Monday, 4 May 2009

A blood sacrifice denied

Derrick Donchak and Brandon Piekarsky

It was with some relief that I note the diversity worshiping zealots in the "lie-a-minute" newsroom at CNN have failed to get their latest blood sacrifice, when two teenagers in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, were found not guilty of the most serious charges against them in relation to the death of Mexican illegal immigrant Luis Ramirez.

The relief was tinged with anger, when I contemplated what could have been, and how much the likes of CNN wanted it to be. After seven hours of deliberation, the jury found that Derrick Donchak, 19, and Brandon Piekarsky, 17, were guilty of simple assault, but acquitted them of the cart-load of crowd pleasing charges, such as aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and ethnic intimidation piled on them by an obedient prosecution. Madly disproportionate charges which from even a cursory glance at the evidence were patently without merit, and which would never have been brought had it not been politically correct to do so.

Young white men in America now walk an even more precarious path than those in Britain, in that they must live with the daily threat that if they are attacked by a member of an ethnic minority, defend himself and come out on top, they are likely to face charges which could see them spending many years in prison. America may not have yet introduced the crime of racially motivated self-defense, but give them time, and they just might. Would anyone, be truly surprised to find that in ten years or so, the act of expressing a preference for pancakes over fajitas will constitute a chargeable offence?

The predictable white hating activists outside the court could depend upon a sympathetic hearing from a po-faced CNN Anchor woman, as, almost unable to disguise their disappointment, at being denied their feast of teenaged white flesh, they bewailed the "signals" which this verdict sent out. Yet as the ageing hypocrite at the CNN news-desk nodded her over lacquered head in agreement, one could not avoid a feeling of nausea knowing how much these two deeply dishonest people would have cheered the signals sent out, had those young boys been convicted of these outrageously unjustified charges, or if the races had been reversed and illegal immigrants had been acquitted of killing a white man.

There is a temptation to shrug and say "Only in America", but that would be naive, it is now more than possible that a similar case could happen in Britain. We live in a society where at least half the public believe in the parallel realities fed to them by US shows like "Law and Order" and "CSI", or our own PC festival "The Bill" where crime is a predominantly white activity, and that if a white man is attacked by a non-white one, it must somehow be his fault and his attacker must somehow be his victim. More disturbing is the fact that the authorities are tasked with and determined to perpetuate that belief.

Hold your children close and tell them never to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, for if they are you may find yourself losing to a legal system which, when race rears its head, resembles nothing so much as the old East Germany at the height of the Stasi's power.


Dr.D said...

If the mexican had stayed in mexico where he belonged, there is no question but that he would be alive today. To come into an economically depressed area and take work that belongs to the people native to the area is to be looking for trouble.

No one can know exactly what words passed between these people when the incident began. The mexican knew he was alone and severely outnumbered. But mexicans are not known for prudence, so I'm confident he did not let that temper his reactions in any way. He paid with his life.

I see that MALDEF was involved. That is the Mexican American Legal DEfense Fund. They are trouble makers, constantly looking for ways to create racial strife. Their reaction could have been written before the verdict with almost complete certainty. No punishment would have been enough, they are never satisfied. They are part of the perpetually aggrieved.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

It seems that it was the activists from MALDEF who tried to make the fact Ramirez was from Mexico an issue. From what I understand the conflict related to the under-aged girl he was with, and Ramirez was the one who initiated the violence.

There was certainly a brawl which went tragically wrong, so the assault conviction is possibly justified. But there was nothing to justify the overcharging which took place.

What I think most decent people found distasteful, was the way that journalist and race activists were were all but drooling at the prospect of sending these young men to prison for decades whether they were guilty or not. (it reminded me of the Duke lacrosse case, except that those boys were not even guilty of assault)

It wasn't a hate crime, it wasn't an atrocity or a murder. It was a punch-up which went wrong and to try and make something more out of it for political reasons is sickening.

Dr.D said...

"It wasn't a hate crime, it wasn't an atrocity or a murder. It was a punch-up which went wrong and to try and make something more out of it for political reasons is sickening."

In the (in)famous words of Rahm Emmanuel, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

notareargunner said...

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.
John Locke

I love it. The quotes, the misquotes, the ignorance, the lack of understanding, the inability to listen, and unwillingness to read and as Lock stated… ‘It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.’
When Locke and the philosophers of the time were evolving their thoughts, the time was of their time, not of ours. In this Civilised World we have abandoned the right to bear arms because we have submitted to the state; in return the states has a duty to protect the individual. The facts are that it has never been achieved because not everyone within the state has submitted to the will of the populace. Greed, avarice, malcontent, envy is as prevalent today as two thousand years ago when theologians of that day were formulating a ‘opiate of the masses’.
If society was to turn round and say to the carrier of weapons… “You are outside of this society and society has the right to banish you,” there would be an instant reduction it weapons, but not a complete removal. There will always be those scheming to defeat the system adopted by the mass.
It is strange that the miscreant knows where to obtain guns, get illegal drugs and fence stolen property, but the overwhelming number are clueless to such events. Civil rights prevent a law office demanding to know where the tools of such infamy are obtained. People squirm when others suggest that recidivist should be housed in their own empires on outreached island, devoid of the victims on which certain classes need to prosper.
When an immigrant youth is found in possession of a weapon, what is wrong with society saying to them… “You have adopted a way of life which is alien to us, leave? Do not be concerned with your parents; they will be going with you; because if you cared for the society and your parents, you would not be carrying that weapon.” What is wrong with putting indigenous rabble onto uninhabited land in the middle of a raging sea, within the waters of this once Great Nation, until they have proven themselves fit for society?
We are very good at shooting the messenger without appreciating the message.
The message is set by the legislature. For the past twelve years I have berate my MP for his callous disregard for his primary duty, the law that governs us all. As I am not a homosexual I find it impossible to empathise with the MP. How then can he empathise with me and the majority of heterosexual man?
If you cannot see the disintegration of Western Society, then you are as blind as the bourgeoisie of 18th Century Europe. Laws now are being promulgated to appease the perpetrator and not to protect the victim.

alanorei said...

This seems like the *Rodney King case, though with a better outcome.

*I believe the original jury acquitted all the officers involved on seeing the complete film clip of the arrest, which King resisted.

Then the ACLU and/or NAACP (I think) got the officers re-tried for the same offence, showing only the last part of the film, violating double jeopardy.

One of the officers got convicted and imprisoned for a time, I believe.

Dr.D said...

notareargunner, you said, "What is wrong with putting indigenous rabble onto uninhabited land in the middle of a raging sea, within the waters of this once Great Nation, until they have proven themselves fit for society?" Just what land in what sea did you have in mind? I don't know of any that are available.

You also said, "In this Civilised World we have abandoned the right to bear arms because we have submitted to the state;..." You have a far greater trust of the state than I do. How well do you see that working out in the UK, Zimbabwe, SA, etc.? I think I prefer the right to keep my rifle.

"...when theologians of that day were formulating a ‘opiate of the masses’." Are you a marxist? Where do you think the basis of modern civilization lies if not within the Christian Church?

Anonymous said...

This is awesum!