© AFP Photo / Joe Burbank-Pool
Twenty-nine-year-old Zimmerman was acquitted on Saturday of all charges relating to the fatal shooting of Martin. The former neighborhood watch volunteer could have been sentenced to life in prison for second-degree murder or up to 30 years for manslaughter if he was found guilty.
Martin, 17, was shot over a year ago by Zimmerman, who claimed he acted in self-defense. The prosecution argued that Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder, stating that he racially profiled the unarmed teen and assumed he was a criminal when he saw him walking through a gated community in Sanford. They claimed that Zimmerman tracked the boy down and started the fight that led to the shooting.
The verdict was reached by a panel of six women jurors, 15 months after Martin's death and six miles away from where the incident took place.
Zimmerman has received death threats since Martin's death, while Americans hotly debated the issues of self-defense, gun laws, and race. When Zimmerman walked free for 44 days after the shooting, nationwide protests erupted calling for his arrest.
"Today, justice failed Trayvon Martin and his family," Roslyn M. Brock, chairman of the National Association of Colored People, said in a statement.
"We call immediately for the Justice Department to conduct an investigation into the civil rights violations committed against Trayvon Martin. This case has re-energized the movement to end racial profiling in the United States."
Reader Comments
HAS been served for once in a long time. Trayvon Martin was just another damn thug that didn't survive long enough to make a career of it.
You speak of discernment here [Link], but your comment above is more subjective (opinion) than objective. Discernment invokes objectivity, something that can be plainly seen and experienced by others.
Therefore, on the face of it, it's fair for us to conclude that your original statement and tone was, at the very least, thrown out carelessly and thoughtlessly, but taking into account your 'ruffled some feathers' comment below, I would say it's fair for us to also view that your original intent was to provoke some kind of emotional response from other readers/commenters.
If you didn't intend to provoke or inflame, then more care and consideration should have been dedicated to crafting your commentary.
At this point, to be considerate, a further explanation from you, bentpenny, would be helpful. If you do not have objective based evidence on hand, maybe you have a personal experience that caused you to express yourself in this way? Sharing this may prove beneficial to not only you, but also to us, especially those of us (like myself) who have been profiled and victimized by the system's 'officers,' those whose primary mission is supposedly to serve and protect we, the citizenry, not to mercilessly humiliate and attack us...
Veterans Today has this to say (about the HuffPo version of this 'case'): [Link]
Veterans Today is said to be CIA, but I think HuffPo is another well classified CIA project.
When the puppets and marionettes keep doing all the right moves without any obvious strings, this is called 'remote control'.
Remote control lets the lions sleep sound at night, their lair is invincible
Another benefit of hi-tech.
A SOTT reader that is a closet racist, how 'refreshing'.
bentpenny did not say anything concerning Martin's race or ethnicity. the Zimmerman case did present evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman while he was protecting his community, and that prior to the assault he referred to Zimmerman with the 'C-word', a racial epithet, which is evidence in support of racial motivated violence and could be construed as a 'hate crime' under the Civil Rights Act.
Referring to someone as 'another damn thug' in light of this does not show a racially motivated antipathy. in fact it infers a behaviorally motivated antipathy.
I wonder why? here's a thought, perhaps you are prejudiced?
In the words of Gordon W. Allport in 'The Nature of Prejudice', "If a person is capable of rectifying his erroneous judgements in the light of new evidence he is not prejudiced. Prejudgements become prejudices only if they are not reversible when they are exposed to new knowledge." [[Link]
Also your words "don't worry nothing you say will change my mind" also indicates that you have authoritarian follower tendencies. either right-wing, or left-wing. to support that possibility, I will cite some of Bob Altemeyer's 'The Authoritarians' [[Link]:
"Prejudice has little to do with the groups it targets, and a lot to do with the personality of the holder. Want to guess who has such wide-ranging prejudices? Authoritarian followers dislike so many kinds of people, I have called them “equal opportunity bigots.”"
Alteyemeyer also says:
"It’s easy to see why authoritarian followers would be dogmatic, isn’t it? When you haven’t figured out your beliefs, but instead absorbed them from other people, you’re really in no position to defend them from attack. Simply put, you don’t know why the things you believe are true. Somebody else decided they were, and you’re taking their word for it. So what do you do when challenged?"
"Well first of all you avoid challenges by sticking with your own kind as much as possible, because they’re hardly likely to ask pointed questions about your beliefs. But if you meet someone who does, you’ll probably defend your ideas as best you can, parrying thrusts with whatever answers your authorities have pre-loaded into your head. If these defenses crumble, you may go back to the trusted sources. They probably don’t have to give you a convincing refutation of the anxiety-producing argument that breached your defenses, just the assurance that you nonetheless are right. But if the arguments against you become overwhelming and persistent, you either concede the point--which may put the whole lot at risk--or you simply insist you are right and walk away, clutching your beliefs more tightly than ever."
