Posted on 11/27/2014 4:23:05 AM PST by Kaslin
The whole thing just grows curiouser and curiouser. I'd suspect that Vince McMahon wrote the script, except he's not a lib.
The real lesson of Ferguson is that 13.5% of the population ordinarily would not have a major impact on the rest of America. It only does because of the MSM ghouls and misery panderers and politicians.
We empower the dialogue of these few by listening to it and following it in the news. Isolate it, demonize it, and then discount it —Alinsky.
If the rest of America wants to know the lesson and what to do about it, google the 2010 census and search for % of blacks distribution by county and choose (if you can) your home territory carefully. I did in 2002.....1% in my county....there were absolutely no protests here about the Gentle Giant.
Guess what?I don’t care any more.
My goal is to live in communities that are nearly entirely white and to be in the company of whites as much as possible.
I am also changing the locations I use for shopping, opting for nearly entirely White clientele and employees/owners. Since I am almost always alone, I ordinarily mind my surroundings, too, but I don’t want to increase the chance I could be blindsided.
Doing that would be considered "acting White".
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
I haven't owned a home since 1992. I'm exhausted from all the rioting and looting. My apartment looks like the lair of Smaug.
To me, herd mentality is a proctective mechanism animals use to maximize the safety of the herd.
This is a feral mob mentality, every thug for himself. As in touch the flatscreen I just stole and I’ll put a cap in yo a**.
Blacks make up 13 percent of the population but committ over 50 percent of the murders. Over 90 percent of the murders committed by blacks are against other blacks.
Good point. The thug was a 300 pound adult that had just robbed a liquor store and committed assault and battery.
Some kid.
I've read many comments on lib websites from people who identified as black calling Brown a "baby," and racist, white cops were shooting their "babies" for no reason whatsover. How divorced from reality are you when you refer to a 6'4, 290 lb 18-year old as a baby?
1) No amount of evidence would have prevented the black thug population from using the death of the 300 pound adult thug as a pretext for additional crimes.
2) All the race baiters from Obama to Sharpton claim police shootings are the cause of America's high black body count when the real cause is other blacks committing murder against other blacks.
3) Depending on the city, blacks commit crimes at a rate of 7 to 10 times the rate whites do.
4) Liberals spend their time spotlighting white racism (real or imagined) as an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes, giving a pass to criminal thug blacks for all the crimes and murders they commit.
5) Pretending police behavior is the root of the problem is not only false, but foolish and dangerous. When you make police targets, you make low income neighborhoods much less safe.
6) It is the thug behavior of criminal blacks that is is the real problem.
OK - I am done for now.
I don’t give to organizations here because every time I watch the giveaways on the news there is nobody there to receive the giveaways except blacks and Hispanics. Last night they showed a Thanksgiving dinner box giveaway and I told Hubby....oh my god!! All the people they are showing walking away with the boxes are white!!
He said....it was north of the river.
We have a small, rather poor, community north of our river that is predominantly white.
I wonder what impressions people are forming, what fears are being confirmed, by watching something like Ferguson, where it's hard for many to understand rioting and tearing/burning down a community because what appears to be a big, street thuggish dude robbed a store, assaulted a cop while fighting for his gun, then charged the cop with intent and was killed for it...because the cop is white?!?
Every possible fear and negative impression ever formed about black America is reinforced by what is shown on TV and by trying to wrap your mind around its logic. That Ferguson comes after Trayvon and a knockout game summer is even more negative reinforcement, but now raised to a higher level.
So, back to the job interviews. If the employer has been watching the news, are you, young black man or woman, going to be seen as you are?
Or will you instead be seen via the impressions that have been formed/reinforced about "black" thanks this time to Ferguson?
If so, what does that mean for you if the employer has many diverse applicants to choose from?
From this point of view, you can see how normal people like us, regardless of color, people who just want a job or just want to hire someone of quality to help us do the work we want to do, are being made to carry this "baggage" of negative, false impressions, all in the name of community agitation and for the profitable glory of some political power.
The only place you can pile on garbage like this and out comes gold is on a compost pile, not on a constituency group.
This same divisive, community agitator garbage doesn't work well in the school system either.
Nope, it's the truth that sets us normal people free, not their garbage that keeps our reactions and results chained to bad impressions, thanks to their (and now our) lies that forge each link in that chain.
Will ours be the generation that finally breaks these chains or will their circle remain unbroken?
(with us trapped inside)
When you are up against emotional dismissals of rationality, your only hope of a rational hearing is in court. The principle I advocate is that it is folly to try to take on the small fry, you have to go after the big dog. And the big dog, with all due respect to the damage and danger of having a POTUS who is hostile to you, is journalism.People hear that, and instantly think that the First Amendment is an obstacle to any attack on journalism. But there are limits, some well-recognized, on the problem which the First Amendment presents to addressing libel. And that is what we are all experiencing, systematic libel. Libel of an entire class, and an entire political party. And not libel by a single newspaper, but of effectively all national newspapers, and broadcast radio news and TV news - as well as most cable TV channels.
