Thursday, May 7, 2015

Kareem Warns Whites

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Baltimore Is Just the Beginning
Kareem has a public name and recognition, and is granted race analyst status at Time Magazine on-line:
"What happened in Baltimore isn’t just a one-and-done situation. This wasn’t just a slight sprain in the ankle that we’ll be able to walk off by morning. This was a violently shattered bone that will have America limping forward on crutches for months to come, maybe even years."
OK, I'm listening, here are some pertinent excerpts:
“The protests in Baltimore were similar to the Boston Tea Party in 1773, the more than 200,000 people at the Washington, D.C. National Mall to hear Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964, and the anti-war march of more than 500,000 on Washington, D.C., in 1969. When people feel disenfranchised, helpless, and hopeless, they will take to the streets to air their grievances.”
There is a major difference: The American colonists took complete responsibility for their own destinies. And they did not burn down the ship. Not until they started to expel the British did they engage in violence, and never against their own people and their own businesses. In fact, the American colonists were responsible, self-supporting entrepreneurs and farmers, not habitual parasites upon any welfare largesse from King George. Nor did they demand the same economic “justice” which is now being demanded by ghetto blacks. Further down, Kareem equates economic justice with being thrown a “lifeline”. How much free cash, food, etc. does it take to qualify as a “lifeline”? What the colonists wanted was freedom from oppression by parasitic taxation and royal troops. Are modern cops the same as the King's troops? Hardly.

“What’s even more frustrating for African Americans across America witnessing the events is the blatant attempt of some in the media to portray this as (1) the result of “thugs” who want to exploit Gray’s death to stock up on some free TVs and (2) an anomaly that doesn’t represent America. Both attitudes exhibit the kind of racial profiling that is at the heart of the problem in the first place.”

The term “thug” is not a term with any racial connotation whatsoever. The origin of the term is involved with actions not racial identity. And the exploitation exists: it is an American Consequence, that of the Blue Model of governing by political cronyism (those governing blacks are not poverty stricken) and voter bloc captivity by welfare. Crying racism doesn’t work anymore: three of the Baltimore cops are black. And what will happen if they are not convicted? What will the offended burn down then? Will they have to leave their own blackened neighborhoods to find other businesses to loot and burn?

“A Bob Gorrell political cartoon shows a black man in a hoodie and with the stubble of the terminally unemployed, holding up a sign that says: “#BLACK LIVES MATTER (but police, private property and public safety DON’T!)” A Rick McKee cartoon features another black man in a hoodie wearing sunglasses and holding a box with a giant flat-screen TV. Behind him, the city is burning. He says to a little boy, “I burned your neighborhood and looted your stores so that you can live in a more just and fair society. … You’re welcome.

Both of these cartoons exemplify the simple-minded—and racist—idea that looters and protestors are the same because they’re black and live in the same place. Protestors want to promote a political agenda, while looters want swag. Clearly, looters are criminals hurting the cause of the protesters and should be arrested and prosecuted. But when you lump them together and call them all “thugs,” you don’t have to listen to the real issues. It’s the adult equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and humming loudly.”

The thugs were(are) black. That is a fact, not a false racist imprecation. That every black death-by-cop is now subject to two concurrent and possibly epiphenomenal retaliatory events is undeniable. But the King marches were not accompanied by destruction of their own neighborhoods; that did NOT occur simultaneously when Martin Luther King held sway. How are the two actions to be rationally decoupled when they are always concurrent? Are they two separate forms of outrage? Or are they really pretty much the two sides of the same coin?

Further, blacks had less opportunity then than now, when they have affirmative action on their side. They had real oppression, not welfare. There is no comparison.

What exactly do they want, anyway? Here the difference between the American Revolution and the black destruction of their own neighborhoods is stark. The American Declaration of Independence outlines in exquisite detail the offenses of King George which were visited upon the responsible citizenry of the colonies. [Note 1] There is no equivalent documentation of black grievances. In fact, if “black lives matter”, why do they not protest black on black killings? Why do they not protest the incredibly high rate of black abortions by dismemberment of preborn black babies, in killing centers concentrated in black ghettos? Where is Kareem’s outrage for these incredible rates of violent deaths for the young blacks in the USA? Where is the precise solution outlined?

“America was born out of protest. We felt economically suppressed and politically repressed, and we changed things. Slaves weren’t freed by benevolent leaders wanting to do the right thing. No one gave the American worker better and safer conditions out of gratitude for a job well done. Vietnam veterans didn’t get their benefits from an Agent-Orange-denying government by sitting at home waiting patiently. Each time, Americans took to the streets to be heard.”
Slaves were exactly "freed by benevolent leaders wanting to do the right thing", and Kareem’s claim is both ignorant and unjustifiable in the light of real, actual history. The Republican Political Party was formed for that very purpose, and after a war of civil carnage of whites, blacks were freed from slavery by the Republicans, over the protest of the Democrats. Blacks did not free themselves by rioting, and the implication that they did is a flat-out lie. The Democrats converted their oppression of blacks from the slavery model, to the Jim Crow model which persisted for a hundred years. Then the Democrats converted their oppression of blacks to a new model: captivity by welfare, and the welfare state was born and persists to this day. This is the Blue Model which “cares” for blacks so much that it keeps them as barely surviving pets in their ghetto domains.

None of Kareem's examples were accomplished by burning and looting.
“I suggest we all pay attention to what’s happening in Baltimore, because it’s very likely that unless the economic and injustice issues raised there are addressed in a meaningful way across the country, we will be seeing many more Baltimores throughout the election season.”
The vaporous vagueness of these “complaints” is as obvious as the actual lack of concern for black lives. Exactly what “economic and injustice issues” are being raised? Nothing specific, as far as can be seen from this vantage point, unless they want their finances and housing to be automatically on the same par as the responsible community, but without the same responsible behaviors and culture as the responsible community. And that appears to be the case: they want a raise. And they want it now. And they want no policing of their use of that raise.

