Jan. 19, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
51:46
2889 The Truth About The Race War
Over the years, the mainstream media has continually fanned the flames of racial division within the United States – and this has only intensified in light of the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner situations. In this presentation, we aim to briefly discuss some shocking inaccuracies within the mainstream media portrayal of various events. Inaccuracies which are so incredibly brazen and deliberate that they undeniably illustrate intentions to convey a false narrative to the general public. We will then illustrate the unspoken incentives, both personal and political, which speak to reasons as to why these falsehoods continue to be propagated despite their disastrous consequences. Distorting reality does victims of every race, color, and creed an incredible disservice, and it is our goal to expose the false media narratives by presenting The Truth About the Race War.
I'm the host of Freedom Aid Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web with over 100 million downloads, entirely supported by listeners like you.
Brace yourself, my brothers and sisters.
This is the truth about the race war.
Over the years, really over the decades, the mainstream media has continually fanned the flames of racial division and hatred within the US. And this has only intensified in the light of the recent deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner.
In this presentation, we aim to briefly discuss some of the shocking inaccuracies in the mainstream media's portrayal of these various events.
These inaccuracies are so incredibly brazen and deliberate.
That they undeniably seem to illustrate intentions to convey a false narrative to the general public.
We will then illustrate the unspoken incentives, both personal and political, which speak to reasons as to why these falsehoods continue to be propagated despite their clearly disastrous consequences.
Look, distorting reality, falsifying narratives, and creating divisions...
Does the victims of any race, color, and creed an incredible disservice?
It is our goal to expose the false media narratives by presenting the truth about the race war.
Trayvon Martin.
February 26, 2012.
George Zimmerman sees Trayvon Martin and calls 911.
This is the actual comments.
These are the actual comments from the call.
Zimmerman said, This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.
It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
911 dispatcher says, Okay, and this guy?
Is he black, white, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman.
He looks black.
NBC News played an edited version of Zimmerman's comments, which were quite different and incredibly misleading.
What they played was Zimmerman saying, this guy looks like he's up to no good.
He looks black.
As if one follows the other.
Very, very different.
After the incident, after the death of Trayvon Martin, instead of describing Zimmerman as having a racially mixed heritage, which includes white, Hispanic, and black roots, his grandmother had an Afro-Peruvian father, the media portrayed him as a racist white male.
When shown on television, his photo even appeared to be lightened, making him look whiter in comparison to the originals.
He was also described as a white Hispanic, one of the very few times that phrase has ever been used, and not particularly true.
So here are the photos that came out immediately after the shooting.
The two ones in the middle are the photos that we most saw in the mainstream media.
The two ones on the outside were more recent and accurate photos.
The one of Zimmerman on the left was taken the night of the incident.
And as you can see, showing the picture of a clearly much younger Trayvon Martin and a lightened and whitened and heavier mugshot from seven years previous of George Zimmerman, Made it look like a huge white man shot a tiny black boy.
But if you look at the two outside pictures, it was closer to the reality.
Trayvon Martin was in fact 5'11", 158 pounds.
Martin was originally reported as being 140 pounds by the family attorney, 18 pounds or 11.3% less than his actual body weight.
And of course the media used a photo of a younger than 17 looking, smiling Trayvon during their coverage.
George Zimmerman, two inches shorter, 5'994 pounds.
They used a seven-year-old mugshot of a much heavier Zimmerman, which of course implied a greater size difference, and acted to discredit his claim of self-defense.
Now in terms of judging their characters, Zimmerman's previous arrest for resisting an officer with violence was Was probably about as relevant as Martin's three school suspensions admitted drug use and getting kicked out of school for possession of a burglary tool and a bag of female jewelry.
But only Zimmerman's checkered past was reported, not Trayvon Martin's.
So did this have anything to do with racism fundamentally?
Seems hard to imagine that it did.
You probably heard it endlessly reported that Zimmerman directly defied police orders not to follow Martin or even get out of his car.
This was false.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to, quote, just let us know if he does anything else.
And later, after asking if he was following Martin, the dispatcher said, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman was not given any commands by the police, not even by the dispatcher who actually has no power to command.
citizens.
The dispatcher made comments that could easily be construed as asking Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin.
Just let us know if he does anything else.
And while Zimmerman was already in pursuit, he was told that following Martin wasn't needed.
In 2011, George Zimmerman called 911 to report a seven-year-old black boy walking unsupervised on a busy street, where the police Record even noted that the complainant was, quote, concerned for his well-being.
the boy's well-being.
This concern led to Zimmerman being portrayed as a racist basket case, who even called 911 about the suspicious activities of a seven-year-old black boy.
