Zimmerman trial is sparking racial tensions

[Michael]

Probably, Martin would have gone to jail and no one would have cared.

We actually have an example right here: What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?

n 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

It should be noted, Roderick wasn't punched, his head wasn't being smashed into the cement, he wasn't calling out for help. But, what did happen was that when confronted and told to wait for the police, Christopher turned, charged, was shot (unarmed) and died. Christopher was aged 16. His mother (similar to Travyon's mother) wanted 'justice' for her innocent son who never harmed a hair on nobody and felt courts were 'unfair' and let her down. Unlike like for Zimmerman, the Black Panther's didn't offer up a $10,000 bounty to anyone who murders Roderick.

So, there you go. What 'would have happened' had the so-called 'races' been opposite. Pretty much exactly what did happen in both cases. I suppose society is bigoted against hot-head youths? Let's face it, deep down, all oldies fear the young; they're secretly worried the youth will figure out that when they are not being sent off to die in some pointless Oil War, their parents are busy auctioning off their labor via 30 year T-Bonds to pay off the 'free' roads, subsidized education, O-blah-blah-care for the old, poorly constructed bridges to nowhere, QE infinities, and etc...

Interestingly, I read Zimmerman's grandfather on his mother's side was half Peruvian and half Black. I read Zimmerman took in and tutored poor Black kids in his home. I also read that Zimmerman took on the Sanford police department at a public forum and provided evidence that the police covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of one of the white officers. Which, if you know how the Police work, is either incredibly naive or ballzy. I also read Trayvon liked to fight, was booted out of school after caught with a drug pipe, a screwdriver 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry he'd probably stolen.

I'm also curious, if Zimmerman is a White Hispanic, is Obama a White Black?


I suggest everyone go back to watching their MSM to find out what's the next thing they should care about, as much as the MSM wanted this to end with Zimmerman shot in the head, or better yet, for blood to run in the streets following a bunch of riots (that could have a nice "Why we need the NSA to save us from Homegrown Terrorists" spin).... alas, Americans are a bit too fat to muscle up the effort for a good ole fashioned riot... so, it seems nothing much happened after all, this story's done.

 

[Tiassa]

Black Is the New (and Old) Black

So, there you go. What 'would have happened' had the so-called 'races' been opposite.

Indeed, because a specific jury in New York sees the world exactly like a specific jury in Florida.

And, certainly, a single example erases the statistical trend in which it is contained.

Both are very illogical presuppositions, and both are required for your argument to be valid.

I'm also curious, if Zimmerman is a White Hispanic, is Obama a White Black?

No. Black is black. Hypodescent persists. As Stephan Thernstrom explained over a decade ago in National Review, in the United States, a white mother can have a black child, but a black mother cannot have a white child. We'll have to follow up to figure out if they've fixed that little problem, but as Steve Bradt noted for Harvard Gazette in 2010:

The centuries-old "one-drop rule" assigning minority status to mixed-race individuals appears to live on in our modern-day perception and categorization of people like Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Halle Berry.

So say Harvard University psychologists, who've found that we still tend to see biracials not as equal members of both parent groups, but as belonging more to their minority parent group. The research appears in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ....

.... In the United States, the "one-drop rule"—also known as hypodescent—dates to a 1662 Virginia law on the treatment of mixed-race individuals. The legal notion of hypodescent has been upheld as recently as 1985, when a Louisiana court ruled that a woman with a black great-great-great-great-grandmother could not identify herself as "white" on her passport.

"One of the remarkable things about our research on hypodescent is what it tells us about the hierarchical nature of race relations in the United States," says co-author James Sidanius, professor of psychology and of African and African-American studies at Harvard. "Hypodescent against blacks remains a relatively powerful force within American society" ....

.... The team found few differences in how whites and non-whites perceive biracial individuals, with both assigning them with equal frequency to lower-status groups. The researchers are conducting further studies to examine why Americans continue to associate biracials more with their minority parent group.

"The persistence of hypodescent serves to reinforce racial boundaries, rather than moving us toward a race-neutral society," Ho says.​

We've long distinguished, as a society, between white and nonwhite Hispanics; but black is, and always has been, black.

