Tuesday, March 27, 2012

I will give a shit

about Tray-von Whatshisname, the latest star of the long-running fraudulent Black Passion Play, when Americans know the names Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian.

Never heard of them from the nightly news or the President?

Google them and find out why.

Lent is breaking down.

It is not a fact of nature but a set of deliberate choices that makes this one killing dominate the media because it serves the narrative which continues to shame Whites into acquiesing into granting more and more moral and political power to a group that is, quite frankly, grossly dysfunctional, while actively ignoring the decades-long facts that Blacks regularly kill other Blacks in astonishing numbers. Giving this incident center stage, like the Louis Gates affair, is sheer racial propaganda.

I remember the Black Muslims once wanted their own Black State. Well, they got it. It's called Detroit.


Anonymous said...

Allen Coon. Another name that you have to look for, as the mainstream media isn't offering it up as readily as Trayvon Martin.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure the Newsom and Christian example is apt.

Anti-racism activists will be able to note that the criminals in the Newsom-Christian crime were sought by police, try'd, etc.

Your example could be taken to imply that maybe whites and even "white Hispanics" should shoot a black male now and then to even the score in terms of statistics: are whites getting to do their fair share of killings of blacks in terms of one black victim of white violence for every white victim of black violence.

This could permit the retort that a preponderance of black violence vs whites is legitimate as retaliation for white privilege (which is mostly only the privilege of not being mistreated as blacks are mistreated), plus the routine devaluation of black males by police [maybe only by white police, not by black police -- but I'm suspicious since I never see liberal or activist op-eds showing that white police do considerably more unfair racist profiling against blacks than black police officers do].

Anonymous said...

But the bind for the law will be this: the law considers deeds (though lawyers will use likeability and unlikeability before juries, as is convenient), but the deeds in this case pit an apparently odious white male against a likeable black youth.

In photographs Zimmerman looks odious (and low class), whereas Trayvon looks super-cute. The media don't use Z's first name, but personalize Travyon by always using his first name, to make him even more likeable and thus unable to do the sort of violence that could deserve self-defense in return.

Zimmerman maybe follow'd Travyon and thus loses any 'stand your ground' excuse, but if his following Trayvon prompted Travyon to snap or something and attack Zimmerman, then presumably the law permits Zimmerman to defend himself, even to the point of deadly force -- and even though Zimmerman may be basically an odious jerk, self-important self-appointed assistant policeman, and a gun owner, which all good persons in the world totally condemn.

Maybe it won't ever be determinable if Zimmerman maybe was first to attack or hit Trayon, and not vice versa.

(The media like to mention that Zimmerman weigh'd 100 pounds more than Trayvon, and thus must have been intimidating to Trayvon -- as if low-class obesity is intimidating. No doubt a Navy SEAL would find Newt Gingrich intimidating. So Trayvon presumably legitimately attack'd Zimmerman pre-emptively in order to have the advantage of surprise, since in terms of fighting ability an older shorter guy who obesely weigh'd one hundred pounds more would surely prevail? In any case, obesity is another grave offense committed by Zimmerman.)

It's a bad situation. Even if Zimmerman had evident wounds, this wouldn't prove that he didn't first hit at Trayvon, and if he was first to hit then presumably by law he doesn't have the right to self-defense if the attack'd person retaliates, or perhaps doesn't have the right to escalate to use of deadly force. But I wonder what the law formally does say of the right of self-defense when one is the first attacker.

Zimmerman's wounds may have been the just penalty for attacking a fellow citizen who defended himself. Thus Zimmerman's wounds don't really enable the police and judicial system to be sure that Trayvon first attack'd, and that thus Zimmerman had the right of self-defense including deadly force.

In situations of unsureness of this sort, the law prohibits the police and judiary from satistfying public passions by trial and execution of an odious white person who kill'd a really cute likeable black youngster. Finding Zimmerman guilty of some sort of misdemeanor for following Trayvon despite instructions from 911 not to do so would perobably only make the situation worse, and we'd read sarcastic headlines in the MSM "Kill a N-----, Get Fined."

Anonymous said...

We should all be frequently reminded that basically we really dislike "Innocent Till Proved Guilty." What our passions would prefer is that police and courts follow our impulses and indignations. The rule of law and due process and so on has been built up slowly and carefully -- and contrary to passion and indignation at every step.

The original lynchings were a judicial system of passion and indignation, and were replaced by law and proper police procedure, and criminalizing lynchings. If Zimmerman essentially lynch'd Trayvon, he should be try'd and convicted of murder. But this would hold even if Trayvon look'd like a total thug, was unlikeable, was suspended for selling crack, not merely for possession of marijuana.

... Even if the Duke lacrosse team weren't guilty of rape, they were unlikeable entitled white men and handing them some swift punishment in terms of serious gaol time (during which, presumably, they would be repeatedly raped, perhaps by black males) would have taught them an important lesson in terms of what our passions and indignations really want.

I am not exempt from self-critique at this point! I feel that Zimmerman is more a contemptible bozo than a hater who merits the electric chair, but the arrogance promoted into white college frat rat boys appalls me. I feel entirely offended by the whole concept of having such "parties" that hire strippers of any race or creed. Where is the circumspection, the reality humbleness etc? College guys are young but surely they aren't totally without a sense of proportion. ...

Yet, after all, it would not be progressive to free up state power to do the bidding of instinct and impulse would return to the ancient stupid tribal legal system of pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons -- feuds, blood retaliation ad infinitum, etc, all without the least concern with real deeds, real wrongs, appropriate punishments, because the whole point was whipping up passions to be satisfy'd in violence.

The Heart of Darkness is always only an inch away -inshallah? Jack's rule of the island was more thumotically satisfying (at first, I guess, but soon totally boring, repetitive, etc) than Resh Aleph's.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...