Ferguson isn’t about black rage against cops. It’s white rage against progress.

When we look back on what happened in Ferguson, Mo., during the summer of 2014, it will be easy to think of it as yet one more episode of black rage ignited by yet another police killing of an unarmed African American male. But that has it precisely backward. What we’ve actually seen is the latest outbreak of white rage. Sure, it is cloaked in the niceties of law and order, but it is rage nonetheless.

Protests and looting naturally capture attention. But the real rage smolders in meetings where officials redraw precincts to dilute African American voting strength or seek to slash the government payrolls that have long served as sources of black employment. It goes virtually unnoticed, however, because white rage doesn’t have to take to the streets and face rubber bullets to be heard. Instead, white rage carries an aura of respectability and has access to the courts, police, legislatures and governors, who cast its efforts as noble, though they are actually driven by the most ignoble motivations.

White rage recurs in American history. It exploded after the Civil War, erupted again to undermine the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision and took on its latest incarnation with Barack Obama’s ascent to the White House. For every action of African American advancement, there’s a reaction, a backlash.

The North’s victory in the Civil War did not bring peace. Instead, emancipation brought white resentment that the good ol’ days of black subjugation were over. Legislatures throughout the South scrambled to reinscribe white supremacy and restore the aura of legitimacy that the anti-slavery campaign had tarnished. Lawmakers in several states created the Black Codes, which effectively criminalized blackness, sanctioned forced labor and undermined every tenet of democracy....

"...Sen. Charles Sumner (R-Mass.) tried to make this nation live its creed, but they were no match for the swelling resentment that neutralized the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and welcomed the Supreme Court’s 1876 United States vs. Cruikshank decision, which undercut a law aimed at stopping the terror of the Ku Klux Klan..."

She neglects to mention the fact that the Ku Klux Klan were terrorist DEMOCRATS.

"...In March 1956, 101 members of Congress issued the Southern Manifesto, declaring war on the Brown decision..."

She doesn't mention the fact that 99 out of the 101 were DEMOCRATS.

"...Governors in Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia and elsewhere then launched “massive resistance.” They created a legal doctrine, interposition, that supposedly nullified any federal law or court decision with which a state disagreed..."

She doesn't mention the fact that all of them were DEMOCRATS, too, and she omits the fact that all these interposition laws were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

"...It’s more subtle — less overtly racist — than in 1865 or even 1954. It’s a remake of the Southern Strategy, crafted in the wake of the civil rights movement to exploit white resentment against African Americans, and deployed with precision by Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. As Reagan’s key political strategist, Lee Atwater, explained in a 1981 interview: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N-----, n-----, n-----.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n-----’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like ‘forced busing,’ ‘states’ rights’ and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.” (The interview was originally published anonymously, and only years later did it emerge that Atwater was the subject.)...

Aside from her bold-faced lie that Reagan just employed a more subtle, racist way of exploiting white resentment against African Americans with his policies of less taxes and smaller government, Lee Atwater's claim that blacks get hurt worse than whites economically by such policies is factually wrong:

Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/26/obamas-bad-news-for-blacks/

“No. When whites (esp American whites) become enraged, nations fall.”

Or in our case here in 2014 America, when whites do nothing, our Nation races to become a lawless, racist (against whites) Third World Hell hole.

And racist people like the esteemed Professor (and the 93% of blacks who voted for this along with the white guilt ridden) will get their wish. Whites will be beaten into submission.

But what they fail to understand that they too, along with their spouse, and children, will be beat, raped and murdered by their own brothers and sisters. Urban cities and their off the charts daily crime are a testament to this.

Their lives will consist of daily terror too hoping they and their family make it through the day in one piece.

Just like what happens in many African or Latin American countries where massacre and terror are commonplace.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.