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.

NOTES:
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."

Creepy Uncle Joe Wants To Emancipate Wealth

Black History Biden: Veep calls for 'emancipation' of people's wealth

"Vice President Joe Biden used a Black History Month event at his official residence Monday night to decry the rich, both white and black, for stunting economic growth and suggested that “emancipation” is in order.

“A lot of wealthy white and black people aren't bad but they control 1 percent of the economy and this cannot stand,” Biden told about 100 guests, including past civil rights activists and NBC weatherman Al Roker.

RELATED: Why is the press ignoring Joe Biden's 2016 ambition?

“It's not fair because the business experts are saying that concentration of wealth is stunting growth. So let's do something that's worthy of emancipation,” said Biden, according to a press pool report of the event.

Then, explaining the impact of Civil War era emancipation, Biden concluded, “What happened is not only did we move toward freeing black Americans but also the conscience of white Americans.”

Those who know anything - ANYTHING - about black history, know that it was Democrats who opposed liberation, Democrats who instituted segregation and Jim Crow, Democrats who desperately fought against every Civil Rights Law, and Democrats who keep funding the Democrat ghetto plantations and black abortion factories.

Democrats, after Lyndon Johnson, started lying about their racism and changed the tactics of their Class War to appear that they wanted to save blacks from the Republicans. In fact, during the prior 100 years the Republicans passed around a dozen Civil Rights Laws which Democrats fought with every base tactic they could devise.

That's all real black history.

Emancipation of blacks was against Democrat policy. But emancipating wealth certainly is certainly their dream. But it is not really the uberwealthy they want to strip; that's just a head fake. They want to "normalize" everyone's wealth, except for themselves and their cronies.

Forgotten History of Blacks, Democrats and Republicans

I am excerpting and paraphrasing the first portion of a totally necessary book for every library: “American History in Black and White”, by David Barton, WallBuilder Press, 2004. This book focuses on the race history of the USA, much of which has been kept out of history books, for reasons which will become obvious. The book is heavily annotated with 41 pages of endnotes and bibliography.

Understanding the actual historical backgrounds of the two political parties is essential in this time of political lies and class warfare.


American history that has been forgotten and/or obscured.

Chronology, abbreviated:
1619. The “first slave ship arrived in the Massachusetts Colony set up by Christian Pilgrims and Puritans. Ship’s officers were arrested, imprisoned and the kidnapped slaves were returned to Africa at the colony’s expense”.

1776. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were anti-slave ownership.

1776. American army was fully integrated during the Revolution.

1787. Signers of the U.S. Constitution were divided between Northern abolitionists and Southern slave-owners. The southern slave-owners wanted to count their slaves as part of the population in order to swell their number of congressional representatives (without giving them any rights as humans). The North responded that they would count their possessions too, then, including cows, horses and sheep. The compromise was for each slave to count as 3/5; this somewhat reduced the number of representatives for the slave states, giving them less power to keep slavery viable. This ratio in no manner represented the human value of the slave; it was merely intended to limit southern over-representation in Congress.

1789. Congress expanded its non-slavery constituency by passing the Northwest Ordinance, which added territories and forbade slavery in all federal territories. Ultimately Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin all eventually became free states.

Some slave states began dividing to increase their representation: Kentucky out of Virginia; Tennessee out of North Carolina.

1792. Thomas Jefferson formed the Democrat Party.

1793. First Fugitive Slave Act was passed, requiring the return of run-away slaves.

1808. Congress abolished slave trade.

1820. Now the Democrat Party was dominant political party. The Democrats reversed slavery policy by permitting it in the Missouri Compromise territories. “For the first time since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy.”

1837. The Underground Railroad started, in New York. Free Blacks were being kidnapped and sent south as slaves. The Underground Railroad was begun as a path back to freedom.
(“Gateway to Freedom”, Eric Foner, WW Norton & Co, 2015.)

1850. “Several other pro-slavery laws were passed by the Democrats in Congress, including the Second Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines”. This effectively brought forced participation in slavery to northern Free States, angering northerners.

This Act encouraged southerners to become slave-hunters and to kidnap even Free Blacks in the north and take them back into slavery. If a black were even accused of being an escaped slave, he could be taken with no rights, no jury trial, no habeas corpus, back South and into slavery.

1854. Democratic Congress passed Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanded slavery into all of the Kansas-Nebraska Territory, where it had previously been forbidden. Pro-slavery “forces” poured onto the territories, leading to violent battles against the anti-slavery residents; this was called “Bleeding Kansas”.

1854. Anti-slavery Democrats in Congress, with anti-slavery Whigs, Free-Soilers, Emancipationists, “formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans: the Republicans".

1856. One of the founders of the Republican Party, Charles Sumner, gave a two day speech against slavery in the Senate. A US Representative, Preston Brooks from South Carolina came across the Rotunda to the Senate and literally clubbed down Sumner to the floor, knocking him unconscious, nearly killing him. It took Sumner three and one-half years to return to the senate, where upon his return his first speech was anti-slavery.

Democrat Preston Brooks was “proclaimed a hero and easily reelected to Congress”.

1856. Republicans ran john C Fremont for President on a platform with nine planks, six of which were civil rights for blacks; Democrats ran James Buchanan, and warned against “diminished happiness” if abolition were pursued.

1857. Democrat controlled US Supreme Court made the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had “no rights to which the white man was bound to respect; and the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” Democrat President Buchanan pressured at least one US justice to vote against Dred Scott (for slavery). Chief Justice Taney, a former slave holder, wrote what is now considered “the worst decision in the history of the court”, including invalidating the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, all of which was just to favor slavery.

Democrats were joyful; Republicans and Northern Democrats were enraged. The lines were drawn.

1860. Abraham Lincoln, Republican, won the presidency on a platform against the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision. The Democrat platform supported both of those. “In fact, the Democrats handed out copies of the Dred Scott decision along with their platform to affirm their belief that it was proper to have slavery and to hold African Americans in bondage”.

The Republicans had taken control of Congress and the Presidency. Democrats left Congress to set up their own nation, the Confederacy of slave states. “State’s Rights” meant to the Confederate Democrats that every state had the right to decide whether to have slaves. “According to official Southern documents - slavery was THE primary distinction between the North and the South”. Ultimately it became the Democrat cry and was used for segregation and institutional discrimination.

Conclusion:
This is a loose summary of just the first part of the book, which contains much more detailed information. I recommend: Get a copy somehow, and read it. Some of this also comes from “Gateway to Freedom”, Eric Foner, WW Norton & Co, 2015, regarding “the hidden history of the underground railroad”.