1. Excerpts from the American Declaration of Independence:
"He [King George] has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already began with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous of ages, and totally unworthy of the the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."


Robert Coble said...

I view Mr. Abdul-Jabbar's jabbering as a thinly-veiled threat that should NOT be ignored. Let us take him at his word. Perhaps he would be willing to "share" (involuntarily, of course) some of his reported $20 MILLION with those THUGS who are desperately trying to just grab a little "swag" for themselves, so that they can continue to enjoy watching him on TV. Or, maybe, just maybe, he might want to start a real business in the "ghetto" part of Baltimore, and watch it be burned to the ground, just to provide a little moral "high ground" for his pronouncements about what "should" be done to appease the THUGS. Maybe he should be peddling a new line of sneakers with platform heels.

". . . When people feel disenfranchised, helpless, and hopeless, they will take to the streets to air their grievances.”

(1) Who has disenfranchised them? BLACK Democrats.

(2) Who has made them feel helpless and told them that they are helpless? BLACK Democrats.

(3) Who has made them feel hopeless and told them that they are hopeless? BLACK Democrats.

(4) Who are they overwhelmingly going to support in perpetuity? BLACK Democrats.

When you have a problem, and you cannot be bothered to investigate the root cause(s) of your problem, then you are bound by the chains of that problem.

Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results is indistinguishable from INSANITY!!

Here is a good link explaining the BAD results of rioting and burning down your own neighborhood as a means to get what you don't currently have.

Riots Just Don't Work

Phoenix said...

What black people fail to understand is that the problem lies in the police department,not in the white race.How many average white citizens go around shooting blacks?There's a pattern worldwide of extreme police brutality,regardless of race.
IMHO,police officers seem more sociopathic than the average citizen.Perhaps they even join the force because of their attraction to violence.

Robert Coble said...

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a "two-fer": he's black and he's Sunni Muslim. That makes him a double winner in the Victimhood sweepstakes. If he would just undergo a gender transformation, he could be a "three-fer". Of course, there is that nasty insinuation that he's part of the greedy "One Percenters" but, what the heck, if Bill and Hillary can play the "dead broke" card while raking in billions through a charitable foundation that provides only 9% to charity, then I'm sure Jabbar can plead poverty and have it believed by the faithful. Or he could do the Michael Moore apology tour for being such a wealthy weasel (who is NOT going to give any of it back). Whatever; I somehow don't think Mr. Jabbar is going to actually get down with the brothers in Baltimore without a security detail.

Regarding the police:

What WHITE (and every other color under the sun) PEOPLE fail to understand is that increased militarization of police departments (and every Federal agency under the sun) will do NOTHING to stop the increasing curtailment of rights and the subsequent government violence against ALL citizens, red and yellow, black and white, and whatever shade you want to use to describe HUMAN BEINGS. In the fear of unrestrained violence are the seeds for demanding that "something" (anything) be done by government. (The Germans tried that in response to the absolutely dreadful economic situation after World War I; examine CAREFULLY what that led to.) Government force may "solve" the problem temporarily by clamping down on those immediately involved, BUT once the government takes away rights, it NEVER relinquishes its grip on the remaining citizenry.

Civil war is already occurring, whether we want it or not. The question will be: what rights do we want to give up in order to suppress it TEMPORARILY?

Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it (and a whole lot more that you didn't really want)!

Robert Coble said...

Another view of Mr. Jabbar's jabber:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Misses the Mark in Baltimore Op-Ed

Stan said...

That's a good article; Here is a pertinent excerpt:

"Firstly, he mentions the regrettable statistic of 70+ deaths of unarmed blacks at the hands of police officers since 1999 around the country. One important death statistic he doesn't mention is that there have been 82 homicides since the beginning of the year, in Baltimore alone. Any Google search of Baltimore shows it has been consistently one of the most violent and lethal cities in the country, for decades.

In all of his comments about injustice or anger, the massive number of Baltimore residents killed by other Baltimore residents isn't mentioned. This an incredibly misplaced focus of discussion. It seems that considering this fact just isn't convenient to the narrative being described: Police-on-citizen brutality is a bigger deal than citizen-on-citizen brutality. But it's just not true. A Baltimore resident is far more likely to be killed by another resident than by law enforcement.

He then considers the horribly dreadful economic circumstances of the city, calling it "the key to understanding the anguish of the protestors in Baltimore." There's no question about the crushing effects a lack of opportunity has on a populace, but Abdul-Jabbar's identification of the responsibility for its existence misses the mark by a mile.

As has been pointed out elsewhere ever since the riots, Democrat politicians and their policies have dominated Baltimore for almost 50 years. Like Detroit, it's a veritable control petri-dish for analyzing the results of lock-step leftist domination of a city. The last Republican mayor was in 1967 and the last non-Democrat President of the City Council was in the mid-1950s.

The results of those policies are crystal clear. They've miserably failed. There are no jobs, no opportunity, a hideous education system, and no hint of changing.

But Abdul-Jabbar doesn't even come close to mentioning this. Instead, he says "How long can you politely ask for someone to throw you a lifeline before the sand swallows you whole?", as if the residents haven't been getting the precise leadership for which they've been voting.

Brutal truths are no less true because of their brutality: the residents of Baltimore are responsible for the results of their leadership's failures. They are the one that put those leaders there in the first place."