"That’s what authoritarian followers tend to do. And let’s face it, it’s an awfully easy stand to take. You have to know a lot nowadays to stake out an intelligent, defendable position on many issues. But you don’t have to know anything to insist you’re right, no matter what. Dogmatism is by far the best fall-back defense, the most impregnable castle, that ignorance can find. It’s also a dead give-away that the person doesn’t know why he believes what he believes."
I think that speaks volumes for your words: "don't worry nothing you say will change my mind".
Here is something else. The Civil Rights Political Establishment (CRPE) came into existence riding on the backs of black leaders who triumphantly ended racial segregation and discrimination with civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
The CRPE seeks to gain political capital by presenting themselves as 'defenders against racism'. They can only do this if there is a substantial racist threat. There is not one, at least not one under their definition of 'racist'. So they stoke the fears of a substantial racist threat and propagate their core creed, which is 'whites are racist and blacks (and other minorities) are victims of racism'. This creed must be religiously believed by all. Even to the extent that anti-white racism is referred to as 'reverse racism', which implies that the term 'racism' means 'white racism against blacks and other minorities'.
They stoke their own egos by feeding their own self-righteousness by seeing themselves and projecting that view that they are 'civil-rights warriors fighting against racist monsters'. Their own self-righteousness triggers their aggression against any 'blasphemers' of their creed and they attack them viciously with the label of 'racist'.
Whenever the 'high-priests' of the CPRE give a 'thumbs down' to anyone, they will be, and have been, relentless and viscous in their attack to pursue and 'punish' any disobeyer of their decrees and they stoke the fears of their authoritarian followers to go fight a crusade.
So let me get this straight, the disproportionate number of black people in american prisons is wait for this, because they somehow belong there? That the disproportionate number of minority people living in poverty, wait for it, is because they somehow haven't worked hard enough? That the disproportionate amount of stereotypes we see propagated by the mainstream media is, wait for it, light entertainment?
Basically, it's anything but race related? This is just fiction, yes? I see where you are coming from. Consider me converted to your way of viewing the world. Completely and utterly correct.
My bestest friend in the whole wide world,
Because of people like you, I am grateful the below exists. (Just to you know, act as a decent counter-weight)
Yes you guessed correct, after reading your comment I decided to you know, go and sterilize my mind from the vileness you spew from your keyboard.
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
yeah, ain't that weird: a racist sott reader?
About those responsible for preparing the states case. Started out with 2nd degree murder, wow what a stretch. Knowing the likelihood of making a beyond any reasonable doubt case would be close to nil. Under the circumstances described an innocent at the time, young adult, lost his life due to the vigilante tactics of the neighborhood watch individual. This sure sounds closer to something that would be classified negligent homicide. Why wasn't the state prosecutor looking to make the charge fit the apparent crime rather than the crowd mentality? I thought at the time that choosing 2nd degree was the path to get an acquittal and I'm not a lawyer. Nice twist at the end of the trial to bring up a manslaughter charge? after the hopelessness of proving 2nd degree was obvious. For this part of Florida it looks like another Casey Anthony trial with the same outcome. Makes you wonder as to the real motivation of the prosecuting attorney.
And why did this particular case become a national ordeal anyway? There's the gun issue, the race issue, and the lack of direct evidence which leaves the situation up for interpretation (it's easy to emotionally pick a side).
What produces doubt as to George Zimmerman's guilt is mainly his own injuries, I think, and Treyvon Martin's lack of them. It suggests to me that either Zimmerman was not unable to defend himself from the alleged attack (ie his story is true), OR his injuries were self-inflicted, but I'm somewhat doubtful of that... I don't know if I'm missing something here.
Luke you said "So basically, if I take what you are saying about me out of the equation, you are saying racism doesn't exist?"
That is not what i said. I said "The CRPE seeks to gain political capital by presenting themselves as 'defenders against racism'. They can only do this if there is a substantial racist threat. There is not one, at least not one under their definition of 'racist'."
Notice the term 'substantial racist threat'. That doesn't mean that there isn't racism. I contend that there is not a 'substantial racist threat' under the definition that racism is something exclusive to white people. If you compare the 'racist threat' and media coverage to the 'terrorist threat' and media coverage you will see that they are both stoking fears and playing on emotions. Qui Bono? (Who benefits?)
As far as my "comment http://www.sott.net/article/263910-Florida-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots.)" I do not see the relevancy. what about it?
The definition of 'racism' according to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary is:
"The belief that all members of each race possesses characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
If that is the definition of racism, can you label anyone a 'racist' who does not possess that racist belief? no you logically can't.
Does racism exist? yes it does, but the idea that racism is a characteristic restricted to whites is inaccurate. there are white racists to be sure. but there are also anti-white racist and other varieties of racist beliefs held by other ethnic and racial groups as well. but the idea that there is a klansman, neo-nazi or something of that ilk, around every corner is just as ridiculous as the idea that there is a terrorist around every corner. that kind of thinking is fear-mongering.
