Subsidized Community Organizers marked the one year anniversary of Mike Brown attacking a cop and getting shot to death by shouting down a speech by a grumpy old white man, shooting each other, suggesting that white people needed to die, blocking traffic, and chanting obscenely on TV.
Remember when the media told us that electing Barack Obama would heal the country’s racial wounds?
In considering the #BlackLivesMatter and #Ferguson movement, the question that comes to mind is “What is the point?” What are these activists really trying to accomplish? Raise awareness? OK, done, you can go away now.
Is there some concrete objective they are working toward? It seems to be more about the protests themselves than achieving anything through the medium of protest.
Gay marriage activists had a defined objective; legalized gay marriage shoved down America’s throat. And they achieved it.
Does anyone have any clue what #BlackLivesMatter is out to accomplish, aside from making life measurably worse for blacks in the inner city?
Update: Evil Otto has the best answer, the only point is gratification of the left-winger’s narcissist ego.
It’s THEATER, meant to make them feel that they’re part of a struggle, standing up to the forces of evil when all they’re really doing is pissing off commuters.
And what it did for [a left-wing friend] was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.
According to Today’s WSJ, 72% of Black children are born to unmarried mothers. …WTF?
Not just poor children, but all Black children including the Middle-class ones. And anecdotally, in many households with multiple children they’ll have different
Sperm Donorsfathers, step-fathers and “uncles”.Meanwhile the Black Church ties itself in knots over Gay Marriage and being viciously homophobic.
“what #BlackLivesMatter is out to accomplish”
Easy, more money and more power for “black” leaders. Did anyone honestly expect anything more?
Anarchy. The total breakdown of a civil society as we once knew it.
One of the latest public victims of police brutality, Samuel DuBose, was mentioned in a biography after his shooting as being an everyday average guy who was known for helping his friends and neighbors and having no violent contacts with law enforcement. However the mention that caught my eye was that he “was the father of at least ten children” (though Wikipedia now shows the number as 13).
It was said with such a nonchalance and almost-endorsement as if it were the same as being a volunteer for Habitat For Humanity or a leader of Rotary outreach programs in Latin America. Aside from the casualness of the factoid, my first thought was “Who’s going to be taking care of all those kids?” And then I realized that the answer was likely exactly the same as if the question had been asked a week, a month, or a year earlier.
Author Lee Harris explained the point in his article “Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology,” where he starts with a personal recollection about a friend blocking traffic during a Vietnam War protest.
http://www.hoover.org/research/al-qaedas-fantasy-ideology
It explains a lot of what the left does. It’s THEATER, meant to make them feel that they’re part of a struggle, standing up to the forces of evil when all they’re really doing is pissing off commuters.
——————————————
What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.
And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.
The same “defined” end as Occupy Wall Street.. Sound bites to paint conversatives, productive white men as evil in order for Democrats to raise cash by exploiting low information pseudo adults.
What charles and tnnsne1 said. Sinecures for professional activists. And a catch phrase for limousine liberals to post on social media.
I think the #blacklivesmatters people are Obama’s red guards. we are at the start of America’s cultural revolution. inspired, organized, and perpetuated by people in the Obama administration, just like in communist china.
And now you know what Glenn Beck meant with : Top Down Bottom Up Inside Out.
If you are looking for proof that conservatives really don’t care about Government Tyranny, look at their reactions to the Black lives Matter folks.
Imagine if every time you drove your car you have to be cognizant of police following you. Everytime you walk down the street you are subject to random searches by police. Then you have to pay fines that escalate if you don’t have the means and whole cities budgets are set up around exploiting you.
Then if you have the audacity to fight these tickets police are fabricating evidence time and time again. How many times have seen Police lie after shooting a person? How many times will Conservatives allow Police to profile folks of color, pull them over for minor things that white folks get away with….Did you watch the video of Sandra Bland being pulled over? There is no chance in hell that the cop would’ve pulled over a white person, but he pulled her over.
THIS is real tyranny. Not a baker being told that not to discriminate. Yet you folks mock the folks fighting to end this tyranny.
Typical Right Wing Hypocrisy.
So, what is the proposed BLM objective for ending the abuses littlelettermike cites? Do they have a proposal? Do they have a defined plan for getting the police to stop “hassling” black people, while still protecting minority communities?
llm pretends not to remember my post of some weeks’ previous where I took both the police and the BLM crowd to task. I also highlighted an article on the corruption of local governments using traffic stops for revenue collection (many of these municipalities, BTW, are governed by Democrats). There are concrete solutions being proposed for the issues of police abuse; Rand Paul has proposed outlawing civil forfeiture. Body cameras have also been proven effective.
