Workers World Party Candidates Condemn Shooting of Minneapolis Black Lives Matter Activists

From Monica Moorehead and Lamont Lilly at Workers World:

The Moorehead/Lilly 2016 election campaign condemns in the strongest terms the shootings of Black Lives Matter activists at the hands of white supremacists in Minneapolis, Minn., at 10:45 p.m. Nov. 23. This attack happened outside the Fourth Precinct Police Station where a protest was taking place demanding justice for Jamar Clark, a 24-year-old unarmed Black man who was fatally shot in the head by the police on Nov. 15 while he was handcuffed.

Once the shooting took place, almost on a daily basis, a Black-led vigil has been held directly outside the police station to protest the shooting. Activists have organized demonstrations, including shutting down streets and a major interstate despite being sprayed with mace, arrested and subjected to general harassment by the police. One of the BLM’s demands is for the police to release the videotape showing the Clark shooting. They are also demanding that those responsible for the shooting of the activists be arrested and brought to justice.

What is going on in Minneapolis is a reflection of what is going on across the country. While the police continue to escalate their racist war against Black and Brown people, especially the youth, with a judge-jury-executioner mentality, that war has also been extended to the anti-racist movement, especially the organized Black Lives Matter upsurge, be it in the community or on campus.

Make no mistake about it: The cops and white supremacists work hand in hand, whether they wear a badge or an expensive three-piece suit like Donald Trump. Racist state repression boils down to domestic terrorism, all rooted in the current capitalist economic crisis. This repression cannot be separated from the terrorism that Muslims, Arabs and immigrants face after being displaced by war and occupation initiated by the U.S., France, Belgium and other imperialist countries.

The cowardly attack on the Black Lives Matter struggle in Minneapolis is an attempt to send a dangerous message: that any protest against police brutality is subject to be demonized and even shut down under the phony guise of “fighting terrorism.” The powers-that-be are using everything at their disposal — the police, bourgeois media, neofascistic mouthpieces like Trump, mass incarceration and more — to intimidate and push back the Black Lives Matter movement.

But as the great abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, said, “Repression breeds resistance.” And resistance will result in broader anti-racist solidarity from the progressive movement and the workers.

Jamar Clark’s life matters. The life of Laquan McDonald, the 16-year-old Chicago youth slaughtered by 16 police bullets, matters. The lives of the Black activists shot in Minneapolis matter. ALL Black Lives Matter!

Let’s continue to organize independently and fight back against all forms of white supremacy and all forms of bigotry!!

98 thoughts on “Workers World Party Candidates Condemn Shooting of Minneapolis Black Lives Matter Activists

  1. jim

    Maybe they’re jumping the gun a little bit. Washington Post said, “By Tuesday afternoon, police said they had arrested a 32-year-old Hispanic man in South Minneapolis and a 23-year-old white man in nearby Bloomington. The suspects were not identified and no other details were released.”

    How does this party, the “Worker’s World Party”, know that the ones who did the shooting were “white supremacists”?

  2. paulie

    Maybe because they released videos of themselves spouting white supremacist slogans? Now, it’s certainly possible that they are wannabes, but that wouldn’t be the first time that has happened either.

  3. Jed Ziggler Post author

    I figured that out after I hit Post Comment. Curious to know why Jim puts the party’s name in quotes? Does he not believe they’re a real party? Because they actually predate the LP by more than a decade.

  4. paulie

    Jim can answer for himself, but my first guess is that he does not believe that they are an authentic voice of blue collar workers.

  5. jim

    Paulie: You said, “Jim can answer for himself, but my first guess is that he does not believe that they are an authentic voice of blue collar workers.”

    Who said anything about “blue collar workers”? Their name is Workers World Party, right? And, why should a party, ostensibly for “workers”, make a distinction between “white collar workers” and “blue collar workers”??

    BTW, my usage of quotation marks might be considered somewhat idiosyncratic. I use them to demark terminology that I think ought to be considered as a group.

  6. jim

    Paulie, after doing a Google search, I found: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-minneapolis-armed-white-men-video_565481a0e4b0d4093a59289b

    “Oleuchi Omeoga, a protester who witnessed the shooting on Monday, told the Associated Press that the perpetrators of the crime were three masked men. She said the men “weren’t supposed to be” at the encampment, where activists have been protesting the death of 24-year-old Jamar Clark, a black man shot in the head by police on Nov. 15. After the masked men left the encampment, several protesters followed them to a street corner. The men in masks then fired, according to Omeoga. None of the victims sustained life-threatening injuries. ”

    I pay particular attention to the claim that the men “weren’t supposed to be” at the encampment. Does that mean, ‘because they were white, they “weren’t supposed to be” at the encampment’? Sounds a bit hostile, on the part of this person. Remember, the HP text identified “Oleuchi Omeoga” as “a protestor who witnessed the shooting”. Seems to suggest that this person was among those who followed the (white?) men “to a street corner”.

    Then, the statement, “After the masked men left the encampment, several protesters followed them to a street corner.” Followed? Maybe ‘pursued’ would have been more accurate? Was any threatening involved? After all, they “weren’t suposed to be” at the encampment? Maybe the people who thought “they weren’t supposted to be” at the encampment followed them in order to threaten them. Did they defend themselves?

  7. paulie

    Jim, I’m not going to unpack Marxist ideology for you. You can look it up as easily as I can. White collar workers tend to be what Marxists call the “petty bourgeoisie.”

    As for your silly speculation about how the incident went down, it is far from the accounts I have seen. What I saw was that these nazi/wannabe goons had been showing up repeatedly and taunting the protesters by yelling pro-police and racist slogans. Then on the the day of the (first?) shooting, protesters received a warning from the police that they had credible reports that the fascist goons were possibly planning to start violence. This makes me wonder why the cops did not question or detain the pro-police racists themselves; after all the protests are taking place right next to a police station. Clearly these hooded racist thugs were at the very least cop-bootlickers if not actual cops themselves. But then why warn the protesters? Maybe there’s a power struggle within the police department? In any case, I have seen one notification in my email from one of my FB groups, which I did not follow, that there was another shooting of protesters by the white supremacist pro-police terrorists. I have seen zero reports of anti-police violence protesters intimidating or threatening the nazis; I have no idea why you would come up with such a story.

    As for why they weren’t supposed to be at the encampment, it’s reportedly because they had threatened violence. Why would you jump to speculating that it’s because they are white?

  8. jim

    Paulie, I comment inline:
    “Jim, I’m not going to unpack Marxist ideology for you. You can look it up as easily as I can. White collar workers tend to be what Marxists call the “petty bourgeoisie.””

    I don’t view that as a legitimate distinction, particularly in today’s society. I am reminded of people who harp on the “1%”. If you are concerned about the “99%”, then that not only includes “blue collar workers” but most “white collar workers” too.

    “As for your silly speculation about how the incident went down, it is far from the accounts I have seen.”

    Well, “the accounts you have seen” probably come from one side of the story, huh?

    “What I saw was that these nazi/wannabe goons had been showing up repeatedly and taunting the protesters by yelling pro-police and racist slogans.”

    Sorry, but that’s freedom of speech, something the Left doesn’t seem to believe in anymore. Unlike the 1960’s, which I remember.

    “Then on the the day of the (first?) shooting, protesters received a warning from the police that they had credible reports that the fascist goons were possibly planning to start violence.”

    “Were possibly planning to start violence”? Rather vague. Maybe were preparing for the possibility of violence?

    “This makes me wonder why the cops did not question or detain the pro-police racists themselves;”

    Are you suggesting that only people who are ‘racists’ would be objecting to Black Lives Matter protestors? I mean, for every black killed by cops, there are hundreds of blacks killed by blacks, and Black Lives Matter people ignore that. I think anyone who actually views these protestors would have disgust for such a double-standard. This includes people who want to counter-protest, all of whom would be smart enough to realize that violence might break out.

