Sunday, 14 July 2013


As George Zimmerman walks free from court, there are mixed emotions concerning the not-guilty verdict. 
George Zimmerman is found not-guilt, but what does his treatment by the Liberal media tell us about our interpretations of 'racism'?

Zimmerman was, of course, defending himself, and I feel confident in presuming that if Trayvon Martin had been white the frenzy would have been a lot less potent. 

It a sad truth that in our primitive – sorry, ‘modern’ – society we tend to assume that all crimes (though Zimmerman did not commit a crime, I know) committed against black people are intrinsically racist.  Yet, the same logic is not applied to white people killed by blacks.  Well, good.  It would be ridiculous to say that the latter type of crime is racist, simply because it involves an individual of one colour attacking one of another colour. 

And I wish we would put down the ‘race card’.  I really do.  I don’t presume anything is racist – why should I? – until I see hard evidence supporting the fact.  This is because ‘racism’ is something very specific, only people have taken it to mean anything from commenting on bad influences with in the ‘black community’ to killing someone who happens to be black (not white, though, one cannot be racist against a white person, for it goes against the laws of physics, or something to that effect). 

What we must understand is that ‘racism’ is a very particular belief.  A ‘racist’ is someone who literally believes in racial supremacy, and actively seeks to bring down other races in a way that reflects Darwinism perfectly.  I say this because many people are ignorant and, even though they feel confident branding people with the word, know very little of its meaning, and almost always give it the wrong definition.

I will now give a couple examples of instances that are not racist (I do not necessarily agree with the views I will now write down, and I only use them to illustrate that, whether they are right or wrong, they do not fall into the ‘racist’ category with the above definition in mind, so there is no need to rebut me on the following points, for I am note arguing their virtues):

1.     ‘There are dangerous influences within the black community, violent influences that are not found in other racial communities’ – To determine whether this is racist or not we must examine, very closely, the precise words used.  Note, the proponent of this view did not say ‘people’, but ‘community’; from this alone, we can conclude that the statement is not racist.  This is because the proponent is attacking black culture, not black people.  He or she is merely stating that he or she believes there are bad influences within that society.  Now, culture, as we know, can easily change, evolve and refine itself.  Therefore, the problem does not lie with people of African descent, but rather the culture, which they (or some of them) have created.  Indeed, we talk of violent influences in mainstream culture as well, as well as Christian culture, and white culture, highlighting the nonracist tone of the argument.  Anti-black racists, on the other hand, would argue that it is not culture, but the genetic makeup of the individual that is the problem, in which case there is no hope of solving the issue.  However, this statement provides hope, as it does not imply in the slightest that black people are intrinsically violent or dangerous – not at all – it only talks of grave influences from some elements of that community, a perfectly nonracist position to hold. 

2.     ‘I don’t believe in multiculturalism because it brings about segregation, and I want to see more integration’ – This is the most comical of the nonracist statements that are thought to be racist.  The media, as well as educational and political establishments, hold the view that any attack on Multiculturalism must come from a racist sect.  But this statement is the exact opposite of racism.  Indeed, what this person is arguing is that Multiculturalism is itself racist, because it promotes the flourishing of a society based on separate ‘communities’ – ‘Black Community’, ‘Asian Community’, ‘Muslim Community’, ‘White Community’, etc. etc. – which in turn fosters division.  Instead, opponents of Multiculturalism (and I am one of them) advocate an integrative society, where all people view themselves not as members of a race-based group, but as citizens of the country in which they live.  Indeed, my motto is quite simple: ‘there is one race – the Human Race’.  Many newspapers today are actually making truly racist comments in regards to the verdict at the George Zimmerman case, without even realizing.  For example, many read: ‘members of the black community were greatly saddened by the verdict’.  I find this kind of rhetoric to be deeply demeaning, as if to say blacks are members of some primitive tribe and thus all think in the same way.  Benjamin Carson has been frequently attacked for being a conservative and therefore going against his ‘tribe’.  In the eyes of some, he is a disgrace to the ‘Black Community’, simply because he does not vote Democrat.  And yet there are people who continue to justify and promote this sectarian, Multicultural hell of a society, without ever properly examining the deeply unsettling consequences of their social experiment. 

The George Zimmerman case is not by itself of that importance, but the questions it raises about racism, and how it is used as a phoney outrage against points of view that are deemed ‘Politically Incorrect’, most certainly is.  Alas, people have become so confident brandishing this word about, that they never bother to look up the word in the dictionary.

**Are you a PROUD CONSERVATIVE? If so, please support our page. Make a statement, take a stand, and support Proudly Conservative:**


  1. Trayvon Martin died to provide a lesson to all of us. When being followed, do not confront the follower, instead, call the police department and inform them that you are being followed, and fear for your safety. Should the follower close the distance, then you must do whatever you must do to defend yourself, firstly, in my opinion, the first thing is to try and widen the distance. If you are close to home, go home and inform the police that you are at home and the whereabouts of the follower. Confronting the follower increases your danger, your first measure of his abilities may fail to consider the fact he is armed, but anyone should be considered dangerous. Secondly, if widening the distance doesn't work, yell at the follower, and ask why are you following me? The raised voices should arouse the people who are safe in their homes where you are walking. To preserve your life, you must have a healthy respect for the fear you feel. It isn't a shameful feeling, but one that prepares you to defend yourself. Why would you want to attempt to raise that feeling in your follower?

  2. Zimmerman was, of course, defending himself

    So I guess you were there and witnessed the whole thing?

    1. Zimmerman had attack wounds. There is evidence that shows he was hysterical following the attack. He could have handled the situation differently: he shouldn't have followed Martin, perhaps. But the issue concerns what happened after he questioned him. Based on evidence, Martin lashed out in anger and Zimmerman, fearing for his life, shot him dead. It could have been avoided, of course.

      Still, based on your question the whole case should never have gone to court. After all, were you there? No, nobody was there, so - if evidence is to be gathered via the senses - we must conclude that we will never know what really happened, and let Zimmerman go free.