Some Thoughts on the Zimmerman/Martin Episode

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Fri, 2013-07-19 00:54

The Zimmerman trial and what it represents is perhaps the most important cultural phenomenon we have seen. So many things, so much evil, is involved that OrgOism's refusal to comment on it is disgraceful. The entire case is a show trial, a political persecution of an individual citizen conducted by the ENTIRE Leftist establishment including the POTUS himself. The entire Leftist juggernaut was deployed to crush one man. Why?

To answer that question understand that Zimmerman was condemned by the left-liberal elite for being an evil racist. If Zimmerman killed Martin due to gang violence or a busted drug deal, the media would never have cared about the incident. That is routine minority on minority violence. It happens all the time and is built right into our welfare state with its anti-drug laws. Even stray killings from minority on minority crime or drug involved crime are uninteresting for the most part.

But Zimmerman didn't kill Martin in drug or gang related crime. Zimmerman’s greatest sin is that he cared about crime in his neighborhood and was trying to do something about it. Black crime and black home invasion were a very real fact of life for George Zimmerman. His neighborhood was 20% black. There is a tipping point that knowledgeable Americans understand. When any community or neighborhood gets to be 25% black or more, it becomes crime infested and DANGEROUS to live in. THE REALITY OF BLACK CRIME IS CENTRAL TO THIS CASE AS IS THE REALITY OF THE VIOLENT BLACK UNDERCLASS. Zimmerman was combating black crime in his condo complex which had been hit by 14 incidents of black criminality since he lived there. But there's more.

What's at play here is the Leftist "narrative”; that narrative being that white racism is the fundamental factor behind every ill that befalls blacks, from poverty to unequal incomes to living in inner city squalor to suffering a disproportionate murder rate. This narrative is a form of thought control over america’s white population. It sets the parameters about what they can think and say about everything having to do with black poverty and crime. Its intention is to automatically cause guilt in all whites. Its the Left's version of Original Sin. It is a version of history where everything is the white man's fault. This is pure mind control. It should make a lover of liberty outraged. (ARI? TOS? TOC? Dr. Diana Hsieh, PHD? Anyone home?)

Its as if the Left wants to stir up a pogrom against non-Leftist whites. The only thing preventing all out pogroms is that as yet the Left doesn't have the numbers on their side. But that could change in 50 years or so, especially with continued non-European immigration. (Yes, I know that will piss off mainstream O'ists.) South Africa and Zimbabwe come to mind. If mainstream Objectivism had any understanding of human nature or the way the world works, it would understand that when blacks gain a majority in a country where they suffered some historic injustice they become VIOLENT. They end up with a MURDEROUS rage against whites. Yes, the solution is laissez fair. But that is an ideal solution for a distant future. We live in the present. Combine a majority non-white population with a dominant cultural/political Left-wing movement that we are now seeing and you have the making of a society characterized by constant racial civil war. The only whites who will live in peace are those rich enough to live in gated communities with private police forces. Those will of course by Leftist whites or those connected to them. That is not a pretty picture. Yet it is coming. That future more than Peikoff's nutty Christian theocracy is a reality.

But what else can we say about the way this case was conducted:

*The Florida DA didn't even want to bring charges against Zimmerman at first, the case was so weak. But it only did so once the racial grievance industry became involved including Obama and Holder. Obama contributed to the race hustling with his comment "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin."

*The DA falsified evidence in this witch hunt that even Leftist Allan Dershowitz argues that they should be sued and Corey disbarred.

*The entire Leftist media attempted to convict Zimmerman in their coverage of the whole episode. Martin was continuously called a "boy" or "child". His 12 year old angelic photos were always shown and not the thuggish photos of his later years. There was no real reporting on his drug habit, or his school suspension, or his dysfunctional family life, etc. All that stuff you had to learn about on-line, from Conservative media or bloggers (those dreaded Conservatives that OrgOism is so fixated with).

*Zimmerman who is obviously Hispanic was portrayed as a white man by the media to assist its demonization of whites. Thus was the "white Hispanic" born. If Zimmerman had discovered a cure for cancer would the media have portrayed him as white? No.

*Riots have taken place and a few deaths have resulted. Fortunately not to the level they could have. Its actually amazing that we didn't have total nation-wide chaos given what the left carried on.