    ” after all the protests are taking place right next to a police station. Clearly these hooded racist thugs were at the very least cop-bootlickers if not actual cops themselves.”

    Interesting speculation. Relevant? Only barely.

    ” But then why warn the protesters?”

    Could it be the ‘warning’ was simply an invention, or itself a provocation?

    “Maybe there’s a power struggle within the police department? In any case, I have seen one notification in my email from one of my FB groups, which I did not follow, that there was another shooting of protesters by the white supremacist pro-police terrorists.”

    Details? Cite?

    “I have seen zero reports of anti-police violence protesters intimidating or threatening the nazis; I have no idea why you would come up with such a story.”

    I was simply taking what this person said, who ADMITTED he/she had seen the shooting, and thus implied that he/she had been part of the ‘mob’ that followed the counter-protestors to ‘the corner’ where the shooting occurred. I have confidence that there will be video of this confrontation, since both sides were apparently expecting it to happen.

    “As for why they weren’t supposed to be at the encampment, it’s reportedly because they had threatened violence. Why would you jump to speculating that it’s because they are white?”

    If the black protestors had simply heard from police, ‘We hear that some white racists are planning violence’, that wouldn’t identify specifically WHO those people would be. At most, I suspect that the black protestors weren’t given pictures of the suspected violence-planning people, so at most they probably figured that anyone who showed up, who was white, and who wasn’t sympathetic to their cause would have been considered a target. And followed. And confronted. And [fill in the blank].

  9. jim

    Aha! Found a video reference. Those filmed admit the counter-protesters were pursued and attacked.
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/video-proof-5-black-lives-matter-protesters-shot-after-repeatedly-beating-white-videographers/

    From the video, before the shooting, at about 0 min 10 seconds: “Get that phone off” from one black protestor to another filming the incident. Apparently intending that they would do things they didn’t want to be recorded, hmmmmm???

    At 0:40 “…Everybody started rushing them at the same time…”

    at 0:50 “and they just kept having the camera…”

    at 1:00 “and we debate whether they are white supremacists…”

    at 1:16 “someone from the crowd punch one of them….”

    at 1:21 “after that someone [,,,] backing up….’he got a gun'”

    at 1:30 “they started running back, and the crowd started chasing them…”

    Assuming these guys being filmed at telling the truth, it’s all over for the Black Lives Matter protestors. Basically, they pursued and attacked the counter-protestors. Clearly, the violence was initiated by BLM.

  10. jim

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/video-proof-5-black-lives-matter-protesters-shot-after-repeatedly-beating-white-videographers/

    VIDEO PROOF=> 5 Black Lives Matter Protesters Shot AFTER REPEATEDLY Beating White Videographers

    Kristinn Taylor Nov 24th, 2015 8:56 am 152 Comments

    Five Black Lives Matter protesters were shot late Monday night in Minneapolis at the Jamar Clark protest encampment near the Fourth Precint police station.

    An ongoing vigil was started November 15 over the police shooting of an unarmed Black man, Jamar Clark earlier this month.

    “5 people shot near 4th PCT, transported to hospital w/ non-life threatening injuries. OFCs searching for 3 white male suspects.”

    The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported an organizer claimed the attack was unprovoked and that the shooters were three ‘white supremacists.’

    “Miski Noor, a media contact for Black Lives Matter, said “a group of white supremacists showed up at the protest, as they have done most nights.”

    “One of the three counterdemonstrators wore a mask, said Dana Jaehnert, who had been at the protest site since early evening.

    “When about a dozen protesters attempted to herd the group away from the area, Noor said, they “opened fire on about six protesters,” hitting five of them. Jaehnert said she heard four gunshots.”

    Photos taken at scene of two of the shooting victims Monday night:

    However a video later surfaced on YouTube of two Black male protesters describing how the Black Lives Matter protesters started the conflict by punching and chasing the men simply because they were recording video of the protest.

    The eyewitnesses said the men were attacked and retreated several times–and made a signal to indicate they were armed–before firing on the attacking protesters.
    (Warning on language)

    A snippet of the video taken before the shooting appears to show the crowd surrounding the men. The person recording the video is ordered to stop filming and complies. The video picks up after the shooting.

    The two witnesses describe how the three men were confronted by the crowd for wearing masks and filming the protest. The men refused demands to remove their masks. (Note: the two witnesses in the video masked their faces also.)

    One witness says a protester then punched one of the three men. The man then reached for what the protester assumed was a gun as the three men retreated. Apparently no gun was displayed at that point.

    The witnesses say the protesters pursued and caught with the three men, punching them again. The men made gestures as if reaching for their guns but apparently did not brandish them at that point.

    The three men again retreated and were again pursued by the protesters. The witnesses say they warned their fellow protesters the men were armed and to stop chasing them. The witnesses say they stopped but the others ran after the men and they soon heard gunfire.

    [end of quoted article]

  11. paulie

    “The gateway pundit” sounds like a highly suspect source. I haven’t seen their video, but assuming it exists it is most likely heavily edited. I skimmed your overly long response – don’t have time to read the whole thing – and see the usual race-baiting twisting that you usually do. Needless to say, I don’t have time to correct all that twisting of facts you engage in at length, as I have way too may other things I need to do and too many more interesting conversations to have.

  12. Jed Ziggler Post author

    Marxists are obsessed with the supposed plight of blue collar and pink collar workers. They seem to view America as a small group of greedy capitalists controlling wage slaves who work long shifts in dingy factories, despite the reality of most Americans making a fairly pleasant living in cushy office jobs. But I’m basically with them on this one.

  13. jim

    Paulie: You apparently wrote your comment without watching the video, made by the BLM protestors themselves, where they incriminate themselves in their own words.

    Your own comments incriminate YOURSELF in your own biases, by clearly showing that you won’t even bother to watch the short video.

  14. jim

    Jed Ziggler: I hope you won’t make the same mistake as Paulie did, and not watch the video. I don’t think I could have scripted as incriminating a text as these losers did. And, them telling the person taking the pictures to ‘turn off the camera’ just before they began to attack the counter-protestors is a classic piece of evidence of malice.

  15. paulie

    Like I told you I have other things to do. It has nothing to do with bias. My time is not unlimited, and does not belong to you.

  16. paulie

    I will say that the propaganda about how Black Lives Matter should focus instead on black on black crime is old, tired and uninspired, and should long ago have been retired. As Jim well knows, most people are killed by people they know, which means most people are killed by people of their so-called race. That it no way shape or form should take the focus off the very people paid to enforce the laws abusing their positions of authority to kill, beat, abuse and maim people and get away with it, in most cases without even being fired, much less indicted.

  17. jim

    The video came from YouTube, is 2 minutes 4 seconds long, and is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgpfvwNEwg

    Jed, you admit you are “But I’m basically with them on this one.”
    What facts did you have to let you come to that conclusion? Did you watch that video? ‘Cause if you didn’t, you demonstrate yourself to be enormously biased. It is quite clear who the blame should be on. BLM protestors simply didn’t tolerate the existence of counter-protestors. BLM protestors atttack the counter-protestors, and the counter-protestors defended themselves with gunfire. Are they not entitled to defend themselves from physical attack?

  18. jim

    It’s very funny that Jed Ziggler referred to it as a “propaganda video”, because it was made by BLM people, and it was apparently intended by THEM as being “propaganda”. Problem is, these fools have so little legal knowledge they were incriminating themselves in front of the camera! See the original video at http://livestream.com/unicornriot/events/4512162/videos/105412271 at 58:40.
    See, somebody actually WATCHED this very long video, and realized how much it DESTROYED the position of the BLM people, and defended the counter-protestors! And they posted a clip of it onto YouTube, and thence it wwas copied to thegatewaypundit[dotcom].

