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 <;)))><  






10 comments:

Technomad said...

One thing that gets a lot of blacks into trouble that they could easily avoid is that they can not turn off their truculent attitude for a few minutes at a time, even when confronting the cops. Like it or not, the police have sweeping discretion about whom they will arrest and whom they will let go, and being polite and non-confrontational with them often makes the difference.

Unfortunately, in "the hood," being polite and non-confrontational when accosted is an invitation to endless victimization, and many blacks can't turn off the reflexive truculence and borderline hostility that keeps them safe when not in "the hood" any more. Unsurprisingly, police do not react well to being told to f*ck off, particularly when they're merely asking a perfectly civil question. I note that serious crime professionals do not do this; they do not give the police incriminating information, but they do speak to them civilly and politely.

No cop wants to have confrontations with blacks. Even if the cop is totally in the right (see Ferguson) his career is likely to be destroyed, if only by the news media piling on with their favorite narrative of "evil whities picking on poor, poor, innocent blacks." Between this factor and the day-to-day hassle of having to deal with black attitude and non-cooperation, a lot of cops will just "turn a blind eye" to black misbehavior. And that leads to endless trouble, not least for the law-abiding majority of blacks who depend on the cops to at least keep the hoodlums under control.

Leslie Fish said...

So Dr. Thomas Sowell was right; it's their own culture that betrays them. The quickest way I know of to break up that culture is by scattering its breeding-ground. Break up the "hoods" and scatter the populations into new-built towns or neighborhoods -- making *very* sure that they get mixed evenly with working-poor Whites, Spanish, Asians, and even Indians. Add to that abundant local jobs, and that toxic culture will weaken.

Alchemystudiosink said...

Course its with a lot of people. Someone on the outside can see the same patterns of self destructive behavior, but the person who keeps repeating it is convinced that this is the time It'll work. That it isn't them, its society. Etc.

I used to know a person who seemed to be an alright person at first. But the more I knew them, the more they'd do things like "Everyone leaves me, you're going to leave me too! I just know it!" and then they'd threaten suicide. One of the times I caught wind of that, I called in the police to prevent the suicide. It worked.. for a time. And then they were back at the same games again, and managed to pull off a faked suicide. For about a year though we thought it was real. Then they came back again and messaged me, explaining the situation, that they had left and were in rehab again. They would pull money together to DDOS websites that ended up banning them for this kind of behavior.

Another friend is always running into money problems, and has to beg his server of people who gathered to see him make art for more money. He does work full time, but is always a few hundred dollars in the hole, every single week. Every now and again though, he's got a new AAA game, or a shiny new toy. I've tried a few times to help him out. Buying commissions from him. Or trying to help him find some of the places around the city that is cheaper than eating mcdonalds every day. But alas... Can lead a horse to water, but can't make them drink it.

I can only deal with this kind of stuff for so long.

Leslie Fish said...

You simply cannot help people who refuse to help themselves. there's a point where charity has to stop. I'd love to see the WPA and the CCC revived, to rebuild our infrasctructure and replant our forests as well as provide jobs -- and training for anybody who wants one.When there are jobs enough for everyone, there's no excuse for not getting one and you can't blame your troubles on somebody else anymore.

Alchemystudiosink said...

And now here is somethings from across the pond on it..

https://news.sky.com/story/police-officer-karate-kicked-in-violent-attack-on-london-street-11557984

Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation Ken Marsh said police could start letting violent suspects go if the risk is too high.



Let them go, let them go
Uk doesn't arrest criminals anymore...

Might try to finish that song out when I got time.

Leslie Fish said...

Waive, Britannia! Britannia waives the rules!
Britons ever, ever, ever shall be fools!

Paradoctor said...

Self-destructive behavior by the poor and powerless is well publicized; but what of self-destructive behavior by the rich and powerful? A global bank meltdown here, a couple of stock bubbles there, some pointless pre-lost wars here and there, plus massive policy failures... underestimate the cost of each of those idiocies at a trillion bucks each, and already you've reached six terabux pissed into the void. Compared to that, underclass folly is cheap.

What to do about underclass folly? Threaten to make them even poorer. What to do about overclass folly? Promise to make them even richer. That'll teach 'em! But teach them what?

Here's a question even bigger than how much to reward whose failures: namely, do societies possess free will? If not, then they will robotically follow the course of empire into the ditch, no matter how often forewarned. If they do possess intelligence and choice, then what guarantee have you that they will intelligently choose in your favor?

Leslie Fish said...

Societies do indeed possess free will, and they also have the ability to fragment and scatter into smaller societies which can then grow. The poor and powerless, having no financial or political padding against the consequences of their actions, tend to learn more from observation than the rich, who can afford to lie to themselves.

Technomad said...

The actual African-born blacks I have met (working and other places) detest American blacks. The African-born (and a lot of the Caribbean-born) are hard-working, often fiercely self-respecting, and no worse, on the average, than anybody else. Then they see themselves being lumped in with the ghetto trash, and resent the ghetto types bitterly for making them look bad. Kind of like how a lot of Italian-Americans hated the Mafia worse than anybody else, because they were the ones the Mafia often victimized, and the Mafia made them all look bad.

imnotalone said...

I'd like to introduce into the discussion a part of history that is rarely mentioned.
Given its significance I believe it should be included whenever the War between the States is brought up.

The Corwin Amendment, passed in the House by a vote of 133 to 65 in favor on Feb, 1861.
The Senate approved by a vote of 24 to 12, on Mar 2, 1861.
The proposed amendment was now set for adoption of the states. This was before the first shots were fired at Ft Sumter.
The Corwin Amendment would have preserved the institution of slavery indefinitely.
The reason I bring this up, is to point out had war been fought over slavery exclusively, there wouldn't have been a need for war. So, could there have been other issues at play? I think there were, namely the newly enacted Morrill Tariff Act. Which would have placed an even greater burden on the South. The Tariff of 1828 had already placed a tariff of 38% on 92% of the south's imports. This already been a contention leading up to Lincoln's election. The interesting thing about this, is that Lincoln had no objection with offering the amendment. I think it sheds some light on Lincoln's real intention, and that was protecting the economic dominance.

Oh, well. Just thought some of you might find this of interest.