Da Trayvon Martin blev skudt og dræbt i selvforsvar af den frivillige vagtmand “multi-racial Hispanic” George Zimmerman blev det hurtigt til fortællingen om den hengemte racisme i det amerikanske samfund. Obama var heller ikke sen til at befamle denne mulighed for klægt at erklære at han ligeså vel kunne være endt som Trayvon Martin, hvis han havde være en ung mand. Hans opførsel er i hvert fald mistænkelig som præsident. Men således chickt beskyldte Obama stik mod rettens afgørelse og bevisets stilling den amerikanske statsborger George Zimmermann for at være en morderisk racist skønt Zimmermann ikke havde foretaget en ‘racial profiling’, men derimod en korrekt “behavioral profiling” - nogenlunde samme system som Obama’s dronedrab er baseret på.
Men man undlod med søvngængeragtig sikkerhed at forholde sig til virkeligheden, nemlig at hvide sjældent skyder sorte. Ja faktisk så havde sorte skudt 10.000 andre sorte blot 500 dage efter Trayvon Martin blev skudt af noget så eksotisk som en der ikke selv var sort (skønt heller ikke ligefrem hvid). Trayvon Martin skyderiet var altså et relativt sjældent tilfælde - og det er, hvad der beskriver racismen i USA, nemlig den skarpe opdeling af samfundet, hvor de hvide sørger for helst ikke at komme i kontakt med de sorte, hverken for det positive eller - og derfor - det negative. De hvide skyder med andre ord for få sorte - relativt set forstås. Omvendt gør de sorte i USA en meget bedre indsats for også at komme de hvide ved - og til livs. For at dette argument skal flyve skal vi blot acceptere at hvor vi tidligere så racismen udtrykt gennem begået vold, som i hvides vold mod sorte, har vi nu bevæget os over i at se racismen som udtryk som værende offer for vold, hvor hvide får deres bekomst for sorte hænder. Måske det er fædrene synder?
Sort racistisk vold som da to sorte teenagere hældte tændvæske på en hvid dreng mens de skreg “this is what you deserve white boy” og som da en hvid man blev gennemtæsket “for Trayvon” på sin egen veranda af en snes sorte mænd vækker ingen opsigt i medierne eller frembringer personlige reflektioner hos præsidenten. Kunne han være en af gerningsmændene vil vi da gerne (h)vide? Da tre sorte teenagere dræbte den hvide Chris Lane fordi “de kedede sig” var det tydeligt fra deres tweetterier at de dyrkede et had til hvide, som de pralede stolt af den vold de havde begået og ønskede at begå tweetede Obama ikke om racisme, men
Retweet if you agree: It’s time for Congress to make gun violence prevention a priority. #WhatWillItTake
Teenagere har ikke våbentilladelse, så Obama’s reaktion svarer til den økotosse, der efter tsunamien tweetede at nu kunne ingen da være i tvivl om den globale opvarmning var en realitet. Daniel Greenfield analyserer i Frontpage Magazine med udgangspunkt i en episode, hvor en sort mand pludselig gik amok over et spil skak og bankede en hvid mand til døde mens han bedyrede at han hadede hvide mennesker, så glimrende denne kollektive kognitive dissonans, der præger de venstredrejede definerende klasser
No conclusions will be drawn from the murder. Lashawn Marten was obviously mentally ill. And if his mental illness took the form of violent racism toward white people, that is an incidental fact. The murder is an incident. The details are incidental. No conclusions will be drawn from what happened between the chess tables.
Incidents take place all around us, but patterns have to be articulated. The incident is insignificant. It’s the pattern that counts.
The incident is something we have to learn to get over so we can get back to shopping in downtown Manhattan or walking through Union Square. The pattern is a social problem that we must dedicate ourselves to fighting. The incident isn’t supposed to define our lives. The pattern is.
The murder of Chris Lane was an incident. The murder of Jeffrey Babbitt was an incident.
The Boston Marathon bombing was an incident. So was the Fort Hood Massacre. So was 9/11. No conclusions can be drawn from them and no pattern can be used to tie them together. They are to be processed separately and discarded as having no further meaning than the private pain of their victims.