    Any attempted prosecution against the counter-protestors for defending themselves will break on the rocks of this video. In addition, if the typical expected number of other videos exist, there will be the scenes of BLM protestors attacking the counter-protestors, hitting them, chasing them, and further threatening them.

    VIDEO IS WONDERFUL!

  19. Jed Ziggler Post author

    Saying I was with them had less to do with this particular incident, and more to do with the overall point about police violence against people of color, and the filthy little white supremacist righty copsuckers like Jim who defend them.

  20. jim

    Okay, Jed, that’s your (current) story and I’m sure you’re sticking to it!

    And no, I don’t like “cops” in general, and the system. I’m an ANARCHIST, remember, who invented the system that will take these guys down. But it will also take down the violent scum of the earth who normally see themselves as opposed to the system, but who are really just evil people.

    You are simply embarrassed because you were caught defending a bunch of Marxist losers who toed the PC line in regard to yet another incident, yet another shooting.

  21. paulie

    And no, I don’t like “cops” in general, and the system.

    And yet you keep defending them and their little bootlickers because you dislike anyone who you consider not to be even white even more.

  22. Jed Ziggler Post author

    Nope, I watched your little heavily-edited video, and it didn’t change my view a bit. White supremacists infiltrated these protesters, incited violence, and then the moment people pushed back, they opened fire.

  23. jim

    No, Jed, nobody “infiltrated these protestors”. Somebody APPROACHED them. They were simply physically present. That’s all. They did not “incite violence”. They were, however MET with violence: The BLM protestors used the only language they really love, violence, to attack these people.
    If you can disprove any of this, try to do so.

  24. Jed Ziggler Post author

    I cannot disprove anything, as I was not there and do not know the facts, I only have an educated guess based on a track record of violence against black people in this country that has been going on for a very long time.

    Here’s what I do know: people’s memories suck. Short term or long term, people misremember important details all the time. So that video that you posted, even though it does not show what you say it shows, is not proof of anything. It is video of notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony, not video of the actual event. In short, you have precisely nothing.

  25. jim

    Jed Ziggler: You said, “So that video that you posted, even though it does not show what you say it shows, is not proof of anything. It is video of notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony,”

    Which video? What did I say it showed that you think it didn’t show? You are very vague on that one.

  26. paulie

    Playing dumb and race-baiting appears to be a large part of what Jim does. Seriously, get a better hobby, it’s unbecoming.

  27. jim

    Jed, you said: “You know exactly what I’m talking about, stop playing dumb. I’m not repeating myself, you’ve done enough of that already.”

    Since you won’t be specific, I will select the most recent subject I said that might apply:

    “It’s very funny that Jed Ziggler referred to it as a “propaganda video”, because it was made by BLM people, and it was apparently intended by THEM as being “propaganda”. Problem is, these fools have so little legal knowledge they were incriminating themselves in front of the camera!”

    Since you probably don’t know law, you don’t know why what I said is true.

    “See the original video at http://livestream.com/unicornriot/events/4512162/videos/105412271 at 58:40.
    See, somebody actually WATCHED this very long video, and realized how much it DESTROYED the position of the BLM people, and defended the counter-protestors!”

    The relevant segment of this long video, posted to YouTube, showed two participants, right after the incident, admit that the crowd surged onto the counter-protesters, and at least one BLM attacked. They also admit that the counter-protesters ran back, but the BLM ran after them. And then there was shooting.Etc.

    The specific video does not explicitly SHOW these things, but I didn’t claim it did. It showed a couple of fools ADMIT that the BLM protesters were indeed the agressors, and in that I certainly believe them!

    ” And they posted a clip of it onto YouTube, and thence it wwas copied to thegatewaypundit[dotcom].”

    And indeed it was.

  28. Jed Ziggler Post author

    And I’m saying that these “couple of fools” as you put it do not say that at all, and that as eyewitnesses they are almost certainly misremembering it anyway.

  29. jim

    Jed Ziggler: I listened to the video myself, and quoted the relevant lines, to the extent I was able to translate the Neglish language.

    [My quote of my own words begins]

    Aha! Found a video reference. Those filmed admit the counter-protesters were pursued and attacked.
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/video-proof-5-black-lives-matter-protesters-shot-after-repeatedly-beating-white-videographers/

    From the video, before the shooting, at about 0 min 10 seconds: “Get that phone off” from one black protestor to another filming the incident. Apparently intending that they would do things they didn’t want to be recorded, hmmmmm???

    At 0:40 “…Everybody started rushing them at the same time…”

    at 0:50 “and they just kept having the camera…”

    at 1:00 “and we debate whether they are white supremacists…”

    at 1:16 “someone from the crowd punch one of them….”

    at 1:21 “after that someone [,,,] backing up….’he got a gun’”

    at 1:30 “they started running back, and the crowd started chasing them…”

    Assuming these guys being filmed at telling the truth, it’s all over for the Black Lives Matter protestors. Basically, they pursued and attacked the counter-protestors. Clearly, the violence was initiated by BLM.

    [end of my quote of my own words.]

  30. Deran

    Actually, the technical term is “petit bourgeoisie”. For ages I called them the petty bourgeois. But a Marxist friend pointed out that these are words adopted from French. The capitalist ruling class is refered to the “haut bourgeoisie” and the middle and managerial classes are called the “petit bourgeoisie”. “petit” being small. Meaning lesser.

    I still think petty is better!

    And the idea being that the working class produces all the wealth. Meaning profit in excess of costs. And the working class does not have control over that wealth. The so-called “Workers World Party’ are a Maxist-Leninist cult that sees the dictatorship of the proletariat as being an authoritarian state that owns and controls the economy. As compared to Marx who actually saw the dictatorship of the proletariat being the radical democracy of the Paris Commune. Dictatorship is a profoundly poor choice of words. But I think Leninists love it because it legitimizes their authoritarian yearnings and it is sort of like a lud FUCK YOU. Because if you can’t handle the party dictatorship you are not sufficiently decicated cadre and need to go dig ditches while you contemplate the shining path of St Lenin.

  31. jim

    Deran: You said, “And the idea being that the working class produces all the wealth. Meaning profit in excess of costs. And the working class does not have control over that wealth.”

    If anyone still believes this, I suggest they watch a few dozen of the series called “How It’s Made” on the Science channel. Also availble on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjHsPBHX1NNbIqTy4eXVTig Many, and probably most of these shows demonstrate a series of machines which together manufacture items. (There are probably over 1000 such 30-minute episodes, each covering about 4 individual products.)

    If you could show these to to a 1915 worker, or especially a 1865 worker, or an 1815 worker, he would be amazed how much of the “work” is done by machines. I would guesstimate that 99% of the “work” done by actual workers in, say, 1865, is now done by machine.
    In this case, don’t mistake the double-quotes I am using around “work” for what others foolishly call “scare quotes”: I am instead pointing out that automation has become so fantastically pervasive that mostly we have no concept how much less physical (or even mental) labor is no longer being done by human hands. Mostly, the world’s population no longer “works” the way they did even 50 years ago. Even information workers use computers.

    Do workers still have a place in such factories? Sure they do! They sweep the floors, they oil the machines, they unload boxes of parts, they package the products, they clear jams, etc. And those workers are paid far more, measured as a portion of the value of a given product, than they did at any time in the past. This is why we can afford so many items.

