberal democrats
in Congress and self-serving propaganda by the gay, feminist, minority
and big government liberals, as propagated by artists, writers, publishers,
journalists and educators -- against all this, their parents didn’t
have a chance.
George Stephanopoulos is a perfect symbol for it
all.
One hopes that just as the founding members
of the modern "progressive" movement in this country began their political
journey by urinating on the American flag, that their children will one
day begin their journey of reclamation of traditional American values
by urinating on a photo of George Stephanopoulos.
But, if they don’t, that’s okay with me, too.
George believes, like all liberals, that it’s the
thought that counts. Defining expected results, and measuring to see if
they are reached is unnecessary. In this case, we are in total
agreement. As long as they urinate on his beliefs, pissing on his
photo will not be necessary. Kids and teachers will be safer.
That’s what matters.
– 30 --