The media is not that concerned with suppressing incidents. It is concerned with suppressing pattern awareness. No one can deny that the occasional racial murder takes place and that the perpetrators look like Obama’s sons. And no one can deny that Muslims sometimes set off bombs or fly planes into buildings. They deny only that these incidents form a pattern.
Thomas Sowel fortæller i Investors om hvorledes racismen er skiftet fra at være rettet fra hvide mod sorte til det omvendte
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Apparently other Americans also recognize that the sources of racism are different today from what they were in the past. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31% of blacks think that most blacks are racists, while 24% of blacks think that most whites are racist.
The difference between these percentages is not great, but it is remarkable nevertheless. After all, generations of blacks fought the white racism from which they suffered for so long. If many blacks themselves now think that most other blacks are racist, that is startling.
The moral claims advanced by generations of black leaders — claims that eventually touched the conscience of the nation and turned the tide toward civil rights for all — have now been cheapened by today’s generation of black “leaders,” who act as if it is all just a matter of whose ox is gored.
Even in legal cases involving terrible crimes — the O.J. Simpson murder trial or the charges of gang rape against Duke University students — many black “leaders” and their followers have not waited for facts about who was guilty and who was not, but have immediately taken sides, based on who was black and who was white.
Over the generations, black leaders have ranged from noble souls to shameless charlatans. After the success of the civil rights insurgency, the latter have come into their own, gaining money, power and fame by promoting racial attitudes and actions that are counterproductive to the interests of those they lead.
David P Goldman skriver i Pajamas Media om korrumperingen af den sorte rettighedsbevægelse
The leaders of what used to be a civil rights movement want to talk about everything but the main problem afflicting black people in the United States. That is the breakdown of the black family.
Just 29% of black women over the age of 15 were married in 2010, according to the Census Bureau’s comprehensive Current Population Survey. That compares to 54% of white women. At all ages, black women were about half as likely to be married as white women. That is an astonishing number.
The percentage of out-of-wedlock births has risen from 18% in 1980 to 40% in 2010. 29% of white births were non-marital, against 73% for black births. That’s nearly three-quarters of all black births.
Young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to be in jail than to be employed, reports the Pew Institute:
Collateral Costs details the concentration of incarceration among men, the young, the uneducated and African Americans. One in 87 working-aged white men is in prison or jail compared with 1 in 36 Hispanic men and 1 in 12 African American men. Today, more African American men aged 20 to 34 without a high school diploma or GED are behind bars (37 percent) than are employed (26 percent).
The report also shows more than 2.7 million minor children now have a parent behind bars, or 1 in every 28. For African American children the number is 1 in 9, a rate that has more than quadrupled in the past 25 years.
The worst oppressors of young black men are older black men who abandon their children. And the second-worst oppressors of young black men are other young black men. 94% of black murder victims are killed by blacks. The accelerating decline of the black family portends a much worse situation in the future.
Men rettighedsbevægelsen tilskrives stadigvæk at repræsentere sortes interesser og således agerer de venstreorienterede definerende klassers æstetik enabler for korrumperingen. Michael Barg Jr. skriver i American Thinker om, hvorledes det er venstrefløjens egen politik, der kværner de sorte ned i velfærdsordningernes kviksand
The American city that has been most completely controlled by Democrats is Chicago. It is a case study of the effects of Democratic policies upon minorities. In a matter of just a few decades Chicago went from being a city that provided great opportunities for blacks to being the most racially segregated and oppressive city in America.
From its very beginning Chicago provided opportunity for blacks. The first non-native American settler in the area was a Haitian black named DuSable. Chicago never had slavery. It had an early abolitionist movement and showcased Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, in debates with Stephen Douglas. The most prominent black magazines, Ebony and Jet, were founded in Chicago. They celebrated black culture and fashion. Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire anchoring her TV show in the City of Chicago.
When blacks first moved to Chicago during WW I in the great migration north they wore black armbands in memory of Lincoln and voted for Republicans, the party of Lincoln. But soon the black attitude toward Republicans changed. By 1920 thousands of blacks worked in Chicago in city and county jobs. But when Anton Cermak was elected mayor, he fired all the blacks and rehired only black Democrats. Black residents were funneled by the Chicago Democratic machine into highly segregated black-only neighborhoods. This segregation and racism has lasted one hundred years and persists to this day.