    Even back in about 1982, there was an Epson printer factory built in Hillsboro Oregon that assembled dot-matrix printers by robotics. Workers poured parts into hoppers, of course, and workers packaged the resulting printers, because some tasks still had not been automated completely. Presumably, a more modern factory is even more automated.

    The foolishness of today’s Communists and Socialists who still believe in this “the working class produces all the wealth” is quite obvious. They have come to believe they somehow should “own” the entire value of the output of the factory they work in. THAT doesn’t make ANY sense. Their greed is fantastic.

  32. jim

    This is the first couple paragraphs of the website for the Workers World Party. http://www.workers.org/articles/contact-ww/ I comment on their drivel inline:

    Contact WW
    Who we are & what we’re fighting for

    “Hate capitalism?”

    Most of these fools couldn’t even DEFINE “capitalism”.

    “Workers World Party fights for a socialist society — where the wealth is socially owned…”

    Wealth is already owned by the public. What these fools want is centrally owned wealth, and individuals who would therefore be poor and at the mercy of their masters…Just as they are today in North Korea, and used to be true in Red China and the old Soviet Union.

    “and production is planned to satisfy human need.”

    Today, “production” is ALREADY planned. Just not CENTRALLY planned, the system which so obviously failed in the old Soviet Union. You know, stores which were half-empty, and the products they did have, they had because nobody wanted them! Little variety, poor quality. (Because the 5-year plans specified the NUMBER of shoes they had to make, for example, and said nothing about the quality.)

    ” This outmoded capitalist system …”

    How do they determine it is “outmoded”? It seems to work quite well in the privatized part of China’s economy!! Many if not most of the products sold in Walmart are Chinese, and are good, high-quality, and they are what people actually want to buy. Even if it comes from a nation which is still pretended, just a little, to be “communist”.

    “is dragging down workers’ ­living standards”

    Actually, the vast majority of workers’ standards of living are being raised! Look at China: They have become the manufacturer of the world. Their workers are far more wealty than their equivalent in the 1960”s.
    To the extent that _American_ standards seem to be going down, that is simply because American industry went through a period where it couldn’t compete effectively with other nations’ industries. But even that is being slowly rectified: Our machines are at least as efficient as their machines.

    “while throwing millions out of their jobs.”

    In America, that may seem to be true. Union labor made itself uneconomical in the 1960’s through the 1990’s, which is why in the private sector only 8% of workers are unionized. And that figure is continuing downward, not upward! And throughout this period, jobs went down here, and up in Japan, Europe,Taiwan, Korea, Mexico, China, and India. Perfectly understanable…except to an idiot Marxist.

    “If you’re young, you know they’re stealing your future.”

    Who is “they”? Chinese workers? Mexican workers? Indian workers? Taiwanese workers? Japanese workers?

    “And capitalism is threatening the entire planet with its unplanned,”

    Quite false. capitalism is well-planned. It is just not CENTRALLY planned, with the vast inefficiencies associated with attempt to do that.

    “profit-driven”

    Wrong, to the extent this implies bad. “profit” can be seen as a measure of efficiency. More-efficient production is cheaper, so more profits. But other manufacturers can enter the same market, and undercut the first ones. So prices go down, and profits go down as well. Which means that workers pay less for products they buy in stoeres.

    ” stranglehold over the means of production.”

    No such “stranglehold” exists, except in a Communistic competition-prohibited system. How many dozen manufacturers make golf balls, for instance? Probably many dozens, around the world. How can you say any one of them has a “stranglehold over the means of production”?

    “Workers built it all ”

    And to what extent they worked, they were PAID.

    “— it belongs to society, not to a handful of billionaires!”

    No, the ones who own it are the ones who PAID for it. Fools.

    “But we need a revolution to make that change.”

    The Commies tried that from 1919 through 1992, in the Soviet Union, and it failed miserably. It still would be failing in China if they hadn’t gotten smart.

    “That’s why for 55 years WWP has been building a revolutionary party of the working class inside the belly of the beast.”

    If they succeeded, their fate would be the same as the Russians who perished in the show-trials in the 1930’s, and when the farmers were murdered for not turning over their land.

  33. paulie

    Neglish language.

    That does it. Jim is hereby going on the ignore list along with Dave Terry. I will no longer read Jim’s comments, and will advise everyone else to ignore them as well. If, however, you ignore this advice, please let me know if he says anything that would require additional steps.

  34. Andy Craig

    Etymological footnote: “petty” is just the Anglicized spelling of “petit.” But they aren’t interchangeable; the English has become its own distinct word with a slightly different meaning.

    No real reason to point that out, other than it makes better conversation than debating the finer points of how passively-aggressively racist somebody can be before they’ve officially crossed the line.

  35. paulie

    The so-called “Workers World Party’ are a Maxist-Leninist cult that sees the dictatorship of the proletariat as being an authoritarian state that owns and controls the economy.

    That’s really the only model that has been demonstrated in the real world and it’s been a disaster everywhere it has been tried. Unless you want to count small scale communalism or worker-owned enterprises that compete within a market context, both of which have some successes and some failures.

    As for class analysis, I think this is much more reflective of reality than anything Marxists have come up with:

    http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf

    https://c4ss.org/content/23929

  36. jim

    I think it’s fascinating that Paulie has ‘officially’ put me on his ‘ignore’ list, AFTER I posted something (against the Workers World Party) with which he seems to have agreed.

    It is currently said that Leftists want to shut down debate. Paulie can, of course, choose not to debate me personally, especially where he appears to not be on the opposite side of the debate. But he is being mighty petulant about it.

    What’s going on? Leftists get upset when they don’t CONTROL the discussion. It’s not enough that you have to be on their side, you also have to be ENOUGH on their side! Or, perhaps, you can’t be TOO MUCH on their side. They want their way!

    And as for the Minneapolis shooting: I have certainly done nothing at all wrong. The news media (MSM) simply got the story wrong, in a knee-jerk fashion, and paid attention only to one side of the story. When I found a video, made by BLM people, in which they could be heard to say, “Shut off the phone!” just before they planned to attack the counter-protestors, it was quite obvious who was on the wrong side if the rules. They attacked, and were driven off by gunfire:
    Incidentally, this proves why the 2nd Amendment is and will always be needed: Even if it is used by “politically incorrect” people against attackers who are deemed by the media “politically correct”.

  37. Jill Pyeatt

    Jim said: ” What’s going on? Leftists get upset when they don’t CONTROL the discussion.”

    I’ve been ignoring you for weeks, and not because I’m “leftist”. It’s because all you do here is argue, and you contribute little but racism and name-calling. Some of us here at IPR see how quickly our country is losing basic liberties, and we simply don’t have time to read, let alone, respond, to your lengthy missives.

    Do you REALLY think you’re going to convince any of us to become flaming racists?

    I believe we’re simply more evolved than you, but, of course, YMMV.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you, Jim.

  38. jim

    Jill: You said, “… It’s because all you do here is argue, and you contribute little but racism..”

    No, Jill, I am simply quite non-PC on the subject of race. Against the backdrop of people who ARE PC on that subject, naturally I will be called “racist”. And what is “racist” anyway? People who think race is important, or perhaps should be important, could be classified as a type of racism. Now, I certainly don’t think race should be important: BEHAVIOR should be important. The problem is that bad behavior and race in today’s world are ‘sets’ (borrowing from the world of mathematics and logic) which have great overlap.

    The recent Minneapolis incident is a classic example of bad behavior among the BLM protestors. Effectively, they were running their little protest with unwritten rules: ‘Honkeys are not allowed!’. And ‘Honkeys will be attacked’. They did precisely that; the problem is that the counter-protestors were LEGALLY well-armed, and they used those arms (guns) to defend themselves.

