Search Results

Keyword: ‘What the Response to the Killing of Black Men Reveals About the USA’

What the Response to the Killing of Black Men Reveals About the USA: 3

December 21, 2014 11 comments

In the previous part of this series, I talked about how the inability of politicians to control cops was a sign that the USA has become an unsuccessful and unstable tyranny- one where nobody is recognized as being in charge of the overall situation. While I was initially going to talk a bit more about how this lack of a clear hierarchy destabilizes modern nation states, events in the last couple of days have made me push that more scholarly discussion into a later part. I shall instead write a bit about that particular incident – Man Shoots, Kills Two NYC Cops “Execution Style,” Apparently as Revenge for Garner, Brown.

The gunman appears to have traveled to New York specifically to kill police officers as he allegedly wrote Instagram posts in which he expressed a desire for revenge for the killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. “I’m putting wings on pigs today,” he wrote, according to the screen capture of the Instagram post. “They take one of ours … let’s take 2 of theirs. This may be my final post.” He then signed off: “I’m putting pigs in a blanket.” Witnesses say the gunman did not appear to hesitate, shooting several rounds into the car. “The perp came out of the houses, walked up behind the car and lit them up,” a police official said. Another witness told the Daily News: “He just walked up and shot that cop in the head.”

Now, as most of you also know- the guy who executed those cops also killed (or seriously injured?) his ex-GF. So what can we make out of all this? How do we classify the actions of Ismaaiyl Brinsley? Was he a black guy who stood up for injustice or just somebody who wanted to kill for the sake of killing? Well.. here are my thoughts on that topic. Firstly, it is almost always impossible to classify incidents and people without the benefit of considerable hindsight. For example- the people who led the Russian revolution were criminals until they succeeded and became national heroes and then rulers. We may never know what precise combination of circumstances and beliefs drove Gavrilo Princip to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, and thereby starting WW1. Nonetheless, the effects of the successful 1917 revolution and WW1, and the lasting effects of both events (including WW2) caused many seismic changes and shifts throughout the world.

The effects and legacy of any event or person, especially their representation in subsequent popular culture, bear little resemblance to how they were perceived at the time those events actually occured.

Consider, for example, the well-documented fact that most of those signed the american declaration of independence in 1776 were slave owners who bought and sold human beings like livestock. I have always found it funny that people who wrote about the intrinsic equality and rights of all men went back to torturing, killing and profiting of the labors of black slaves after they adjourned their pompous meetings. While most american morons still revere them as the “founding fathers” of the USA, and objective person would see them for what they really were- extremely greedy, deceptive and sadistic slave owners whose gamble of establishing an independent country paid of. The fact that white slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson are seen as enlightened human beings is almost exclusively due to the downstream effects of them accidentally hitting the jackpot. If events had proceeded differently, the world would have just remembered them as greedy and sophistic white slave owners. Therefore “facts” such as the “criminal record” of black men who shoot cops or are killed by cops are intrinsically meaningless and worthless.

To better understand such incidents and their downstream effects we have to first understand their context – as best as we can.

Doing so requires us to factor in obvious pieces of information such as the what preceded those events as well as their socio-economic context and less obvious ones such as the world they occurred in. While trying to objectively understand the preceding events and socio-economic context of such events is fairly straightforward, understanding the implications of the less obvious factors can be complicated. So let us begin with the more easy to understand parts of the context underlying such events. Slavery, specifically the enslavement and exploitation of black people, is a very important part of the foundation of american and american-style capitalism. Unfortunately, many white americans including those whose ancestors gained little from such practices like to ignore this fact. But the legacy of pre-1865 slavery is only part of the problem.

Indeed, the systemic legalized abuse, murder, exploitation and systemic impoverishment of blacks in the USA in the post-1865 constitutes the larger part of this problem. Whether it was Jim Crow laws in the post-reconstruction South or more subtle legalized abuse and impoverishment of blacks at the same time in the North- it is fair to say that laws were always used to abuse blacks while letting whites pretend to be fair, at least in their own minds. It is also no surprise that laws that were supposed to be “tough on crime” and “imprison druggies” started becoming popular at around the same time as the Civil rights movements started gaining legislative victories in the late-1960s. As some of you might already know, the war on drugs is basically Jim Crow version 2.0. And this brings me to an important concept.

