There are very few videos showing white violence against minorities, and almost all of them involve police work. This means that they are most often associated with criminal specifics. On the other hand, a lot of bullying by people from "non-white" regions over the locals in the US and the EU was filmed. But they are not shown in the media. Why? Journalists are pleased to see themselves in the role of anti-racists, and some of the pseudo-victims easily gain fake media compassion.
The media fail to illustrate the extent of the racism they shout with bordering hysterical slogans and "anti-racist" propaganda: in fact, white people harass, intimidate and beat blacks or Maghrebians are extremely rare. At the same time, photographs and videos of groups of young Afro-Muslim immigrants bullying white-skinned people can be found everywhere on social media, the latest bulwark of freedom of information amid a general tightening of media controls. In such conditions, “fighting racism” becomes an alibi for the most open racism. Migrant groups insult or even massacre white people on the pretext that they are victims of racism on their part. In such a radical "fight against racism" there is no need to prove the existence of racism, and it is considered superfluous to check whether a claiming oppressed ethnic group is in fact the oppressor of another ethnic group that is accused of racism in connection with "white privilege" (the very expression full of racist prejudices). The anti-racist paradox is to create a racist shock by condemning whites, as it were, by definition, racists, and by portraying ethnic minorities as victims who are by definition considered oppressed. The anti-racist paradox is to create a racist shock by condemning whites, as it were, by definition, racists, and by portraying ethnic minorities as victims who are by definition considered oppressed. The anti-racist paradox is to create a racist shock by condemning whites, as it were, by definition, racists, and by portraying ethnic minorities as victims who are by definition considered oppressed.
A single complaint of racism is enough to make you a victim - such a position constitutes the most intellectual fraud. Is it enough for a migrant to declare himself a victim of racism in order to gain thoroughly false compassion for the media and a part of the population that is personally satisfied with belonging to the "camp of good"? Emotions drive out the mind. In such a situation of general hysteria, who else cares about facts, figures and statistics? Did George Floyd die because of his skin color, his behavior, or the brutality of the American police system? The same question arises in France around the case of Adama Traore, who is systematically presented as a victim of police racism. Few media outlets talk about the victim's criminal history, his behavior during arrest and the first aid provided by the gendarmes. Self-proclaimed victim groups and legions of people repentant of fabricated sins demonstrate in defiance of prohibitions, but do not face police violence, which they criticize. The "yellow vests" were much less fortunate.
“The police only detain blacks and Arabs,” said one young television product. Maybe this is due to the fact that there are disproportionately more of those among the criminals? This question, of course, is prohibited, and to avoid it, a clear and non-negotiable answer is given: the police are racists. And the point. The media is only interested in alleged cases of police violence that affect minorities. Here, a method, frightening in its effectiveness, is used: the emphasis is on the image, with a complete lack of attention to what preceded and followed the arrest. The subjective interpretation of the image is elevated to the status of factual truth, which should be imprinted in the minds and easily turn the torturers into victims.