    This incident exposed the hypocrisy and double-standards usually exhibited by the MSM (mainstream media): Their automatic reaction was to defend the blacks, and in fact to attack and criticize the counter-protestors. Which they did. Problem was, some fools got in front of a camera, and said EXACTLY what the crowd had been up to just a few minutes before! If they actually knew what was best for them, they would have SHUT UP.

    Incidently, while I call them “counter-protestors”, I believe they could more accurately be described as “bystanders”. They didn’t wave, yell, chant, or otherwise make their political positions known. Nevertheless, THEY WERE ATTACKED.

    Do you defend such low-life behavior? You (and I) may not have much sympathy for those attacked (their opinions), but nevertheless they had the right to _be_there_, and to stand around. And the BLM protestors _didn’t_ have the right to attack them.

  39. Wang Tang-Fu

    As some of you know by now, I communicate through a translation program that the Wang family has been working on for over 6,000 years. We are always interested in learning the meaning and derivation of new words and especially new languages. Can anyone point me to any resources where I can learn more about this language, Neglish, that we have somehow failed to have ever heard of before? What is the significance and etymology of the name or term Neglish? Where might I find some dictionaries and translation books of the Neglish language, or fora to communicate with Neglish speakers? Your help in this will be very much appreciated. A thousand thank yous in advance!

  40. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll explain “Neglish” when I have a bit of time, but I’ll help you out with what “politically correct” means. It is a term people use when someone disagrees with them, and they run out of genuine arguments. Example: “You can’t possibly think that black people should be equal to whites. You’re just being ‘politically correct’.

  41. Wang Tang-Fu

    Thank you NewFederalist. I made an inquiry with a few Ebonics speakers that I correspond with on another forum, and it appears that it is not. I was advised by several people to check myself, check myself before I wreck myself, and to watch my mouth. One woman said she would slap me upside my fat head. None of them were favorable to the suggestion that the dialect they communicate in is otherwise known as or can be called Neglish. Fortunately, I made my amends and will be allowed back in to the discussions there, after some apologies. It was an interesting hypothesis, but it appears that Neglish must be something other than Ebonics.

  42. NewFederalist

    “Thank you NewFederalist. I made an inquiry with a few Ebonics speakers that I correspond with on another forum, and it appears that it is not… (I)t appears that Neglish must be something other than Ebonics.” – WTF

    So we have both learned something. Ebonics was a serious effort while this so-called “Neglish” is just a derogatory term. I really did not know that but probably should have suspected it based on the context.

  43. jim

    NewFederalist: You said, “while this so-called ‘Neglish” is just a derogatory term”. I see no indication from the definition I cited that it is thought to be derogatory at all. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Are you just making that assertion up because it is convenient? Are you trying to back up Paulie and Jill, who have screwed up so badly here?

    I don’t know anything about this “Kurogawa” who is cited as posting this definition in 2011. But without some Google-search references that indicate “derogatory”, I have to conclude that not only is it NOT “derogatory”, but the PC crowd here is stumbling over itself, engaging in their usual nonsense. I did a google-search for ‘neglish derogatory’ and while there are over 3 pages of cites, none of them seem to be relevant.

    As I said before, one major problem with PC’s is that they have to have everything EXACTLY the way THEY want it, or EXACTLY the way they think somebody (an oppressed group, for instance) wants it. And they have to have that RIGHT NOW, and they need apologies from everyone they see as being ‘the oppressors’.

    And as Jill Pyeatt inadvertently admitted just above, sometimes even that isn’t enough! She said, “And also based on who said it, NF.” This is clearly the sign of people who try, with excruciating effort, to find some sort of offense which can be taken. And I can assure you that if people try hard enough, they will indeed find some offense, somewhere.

    PC is complex. Illogical, but nevertheless complex. I believe it is actually an example of mass-hysteria.

  44. Jill Pyeatt

    Jim, you’re either trolling, or you don’t read.

    What you say is OFFENSIVE to me. It has nothing to do with being “POLITICALLY CORRECT”:. It has everything to do with simply DISAGREEING with you.

    I don’t believe in a million years you actually think you’ll turn one of us into a bigot. Just stop this, please.

    You seem fairly intelligent. I don’t believe you don’t understand what the difference is.

  45. jim

    After I wrote the above note, it occurred to me to do a Google-search for ‘political correctness mass hysteria’, and boy did I get results! About 442,000 hits!
    Putting double-quotes around both “political correctness” and “mass hysteria” dropped the results to 42,600 results, still an amazingly large number.

    So I guess the conclusion is that it isn’t your fault: You are merely swept up in the mass hysteria of the day, political correctness. You are merely the modern equivalent of the screeching and crying bunch of girls, in Salem Massachusetts, in about 1692, at those witch trials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials The cry, “That witch!!!” has changed to “that guy who isn’t PC!!!”.

  46. jim

    Jill Pyeatt: You brayed, “What you say is OFFENSIVE to me. It has nothing to do with being “POLITICALLY CORRECT””

    What YOU say is offensive to ME, too! It has EVERYTHING to do with PC. You are clearly PC to the core. Is MY being offended somehow less worthy of attention than yours?!?

  47. NewFederalist

    Jim- I don’t always disagree with you about the PC thing especially as it applies to race in the USA. But “Neglish”? For starters most blacks don’t prefer to be called “Negroes” anymore. While I personally believe black is as good a description as white (I don’t use African-American myself) it just seems to me that combining the two (Negro and English) into one made up word cannot possibly do anything positive to foster better race relations. Just my $0.02 worth.

  48. langa

    I do think political correctness exists, but I don’t think it’s a “complex” matter. Of course, different people may define “political correctness” in different ways, but as I see it, it’s very simple. “Political correctness” refers to the tendency to evaluate arguments/statements, not based on whether they are logical/true, but rather, on the basis of their emotional impact on certain groups of people. So, even if a particular statement is obviously true, advocates of the “PC” mindset will still condemn it, if it happens to hurt someone’s feelings, especially if that person is part of a group that has been designated as being “oppressed.” Personally, I find such a standard ridiculous, which is why I dislike the increasingly “PC” nature of our society.

    As far as I’m concerned, no one should ever be condemned for simply speaking the truth, no matter how many people are offended by it. Of course, that doesn’t mean I automatically agree with all “politically incorrect” statements, either. For example, consider the following statements:

    1. All black people are dumb.
    2. All black people are lazy.
    3. Affirmative action often results in less qualified blacks being hired over more qualified whites.

    I disagree with the first two statements, not because they are politically incorrect (although they are), but rather, because they are factually incorrect. One can easily point to many examples of smart/hardworking black people. Meanwhile, I have no problem with the third statement, even though it is politically incorrect, since it is also indisputably true, and that’s what ultimately matters to me.

  49. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks, Langa. I have opinions based on my life experience, good or bad. I am not in the practice of deciding if something is “politically correct” before I form that opinion.

    Saying that I disagree with something only because I’m being “politically correct” infers that I don’t believe what I’m saying to be true–that I’m just saying it because I’m supposed to. Huh? Since when do Libertarians worry about something like that? Since when do I ever worry about things like that?

    The people on the right who keep doing that are invalidating any opinions different than their own by immediately writing them off as being said only because it’s the “politicially correct” thing to say. That is intolerant.

  50. Jill Pyeatt

    I also agree with Langa’s three bullet points above. I’d be happy to discuss any topics if the other person is actually discussing things. A couple of people on this site seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. I just don’t have time, nor the inclination, for that.

  51. Andy Craig

    There are few terms more meaningless than “politically correct” — and the people who like to congratulate themselves for being un-PC are almost always, as noted above, simply *factually* and *morally* incorrect.

