""Every day that I show up here, I'm not here to peacefully protest," Grayson told the "U.N. Me" filmmaker, who also embedded himself in Minneapolis protests earlier this month.
"I'm here to disrupt until my demands are met," Grayson continued. "You cannot rebuild until you break it all the way down."
STREET PREACHER TELLS SEATTLE PROTESTER: ELECT BIDEN 'TO SEE BLACK MEN GET KILLED'
The CHOP group has blocked off six city blocks in downtown Seattle, where the East Precinct is located, as an act of protest for the police-involved death of George Floyd on May 25. On Tuesday, protesters reached an agreement with the city to reduce the occupied area to three blocks and to allow traffic. The agreement came a day after the Seattle City Council voted to ban police from using chokeholds and crowd-control devices like tear gas and pepper spray."
"It's not a slogan. It's not even a warning," Grayson said. "I'm letting people know what comes next."
"If the Seattle Police Department turns in their badges, we'll have made a move forward," Grayson said.
The group has published a list of demands for the city council and mayor, including abolishing the police, prisons, courts and criminal justice system "as we know it today."
""If there's no change, there might be a lot more destroying until there is!" a hooded man wearing sunglasses and a black face cover, told him, "but I think some destruction and looting kinda sends the message to people and breaking their s–t is justified."
Another said, "'F–k the property. f–k the consumption, f–k capitalism."
A woman then said, "white people owned slaves so f–k them."
What does Biden say about this or more importantly what does Clyburn say? ? Who among you condones this?
I watched video yesterday from the "new country." Men urinating and defecating on the streets, some of them with their pants stained with their diarrhea. The level of drug consumption seems very high.
Ms. Grayson says that she is an African forcefully brought to the US. Could she be persuaded to return to her ancestral homeland? Probably not.
Our British and Canadian cousins should not feel smug. Canada has a colonial past and the treatment of the metis by the colonial Canadian government will be examined in spite of all the modern day BS that claims Canada to be a "metis nation."
Oxford University is taking down a statue of Cecil Rhodes. Baden Powell's statue is under threat as is a statue of Churchill in downtown London. Who will be next, Gladstone, Disraeli, Joseph Chamberlain? Do you think the mob will spare the Albert Memorial, or statues of the Queen Empress herself?
I do not. pl
William Penn is saying, “Come and get me Mo Fos”
Seems to me if there is so much “systemic racism” after all of these years and that, according to black studies academics, racism is inherited, the only choices are for blacks to go back to Africa (something they should be happy to do), kill all the white people or carve out black only sections of the country.
Why anyone is listening to any of these people, let alone surrounding and bowing before them, is incomprehensible. They’re never going to like you because they are racists and they are going to be satisfied with whatever bones are thrown to them. Les infants terribles.
I know…this is being done so knee-jerk and randomly. there is a move afoot to rename Ft. Bragg, CA…nevermind that the town was named in1857 BEFORE Bragg became a traitor. I mean, seriously, folks…he was a United States officer at the time. This naming wasn’t done during Reconstruction or Jim Crow in order to “send a message” to black citizens.
Very different issues. I would love it if some of these states and names were put into the context of the time they were erected…I think that intent should matter, not just “the name.”
It’s slightly amusing to see the actual residents of the world’s newest country, speaking plainly and concisely about their intent. When I listen to the mayor in the largest US city near that new country, she describes the revolutionaries’ intent in a very different fashion. Same with most of the media.
“Break it all the way down”?
When I hear them start talking about the Federal Reserve and endless money printing out of thin air, then I’ll listen. That is the root cause of 80% of their grievances.
Until then, they’re just a bunch of brainwashed Marxists and Leninists.
“Ms. Grayson says that she is an African forcefully brought to the US. Could she be persuaded to return to her ancestral homeland?”
Repatriation is reparation. We’ve got plenty of empty cruise ships we can charter, she can go first class. “They have to go back” might be great click bait; it might even become a political slogan the way 2020 is going. I’m sure it’s making the rounds on the net by now.