The relationship between most (especially older) whites and blacks in the USA has more in common with apartheid-era South Africa and other now defunct post-WW2 white colonies in Africa than most white americans will ever want to accept.

Consequently, no amount of non-violent protests and appeals to the decency of american whites (especially CONservatives) will ever fundamentally change this situation. I mean, how can you appeal to the basic decency of american whites (especially CONservatives) when they have none? All of these marches, die-ins, protests, hashtag “activism” and calls for legislative fixes have the same likelihood as succeeding as they had in erstwhile african colonies of western countries. Non-violent movements only appear to succeed in achieving change if the option is significantly worse for the abusers. And this brings us to the issue of how western colonies in Africa ceased to exist.

The downfall and eventual demise of western colonization of Africa was brought about by a combination of circumstances in the aftermath of WW2. However, the single most important factor that led to the demise of western colonies in Africa was the spread of soviet anti-personal weapons such as the AK-47. Once this occurred, it became virtually impossible for white colonists in Africa to ever feel physically secure enough to profit from exploiting the people. Empires and colonial systems cannot make a worthwhile profit if the areas they claim control over are too unsafe for centralized economic activity. Eventually the cost of suppressing near constant uprisings and military casualties (especially indirect) ensure that empire or colony is unprofitable.

Now, I am not claiming that the lessons of destroying western colonialism in Africa can be applied to the USA. As you know, the USA is still technically a white majority (but not for long) society. While its white population is rapidly aging and has sub-replacement level fertility, it might be able to hold on to absolute power for a decade or so longer. However that is not the real Achilles heel of the USA. Its real shortcoming is that there is not much substance left to back up its old image of supremacy. If you want to be objective about it, the USA is best described as a country that exports entertainment, porn, expensive and useless weapons and the pretense of being a safe place for investment.

To put it another way, the power of white USA in the real world is now mostly based on lies, scams, fiction and window-dressing.

Think of white USA as an aging woman who has undergone countless cosmetic procedure and put on tons of makeup to look more youthful and vital than she really is. Taking apart such an entity starts with demonstrating the reality under all that plastic surgery and makeup. The loss of image control made possible via decentralized media, especially the internet, has exposed people around the world to the grim reality under the glossy facade of the USA. However that by itself is not enough to make modern nation states fall apart.

If you have studied the fall of modern nation states over the last hundred years, one factor keeps popping up with remarkable regularity in places as diverse as the Middle-East and Eastern-Europe. It can be best described as the constriction of normal socio-economic discourse caused by overreaction by the security forces (enforcers) or by privileging them over the rest. We have seen this work in slow motion in post WW2 communist countries as well as numerous “countries” in the Middle-East. Personally, I do not see evil systems coming apart from runaway auto-immune reactions as a bad thing- do you?

I will write more about this particular issue in a future post.

What do you think? Comments?

What the Response to the Killing of Black Men Reveals About the USA: 2

December 7, 2014 13 comments

Following on from my previous post in this series, I shall now try to answer a set of related and important questions that almost nobody seems to be asking. They are as follows.

Why are the police so dogged in their refusal to publicly accept that they might make mistakes? What do they really stand to lose from occasional gestures of contrition, even if they are insincere and meant for public displays? But perhaps more importantly, why are elected officials apparently unwilling or unable to pressure police departments to publicly lose a little?

As you will soon see, the last question in that set is far from trivial. Throughout human history, successful tyrannical regimes have always spent a considerable amount of time on making sure that they were feared but not hated. To this end, successful tyrants always made sure that low-level enforcers of the regime who overstepped their bounds and bought disrepute to the tyrant were quickly punished for their excesses. As is often the case, the reasons for punitive action against low-level enforces who brought disrepute to the regime were motivated by the self-interest of the regime.

Most of these reasons boil down to two interlinked issues. Firstly, excessively tyrannical low-level enforcers result in the regime being hated rather than simply feared. A hated regime will always cause the affected subjects to rebel against the regime or try to sabotage it- neither of which are desirable from the standpoint of the tyrant and his cronies accumulating wealth and power. Secondly, low-level flunkies in the department of oppression require periodic reminders that they are just low-level flunkies. Tyrants do not like people who dream of usurping their position.