As to your questions concerning "the disproportionate number of black people in american prisons" and "disproportionate number of minority people living in poverty" and "disproportionate amount of stereotypes we see propagated by the mainstream media" I will try to address them.
As to "the disproportionate number of black people in american prisons" the answer is simple. it is along these general lines: those blacks who are in American prisons committed some crime (yes I agree that some are probably innocent), regardless how petty, and they were caught because of either calls to the police, or a high police presence in their neighborhoods. the reason the police heavily patrol those neighborhoods by and large is not because of racism. It is because of the high-crime reported in those areas. Police administration use crime statistics to justify their force allocation. Its just a numbers game. The more police around = the higher the risk of getting caught committing a crime, regardless of how petty. the real problem is not racism it is minimum sentencing requirements. most drug related crimes carry minimum sentencing requirements. I don't have a statistic in front of me to cite but I have read that most blacks in prison are in there for drug-related offenses. If we can remove the minimum sentencing requirements of drug-related offenses then the number of blacks in American prisons will reduce.
As to the other two questions I will cite Thomas Sowell from 'Black Rednecks and White Liberals'. This is a very interesting book which does provide a good theory that is supported by empirical evidence to explain your questions. if you are interested i suggest you read it here is a link [[Link]
Here is the quote:
"It would be good to know what proportion of either the black or the white population, past or present, could be considered culturally rednecks. While it is undoubtedly true that the South was not “a monolithic region,” the issue here is how it differed from other regions, not its internal variations. What is known is that the white population of the antebellum South as a whole was strikingly different from the white population of the North, not only in the eyes of contemporary observers, but also in objective statistics that are an undeniable part of the historical record. What is also known is that, while about one-third of the white population of the United States lived in the antebellum South, nine-tenths of the black population lived there at that time.Thus a culture which produced lower levels of achievements for both blacks and whites, compared to other members of their respective races from different cultures, was more pervasive among blacks. The lesser educational and other opportunities for blacks are consistent with the longer persistence of this counterproductive culture among those who have not yet risen out of low-income ghettos."
"In addition to the negative effect of the redneck culture on the achievements of both blacks and whites, it has also, for generations, provoked adverse reactions to rednecks of either race by others. Calling all adverse reactions “racism” in the case of blacks explains nothing when people of that same race have been treated very differently at different periods of American history, as well as in different parts of the country at the same time.There is no reason to rule out, a priori, the possibility that different subgroups of blacks were themselves different in behavior, attitudes, skills, and performances.That has already become apparent when comparing blacks from the Caribbean with blacks from the South, or when comparing blacks from the New England enclaves in the South with blacks from the redneck culture."
"Easy recourse to slavery as an explanation of either North-South differences or black-white differences fails empirical tests. Not only did the main features of the redneck culture exist in Britain, centuries before blacks and whites encountered each other in the antebellum South, if slavery was the reason for the South’s lags behind the North, then emancipation should have led to a narrowing of the economic and other gaps between the two regions. Contemporaries who drew this logical conclusion were subsequently disappointed by what actually happened in the wake of the end of slavery. Per capita real income in the South, which had been 81 percent of the national average in 1860, fell to 51 percent by 1880 and remained at about that level for another generation, long past the time when the decline might have been plausibly explained by the damage suffered during the Civil War. However obtrusive and morally salient slavery might be, it failed to carry the heavy burden placed on it as an explanatory factor—then or now."
"Blanket application of the term “racism” as a causal explanation—as distinguished from simply an epithet—cannot explain why blacks who were living in white neighborhoods at the beginning of the twentieth century could no longer do so two decades later or five decades later. After all, those who lived interspersed among whites in the earlier period were of the same race as those who could not do so in the middle of the twentieth century. The Ku Klux Klan was certainly a racist organization but that description cannot explain why it began to make major inroads among whites in Northern states after a mass migration of blacks from the South had moved into those states. Like the ghettoization of blacks in Northern cities, where they had once lived dispersed among the white population, the spread of the Klan’s racist organizations into Northern communities had to have some causal explanation. It is hard to see these two major retrogressions in race relations as mere coincidences that just happened to occur after the migrations of Southern blacks into Northern cities."
"In short, cultural differences have had a major economic and social impact. Despite a tendency to attribute black-white differences in the United States to “a legacy of slavery,” blacks from the West Indies also had a history of enslavement but brought with them to the United States a very different culture that was reflected in such things as differences from the native-born black population in entrepreneurship, education, and imprisonment rates. In short, what the two groups of blacks shared was a history of enslavement but what they did not share was the redneck culture. The disproportionate number of prominent blacks who came out of small enclaves of transplanted New England culture in the South likewise underscores the impact of cultural differences."
"While only circumstantial evidence is possible on the connection between the cultural characteristics of Southern rednecks or crackers in the past and those of ghetto blacks today, that evidence is considerable. However, even if one were to dismiss all of that evidence as sheer coincidence, the redneck culture would still not be irrelevant, for it provides a demonstration of the counterproductive effects of such a way of life."