I do, however, appreciate attempts by conservatives in recent years to struggle against hypodescent, even if it is just so they can say that Barack Obama is not the first black president.
____________________

Notes:

Thernstrom, Steven. "New Life for the 'One Drop' Rule". National Review. ca. 2000. TYSKnews.com. July 22, 2013. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/one_drop_rule.htm

Bradt, Steve. "'One-drop rule' persists". Harvard Gazette. December 9, 2010. News.Harvard.edu. July 22, 2013. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/12/‘one-drop-rule’-persists/

 

[Michael]

Indeed, because a specific jury in New York sees the world exactly like a specific jury in Florida.

LOL.... weak would be an understatement. Give me a break. Again: Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun. Roderick acted within the Law and was found innocent. It's really THAT simple. The comparative lack of this example in any of the MSM says it all. This Zimmerman story was a non-story, a bunch of bullshit concocted by a race-baiting MSM hoping to instigate a blood bath and riots to sell a few more bars of soap. And you swallowed it hook line and sinker.

One more time: Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.



As for White Black people, you can tell that to Kidada and Rashida Jones. The fact is people come in all sizes, shapes and colors. Race is an illusion. A word made up so that simple minded people can think their simple minded thoughts more simply. There is no such thing as race. Other than in your head, it actually doesn't exist. There's more DNA diversity within Africa, between to so-called Black people then between YOU and a Black person.

 

[wegs]

I wish that the world didn't buy into the illusion though, Michael.
That is the thing. Many buy into the illusion and cause a lot of havoc and strife because of it.

Genocide, the holocaust, hate crimes, this recent case with Zimmerman, etc...all driven by the "illusion" of race and racial superiority.

That's one powerful illusion!

I don't believe Zimmerman wanted a confrontation in and of itself. He followed Martin wondering if he were black. Had he realized Martin was a white male or female even, he would have gone home. That's not an illusion. I don't believe the jury was racist. I don't necessarily think Zimmerman was racist. But, he was "looking" for someone who fit the profile of the recent burglaries. If Martin was white, we wouldn't be having this discussion. For what it's worth, I think that is why this whole thing has spawned into a racial charged "debate."

I'm a white female. I will never understand what it is like to be "profiled" or walk into a store and have ppl stare at me as though I'm up to no good, simply because of my color.

So, tell someone who goes through that on a daily basis, that it's just an "illusion."
I understand your point Michael. But, to someone who is persecuted due to their color on a regular basis whether it is overt or subtle...that person lives it and doesn't feel that racism is an illusion.

 

[pjdude1219]

LOL.... weak would be an understatement. Give me a break. Again: Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun. Roderick acted within the Law and was found innocent. It's really THAT simple. The comparative lack of this example in any of the MSM says it all. This Zimmerman story was a non-story, a bunch of bullshit concocted by a race-baiting MSM hoping to instigate a blood bath and riots to sell a few more bars of soap. And you swallowed it hook line and sinker.

One more time: Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

except for the fact the its not that simple. funny how when ever you say something is simple your wrong. in one you have a clear example of self defense. in the other their is zero evidence other than zimmermans word that he was attacked without intiating a conflict. so in one case we have evidence it was self defense in the other only the word of a proven liar it was self defense and of course it the same to you ::rollseyes::

 

[ElectricFetus]

Micheal, do you know what statistics are? Yes you can pull up A case, but are you going to deny that on average if we had a white person shot a black person and vice verse, the white person would get aquited far more often?

 

[iceaura]

One more time: Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

With the major differences being that the shot kid was not alone, was the one who actually appeared to be committing a crime, and did actually attack a cornered guy who had not cornered him rather than vice versa; meanwhile the shooter was confronting an actual apparent criminal next to his own house rather than bringing a gun to follow innocent people around to their own homes.

And despite these circumstances being corroborated by witnesses and all physical evidence, the shooter was immediately arrested and tried - and SYG law had nothing to do with that, self defense law was the key in Rochester as well as Florida. If you recall, this whole thing turned ugly when Zimmerman was not even arrested or the crime investigated until mass protests forced the police hand.

In other words, no racial profiling and nobody dead because of their race; immediate arrest and police investigation; much less damning circumstances. Hence the difference in community response, including acceptance of the verdict.

In the eyes of the Federal government and the political Left, all whites are forever suspected of being gap-toothed Klansmen with shotguns and nooses in their pickup trucks, and all blacks are perpetually innocent, doe-eyed victims of white oppression.

This dynamic was made perfectly clear twenty years ago by the Los Angeles riots. Rodney King, a convicted felon, allegedly intoxicated, led police on a high-speed car chase and resisted arrest when he was finally cornered. Most people agree that the cops gave Rodney a few more licks than department procedures called for.