What does this say about the current situation when elected politicians seems unwilling or unable to reign in the low-level flunkies in the department of oppression?

Well.. there are two ways to look at it. You can either believe that the politicians are unwilling to reign in the police because that is what they want them do. However, the demographic-racial profile of, and the electoral situation in, the USA is such that willingly ignoring such problems is a good recipe for losing power- especially at the national level. A related possibility, namely that politicians are expecting these problems to blow over before the next series of elections (like in the days before internet) has some merit. However the sheer number and frequency of cops murdering and beating up people combined with the ubiquity of people using the internet means that hoping the problem will go away is a naive assumption.

But what if there is another explanation for this reticence by the political class to condemn cops who commit murders? What if they are actually unable to do so?

Towards the beginning of this post, I casually mentioned the concept of “successful tyrannies”. So what makes some tyrannies successful and long-lived? It comes down to rational centralization of power and a clear chain of authority that ultimately gives one semi-competent (or better) person the final say on any subject in his realm. Unsuccessful tyrannies, in contrast, have many competing centers of power involved in a continuous game of one-upmanship. And this brings us another question.

Is the USA a representative democracy or a tyranny masquerading as a democracy?

Now, I am sure that readers of this post will have their own beliefs about the “right” answer for this question. However I am not interested in answers based in personal beliefs or books- because those answers are really about what you believe or want to see. Let me show you another way to look at this question.

Does the USA, as a society, function largely on the basis of constant explicit and implicit threats or does it function on the basis of a melange of individual calculations, some goodwill, some fear and some guilt?

Well.. in my opinion, the functioning of american society has become increasingly dependent on the constant application of explicit and implicit threats. While we can certainly argue about whether that was always the case, it is quite clear that there was a period from the 1930s to the 1970s when optimism and belief in a better future was the driving force for people keeping up their end of the social contract. The end of this era, in the late 1970s, signaled the beginning of an age where repression combined with explicit and implicit threats has gradually became the norm of making the system function- for enriching the top 1% and 0.1%.

The USA is therefore functionally identical to a tyranny. The real question is- are the people running this tyranny united and competent or divided and incompetent.

Russia and China provide good examples of what successful tyrannies look and function like. In both countries there is a very well-defined, uncontested and publicly known chain of command and power that pretty much everybody in those countries is well aware of. While those at lower levels in the power structure have some autonomy and perks, they are perfectly disposable and dispensable if they screw up or do anything that causes public embarrassment or loss of face for those at the top. Everyone in the setup, including the flunkies who staff the oppression apparatus know their place and leeway in the system.

In contrast to Russia or China, the USA lacks the highly centralized and efficient human infrastructure of a tyranny even though it operates as one. Consequently there are multiple centers of power and members of each group are locked in an unintentional but eternal struggle with members of the other centers. This low intensity civil war between multiple power centers results in the formation (and subsequent dissolution) of numerous temporary alliances between groups who often don’t have much common ground or interests.

The studied silence of politicians in the face of cop atrocities is therefore a sign of the inability of their group to exert influence on a nominally subordinate group.The shortsighted unwillingness of police to acknowledge either administrative concerns or public opinion is best seen as the result of a situation where nobody is perceived to be in charge of the system. To summarize this post, the largely uncontested and unpunished cop brutality evident in the USA today is a sign of that the country has become an unsuccessful and unstable tyranny- one where nobody is recognized as being in charge of the overall situation.

What do you think? Comments?

What the Response to the Killing of Black Men Reveals About the USA: 1

December 5, 2014 20 comments

As many of you know, the last few months have seen many highly publicized incidents of state sanctioned extra-judicial murders of unarmed black men. While there is some variation in the exact circumstances of each “incident”- it is clear that all of the publicized incidents from the shooting death of Michael Brown, the choking death of Eric Gardner, the shooting of Tamir Rice to the shooting Akai Gurley have some peculiar similarities.

1. In all these incidents, the extra-judicially executed black men posed no real physical threat to the cops who murdered them.

2. In every single one of these cases the decision to kill the black man in question was made very hastily and under circumstances that do not stand up to scrutiny.