"External explanations of black-white differences—discrimination or poverty, for example—seem to many to be more amenable to public policy than internal explanations such as culture. Those with this point of view tend to resist cultural explanations but there is yet another reason why some resist understanding the counterproductive effects of an anachronistic culture: Alternative explanations of economic and social lags provide a more satisfying ability to blame all such lags on the sins of others, such as racism or discrimination. Equally important, such external explanations require no painful internal changes in the black population but leave all changes to whites, who are seen as needing to be harangued, threatened, or otherwise forced to change."
"In short, prevailing explanations provide an alibi for those who lag—and an alibi is for many an enormously valuable asset that they are unlikely to give up easily. As Eric Hoffer put it:"
"There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day: we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life."
"However, as he said elsewhere:"
"America is the worst place for alibis. Sooner or later the most solid alibi begins to sound hollow."
"Those who provide black rednecks with alibis do no favor to them, to other blacks, or to the larger society in which we all live. In American society, achievement is what ultimately brings respect, including self-respect. Only for those who have written off blacks’ potential for achievement will alibis be an acceptable substitute. The liberal vision of blacks’ fate as being almost wholly in the hands of whites is a debilitating message for those blacks who take it seriously, however convenient it may be for those who are receptive to an alibi."
"Whether black redneck values and lifestyle are a lineal descendant of white redneck values and lifestyle, as suggested here, or a social phenomenon arising independently within the black community and only coincidentally similar, it is still a way of life that has been tested before and found wanting, as shown by its erosion over the generations among whites who experienced its counterproductive consequences. By making black redneck behavior a sacrosanct part of black cultural identity, white liberals and others who excuse, celebrate, or otherwise perpetuate that lifestyle not only preserve it among that fraction of the black population which has not yet escaped from it, but have contributed to its spread up the social scale to middle class black young people who feel a need to be true to their racial identity, lest they be thought to be “acting white.” It is the spread of a social poison, however much either black or white intellectuals try to pretty it up or try to find some deeper meaning in it."
there, BIGTIME. But my simple statement was NOT racism, just DISCERNMENT. Get over it.
The point is that your comment just plain and simply lacks empathy. You clearly didn't know Martin yet you speak as if he just deserved to die like the 'damn thug' he was.
So I really don't know what your point is but it clearly isn't the reflect on a mind that can think.
The case has piqued my curiosity with these articles, so I've been watching interviews and listening to the 911 calls and so on.
A lot of it comes down to whether Zimmerman was/is being truthful or not. There are some discrepancies between his initial 911 call and later statements, notably whether Martin ran or not, whether Zimmerman followed him, and whatnot.
Subjectively, I'm curious about Zimmerman's demeanor, both in the 911 call and in interviews. He seems pretty sedate through all of it and it seems a bit odd to me. It could be related to his ADHD medication, I suppose.
I'm not sure one way or another. The question is: What happened between the time that Zimmerman hung up the phone with police and the time when the neighbors allegedly heard him calling for help prior to shooting Martin? Did that really transpire as Zimmerman described?
There have been occasions where psychos have beat themselves up to create an illusion of self defense. Has this possibility been addressed?
It seems that the important evidences that would prove that Zimmerman was guilty or innocent of murder are not there. After listening to the witness' 911 calls, reading various articles, and watching interviews I can see why this case is controversial. There's just barely too little evidence to prove who was the aggressor with certainty, so it's easy to take sides.
My thought is that if Zimmerman is not a full-blown psycho, there seems to have been an element of racial bias or profiling in his initial 911 call. The book "Redirect" by Timothy D. Wilson as well as "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell show that even minorities can have unconscious biases against their own race due to societal influence, even if they oppose racism. If this was a factor, then in part this is in part just another result of modern ponerology.
There are claims of Martin having a history of drugs and possibly violence, while there are counter claims that some or all of this is actually confusion because there are other Treyvon Martins who were being confused with him. I haven't looked into that so far.
Zimmerman's and witness' 911 calls:
[Link]
Zimmerman's Fox interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaua8aAUpOs
Here are two of them:
-------
Arrest Warrant: Woman Facing Murder Charges for 17-Year-Old's Death, Gang-Related [[Link]July 11, 2013
Macon police have arrested and charged Miranda Victoria Pettiway with murder in the death of 17-year-old Javonni Bland.
Bland was shot and killed on Friday morning at the Zodiac Lounge in downtown Macon.
According to the arrest warrant, Pettiway was the getaway driver for Bonner who "shot Bland five times at close range with a handgun." It also says John Hollingshed, who shot victim Deon Davis eight times, was also in the car. Davis survived those injuries.
Pettiway is also charged with criminal attempt to commit murder and participation in criminal street gang activity. The warrant says "the accused and accomplices are members and affiliates of the Criminal Street Gang commonly referred to as 'Mafia'."