So be careful about having concern for children.
You will be portrayed as a monstrous and irrational racist.
This portrayal of Zimmerman the racist continued, even though Zimmerman had in fact mentored black children for free, once had a black business partner, and even made complaints about a white police lieutenant's son getting away with assaulting a black homeless man.
Indications of racism?
There's a source that, of course, don't end here.
And for more information on this channel, youtube.com slash freedomainradio, you can check out the truth about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
Initially, the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch published an article with the headline, Michael Brown remembered as a gentle giant.
The article described Brown as having died black, unarmed, and from multiple gunshots.
Now, Gentle Giant, of course, evokes childhood.
Gentle Giant sounds like the character in a childhood story, and these are the mnemonics by which we are programmed.
Immediately, without even a shred of evidence, Officer Darren Wilson was a racist white cop who wanted to gun down an innocent, unarmed black child.
CNN, not exactly breaking from the herd, went with the headline, Michael Brown, teen shot by police, days before college, continuing the Gentle Giant...
The Washington Post also reported on the story using the gentle, giant phrase highlighting Brown's graduation from high school and his supposed timidity.
He had never gotten into a fight in his entire life, said a family friend.
The Daily Mail wrote, The paper also ran quotes from Brown's family, including an aunt who stated, He wasn't a violent person.
He was peaceful.
He was a gentle giant.
He looked like he could really do something, but he wouldn't.
This is the supposed objective reporting that you're being exposed to.
Were any of George Zimmerman or Darren Wilson's family members contacted for character references?
No.
Gentle giant.
No matter how many times you repeat this phrase, doesn't make it true.
This gentle giant narrative was pushed forward immediately and without question, skepticism or doubt.
Shortly after the shooting, the convenience store strong-arm robbery surveillance footage emerged and the gentle giant turned...
...vanished and faded away.
No correction or acknowledgement was issued.
The story just changed.
No circling back and saying, well, those family members said he was a really peaceful guy.
Either they were lying, which is bad, or they didn't even know that he was violent, in which case they're not very good family members who don't know anything about...
Michael Brown.
No.
Suddenly it's 1984 time.
Flip!
We are always at war with East Asia.
We've always been at war with East Asia until it changes.
It was, of course, also widely reported that Officer Darren Wilson had shot Michael Brown in the back, and later it was claimed that he shot him execution-style in a display of cold-blooded malice.
Autopsy results prove both of these claims to be false.
Again, no substantial correction or acknowledgement was issued.
Accusations made by the mainstream media abounded, but there was no evidence anywhere of racism on the part of Officer Darren Wilson.
And this is what I'm sort of trying to get across here.
If America is such a racist country, then why do the incidents of racism turn out to be pretty much false?
Why do you need to make up all of these incidents of racism if it's so prevalent?
Significant evidence emerged fairly quickly about Michael Brown's personality, the quality of individuals within his social circle and his interest in violence.
Now, to the credit of the internet, a lot of this stuff came from the alternative media.
Now, for somebody who'd never apparently been in a fight, he sure enjoyed watching videos of street fights, and these are real fights caught on film, not boxing.
On his Facebook account, Brown had liked Crazy School Fights, OMG Fights, and Fight Life, which are pages dedicated to posting street fights, including man-on-woman violence.
Now, just imagine if Officer Darren Wilson had liked these kinds of pages, you'd hear about nothing else.
Of course, this doesn't mean that he was a fighter, but it meant that he liked fights, which goes against the Gentle Giant narrative.
Brown also recorded a collection of rap tracks with friends where they referenced stealing, using guns, and fighting to solve conflicts.
Again, doesn't mean that he did these things.
It can be a posture, a bravado, but not the gentle giant that he was portrayed as.
Dorian Johnson, a witness and friend of Brown's, had an outstanding arrest warrant for theft.
Lewis Head, Brown's stepfather, spent approximately five years in prison with two felony narcotics convictions.
Brown's mother, Leslie McSpadden, was involved in an assault-slash-robbery on another family member for selling Michael Brown merchandise after his death, wherein a companion in her car bashed in the man's head or face with a pipe.
For more information on this, again, you can check out on this channel the truth about the Michael Brown shooting and what pisses me off about the Michael Brown shooting.
Lots of similarities between Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.
The ages of both of them were originally incorrectly reported.
Trayvon was described as young as 13 at one point, before they finally got it right at 17.
In early reports, Michael Brown was 17, and then eventually 18.
This is important.
At 17, you can actually be in the U.S. military.
I've never heard the mainstream media report anything.
