More fallout from the Dallas police murders: a man went to the home of an Indianapolis police officer and fired shots at the officer’s home and car.
The officer, a 10-year veteran of the force, was relaxing in his home around 2:25 a.m. after a night shift when a bullet whizzed near the window, police said. His wife and child were sleeping in the home. The family is unharmed, though the officer is concerned for his wife and child, IMPD Chief Troy Riggs said.
[…]Riggs said Ratney wore a T-shirt that, on the front, had the words, “F— the police.” On the back, he said, the shirt read, “Black Lives Matter,” a social justice movement that protests police shooting deaths of black men. The movement was born out of the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who was accused in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teen.
Riggs cautioned the community to refrain from using Ratney’s alleged actions to judge those who support Black Lives Matter.”
Hmm, might Riggs have a bias in this case? Why the need to caution the public, excuse me, the ”community” against ‘judging’ BLM supporters? Would such a warning be issued against those judging supporters of some (theoretical) ‘white supremacist’ group?
Just a rhetorical question of course.
On Steve Sailer’s blog, his usually astute commenters offer opinions on what provoked this attack or similar attacks since the Dallas cop murders. Someone opines, quite reasonably, that videos (presumably YouTube and others) fan the flames and lead to more violent incidents. I won’t argue with this, and obviously it’s not just YouTube militants stoking up anger and rage, but the controlled media play a huge role.
But are outside sources the ultimate cause of this kind of thing? They may be the proximate cause, but evidently this man in Indianapolis and others who have similarly acted out have long-standing grievances and grudges and hatreds, and needed little to provoke him to do something violent.
But think about similar violence back in the 1960s. There was no YouTube then, and the media, while they were rather liberal/leftish even back then, were much less incendiary than today’s masters of agitprop masquerading as ‘journalists’. So on what can we blame the 60s black-on-White violence or cop-killings ? There were, of course, militant black groups behind much of the aforementioned.
But what about the anti-White violence of the Reconstruction-era South? Today’s agitators and race-hucksters were not there — but there were in the South carpetbaggers and scalawags who incited or passively allowed such violence, and provided opportunity for it to be carried out on a disarmed and disenfranchised White populace. Still, they could not have incited violence unless there was a receptive attitude to that incitement on the part of the black ‘freedmen.’
The ultimate cause of this kind of violence is that disparate peoples, judging by all of human history, seem always to end up in some kind of conflict, often violent to some degree or other. Even peoples of the same skin color and similar appearance, as in the former Yugoslavia, found themselves unable or unwilling to live together in the same geographical area. Human nature can’t be overruled by governmental edicts, nor is even the most persistent propaganda powerful enough to bring about harmony between incompatible peoples. Many White Americans stubbornly persist in the belief that if we all agree to be ”colorblind” and to be ”just Americans” that all can live happily as neighbors. This only proves that a strong desire, an overpowering need to believe such ideas, and a wish for ‘peace’ at any cost, can cause people to cling to a failed idea indefinitely. So far.
Unfortunately it is only White Americans who subscribe to this fantasy idea of ‘colorblindness’ as a magic cure for interracial conflict and violence. It will never work as long as only one side agrees to pretend; one side cannot make the pretense work all alone. And most White people still don’t see this, refuse to see it. So far.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw what would happen long ago.
“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us.“