3. After the murder, the local police and the lackeys in the MSM tried to uncover any “evidence” that might cast the murder victims in a poor light.

4. Perhaps most curiously, in each case the police did not attempt to provide medical assistance after the shooting or promptly call for EMS.

5. In every single case, the police have spent a lot of time and effort trying to deny or tarnish the legitimacy of community outrage against what is clearly murder.

So what is going on? Why are white cops killing unarmed black men? And why are these incidents attracting so much attention even though the murder victims are not supposedly the “perfect” black murder victim.

The cynical among you, and me, would say that white cops killing unarmed black men is actually how the american “justice” system was mean to work.

The murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Sam Shepherd, and countless thousands of others at the hands of American law enforcement are not aberrations, or betrayals, or departures. The acquittals of their killers are not mistakes. There is no virtuous innermost America, sullied or besmirched or shaded by these murders. This is America. It is not broken. It is doing what it does.

Policing in America is not broken. The judicial system is not broken. American society is not broken. All are functioning perfectly, doing exactly what they have done since before some of this nation’s most prosperous slave-murdering robber-barons came together to consecrate into statehood the mechanisms of their barbarism. Democracy functions. Politicians, deriving their legitimacy from the public, have discerned the will of the people and used it to design and enact policies that carry it out, among them those that govern the allowable levels of violence which state can visit upon citizen.

Taken together with the myriad other indignities, thefts, and cruelties it visits upon black and brown people, and the work common white Americans do on its behalf by telling themselves bald fictions of some deep and true America of apple pies, Jesus, and people being neighborly to each other and betrayed by those few and nonrepresentative bad apples with their isolated acts of meanness, the public will demands and enables a whirring and efficient machine that does what it does for the benefit of those who own it. It processes black and brown bodies into white power.

I quoted the three best paragraphs from that article on deadspin.com because they say what almost no MSM journalist aka presstitute would dare to imply, let alone say loudly. So the state-sanctioned and nominally extra-judicial murder of black men is actually business as usual. Of course, there have been some superficial cosmetic changes since the “good old days” when good, god-fearing white christian families posed alongside the mutilated corpses of lynched black men.

Today the killings are done by a few people with uniforms and without the pomp and ceremony that accompanied the murder of black men in previous eras. While such changes were probably disappointing to all those small-dicked, god-fearing, white christian men- it allowed the american government to pretend that it had ended overt racism. Also, it was kinda hard to lecture other countries about “democracy” and “the rule of law” when it was obvious that you were full of shit.

This transformation in state policy occurred between the 1930s (last public lynchings) and the immediate aftermath of the 1968 riots (post-MLK assassination) and was made possible by two factors. Firstly- the government was able to stop public lynchings of black men and replace them with murder by cop. Secondly- the almost exclusively white mainstream media could be relied upon to withhold information, spread disinformation and generally act as the governments handmaiden. This state of affairs held until the Rodney King incident in 1992 when an amateur video recording of a bunch of white cops beating a black man eventually caused a riot in the second largest city in the USA.

But even then, the government was able to use the mainstream media to eventually bring things under control. As many of you know, mainstream media was able to dominate public conversation at that time because there was no cheap or inexpensive way to broadcast your message, thoughts or video clips in the pre- or early- internet era. We also got dozens of “Law and Order” and “CIS” shows that tried very hard to brainwash simple-minded people that the system was just and fair. But then the second (FB/ Twitter/ YouTube/ Huffingtonpost) and third (smartphone) internet wave happened and caused irreversible changes to the underlying system conditions.

The proliferation of the products of the second wave enhanced content sharing in addition to destroying the financial stability of traditional mainstream media- especially print. Using products of the second internet wave also exposed people to ideas and concepts that they probably never had previously heard about in addition to tearing down the public images and facades of the product of mainstream media- from “experts” to famous journalists and the themes of popular TV shows. It is no secret that pretty much all of the older hit TV sitcoms would have never reached their iconic stature in the post-internet age.

