To the proliferation of articles on the shooting death of black Missourian Michael Brown via white police officer, Darren Wilson, I register the following considerations.
Firstly, at this time when black underclass thugs are ruining the quality of life in but another once- decent town while their black and white media spokespersons bellyache over the unrelenting racial oppression to which black Americans are supposedly subject, let us call to mind all of the rosy promises made six years ago when Barack Hussein Obama first set his sights on the presidency.
Pundits both black and white, Democrat and Republican, assured us that the election of a black man with an Islamic-sounding name was sure to endear America to Muslims around the globe while ushering in a “post-racial” era here at home. Remember that?
The Islamic world, always a cauldron of violence, is even more violent, more emboldened now than it has been in the past. Something similar can be said for the world of black America, or at least black urban America—as the current happenings in Ferguson, Missouri painfully reveal.
Secondly, those “conservative” commentatorswho claim to be agnostic on whether Darren Wilson, in the absence of any provocation on the part of Michael Brown, killed the latter solely for thrills imply that they’re open to the possibility that this actually could have happened. In other words, they legitimize the outrageous notion that white police officers routinely seek out unsuspecting, law-abiding black citizens to gun down.
I’ll say it now: While, admittedly, I do not know the details of what actually transpired between Wilson and Brown, I most certainly do know—and so, too, I’m ready to bet, does every other commentator who isn’t an anti-white, anti-police ideologue—that Officer Wilson is not guilty of any of the charges that the black criminals in Ferguson and their apologists in Washington D.C. and the media are leveling against him.
Wilson is a decorated police officer. Brown was a thug who just moments prior to his fatal encounter with Wilson had been captured on video surveillance engaging in a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store.
This is one reason why my I’m strongly disposed to sympathize with Wilson’s and the Ferguson Police Department’s account of events over that supplied by Dorian Johnson, the 22 year-old who was with Brown when he was killed—and who served as his accomplice to the robbery and assault of a clerk.
But there is another reason why I believe Wilson acted justifiably. And this brings me to my third piece of food for thought:
We have heard this story before.
Last summer, it was the Trayvon Martin shooting death that had the agents of the “Racism-Industrial-Complex” (RIC) in the media in a tizzy. Presumably, genuinely white “racists” were slim pickings. Thus, they invented one by turning the clearly Latino-looking George Zimmerman into a “white Hispanic.” At the same time, these same activists substituted for the unflattering portrait of the real Trayvon Martin a disinfected one that was more friendly to their template of white oppression and black victimhood—the same template through which they are now filtering the incident in Ferguson.
And like in the case of Martin, RIC agents would have us rather see their sanitized depiction of Michael Brown—the bright-eyed, college bound “gentle giant”—than the hulking man whose audacity and recklessness were as large as his physical stature, the punk who thought nothing of either depriving another man of his hard earned property or assaulting him when his victim resisted.
A bad actor is one who makes it obvious that he or she is trying to act. Similarly, in “miscasting” the most unlikely types into the roles that they’ve written, it’s obvious, painfully obvious, that the Al Sharptons of the world are trying to sell us a bill of goods.
Fourth, that the shameful violence and crime—the “rioting”—that’s occurring in Ferguson and the insidious rhetoric from which it arose have absolutely nothing to do with a desire for justice or interracial peace can be gotten all too easily from the deafening silence with which the shocking rate and nature of black-on-white violence is invariably met.
For instance, just last month, in Iowa, a white 97- year-old veteran of World War II—Rupert “Andy” Anderson—and his 94-year-old wife of many years were bludgeoned with a pipe courtesy of a black Ethiopian immigrant. Mrs. Anderson, though bloodied, survived this attack that occurred in her home. Her husband, however, wasn’t so fortunate.
Whether it’s this case or any other number of grisly instances of black-on-white violence, when the media decides to cover it at all, they invariably either avoid or deny the racial dynamic. In writing about the Anderson murder, journalist Nicholas Stix refers to this phenomenon as the “preemptive MSM [Main Stream Media] propaganda template [.]”
Finally, while it is verboten to raise this question in “respectable” (i.e. Politically Correct) company, raise it we must: If things are really as terrible—as “racist”—in America as so many blacks in Ferguson and elsewhere would have us believe, then why aren’t these same blacks demanding—not requesting, but demanding—that blacks be granted their own separate homeland? We’re not necessarily talking about a “back-to-Africa” movement, but perhaps a country carved out of American land?
After all, today, when blacks demand something, anything—or when they’re demanding it from whites—they usually get it. At any rate, blacks, or at least black “leaders,” have zero reluctance about expressing their demands.
And wouldn’t it be infinitely better for everyone to peacefully go our separate ways rather than perpetually be at each other’s throats?
That not a single black “leader,” or anyone else, for that matter, has so much as suggested this as a possibility, much less demanded it, speaks volumes.