Humanity gets destroyed by individuals acting in groups as individuals. This paradox always undoes our simple monkey brains; how can individuals still be individualistic in groups? When the groups form because of shared interest in “me first,” then you get a cancerous group.
When society is arranged around “me first,” it no longer has social cohesion or unity. Instead it becomes a hollow shell in which people exist for themselves, which means that categorically, they avoid real and difficult problems and chase after symbolic ones instead.
Such a society is based on rationalization. That is, you did not get what you wanted, so you must find a story that explains that what you got is what you wanted or needed all along, and therefore you have won at the “me first” game and are important, so others should leave you alone.
Rationalization means that people think backwards: instead of finding a deductive (general->specific) or inductive (specific->general) principle, they settle on what human compromise and social pressure has decided is The Official Truth, and try to use it to justify what the individual wants.
This means that in a society dedicated to equality, you cannot talk about anything which does not favor equality, so you shoehorn your opinions into arguments for equality, but this time, in your favor. Clever monkeys manipulate symbols.
Political correctness works the same way. Under the guise of avoiding “offensive” terms, it removes all language which does not complement the Leftist agenda. This leaves only a circular self-referential conversation about how great Leftism is.
In such conversations, the real threat is that people break away because they see that there is something better they can be doing with their time. That is, if the conversation never changes, why have it? Just sit in the back of the bar and shout out “I agree” or “hear! hear!” every half hour or so.
In order to avoid having people break away, the group settles on a simple device: demonstrations. Every day, a sinner must be found and crushed, and someone else must be lifted up and praised. Since the conversation never changes, no one is doing anything, so the only people to lift up are victims.
Such victims have symbolic value, not literal; they are there to unite the group and then be discarded. For this reason, the narrative around them is usually fake. Let us take a brief tour of Leftist fake narratives from the past.
The Central Park Five were known to be some of the people who gang-raped, assaulted, battered, and left for dead a “white” jogger in Central Park of New York City. They confessed at the time, and the confessions were not coerced:
“The confessions were not coerced,” she explains, or else the trial court wouldn’t have found them admissible. The videotapes show that “the questioning was respectful, dignified, carried out according to the letter of the law and with sensitivity to the young age of the men.”
The later confession which allowed the Leftist media to promote the conspiracy theory that one guy did the whole thing and therefore the Central Park Five were innocent was traded for better prison conditions:
The D.A.’s report was based solely on the confession of Matias Reyes, career criminal, serial rapist and murderer. Reyes had absolutely nothing to lose by confessing to the rape — the statute of limitations had run — and much to gain by claiming he acted alone: He got a favorable prison transfer and the admiration of his fellow inmates for smearing the police.
In reality, every had known since the beginning that this was a group assault with multiple assailants, of whom the Central Park Five were members:
Here’s the first big problem with the confession of the alleged lone rapist Reyes: his tale of being the only attacker goes against the medical evidence that indicates the Central Park Jogger was attacked by multiple people. Part of this evidence includes bruising on both legs of the victim indicating she was held down by more than one person and cuts from a blade (Reyes said he only hit her with a rock and tree branch).
The Five had been involved in routine criminal activity on the night of the assault in the hours before the assault:
For starters, no one has ever disputed that the Harlem thugs had been in Central Park that fateful evening for the sole purpose of assaulting and mugging innocents (one of whom had been bludgeoned with a pipe). As is the wont of cowards, “the Five” set upon only those who they outnumbered, those who were weaker and more vulnerable. This they confessed from the moment they were in police custody.