That America uses teen soldiers or child soldiers.
So the use of the word child is a way of eliciting sympathy, a way of showing size disparity, and a way of moving you emotionally towards a conclusion prior to the evidence.
In fact, with falsified evidence in many cases.
A media narrative of Trayvon and Michael were good kids.
Michael was a gentle giant.
This immediately flooded the public discourse.
In both situations, and this was as regular as a metronome, the media used the phrase unarmed black teenager and just a kid at regular points in their coverage.
Initial statements from law enforcement were that both Brown and Martin initiated the violence, yet the media disputed this and initially ignored the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and Wilson.
If a woman, let's say a wife who's being abused by her husband, if she shoots the husband who's beaten her up and is moving in perhaps for the kill, would the media describe the husband as being shot while unarmed?
Do you see the double standard here, right?
There's this constant ginning up of hysteria and resentment and hostility, which will be the doom of us all.
Both Trayvon's and Brown's families were legally represented by civil rights attorneys Benjamin Crump and Daryl Parks, who accused the police of a cover-up.
Immediately got MSNBC and Al Sharpton involved and also solicited the help of the NAACP. Benjamin Crump, who actually does sound like a lawyer from a Dickens novel, demanded second autopsies in both cases.
In the Michael Brown case, there were a total of three.
A federal autopsy ordered by Eric Holder, one performed locally, and another by a private examiner.
The FBI and the Civil Rights Division called Community Relations Service were used by Eric Holder both times.
Also, the New Black Panther Party and the Congressional Black Caucus quickly became involved with the Martin and Brown cases.
Representatives immediately had shirts created with marketable slogans, Justice for Trayvon and Hands Up, Don't Shoot.
Hands Up, Don't Shoot, which was of course denied by the autopsy results which seemed to indicate that Michael Brown was not shot.
He was certainly not shot from behind and apparently was not shot with his hands up.
That just changed.
It morphed into Black Lives Matter after the Brown autopsy results and subsequent Eric Garner verdict.
Both media frenzies happened in an election year, 2012 and 2014 respectively, stoking the fires of racial animosity using falsified information.
It's a great way for Democrats to help secure the minority vote.
Again, to the tragedy of all of this.
The media immediately found George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson guilty of being racist white men who were racially motivated to murder unarmed black children.
However, there was zero evidence of racism being a motivating factor in either of these tragic deaths.
In the recent Eric Garner incident, a similar narrative applied, racist white police officers kill unarmed black men.
Of course, the Eric Garner situation was terrible for a number of different reasons.
But, again, there is zero evidence of race playing a factor in how the event transpired.
The attempt to arrest Eric Garner was overseen by a woman named Kizzy Adoni, a black sergeant in the New York Police Department.
The person in charge of the entire takedown was a black woman who did not say, oh my goodness, stop, or you're doing the wrong thing, or this is an inappropriate use of force.
I don't know if you've ever been a boss.
I've been a boss.
And the buck stops with you.
How can it be racist if the woman in charge of the takedown of the black man was a black woman?
For more on this story, again, you can check out on this channel, The Truth About Eric Garner.
This lack of evidence of racism does not stop the mainstream media, high-profile politicians, and social commentators from continually playing the race card.
So why is this happening?
Well, as you know, this is a philosophy show.
We'd go deep, baby!
Deep dive into history.
1875.
The U.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.
You ever heard about that one?
Of course not!
Of course not.
Because it was written by a Republican and sponsored by a prominent black lawyer at the time in alliance with the Republicans.
There's this weird thing like Democrats are really for equal rights among minorities and Republicans aren't.
A good chunk of the significant progress in race relations has happened as a result of Republican initiatives strongly resisted.
By Democrats, the KKK was an offshoot of the Democratic Party, yet of course the Republicans are also portrayed as racist.
So the Civil Rights Act of 1875 forbade citizens from discriminating against racial minorities in public places such as hotels, restaurants, theaters, and churches.
The bill further prohibited exclusion from jury service on account of race.
So you could not have whites-only bathrooms or whites-only restaurants or blacks-only churches and so on.
So...
That was a step forward.
Ultimately and unfortunately, the 1875 Act was struck down by a Supreme Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional.
This is back when the Supreme Court remembered what unconstitutional meant.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying.
The court pointed out that the 14th Amendment granted Congress the authority to regulate the behavior of states, not private individuals.
Obamacare.
While the bill wasn't in force, its legacy continued to influence U.S. law.
In 1963, nearly a century later, President John F. Kennedy introduced a civil rights bill that reenacted provisions contained in the 1875 Civil Rights Act.