What's the take-home point for those interested in the Objectivist movement? The Zimmerman/Martin affair shows the nature of the racial socialism of the Left, their hatred of white gentile (and capitalist) society, the total anarchy of the feral black underclass, the growing danger to middle class citizens (mostly whites) from the black undertow, the hatred that most blacks harbor towards whites (and reinforced by the Left), and the growing totalitarianism of the entire political Left. The Left not Conservatives and Republicans. Yes Republicans are very bad. But you have to be deranged to think that they are as bad as today's Leftist politicians.*

THIS IS 'ATLAS SHRUGGED' TYPE STUFF HERE. And OrgOism has said NOTHING about it. Why? Because it involves blacks and OrgOism will not challenge the Left on anything which involves the Leftist sacrilization of blacks or Muslims. They have been gelded and thus they are impotent.

The Objectivist movement is dead. Ayn Rand is now just a historical figure who hopefully will have a legacy of note somewhere in the future. The only people fighting the good war against Leftist and Muslim evil are Conservatives. Not Objectivists and not libertarians (the latter are largely on the side of the Left). Objectivists are too busy colonizing Mars while Rome burns.

--------------------

* Incidentally, Yaron Brook has not twittered on the Zimmerman verdict. But he has twittered on the Republican farm bill. Yes the farm bill is more Republican statism and that's important. But I just can't believe Brook's priorities.


Disclaimers!

Craig Ceely's picture

Sorry, I wasn't there in Beirut for the barracks bombing: I was sent there because of it. And again, I was no badass, nor hero.

I do like your comments on gun rights/attitude.

And you'd have liked, I think, the M16A1. Can't blame you for not wanting to trust it, but we were happy with ours.

Shotgun blast? Hmm...I do like the idea of an almost guaranteed hit, but why blast my own home just because some scumbag invades?

Guns

RationalMan's picture

Craig

Interesting. You were there during the bombings of the barracks. You don't have to be a hero or a badass to take a salute. You put it on the line and you deserve a salute for that.

Peikoff, Binswanger and Schwartz could have used some Marine training to rid them of their chronic big ego syndrome. Squirming around in water buffalo shit does wonders for an inflated, puffed up ego filled with the belief in its own undeserved greatness.

I really can’t discuss Objectivists, or anybody else, who reject gun rights. It is like talking to a child who wants to drive a car or a bus and can’t even reach the steering wheel.

The M-16 had some serious defects in the early days but I learned to clear the jams, although it is kind of like being cheated on by a gal you are putting your trust in, and I can’t bring myself to trust in her again. Besides, I like the idea of a shotgun blast for home intrusion.

Brian...

Craig Ceely's picture

Brian, you wrote,

"I don't know who you are and what you did specifically but if you fought Hezbollah and put your life on the line, I take my hat off to you and salute you."

I rate neither your raised hat nor, Brian, especially, your offered salute. Actually I didn't do much: I was a Marine in Lebanon 1983-84, I was never a badass and I sure as hell was never any sort of war hero. I appreciate your sentiment, but I'm just not that guy.

Now about the Objectivist commenters in the 60s: yes, I agree with your "New York/different world" guess. My entire family is from New York, and I was born there. But Peikoff and Binswanger seem to have gotten better at the self-defense/gun issue over the years (especially recently). Brook these days isn't so bad. Rand herself I found quite disappointing, but I'll cut her some slack because of two disclaimers she offered: one is that some of this argumentation is a matter for political philosophy, which it is, and the other because she admitted she hadn't thought about that particular issue much. I can't argue with that last one, and frankly I'm glad she spent more time working on Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology than on gun owners' rights. I can take care of that last bit -- thanks to her epistemological and moral insights. Division of labor, and all that. It wouldn't have worked the opposite way.

Sorry to hear about your bad M16 experiences, too. We were all quite happy with the A1 variant and the M911.

Math much?

Craig Ceely's picture

Doug, you write:

"In one sense you are right. But I think that you miss a deeper point; i.e. the reality of black crime. For some people they will have no choice but to defend themselves from the violent black underclass."

Gee, I post about something I know -- forced, in fact, to gain some expertise -- and have experienced, and I'm right "in one sense." No doubt you've read about a few things, so even though I have missed "a deeper point," you still offer, quite generously I'm sure, that I am right "in one sense."