Others have come to the conclusion that the Central Park Five and Reyes were both some of the participants in a prolonged assault upon the unconscious jogger:
However, Trump isn’t the only one who wasn’t entirely convinced that Reyes acted alone. A panel of three attorneys commissioned by the NYPD in 2003 believed that the Central Park Five were most likely involved in the attack, just not the rape. “Our examination of the facts leads us to suggest that there is an alternative theory of the attack upon the jogger, that both the defendants and Reyes assaulted her, perhaps successively,” the lawyers wrote in their report, according to a New York Times article. They described their theory, saying that the Central Park Five attacked the woman first, and that “Mr. Reyes, drawn by her screams, either joined in the attack as it was ending or waited until the defendants had moved on to their next victims before descending upon her himself, raping her and inflicting upon her the brutal injuries that almost caused her death.”
The CP5 were indicted because they had knowledge of the crime which was not made public, which is a common police technique for separating UNSUBs from fakers:
Antron McCray: “We charged her. We got her on the ground. Everybody started hitting her and stuff. She was on the ground. Everybody stomping and everything. Then we got, each — I grabbed one arm, some other kid grabbed one arm, and we grabbed her legs and stuff. Then we all took turns getting on her, getting on top of her.”
Kevin Richardson: “Raymond [Santana] had her arms, and Steve [Lopez, who accepted a plea bargain rather than face trial] had her legs. He spread it out. And Antron [McCray] got on top, took her panties off.”
Raymond Santana: “He was smacking her. He was saying, ‘Shut up, bitch!’ Just smacking her…. I was grabbing the lady’s tits.”
Kharey Wise: “This was my first rape.”
When investigators at one point asked the fifth suspect, Yusef Salaam, why he had tried to smash the victim’s skull, he replied, “It was fun.”
The usual accusations of racism and bigotry were raised at the time despite the guilt of the CP5:
“Fascism! White fascism,” said another.
“Racism,” said a man. “Racism is what it is.”
Galligan, trying to stop the outbursts, ordered everyone but relatives from the courtroom.
But Richardson’s brother-in-law, who had been crying and clutching Grace Cuffee as she was given oxygen by a court officer, stood and pointed at Assistant District Attorney Elizabeth Lederer.
“Bitch, you mine. You f—–g mine,” he yelled.
In other words, the question is not whether Matthias Reyes is also guilty; he participated in the attack. The important fact here is that in addition to Reyes and other unknown parties, the Five were also guilty.
Another American lynching involved the Duke Lacrosse boys, who were accused of sexually assaulting a stripper and then hiding behind wealth and “privilege.” As it turned out, the case was entirely lies, and it ended several careers including that of prosecutor Mike Nifong.
The accuser, Crystal Mangum, turned out to be a criminal mind in her own right:
A seven-man, five-woman jury found Mangum, 34, guilty of second-degree murder in the April 3, 2011, stabbing of her boyfriend, 46-year-old Reginald Daye. He died 10 days later of complications at Duke University Hospital.
Mangum made national headlines in March 2006 when she claimed that three players on the Duke lacrosse team trapped her inside a bathroom when she was performing as a stripper at a team party and raped and sexually assaulted her. Her story about the incident was so inconsistent that Attorney General Roy Cooper later declared the players innocent, saying there was no credible evidence against them.
The Duke case was barely mentioned during the trial, but Mangum’s supporters believe her past – she also was convicted in a 2010 domestic case involving a previous boyfriend – played a part in Friday’s verdict.
Nifong, who brought a case that was obviously weak, found himself disbarred and forgotten:
The committee said Nifong manipulated the investigation to boost his chances of winning his first election for Durham County district attorney. In doing so, he committed “a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct” that involved “dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.”
Williamson specifically cited Nifong’s comments in the early days of the case, which included a confident proclamation at a candidate forum that he wouldn’t allow Durham to become known for “a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl.” He also called the lacrosse team “a bunch of hooligans” at one point.
During the ethics trial, Nifong acknowledged he knew there was no DNA evidence connecting Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to the 28-year-old accuser when he indicted them on charges of rape, sexual offense and kidnapping. Nifong later charged Dave Evans with the same crimes. But months later, state prosecutors concluded the three players were “innocent” — a fact Williamson hammered home on Saturday.