Tell you what, instead of suspecting that all white people are gaptoothed Klansman with shotguns and nooses at the ready, I'll reserve that suspicion for white people who describe what happened to Rodney King as "a few more licks than departmental procedures called for", and the expectation of justice as a presumption of "doe-eyed innocence".

 

[Michael]

You people are incorrigible.

Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white [16 year old] teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

 

[Tiassa]

Bombing is Inevitable in Comedic Risk

You people are incorrigible.

Quite obviously, Michael, nobody gets the joke you're after. Whether that's because it's probably not funny, too obscure, or simply by dint of your unreliability, I couldn't say.

But you might as well skip to the punch line.

 

[pjdude1219]

Micheal, do you know what statistics are? Yes you can pull up A case, but are you going to deny that on average if we had a white person shot a black person and vice verse, the white person would get aquited far more often?

600 or 700 hundred percent more often or more likely.

 

[pjdude1219]

You people are incorrigible.

Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white [16 year old] teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

your missing the fact he didn't hunt him down. quit try to make the two things comperable they aren't.

 

[Michael]

your missing the fact he didn't hunt him down. quit try to make the two things comperable they aren't.

Oh, good Gods. Zimmerman did not 'hunt him down'. This is beyond hyperbole and an outright lie.

At great risk to himself, Zimmerman defended a homeless black man who was abused by a police, he took in poor black children and tutored them at his own expense, his own gods damn Grandfather was half black. Trayvon OTOH was an at-risk youth who was booted out of school for drug offence, liked to get into fights and was caught with a burglary tool/flat head AND a bag of woman's jewelry - suggesting Zimmerman was probably right.

As to the comparisons, yes, they're not 'exactly' the same. For one, Roderick Scott wasn't physically attacked. He wasn't punched in the nose. He wasn't in the process of having his brained bashed out the back of his head. But there are similarities. Roderick Scott did feel threatened. He did have a gun. He did defend himself. And he regrettably did kill a 16 year old unarmed white teenager. Who probably was going to pick a fight with him, but probably wasn't going to murder him. Oh, and like Zimmerman, Roderick Scott was acquitted and found innocent.


Here's a bit of history: In the early 1900s Black Americans were traveling up to New York State to find work in construction. Much like the Chinese of today, these poor blacks were willing to work for a lot less than their pampered white counterparts in the construction business. The funny thing about people is they're actually willing to put their bigotry aside if the work is cheap enough. These black men did good work. And the more of it they got, the more wealth they accumulated. They had strong family orientation and, compared to white families, had a lower divorce rate. As they won more contracts their skill level increased and they were able to charge a bit more, but still undercut white workers. At this point the white workers unions petitioned the government to pass a minimum wage. They said it wasn't fair because blacks were taking all the good jobs and whites couldn't compete (sound familiar?). THAT is racism. It resulted in blacks losing out on contracts - JUST as White Democrat Politicians in the pocket of Union heads had hoped. Blacks became poorer.

Here's a quote from a couple of these racists in support of minimum wage. Here, listen to the REAL reasons why we have minimum wage:

John F. Kennedy (Progressive Democrat and Senator from Massachusetts [before becoming POTUS]):

Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too – the wages of the white worker who has to compete. And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage – and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work – it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn’t it?

Jacob Javits (Liberal Republican Senator from New York):

“Although probably no northern senator today would dare admit it, many who vote for increases in the minimum wage understand that one consequence will be to destroy jobs for the least skilled workers, a disproportionate number of whom are black.”


Now, notice the VERY DIFFERENT ways in which the PRIVATE society (free-markets) deal with so-called 'racial issue' which was to totally ignore race in favor of profit. And while you've been brainwashed to see profit as 'bad', it's not. It's simply a signal to the market to do more of that. In this case - HIRE MORE BLACKS. Yes, compare with how the Federal Government deals with the racial issue, which was to use the police force to threaten free-market employers with jail time if they dared higher lower wage blacks - thus allowing for the innate bigotry of the times to displace black workers. Half a century later and the black community is decimated.

DO you see what happens when we resort to force?