But the point that llm utterly misses in his spittle-flecked partisanship is that BLM is proposing no solutions; just rioting and making mayhem.
In the municipal elections before Ferguson became a household name, only 12% of the eligible African Americans cast votes. Many of the Republican candidates ran unopposed. Whose fault was that? Baltimore has been run by African Americans and liberals for decades. Unfortunately, little letter mike doesn’t know history very well. While O’Malley was mayor of Baltimore, he was sued by the ACLU for his policy of racial profiling. The ACLU won. I guess O’Malley is just another Right Wing Hypocrite.
Deray McSharpton needs the money.
12. No, the point mike fails to get is that maybe, just maybe, black people are subject to the same sort of abuses white people are, and their behavior is so piss poor they get the natural and fair conclusion before the law. We are at a point where I would argue the law actually favors the black man’s case, but his behavior is still so bad it does not matter.
The “persecution” of black people is the direct result of their own horrid behavior. Things like highest rates of crime, take your pick which one, highest infidelity rates, highest rate of fatherlessness, highest rate of delinquency, etc. I can think of no saner response to an easily identifiable problem population, like this one, than effectively quarantining them.
We could discuss causes, like how it’s welfare and other social programs that encourage this poor behavior, which deserve some, or all of, the credit for their behavior. However, I doubt the BLM crowd are even capable of sufficient reflection to realize that it is the very programs which they demand that are driving the problems in their racial group.
“The “persecution” of black people is the direct result of their own horrid behavior”
Did you watch the video of sandra bland? MAYBE a government loving conservative like yourself can try to justify the arrest. But no way could anyone say the fact she was pulled over at all was not the result of tyranny.
But the big Government loving conservatives like you who need a police state to protect them cheer and blame a race of people insteaf of dealing with real tyranny in their midst.
Hypocrisy thy name is conservatives.
V –
Judging by responses from ignorant government loving conservatives like Cthulhu, clearly the black lives matter folks have to do more protests to educate conservatives on what real tyranny looks like.
Because clearly the right has no clue.
No one cares, mike.
For a very simple reason: you are a racist.
Want to know how we know that?
Because you have screamed over and over and over again in this very thread that there is no way on earth a black person can ever be guilty of a crime, that a black person is never responsible for their actions, and that white people are always at fault when anything bad happens to a black person.
Anyone with eyes can see that, mike. You assign guilt or innocence, right or wrong, truth or lies based on nothing more than skin color. You state that all police are racists and that black people should not be subject to the same scrutiny of law as white people.
That is irrational, mike. You are irrational. You are a racist bigot. You are slime, you are scum, you are not fit to live in or among civilized society because you do nothing but lie, slander and race-bait.
Do not ever presume to come to this website again to lecture us about race and tolerance. You are exposed. You are a malignant, disgusting liar, a piece of dirty filth, and proof that liberals are racist scum.
Someone doesn’t know what a Conservative is…
mike, we are not discussing whether or not the current load of laws is itself tyrannical, we are discussing whether or not that tyranny is focused solely upon black people. I have presented a case for why it is reasonable to think that these laws are not tyrannical along racial lines, except insofar as those racial differences cause increased legal actions due to alternate lifestyles more prevalent in differing races. Please stay on point.
I did watch the video of Sandra Bland. Do you know who else gets pulled over for stupid things? Young white men. Do you know why things escalated in her case but not the multitudinous other times cops do dumb things because they are petty little tyrants with a superiority complex? She did not play the game, the young white men do.
Furthermore, I do not dispute the existence of tyranny. I simply note that it applies differently to different groups of people, and in all cases it is undesirable. It is the will of tyrants that we the people become divided in our efforts to be free of tyranny, for little can stand in their way then. By playing this along racial lines and refusing to acknowledge the sheer immensity of other types of tyranny in the world today, mike, you perpetuate the very tyrants you claim to so despise.
Finally, do you not recall the many other times I have posted, some of which you have responded to, to the effect of “government is evil in all forms, get rid of it”? Calling me a government loving anything is not only a fallacy of the most obvious kind, it is demonstrably false.
The other entertaining part, CD:
1) Littlelettermike has insisted that the only rights you have are those that the government sees fit to give you
2) Littlelettermike has argued that government determines whether or not you are acting in accordance with your rights and that you cannot act in contradiction to the government (“It’s. The. Law.”)