-------
San Jose: 17-year-old victim identified in suspected gang shooting [[Link]
02/06/2013
SAN JOSE -- Authorities have identified a 17-year-old boy as the victim of a suspected gang-related shooting that also wounded a 14-year-old boy in East San Jose over the weekend.
Jorge Brambila, of San Jose, was found gravely wounded about 9:10 p.m. Sunday in the 1000 block of Audubon Drive, near McLaughlin Avenue and Story Road. Brambila died at the scene, marking the city's fourth homicide of the year.
Police also found a 14-year-old boy suffering from at least one gunshot wound. The boy was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive.
-------
If you search for teenagers being shot you find many instances of it. Yet the media, including the president, had to focus on this one. Why?
I smell a rat.
"Trayvon Martin was just another damn thug that didn't survive long enough to make a career of it."
That's hateful, man.
IMHO this is not a newsworthy article. It doesn't matter who did what to who as justice will be served one way or another (karma).
Peace
Distraction from what? All the other killings being perpetrated by the system?
It doesn't matter who did what? are you joking? Because justice will be served one day by Karma? are you being for real?
Well, for once, nobody can prove that karma exists - let alone explaining how it works. So who's to say that karma, if it exists, will not get you one day for not caring about who does what to who?
HowToBe you said: "My thought is that if Zimmerman is not a full-blown psycho, there seems to have been an element of racial bias or profiling in his initial 911 call."
I cant get any audio from the link you provided. Which 911 call did you listen to? The full version or the NBC version that was edited to imply racism?
Here is a link to an article showing the NBC edit vs. full version: [[Link]
From the article:
"In an NBC segment featuring George Zimmerman's 911 call on the night of the Trayvon Martin shooting, Zimmerman is heard saying: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”"
"The full version, though, unfolds like this:"
"Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”"
"911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”"
If you follow the link you can also watch the video and listen for yourself.
I have read it in numerous articles that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police told him not to.
Here is an article that refutes that assumption:
[[Link]
In the article the link to the Zimmerman 911 call has been removed from the Stanford Police website. (interesting)
From the article:
-------
I have no idea where this assertion of fact could possibly have come from, but it is absolutely universal. Even now, pundits on every channel maintain that Zimmerman disobeyed a police order (though it wasn’t even an order) and continued chasing Martin. Zimmerman’s story from the beginning to police and to the media has been that he stopped following when the dispatcher told him to. There have been no witness statements to the contrary. For that matter, there are no witnesses claiming to have seen what happened before the physical altercation took place. But what does the 911 tape tell us?
From the call released by the Sanford Police:
At 2:07, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, “He’s running.”
At 2:09, you can hear a car door open and an alarm begins that is undoubtedly the “door open, keys in ignition” warning on Zimmerman’s truck.
At 2:13, you can clearly hear the car door slamming shut, and the alarm stops.
At 2:17, Zimmerman’s voice wobbles and he starts breathing heavily into the phone, indicating that he has started running.
At 2:22, without any prompting other than the aforementioned noises and breathing, the dispatcher asks “Are you following him?” to which Zimmerman responds, “Yeah.”
At 2:26, the dispatcher says, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that,” to which Zimmerman responds, “Okay.”
Zimmerman proceeds to give the dispatcher his name. Then he says, “He ran.”
Zimmerman can still be heard breathing into the phone until about 2:39, at which point the heavy breathing stops entirely, a mere 13 seconds after the dispatcher asked him to stop following. A very calm and collected Zimmerman then proceeds to give the dispatcher his own information, directions and a description of his location for another 1 minute and 33 seconds.
The difference between someone running while on the phone and not running can be heard quite clearly, and I encourage readers to listen for themselves.
There’s another reason to believe that Zimmerman stopped following Martin: After he gives the dispatcher his personal address, at 3:35, he says, “Oh crap, I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is,” meaning he is worried Martin might hear where he lives. If Zimmerman doesn’t even know where Martin is, would it even be possible for him to still be following Martin at this point? Would it even be possible for him to have continued following Martin after hanging up the phone — a full two minutes after he first got out of his car and a minute and a half after he fully stops breathing heavily — unless Martin came back and revealed himself?
Luke, I'm not sure why you said this,
"theodocius maybe you are just another thug-in-waiting that needs to be dispatched from this world before you make a career of it. It's inevitable you know, according to bentpenny's comment. He who can discern."
but a careful re-reading of my comment, which stands in agreement with HowToBe's view, namely that bentpenny's comment was callous, will clarify that not only am I against subjectivity based stereotyping and racism, but I am likewise a victim of these behaviors, in addition to police profiling [Link].
All you are to him is a "thug-in-waiting" and according to him, "thugs-in-waiting" needs to be dispatched from this world. By vigilante justice if necessary.
Stop lying to me with half-truths and what-not.
I can come here and tell you, "Hey, there is a huge conspiracy that can explain why the majority on this planet live in poverty - yes the MAJORITY. I'll tell you what it is, it is a bunch of psychopathic maniacs that have taken over this rock and turned it into the hell-hole it is"... Then you sir, with you mighty words will come in and say, "No, it isn't! It's economic policy, it's culture, it's lack of education, it's bla bla bla bla bla"...