The Chicago Democratic Machine institutionalized housing segregation more than any American city. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. noted that Chicago’s housing segregation was the major cause of poverty among blacks. Mayor Daley I doubled the number of residents in low-income housing from 1960 to 1970 at a time when the population fell by eight percent. Those high-rise buildings allowed Democratic precinct captains to intimidate black votersinto voting for Democrats by threatening to take away their apartments. The era of high-rise low-income buildings, portrayed in the TV comedy show Good Times, only ended when a courageous black woman namedDorothy Gautreaux sued the Chicago Housing Authority for racial discrimination. Since then the high-rise buildings have been gradually torn down and blacks are moving to suburbs or out of Illinois entirely.
This segregation was practiced in all major northern cities run by Democrats including Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Boston, D.C., New York, Cleveland, Detroit and many others. While pursuing his civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, Dr. King marched in Chicago and was stunned by the racial hatred he experienced there. In a city that never hosted slavery, Dr. King said “I think people in Mississippi ought to come to Chicago to learn how to hate.”
The 2000 Census found that for Chicago to be integrated 90% of the blacks would have to move. And remarkably, of the 10 poorest census tracts in the entire United States, nine of them were located in Chicago’s black Congressional Districts of black Congressmen Bobby Rush and Jesse Jackson Jr. When Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned his Congressional seat, Democrats said that he must be replaced by another black. This could serve no other purpose than to preserve Democratic power and maintain the segregationist status quo.
Nothing has improved for black residents in these segregated areas even with the assistance of black politicians of their own race, who campaign that they will improve things. The Chicago Public School system is so bad that it has one of the shortest school days of any major city. This holds back the poor of all ethnic groups from excelling in academics and moving out of the City.
Racial segregation is a very effective means of exploiting the poor, since it keeps them from obtaining good paying jobs, deprives them of any benefit from public education (which is very expensive), and ensures that lack of opportunity forces young black men into lives of gang membership and crime. Today one of every nine black men in their twenties is in prison. This does not mean that one in every nine has ever been in prison, but that they are in prison all at once. All of these failures are great spiritual and emotional tragedies for the black families involved.
Black families did not suffer these high rates of single motherhood and crime until they were encouraged to go north into cities controlled by Democrats. It is a very tragic episode in the history of blacks in the United States. Fortunately blacks are realizing that it is the segregated urban environment that is the root cause of all these problems and many are leaving the North.
I samme ånd beskriver Michael Tanner Detroits nedtur i Jyllands-Posten
Detroit har da også haft sine raceproblemer. Mange års diskrimination eksploderede i optøjer i 1967, hvorefter hvide flygtede ud til forstæderne, og da byen næsten kun har ét erhverv, blev den hårdt ramt af nedgangen hos bilfabrikkerne General Motors, Ford og Chrysler.
Andre byer, f. eks. Pittsburgh og Cleveland, der har stået over for de samme udfordringer, har imidlertid formået at vende udviklingen eller i det mindste ride stormen af.
Og bilproduktion er fremdeles et erhverv i fremgang i delstater som Alabama og Tennessee. Hvad en beskeden offentlig sektor angår og dens eventuelle medansvar, skal man 52 år tilbage for at finde republikanere i spidsen for Detroits bystyre.
Sagen er, at man skal lede andre steder for at finde årsagerne til, at Detroit ikke har været i stand til at løse sine problemer. Den mest sandsynlige forklaring er byens omfattende ufinansierede pensionsordninger, der har kørt med underskud i årevis. Hele 99,6 pct. af de forpligtelser på sundhedsområdet, som byen har over for pensionister, er ufinansierede, og i det store hele dækker ordningerne 80-100 pct. af de udgifter til lægebehandling, som pensionsmodtagere har.