And this brings us to the first reason why the old setup cannot suppress or explain away the state-sanctioned murder of black men. To put it simply, the MSM which was the main tool of the american government to control and shape public discourse has lost credibility- even in the eyes of many younger whites. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself- when is the last time you made your kind about something exclusively based on what you read in the newspaper, saw on the news or heard on the radio show? Don’t remember.. ya, I thought so.

The second and related reason for this change is that ubiquitous presence of digital camera in smartphones make recording and sharing of controversial incidents extremely easy. And then there is the issue of ubiquitous private surveillance cameras. It is therefore no surprise that we now often have multiple video clips for a single incident of white cops murdering a black man. The old strategy of using the sworn testimony of supposedly “truthful” white cops to counter accusations by black men and women just does not work well, if at all, anymore.

The third, and perhaps just as important reason, for the change resides in how blacks and increasingly marginalized whites now see the system. You might recall that the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s spent a lot of effort in trying to find the “right” black victim. They did so in the mistaken belief that appealing to the decency of white people was a good strategy. Well.. it wasn’t.

It is no secret the the mass public incarceration and disenfranchisement of black men began after the apparent success of the civil right movement. Over those decades, most younger blacks and increasingly marginalized whites have realized that appealing to the sense of justice and fairness of hypocritical CONservative whites is a futile exercise. That is why the supposed minor “criminal” records of the black victims have no effect on the willingness of people to demand justice for them.

Will write much more in upcoming parts of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Older Posts about the Problem of Police Murdering Black People

June 1, 2020 30 comments

As some readers will remember, I have been writing for many years about what state-approved lynching of black people, especially men, by cops says about american society. Needless to say, my observations about this phenomenon go beyond blaming the cops (who are guilty, of course) to issues such as the intersection of racism and capitalism in a rapidly declining empire. And yes.. what we are seeing now (in post-1965 era) has a much more to do with maintaining the cosmetic appearance of a terminally declining order than actually achieving anything substantive. Think of it as the cosplay accompanying the ongoing final decline of an empire- and read the above-linked short series if you interested in my reasoning for that specific conclusion.

In the past, I have also addressed issues such as why police are much more likely to kill unarmed black men than say arab or somali men. Long story short, the second worst thing to happen to black people in this country was Christianity which ensured their mind was as enslaved as their bodies. Therefore they do not react to the lynching of other black people with the same deadly ferocity as say arabs, somalis or any other ethno-linguistic group. Here is a quote..

It is very likely that police murdering Muslims from the ME at even a fraction of rate of Blacks in USA would severely compromise the personal safety of themselves and their families. In contrast to that, police murdering black people in USA will at most result in more marches, prayers at some church and tearful interview with relatives on TV. European whites did not get kicked out for good out of Asian and African countries after WW2 because they feared peaceful marches, prayer assemblies and tearful testimonies. American whites did not get kicked out of North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because of nonviolent resistance by the local population.

Belief in Christianity and consequent self-hatred is also why many older and even some young black people seeking respectability are unwilling to openly say that cops are murderers even when the evidence for that assertion is very clear. Here is a quote from that post..

At the risk of being even more controversial, it is fair to say that the effect of Christianity and its institutions on black people in USA has been largely negative. Religions with their focus on the “next life”, false “morality” and victim-blaming have always been the opiate of the masses. It is telling that black people are among the most devout followers of Christianity in USA. Moreover, their strong belief in Christianity is an important part of why so many in the older generation believe in bullshit concepts such as “respectability” and “acceptance” by whites.

There is also the problem of most black “leaders” still coming from the background of organized religion. It also does not help that most all them are scam artists who are too happy to play the house slave for monetary rewards. To put it another way, the religious convictions of black people and the type of people who end up becoming their “leaders” has a lot to do with why there has not been progress in the field of civil rights since the 1970s. It is also why the black community has been unable to respond to problems such as mass incarceration, continued systemic racial discrimination and frequent state-sanctioned murders of its members.

As mentioned in previous paragraph, there is also the issue of the ‘black mis-leadership class‘. To make another long story short, the vast majority of black political leadership since the 1970s is made up of frauds and hucksters who will throw their supporters under the bus at the slightest chance of personal profit. These CONmen and CONwomen have no real interest in the betterment or upliftment of the people who vote them into office. Here is a quote from that post..