So just to set the record straight, your reluctance to admit racism as a MAJOR factor, as if it just magically disappeared into thin air, makes me 100% without a shadow of a doubt DISTRUST everything you say. You are like a walking red flag. However many 10's of millions of blacks living in america aren't dreaming this stuff up.
The fact that you can IGNORE there collective voice makes me think you are wait-for-it, I am not even going to say it but you have a very well-known disease that for your sake you better get to grips with because undoubtedly it'll eat up at your brain and it's ability to read what is true and what is not.
Next thing I know you'll be telling us all how Palestinians somehow need to get there act together in order to improve there situation. Oh but why are they treated differently from other arabs? See it isn't racism from Israel, it's the Palestinian redneck culture... bla bla bla bla bla.
From your post:
"Blanket application of the term “racism” as a causal explanation—as distinguished from simply an epithet—cannot explain why PALESTINIANS who were living in JEWISH neighborhoods at the beginning of the twentieth century could no longer do so {...} later."
Yes I substituted whites, for Jewish and blacks for Palestinian just so you can SEE how much BS you are trying to feed me.
Luke you said: "Stop lying to me with half-truths and what-not."
Can you give any evidence that I am lying?
Luke you said: "Then you sir, with you mighty words will come in and say, "No, it isn't! It's economic policy, it's culture, it's lack of education, it's bla bla bla bla bla"..."
I never said it was economic policy or lack of education. But I do think that the 'gangster and drug culture' is a major factor. I also think that a lot of adverse reactions to those blacks that are drug-dealing and gang-banging and has been labeled 'racist' has nothing to do with race at all. Rather it is an adverse reaction to their counterproductive behaviors. Seriously did you read my post?
To quote from my previous post: "Those with this point of view tend to resist cultural explanations but there is yet another reason why some resist understanding the counterproductive effects of an anachronistic culture: Alternative explanations of economic and social lags provide a more satisfying ability to blame all such lags on the sins of others, such as racism or discrimination. Equally important, such external explanations require no painful internal changes in the black population but leave all changes to whites, who are seen as needing to be harangued, threatened, or otherwise forced to change."
Luke you said: "So just to set the record straight, your reluctance to admit racism as a MAJOR factor, as if it just magically disappeared into thin air, makes me 100% without a shadow of a doubt DISTRUST everything you say. You are like a walking red flag. However many 10's of millions of blacks living in america aren't dreaming this stuff up."
Where is any evidence to support your position? Look how dogmatic you sound. Did you read any of my post? Remember in my post where I stated "Their own self-righteousness triggers their aggression against any 'blasphemers' of their creed and they attack them viciously with the label of 'racist'."?
This is you. Your comment "your reluctance to admit racism as a MAJOR factor, as if it just magically disappeared into thin air, makes me 100% without a shadow of a doubt DISTRUST everything you say" supports it. How is that logical or rational?
Then you said: "Blanket application of the term “racism” as a causal explanation—as distinguished from simply an epithet—cannot explain why PALESTINIANS who were living in JEWISH neighborhoods at the beginning of the twentieth century could no longer do so {...} later."
I do not see the relevancy or what you are trying to get at. The quote I posted from Thomas Sowell's book had to do with a redneck culture in the American South and has nothing to do with Israel/Palestenians whatsoever. Substituting those words makes absolutely no sense in context of the quote. You really should re-read it. Hell purchase his book and read it.
You asked me questions and I answered them providing evidence to support what I said. Now you are making another personal attack against me and what I said without any logical basis based on any evidence whatsoever. Your entire argument is emotion driven. I wonder why?
I will repeat from my previous post:
I wonder why? here's a thought, perhaps you are prejudiced?
In the words of Gordon W. Allport in 'The Nature of Prejudice', "If a person is capable of rectifying his erroneous judgements in the light of new evidence he is not prejudiced. Prejudgements become prejudices only if they are not reversible when they are exposed to new knowledge." [[Link]
Also your words "don't worry nothing you say will change my mind" also indicates that you have authoritarian follower tendencies. either right-wing, or left-wing. to support that possibility, I will cite some of Bob Altemeyer's 'The Authoritarians' [[Link]:
"Prejudice has little to do with the groups it targets, and a lot to do with the personality of the holder. Want to guess who has such wide-ranging prejudices? Authoritarian followers dislike so many kinds of people, I have called them “equal opportunity bigots.”"
Alteyemeyer also says:
"It’s easy to see why authoritarian followers would be dogmatic, isn’t it? When you haven’t figured out your beliefs, but instead absorbed them from other people, you’re really in no position to defend them from attack. Simply put, you don’t know why the things you believe are true. Somebody else decided they were, and you’re taking their word for it. So what do you do when challenged?"