Pensioner er dog ikke Detroits eneste problem. Byen smider masser af penge efter sine skoler, som står i afhængighedsforhold til den stærke lærerfagforening Detroit Federation of Teachers. Der bliver brugt mere end 14.000 dollars om året pr. elev. Byen får dog ikke meget igen: I 2009 fik eleverne i Detroits offentlige skoler det dårligste resultat, der nogen sinde er opnået til de nationale matematikprøver.
Mere end en tredjedel af eleverne dumper.
Detroit har indført en særløn (” living wage”) på 11,03 dollars i timen (13,78 dollars i timen, hvis der ikke ydes tilskud til lægehjælp) for offentligt ansatte samt for erhvervsvirksomheder, der udfører opgaver for kommunen. I år indførte Detroit en kampagne mod virksomheder, der ikke lever op til byens omfattende bevillingskrav, og lovede at lukke ca. 1.500 »ulovlige« foretagender som f. eks. dækforretninger og brugtvareforhandlere, der driver virksomhed fra forladte lagerbygninger.
Den sektor tegner sig for næsten en tiendedel af virksomhederne i byen og betjener næsten 70 pct. af indbyggerne. Den officielle politik er at gøre det af med denne form for erhvervsvirksomhed.
For ikke så mange år siden blev Detroit af den upolitiske tænketank Bay Area Center for Voting Research ratet som den by i USA, der førte den mest venstreorienterede politik. Detroits egne dispositioner, ikke det frie marked og en minimal offentlig sektor, er ansvarlige for byens nedtur.
Men det er ikke, hvad der interesserer de definerende og venstreorienterede klasser. Sammenbruddet af den sorte familie har været en kendt og velbeskrevet realitet årtier førend en erkendelse, som Kay S. Hymowitz beskrev for City Journal
Read through the megazillion words on class, income mobility, and poverty in the recent New York Times series “Class Matters” and you still won’t grasp two of the most basic truths on the subject: 1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.
By now, these facts shouldn’t be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.
So why does the Times, like so many who rail against inequality, fall silent on the relation between poverty and single-parent families? To answer that question—and to continue the confrontation with facts that Americans still prefer not to mention in polite company—you have to go back exactly 40 years. That was when a resounding cry of outrage echoed throughout Washington and the civil rights movement in reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report warning that the ghetto family was in disarray. Entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the prophetic report prompted civil rights leaders, academics, politicians, and pundits to make a momentous—and, as time has shown, tragically wrong—decision about how to frame the national discussion about poverty.
To go back to the political and social moment before the battle broke out over the Moynihan report is to return to a time before the country’s discussion of black poverty had hardened into fixed orthodoxies—before phrases like “blaming the victim,” “self-esteem,” “out-of-wedlock childbearing” (the term at the time was “illegitimacy”), and even “teen pregnancy” had become current. While solving the black poverty problem seemed an immense political challenge, as a conceptual matter it didn’t seem like rocket science. Most analysts assumed that once the nation removed discriminatory legal barriers and expanded employment opportunities, blacks would advance, just as poor immigrants had.
Conditions for testing that proposition looked good. Between the 1954 Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal racism had been dismantled. And the economy was humming along; in the first five years of the sixties, the economy generated 7 million jobs.
Yet those most familiar with what was called “the Negro problem” were getting nervous. About half of all blacks had moved into the middle class by the mid-sixties, but now progress seemed to be stalling. The rise in black income relative to that of whites, steady throughout the fifties, was sputtering to a halt. More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954. Most alarming, after rioting in Harlem and Paterson, New Jersey, in 1964, the problems of the northern ghettos suddenly seemed more intractable than those of the George Wallace South.
Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor and one of a new class of government social scientists, was among the worriers, as he puzzled over his charts. One in particular caught his eye. Instead of rates of black male unemployment and welfare enrollment running parallel as they always had, in 1962 they started to diverge in a way that would come to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” In the past, policymakers had assumed that if the male heads of household had jobs, women and children would be provided for. This no longer seemed true. Even while more black men—though still “catastrophically” low numbers—were getting jobs, more black women were joining the welfare rolls. Moynihan and his aides decided that a serious analysis was in order.