First, just putting the name “libel” on it shows that it is possible to formulate a court case against it. Second, while the First Amendment codifies deference to “the freedom of . . . the press,” it does not create a class distinction amongst the people. Freedom of the press is a right of the people, not of a class of people. It belongs to you, and it belongs to me. Freedom of the press implies freedom to read journalism as well as the right to write it. It also implies the right to transmit and receive journalism with technologies which represent the fruits of “the progress of science and useful arts,” the promotion of which the Constitution explicitly cites as a part of the Framers' mission.
In addition to the laws of libel, two other laws can impinge on the freedom of journalists - the Sherman Antitrust Act and the law creating the FCC. I have seen the claim on a seemingly serious web site that the Associated Press lost a suit before SCOTUS in 1945 under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On its very face, the AP is an organization to tell all major journalism outlets what the news is.
There is a robust tradition of cooperation among newspapers tracing back to the founding era, when it was quite difficult to transmit the news expeditiously (as we would now consider “expeditiously,” it was impossible), and cooperation and sharing was the norm. But the AP raises that to an entirely different level, and not only solves the “expeditiousness” problem but creates a “Style Guide” for the composition of articles to be carried by the AP. Some of that “style” actually has merit in encouraging more informative and less florid composition. But part of that “style” homogenizes what can be said in an AP story.
It is painfully obvious that journalists have interests which conflict with the public interest. TV cameras love fires, and any sort of destruction because the public cannot but be interested by it. But while it interests people, destruction is patently inimical to the public interest. And yet we are informed - by teachers in school as well as by journalists themselves - that journalists are objective. This is patent nonsense. The claim of “journalistic objectivity” is most similar to claims of papal infallibility applied to secular matters. A newspaper article is composed and printed by people who are not even under oath, and therefore a newspaper article cannot without supporting testimony be dispositive in court.And even if an article be true, it inevitably must be less than the whole truth. And as with all partial tellings, even of truth, “Half the truth is often a great lie.” The usual problem with journalism is what is not said. But what is said is sometimes excruciatingly destructive. The Zimmerman case is an egregious example; NBC synthesized a lie by broadcasting an edited version of Zimmerman’s discussion with a police dispatcher in which an answer and then a question were excised. Blatant dishonesty. But it has to be brought to court properly.
The Zimmerman case is part of an obvious pattern, which now includes the officer Darren Wilson case and the Duke Lacrosse case and - going back a ways - the T’wanna Brawley case, and undoubtedly others which don’t immediately come to mind. Those are nominally - but only nominally - apolitical. For in all such cases, the actual target is much larger than the individual(s) involved. There are also the explicitly political cases - the “Texas Air National Guard Memos” - scare quotes denoting that the documents involved were forgeries - case, the arbitrary transmogrification of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization from a group of the people most knowledgeable about the naval experience of John Kerry into “swiftboating” as an unquestionably false narrative, without the intermediate step of actually demonstrating that any of the claims of the organization or its members were false.
Establishment journalism as we know it is a single entity, easily shown to tend to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, and it manifests a systematic slant against the rank-and-file Republican, and especially the Republican wing of the Republican Party known as the “TEA party.” That animus can be demonstrated. So what? So, the Federal Communications Commission has no right to promote journalism as being objective, or being anything other than a mouthpiece for special interests which profit at the expense of the public interest. There is no need to ask a court to declare conservative voices to be objective, but any court should recognize that the perspective of journalism is not inherently the public interest. Only the Constitution, and laws which are consistent with the Constitution, define the public interest.
The FCC has no right to even consider censoring or “balancing” so-called “conservative” (actually truly liberal) expressions such as the Rush Limbaugh show, et. al. As for the “Federal Elections Commission,” there is no public interest served by it, it is counter to the First Amendment, and all “Campaign Finance Reform” laws should be abolished by SCOTUS and/or Congress. Anyone who opposes the abolition of the FEC or the curtailment of the FCC’s political influence is a Grubercat. An apparatchik.
Every now and then I see it referred to as a “liquor” store. It was a convenience store, and I don’t know why some want it to be a liquor store. What’s up with that?
They’re more humane because they know you’ll enforce peace if they don’t.
In Ferguson, the enforcers did nothing.
You weren’t there, sir, and neither was I. But just from the video of the decedent in the convenience store, your “gentle giant” wasn’t particularly gentle. And I’m wondering why you want to believe that the officer was guilty. Is it because he is white? Is it because he is a police officer?If it’s because he is white, you are a racist.
If it’s because he’s a police officer, you are advocating the dominance of the strong over the weak, the young over the old and the very young, the man over the woman. And you advocate the destruction of the stores in your area which provide things you want, and employ your neighbors.
Either way, you are a real piece of work.
Because If you look at the pictures, the name of the store is
“Ferguson Market and Liquor”
I don’t “want” it to be anything. The fact is it is a store that sells liquor.
Black home ownership had been at higher levels, and that was probably the most assimilated they have been.
Nice; how many flat-screens?
The concept is fairly simple; they would care more for an area if they thought they’d be there for at least a few decades.
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.