Over the past few years, I noticed something interesting about the response of almost all of the so-called ‘black leadership’ types to large protests about police brutality against black people. To make a long story short, even though they acknowledged the existence of this problem almost every single one of them did nothing beyond push for a few cosmetic measures and make long speeches. And this includes that black neoliberal president aka Obama.

In other words, they took great care not to upset the status quo while using those events to cynically get more black people to vote for them in elections. When I looked at this issue in more detail, it became obvious that we have not gone past the level of change achieved by the civil rights moment of 1950s-60s. Which is a nice way of saying that black ‘leadership’ since the 1970s has largely been about pretending to fight for equality for their constituency while simultaneously supporting the status quo and getting rich.

Finally there is the issue of ‘black respectability politics’, which is regrettably still a thing among older black people– especially older black women. There is a reason why aneoliberal CONman such as Obama, whose policies as a president did a lot of damage to his own group, still has high approval ratings among older black people- even though he is the political equivalent of Bill Cosby. In summary, this is much deeper problem than many would like to believe.

What do you think? Comments?

Black CONservatism is Now Performance Art for an Old White Audience

August 23, 2018 25 comments

Some of my regular readers might remember that, in the past, I have written many posts on issues such as what the response of many older whites to black victims of extrajudicial executions by police reveal about USA as a society, why killing of unarmed black men by cops in USA has not decreased inspite of protests, why older black people are unwilling to call white cops murderers and how smartphones exposed police brutality towards black men in USA. I have also written on how a whole crop of black neoliberal “celebrities” rose and faded during 2016 election season.

As many of you also know, I have long held the view that “gaining respectability and acceptance” from whites in USA and embracing the slave-owners religion and its institutions had profound negative effects on the quest for true equality for black people in USA. Having said that, I am optimistic about the future since most black people below a certain age (born after 1970s) seem to have given up the futile quest for “respectability” and “acceptance” by whites as a precondition to forcefully demanding complete and total equality with them– as it should have always been.

And this brings me to the new and much smaller, but widely promoted on certain news outlets, bunch of black CONservatives such as CJ Pearson, Candace Owens, David Clarke and Diamond and Silk or as I call them grifter-in-training, female grifter, pin-collecting grifter and female minstrel act. Some of you might wonder, how come there are so many diverse black CONservatives on corporate media outlets if almost nobody within the black community is listening to what they have to say, other than for its entertainment value.

Well.. the answer is simple. Black CONservatism is now performance art meant almost exclusively for an older white audience. Think of people like CJ Pearson and Candace Owens as the black CONservative equivalents of Anita Sarkeesian and Chanty Binx for identity LIEbrals or Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are for closet white racists. They are basically hucksters who want to get famous and rich off the stupidity and vanity of their chosen section of population. Then again, people who think CJ Pearson and Candace Owens are “intellectuals” are also the same ones who believe David Clarke is a brave upholder of “law and order” or ‘Diamond and Silk’ are something other than a third rate minstrel act who profit from the stupidity of their older white audience.

On the bright side, we have finally reached the stage where older whites are only real audience for black CONservatives. I see that as real progress, in more ways than one.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Don’t Most Black People in USA Publicly Say Cops are Murderers?

April 1, 2018 36 comments

As I wrote in a previous post, smartphones have provided us far more proof of police murdering unarmed black people in USA than the existence of UFOs. Regular readers might also recall a short series about my thoughts on what the response to legalized murder of black men says about USA. To summarize it, legalized murder of black people by “law enforcement” is really just business as usual in USA. This peculiar state of affairs has (and always had) the support of a significant majority of white people in USA, for reasons that have nothing to with their own safety or comfort.

Of course, doing things based on conditions prevalent in previous eras tend to start failing once the underlying factors which allowed things to work in the past, undergo irreversible change. We no longer live in the pre-19th century era or the mid-20th century, even if some in USA would like to go back to those eras. Furthermore, the USA as a socio-economic system is no longer in the ascendant.. to put it mildly. There is also the issue of younger generations of black people in USA not being obsessed with acceptance by “white society” unlike their parent’s generation.