After JFK's assassination, his successor, President Lyndon Johnson, got behind the bill in an address to U.S. Congress.
The monumental Civil Rights Act of 1964 was eventually signed into law by Johnson.
Why did it suddenly become an issue in the 50s and the 60s?
Prior to the Second World War, America didn't really care that much about the opinions of those overseas.
Didn't have any particular entanglements, traded with people, but didn't really care about overseas opinion.
That changed after the Second World War.
This is a brief history lesson.
I hope it will make some sense to you.
After the Second World War, America and communism entered into the Cold War.
The communists were international in scum.
They had fought the National Socialists.
The National Socialists did not want to take over the whole world.
They were national, not international.
Communism was an international movement designed to take over the whole world and overthrow all of the Western democracies and replace them with totalitarian communist dictatorships.
Much more dangerous than even Nazism.
And Nazism triggered a war which caused the death of 40 million people.
170 million, 160 million, 90 million, depends how you count it, but enormous amounts of deaths as the result of communism, at least two to four times that of World War II.
And just in Russia alone, 70 million deaths have been estimated to result from communism, which is like more than 11 holocausts.
So a big, very dangerous brain virus was spreading around the world.
Now, the communists would go to the third world, and particularly to Africa, to the black countries, of course, and they'd say, you don't want to go with the Americans.
You don't want to go with that Western capitalist evil pig dog stuff, because look how racist they are to your brothers and sisters.
They keep them down, they hold them down, there's a legacy of slavery, there's Jim Crow, there's voting exclusions, there's segregated schools.
So you don't want to go with the evil pig dog capitalists.
You want to come to the lovely egalitarian communist land of opportunity.
And this was, of course, a pretty compelling argument.
So America, out of fear of losing the propaganda war in the Third World, decided to change its policy with regards to blacks.
Blacks were tools or pawns, tragically, in the war between democracy and communism.
And so this is one of the reasons why in the 50s and 60s, it became very important for the American government to raise the standard of living and provide more opportunities for blacks.
Because this had to happen very quickly, it swung too far the other way, in my humble opinion.
Equality before the law, equality of opportunity, all of these things should have occurred.
But with the welfare state, with affirmative action, with other...
The history of racism movements, a great tragedy occurred in that the state power over minorities and the state power to influence and control minorities actually, in many ways, increased.
And minorities ended up doing worse in many instances.
The black family was much more stable, even under slavery, but particularly in the post-slavery period.
Black illegitimacy, which is a significant forerunner of social decay and criminality, illegitimacy among blacks was much lower before the welfare state.
And so there's been a lot of catastrophe.
And this fundamentally comes out of the big lie that's been told.
And the big lie that's been told is that, you see, slavery had something to do with the free market.
And it was ended by governments.
This is not true at all.
This is the complete opposite of truth.
Slavery was a government program.
Slavery required...
That governments enforce the slave contracts.
Slavery required a forced subsidization of the navies in particular and the armies around the world, which drove the imperialism, which opened up the slave routes.
Taxpayers had to pay for the ships to guard the slave ships as they traversed across the Atlantic.
And of course, many slaves were sold into the Middle East as well.
The average white person, particularly in America, but wherever there was slavery, did not like slavery at all, hated slavery.
I mean, there were moral reasons, of course, but for the two practical reasons, one was that slavery drove down the price of labor, and secondly, the governments forced non-slaves to do these constant slave patrols, to go and catch slaves and look for slaves, and nobody wanted to do that.
It was unpaid labor, forced indoctrinated labor.
Slavery was a giant government program.
The exclusion from the equality under the law is another government program.
And so, because of the disastrous legacy of the government program of slavery and institutionalized racism, that means government racism, the solution to massive and failed government programs like slavery was more massive government programs doomed to failure, like affirmative action and the welfare state.
This is how little we understand about the fundamental requirement to devote ourselves to the non-aggression principle.
So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declared it unlawful to, quote, fail or refuse to hire or to discharge, i.e.
fire, any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions...
Or privileges of employment because of such individuals' race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Now, this is very different from the 1875 Act.
The 1875 Act says you can't have white Sony restaurants.
Well, you can verify that.
That's something provable.
That's something which can be established.
It's objective.
However, proving that somebody did not hire a black person because that person, the hirer, is racist...
It's virtually impossible.
I mean, unless the person writes down, I reject these, then that's not going to happen when the law passes.
So here we go from the law being able to evaluate an objective standard or condition, such as exclusion from a public place.
We go from that to trying to guess the motives for statistical aggregations and trying to ascribe them to potential rates.
Very, very different.
This is no longer property police.