"Well first of all you avoid challenges by sticking with your own kind as much as possible, because they’re hardly likely to ask pointed questions about your beliefs. But if you meet someone who does, you’ll probably defend your ideas as best you can, parrying thrusts with whatever answers your authorities have pre-loaded into your head. If these defenses crumble, you may go back to the trusted sources. They probably don’t have to give you a convincing refutation of the anxiety-producing argument that breached your defenses, just the assurance that you nonetheless are right. But if the arguments against you become overwhelming and persistent, you either concede the point--which may put the whole lot at risk--or you simply insist you are right and walk away, clutching your beliefs more tightly than ever."
"That’s what authoritarian followers tend to do. And let’s face it, it’s an awfully easy stand to take. You have to know a lot nowadays to stake out an intelligent, defendable position on many issues. But you don’t have to know anything to insist you’re right, no matter what. Dogmatism is by far the best fall-back defense, the most impregnable castle, that ignorance can find. It’s also a dead give-away that the person doesn’t know why he believes what he believes."
You've come back with,
"You're being dogmatic"
"You're arguments are not relevant"
etc etc
i.e. you sir, must be hired or have some serious agenda. Those are precision hits for just some random person especially given what they imply i.e. the terms that you have set and the context.
Just to clarify, YES I am prejudiced. I identify VERY strongly with those that are made to suffer because of something they can't change about themselves, because of where they are born etc etc. You found me guilty on that count.
On the subject of relevancy, nice to see YOU are setting the terms for this debate. Thank you very much.
On the subject of being an authoritarian follower, again nice move by bringing in the The Civil Rights Political Establishment and establishing there creed in your terms thus making anyone who disagrees with your point of view clearly some kind of dogmatic emotionally driven non-thinking individual. BRAVO!
I see what is happening here. This is not about me, or you, this is about those who are reading this. It's about the battle for their minds. BRAVO!
In terms of being emotionally-driven... Erhmm, again GUILTY as charged. I am emotionally driven by your BS and by what you are trying to pull off i.e. showing complete disregard for a life lost.
There, DEBATE closed. You WIN!
and BEFORE I step off the stage, in shame may I add, I'll just comment on one of your points, 'drugs and gang culture' weren't always so... that situation was created and I bet you know by who but if you don't, I can give you a clue. It starts with a C and ends with an A. There might be an I in there somewhere, but who knows. Sooooooo, you saying it's a major factor is obviously true but I bet with your highly educated ninja skills, you've learnt to stop the argument there, lest they see, what is behind it all.
They, you're masters I suppose, create the situation, stick it on a bunch of people (in this situation, blacks) who then others create stereotypes on and this gets the ball rolling. Before they were apes working the land at the masters behest, now they are gang-banging thugs that live in drug fueled ghettos. Obviously in both situations, look no further than what you can see in front of your very own eyes. Let us not see the underlying cause of it all, the psychopath and the creeds they've created that permeates the whole land.
Read your manual and come back with whatever it says you should say next...
Luke you said: "You've come back with,"You're being dogmatic" "You're arguments are not relevant"
The dogmatic part is supported by evidence supplied by you. and I never said "You're arguments are not relevant". Not once. You just made it up. Out of thin air.
Luke you said: "i.e. you sir, must be hired or have some serious agenda. Those are precision hits for just some random person especially given what they imply i.e. the terms that you have set and the context."
Again another accusation at me personally? I don't have any agenda except the pursuit of the truth. When I see a topic that catches my eye and I feel like commenting. I comment. I don't comment often because other commenters have already stated what I would have, or I don't feel like I have anything to contribute to the topic. And I don't see it as "precision hits" or anything of that nature. I only presented information and expressed my thoughts and reasoning. I'm not trying to set any context or other such things.
Luke you said: "Just to clarify, YES I am prejudiced. I identify VERY strongly with those that are made to suffer because of something they can't change about themselves, because of where they are born etc etc. You found me guilty on that count. On the subject of relevancy, nice to see YOU are setting the terms for this debate. Thank you very much."
I am setting no terms for any debate. Say what you want and express yourself and I say what I want and express myself. But that also means others can say what they want and express themselves as well. You believe what you believe and that's fine. You don't want to provide any evidence to support your position, that's fine too. But others have every right to critique your reasoning as well as mine and whoever else. That is what this site encourages.
Luke you said: "On the subject of being an authoritarian follower, again nice move by bringing in the The Civil Rights Political Establishment and establishing there creed in your terms thus making anyone who disagrees with your point of view clearly some kind of dogmatic emotionally driven non-thinking individual. BRAVO!"
I presented information and expressed my thoughts and reasoning just as you did. Whats the difference?
Luke yousaid: "I see what is happening here. This is not about me, or you, this is about those who are reading this. It's about the battle for their minds. BRAVO!"
Well that is your opinion, which is fine, but I could say the same about you too.
Luke you said: "In terms of being emotionally-driven... Erhmm, again GUILTY as charged. I am emotionally driven by your BS and by what you are trying to pull off i.e. showing complete disregard for a life lost."