    Say something they don’t like, and they invariably throw their own hissy fit about how you violated their own notions of right-wing PC. They just don’t call it that, but it’s the exact same thing as what they’re supposedly objecting to. Call a racist a racist, and a bigot a bigot, and watch how quickly they devolve into a temper-tantrum that you shouldn’t use such accurate words because that’s mean and they don’t like hearing the truth.

    The whole talking point is nothing more than empty sophistry, from people who know what they’re saying is indefensible on the merits, so they pose as some kind of free-speech martyr fighting against censorship. Even though nobody’s censoring them, just disagreeing with them and perhaps justifiably mocking them.

    Anybody who defends their argument with a humble-brag that they’re “just not PC”– doesn’t have anything to say worth listening to.

  52. jim

    Well, it’s all over for the BLM protestors. Turns out the counter-protestors (who really just stood there) had their own video, which survived the event. (Unfortunately, there is no sound.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3c6cK9p_w

    My observations. The counter-protestors just walked up, across the street, and stood there. The BLM protestors crossed the street, and seem to surround the counter-protestors. After a few minutes of talking, the BLM protestors attack the counter-protestors. There is simply no indication from this video that the counter-protestors were the aggressors. Quite the opposite.

  53. paulie

    Not sure if I said it yet on this thread. Best thing to do with Jim’s comments is not read them. If you read them please don’t respond to them. If you do read them, please let me know if he says anything that requires further action. If you see him copy and pasting entire articles please let me know and I will cut them down to just a link only.

    This really says it all and sums up the reality better than another thousand or ten thousand words possibly could:

  54. jim

    Paulie, I’m sure glad to see that you are failing to respond, so miserably, to this video evidence which totally disproves the MSM stories commonly being told about the Minneapolis shooting incident. The video taken from the perspective of the counter-protestors (the ones who just stood there) clearly shows the BLM protestors being the aggressors, and violently so. And they admit that in the second video, the first one I found.
    You may consider their motives (the counter-protestors) to be impure, but they expose the misdeeds not only of BLM people, but also the bias inherent in the MSM. My position is that as long as the MSM lies, people will be motivated to ‘trap’ them using incidents such as this, and much to the chagrin of PC people like you.

    I don’t know how you stand it, Paulie! If I had as screwed-up a position as you clearly do I wouldn’t even post those silly comments like the one you just posted. You see, Paulie, I am not (contrary to implications of the lying cartoon you like to post and re-post) simply taking the word of somebody and against somebody else: Instead I am actually watching the videos that were made by the participants themselves!

    So, how about editing the cartoon above: Remove the swastika, and then show a computer screen, and show the two (actually more) videos that I have found referenced on the Internet. Show how the BLM protestors attacked the bystanders, then admitted it in their own video, and show the bystanders using a gun to defend themselves. That would be a much more accurate cartoon.

    And I am not merely coming to _a_ plausible conclusion: I am really coming to the ONLY plausible conclusion: That these BLM protestors were SUCCESSFULLY shown to be violent thugs. Naturally, you cannot admit that! Is that an unfair tactic? No more unfair than the MSM lying about the whole thing.

    The use of video to expose one’s political enemies is, seemingly, a natural consequence of the availability of tiny video cameras and recording. Remember the ACORN scandal from a few years back? And now the Planned Parenthood scandal. And now this! Clearly, the existence of cheap, easy video favors the smart, the imaginative, and (dare I say it) even the devious among us.

    Give it up, Paulie!! You got suckered into a position, goaded by the MSM, based on their own lies. And then I found the evidence of the truth, posted references to it here, and there was simply nothing you could do to counter that. If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that people who you don’t like (the bystanders) taught the world a valuable lesson. Painful, but necessary.

    Paulie, stop pretending that you think I’m in the wrong. I didn’t cause the incident; I was no where near it. (maybe 1400 miles away, at closest). I didn’t misrepresent anything; I simply didn’t BELIEVE the kind of people that you (and other PC people) would wish I would believe. I viewed the evidence, Paulie!!
    Like I said before, video evidence is wonderful!

  55. paulie

    I’m guessing that the latest comment from Jim is not a copy and paste article because I don’t see a link anywhere. But if it contained a link, I would appreciate if someone told me whether it was a copy and paste article and I would then cut out everything except the link. Based on the length alone it could be, or not, so that would be useful information to have, since I’m not going to read anything he writes and don’t want to glance at it long enough to determine whether it is original or copy and paste.

  56. paulie

    There are few terms more meaningless than “politically correct” — and the people who like to congratulate themselves for being un-PC are almost always, as noted above, simply *factually* and *morally* incorrect.

    Say something they don’t like, and they invariably throw their own hissy fit about how you violated their own notions of right-wing PC. They just don’t call it that, but it’s the exact same thing as what they’re supposedly objecting to. Call a racist a racist, and a bigot a bigot, and watch how quickly they devolve into a temper-tantrum that you shouldn’t use such accurate words because that’s mean and they don’t like hearing the truth.

    The whole talking point is nothing more than empty sophistry, from people who know what they’re saying is indefensible on the merits, so they pose as some kind of free-speech martyr fighting against censorship. Even though nobody’s censoring them, just disagreeing with them and perhaps justifiably mocking them.

    Anybody who defends their argument with a humble-brag that they’re “just not PC”– doesn’t have anything to say worth listening to.

    Well said and entirely correct.

  57. paulie

    I’d be happy to discuss any topics if the other person is actually discussing things. A couple of people on this site seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. I just don’t have time, nor the inclination, for that.

    Such people, Jim above being an obvious example, should only be acknowledged at all to advise others not to read or respond to them at all. The best way to not be tempted to respond to them is not to read them. After several months of giving Jim every possible benefit of the doubt that he could be doing anything other than intentionally trolling here, I’ve regretfully come to the conclusion that there is no other possible explanation for the mental sewage he spews so consistently and how incongruous it is with his known life experience and stated current position as a libertarian anarchist. It remains to be determined whether he has anything to do with the longstanding pattern of trolling that has been going on for years here best known as the “nazi troll,” “Vernon,” and countless other names/handles. Whether he denies it or not is, of course, immaterial to whether he is or not. I wouldn’t expect an admission if he is, and I don’t want to keep reading the ever mounting evidence to try to determine whether he is or not.

  58. jim

    Paulie, you said:
    “But if it contained a link, I would appreciate if someone told me whether it was a copy and paste article and I would then cut out everything except the link.”

    You are displaying your malicious intent. First, you DON’T define what is a “copy and paste article”. And then, you have the temerity to followi it with an article which is almost entirely copied from somewhere else on IPR! What nonsense!

    Why not put your fingers in your ears, screw up your eyes, and say “Nyah nyah nyah nyah!!!!”

    You are truly funny, Paulie. But NOT in a good way.

  59. jim

    In an exceedingly childish move, Paulie tries to suggest a connection between me and this “Vernon” character, who I’ve never heard of:

    “It remains to be determined whether he has anything to do with the longstanding pattern of trolling that has been going on for years here best known as the “nazi troll,” “Vernon,” and countless other names/handles. Whether he denies it or not is, of course, immaterial to whether he is or not.”

    Paulie’s problem is that he is trying to portray all of his rhetorical opponents as one person.

    The records will clearly show that I was in prison up to December 19, 2009, and thence from about late May 2010 until March 12, 2012. Federal prisoners aren’t given Web access Paulie!

    Paulie is repeatedly showing his desperation. He seemingly doesn’t want to actually respond to me, yet he repeatedly posts comments, ostensibly to unnamed others, telling them not to respond! This is a desperation tactic, Paulie! Paulie is self-destructing. He’s trying to shut down the discussion, which is precisely what has been mentioned in the media that leftists are doing. You should be ashamed of yourself, Paulie!