This is now thought police.
So due to this subjective nature, this legislation was enforced primarily through quotas.
Of course, it was promised that there would be no quotas involved, which is one way you know what's going to be involved in government legislation.
Determining someone's reasons for hiring or not hiring or promoting or not promoting is nearly impossible.
So, for example, in 1973, a federal judge mandated that half of the Bridgeport, Connecticut Police Department's new employees must be either black or Puerto Rican.
The 1964 Act also expanded on JFK's 1961 affirmative action policy.
Affirmative action or positive discrimination is the idea that employers should favor and provide special opportunities for members of discriminated groups.
And this has a huge number of drawbacks in the long run.
But remember, the goal was to counter the Soviet propaganda.
That America was a racist state.
That America was a racist society.
So they needed to quickly move blacks into the middle class in order to counter the propaganda.
So communism, we talked about communism.
Listen, just before I dive into this, for those younger with perhaps even slightly smaller foreheads, communism was a very big and terrifying deal in the past.
If you're born sort of in the last couple of decades, communism has mostly faded away in terms of its terror and horror.
But when I was growing up in the 70s and the 80s, communism was absolutely terrifying.
There was a magazine, I guess you'll have to look that up too, there was a magazine called the International Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which had a clock, how close are we to nuclear Armageddon, to the end of pretty much all life in the world, to the reduction of human beings to a state of prehistoric subsistence, radiation-melted horror.
And this clock was always a minute or two to midnight.
So close to midnight.
And movies regularly came out.
I remember one called The Day After.
There were a bunch of other ones about life after a nuclear strike.
And it was terrifying.
It really permanently, I believe, changed the minds and ambitions of an entire generation.
It's kind of hard to study for a math test when the experts in the world are telling you that your fate is most likely going to be A nuclear shadow against a melted wall, which will not even be found by space aliens rambling by half a billion years into the future, wondering why the planet called Earth still glows.
It was the idea of being disassembled.
At any moment, with virtually no warning, created a massive existential insecurity and lack of continuity, lack of forethought planning, I think, in an entire generation.
It certainly happened to me when I was younger.
The fears that we have now about terrorism, about Al-Qaeda, and about ISIS and so on, are absolutely...
I don't want to play like, well, my generation had it tougher.
Absolutely nothing.
If these organizations...
All had nuclear weapons, thousands of nuclear weapons, and other biochemical weapons, nerve weapons, weapons of mass destruction of every kind.
Then you might get a sense of what it was like to grow up.
So when I talk about communism, you know, I'm not talking about...
That guy you might know in the dorm with his Lennon glasses and endless cups of espresso who rants with often yellow teeth against the evils of the prophet motive and so on.
We are talking about heavily armed fundamentalist ideologues who wish to enslave the world or burn it to hell and gone.
I just really wanted to point that out because it's really hard to understand The degree to which communism was a terrifying and terrifyingly successful, I mean, terrifyingly successful ideology.
You know, within 50 years it had taken over massive portions of the world's population.
Russia, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Cambodia, China, most populous countries.
Country in the world fell to communism in the late 40s.
After America had a foreign policy called, let's make sure we don't lose China to communism.
Oh, there it goes.
So it would be as if ISIS or Al-Qaeda took over half or a third of the world's population and had access to thousands of nuclear weapons and had the express goal of Of converting everyone to fundamentalist religion or killing them.
So getting a sense of how dangerous this brain virus was is important.
The Communist International, called the Comintern, was an international communist organization based in Moscow.
It began operating in 1919, two years after the Russian Revolution, under the supervision of the Soviet Communist Party.
And its chief goal was spreading communism and establishing Soviet-style governments throughout the world.
A few months later, the Communist Party USA was established as part of the Comintern Network and began operating as a subsidiary of the Communist Party in Russia.
So, this is like having an Al-Qaeda party with access to billions and billions of dollars operating in America.
In 1922, the Comintern held its fourth International Congress and put the topic of African Americans on its agenda.
The following goal was established after discussion ended.
So the wording of this, my friends, is very, very important.
They did not aim to support the black movement with the aim of liberating the blacks.
They aimed to use the black movement as sort of a fifth column to destabilize America.
This is not out of concern for the plight of blacks.
This is finding the group which had natural hostilities towards the government program called slavery and racism and to further antagonize that group against the society.
And what you do to antagonize a group against a society is you pretend that the commandments of the ruling classes somehow represent or reflect The wishes and wills of the people as a whole, which it does not.
This is why these things have to be enforced at the point of a gun through law.
CPUSA received a $300,000 subsidy from the Comintern for the purpose of spreading Soviet propaganda amongst black Americans.