It won’t stop with statues…
“You preemptively surrendered your personal agency in order to be in unison with the group. And this is understandable in a way: Merging with the crowd feels much better than standing alone.”
I don’t feel smug, this virus is already in my country, I am just relieved our demographics and society isn’t so far gone that currently it is just acting as a wake up call for most.
Who will be next? How about Gandhi? There is a petition to have a statue of him taken down in Leicester, on the grounds that he once made nasty comments about Africans. The world has gone mad.
Hey Mr grey ears
It’s been years
Since we spoke
Want to hear a good joke
The one about the kangaroo
Who jumped the fence at a zoo
He decided to stay
Been there to this day
They say fences are to keep you out
But whats that all about
Freedom is just a state of mind
For those so inclined
There’s a lot of anger, and I can’t justify it, especially when it comes to attacking police or innocent people and their property, but if we’re going to find a way to live together we have to come to our senses and address some historical wrongs in a meaningful way.
I think the Democrats and their allies in the media made a mistake climbing on the proverbial tiger. And it’s evident the facts behind these killings have not been accurately depicted. For example, Arbery very likely was a burglar and the McMichaels had reason to suspect he may have been armed. That isn’t to say Arbery’s killing was justified, but to date we have been told Arbery was another innocent “jogger,” that he was hunted down for being black. To put something out there in the minds of public along those lines was done to create tensions and anger, to get people on their feet and into polling stations. The Democrats and their media allies encouraged this kind of rhetoric. This was irresponsible and the result is what we’re seeing as described in the Fox News article.
That being said, that anger comes from a place that is real. There are black men getting killed who at the end of the day didn’t have to. Moreover, black Americans feel like they have been left behind. There’s a feeling among them that they’re being kept in ghettos and in jails. And there’s a vicious cycle of drugs and crime that have destroyed the lives of many black people. This has been going on for decades and no one has come forward with real solutions to improve the circumstances endured by many black Americans.
People tout the civil rights acts of the 60s, well we just saw the Supreme Court rule that men who identify as women have a right to be a woman’s locker room based on acts meant to help blacks achieve their proper place in American society, as equal a place as any other. Nothing could be more perverse with this Supreme Court ruling and it’s clear President Johnson’s Great Society vision has never lived up to its true intentions. Here’s another chance to set things right, to recognize what was done then has not worked, and that something of greater substance must be achieved if there is to be country at all. If America is to remain a union, something needs to be done to make black Americans feel like Americans, that this country is their’s too. This issue almost tore the union apart once and I think it would be a great travesty if that were allowed to happen.
Bragg resigned from the US Army in 1855 and became a sugar farmer in Louisiana. The crime of treason in the US applies only to US persons. The Confederates believed that their states had legally left the Union and that they were no longer US persons. Have you perhaps noticed that none of them were tried for treason after the war or indeed during it in absentia or if captured? Not even Jeff Davis, not even he. From the kindness of the collective Northern heart? I don’t think so.
So … it looks like the Radical Chic phase is winding down. Are we now moving on to Mau-Mauing the Flak-catchers?
BTW, the oath one takes when entering into service in the US armed forces is contractual, not sacramental. It does no mark your soul. It no longer binds you if you leave service. Think about this example. If you have a cousin who joins up for three years and then is discharged, that person is no longer bound by the oath taken at entry. Sentiment? Maybe but not by law. This does not apply to someone like me. I am retired from the army, not resigned from it. I am still serving and still belong to the army.
I think the Democrats were getting very nervous about the previously booming economy, especially the historically low Black unemployment numbers. If America’s Black population become successful, they might just stop voting Democrat.
Does anyone ever care to tell some of these people whose ancestors were brought to this country as slaves that the people who captured them and sold them to slave traders were most likely black people of a different tribe?
I also wonder about all the white families in the North whose sons went off to die in the Civil War. I know many went to keep the country united, but many also went to protest the use of people as slaves.