You can -- I hope -- imagine my relief over this.

The "reality of black crime" to which you refer has an interesting component which you managed to omit, which is that in the overwhelming number of situations across this country the victims are other blacks. Ah, but I'm the one missing the "deeper point." How's that? Just what, then, is that deeper point?

Have you ever been a victim of violent crime, Doug? Ever? Did you miss Yaron Brook's interview on Canadian TV, recently, where he insisted that the Left was in his view "even more fascistic" than the Right? If your answer be "No," which I think would be the case, then why do you go on about blacks (and there certainly is a dysfunctional culture there), about Brook, and about ARI and so-called Objectivist "hippies?"

I also note that you agree with me on not wanting to be in Zimmerman's shoes. Would that not make two things, sir, in the same message, on which you think I'm now right?

Yes, I can add. I'm not just a gun aimed at someone, and I never was. I can remember things, too, and I can employ reason. By all means, engage me on "deeper points." You keep offering to do so. Let's have it.

Heh "Squishy, Limp Dick

Tom Burroughes's picture

Heh

"Squishy, Limp Dick Objectivists and Gun Rights"

Better produce a book with that title quickly before the anti-copyright nuts over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute grab your idea instead.

Ceely's Gun Rights

RationalMan's picture

Craig

I don't know who you are and what you did specifically but if you fought Hezbollah and put your life on the line, I take my hat off to you and salute you. I had some bad experiences with my M-16 in Nam so now I go with a couple of Remingtons for the house, and a Glock for the street. My wife packs also and we both are big fans of Will and Stephanie Hayden.

So you could say I am not a "squishy snushy." But I think you have a point. I heard Ayn Rand discussing guns one time and she wasn't overly enthusiastic about pistols. Branden, Peikoff and Binwanger were lukewarm. But that was the sixties in New York, a different world. Yet, one would think gun rights and self-defence would be a prime issue for Objectivists.

My sense is many Objectivists are mostly cerebral and intellectual. In the world, they tend to be lost. Facing a home invasion or a carjacking are real life things, to say nothing of facing death in combat in some backwater s-hole.

Maybe as Lindsay says we have to put some "testosterone in those limp dick" Objectivists which makes me think it would be a good title for a book.

"Squishy, Limp Dick Objectivists and Gun Rights"

Craig

Doug Bandler's picture

Be very glad that you're not George Zimmerman, and that you'll in all likelihood never be in such a situation yourself. Give thanks that you'll never have to confront, and practice, what you might think you mean by a "right" to "self-defense." We refer to that as "civilization," and it is a pretty goddamned good thing indeed.

In one sense you are right. But I think that you miss a deeper point; i.e. the reality of black crime. For some people they will have no choice but to defend themselves from the violent black underclass. And the Left's war against both whites and guns, and thus a war against self-defense itself, will make life a living hell for many people. That is why the Zimmerman case is so important. Given the nature of America's decline into a type of 3rd world barbarism (i.e. Detroit) and that the decline is characterized by white people living in fear of feral black savagery, the 2nd amendment becomes more and more important.

If the Left succeeds in either disarming white people or neutering the laws of self-defense, they will place a nation full of whites at the mercy of dangerous, violent underclass blacks. That is a type of evil that has me at times wishing for many political, academic and media Leftists to swing from their necks.

But I agree with you on this: I never want to be in George Zimmerman's shoes. Hell, I never want to pull the trigger on my guns. Unless its at the gun range.

Objective Standard Finally Gets Around To DIscussing The Case

Neil Parille's picture

and gets the facts all wrong.

http://www.theobjectivestandar...

Why Ari Armstrong would consider Paul Hsieh an authority on this case (or anything else, except maybe reading an x-ray) is beyond me.

In which sense?

gregster's picture

squish·y
adjective, squish·i·er, squish·i·est.
1.
soft and wet: The ground was squishy from the rain.
2.
softly gurgling or splashing: The sponge made a squishy sound when it was squeezed.
3.
emotional or sentimental.

Gun rights? Please....

Craig Ceely's picture

I am very confident -- in fact, I am pretty much willing to offer a guarantee -- that if you are reading this, on this site, you are squishy on the right of a human being to self-defense, especially with a gun.