There's a lot of money back in the day.
In the following years, the CP Communist Party of the United States recruited and trained black communists in organized protests against the U.S. government.
Many black leaders were sent to Moscow for further education.
The party's subversive activities quickly attracted the eyes of the government and the newly formed FBI. The Communist Party of the USA also publicly advocated for civil rights and immigration reform.
And, alongside the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, it was one of the most powerful driving forces behind the civil rights movement.
Communism quickly spread throughout the black population in America.
Of course, not to all, but to a significant portion.
Many African Americans started their own communist organizations, began spreading the Soviet message in their own communities.
In the eyes of the public, a large portion of black Americans were communists.
I'm certainly not faulting the black community for this.
I mean, these were people who appeared to be standing up for their rights.
The mounting pressure from civil rights protests, which were starting to turn violent, alongside with the goal of countering the Soviet propaganda about the bottomless social racism in the United States, forced the issue into the U.S. Congress.
Many politicians were still upholding the limited government principle and argued that the law should be kept out of private affairs.
I'm not going to speak for them, but my understanding is their basic case was let's remove impediments to the equality of all under the law, but let us not become proactive in an attempt to manage and control and force private decisions such as admissions to university, hiring and firing and so on.
The conflict between proponents and opponents of the Civil Rights Act led to a series of filibusters that lasted for months.
In an attempt to slow down the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Howard Smith, a Democratic congressman, introduced an amendment that proposed equal employment rights for women.
Smith and a lot of his colleagues were deeply concerned about communist ideology within the proposed legislation, so they were actively trying to strike down the bill.
Ironically, women's rights were considered an important part of the Civil Rights Act, and its passage was accelerated instead.
Now, there was such a huge amount of fear about the Communist agenda within the Civil Rights Act, the bill had a provision that explicitly allowed employers to discriminate against Communists and anyone affiliated with the ideology.
At the time, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was also warning Congress about Communists who were involved within the Civil Rights Movement and were manipulating it from within.
For example, Stanley Levison, a friend and political advisor of Martin Luther King Jr., had been in the leadership of the American Communist Party before he left to join King's campaign.
So, provoke dissent, provoke opposition, provoke conflict, provoke fights...
Which then lead to, and use those to lead for demands for expanded government powers, expanded government control, which leads to a further decay of freedom within the host country, and when enough freedom is taken away, just recently there are now more businesses dying in America than being born for the first time in many decades,
and you destroy the It's the same thing with the purpose of Al-Qaeda.
The purpose of Al-Qaeda, as openly stated in the manifesto, was to provoke the U.S. into the massive government program called War and Imperialism to destroy the economy.
In a 1913 article, Joseph Stalin, then a member of the Bolshevik Party, defined a nation as, quote, a historically constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture.
According to Stalin's definition, to overthrow capitalist America, you need to destroy the aspects that underlie people's sense of national integrity.
Lenin, Vladimir Lenin, Leader of the Revolution in 1917 also noted that the ruling classes should be passing through a governmental crisis which would draw even the most backward masses into politics.
A symptom of every real revolution is a rapid tenfold, an even hundredfold increase in the number of representatives of the toiling and oppressed masses who have hitherto been apathetic, capable of waging the political struggle.
It should be the purpose to weaken the government and make it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly.
In his 1958 book, the naked communist ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen claimed that one of communism's goals was to, quote, use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
His list of alleged communist goals was read into the congressional record in 1963.
Did you know this?
A 1997 survey found that 29% of American blacks agreed with the statement that, quote, AIDS was deliberately created in a laboratory to infect black people.
A 2005 joint study by the Rand Corporation and Oregon State University determined that almost 50% of blacks thought AIDS was man-made.
Over 25% considered AIDS the product of a government lab.
12% believed the CIA created and spread the virus and 15% considered AIDS to be a form of genocide.
Against black people.
Did you know that this rumor was spread by the Soviet KGB, Soviet secret police, in the 1980s during its operation named Infection.
See, with a K, like KGB. Did you know that a large part of the KGB's first chief directorate operations consisted of spreading disinformation to increase racial tensions in the United States, which even included posing as the Ku Klux Klan?
Spreading disinformation to increase racial tensions.
This is what we're talking about.
Did you know that the Communist Party of the United States, which was at the forefront of the civil rights movement, was in fact assisting Soviet intelligence agencies in infiltrating The Roosevelt government.
Going to more immediate political gains, this is a graph showing whites voting Democrat in presidential elections.
They can't get to 50%.
76%, 48%, 80% with Reagan.
36%, 84%.