They should also consider that a great percentage of White people in this country are descendants of people who never owned slaves.
I once read that the female slaves who escaped and went north were able to find work as help in the houses of northern families, while the male slaves who came north had a harder time supporting themselves financially. In any case, that was the explanation I was given to explain the breakdwown of the Black families–why we havee househods of Blacks with only mothers in charge depending on the welfare system. It’s now ingrained in ou welfare system and in the Black “culture.”
There is far more energy being spent on expressing anger about the past, energy that could be spent in creating a better future. Sometimes it means some things need to be torn down. But it’s crazy to simply tear down without a plan to build something better.
But, I really have no answers. I grew up and have lived all my life in a part of the country where slavery was not much a part of our history. In Colorado, there had been a small early isolated Black community. A person can drive out to see the what remains of the buildings.
I guess what I am trying to express is that it seems counterproductive to be so angry and so destructive. Why not use all the many ways that are now available to construct a new “narrative” for Black Lives. I think it’s sad thaat they don’t spend more time admiring Blacks like Ben Carson–or more specificallly his morther’s life–and follow examples like her.
I also remember years ago a Black woman who helped educate inner city children simply by teaching them to read Shakespeare. Her students did very well. Build up instead of tearing down. Or tear down only when you have a good plan for rebuilding.
“many also went to protest the use of people as slaves” Sorry but that is just not true. There was actually a great disdain in the Union Army for Blacks and the idea of allowing them to fight even in separate units was resisted strongly. Were there abolitionist Union Army soldiers? Yes, but not many. Among them were numbered my Wisconsin infantry ancestors.
“Johnson’s Great Society vision has never lived up to its true intentions. ”
I think that is incorrect. The cities of the country are mostly controlled by the left and have been for years. That’s LBJ’s great accomplishment, giving power to the party. As to the Supreme Court’s decision, lots of unintended consequences will flow from that. Can’t wait to see why we can’t all decide to be Black, just like Elizabeth Warren decided to be Indian, or a man decides he’s a woman.
There was an abolition element from about the 1830s, which coalesced roughly along what’s now modern I-90 from Boston through Rochester and Chicago. But the abolition movement had trouble getting political traction prior to Kansas-Nebraska. The Liberty Party of abolitionists could only count Salmon Chase as a successful politician. But Kansas-Nebraska was a spark, not for abolition, but for the idea that there was what we would today call the “deep state” but then was called a “slave power”. Otherwise men like Lincoln would probably be content to continue to litigate for and against railroads in private life. The newly forming republican party was a fusion of both the old abolitionists and new populist anti-“slave power” people.
The strong affection for “the union” seems like an abstraction today, but was quite a powerful emotion then. Historian Chandra Manning argues this was a result of the revivalism of the second great awakening which was particularly strong in the northeast. One aspect of that experience was the idea of “American exceptionalism” — the idea that the government of the US was uniquely created by God as a beacon to the nations. Thus maintaining that government was a moral imperative. As Lincoln would later phrase it, the war was a “testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”
Manning argues that emancipation didn’t become an issue until after union armies entered the south. Citing letters from common soldiers, she points out that the soldiers came to see southern life (for the average citizen) as degraded compared to the north, and came to attribute this to the impact of slavery. Thus emancipation wasn’t embraced because of any love of the black man, rather to “save” the white man from the effects of slavery. She argues that as the view from the front filtered back home via letters, it emancipation became a political cause that had to be embraced by the political class.
But as I recall she didn’t really deal with the notion of “copperhead” and how that influenced politics in the old northwest.
