The most threatening thing a white person can do is smirk at a non-white. That was the gist of the controversy that erupted over a group of schoolboys from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky not showing proper deference to a drum-banging Indian on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last week.
The importance of this public controversy cannot be overstated. What occurred at the Lincoln Memorial expressed America’s present zeitgeist, as well as what the future holds for whites in our country. These were young men aggressively harassed by anti-white minorities over their race, and somehow the story centered on the white kids’ “bigotry.” Both the activists who harassed the kids at the Lincoln Memorial and the journalists who targeted them afterwards hated these young men because they were white, not because they were Catholic or that they participated in the anti-abortion March for Life.
This seemingly trivial event is an important battle in the culture war and advances a metapolitical message, just like the Trayvon Martin shooting did. It’s not a policy battle or even an event that will change how the government operates. It’s something that is much more important: it’s an occurrence that has the potential to wake up many normie whites.
It all started when a short video of the encounter went viral on Twitter. It showed a group of energetic white teens in MAGA hats surrounding an elderly Indian man who was drumming, and . . . well, that’s basically it. The member of the group who got the most notoriety was a young man who smirked at the Indian as he kept beating his drum while standing in the teen’s face.
This image was held up as the face of white supremacy in America: smug, Trump-supporting, and lacking in all empathy for the plight of the poor non-whites. Soon, journalists sprang into action and engineered a harassment campaign against these kids, complete with doxxing and murderous threats of violence. Several Catholic leaders quickly denounced the students for violating the Church’s teachings, which apparently require the faithful to be deferential and bow before Indians. These dismissive Catholic leaders insisted that “racism” of any kind was not to be tolerated.
Movement conservatives were also swift in casting opprobrium on the kids, with National Review publishing an article that argued the students may indeed have metaphorically spit on the cross. But it took only one more day for conservatives to repent of their errors and issue apologies for joining in with the Left-wing hate mob.
Their change of heart was due entirely to the conservative movement’s audience embracing these kids as persecuted representatives of Middle America. These were nice white kids rallying against abortion, and they were being lynched for not showing total deference to non-whites. Conservative whites were furious at their treatment of the Covington kids, and the allegedly conservative press had to shift to placate this mood. The full video footage – which actually shows harassment directed at the kids and not the other way around – was what led to this dramatic change.
The first group to harass the kids were the Black Hebrew Israelites, a bizarre Black Nationalist group that should be known to most memesters. They called the boys crackers, faggots, and pedophiles. Then the Indians showed up, their leader banging a drum. They confronted the befuddled kids, with one of the “indigenous” activists telling the Covington students to go back to Europe. (The media further claimed that this Indian “tribal elder” was a Vietnam veteran – which is untrue, as it turned out.)
Apparently, the adult men were the real victims, though.
The media expressed its deep hatred for these ordinary whites, and its initial judgment regarding the story was strong enough to cow conservatives and Catholic leaders into accepting their perspective. It was only when the additional footage was shown that it became apparent that the boys had committed no wrongdoing that this opinion was revised by conservatives and apologies were issued to the students.
But not from journalists and Left-wing activists, of course. Those groups are happy to continue their crusade against white smirks and MAGA hats. That’s because they don’t care about the facts of the case. They don’t care that the only racial abuse came from the Black Hebrew Israelites and the American Indian posse. They don’t care about the teens being abused and harassed – even while they whine about any harsh criticism they receive.
They only cared that these were whites who need to be taught their place in the current year. Respect the Indian, timidly move aside, and don’t you dare smirk at his bizarre behavior. Numerous journalists and commentators remarked on how much the face of the smirking boy, Nicholas Sandmann, triggered them. It reminded them of the Chads from high school who had ignored or teased them. Sandmann’s face was the very embodiment of white privilege, and it disgusted them.
Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart articulated this sentiment in his op-ed, “Time to take on the Covington ‘smirk’”:
Ask just about anyone who is not straight, white and male what they see in that smirk and you’ll most likely open up a world of hurt. Memories of continual bullying and other abuse at the hands of entitled men and boys who weren’t or never feared being held accountable.
Capehart went on to castigate “white male entitlement” for all the ills it brings. The article also implied that the boys should be shamed as a strike against white privilege. Whites need to know that they aren’t in power anymore, after all, and the feelings of non-whites matter more than hard evidence. The lack of any apology from the Covington lynchers indicates that Capehart wasn’t alone in this opinion.
The town of Covington, Kentucky stood by its kids. Local residents told The New York Times how furious they were at the media’s coverage, and praised their boys’ behavior in the face of Left-wing hate. Covington’s Catholics were also incensed by their diocese’s hasty condemnation, and this local furor eventually impelled the bishop to apologize to the students.
America’s paper of record made sure to present Covington as a hub of evil whiteness. The Times’ report stated:
. . . [B]y Saturday afternoon, the Northern Kentucky school off the Dixie Highway had been ripped out of its overwhelmingly white, heavily Catholic, and largely Republican world and thrust into a national firestorm that touched seemingly every raw nerve in this polarized country – race, President Trump and the behavior of young white men.
Covington was thrust into a national firestorm because the Left hates these places, and anything else that represents white identity. There was nothing wrong with the behavior of these young white men. They acted like normal teenagers enjoying themselves in a big city. Ordinary whites agreed; only the elites and non-whites thought the Covington students had committed a grave sin.
As whites head toward minority status, other such instances of ordinary white behavior will come under attack. A smile, a body posture, a hat, or even silence can now all be seen as acts of aggression. The coalition of the aggrieved want whites emasculated and living in fear of the new draconian cultural norms. Non-whites want us to know that we no longer have power, and even our kids are not safe from vicious harassment.
That’s the point of this whole ordeal. The elites distorted the clear truth, which should have been obvious to any sensible person, to push an anti-white agenda. Fortunately, Covington and many other Americans didn’t fall for it, and this became an exposé of media malpractice and the hateful bigotry that motivates it.
The Covington story was a metapolitical event that should shock whites’ colorblind complacency. The minorities who are rising don’t want to merely participate in white America any longer. They want to tear it down and browbeat whites into submission.
This future was captured on video this week in the midst of another cultural battle: Santa Barbara City College in California decided to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because of its “history steeped in nativism and white nationalism.” (If only!)
At the meeting where the decision was made, a lone white woman, Celeste Barber, showed her opposition to the idea by reciting the Pledge. As she said the words, the rest of the meeting’s attendees heckled her. This woman, who is a veteran’s wife, finished the Pledge in tears, sobbing at how much the audience hated this basic expression of American identity.
Did she finally understand that this is the future for her children and grandchildren, if nothing changes: a country that prohibits patriotic words and symbols because they uphold White Nationalism? Maybe, but regardless, many people who watch this sad video will get that.
These incidents are all part of the Left’s metapolitical drive to make whites submit to them, so that they stand aside while their country is erased. Our enemies exposed themselves, and we should continue to promote these stories far and wide. This is our future if we don’t win.