Reagan again, 34%.
Low 40s, high 30s, that's all that the Democrats can do to appeal Democrat.
Two whites, and that's, of course, even with all the public sector unions in their pocket, can't get to the majority.
So where do they go?
Well, they go to minorities.
Here are the blacks voting Democrat in presidential elections.
You can see 1976, 83%, 83%, 84%, 91%, all the way through high 80s, low 90s, 2008 called Barack Obama.
2008 was 95%, 93% in 2012.
So, the Democrats go to minorities, this is well known, to get their votes.
And what do they have to offer minorities?
Protection from racism.
But none of this works without the media.
And what is the liberal bias or the left-wing bias within the media?
Studies have found that in a typical presidential election, about 93% of Washington correspondents vote Democrat.
Their agenda is to push the Democrat agenda, which is an echo of the Communist agenda, which is to gin up racial tensions in order to gain votes, to gain power, and to destabilize the remnants of the free market.
You know, what's interesting is that on the left, among liberals, we are constantly told that diversity is a strength.
Diversity is a strength.
Multiculturalism is a strength.
But if diversity is a strength, Why pretty much all the Washington correspondents having the same mindset?
If they value diversity, shouldn't they hire a whole bunch of Republicans and Libertarians and Green Party members and so on to be part of their group?
No!
You see, diversity is a benefit for others.
For us, a monomaniacal culture is the only way to live.
Look, it's not just power-hungry politicians and Marxist echoes of any kind that benefit from ginning up racial divisions.
As reported by the New York Post, for over a decade, various corporations have paid thousands and thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to one Rev. A. Sharpton's National Action Network.
A million dollars they paid in an October 2014 event alone.
Donuts and sponsors are some of the major corporations in the U.S., Macy's, Pfizer, General Motors, American Honda, Chrysler, AT&T, FedEx, Continental, Chase, Johnson & Johnson, and so on, Walmart, Verizon.
Sharpton took a $25,000 a year consultancy position with Pepsi in 1998 after threatening a consumer boycott claiming that its advertisements did not include a sufficient amount or number of African Americans.
He held the position until 07.
In 2001 and 2002, Sharpton vowed to call a boycott against MGM Mirage if it refused to discuss alleged racism in hiring and employment practices at the group's Detroit casino.
In 2003, after this call for boycotting, MGM named the National Action Network as one of its diversity partners.
The NAN attempted to solicit donations from General Motors for six years from August 2000 to 2006.
In 2006, Sharpton threatened a GM boycott over the scheduled closing of an African-American-owned dealership in the Bronx, New York.
General Motors...
I guess after wet-fingering the wind, began making donations to Sharpton's NAN in 2007.
We support those that support us, Sharpton wrote to American Honda, claiming they hadn't hired enough African-Americans from management positions.
We cannot be silent while African-Americans spend hard-earned dollars with a company that does not hire, promote, or do business with us in a statistically significant manner.
It was all this legislation.
One of the things that led to the housing crisis was legislation passed by the government, To force banks to lend to underqualified people.
And this is based upon a false report of racism.
Again, a false report of racism among lending practices within the big banks.
Do you know who lends the least to blacks?
Black-owned banks.
Hmm.
So after Sharpton's letter, Honda America executives met with Sharpton and Honda began sponsorship of NAN events.
Coincidentally, the protests stopped.
This is how you know it's not about actual hiring of African Americans.
You keep the protests on until more African Americans are hired, if that's what you want.
Once they start paying you and the protests stop, it seems to me basically just a shakedown.
Like...
Yeah, that's a nice corporation you got here.
Be ashamed if you all got called racist by our friends in the mainstream media.
How about a little contribution so nothing like that ever happens?
Man, Marlon Brando's ghost has gone back and kicked me in the eyeball.
This is just one example of many where individuals and organizations have an incentive to propagate further racial division.
I just want to really give you a clear example.
Of just what a manufactured, hysterical, false narrative unreality we are all being subjected to.
It's like a foggy-ass water cannon blowing up our nose and mystifying our brains.
Recently, one early Sunday morning in St.
Louis, not far from the shooting of Michael Brown, Zemir Begich was beaten to death by hammer-wielding assailants.
He was 32, a South City resident of Bosnian descent, driving home with his wife of only six months.
Around 1.15 a.m., police say, a group of teenagers approached his car and began vandalizing it, my understanding, hitting it with hammers.
He emerged from his vehicle to try and stop them, at which point the teenagers allegedly attacked him with hammers, lashing out and striking him in the head, face and abdomen.
Begich was unconscious when emergency personnel arrived on the scene and he later died at a local hospital.
His wife says that he pulled her out of the way so that he would be beaten and not her.
He covered her with his body to protect her from the slaughter.
This is a picture of the young man With his wife.
So, a local resident who'd witnessed the attack filmed the aftermath of the attack and the attempts to resuscitate Bergich.
And he said that just before the attack on the video, you can find this on YouTube if you want, he said, just before the attack, Young blacks had chanted, fuck the white people, kill the white people, before the brutal hammer attack, which took the young man's life.
This is in the St.
Louis neighborhood of Bevo Mill.
Blacks and Hispanics were implicated.
So, in terms of racially motivated murders...
Here we have not absolute proof, but significant evidence of a racially motivated murder.
Fuck the white people.
Kill the white people.
I mean, if I say I'm going to go and kill someone, and then I kill that person, that's premeditation, right?
And if...
A bunch of white skinheads have been running down a street in a black neighborhood saying, fuck, the black people killed the black people and then had beaten a young, newlywed family black man with no criminal record to death.
The media would go insane.
And this would be a horribly racist killing.
St.
Louis' mayor and police have insisted that this attack had nothing to do with hate crime.
Perish the thought!
Despite all evidence, or at least most evidence of the contrary, St.
Louis' mayor, Francis Slay, declared in a formal statement, there is no evidence that this was a crime occasioned by the race or ethnicity of the victim.
Just knows that right away.
Speculation that this attack had anything to do with the Ferguson protest is absolutely unfounded.
I don't do a lot of face palms.
I'm afraid this requires a double one.
Police Chief Sam Dotson told protesters, there is no indication that the gentleman last night was targeted because he was Bosnian.
They didn't say kill the Bosnians.
They didn't say kill the white people of a certain particular ethnic or geographical descent.
They said kill the white people.
And then they wouldn't kill the white person.
The fact that he was Bosnian has nothing to do with it.
If the skinheads beat up and killed a black man and they said, well, it wasn't racially motivated because they didn't know that his ancestors came from Nigeria rather than Sierra Leone...
Oh, ow, that's going to hurt.
Oh, well, it's Canada in winter.
It's the closest I'm getting to a forehead sunburn.
The New York Times, which, at a conservative estimate, posted approximately 19 trillion articles...
About George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, about Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, and about the takedown of Eric Garner, did they write about this?
Attack?
Where black youths were chanting, fuck the white people, kill the white people, and they'd also attacked another white person earlier at night, according to reports, before beating to death a man struggling to protect his new bride from slaughter?
Did they write about this?
No.
A search was done on the New York Times website for Zemira Begich, and the only hint was an article from 2009 about Virginia makers of dry-cured hams.
Do you see?
It does not fit the narrative, therefore it does not exist.
You are living in a bigoted, biased, and scripted movie you are not living.
In reality, at least not the reality presented by the media.
They have since aggregated, I think, a story about this, but naturally it doesn't mention the race of either the victims or the assailants.
So.
My friends, my friends, my brothers and sisters, I hope you understand the degree to which We are broken.
We are ruled.
We are controlled.
We are harvested.
We are turned into livestock because we fight each other.
When we fight horizontally, we forget to look up at the rulers, those in charge.
There's an old story about a young man who wanted to go it alone.
I don't need anyone, he said.
Aristotle said a man who can live alone is either a god or a beast, not a human being.
We are social animals.
He said, I'm going to go alone.
I don't need any support.
And his father said, pick me up that stick.
The boy, the young man, went to pick up the stick.
Father said, break it for me.
Snap the stick easily.
Father said, get me 50 sticks.
Tie them in a bundle.
Boy got fifty sticks, tied them in a bundle.
Father said, Break that.
The young man could not.
To be broken, my friends, we must first be divided.
And if we can not only be divided but set against each other, well, we don't need...
Any particularly great military prowess to defeat an army that is turned upon itself.
Two cows separated by an electric fence have more in common with each other than they do with any of the farmers in charge.
The pyramid, the hierarchy of power, is what we need to regard.
Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, you name it.
We have infinitely more in common with each other.
As subjects, as citizens, than we do with those in charge.
With those who can send us to war on a whim.
With those who can give us the sadistic hidden tax of inflation by overprinting money.
Those who can regulate us and control us.
And send us to jail.
And more people in jail.
In America now than there ever were in the Soviet gulags under Stalin.
Those are the people that we need to keep our eye on.
Turning on each other only feeds the power above us.
Do not fall for this narrative.
Do not fall for this narrative.
It will literally be the end of the flickering candles of freedom under the increasing storms of an ever-encroaching state.