Men rapporten passede ikke fortællingen om hvid undertrykkelse og social ingenørkunst og blev heglet ned for at være uæstetisk på så mange planer
Less forgivable was the refusal to grapple seriously—either at the time or in the months, years, even decades to come—with the basic cultural insight contained in the report: that ghetto families were at risk of raising generations of children unable to seize the opportunity that the civil rights movement had opened up for them. Instead, critics changed the subject, accusing Moynihan—wrongfully, as any honest reading of “The Negro Family” proves—of ignoring joblessness and discrimination. Family instability is a “peripheral issue,” warned Whitney Young, executive director of the National Urban League. “The problem is discrimination.” The protest generating the most buzz came from William Ryan, a CORE activist, in “Savage Discovery: The Moynihan Report,” published in The Nation and later reprinted in the NAACP’s official publication. Ryan, though a psychologist, did not hear Moynihan’s point that as the family goes, so go the children. He heard code for the archaic charge of black licentiousness. He described the report as a “highly sophomoric treatment of illegitimacy” and insisted that whites’ broader access to abortion, contraception, and adoption hid the fact that they were no less “promiscuous” than blacks. Most memorably, he accused Moynihan of “blaming the victim,” a phrase that would become the title of his 1971 book and the fear-inducing censor of future plain speaking about the ghetto’s decay.
That Ryan’s phrase turned out to have more cultural staying power than anything in the Moynihan report is a tragic emblem of the course of the subsequent discussion about the ghetto family. For white liberals and the black establishment, poverty became a zero-sum game: either you believed, as they did, that there was a defect in the system, or you believed that there was a defect in the individual. It was as if critiquing the family meant that you supported inferior schools, even that you were a racist. Though “The Negro Family” had been a masterpiece of complex analysis that implied that individuals were intricately entwined in a variety of systems—familial, cultural, and economic—it gave birth to a hardened, either/or politics from which the country has barely recovered.
For at blive i æstetikken så skrev Nicolas Stix om den succesfulde amerikanske serie Law And Order (der desværre hører til mine yndlingserier med sin korte kontante facon befriet for personligt fnidder mellem figurerne og afsluttede afsnit) i Middle American News
And so, even though more than 89 percent of suspects in violent crimes are black or Hispanic according to NYPD crime reports, L&O presents a looking-glass world in the grip of a white crime wave. In “Teenage Wasteland,” an episode that originally aired on February 7, 2001, the true case of a group of black teenagers who ordered Chinese food, and murdered the delivery man, is turned into a group of middle-class, white kids. “Myth of Fingerprints” (November 14, 2001) tells of a white, female forensics chief whose years of false testimony has sent many innocent men to jail.
One of those innocents was murdered in prison, resulting in the official’s conviction for manslaughter. “Fingerprints” was loosely based on the real case of former Oklahoma City supervising forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist, nicknamed “black magic,” for her seeming forensic wizardry. Gilchrist’s lab techniques and court testimony had come under scrutiny by federal and state authorities. Critics charged she gave false testimony causing 23 men to be sentenced to death, eleven of whom were executed. Joyce Gilchrist is black, but unlike the fictional white official, was never prosecuted, though she was fired for alleged “flawed casework” and mismanagement.
Seven months after the October, 2002 Washington, D.C. sniper case was closed with the arrest of suspects John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, L&O dramatized the case, but with the shooter as a white man! (”Sheltered”; May 14, 2003.) “Smoke” (May 21, 2003) opens with the death of a child, whose adoptive father, a famous entertainer, had dropped him, while dangling him from a hotel room window. The detectives eventually discover that the entertainer would also arrange for underage boys to accompany him to his mansion, where he would sexually violate them. When I told a not particularly media-savvy neighbor who is the mother of four small children that story line, she immediately said, “Michael Jackson!” But on L&O, the character was depicted as a white comedian. Remember the Danny Almonte case? Almonte was the 14-year-old Dominican fraud who — through the connivance of his father, Felipe de Jesus Almonte, and Bronx-based, Dominican Little League coach Rolando Paulino — passed himself off as a 12-year-old, in order to play in the 2001 Little League championships. But in “Foul Play” (May 1, 2002), the coach magically becomes a blond-haired, white man, who is somehow convicted of a murder committed by the player’s father.