  60. jim

    I’m going to show that I, at least, can discuss intelligently the events in Minneapolis, and specifically the evidence available from the YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3c6cK9p_w .
    At 3:00 on that video, the BLM protestors begin to closely contact what I’ve decided to call “the bystanders”. (I’ve previously called them counter-protestors, but they didn’t seem to be doing any counter-protesting.) However, everything seems to be peaceful for over 2 minutes.

    At approximately 5:40 on that video, which is 2:40 after the initial close contact, the BLM protestors appear to begin to assault and attack the bystanders. As you recall, in the video made by the BLM protestors themselves, after their attack on the bystanders, they admit that they began the attack by hitting the bystanders. They also admit they were “debating” among themselves about whether the bystanders were “white supremacists”: Clearly, this indicates that the bystanders were not providing any sort of obvious indication that they were, indeed, “white supremacists”: Otherwise, such a “debate” would not have been necessary!

    Also, note that the faces of the BLM protestors were not angry during the large majority of the time, after the beginning of close contact. This clearly contradicts their public claims that the bystanders were using racial slurs. Of course we already know that: The “debate” between the BLM protestors, reported by themselves, as to whether the bystanders were “white supremacists” would not have occurred if the bystanders had actually been using racial slurs. Clearly, the BLM people were lying to the extent that the reports claimed that the slurs began immediately; whether they EVER used such slurs is not supported by either video.

  61. Wang Tang-Fu

    Mr. Bell is perhaps unaware that some standing speculation about the Vernon/Nazi Troll phenomenon is actually some type of group effort. Thus, while there is no proof that Mr. Bell has participated in racist trolling using various monikers and anonymizing/spoofing gimmicks, there is no clear disproof either, from the fact alone of his incarceration for part of that time. On the other hand, Mr. Bell is certainly well aware of the prevalence of many contraband cell phones in correctional facilities, with the ability to gain internet access; the various ways prisoners sometimes find ways to get online in violation of facility rules through certain prison jobs, the help of corrupt prison staff, and so on. None of this is evidence that Mr. Bell is guilty of participating in these particular troll attacks, only that it can’t be ruled out nearly as conclusively as he would like to have us believe.

    Likewise the videos he keeps touting aren’t nearly as conclusive as he would like to have us believe, given that they show nothing of what happened before they were taken, provided they even show continuous video. And any comments from people on the scene may refer to events of the moment, absent earlier context and continuing confrontations over the course of days leading up to these events. As I understand the graphic above at 04:21 it described the situation quite powerfully and accurately.

  62. jim

    Wang Tang Fu said:
    “Likewise the videos he keeps touting aren’t nearly as conclusive as he would like to have us believe,”

    Well, I didn’t exactly try to quantify them! Be more specific.

    ” given that they show nothing of what happened before they were taken,”

    All videos have a beginning, a middle, and an end. So?!?

    ” provided they even show continuous video.”

    Tell us where that matters.The video made by the BLM protestors is indeed cut in the center: Somebody specifically tells the operator of the phone to turn it off; later an interview occurs, after the shooting. Why would they ask somebody to turn off their phone?

    ” And any comments from people on the scene may refer to events of the moment,”

    “Events of the moment”? What do you mean by that? There were plenty of “events of the moment” which occurred.

    “absent earlier context and continuing confrontations over the course of days leading up to these events.”

    Explain how you believe that “earlier context and continuing confrontations” affected the shooting incident. I don’d deny that possibility, but let’s hear about a more specific theory.

    “As I understand the graphic above at 04:21 it described the situation quite powerfully and accurately.”

    Assuming by “graphic” you mean video, I can’t be sure if you mean the video I cited. Unfortunately, that video did not come with any sound. However, if ANY of the BLM protestors were recording the incident, we will soon enough hear what that audio contained.

    Were you referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3c6cK9p_w ???

  63. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: I guess you are pretending that I didn’t demolish that silly cartoon in my post on the Colorado Springs Planned parenthood thread.
    “This cartoon shows that cartoons can lie, just as much as the written word. If someone were to write down, in English, the phrase “If you aren’t in favor of the Black Lives Matter protestors, you must be a Nazi”, we would all recognize the foolishness of that claim. Further, not only that, but it also depicts only to choices, only to ‘sides’ to the argument. Clearly, there are many more ‘sides’ available. Innocent bystanders exist. Innocent bystanders who get assaulted by others also exist.
    Another obvious problem is that since this cartoon was probably inspired by the Minneapolis shooting, is that we’ve now found that it probably didn’t happen the way the PC/MSM types usually reported it: As I found from a video, even the BLM protestor admitted, in front of a cell phone camera, that the BLM protestors FIRST attacked, struck, and ran after those others present (I have referred to the others as “counter protestors”, although they didn’t identify themselves as counter-protesting). In other words, the BLM protestors ASSAULTED the visitors. Did the visitors come armed? At least one of them did. But that was entirely legal, and it was also entirely legal to pull that gun and fire away in self-defense, aimed at those BLM attackers.

    Ironically, this event was somewhat analogous to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident, but involving many people. Trayvon didn’t like to be watched, so he eventually attacked Zimmerman, not realizing Zimmerman was armed with a pistol. Shots rang out, and Martin died.

    So you see, this cartoon LIES.”
    —–
    In addition, I subsequently found a video made by the bystanders themselves, showing that they didn’t attack the BLM protestors: In fact, the latter group attacked the former.

    I strongly suspect that silly cartoon was drawn by a person who was, at the time he drew it, completely unaware of the existence of those revealing videos. Consider the content of the caption of the cartoon:
    “Look, until the facts come in, I’ve got to go with this guy’s story. It’s not that I don’t trust you, you just clearly have some personal bias issues when it comes to racial issues”.

    Notice that term, “until the facts come in”, seems to ignore the existence of facts (videos) which ALREADY “came in”, and which show that the BLM protestors attacked, struck, and chased the bystanders, and only subsequent to that did the bystanders defend themselves by gunfire. If you can disprove my characterization, try to do so. As far as I can tell, by now the facts have “come in”.
    Myself, I did not conclude the BLM was in the wrong, and the bystanders were in the right, the moment I heard about the incident. Instead, I began by doing a Google search for the facts, and found that there actually existed a video, made by the BLM protestors themselves, where two of them describe in their own words what happened. I watched that video, and (guided by my legal knowledge as well) I discovered that they were admitting to committing crimes against the bystanders. Then, later I did further Google research, and discovered that there was a second video, made by the bystanders, that dovetailed accurately with the idea that they were the true victims.

  64. Wang Tang-Fu

    I’m not pretending. The cartoon is on point. You are like the coffee guy and maybe the masked guy too. “Neglish” was you slipping that mask off.

  65. jim

    You and Paulie and Jill simply concocted offense where it wasn’t present. That isn’t surprising: Fabricating offense (either to oneself or others) is perhaps the most essential element of Political correctness. How soon you forget that I did a Google search of “Neglish” and found, with no surprise at all (since I first heard the word a few years ago) the definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neglish
    Why should you claim that this was “slipping that mask off”? The English language has about 700,000 words. While most of them are obsolete, the average native English speaker can recognize at least 50,000 words. Why if I simply use a word you’ve never heard of, can you legitimately claim it’s “slipping that mask off”? How many other existing English words would you object to, if I used them?
    Do you like to lie a lot? Do you like to invent stories? Do you like to pretend you have won, when in fact you have lost?

  66. Fun K. Chicken

    The more you insist this is true, the more ridiculous you come off, Jim. Repetition is pointless with you but anyone who may have any suspicion that you could possibly be correct, instead of searching google, only needs to do a search in real life. That is, try asking some “Neglish” speakers what they think of the suggestion that they speak “Neglish.” Since there’s no chance that you don’t already know this, given your life experience, you are clearly just trying to provoke a reaction. Congratulations, mission accomplished. You’ve yanked our chains. Now what?