As blacks were displaced the government solved a problem it created with another problem - 'welfare', but to really put the nail in the coffin the government gave MORE money to those families that were broken (incentivizing non-marriage) and also more money if the father is in prison (and guess who make of a disproportionate population in prison - black men). Some women even encourage their children's father to take risks that will see them in prison ON PURPOSE, because they really don't like the guy and want the extra cash. Well guess what, ignore what MSM is telling you - because children DO NEED THEIR FATHERS. Being fatherless is one of the LEADING indicators OF *INSERT SOCIAL ILL* Seriously, everything from never graduating to never finding a job to ending up in prison, mental illness, and on and on it goes. We evolved to have fathers at home as part of the family unit.



So, you can waste your time with Zimmerman or Roderick Scott or you can begin to recognize the role of force in society.



Here's a FACT: It was illegal for Trayvon to punch Zimmerman in the nose. Had the police arrived as this fight broke out, and someone had taped it, Trayvon would have been arrested for assault. Now, here's where it get's interesting. Not if Trayvon were the embodiment of the Federal Government. You see, we as a society have invested the Federal Government (which is really just a group of humans) with the one legal recourse no other group of humans has: The legal ability to initiate force against a free peaceful citizen. This means, you can be minding your own business, doing NOTHING immoral, not harming anyone, and the government has the right to walk up and punch to square in the nose. Minimum wage is one example, anther is attempting to use competing currencies and a really great example is income tax/labor tax/worker tax. The government sells 30 year bonds on your labor to the Chinese, then punches you in the nose, drags you kicking and screaming and tosses you into a rape-cage/prison if you dare not pay. It's all for the "Good of Society" mind you.

It took a hundred years and a change to the US Constitution to get that one passed, but, passed it was. While the Founders of this country didn't get everything right, they clearly understood the role of Government, money and force in society - and sought to limit the evil/government and free the common person with a bill of rights, sound money and civil liberties. They even worded the US Constitutions such that it is clear we are BORN with a civil liberties, they are not given to us by the State. They are inherent to our humanity. The Constitutions is ONLY THERE to protect them. We are now live less free than those men as they lived under the Tyranny of King George. We pay more tax and have less civil liberty. We are therefor less prosperous. This is something you may want to ponder while you wast your time on the Zimmerman's the MSM puke into your lap on a monthly basis.

Last point: Recall how the MSM painted Ron Paul as a racist? The ONLY person to call out the role of the Federal Reserve in destroying our economy (wrote a book End the Fed). The ONLY congressman to predict the economic collapse decades in advance. See how the MSM pained him as a racist? Recall how the MSM cheerlead us into two illegal wars? Recall how the MSM attacked Snowden for daring to inform us that the NSA was spying on us. The MSM is pulling you around by the nose. This Zimmerman news STORY was just that - a story. Something to keep you occupied while the real criminals in the room walk right by and punch you in the nose each and every day, sell your children's future off to bail out their buddies and donors. Whatever you hear from the MSM - think exactly the opposite and you'll likely be closer to the truth.

 

[Michael]

Micheal, do you know what statistics are? Yes you can pull up A case, but are you going to deny that on average if we had a white person shot a black person and vice verse, the white person would get aquited far more often?

If you're interested: Murder In America

 

[James R]

From the opening posts:

I am white, and today I can honestly say I am proud to be white regardless of times pass. There is no reason for me to be ashamed of my race or comprise my views or beliefs due to prejudice.

....

I'm proud to be white because I am white and have nothing to be ashamed of.

Being white seems a strange thing to be proud of. And the same goes for being proud of being black. Being proud is not the same as not being ashamed, by the way. You can be unashamed and yet not proud.

Why should somebody be proud of what is an accident of birth?

As billvon said earlier, being proud of your skin colour is like being proud of your big nose, or your curly hair, or the mole on your left leg. Or like being proud you were born in America (or wherever).

You could be proud of something you've worked hard for and achieved. You might even, at a stretch, be proud to be part of some kind of tradition, or proud to be a member of a group that has achieved something significant, although that would be a vicarious kind of pride that some may dispute you're entitled to.

It might be different if you said "I'm happy that I'm white/black/turquoise".

I guess part of the problem is that saying "I am proud that I'm X" can carry with it an implication of "I am proud that I'm X rather than Y". And when X happens to be that you're white, what are we comparing to? You're proud that you're white rather than black? Would you not be proud if you were black, then?

Maybe it comes down to this, in the end:

What is it about your whiteness that you are proud of?