Some of you might wonder why I use the word ‘black’ rather than ‘African-American’. Well.. black people are the target of systemic racial discrimination in USA because they are perceived as such by the majority of ‘white’ people in USA. The fact that their ancestors were brought over from some part of Africa is, at best, a historical footnote. Also, a white guy born in South Africa who ends up living in USA is unlikely to ever be treated as shoddily as the average black person even though he would, technically, qualify as African-American.

And this brings me to an observation about the many frequent popular protests in response to even more frequent incidents of legalized murder of black people by police. By now, I am sure that all of you have seen many photos and videos of such marches and protests, not to mention the disturbing video recordings which caused each instance of such protests. So.. did you notice anything unusual about the signs carried by protesters or demands verbalized by them? Here is a clue.. the most commonly seen slogans seem to be very bland and rather vague. Examples: ‘black lives matter’, ‘don’t shoot’, ‘no justice no peace’, ‘we won’t be silenced’, ‘stop police brutality’ etc.

While these and similar slogans are perfectly reasonable, they do not address the real reason why all those marches and protests had to occur in the first place. Let me spell out the fucking obvious.. the fundamental reason why unarmed black people are routinely murdered by the police comes down to the simple, but unpleasant, fact that they are black. While there have been a few recent publicized instances of cops killing some “economically-challenged” white guys, let us not pretend that race is the single most important factor why unarmed black men are routinely murdered by the police in USA.

Did you notice that I just used the word ‘murder’ to describe the killing of unarmed black men by police but ‘killing’ to describe something similar if the victims were white men? Why is that so? And what is the difference between those two terms? Well.. for one ‘murder’ always implies a degree of premeditation and targeting by the perpetrator. In contrast to that, ‘killing’ does not imply premeditation. For example, if the actions of a drunk or fatigued driver result in the death of one or more person, its is classified as manslaughter or wrongful death rather than a murder since the perpetrator in such cases almost never deliberately targets the victims.

But is that really true in the case of police shooting and ‘killing’ unarmed black people in USA? Think about it.. how many white people have been ‘killed’ by the police because their cellphones were mistaken for handguns? How many white men were ‘killed’ running away unarmed from a police stop? How many white men were ‘killed’ because they disclosed they had a legally obtained concealed firearm? How many unarmed white men were ‘killed’ because the police officer in question felt threatened? I could go on and on.. but you see the trend, don’t you?

Now combine this trend with the well-known history of how black people have been subject to systemic and pervasive racial discrimination in USA. Any half-intelligent person with a decent level of objectivity would correctly connect the dots and conclude that the ‘killing’ of unarmed black men by police in USA is an official policy rather than a series of unconnected unfortunate events. The ‘killing’ of unarmed black people by police in USA is therefore murder, more specifically state-sanctioned murder.

So, why don’t most black people in USA openly say that cops are murderers? What do they have to lose by publicly pointing out the fucking obvious? Why do most signs at protest marches against murders by police always talk about abstract concepts like “justice” or “reform”. Isn’t the whole purpose of the “law and order” apparatus in USA to terrorize most people into allowing themselves to be exploited and enrich a very few, rather than provide anything approaching “justice”? Have you ever seen CEOs who ran large corporations into the ground being prosecuted for their actions? What about bankers who defrauded millions of people?

My theory about the reluctance of black people to publicly say that cops in USA are state-sanctioned murderers comes down to a couple of major points.

1] Too many of them (especially in older generations) still believe in concepts such as “gaining respectability and acceptance” from ‘whites’ in USA. The sad reality about that belief is that something which has not occurred over many decades is unlikely to happen in the near future. Tied to this problem is the fact that too many of them (especially in older generations) have bought into the idea that they are somehow to blame for how they are treated by ‘whites’.

Not enough of them ask questions such as how white men who kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam in Cambodia in the past) are seen as good people while desperate black guys who rob a gas station or sell pot are considered to be dangerous criminals. Too many black people still see black guys who sell crack and heroin as criminals while ignoring all those white guys making billions each year by pushing prescription amphetamines and opioids.

2] At the risk of being even more controversial, it is fair to say that the effect of Christianity and its institutions on black people in USA has been largely negative. Religions with their focus on the “next life”, false “morality” and victim-blaming have always been the opiate of the masses. It is telling that black people are among the most devout followers of Christianity in USA. Moreover, their strong belief in Christianity is an important part of why so many in the older generation believe in bullshit concepts such as “respectability” and “acceptance” by whites.