This case showed how white liberals like Nifong had no problem ignoring facts right in front of their faces and destroying the lives of other white people in order to win elections in areas with a large minority population.
A “gentle giant” in the media, Mike Brown was a 6’5″ fellow who tried to take a gun from a policeman who was stopping him for holding up traffic by standing in the middle of the road. It turns out that he was on a bit of a minor crime spree, having just stolen a box of cigars:
The Department of Justice urged Ferguson police not to release surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a store shortly before he was shot and killed by police, arguing the footage would further inflame tensions in the St. Louis suburb that saw rioting and civil unrest in the wake of the teenager’s death.
But on Friday, police released the video that stoked outrage in Ferguson, with Brown’s family calling it “character assassination” and a smear campaign. A law enforcement source told NBC News that Ferguson police wanted to release the video Thursday, but the Department of Justice convinced them to withhold the footage over fears it would spark further unrest.
This video turned out to be central to understanding the case, which showed that Brown had reason to fear the police, since he had just committed theft and assault:
During his interview with federal officials, Wilson told prosecutors and agents that he heard the call on his portable radio, but did not hear the specifics about the location of the “stealing in progress.” He also stated that he heard that one of the suspects was wearing a “black shirt,” that they had stolen cigarillos, and were going toward the Quick-Trip. The actual description given was that of a “black male in a white t-shirt,” “running toward the Quick-Trip,” and that “he took a whole box of Swisher cigars.” Two officers, Witness 145 and Witness 146, the same two FPD officers who first responded to Canfield Drive after the shooting, responded to the Ferguson Market. At approximately 11:56 a.m., Witness 145, via radio, added, “He’s with another male. He’s got a red Cardinals hat, white t-shirt, yellow socks, and khaki shorts.”
Again, the innocent victim turned out to be a criminal, but that did not stop calls for charging Officer Darren Wilson with murder, and of course the ensuing riots after the acquittal that caused Ferguson, MO, to burn.
The angelic innocent portrayed to the media with youthful photos of Trayvon Martin failed to take into account his history of criminal behavior:
In October, 2011, Martin was caught on a school surveillance video defacing lockers with obscenities using a magic marker pen. The police investigator said Martin was “hiding and being suspicious.” When the officer confronted Martin the next day he found Martin’s backpack contained some women’s jewelry — a watch, some silver wedding bands and diamond-encrusted earrings. Martin told the officer, “They’re not mine. A friend gave it to me.” Continuing his search, the officer found a large flat-headed screwdriver which the officer described as a burglar’s tool. The jewelry was turned over to the police and Martin was suspended for defacing school property.
He also liked smoking lots of weed:
Martin was suspended by Miami-Dade County schools because traces of marijuana were found in an empty plastic baggie in his book bag, family spokesman Ryan Julison said.
On the night of the encounter, Martin was wandering through a neighborhood and attracted the attention of neighborhood watch fellow George Zimmerman, who Martin then assaulted:
A lawyer for the Martin family, Benjamin Crump, holds a news conference, telling reporters that Trayvon was on the phone with his 16-year-old girlfriend at the time of the shooting. The girl, who wishes to remain anonymous, says she heard someone ask Martin what he was doing and heard Martin ask why the person was following him, according to Crump.
During the ensuing struggle, Zimmerman shot Martin.
Despite being a Leftist darling, Carter was guilty as charged but let off on a technicality by a Leftist judge:
Earlier that evening, a black bar owner in Paterson had been shot to death by a white man. Seven hours later, two black males entered the Lafayette Bar and Grill and shot everyone in the place without
attempting a holdup.
At the 1976 trial, the prosecution argued that revenge was the motive. After the first shooting, Carter had spoken with the black victim’s relatives and had inquired about a shotgun, evidence showed. And Carter himself had testified to a grand jury that there was talk in the black community of “shaking,” a slang term for revenge.