L&O’s creative team must read some interesting publications, since many of their “ripped from the headlines” stories never happened, but suit any left-winger’s paranoid fantasies quite well. Consider their obsession with non-existent, murderous white supremacists, whom they depict as besieging Manhattan. In “Open Season” (November 20, 2002), a William Kunstler-like defense attorney is murdered while celebrating the acquittal of a guilty-as-hell black defendant for shooting a white policeman. The killer, a member of a white supremacist group, then uses his defense attorney to unwittingly pass along information to his co-conspirators, who murder a prosecutor in another state. The defense attorney is charged with aiding and abetting the supremacists, before she is shot by a female supremacist. The real basis of the episode was the indictment of radical attorney, Lynne Stewart, of consciously aiding and abetting Moslem terrorist Sheik Abdul Rahman, the convicted ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In “Prejudice” (December 12, 2001), a racist, white real estate agent progresses from writing a letter to his co-op board in an effort to keep an interracial couple out of his building, to flashing a gun at a black colleague, to murdering a black man who beat him to a taxi. Such a case would have been fantastic in 1951, let alone in 2001. In “Genius” (April 2, 2003), a white, violence-embracing ex-con-writer stabs a white cabby to death. Viewers are then given mixed messages, as the cab driver turns out to be a fugitive, white supremacist racial murderer.
In another surreal L&O touch, ordinary black New Yorkers are repeatedly shown to be victims powerful white overseers. In “Kid Pro Quo” (April 30, 2003), the dedicated director of admissions at a tony private school is murdered by her corrupt racist boss. The victim sought to get a deserving but poor black girl admitted, but was overridden by the boss, who’d taken a bribe to accept the inferior child of a Jewish pornographer. And then there’s the homophobia angle. In the real world, Manhattan is, like San Francisco, one of the most gay-friendly areas in America. But not in L&O’s alternate universe. In “Girl Most Likely” (March 27, 2002), a private school student murders her lesbian lover, in order to hide the fact that she is gay. Last, but not least, comes xenophobia. In “Patriot” (May 22, 2002), a pale, blonde-haired former special forces officer kills a Moslem immigrant he had surveilled, and whom he suspected of being a terrorist. The prosecutor presents the imaginary patriot as a fire-breathing, chest-thumping, jingoist monster, even as the story suggests that the dead man really was a terrorist.
Law And Order er baseret på den legendariske (eller berygtede om man vil) stats anklager i New York Robert Morgenthau. Nicholas Stix beskriv hans sager således i VDare
The Bernard Goetz case
From 1984-1987, Morgenthau pursued a vindictive prosecution against Bernard Goetz. Goetz was a Jew working in electronics who,at Christmastime, 1984, had defended himself against four 18 and 19-year-old black menattempting to rob him at midday in a subway car. Goetz, who had previously been mugged three times, and been brutally beaten the last time, shot each of the would-be robbers once.
While seeking to put Goetz away for 30 years for attempted murder and illegal gun possession, Morgenthau treated the would-be muggers, all hardened thugs who had criminal records and were wanted on outstanding warrants, as if they were crime victims. He used the media to spread lies, claiming that Goetz was a “racist“ who had been looking for trouble, and who had shot one of the muggers a second time. The media called Goetz “the subway vigilante.”
Grand juries almost always follow prosecutors’ lead. But the first grand jury refused to indict Goetz for attempted murder, as Morgenthau sought, and only indicted him for illegal possession of a firearm. So Morgenthau empaneled a second grand jury, which indicted Goetz for attempted murder.
In 1987, the jury in Goetz’ criminal case acquitted him of the charge of attempted murder, but convicted him of illegal possession of an unlicensed handgun, and sentenced him to one year in prison. He served eight months. In 1996, a Bronx jury—notorious for their racial bias—awarded one of the would-be muggers a judgment of $43 million, in a civil suit against Goetz.
All of the four men would later admit that they had intended on mugging Goetz.
The Central Park Jogger case
On April 19, 1989, a mob of 32-40 teenaged boys—predominantly black, the rest Hispanic—set out for a night of mayhem terrorizing whites in Central Park. They brutalized at least a dozen whites, most obscenely the woman who for years would be known as “The Central Park Jogger.”