There is also the problem of most black “leaders” still coming from he background of organized religion. It also does not help that most all them are scam artists who are too happy to play the house slave for monetary rewards. To put it another way, the religious convictions of black people and the type of people who end up becoming their “leaders” has a lot to do with why there has not been progress in the field of civil rights since the 1970s. It is also why the black community has been unable to respond to problems such as mass incarceration, continued systemic racial discrimination and frequent state-sanctioned murders of its members.

What do you think? Comments?

An Alternate Explanation for Murders of Black Men by Police in USA

June 24, 2017 26 comments

As many of my long-term readers know, more than a few of my older posts have touched on the issue of systemic racial discrimination in USA, especially as it concerns what is frequently described as the “criminal justice” system. In fact, I even wrote a short series about this issue in 2014. In that series, I made the point that murdering black men and women is, and always has been, one of the main functions of the “law and order” apparatus in USA.

In that series, I also made the point that USA as a country and society is simply too dysfunctional to fix the problem of extra-judicial (and judicial) killing of black people. The simple, if tasteless, reality is that a large percentage of white people are quite OK with treating black people as less than human. Of course, this won’t be a big problem in a couple of decades from now when the numbers and relative position of whites has irreversibly declined to the point that few will even care what they think or believe.

But the ongoing and irreversible decline of whites as a group in USA and rest of the world does not by itself solve the problem of “law enforcement” killing black people in USA. It is well-known that the race and gender of police has little connection with their willingness to kill or otherwise brutalize black people in USA. In other words, replacing a white cop with a black, brown or asian cop is unlikely to eliminate or even reduce the rates of extra-judicial executions of black people in USA.

But why has large-scale public exposure of numerous instances of police murdering black people in USA had little, to no, effect on their propensity to continue doing it? Why have all those large public protests had no worthwhile effect on the rate of police murdering black people, except perhaps to ensure that the family members of at least some of the murdered get monetary compensation? Why have all those appeals to the conscience of whites had no worthwhile effect on the status quo?

There are many reasons for public exposure having little effect on the continued predilection of police to murder black people in USA- but it mainly comes to the lack of adverse consequences. Police who murder, torture or otherwise abuse black people do not face any adverse consequences for those actions. Choking a black guy to death, murdering a black guy in front of his family, shooting an unarmed black guy from the back, murdering a black kid etc does not adversely affect the lives of police who did those things even if it is recorded on camera- sometimes from multiple angles.

To understand what I am getting at, here is a thought experiment. Do you think police would dare to murder Muslims of middle-eastern descent in USA at anything even remotely close to the rate they do for Blacks? And if not, why not? What makes police in USA and other western countries so hesitant to pull that shit on Muslims of middle-eastern descent?

Well.. there are two components to the answer for that question. Firstly, Muslims of middle-eastern descent are very highly organised AND they do not see their lives as less valuable than whites. Even Muslims from the poorest and most deprived countries in the middle-east do not see themselves as less human than whites in the west. In contrast to that, a majority of the native-born black population in USA appear to see their own lives as less valuable than their white counterparts.

But there is a second reason, which we don’t like to talk about. Whites in western countries understand that murdering Muslims from the middle-east has consequences, even if white western courts exonerated them. There is a reason why white Americans could not walk freely in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, even at the peak of their now failed invasions of both those countries. Turns out that people from that part of the world are more than willing to avenge the death of their relatives in any manner possible.

To make a long story short- it is very likely that police murdering Muslims from the M-E at even a fraction of rate of Blacks in USA would severely compromise the personal safety of themselves and their families. In contrast to that, police murdering black people in USA will at most result in more marches, prayers at some church and tearful interview with relatives on TV.

European whites did not get kicked out for good out of Asian and African countries after WW2 because they feared peaceful marches, prayer assemblies and tearful testimonies. American whites did not get kicked out of North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because of nonviolent resistance by the local population. They had to leave those countries because the human and material costs inflicted on them by the local population (sometimes at great cost to themselves) was beyond their own ability to sustain those occupations.

What do you think? Comments?