Posts Tagged ‘#blmkidnapping’

Kidnapping And Torture Of Disabled White Man Raises Diversity Questions

Wednesday, January 11th, 2017

On January 4, 2016, America was subjected to the sight of four African-American youths abducting, torturing and most importantly humiliating a disabled white youth:

A day after Chicago police said they were questioning four people about a “sickening” video showing the torture of a mentally disabled teen, a second video has surfaced showing the suspects forcing the young man to drink out of a toilet.

Police have said the 18-year-old victimized in the videos is a northwest suburban resident with special needs who had been reported missing.

…Several people can be seen laughing and eating during the attack, in addition to making disparaging remarks about President-elect Donald Trump and using racially charged language. At one point, while the victim is backed into a corner, someone is heard shouting “F*** Donald Trump. F*** white people.”

The fascinating with Donald Trump was also seen in another attack in Chicago two months before in which a white motorist was hit by a black driver, and when he asked for insurance information, was attacked by people shouting anti-Trump and anti-white slogans.

Our media has carefully obscured this point: for minorities, the Donald Trump election is a clear victory for white people. White people, who are still mostly acting under the assumption that we can make diversity work somehow, have not yet figured this out, and so to them it seems more of a political disagreement than a racial one.

The kidnapping in Chicago put an end to all of this. It became clear that “Trump” and “white” were synonymous in the minds of the attackers, who clearly resented this re-assertion of white identity and self-interest, mainly because they perceived that it meant an end to America viewing itself as a custodial arrangement for minorities to be financed by whites. Ethnic self-interest is a zero-sum game.

What made this case interesting was that at first, the police refused to consider it a hate crime. Some in the Lügenpresse then tried to spin it as a hate crime, but against the mentally disabled, not white people. This was made difficult by the words of the perpetrators, as reported by a traditionally Left-leaning segment of the media:

His captors yelled “F*** Donald Trump, nigga! F**** white people, boy!”

This meant that it was hard to obscure the fact that this was a crime of racial resentment, motivated by a desire to act against whites/Trump. As the earlier Chicago attack showed, to African-Americans, the two are often equated. This means that screaming “F*** Trump” at a white person is roughly the same as howling “F*** MLK!” at a black person.

Outrage in response came from more corners than expected, in greater strength, and instead of hiding this on the back pages of media like the Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, TN that happened a decade prior, this time the police and attorneys were motivated to consider this case a hate crime, mainly because legally it fit the profile:

Goff said that the casting of racism as an evil worthy of condemnation made all the ways white people expressed their bigotry taboo. Those taboos are, in part, what people are referring to when they rail against political correctness. And while those new constraints certainly didn’t end racism, they suppressed behaviors that created space for people of color to live more fully in America.

…In calling the kidnapping and assault racism, we’re staking claim to moral language — and uniquely powerful moral language — to which white people can’t easily lay claim, even in cases like the one in Chicago, which seems to qualify for the most vehement reproach available.

… One way to argue that the evil of racism is not uniquely wedded to whiteness is to argue that it is a moral failing that lives equally in blackness.

In other words, hate crimes laws were intended to protect blacks from whites, so using them in the other direction upsets the social assumptions under which they were created. And yet, if racism against one group is wrong, racism against another is also wrong, no matter who the perpetrators were. In other words, whites no longer perceive themselves as the group in power responsible for all racial wrongs; diversity means that any group can be racist.

The shocking lying media should have seen this one coming because the warning signs were evident a year earlier when it was revealed that most whites thought that unjust treatment of blacks was mostly resolved, but racism against whites was rising:

A new poll shows a large number of Americans believe discrimination against whites has become as much of a problem as against blacks and other minorities.

According to the poll released Wednesday by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 43 percent of Americans think discrimination is just as big a problem for White people.

“Half (50%) of white Americans agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree,” reads the report.

In addition, white people thought that the many laws and billions of dollars designed to ensure equitable treatment for blacks were working, and as a result, few of them believed that blacks faced unfair treatment in the workplace and law:

64% of black adults say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the workplace, compared with 22% of whites who say the same – a 42-percentage-point gap. Blacks are also considerably more likely than whites – by margins of at least 20 points – to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police, in the courts, when applying for a loan or mortgage, in stores and restaurants and when voting in elections.

In the white mind, racism was over: it was no longer acceptable to publicly express or act out racist ideas by white people, as enforced by white people. If any gaps in outcome remained, that was the fault of something else, which meant that the success of non-whites was no longer contingent upon what white people did. “We fixed our problems, and the rest is up to you,” white America was saying.

This meant that when the tables turned, and we had a highly visible case of non-white racial sadism, white people were ready to call it a hate crime — even if the media, who leans heavily Left, was not. But in this case, public opinion beat back the controlled and lying press, and race relations were redefined as different ethnic groups in competition, rather than evil whites hurting angelic others.

Presumed Guilty

Thursday, January 5th, 2017

The fallacy of democracy is assuming that the average person has the aptitude, concern or self-discipline to make leadership decisions. We know that only about 1% of the population at most make good surgeons, SEALs or fine artists; why do we assume that leadership is any different?

