Political Correctness and the Hammer and Shield behind the Racial Narrative

Exposing The Hammer And Shield Behind The Racism Narrative

PREFACE: This is not an easy topic to discuss.  There are many historic and definitional aspects connected to it, not to mention a great deal of emotion.  So it is impossible to discuss this issue in a short essay.  For this reason, I humbly beseech you to stay with this post, as everything I write on this issue in the future will be predicated upon the information presented in this post.  In a real sense, this post is the foundation for the issue of racism and race relations on The OYL.

Racism is real, but we must take great care to understand what we are talking about when we use the term, racism.  In the United States, racism is seldom used to refer to a wide-spread belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capabilities, and that race determines inherent superiority.  Rather, it is most often used as a synonym for prejudice or bigotry.  The primary and crucial difference here is that prejudice and bigotry are an inherent part of human nature and not institutional, whereas racism usually has an institutional or policy aspect attached to it.  But this is a subject for a definitional post and not the focus of this post.  The focus on this post is on the secondary use of race relations in the United States; a use that is seldom acknowledged and often denied in spite of the clear evidence of its reality.  In the United States, racism is used as both a hammer and a shield by which n agenda of social engineering is being forced on society.

Read the rest (this is one of my best)

9 thoughts on “Political Correctness and the Hammer and Shield behind the Racial Narrative

  1. Yes, racism is alive and well in the US. Let me take one example from the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident.

    “Trayvon could have run on home, why did he chose to fight Zimmerman unless he’s a punk? I have heard variations of this since the day Trayvon was killed.
    According to the language of the SYG bill, fprmally known as 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—….

     A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    So, Trayvon is being stalked by a stranger who has refused to identify himself. According to the law, he is under no legal compunction to avoid a confrontation. And Trayvon had a good reason not to run home; because then this stranger would know exactly where Trayvon and his family lived. You have a 17-year old kid, scared, not knowing what this stranger is up to.

    After Zimmerman got out of his truck and started looking for Trayvon, he either had his gun out, or he didn’t. Let’s say he did not, and that Trayvon, as assumed, had hidden from the stalker. Y’all insist that Zimmerman was sucker-punch, that Trayvon took him by surprise. Maybe Z walked by Trayvon’s hiding place, and Trayvon saw the gun. Now he thinks this is serious. Still, he asks one more time what is going on, and Z refuses to identify himself. Trayvon now has every reason to believe that his life is in danger unless he acts fast. and the fight goes down as testimony indicates.

    How is Trayvon NOT covered by the SYG law? He has no idea that he is being followed by Neighborhood Watch; Zimmerman refused to let that info muddy the waters. He has a reasonable suspicion that his life is in danger, and perhaps that of his family. He is authorized to use deadly force, and if he knows about the gun, Trayvon was perfectly justified in his attempt to bash Zimmerman’s head in to mush, if that is how it went down. The law makes no distinction in skin color, nor does the law endorse or specify or restrict any particular type of deadly source.
    Trayvon was black, he should have run on home like a good little black kid; is that the thinking?

    • Greg,

      You do not understand Natural Law, which is why you do not understand America or American law — at least, not as it was and should still be. This is why you do not understand that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. He had every right to ask Martin what he was doing there, just as Martin had a right to be there. The violation happened when Martin attacked Zimmerman.

      Now I know you deny that this is what happened, but everything we know testifies to these facts. But the facts remain: even if Zimmerman were a bigot, had profiled Martin and did yell at him and hassle him and call him names when he confronted him, Zimmerman was STILL within his rights. He had not violated the law: natural or otherwise. Those were both violated when Martin was the first to resort to violence.

      Greg, I do not say this lightly, but you are one of the targets of this propaganda and it has worked very well where you are concerned.

      • Joe, you so cemented to Zimmerman’s account, that you cannot conceive of any other scenario, nor do you want to. You are quite comfortable condemning an unarmed black kid after the fact
        ZIMMERMAN DID NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF! Trayvon had no idea who was stalking him, other than a silent stranger packing heat.
        This is nothing to do with your BS natural garbage, which is a concept you use to obfuscate the obvious; when the obvious is some point that you do not wish to address , you are the one who is acting ignorant about real life. No one in here has answered the simple question,….why didn’t Zimmerman identify himself?
        Not attacking you, B, any more than calling me willfully ignorant is an attack, 🙂

        • Greg,

          It is YOU who are cemented to a false narrative. The GOVT’s witnesses corroborated Zimmerman’s account. that means THE OTHER SIDE SUPPORTS ZIMMERMAN’s STORY! For you to keep yelling “what if? what if?” is to persist in pushing a false narrative — at this point, a lie.

          As for me condemning ‘a black kid,’ not so. YOU are the one who is seeing color. I am looking ONLY at action. And, even if Zimmerman didn’t identify himself, it STILL doesn’t change the FACT that Martin attacked first!

          Now, as for the rest of your drivel: if you do not believe in natural law, would you PLEASE do us all a favor and dissolve or float away, since gravity and molecular cohesion apparently do not exist in your fantasy world?

          Oh, and calling you willfully ignorant is NOT an attack: it is a statement of fact — by definition. And the truth is NEVER an attack, Greg. That you do not know and understand this confirms my statement 🙂

          • What do you call it when you don’t respond to my comment? I asked why Zimmerman did not identify himself, and you go off on your usual tirade, which os all about not answering uncomfortable questions.
            You lost the argument, joe 🙂

            • Martin had every right to defend himself against a stalker, he had every reason to think that he was in danger, and he was under no legal compunction to flee.. It does matter, joe, that Z did not identify himself, as that would have ended the altercation before it started.

              Don’t you see that Z instigated the incident? Your take on the murder indicates that you are in favor of inciting someone into a confrontation, then killing them. Natural law? You are totally ignorant of the concept, except to use it as a feeble excuse not to confront your racial prejudices..

              • I try to look at this as though I were in each of these people’s shoes. If Martin is on his home turf, his own neighborhood, then a stranger following him is a certain situation, to which he reacts in a certain way. If he is in a strange neighborhood (he was visiting at his father’s girlfriend’s house) then, a whole different set of circumstances.
                Zimmerman should have ID’d himself. I have no idea why he didn’t. However , Z was on the phone with the police (or at least a 911 operator)
                Martin could have called 911 himself. He certainly had time.. He called a girl in Miami, and had a pretty involved conversation with her( in which SHE SAY’S, Martin was “gonna whoopass” on Zimmerman)
                1. If Zimmerman stays in his vehicle this is not a discussion
                2. If Martin goes home, this is not a discussion
                3. If Martin calls 911 instead of a girlfriend, this is probably not a discussion.
                It seems you are saying that Martin’s concern of a stalker is valid, but Zimmerman’s concern of a theif is NOT.

                • Palph, thanks for weighinig in. Zimmerman said in the 911 call that Trayvon was circling the truck, and that he didn’t open the window and either identify himself,or ask Trayvon his business.
                  The only thing Trayvon was doing was walking behind the houses, taking a shortcut that all the kids in the area used. Zimmermn had lived in the neighborhood for three years, for him not to know this was a common practice is unbelievable.
                  So, no, Z had no valid reason for thinking Trayvon was thief, but Z WAS acting like a stalker, in my opinion.
                  As for the 911 call T did not make, I imagine he was uncertain about the reality of Z being a threat, and, though scared, he was reluctant to get the authorities involved and then appearing a fool.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.