A feature of the Lincoln administration was his political battles with the abolition wing of the party, which came to be known as a radical wing. Early in the administration, Lincoln had virtually no federal resources and was dependent on the republican governors (in particular the radical Andrews of Mass) for support. He didn’t appreciate the control this provided them so worked on building a political base that did not depend on them. This can be seen from earlier with the “wide awakes” during the campaign. As the war progressed a movement outside of republican party apparatus was formed as “union committees” which I would characterize as something like the tea party movement. By 1864 Lincoln had enough independent power that he could reject the republican party and create his own “National Union Party”. That party convention ditched VP (radical) Hamlin and instead nominated union democrat Johnson. The Republicans for their part nominated the “pathfinder” John Fremont once again, but once they saw the writing on the wall gave up that notion and embraced Lincoln. Of course after Lincoln’s assassination they would have their payback for Johnson.
The radicals for their part had attempted to prevent Lincoln from amassing power via their members in Congress who formed the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. An important part of that body’s work was badgering Lincoln over generals the committee saw as insufficiently radical. The generals would often be scape-goated (and like today, the press was a willing participant in fake news).
Yes, the radical republicans wished to deny the South political power. They succeeded by force majeur because the South finally ran out of men. Hundreds of thousand of Blacks, and Europeans enlisted for the war as cannon fodder were finally just too many to hold off. the occupation and disenfranchisement of Southerners was quite effective in making the South into a subject region, something like Germany and Japan after WW2 but the Hayes-Tilden imbroglio ended that until BLM.
Laura Wilson poses the question on another thread as to whether we would act any differently than the Black man shot by the cop in Atlanta? When in college I exited a bar with some friends and was bombed enough to draw the attention of two policeman. They started questioning me and I decided to ask a question some radical had said would make them leave me alone. So I asked, “Am I under arrest?”
“Now you are,” was my answer. I was handcuffed and spent the night in the drunk tank until my friends bailed me out. Every time I saw the cop that arrested me, we would joke around about that night. He was a good man doing his job.
In 1977 I was driving a delivery van in Palo Alto when the police pulled me over. I got out of the van and saw four cops pointing their guns at me. My arms went up in the air as if they where on springs. They questioned me and checked out the van. The blue van I was driving matched the getaway vehicle of a robbery suspect. They quickly realized I was the wrong man. I never have and never would fight the police.
My question is what is this talk Black parents give their sons? They must tell them the police are your enemy who want to kill because you are black. The best thing to do is run and resist arrest. I’ve heard black parents say cops kill black children on their way to school. That’s crazy, does not happen. But how many black children have been killed by black gang bangers? Blacks are the ones who have to clean up their own mess and quit blaming white supremacy for the problems they have created for themselves and their children. I take none of the blame.
Of course there is a talk, it is different for those in the upper classes. There’s also a crime-think talk unsafe for most Americans to read.
Thanks for the article. The msm does not allow race realism to be rationally debated publicly.
@Chicot The Gandhi statue at the University of Ghana was taken down in 2018. There is a statue of Gandhi— I believe still standing— at the University of West Indies in Jamaica.
There are parts of this cultural revolution and statue removal which are kind of fun. E.g., Ann Coulter is trying to start a campaign to get the name of Yale changed because the school is name after Elihu Yale, a slave trader. Coulter suggested the withholding of federal funds until they drop this slave trader’s name from the school. Coulter tweeted some renaming suggestions including “New Haven City College”. Lol.
And what about the great hero of the secular humanists, Charles Darwin? Darwin believed that blacks/Africans were a transitional species between the apes and man. How many statues, colleges, islands, bodies of water, mountains, et al., are named after Charles Darwin? There were BLM protests in Australia so what about the Australian city of Darwin, Northern Territory, which is named after the famous naturalist? Btw, I looked for articles on Darwin and apparently it is a very dangerous city with lots of violent crime and gangs and police accused of racial profiling against a certain race (hint: not East Asian): https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/wannabe-teenage-gangsters-in-the-northern-territory-post-histories-of-crime-on-social-media/news-story/065f8a17bc8e510fa4b4eb14af8d12ae
Coulter’ s column on this whole attack on Confederate monuments and military base names is excellent: https://anncoulter.com/2020/06/17/yale-has-to-go/?a=5