Jeffery Epstein Didn't Kill Himself. But Maybe George Floyd Did.

 

No peace, no justice.

I hold to the principle that we should not second-guess the judicial process. It is there to settle disputes; social cohesion requires us to respect it. If a court declares a defendant not guilty, we owe it to him or her, to our neighbours, and ultimately to ourselves, to accept that and move on.

However, I believe the judgement in the Chauvin trial is wrong. I believe this precisely because the rules were not followed here. I expect it to be appealed and overturned. There was obvious public pressure on the jurors to return a guilty verdict. Their verdict was under duress, and so, just as with a contract signed under duress, it is not valid. It was equivalent to a lynching.

The jurors had every reason to fear that, if they returned a verdict of not guilty, their city would be burned down. Maxine Waters had called for violence if a guilty verdict was not returned. Joe Biden had come close to demanding a guilty verdict. They had every reason to fear their own homes might be burned down, themselves or their family attacked, perhaps killed.

Under the circumstances, Chauvin could not get a fair trial. By the rules, if a fair trial cannot be conducted, he must be assumed to be innocent.

I do personally doubt his guilt. No reasonable man with normal instincts for self-preservation would murder another person slowly in plain sight of many witnesses holding video cameras. Hence, any reasonable man must doubt Chauvin’s guilt. 

Some have actually argued that it was worth sacrificing Chauvin’s chance for a fair trial to the greater good—to retain civil peace and avoid more rioting.

This is folly. It will only lead to worse rioting, as the mob realizes they can impose their will by rioting. And it will ensure that police stop doing anything about it—not worth the risk of death on the spot or a lynching if there is any confrontation. Perfect recipe for chaos.

A better approach would be to go in the opposite direction: free Chauvin immediately, and legislate full immunity for police from any murder or manslaughter charge if any suspect resists arrest. This would cause no risk to the public from police brutality: it is simple enough to cooperate during an arrest, and presumably the police would have to prove resistance with body cam footage. Resisting arrest is, moreover, refusing the protection of the justice system. Your call.

Something like this might even be necessary, under these circumstances, to restore order.

The Real World of Discrimination

During the current rioting over the death of George Floyd, every government at every level seems to be in loud agreement that anti-black racism is a problem in America. Many actually support the riots. Governments of other countries have quickly made the same claim regarding their own jurisdictions: everyone hates blacks, and this problem must urgently be addressed.

It should be obvious to anyone that, if government claims that a certain group is discriminated against, this cannot in fact be true. That group instead has the government supporting it. Moreover, in a democratic government, this proves they also have widespread popular support: politicians do not go out of their way to express unpopular opinions.

Can you imagine Hitler declaring anti-semitism a grievous problem in Germany? Or southern Democratic lamenting anti-black discrimination as a serious problem in the 1950s?

If the government is backing you, and giving you special advantages, you are being discriminated for, not discriminated against. If you can riot, and many or most people applaud instead of firing on you, you are being indulged to an extreme degree. Like the great nobles who once had free rein to hunt foxes over anyone’s ploughed fields.

Candace Owens cites the stats: in fact, white males are far more likely to die in the hands of police than blacks.

A group that is genuinely being discriminated against is probably not going to riot. They are probably not even going to complain loudly. To do so would take exceptional courage: they are going to bring the hammer down on themselves. A Gandhi or a Martin Luther King or a Nelson Mandela or a Patrick Pearse will do it: but will face execution or a long prison term or some other serious punishment.

If you do not and do not expect to, if you are shocked and offended if you are simply told to go home, you are not discriminated against.

In other words, the reality of discrimination is necessarily the opposite of what is publicly claimed.

N all the evidence, especially on the evidence of the current and recent rioting, one group we can be confident is not discriminated against in contemporary America is blacks; “African-Americans.”

Their ancestors of course were very much discriminated against, enslaved and then later segregated in the US South. But that is now distant history. If a black slave had merely spoken up in protest, he would no doubt have been flogged or worse. When, in the Sixties, an “uppity nigger” might get lynched.

This is notably not happening any more. Currently, black-led mobs seem instead to want a lynching of a white-skinned police officer. He is charged with murder; that is not enough. He might, after all, be found innocent. They want to string him up.

It’s not just blacks, of course.

By this same principle, “First Nations,” Indians, are not discriminated against in Canada. That the public has accepted the term “First Nations” makes this self-evident. It is dubious that they ever were, in Canada. Everything has been structured for their advantage, by men of good will toward them. Unfortunately, the sense of entitlement this has produced has ended up harming them—just as overly indulging a child can make them end up helpless

Nor have women ever been discriminated against in Western civilization. There was never any “patriarchy.” Since at least the medieval tradition of chivalry, women have instead always been given precedence over men, given mostly the same privileges extended to royalty. Every little girl grows up imagining herself a princess; a young boy who imagined himself a prince would be handled roughly.

So when women in the West decided their lives were too boring, that they wanted to work outside the home, there was no opposition from government or from men. Quite the reverse: society as a whole was turned upside down within a few years to accommodate their wishes.

It should be equally obvious who is really discriminated against. Who is it socially acceptable to publicly complain or joke about? In Nazi Germany, of course, the Jews. Today, in America, blondes, whites, men, straights, Christians, Catholics, business owners, perhaps especially the white rural working class. These are the people Hillary Clinton, while running for president, saw no possible cost to referring to as “deplorable,” that Obama thought he could safely call “bitter clingers” without any political fallout.

For comparison, just try to say anything critical of blacks as a group, or women as a group, or Indians as a group.

Just don’t tell anyone I advised you to do so. The consequences may be dire.

Some Straight Talk from Candace Owens

George Floyd Did Not Kill Himself

I have looked at the videos available on YouTube. It is fortunate that so many people are walking around with video cameras these days.

I cannot see how this wasn't premeditated murder.