A subgroup of from eight to 15 boys variously bludgeoned, punched, stomped, hit with rocks, and ripped the flesh of their 5′4,” 105-lb. victim from head to toe; sexually fondled her; stripped her and tied her up with her clothes; sodomized her; and at least one raped her.
Hours before police would learn of the attack on The Jogger, they responded to calls that all hell was breaking loose in the park. In separate squad cars, black teenagers Kevin Richardson, 14, Antron McCray, 15, and Clarence Thomas, 14, told baffled officers that they knew who had committed “the murder”, and where the weapon had been stashed.
At that point, only the attackers had such knowledge.
When two men found The Jogger in a ravine, she had a fractured skull, had lost 75 percent of her blood, and was pronounced DOA. Few of her doctors thought she’d survive. One “exploded” eye hung out of its socket; afriend could not physically identify her. She remained in a coma for 12 days. Her sociopathic attackers caused brain damage, leaving her with lifelong balance and coordination problems, a lost sense of smell, decreased mental abilities, and having to re-learn such basic tasks as “rolling over, telling time, buttoning her blouse or identifying simple objects.”
Four of the nine boys initially arrested—Richardson, McCray, Raymond Santana, 14, and Kharey Wise, 16—made voluntary, videotaped confessions, the three under 16 in the presence of a parent or guardian. Each denied having raped The Jogger, but charged accomplices with having done so. The four all identified 15-year-old Yusuf Salaam as having brought down The Jogger with a blow to the head from a metal pipe. Salaam likewise confessed to having struck that blow, and a second to the victim’s ribs, but refused to make an official signed or videotaped confession.
At the time, police announced that additional attackers remained at large, and that none of the arrestees’ DNA matched the semen evidence.
A racist hate campaign immediately swung into action—against the victim!
Working with black nationalist activists such as Al Sharpton, Elombe Brath, and Bill Perkins, the city’s black weeklies, theAmsterdam News and City Sun, promoted the fantasy that the confessed assailants were the Scottsboro Boysreincarnated: “Innocent” boys from “good homes,” who had been snatched up by racist police, based solely on the color of their skin.
Violating a long-standing, unofficial rule against revealing the names of sex crime victims, for over a year the two weeklies obsessively repeated the victim’s name in every issue: Patricia Meili. (Actually, she went by “Trisha.”)
Outside the courthouse, black supremacists screamed,“The boyfriend did it!” “She did it herself!” and when the limping victim appeared, “Whore!” and “Slut!”
New York’s white-owned media largely suppressed coverage of the hate campaign.
One has to understand that black supremacists consider brutalizing whites virtuous behavior; the more gruesome, the better. Their reflexive assertions in such cases that blacks were “framed”are smoke-screens; for them, there is no such thing as black-on-white “crime.”
In two trials, marked by constant intimidation and disruptions, and feckless behavior by city officials, McCray, Richardson, Salaam, Santana and Wise were tried and convicted of most charges in 1990.
Afterwards, attorneys for three of the defendants (see also here) remarked that mounting an effective defense had been rendered impossible by the convicts’ self-incriminating statements—including their trial testimony—and because an alternative theory of where they were in the park would have implicated them in other felonies.
Then the convicts then got confessors’ remorse. The black agitators and their MSM henchmen promoted the Big Lie, whereby the confessions had been coerced, and the convicts were innocent.
In a 1992 jailhouse interview on 60 Minutes, Salaam suggested that Meili was “faking” her injuries, and insisted as a Muslim, he was incapable of committing crimes. (!)
In 2002, after the statute of limitations for the Central Park attacks had passed, delusional psychotic Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist already serving a 33 1/3 years-to-life sentence in the same prison as Kharey Wise, announced that he had “found God”—something that he had been saying for 11 years—and that he alone had attacked Trisha Meili.
The unidentified sperm proved to be Reyes’. Otherwise, his story was bunkum. The victim’s doctors denied that the then slightly built, 5′8,” 18-year-old had without help dragged a remarkably fit if petite woman, fighting for her life, 290 feet; and had without accomplices so tortured and harmed her.