People like democracy because in theory it neutralizes government. Trying to get a group of humans to agree to anything more complex than putting water on a burning house is nearly impossible, so democracy creates impotent governments. This seems wise until one realizes that laws and decisions are cumulative through precedent, so that any group that keeps pushing in one direction will turn that impotent government into a raging tyrant.

As it has, in the modern West.

Groups of that nature make themselves powerful through pretexts, or preemptive excuses for action. The earliest of these is inclusion; if anyone wants to exclude anyone else, they must be bad, the thinking goes, because if we include everyone, there will be no one hurting and therefore no cause for conflict. Naturally this is insane because it assumes that conflict and all actors are realistic thinkers, but that is an outpouring of The Enlightenment™ which assumes that all people have “reason” equally, when in fact the degree of realistic thinking they can manage is what creates social hierarchy, with proles at one end and kings at the other.

The latest pretext is racial inclusion, which is a variation on regular inclusion, which was mostly used to try to make proles equal to kings in an early form of class warfare, a pattern that racial inclusion resembles. The argument is that anyone who refuses to accept anyone anywhere anytime (A3) is a bigot, racist, and just like Hitler and/or the monarchs, who are the real target of the Leftist since they know that when their system fails, it will be replaced by the same aristocracy it interrupted before it failed.

However, racial inclusion has failed, but to see this, you must use compassion to understand the mentality of the perpetrators in the kidnapping and torture of a mentally disabled man in what is now considered a hate crime. Before we can do that, we must dispense with the dominant illusion that this was not a hate crime:

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said Thursday that while the suspects made “terrible racist statements” against white people during the attack, it does not appear to be racially motivated.

Having mental disabilities made him vulnerable to a racist attack. It’s like saying that the motive for the bombing of a black church was that it was empty and unguarded.

And yet, that sleight-of-hand to misattribute motive is the basis of the Leftist spin on this attack:

CNN’s Don Lemon said he doesn’t think the black thugs who kidnapped, beat and cut a disabled white person were evil. He chalked it up to ‘bad home training’.

In the grand tradition of Typical Leftist Behavior (#TLB) Lemon begins with a partial truth. This makes us assume that this is the root of the matter, and rationalize all other data to fit that model. This causes our big brains to filter out all other considerations and to re-interpret all future facts in this context.

Taken in isolation, his statement is correct: these kids — legally adults — clearly grew up without effective parental or social guidance. However, that is only part of the story. In addition, they are motivated by racial hatred and formulated the intent to find, beat and humiliate a white person to make incarnate that emotional resentment.

They differ little from Dylann Roof, who similar was motivated by racial hatred and formulated the intent to harm black people, so he went to a black church and shot nine people. Ironically, he harmed one of the more productive and sane segments of the African-American community, people who could otherwise have been his allies.

If his crime was a hate crime — a political distinction applied to punish white people for acting out racial resentment against minorities — then theirs was, too, even if that goes against the intent of hate crimes law as originally written.

How could the law be so one-sided? The answer is in this: white people are presumed guilty because we assume that white people have all the power, wealth and influence in society. For this reason, they are seen as stewards of minorities and responsible for the success or failure of minorities.

All anti-discrimination law — including affirmative action, civil rights, HUD, disparate impact and the like — is based in this idea: whites are the group in power, so if something goes wrong for minorities, whites are to blame. Whites are presumed guilty in all cases. This is based on the narrative enacted by Leftists from the Civil War through WWII, and echoed endlessly in Hollywood, of cruel white Southerners and angelic black victims.

Naturally, anyone who has been around humans for any decent length of time does not believe in angelic victims of any race or ethnic group. None of us are angels, not even Gandhi (who disliked Africans) or Mother Theresa. In reality, conflicts are never between an evil person and an angel, but between two groups of flawed people each representing their interests, as exacerbated by their degree of personal lack of emotional control.

For example, Dylann Roof exhibited a lack of emotional control. He was mad at the policies of his country that emphasized black interests over white, so he went to a church and shot nine praying black people. In the same way, these four who tortured the mentally disabled white person were acting out an emotional agenda, but it reflected an underlying political or social position.

Now we must approach the situation with compassion.

What does an African-descended person see in America? A state created by white people, for white people, through the use of African labor in addition to mostly white labor. The rules, laws, mores, and values of this society reflect Western European civilization. This puts African-Americans at a disadvantage, but even more, deprives them of pride in themselves as creators of their civilization and those who are directing it.

For an African-American, to be in the West is to forever be a visitor. No matter how many rules we make to defend them against whites, benefits we pay to them, or black presidents we elect, they will never feel at home here. They will forever be a tacked-on group which exists at the whim of society at large.

This gets even worse when America shifts to a mixed-ethnic identity. In this format, what rules over us all is a lowest common denominator designed to include all groups, but as a result, necessarily focused on none. This deprives African-Americans of what they need, which is a society created for them and directed by them toward their own values, standards and philosophies. They will never be “at home” among us, nor will any ethnic group in a diverse society.

And so we see two competing models for our interpretation of the ongoing and intensifying ethnic unrest in America: in the first, we choose the “presumed guilty” attitude toward whites; in the more realistic “clash of civilizations” model, we see that each ethnic group acts in self-interest, and its primary concern is with self-determination, or having the knowledge that it created its civilization and guides its own future. The presumed guilty model, like diversity itself, has failed.