3) Littlelettermike has argued that resistance to or refusal to follow even Obama’s pronouncements, much less established law, constitutes treason and anarchy.
4) Littlelettermike insists that black people have rights that exist outside government, that government has no ability to restrict those rights and that it is black peoples’ moral duty to resist and refuse to follow established law.
In short, littlelettermike is a hypocrite who says white people have to follow the law and black people don’t — and white people like Hillary Clinton who pronounce racist beliefs that black people don’t have to follow the law are exempt as well.
little letter mike doesn’t seem to understand that conservatives hold everyone to the same standard of behavior, race, gender, income should make no difference when discussing standards of behavior. little letter mike thinks holding people to different (lower) standards of behavior based upon race isn’t as racist as holding people to higher standards of behavior. By holding African Americans to lower standards of behavior, little letter mike is telling the world that he thinks African Americans are inferior. Shame on him.
“Do not ever presume to come to this website again to lecture us about race and tolerance”
NDT –
You are right, I should not lecture on race and tolerance, I recognize that too many here have their minds made up already. But I should lecture you on what actual Governmental Tyranny looks like because the privileged conservatives obviously here have no idea.
CD –
“The “persecution” of black people is the direct result of their own horrid behavior”
No way in hell a white person gets pulled over in that situation. Sandra Bland did nothing to get pulled over yet she did just because of her skin color. The cop saw her, did a crazy u-turn sped up and got on her butt. That never happened to me driving through Texas with Minnesota plates as a youth. But activities like that happen on daily basis to folks with a dark skin color.
To deny that is happening and/or somehow claim that the same thing is happening to white folks and then you try to say that their race is responsive for the daily Governmental Tyranny that is forced upon American citizens who happen to black, is indeed you defending Big Government Tyranny.
It seems to me the only people who have real privilege are wealthy Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Charlie Rangel, and the executives at Planned Parenthood.
They seem to defy the law with complete impunity.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702
Here we see that the male population is statistically uniform between both black and white races for being pulled over, yet the black population views these reasons as illegitimate far more often than their white counterparts. Why?
It is possible that there is some discrimination along racial lines, however for that to be true we would expect the percentage to be significantly different for the two populations. Therefore, there is no discrimination in the application of the law.
The other option is that the black community, for whatever reason, has a chip on its collective shoulder and promotes behavior likely to escalate matters. Given the number of times they think that there is an illegitimate issue this is likely the case. As a corollary to this it is possible that black people are better drivers than white people. Would that not be a form of privilege that we ought to normalize, in the interest of being a fair society? Let’s talk about the white/black driving skill gap.
Did you miss the part where I disapprove of her being pulled over? I loath the government in all things, anybody who fights and wins is my hero. Again I say, I do not reject the notion of tyranny, just your division based upon race. I would rather there be no government at all. But I repeat myself, again.
Also, you seem to misunderstand my verbiage. I did not say that the race itself is responsible for these issues, I said that the behaviors prevalent in the race is the problem. The only racial part of the issue is that the behavior tends to be found in black people. If white people were to begin acting like black people tend to do, I would expect there to be more instances of white criminality.
Could you develop your points a bit more for your next post mike, and refrain from personal shots, they distract from the matter at hand.
To the rest of you, good points all.
“Therefore, there is no discrimination in the application of the law.”
Good grief. Virtually all objective research shows otherwise.
Here is some detail for you that should answer why people who happen to have dark skin color complain about police tyranny and we can ignore your your typical right wing projection.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/
“Black drivers are 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than whites; they are more than twice as likely to be subject to police searches as white drivers; and they are nearly twice as likely to not be given any reason for the traffic stop, period. ”
That is nothing but REAL tyranny. Yet ring wing hypocrites mock mock a group trying to stop it.
You continue to ignore my thesis. Allow me to put it in stuffy, academic terms.
THESIS: Black people have significantly higher incidences of criminal behavior in their population, and are, therefore, more likely to be the subject of scrutiny under a fair legal system.
PREMISE ONE: Black people have higher rates of criminal behavior (murders, robbery, etc.).
PREMISE TWO: Provided a legal system treats all demographics equally, those demographics which engage in fewer criminal type behaviors (murders, robbery, etc.) will be disproportionately underrepresented in statistics concerning crime.
CONCLUSION ONE: Black people are under higher legal scrutiny than their white peers because, on average, a black person is more likely to commit a crime (murder, robbery, etc.).