    I don’t know who Jim thinks is dumb and naive enough to be fooled that “Neglish” is not offensive or that he does not realize full well that it is offensive and is doing it on purpose, and that this is indicative of his larger approach. It’s obvious to anyone who cares and it’s easily verifiable by getting off the computer for a few minutes and interacting with a few real people. So given that it is as obvious to everyone as it is – the frustration is done. Now Jim is not the only one getting lulz, but is providing them as well… or would, if it wasn’t so trite and boring.

  67. jim

    Once, “colored people” wasn’t considered offensive. (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Once, “Negro” wasn’t considered offensive. (“Negro Leagues”. United Negro College Fund”.)
    Once, “black” wasn’t considered offensive. Once, “Afro-American” wasn’t considered offense. Once, “African-American” wasn’t considered offensive. Apparently all labels of that kind eventually become offensive.
    What will the next one be? How long will it last, before it too becomes offensive?

  68. Wang Tang-Fu

    Yes, we’ve seen your theory about how black people pollute whatever term they are called. But of course you harbor no prejudice. Give it up Jim. “Neglish” is way too transparent, if the rest of it wasn’t already. Since you’ll never give it up, you’ll just have to live with the shame that we all know, and that we know that you know that we know, etc.

    Let’s analyze this for a second. What could Jim’s goals possibly be with this nonsense? Clearly he is not persuading people. He isn’t learning a damn thing. I don’t think he has made friends or influenced anyone. Maybe he is lonely and bored. Maybe he likes to shock and get a rise out of people. Maybe he’s making up for something bad that happened to him in prison. Maybe he made a deal to be let out or not put back in and is trying to be disruptive here and waste people’s time on purpose.

  69. Smart Alex

    Jim said: “You and Paulie and Jill simply concocted offense where it wasn’t present.”

    The epitome of arrogance is pretending you know how another person feels. “Concocted offense”? Of all the stupid things Jim has said, that might be the worst.

  70. jim

    Wang said: “Yes, we’ve seen your theory about how black people pollute whatever term they are called.”

    Actually, it certainly isn’t MY theory, and I think it’s long past merely being a ‘theory’. I think that observation has been made for many decades. That observation would have been disproven if they had stayed on “black”: They would have argued that they didn’t CHOOSE “Negro”, which of course is merely the Spanish world for “black”. But they didn’t. Afro-American, and then African-American followed. As I asked: “What’s next?” You failed to even try to answer. Are you under the impression that “African-American” is the end? They will tire of it, too.

    ” But of course you harbor no prejudice.”

    I’ll give you an English-language lesson, since you seem to need it.
    The word “prejudice” derives from “pre”, meaning “before”, and “judice”, meaning to decide. So “prejudice” should mean to decide something before getting the facts, which of course would be risky and improper. In principle, a person who _doesn’t_ decide before getting the facts, then gets those facts, and then makes the decision, and nevertheless decides against something or someone, cannot be considered “prejudiced”. But the word “prejudice” has transmogrified over the decades into simply being against something, regardless of whether a person has considered the facts properly. So such a person is commonly called “prejudiced” even if he or she has come to his or her conclusion after getting plenty of evidence to form a thoroughly valid conclusion.

    So, are you suggesting that it would be in all cases improper for a person to decide against somebody or something, even after having gotten sufficient facts to make a valid decision?

    “Give it up Jim. “Neglish” is way too transparent, if the rest of it wasn’t already.”

    Are you suggesting _I_ invented the word? I certainly didn’t! It’s a valid word, somebody else already defined it, and only three people I am aware of consider it derogatory. I have challenged you (and Tweedledum and Tweedledee) to find evidence that it is derogatory. With the modern tool of Google-search, that should be quite easy…if it were true.

    “Since you’ll never give it up, you’ll just have to live with the shame that we all know, and that we know that you know that we know, etc.”

    You’re FUNNY, Fu!!!

  71. jim

    Dumb Alex said:
    “”Jim said: “You and Paulie and Jill simply concocted offense where it wasn’t present.””

    “The epitome of arrogance is pretending you know how another person feels. “Concocted offense”? Of all the stupid things Jim has said, that might be the worst.”

    The assertion they made is that the word “Neglish” is somehow derogatory. Other than merely asserting it, they provided absolutely no evidence at all that this was true. That, despite my repeated challenges to them! I reasonably conclude that they knew, and continue to know, that “Neglish” cannot reasonably be considered to be offensive to anyone, any more than 500,000+ other English-language words. But for a time, it made them feel better to make the claim.
    So, it was and is not necessary to “pretend I know how another person feels”. Their intent and misconduct was and is clear from their own statements, as was their blatant lack of proof when their foolish assertions were challenged by me. They simply got caught in their usual PC tricks, they were called out, and they proceeded to slink away.
    And you try to back them up. Are you beyond embarrassment?

  72. jim

    Alex: Let’s not forget what started this. First, those fools at the “Worker’s World Party” engaged in the typical PC nonsense of taking the word of the BLM protestors, who had claimed to have been attacked by (white) bystanders. Smelling a scam, I decided to do a search of events on the Web. Many references repeated the same story, which I suppose is not at all surprising for the PC/MSM. But occasionally, I saw references to some videos which contradicted the typical story. Watching them, I realized that the alternate propaganda being promoted was complete nonsense: These videos showed that the BLM protestors had approached, then attacked, the bystanders, chased them down the street, and eventually an armed person turned around and began defending that group.

    There was and remains absolutely nothing implausible about this version of events. Just as the bystander’s video clearly shows, there is nothing unlikely about being approached by the crowd if a small group of people approach them, across the street. That happened. There is also nothing improbable about being attacked by a hostile group of people, if those people are driven by biased, PC thoughts. That happened. There is nothing improbable about being chased by that group of people if the bystanders begin to run away. That happened. And if the people of that group happened to have the foresight to arm themselves with a gun or guns, there is nothing improbable about them eventually deciding to defend themselves. That too happened. And there is nothing at all improbable about a political party with a name like “Workers’ World Party” blindly accepting the BLM protestors’ story.

    And I suppose by now it is not improbable that when PC people get their ox gored by exposing the truth in such an incident, they would become hostile and petulant and nasty.
    That too has happened.

  73. Wang Tang-Fu

    Smart Alex,

    My best guess would be either Fort Worth, Texas or Fort Wayne, Indiana. It’s possible that Mr. Frankel was making a reference to the Furious Truckstop Waitresses roller derby team as well. You can find other possible meanings at:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTW

  74. trying again

    I’d like to watch the video and have an informed opinion before running my metaphorical mouth; but I need my valuable time to spam 37 “Rap News” videos on another thread.

  75. paulie

    Watch whatever you want. Rap News videos are much more informative than out of context video snippets of video regarding long standing conflicts, much of which aren’t on video. My time is my own and not yours. The amount of time I would need to engage Jim’s endless output of bullshit is far greater than whatever value I could possibly derive from it so I have decided I’ve had more than enough of that. If you feel if it is worth your time keep reading his comments, I just have a different opinion. And if you don’t like Rap News don’t watch it. I’ve had lots of people thank me for sharing it with them though.

    As for Jim’s output….

  76. Thane Eichenauer

    Rap News episodes are timeless examinations of issues. Should jim produce a video segment on his favorite issues Rap News would certainly be an worthy template to imitate.

  77. Jill Pyeatt

    Jim’s too busy trying to get us to argue with him to do that. Good suggestion, though, Thane.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *