When there is one set of laws for one section of the population and another set for the other section of the population, the system putting forward the law is inherently biased. For the same crimes, citizens of a certain race will be free while others who commit much less heinous acts will be arrested with a particular and unfair ferocity. In the justice system, the sentences that follow are sympathetic to one racial group over the other. When organized groups are formed, one side is persecuted for it, while the other gets a blind eye turned to. Systemically, the institutions are slanted.
Did that paragraph sound like what you’ve been hearing from society for the past few months? Did it resemble the mantras repeated in the media, academia, and Hollywood? Why am I repeating their orthodoxy? Have I been converted to the dark side?
Fret not. The system is institutionally biased, but not in the way you might think. Yes, the law is enforced more harshly on some people over others, but not how it is drilled into our heads. In fact, the evidence points towards the systemic racism argument being pure projection; accusing the other of what you yourself are guilty of. The following will be examples of the shrouded bias that really prevails in society, and I will leave it up the reader to determine who is getting the short end of the stick.
April 15th, 2020 was around the peak of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s lockdown for her state in response to the coronavirus. During the whole process, American citizens were told to trust those telling them to stay at home, as they were health professionals and were looking out for their best interests. However, on April 15th, a Sunday, some had decided they had some words to say, and so an anti-lockdown protest was planned. For the event itself, things went smoothly. It was peaceful, and no one was hurt. Some were openly carrying their firearms, which is legal to do in Michigan, and had entered the state Capitol building and were yelling at Democratic lawmakers. No laws were broken that day. As it turns out, holding signs in the Capitol building in Michigan is illegal, but firearms aren’t.
Governor Whitmer had these words to say on national television on the show The View the following Wednesday:
“It’s certainly not an exercise of democratic principles where we have free speech. This is calls to violence. This is racist and misogynistic.”
Whitmer also added that “this isn’t appropriate in a global pandemic.” Firstly, the only “racist” symbol found at any of the protests was a backwards swastika on a poster accusing Whitmer of Nazi-like behavior, and there was no “misogynistic” apparel at the scene on that day of any kind. Instead, as you may have guessed, the governor of Michigan simply resorted to the common buzzwords to demean those who questioned her heavy-handed decisions. Keep that and her quote about the protests not being “appropriate in a global pandemic” in mind. In the days afterwards, countless news outlets and official agencies noted the lack of six feet separating the protesters, the lack of masks being worn, and the sheer amount of people present. Okay, all in the name of health concerns, right? In order to fight the pandemic, all citizens have to abide by the rules.
With those standards being set, this map from a month and a half later may surprise you:
There were 21 protests over the death of George Floyd that involved over 100 people following his death on May 25. To put that into perspective, the anti-lockdown rally had mere dozens, and there was only one. Surely, with hundreds upon hundreds of people taking to the streets and ignoring social distancing guidelines, Gretchen Whitmer must have urged her citizens to do the right thing and stay home? Let’s see for ourselves:
Here she was among the protests herself:
Strange… there seems to be selective enforcement of social distancing guidelines. In response to the valid concerns that many had about this, Whitmer’s spokeswoman Tiffany Brown said, “Nothing in this order shall be taken to abridge protections guaranteed by the state or federal constitution. That includes the right to peaceful protest.” What is striking is that the right to peacefully protest wasn’t invoked when protests that decidedly weren’t about Black Lives Matter assembled a month and a half prior to the ones Whitmer endorsed. Similar instances to this have occurred in other states nationwide.
Remember how the protesters at the Capitol brandished firearms? That as a detail the media feasted on. Big, scary firearms were shown to everybody that wasn’t blind.
“Where’s our reparations? Black Power!” they yelled as they brandished loaded weapons near the man’s car window.
Does this count as a threatening, racist rally that had calls for violence, too? There seemed to be lack of appearances on the View denouncing the “Not F****** Around Movement.” Why was that the case?
Or, remember the Ahmaud Arbery ordeal? How long ago that feels like it was. Here’s what happened outside the McMichael’s home in the aftermath:
“Police would not engage!” Damn right they wouldn’t. Our leaders command them not to, but if that were a white militia outside a black family’s home, federal troops would have been swiftly sent in and there would be a new “national conversation” similar to the one we currently being forced to have on the rising tide of “white supremacist violence.” State-sanctioned anarchy at it’s finest.
Here is the full video of an altercation between a white husband and wife and a black mother and her 15-year-old daughter. Before the footage began, the white couple allegedly bumped into the mothers daughter as they were walking into a Chipotle.
According to the story and the footage, the black mother and her daughter had much more of a racial motivation than the two whites did. It was only after they were called racist for being white multiple times that the woman simply denied that all whites are racist, and did not make any racial statements herself towards black people. The couple tried to leave, and the mother stood behind the car to keep them from leaving. Take note that this wasn’t for the police to arrive, as the police had not been called yet, since there was no reason to at that point. Instead, it seemed the mother wasn’t through with the couple. With her daughter’s camera shaking around as she walked over, the mother apparently banged up the couple’s car enough for them to exit their vehicle half-pulled out and demand multiple times to “get the f*** away.” Finally, the woman pulled a firearm. The police were called. The mother claims the she was “traumatized” from the event, despite her very obviously keeping the fight going when it could have ended long beforehand. Jillian and Eric Wuestenberg now face felony assault charges for the incident. Self-defense? Forget about it, that’s racist now. White people aren’t allowed to defend themselves, the state says so now.
As it turns out, to be allowed to brandish firearms at other people in public, one has to be a member of the Black Panthers or the Not F****** Around Movement. The very instance of the story of the Wuestenbergs making national news for bumping into the mother and being arrested for assault while armed militant groups point fully automatic weapons with drum magazines at people in their cars demanding money getting off scot free should be evidence merely disproving that America is racist against black people, but what further evidences that the discrimination points in the opposite direction is that we are told just that; the public is gaslighted into believing the exact opposite of what is happening. Name a single major corporation or celebrity that hasn’t pushed the systemic racism narrative, and you will find them being under attack from every other corporation and celebrity that has. The average citizen, without the defense of popularity, will have their lives ruined for disagreeing. Cancel culture isn’t simply just “crazy liberals!!!” freaking out when they see a contrarian opinion, it’s political oppression that the people in charge wield against those who notice things a bit too clearly.
Near state-sanctioned ethnic violence, certain subsets of the population being forced inside their homes, armed racist militant groups terrorizing average citizens, and the denial of it all seem to closely fit the definition of an apartheid state. Again, it’s one set of rules for one group of people, and another set for the rest. Such conduct is inherently immoral, but it that’s the way things will remain. In fact, it is all going to get even worse before it gets better. If you find yourself a apart of a group that does not enjoy protection from the law, brace for the worst, as society is out to get you in particular.