In a way, not surprising. Seriously: life can suck, but very often, no matter how much it sucks, it just doesn't get that bad. So, sure, you've never had to confront certain things.

Think about that: think about it, think about it hard, and wrap your mind around it, as best you can, because that is a good thing. A very, very good thing.

Some of you know me here, you know who I am and where I've come from, and I'll say this: I've been trained by the very best to draw and aim and fire a pistol. At a human being.

You do not want to be in a situation where that is required of you. It ain't the movies, people. You will choke, you will fail, and you will not come back. That's reality.

I've watched the Whittle video, referred to here, more than once. I admire it, and I'm telling you, he's right and I agree with him 100% when he avers that Zimmerman probably agrees he should have remained in his truck. Well, he should have, but I am very confident that he agrees, and wishes that he had.

Be very glad that you're not George Zimmerman, and that you'll in all likelihood never be in such a situation yourself. Give thanks that you'll never have to confront, and practice, what you might think you mean by a "right" to "self-defense." We refer to that as "civilization," and it is a pretty goddamned good thing indeed.

Almost all of you, if you've considered this at all, will regard me as an extremist on gun owners' rights, carry legislation, and whatnot. But you'll get through your day, and safely, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing, too. Even if I've pissed you off.

As I wrote, "squishy."

the MSM = treachery

Doug Bandler's picture

I would point out that part of the problem has been the inaccurate reporting by the media that Zimmerman was in his car, was told not to get out and follow Martin, did nonetheless, and the confrontation started during this following. Zimmerman then claims he was entitled to kill Martin because of Florida's Stand Your Ground law. All of this is wrong.

The media basically misreported everything of substance having to do with the Martin story. They just can't be trusted. The MSM is the propaganda arm of the Left. And this is a big failure of the Objectivist movement, not to understand that the Left is orders of magnitude more destructive than Conservatives and is in near control of all the major institutions of this country. The Left is marshaling all its resources - news media, entertainment media, universities, administrative agencies, justice departments, etc - to attack the right in a drive to ultimately break them (reminds me of the scene in 'The Return of the King' where the Nazgul king says he will break Gandalf and the men of Gondor). How can't Objectivists see that this is war? The total war that they advocate against the Middle East, the Left is waging it against them. But all you hear is crickets from OrgOism and the Majority of internet O'ists. They only see this as a gun right issue. Talk about myopic.

Thanks Tom

Doug Bandler's picture

For a nice comment.

And while the specifics of this case are American, there are broader lessons. Right here in Britain, there are echoes of this case.

Britain is obviously one of the best countries in the world and London is an amazing city, especially if you like Eastern European women. (heh) But England is also suffering the fatal combination of non-European immigration combined with Leftism/multiculturalism. The horror stories concerning Muslims and Afro-Caribeans I read coming from what many Conservatives are calling "the dead island" are nightmarish. Plus you have a phenomenon that we don't really have; i.e. yobs. The British yobs exhibit a mindlessness that not even American hicks/rednecks/crackers demonstrate. British Leftist social engineers should give themselves a pat on the back for creating a white underclass that rivals the black underclass. Leftists in England have even managed to ban Robert Spencer (and thus the anti-Islam movement's lead figure) from talking there. The Leftists in America haven't been able to do that yet. (Give them time.) All told, I wonder if England has more time than America or less?

But the broader point that I keep making is that while the Left is egalitarian and altruist, it has also embraces an anti-white prejudice that is escalating by the decade. In fact, the Left is demonstrating a racial self-loathing that I don't think has ever existed in human history. I think this phenomenon is important above and beyond Objectivism's traditional opposition to "altruism" and "collectivism", etc.

Sadly blacks are the most racist demographic in Western nations. Whether that is due solely to the Left's indoctrination or some biological predisposition or both I don't know. All I know is that almost every element of the Cultural Marxists war against America was on display with the Martin/Zimmerman affair and OrgOism ignored it. I don't know exactly what world they are watching.

Well said Doug

Tom Burroughes's picture

I haven't followed the Zimmerman case, apart from the occasional blog reference to it by the likes of Instapundit writer Glenn Reynolds, so like the naive Brit that I am, I felt that if the jury acquitted the man, particularly when there was so much political theatre involved, that they had good, coherent grounds to reject the prosecution's case. (I used to be a courts reporter in the UK for about three years and have covered hundreds of trials for difference offences. While I can be sometimes disparaging about the intelligence of my fellow citizens, more often than not I know that jurors take their responsibilities seriously. There is no reason to suppose this did not happen in the Zimmerman case.)

