The killing of Trayvon Martin was sensationalized in the media and within hours of the story breaking, there were immediate calls of racism against the shooter. The verdict of public opinion was in and George Zimmerman was a racist murderer of an innocent, unarmed, black teenager. Multiple investigations determined that Zimmerman was most likely acting in self defense. Witnesses stated seeing a person on top of the other and punching him. Zimmerman had grass on his back and a bloodies and swollen nose. Autopsy determined that Martin was shot once in the chest from closer than 18 inches. While I see this case as a prime example of how not to behave while in possession of a firearm, the investigations all came to the same conclusion or at least one that did not support the narrative of racism. Apparently, Zimmerman's skin color was light enough to include him in the "white" and "cop" category. Martin was not shot in the back as he walked away. Should that interaction had a different outcome? Yes. Do I think Zimmerman employed poor judgement? Hell yes. Do I think it was motivated by racism? Don't know. Was Martin completely innocent? I don't think so. People who say that it wasn't a situation to use deadly force have never been on the receiving end of an attack like that. It is easy to do severe bodily harm to someone in that circumstance and that is the standard for using deadly force.
I could go on about may of the so called "unjustified" shootings o killings. All of which were tried in the court of public opinion before the body was cold. Then the outrage begins... A demand for justice (and by justice... they mean immediate judgement, conviction, and punishment). It's convenient just say the system is rigged when calls to wait for the investigation are made. And when officers are indicted and convicted... nothing is heard. BLM doesn't want judicial justice... they want vigilante justice.... they want lynchings... just now on their terms and on their mob rule. If they didn't.... they'd wait for investigations to be completed then criticize the investigation. Justice is only justice if it's *their* justice.
I could go on about may of the so called "unjustified" shootings o killings. All of which were tried in the court of public opinion before the body was cold. Then the outrage begins... A demand for justice (and by justice... they mean immediate judgement, conviction, and punishment). It's convenient just say the system is rigged when calls to wait for the investigation are made. And when officers are indicted and convicted... nothing is heard. BLM doesn't want judicial justice... they want vigilante justice.... they want lynchings... just now on their terms and on their mob rule. If they didn't.... they'd wait for investigations to be completed then criticize the investigation. Justice is only justice if it's *their* justice.
That aside, people will say it is a result of a wider problem of injustice forced upon black people by a system that is still racist.
It seems that the only black lives that matter to the people of the movement are the lives of people who are killed by police, regardless of their potential criminal nature. They do not get upset when black police officers are murdered in cold blood (Have you ever heard of a protest where they shout for justice for any of the black police officers killed?) . They don't care about the young men who are being shot and stabbed by other black men in the gang and violence capitals of the country. So what is it that makes a black life matter? Well, it seems to only matter once you are dead at the hands of cops. Those are the only lives that can be held up to support the idea that cops are racist. They don't care that a black police officer was shot and killed trying to protect a courthouse from rioters. They don't care that a retired police captain, grandfather to 10 was killed while helping to protect a friends pawnshop from looters in a video that was also streamed live. These are only two of the black police officers who have been killed as a consequence of BLM instigation and protests.
Planned Parenthood has been praised as an institution which is vital to the black community. A more critical assessment paints a different picture: The founder, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. Her efforts at contraception were more aimed at eliminating those whom she saw as unfit rather than the freeing of woman. Today, 79 percent of abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority communities. Black babies account for around 35% of all abortions while the overall black population is only 13%.Whether by design or consequence, Planned parenthood kills more black lives than nearly every other cause of death combined. Why is this not an outrage? "Black lives matter".... except when they are babies... over half a million every year.
Planned Parenthood has been praised as an institution which is vital to the black community. A more critical assessment paints a different picture: The founder, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. Her efforts at contraception were more aimed at eliminating those whom she saw as unfit rather than the freeing of woman. Today, 79 percent of abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority communities. Black babies account for around 35% of all abortions while the overall black population is only 13%.Whether by design or consequence, Planned parenthood kills more black lives than nearly every other cause of death combined. Why is this not an outrage? "Black lives matter".... except when they are babies... over half a million every year.
I've heard people say "Listen to the people in the movement.... listen to what they say they stand for." Is the same courtesy afforded to groups considered on the Right of the political spectrum? Hardly. I'll bite... let's see what they say they are about: They say black lives matter... OK. What else? "We dismantle the patriarchal practice...", "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure...", When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking,...". (All taken from the BLM webpage) What? That doesn't sound like a focused mission on preserving black life. It sounds like a reflection of the far left political ideology. How can I be OK with a movement that actively supports ideas that I do not? I may agree that black lives matter but I can't associate with the movement because as soon as I do I am also advocating for everything else they stand for. One of the founders recently admitted to being trained Marxists and have political aspirations to get Trump out. Those are political goals, not social goals.
It's an example of "semantic overload" where the movement seems to say one thing: "black lives matter" which every one can agree on. Black lives do matter. But if you say black lives matter, it also means you believe cops are racist, the system is rigged, modern lynchings are commonplace, and radical racism is alive and well fueled by White Nationalist propaganda at the highest levels of governance. Then if you actually had the balls to come out and say: "No, I don't agree with the BLM movement". You are criticized (to use a mild form) as not believing that black life matters. This is a no win situation here where you must be all in or not at all. You are either on board and believe everything or you are against us. This is a textbook example of how these seemingly harmless or good movements can be dangerous.
What message is given when people holding BLM signs attack police? Or break windows and vandalize. I don't recall there being a lot of graffiti during the million man march. We hold people accountable for taking small parts in the greater scheme of things. That same implication would mean that by virtue of association, every protester has blood on their hands of the innocent people who were beaten half to death, or the cops who were killed in riots, or the millions of dollars of damage that was caused through looting and vandalism. So to throw up hands and say: "those rioters don't speak for the rest of us" flies directly in the face of their logic of guilt. So, we must reach one of two conclusions: 1. All protesters are guilty by proxy of the violence or 2. There is a blatant double standard. Is either one of those fruits good?
This idea of being "anti-racist". The idea that if you aren't actively somehow fighting racism, that you are somehow complicit and even engaging in violence yourself by inaction. This will allow people who have done nothing worse than not complying with what someone thinks they should do to be branded "racist". And we have already seen the kind of violence that these groups can direct towards those who they see as racist. These ideas get people killed. And when these ideas are codified into ordinance... millions die. These ideas lead to organizations such as the NKVD troika.
These concepts are immoral and evil. Yes, I mean it... immoral and evil.
What message is given when people holding BLM signs attack police? Or break windows and vandalize. I don't recall there being a lot of graffiti during the million man march. We hold people accountable for taking small parts in the greater scheme of things. That same implication would mean that by virtue of association, every protester has blood on their hands of the innocent people who were beaten half to death, or the cops who were killed in riots, or the millions of dollars of damage that was caused through looting and vandalism. So to throw up hands and say: "those rioters don't speak for the rest of us" flies directly in the face of their logic of guilt. So, we must reach one of two conclusions: 1. All protesters are guilty by proxy of the violence or 2. There is a blatant double standard. Is either one of those fruits good?
This idea of being "anti-racist". The idea that if you aren't actively somehow fighting racism, that you are somehow complicit and even engaging in violence yourself by inaction. This will allow people who have done nothing worse than not complying with what someone thinks they should do to be branded "racist". And we have already seen the kind of violence that these groups can direct towards those who they see as racist. These ideas get people killed. And when these ideas are codified into ordinance... millions die. These ideas lead to organizations such as the NKVD troika.
These concepts are immoral and evil. Yes, I mean it... immoral and evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment