Saturday, November 17, 2018

"Unintended Consequences" and deeper meanings


I'd been planning to follow up on they amazing election mess in Florida (gee, Democrats cheat on elections?  Who knew?) when I came across this chillingly brilliant article from "Emmanuel", 11/14/18:

{ BLACK MINISTER ASKS “WHAT IF WHITES STRIKE BACK AGAINST RACE-BAITERS AND RACE-WARMONGERS?”
by Mychal S. Massie

It would serve race mongers well to consider that even a docile old dog will bite you if you mistreat it often enough and long enough. Tangential to same is the reality of the “laws of unintended consequences."

I’m tired of seeing, reading, and hearing white people blamed for everything from black boys not being able to read to whites being privileged because of the color of their skin. If I am tired of these Americans being used as scapegoats to further the agenda of race mongers, then it is a sure bet that those being unjustly vilified are especially weary of same.

his isn’t 1860 and it certainly isn’t 1955. There are no slaves in America and there are no Jim Crow laws dictating access based on skin color. Specific to that point it is time to remind people like Obama, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panther Party that the racial discord they are fomenting can become the harbinger of their own peril.

Obama foments racial unrest and a racial divide to further his neo-Leninist agenda. Sharpton foments racial unrest for personal gain. The New Black Panther Party foments racial hostilities and the demonization of whites in the foolish belief they can bring about a Western version of apartheid where blacks rule.

Too many blacks have lost sight of the fact that it was Africans who were responsible for the enslavement of other Africans. It was war, invasion, conquest, and various caste systems that contributed to slavery. And although one would be hard-pressed to believe it from the invented myths that masquerade as fact, persons of color were not the only slaves.

From Genesis to the Sudan of today, slavery has been a staple around the world. And it should be noted that given the first opportunity in America, the former slaves of color became owners of those whose skin color matched theirs.

But unlike the rest of the world, America had the good sense and decency to end slavery. In America, there is no caste system, and yet at every turn we are bombarded with how bad blacks have it because of whites and how unfair the so-called “white system” is to blacks.

All people, including those who are here illegally, have it better in America than they would have it anywhere else on earth. And yet blacks are encouraged to blame their ills on whites.

Therein the “laws of unintended consequences” come into play. America has shed the blood of her people on her own soil to ensure the freedom of all Americans. Americans joined hands with blacks to end Jim Crow. And, to the detriment of all concerned, political correctness and guilt have contributed to discrimination against whites vis-a`-vis race-based affirmative action initiatives.

Still the bastardization of whites continues. White law enforcement personnel are labeled racist for defending themselves against black criminals, especially when bad things happen to the black criminals.

To put it succinctly, the single greatest non-biblical truth today is that many times the majority of blacks are their own worst enemies. Many blacks go through life with a chip on their shoulder and bad attitudes toward whites. Many blacks growing up in dysfunctional single parent or no parent homes are loathe to realize that their lives are the result of bad decisions made by their families that adversely affect their adulthood – its not the white man.

But as I said, there is a thing called “the laws of unintended consequences.” To that end, sooner or later a pendulum reaches its arc and starts to swing back in the other direction.

How long before white people, many of whom are growing increasingly resentful at being falsely maligned, decide to respond in kind? How much longer will whites stand by and allow the likes of Sharpton and Obama to continually cast them as racist villains?

If the 1915 silent movie, The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith, which depicted blacks as unintelligent and sexual predators of white women, (which was a lie) gave rise to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan, what can we expect to be brought about by the heathen behavior of many blacks today?

Many blacks are quick to attack those of us who condemn the untoward, barbaric behavior of some blacks. They curse us for not glossing over their behavior and for not engaging in “blame whitey.” But if a phony movie was able to give rise to at least two generations of condemnation of blacks, what will the in-your-face belligerent hostilities so many of them exhibit today ultimately result in?

America has figuratively bent over backward to assuage its perceived guilt but for many blacks that is not good enough. They accuse and self-alienate but do nothing to incorporate the greatness of America into their lives.

How much longer will America allow blacks to vilify those who have done them no harm – even as blacks attack, terrorize, and condemn those who truly do just want to get along?


( SIDE NOTE FROM MATT DUNCAN, Editor:)
In 2013 the US Census Bureau estimated there are 45,003,665 African Americans in the United States, meaning that 14.1% of the total American population of 316.1 Million is Black. To put things in perspective, the US Census Bureau estimated that White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population.

No one with any shred of intelligence wants to see a race war break out in neighborhoods across America. Why? Because MANY innocent men, women and children would lose their lives at the hands of the thuggery that was witnessed in Ferguson, Baltimore, Milwaukee, New Orleans and abroad.

I realize that math isn’t a strength for a lot of people but those on the left who seem hell-bent on inciting a race war need to take a few steps back and realize that numbers are not on their side. }


DETAIL:  I recently saw a restored version of the original "Birth of a Nation", and studied purely as film it deserves its standing as a classic.  Never mind the corny plot and bigoted attitudes;  there are cinematic techniques invented in this film that have been the foundation of film every since.  Perhaps precisely because of its lack of color and sound, the camera-work itself became amazingly precise and expressive.

There's one particular shot which is not only worth the price of the film but which actually counteracts the whole theme of the plot, and I wish I knew the camera-man who composed it.  If it was Griffith himself, then he was a lot more conflicted on the subject of race than most people know.

It's during the scene where the black Union soldier is stalking the white teenage virgin with Evil Intent while she innocently picks flowers.  As he pushes further through the flowering fruit-trees, there's a moment where his head is framed by flowers.

And right there is a long motionless close-up of his smooth and gleaming coal-black face, surrounded by feathery stars of small snow-white flowers, which is stunningly beautiful.  His face isn't gross and ugly;  he's actually quite a handsome man.  His expression isn't lustful and cruel;  it's intent and thoughtful.  If the shot was meant to symbolize menace and intent-to-deflower the girl, then it backfires completely.

The contrast with the next shot, which is a long-distance scene of the soldier clumsily galumphing up to the girl and grabbing her wrist, is so extreme that they might have belonged to two different movies.  In fact, nowhere in the rest of the film is there a shot as good as that.

The one place in early film where I've seen a shot comparable to that one is in another black-and-white classic, which is almost soundless: "The Jazz Singer".  It's during the "decision" scene, when the breakaway-secular Jewish singer is about to perform for his big opening night when his fiance comes to his dressing-room to tell him that his father is dying, and only wants to hear his son sing the "Kol Nidre" one more time.  The singer has to decide which he'll go sing for: his secular success or his family's need.  There's another extreme close-up as he chooses his family.  "It's the call of my blood," he explains solemnly -- and his face is painted a uniform coal-black as he says it.  And by the way, the first song sung on film is not "Mammy";  it's "Kol Nidre".

Considering how much meaning is compressed into those two shots, I have to wonder if the same camera-man composed them both.


--Leslie <;)))><  






Sunday, November 4, 2018

Blasphemy Laws and Asia Bibi


First understand that Pakistan included laws against "blasphemy" in its legal code when it was partitioned off from India, and became its own country, in 1947.  Its first such law defined "blasphemy" as: "Uttering of any word or making any sound or making any gesture or placing of any object in the sight with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person" and had a penalty of one year in prison, or a fine, or both. Note how similar this is to "Hate Speech" laws in the US and other Western countries. 

At the time, the population of Pakistan was 85% Muslim and 15% everything else: Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish.  Over the next several decades, the Muslim majority demanded more and more elaborate blasphemy laws, which somehow were always enforced on the minority-religion populations.  Those minority-religion populations have been shrinking ever since.  The Jews were the first to see the handwriting on the wall and move out;  today their descendants live in the U.S., Canada, Israel and India, and there are just 745 Jewish families left in Pakistan.    Buddhists went next;  there are fewer than 1900 of them left in the country.  The Hindus fared better, probably because of India right next door.  HIndus comprise nearly 2% of the population, which makes Hinduism the 2nd largest religion in Pakistan.  However, at least 5000 Hindus per year emigrate to India -- frankly to avoid legal discrimination and harassment from the Muslims.

In the past decade or so the blatantly Muslim government of Pakistan has turned on the Christians, who make up the third-largest religion in the country.  In 2005 there were 2.5 million Christians, or 1.6% of the total population.  Then the "blasphemy" laws changed again, making "any insult against the Prophet" punishable by death.  Assorted Muslims began using the "blasphemy" laws quite freely -- against Christians -- as excuse to swindle property, shut down business rivals, or excuses to riot and kill Christians in increasingly large lots.  

Now, for the past 20 years or so, the Pakistan govt. has divided pretty evenly between three agendas: the Jihadists, who side with the Taliban and want to hurry up the Jihadist takeover of the world;  the pro-western faction, which sees better rewards and more money in siding with the western democracies;  and the opportunists, who play off one side against the other for the money.  This explains why Pakistan didn't complain too much about the US sending troops into Pakistan to take out Osama Bin Laden, as well as why the govt. was sheltering Bin Laden in the first place.  

 So let's look back to June, 2009.  A group of women -- one Christian, Asia Bibi, and the rest Muslim -- were harvesting fruit when, according to the BBC,a row broke out over a bucket of water.  "The women said that because she had used a cup, they could no longer touch it, as her faith had made it unclean.  Prosecutors alleged that in the row which followed, the women said Asia Bibi should convert to Islam and that she made offensive comments about the Prophet Muhammad in response.  She was later beaten up at her home, during which her accusers say she confessed to blasphemy. She was arrested after a police investigation."

She then spent the next 9 years in prison, going through appeals against the death penalty.  Finally her appeal reached the Pakistani Supreme Court.
"In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted her, saying that the case was based on unreliable evidence and her confession was delivered in front of a crowd 'threatening to kill her'." But they didn't let her out of prison.
Meanwhile, her husband is pleading for asylum -- for himself, and Bibi, and their two children -- in the UK, US or Canada, saying that innocent or no, they were all in great danger if they stayed in Pakistan.  Why?  Because (BBC): "Her acquittal sparked violent protests, and the government has now agreed to try to stop her leaving the country.  On Saturday, her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life."
In other words, the pro-Taliban Jihadist faction is threatening riots, showing its muscle, to intimidate the other two factions.  It's not at all worried about what the rest of the world will think about the end result of "blasphemy laws".  
So, what can the western nations -- and particularly the US -- do about this?  For one thing, it can counter-intimidate the other two factions by threatening to cut off the money.  Sanctions yes, foreign aid no, until Bibi and her whole family are safe -- probably in Canada.  One thing the Jihadists love as much as conquest is money.  The Trump administration has been steadily cutting off the Jihadists' money supply, and the lack is beginning to be felt.  Yes, the Jihadists -- and the other Pakistani factions -- would happily sell a Christian family for money.
And if the US turns the money-spigot back on, once Bibi and family are safe, well, we can always turn it back off again when the Pakistani govt. performs its next atrocity.

--Leslie <;)))><