Reyes had either found and raped the unconscious Meili after the wolf pack had moved on to other victims, or had been a part of it. At the time, some of the boys had said they’d held the victim down, while a “Tony” raped her. Reyes’ street name was “Tony.”
Morgenthau took Reyes’ entire story on faith, and refused to permit him to be cross-examined in a court of law.
(At the time Reyes made his statement, he was serving in the same prison as Kharey Wise, who by then had become“a very powerful Muslim leader during his 11 years in prison.” Police believed that “Reyes made the confession to score points with Wise… So he does Wise a favor and gets himself major protection in state prison.”) [Why Reyes Admitted Rape, By Andy Geller And Murray Weiss, New York Post, December 5, 2002]
After promising “a fair, impartial and complete” review of the case, Morgenthau instead joined the MSM inpromoting the black supremacist narrative, after airbrushing the obvious racist insanity out of it. The story Morgenthau now peddled could have been a Law & Order script.
Twisting the law, history, and logic into a pretzel on behalf of the convicts, Morgenthau acted as if there were new exculpatory evidence, when there was none; as if the confessions had been ruled inadmissible, when they had in fact withstood all legal challenges; and asserted that it was the prosecutor’s (as opposed to defense counsel’s) job to concoct an exculpatory, alternative narrative though, like a dumb street hood, he apparently could not come up with one matching the known facts. No matter; the New York Times covered for him.
In December, 2002, Morgenthau requested state Justice Charles Tejada to “vacate” the already served sentences, both for the attack on Meili and for other assaults that night—thus implying that the five convicts had been railroaded. Tejada complied.
Atypical of the media, legendary NYPD detective Mike Sheehan, by then a Fox 5 News reporter said, “I’m shocked at Morgenthau. This shows they have no respect for us and no respect for the victims in this case.”
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and several of the over 30 detectives who had originally worked the case, charged that Morgenthau’s office, led by ADA Nancy E. Ryan, had sabotaged the investigation, by:
- Withholding new DNA tests and prison records;
- Refusing to interview the prosecutors and lead detectives from the original case;
- Forbidding the detectives from consulting their by now 13-year-old notes, when attempting to interrogate convicts in prison;
- Forbidding detectives from administering a polygraph examination to Reyes;
- Interrupting detectives whenever they asked Reyes questions in jail; and
- Going so far as to telephone the lawyers of Reyes’ fellow inmates, directing them to advise their clients to refuse to cooperate with detectives.
If Kelly and the detectives’ charges are true—and they seem plausible to me—Morgenthau and his aides committed the felony, conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Today, the indignant, “innocent victims” seek to cash in, to the tune of $250 million, via the ultimate frivolous lawsuit.
If they win, they should cut Morgenthau in. He’s earned it.
Daniel Greenfield, hvis artikel jeg indledte denne lange postering med at citere fra slutter sin artikel med disse sande ord
We live in a world of phony patterns, of global environmental apocalypses made to order, of shadows and illusions, of phantom fears, panics and doubts. But even in the liberal world of ghosts and shadows, where rogue air conditioners and cow flatulence are a greater threat to the planet than the nuclear bomb, where Lashawn Marten was oppressed by the unconscious white privilege of Jeffrey Babbitt who died for what he did not even know he had and where Muslim terrorism is a phantom fear of bigots, these true patterns intrude.
Terrible acts of violence momentarily tear apart the illusory false patterns with blood and fire and reveal the terrible truth.
On September 11, thousands of New Yorkers standing at Union Square looked downtown to see a plume of smoke rising over Broadway. I was one of them. Some fell to making anti-war posters on the spot. Others enlisted in a long war. On another distant September, some New Yorkers came to the defense of a 62-year-old man being beaten to death for the color of his skin. Others walked on to the farmers’ market, bought their organic peaches while the liberal memes in their heads told them to see no evil.
Our lives are sharpest and clearest when we see the pattern. In moments of revelation, the comforting illusions are torn away and the true pattern of our world stands revealed.
Med Reagans ord: Don’t be afraid to see what you see!