CONCLUSION TWO: The current legal system may appear to subject black people to unfair treatment due to the lack of criminal behaviors (murder, robbery, etc.) in other races, especially whites.
REFUTATION ONE: Blacks do not have higher rates of criminal behavior.
REJECTION TO REF ONE: Ferguson Riots, South Side of Chicago, any other seedy neighborhood.
REFUTATION TWO: The legal system is not fair towards blacks.
REJECTION TO REF TWO: Were there widespread witch hunts of black people, the easiest places to begin are those mentioned in REJECTION TO REFUTATION ONE. As those places are still populated by mostly black, criminals (murder, robbery, etc.), there has obviously not been any serious action taken towards eliminating the criminal (murder, robbery, etc.) element in those places. Therefore, the legal system is, if anything, biased towards blacks.
Care to dispute?
Also BJS>WaPo. Sources man, mind your sources.
Inner city black lives really don’t matter. They are a drain on our society. Middle class blacks, on the other hand, seem to have it together to some extent.
In a good number of instances, blacks seem to mouth off to the police officer or get out of the car when they shouldn’t. I was taught as a youngster that you obey the police even if you disagree. There are options of going forward later to the press or precinct headquarters.
“Imagine if every time you drove your car you have to be cognizant of police following you. Everytime you walk down the street you are subject to random searches by police.”
I would obey the law like I do now. Even Eric Holder admitted 1/3 of voting age black males are felons when he was fighting FL’s Felon No Vote Law. When I hear latinos say they will have to drive carefully to avoid getting pulled over by cops, I wonder why they don’t drive carefully to avoid hitting white kids on sidewalks?
I think a lot of this is explained by the Chinese story of “Point deer make horse”. https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/the-purpose-of-absurdity/
Mikey did you see the body cam video of the black politician who said a cop pulled him over and said “Ni663r Ni663r Ni663r Ni663r”
but the actual recording was of the cop being polite despite him being pulled over for doing 90+mph & letting him go because of his job?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Jxcufq4KQ&feature=youtu.be&list=PLZFSBAtAmGqVIg1vbJxqV7IhGcpnYeKiX awkward.
Both political parties are guilty of groveling to interest groups. For the Dems, it is the blacks and Feminazis. And for the GOP, it is the evangelical nuts. They sniff and lick the buttholes of the religious right. Walker and Rubio now don’t even want an exception for abortion in the case of the life of the mother. How idiotic is that.
Steve:
I looked at the You Tube video. That worthless piece of crap was a classmate of mine at Strake Jesuit in Houston in the late 1970s. Back then he had a large Afro. I guess his Black Panther and Black Student Union roots haven’t changed much in 35 years. Plus the dude is a lawyer. Another strike against him.
No, you should not because you are a lying pathetic malignant racist.
We know damn well that you want to murder black conservatives, you sick pervert.
We know damn well that you refer to black people with whom you disagree politically as “house n*ggers”, “oreos” and worse, you filthy disgusting pig.
Now, mikey, put up or shut up. Either you repudiate those and admit they show liberals are racists, or you’re exposed as a total hypocrite.
Not that you aren’t already, but this just makes it blatantly and completely obvious that racist mikey follows double standards and actually loathes black people.
The Ferguson situation (in towns all over the place) is profoundly depressing: 1) they’re lionizing a criminal who got what was coming to him and 2) the organizers do not give a damn about “their people”. Once Ferguson (or what’s left of it) is once again razed to the ground, these “community organizers” will return to their lairs and search out the next community to “organize”. The residents of Ferguson (Baltimore, Oakland…), many of whom are decent folks doing their best to get by, will be left behind to live among the ruins at the hands of the thugs the lefties empower and legitimize.
What progs fail (willfully) to “see” is that many of the black community’s problems are self-inflicted. I don’t know a single white person who believes that the never-ending chaos and misery in places like Baltimore are desirable – there’s zero benefit. If I’m a leftist demagogue, however, the benefits are plenty: money and power.
Michael Brown got himself killed by being an incandescently stupid man. Having just roughed up a store clerk for some cigars had the option of 1) keeping a low profile and going home or 2) waltzing down the middle of the road making a spectacle of himself and inconveniencing others. Having attracted the attention of a cop he could have 1) said “sorry” and moved to the sidewalk or 2) reached into the police car and tussled with the cop over the cop’s gun. Having once again made the wrong selection he then 1) had the option to surrender peacefully or 2) charge at the much smaller cop who, at that point had his weapon drawn and was scared spitless. Brown, once again, selected door #2 – never to play again.