I haven't come across a single argument from those wailing about the outcome of this case as to why the jury was wrong to acquit. All we get is a lot of noise.

I think Obama has played a very stupid game here, but a dangerous one. Over at the TalkLeft site, it hammers Obama for his mealy-mouthed approach to the issue: http://www.talkleft.com/story/...

"The most objectionable part of his comments: Not once did he express any empathy for George Zimmerman, the man who was acquitted who spent the past 16 months under the cloud of criminal charges, and who continues to have a target on his back.
Obama said if Martin had been white the result would probably have been different. Not once did he acknowledge that if Trayvon Martin had not attacked George Zimmerman, the outcome might have been different. As a former Constitutional law professor, I would expect our President to acknowledge that the purpose of a criminal trial is not to send messages to the American public. It is merely to test the Government's evidence: Did the state prove guilt and disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
By the President comparing himself to Martin 35 years ago, is he saying he would have responded as Martin did, and physically attacked someone for following him? I hope not because our laws do not allow such conduct. It is not illegal for a private citizen to follow someone. It is illegal to physically assault another person who has not threatened him with the imminent use of force."

This is why Doug Bandler is right to be angry that the official Objectivist movement needs to wake up, and this has nothing to do with making disparaging comments about minorities. (I might quibble with his view about percentages, but that is a minor point.) Rather, anyone who admires and supports the broad philosophy of Rand must remember her point that racism is the oldest, most primitive form of collectivism. What I want to hear from ARI, and all the others, is a strong message that America is, or should be, about defending equality before the law. No ifs, no buts. And that also means consistently and regularly challenging the "victim culture". We see, to take a different example, how Islamists have adopted the passive-aggressive stance of "victims" in regard to their real or perceived hurts they see inflicted by the evil West, particularly America. We see this in the West among the race-industry hustlers as Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Objectivists should call these rabble rousers out for what they are, and proudly, and loudly, proclaim the case for individualism, reason, self responsibility and respect for all under the rule of law.

I have crossed swords on a few issues with Doug in recent months, but he's absolutely right to make the point that Objectivists need to make a lot of points on this issue. If they don't, then the vacuum will be filled by the far right, with disastrous consequences for the future.

And while the specifics of this case are American, there are broader lessons. Right here in Britain, there are echoes of this case.

Media Narrative

Neil Parille's picture

Doug,

I agree with what you said.

I would point out that part of the problem has been the inaccurate reporting by the media that Zimmerman was in his car, was told not to get out and follow Martin, did nonetheless, and the confrontation started during this following. Zimmerman then claims he was entitled to kill Martin because of Florida's Stand Your Ground law. All of this is wrong.

For example a recent NYT story had to be corrected:

Reacting to the verdict, dozens of readers pointed to a widespread misconception that Mr. Zimmerman left his car on the night of the shooting after the police had told him not to do so. In fact, Mr. Zimmerman was already out of his car and following Mr. Martin when the police dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that,” and he maintains that he then stopped.

“There seems little doubt that Mr. Zimmerman instigated this entire situation by getting out of his car and pursuing Mr. Martin, even when he was told not to do so,” Shaun Narine from Canada commented. “To my mind, that fact in itself means he created a situation that ended up with an innocent young man dead.”

Linda in Oklahoma repeated that sentiment, writing, “The minute Zimmerman chose to ignore the police dispatcher, who told him to stay in his car and not follow Martin, is when Zimmerman put himself into the situation.”

Correction: July 17, 2013

An earlier version of this post repeated a widespread misconception that George Zimmerman left his car on the night of the shooting after the police had told him not to do so. In fact, Mr. Zimmerman was already out of his car and following Trayvon Martin when the police dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that,” and he maintains that he then stopped.

KASS, Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Bravo!

The point, however, is not to surrender the battle to the conservatives because they are fighting it better; it is to retrieve it, and do it right.

Never forget that the ultimate enemy is unreason—and "unreason" subsumes Goblianity as assuredly as it does Islamofilth. It's just that at this point in history, the latter is a much more virulent and proximate menace.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.