And in real life, Carter was never found to have been framed, as his supporters allege. He was convicted by two juries and served 19 years in prison. He was freed on a technicality and was cut loose only because the case was too old to be tried for a third time.
You can read more of the gory details at an extensive debunking site which argues that Carter was not railroaded, nor was he innocent. He was a violent man who wanted to do violent things and his only regret was getting caught.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, American Leftists almost unanimously agreed that Mumia Abu-Jamal was innocent and had been framed by racist police.
It turns out that the opposite was true, and Jamal murdered a policeman for no discernible gain:
On Dec. 9, 1981, Officer Faulkner made a traffic stop on Abu-Jamal’s brother, Billy Cook, who put up a fight. Abu-Jamal happened upon the scene, and shooting began. Faulkner ended up dead, and Abu-Jamal was shot in the chest.
A gun registered to Abu-Jamal, with five chambers empty, was on the sidewalk. Four witnesses who saw all or part of the shooting implicated Abu-Jamal. One witness said that after Faulkner went down, Abu-Jamal stood over him and sealed the deal with a bullet through the head.
It’s true that the 1982 trial was a circus, but that’s because Abu-Jamal wanted it to be. His own attorney told me that Abu-Jamal, a Black Panther, considered himself a revolutionary and didn’t want a legal defense. He wanted to make a political statement. At times, Abu-Jamal was removed from the courtroom because of his outbursts.
You would think, if the Left wanted to choose someone to symbolize injustice, they would pick someone whose guilt was not in doubt and who was not associated with violent revolutionary movements.
For a change, we move from minority defendants to a white one who was the darling of Leftist media and the entire liberal hive-mind. It backfired on them.
In this case, they succeed on spring Jack Henry Abbott from jail on the grounds of his innocence, only to find out that the best predictor of violent behavior is previous violent behavior.
Abbott, who was 58, gained fame from writing “In the Belly of the Beast,” a best seller composed of letters he wrote to Mailer from prison between 1978 and 1981.
During those years, Abbott was behind bars first for bank robbery and then for fatally stabbing another inmate. Mailer supported Abbott’s parole, but six weeks after Abbott was released in 1981, he stabbed a 22-year-old aspiring actor outside a New York City restaurant.
While this provides comedic fodder for us now, consider that the Left constantly finds people of this nature to use as symbols to prove to us that our justice system is classist, racist, sexists, or whatever, and that the outcomes tend to be more similar to this than the “happily ever after” one would imagine.
We can find other examples of the Left using career criminals as examples of “innocent” and unjust persecution. For example, Rodney King assaulted police on the night they subdued him with batons, figuring that he was on PCP, and after being let out of jail, went on to commit regular crimes until right before his death.
Or we can look at the Leftist attempt to whitewash Joseph Stalin:
I would like to add another Duranty quote, not in his dispatches, which is reported in a memoir by Zara Witkin, a Los Angeles architect, who lived in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. (“An American Engineer in Stalin’s Russia: The Memoirs of Zara Witkin, 1932-1934,” University of California Press ). The memoirist describes an evening during which the Moscow correspondents were discussing how to get out the story about the Stalin-made Russian famine. To get around the censorship, the UP’s Eugene Lyons was telephoning the dire news of the famine to his New York office but the was ordered to stop because it was antagonizing the Kremlin. Ralph Barnes, the New York Herald Tribune reporter, turned to Duranty and asked him what he was going to write. Duranty replied:
Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.
And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day.
The point of the great hue and cry over the Ahmaud Arbery shooting is to force a blitz attack on us. The Left will blast us with waves of propaganda, shape a public perception, and then cease reporting when the real facts come out.
They do it every time.
Right now, our job should be to resist the propaganda and instead to focus on the facts. As it stands, people who “jog” far from home in cargo shorts and boots, are filmed going into vacant houses in neighborhoods where crime has recently risen, and attack those who come question them, are probably not innocent.
But you will not hear this from the mainstream press.