If you think what I say is BS that is fine. No problem here. But, please show me where I was "showing complete disregard for a life lost"?
Luke you said: "and BEFORE I step off the stage, in shame may I add, I'll just comment on one of your points, 'drugs and gang culture' weren't always so... that situation was created and I bet you know by who but if you don't, I can give you a clue. It starts with a C and ends with an A. There might be an I in there somewhere, but who knows. Sooooooo, you saying it's a major factor is obviously true but I bet with your highly educated ninja skills, you've learnt to stop the argument there, lest they see, what is behind it all."
There you go we have some common ground. If you have more to add concerning the CIA please share it. That kind of information could benefit us all. I do not discount that theory at all.
Luke you said: "They, you're masters I suppose, create the situation, stick it on a bunch of people (in this situation, blacks) who then others create stereotypes on and this gets the ball rolling. Before they were apes working the land at the masters behest, now they are gang-banging thugs that live in drug fueled ghettos. Obviously in both situations, look no further than what you can see in front of your very own eyes. Let us not see the underlying cause of it all, the psychopath and the creeds they've created that permeates the whole land."
My masters? Again with a personal attack? Look you can see things whichever way you want to. If you read my posts you can see that it implies much more than what is in front of my eyes. If you disagree, then disagree. Whats the big deal?
Luke you said "Read your manual and come back with whatever it says you should say next..."
I don't have one, could I borrow yours?
I think it's a fair enough assumption to make. After all, a racist in the modern world is unlikely to be stupid enough to use the word n*gger etc in a conversation like this, but "racist" isn't the worst of it. What kind of person reacts to a situation like this, that involves the killing of a seventeen year old boy, by saying...
"Trayvon Martin was just another damn thug that didn't survive long enough to make a career of it."
wjtiems clearly has no native intelligence and no basic morality. He's an idiotic internet literalist that takes everyone at their word that can sometimes be seen to defend the indefensible with reams and reams of seemingly aimless sophistries (usually someone else's). He doesn't recognise a creep when he encounters one, and certainly not a racist, but he has plenty of empathy-in-theory (usually someone else's).
Can you back up that statement with evidence, reasoning, something? I don't even know what "native intelligence" means. And why do you think I have no "basic morality"?
Highland Fleet Lute you said: "He's an idiotic internet literalist that takes everyone at their word that can sometimes be seen to defend the indefensible with reams and reams of seemingly aimless sophistries (usually someone else's)."
Whats with the personal insults? Why all the hostility? If you don't like my position and reasoning, fine. I get it.
Highland Fleet Lute you said: "He doesn't recognise a creep when he encounters one, and certainly not a racist, but he has plenty of empathy-in-theory (usually someone else's)."
What creep are you referring to?
@ google "karma", you are bound to find some answers
fortune, you may want to think twice before suggesting to others that they google 'karma' as a keyword.
First, karma is a debatable topic to begin with, and, secondly, Google, for all intents and purposes, is practically the face of the NSA [Link][Link]. (A search engine like startpage https://www.startpage.com is one that at least shields somewhat from Google's "bubble world" customization pages.)
Also, I too have noted that at one point, within one of your comments, you have recommended to another SoTT commentator to go to The Four Winds web site [Link](a self-proclaimed shamanic healing site). Yet, interestingly enough, Four Winds has ties to the Esalen Institute, named on John Coleman's Committee of 300 list.
Similarly, as can be seen here [Link] just recently from commentator theodocius, we see an objective outline of Esalen's connection into the upper echelons of the PTB hierarchical power structure:
'In doing some homework to find out more about Four Winds, I've come across this page (a search results page for keywords 'four winds') at Esalen Institute's web site: [Link].
Listed on this page are the names of those at Four Winds working in partnership with Esalen. Amongst those listed are Christina Allen and Alberto Villoldo, two of Four Winds Society's practitioners.
Likewise, after performing a search on Christina Allen at Four Winds Society's web site, I've come up with this page: [Link], which likewise lists the two practitioners above.
Therefore, based on the partnership connections, as seen from the above, between Four Winds Society and Esalen Institute, we can safely say that those who find Four Winds Society's material to be interesting and/or useful, may want to reconsider.
Why?
Because Esalen is connected with the infamous Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, a PTB COINTELPRO based organization. Although I have conducted previous research on Tavistock, mainly in conjunction with what Dr. John Coleman [Link]has reported in his works, here [Link]is an effective encapsulation of information about Tavistock and Esalen as posted on the forum:
[NOTE: the original posting [Link]from educate-yourself.org's web site, as quoted below, is from Dr. Byron T. Weeks, MD, and dated July 31, 2001.]
"Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmund Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of "controlling" humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, ESALEN [CAPS for emphasis, mine], MIT, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the RAND and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network." '
(Thank you, theodocius, for sharing your hard work with the rest of us here.)
By sending others to sites such as these, you run the risk of participating in a vectoring operation. It is my intention to show that doing the necessary research not only for others' protection (before making recommendations to them), but also for your own sake, is essential.