So here we are – option #2 being selected over and over and over… I give up. I really don’t give a damn anymore.
Sometimes humor says it the best.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=igQDvYOt_iA
Davinci, please elaborate on why you dislike Walker’s position on abortion.
mike…how many black children were aborted last year?
I cannot help but wonder, if Tea Party protesters were looting, shooting, and blocking traffic… wouldn’t this be hyped by the MFM as a way to discredit the movement?
Tell me again about “white privilege.”
C Dreaming:
I am pro choice early on in the pregnancy. It should not be used as a form of birth control. I become less for abortion as the weeks progress. I am totally opposed to late term and partial birth abortion. And don’t get me started on the Nazis at Planned Parenthood selling body parts. They should get no govt money whatsoever.
Walker’s position is so extreme when it comes to abortion. There should always be an exception for the life of the mother. Even when I was pro life decades ago, I always believed in abortion for life of mother, rape, and incest. I think being pro life with some exceptions is a moral issue, and I don’t have large qualms with that (although I have no problem with early term abortion). It is just that an extremist position (NO abortion ever) makes many people decide not to vote for you based on this one issue. Yes, one issue voters are not positive IMO.
I have an example of this. I good friend of mine lives in The People’s Republic of Maryland, where his vote doesn’t count. He is solidly pro life, with exceptions for life of mother, proven rape (not just a woman saying so), and incest. But he was outraged by Walker’s thinking it is great to have a mother die rather than have an abortion. He told me he will never vote for this guy because he is wedded to the evangelical nut jobs. In life, absolutes are not often the best way to do things.
First objection, can the mother prior to giving birth, given an either or scenario where only one can live, waive her preference before the law you have proposed? If not, why?
Second objection, the thing being aborted is only the property of itself. Or do you deny that “results of conception” are human? Really, we would need to get some form of mediation between both interested parties to make the correct decision in a case by case basis. Ignore the technical difficulties please.
Third objection, your arguments assume that technology will not progress to the point where even brutally removed fetuses can be grown to term artificially with no serious drawbacks. Ditto to the mother. Call it science fiction if you want, but flying machines and sonar were once too.
Fourth objection, call me a cold fish, the benefits of the child outweigh those of the mother. The mother has lived her life, partially, and we know whether or not she is an Einstein; in the case of the baby, we do not. Given the choice between a known quantity and an unknown who may be the best thing since sliced bread or a regular bloke, I can find no truly practical reason to favor the known quantity. I do not usually like arguments from human value, but abortion is what it is.
Fifth objection, even in cases of incest and rape, the above remain valid, as far as I can see.
Sixth objection, dealing with rape et al, those are unfortunate circumstances yes, but that does not alter the fact that the thing being aborted will become a living, breathing human in time. Why are you so eager to deny agency to your fellow men, or do you dispute agency? Bad things happen, it is not for us to scream in empty fury at their occurrence, but to find what good can be found. Is the child of incest incestuous; a rapist, a rapist?
Abortion has nothing to do with the rights of women, it is about the rights of that clump of cells. So no, I do not agree that Walker is extreme here. Somebody has to give voice to the voiceless, the tragedy is that it is not the mothers saying as he does.
Fine, go ahead and be an ideologue about abortion. Let the mother die instead of having an abortion. Then the family is without a mother to her other children. Is that what you want? The right wing religious nuts always want an intact family; now they don’t have it. The American people will not vote for someone that extreme.
So rather than respond to my arguments, none of them religious-by the way, you attack me personally and an ideology that, while I do happen to share some views with, has nothing to do with my assertions? Do you need me to clarify them, or would you rather continue rejecting intelligent discussion on something you obviously care deeply about?
It is not impossible to convince me that I am wrong on a given subject, but what you are currently doing merely suggests that your position is the thoughtless position.
I find your view about a woman living part of her life is less important than a fetus. That is offensive to me. So I am responding to your notions.
I guess the woman Mueller that was repeatedly raped by the head of ISIS, then murdered, should have had the baby of that monster. Yes, your views are really cruel. In fact they are repulsive to me.
Again, you fail to tell me the “why” of the matter. Why are my views so offensive, and really why should I care if my views are offensive?
In your example, do we know that the baby would be a monster? No. Why then should we condemn it to the same fate as its admittedly abominable father? Are you really saying that the sins of the father are the sins of the son?