 

[ElectricFetus]

If you're interested: Murder In America

Your link does not work, here is one posted by Tiassa though that does: http://www.theroot.com/views/killing-self-defense-you-better-be-white

"A 2012 study by PBS's Frontline is getting a second look post-Zimmerman's exoneration, and it reveals that if you're going to kill in self-defense in America, you'd better be white. By analyzing data from a study by John Roman, senior analyst at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center, Frontline found that in "Stand your ground" states, white people who kill black people are 354 percent more likely to be found justified in their killings. And it doesn't get much better in non-"Stand your ground" states, where that number goes down only to 250 percent."

You people are incorrigible.

Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white [16 year old] teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

I think I see what wrong here! Some people suffer from the fallacy that a single data point can represents the system, that by finding a data point they want the whole must therefor be as that one data point states it to be! Unfortenetly reality is really complex and rarely can a single point provide a clear picture of the whole; most people don't want to beleive this though, they want the world to fit their views rather then have to constantly adapt their views to the world, I beleive this is because generally people are fundementally lacking in humility, are egotistical, can't accept that they are wrong, but hey maybe in wrong about that.

 

[Tiassa]

How Many Words Can We Spend Stating the Obvious? (Should we try to find out?)

Some people suffer from the fallacy that a single data point can represents the system, that by finding a data point they want the whole must therefor be as that one data point states it to be!

This is one of those strange phenomena we sometimes see, representing a very curious set of circumstances.

The two questions that I've yet to see a solution to:

(1) How does a single example denigrate the statistical trend in which it is contained?

... or ...​

(2) Just how stupid does our neighbor think people are?​

Either question points back to the same conundrum: The nearest quantity to actual argumentative value the case our neighbor cites cannot be achieved unless one presupposes absolutism that cannot be established.

Nobody believes racism is so pervasive as to have achieved statistical perfection; indeed, the ongoing Civil Rights movement ought to take a small measure of comfort, and is entitled to a great draught of pride, that the discussion is occurring in the context it is—true, some are trying to haul us back to 1950, but that's also the point, that they have to try to drag society, kicking and screaming, back to that.

Still, though, there is obviously much work to be done, and if a single datum can be isolated from the larger data set within which it is contained, what is its significance toward invalidating the observable statistical trend? Even disregarding the dubious circumstantial comparison our neighbor makes, it is impossible to ignore the paradox.

We who are frustrated, outraged, or, in the case of black people, living under constant threat by this larger statistical trend, are not about to take comfort that one example derived from the broader statistical outcome somehow erases the ongoing, living reality represented in the larger data set.

And the fact that we must, at some point, have this specific discussion within the larger discourse only reminds that despite decades of progress, what remains to be accomplished can defy the dimensions of our imagination.

 

[ElectricFetus]

But those that want to refuse the existance of modern racism take great solice in such outliers as Micheal does, to them it "proves" that they are right, statistics be dammed.

I think the next great leap in race relations will be an end to national marijunana prohabition: blacks are far more likely to be arrest, incarcerated and receive higher jail times for this then whites. With the end of prohabition (someday) many blacks once imprision for something so petty will finally be free. In fact with 30-40% of all our prisioners being drug offenders of which roughly half are for mary jane (~90% simply for possession, not sale!) that 15-20% of the prision population disappearing, that going to harm the imprisionment companies's incomes: I would put a good bet they are highly anti-legalization/decriminaztion.

http://hashexpress.wordpress.com/the-hash-express-news-2010/marijuana-prison-statistics/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

I'm sure this when micheal will pull up some cases of a white kid getting ridiculous jail time for mary jane possions while in another case a black kids gets off.

 

[iceaura]

He wasn't in the process of having his brained bashed out the back of his head.

Neither was Zimmerman.

But there are similarities.

You haven't acknowledged the large differences yet - I listed a few above, directly relevant to the different public response to the two events. They invalidate your claim of close similarity, which even if accurate would not be enough to support your claims of irrelevance for race in general or in Zimmerman's case particularly.

Now, notice the VERY DIFFERENT ways in which the PRIVATE society (free-markets) deal with so-called 'racial issue' which was to totally ignore race in favor of profit.

Private free market society, in the form of plantation slavery in the US, created the racial classifications that burden us now to establish a cheap labor supply and increase profits in the 18th and early 19 century during American colonization. Private capitalistic industry, in the form of US Steel mines and plants among other perps, continued and enforced these racial classifications in order to obtain cheap labor and increased profits from the late 1800s until the mid 1960s.

 

[Michael]

Fixed Link

I've fixed the link. It's a dynamic data base and so you should find whatever statistics you're looking for.

Murder in America

From 2000-2010 there were 78,521 African Americans murdered. Of these 55,035 were killed by other African Americans and 5,048 by so-called White Americans. It should be noted about 30,000 were unknown and presumably, given the Statistical analysis, the vast majority of these were other African Americans - so called, Black Americans. Likewise, there were 58,989 murders of Whites and the vast majority were committed by *gasp* *shock* other Whites.

There is no "race war" in the USA. Most "Whites" shot do so by their own hand committing suicide. Most Blacks by other Blacks. Crime is going down. Shooting, while the MSM would fear-you otherwise, is ALSO GOING DOWN. This entire trial is one big canard, a play put on to keep the proletariat masses entertained while at the same time selling them crap they don't need made in some place they never heard of. The rest of the time these same people can complain there's no local jobs. Whatever, you use the roads, pay your labor tax.


Early in Primate History there was, and still is for great Apes, an Alpha Male. The Alpha male was the male willing to commit the most violence upon the other males and females in the tribe. The Alpha male is afforded the most resources - particularly to females for breeding purposes. The Beta males generally play as the enforcer for the Alpha male - hoping one day, he'll either be killed or die, and they will become the Alpha. In chimpanzee society, these beta's force sex onto the females and account for about 1/4 to 1/3 the total tribe offspring. The female screams are referred to in the literature as 'rape grunts'.

Early Human Primates, and in some cultures even today, there was a Tribe Leader. Often the one willing to commit the most violence against other males and females in the tribe - as well as 'outsiders'. This, human Alpha male, is afforded the most resources - particularly to females for breeding purposes. The Beta males generally play as the enforcer for the Alpha male. In early human society, there's also a Shaman. The Shamen act as the Alpha and Beta male propaganda service and are accorded some resources for doing so. Shamen spread fear through Story Telling and overall act to maintain the rule of the Alpha and Beta males - and thus perpetuate Tribalism.

In modern society, we have Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers, etc... who play the part of Alpha male. They have their Beta males, the NSA, the Gestapo, the Moralist Police, etc.... and the Main Stream Media play the part of the Shamen, with the News STORIES to sow fear, maintain the rule of the elite - and thus, perpetuate Nationalism.

 

[Michael]

You haven't acknowledged the large differences yet - I listed a few above, directly relevant to the different public response to the two events. They invalidate your claim of close similarity, which even if accurate would not be enough to support your claims of irrelevance for race in general or in Zimmerman's case particularly.

My 'claim' was of the MSM reporting. The MSM did NOT make a story out of a Black man shooting an unarmed White 16 year old - who hadn't done anything but be suspected of car jacking (and probably was going to) and in hot headed teenager fashion rushed at the guy saying he was going to kick his arse (probably trying to look like a big man in front of his 14 and 15 year old friends). I suppose according to some of the idiots around here, that White unarmed 16 year old was 'defending' himself when told to wait for police to come. Unlike Trayvon he didn't actually do much as he was quickly shot dead for 'looking' menacing. And an impartial jury found Rodderick innocent - and he was/is innocent. He certainly was pretty distraught it came to this. Too bad we couldn't have a discussion around 'public schools' and how it leads to parental negligence - but, alse, that'd be a bit too much responsibility for society, and we all know how society feels about paying it's own way.

So, no, the two events were somewhat different. that's wasn't my point.

DO YOU recall this story in the MSM?
Was it a National Event?
No. It wasn't.

Good then we agree.

Private free market society, in the form of plantation slavery in the US,

This sentence is incoherent. It's not possible to have BOTH a FREE market and have SLAVERY. Slavery only exists under States - much as it DID under the Fascist US Government. In a FREE society people are paid sound money and volunteer to SELL their labor.

Is this too complicated of a concept? Is it possible for you to recognize the difference between force and voluntarism? Because it's really pointless to have a conversation if you don't understand the concepts as then you're just babbling about stuff to appease your cognitive biases.

Fair enough?


Oh, yes, but you're the one who says the Apple Farmer, for the GALL of producing an apple and offering to trade it - must 'pay' an abstraction (here 'money') because he's an abstraction (here insert 'nationality') or else you'll have him tossed into a rape-cage (not an abstraction, a real cage) and held against his will by force by a goon in a blue suite. And you do this because, you know, you 'care' about abstraction (here choose: 'social justice','the Nation', 'God', 'progressivism', 'the children' and/or etc...). Of course you'd never soil your own hands, thus the 'vote'. How nice.