Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Kyle Rittenhouse Violated the Safari Principle
A good article outlining why Kyle Rittenhouse was considered a specifically purposeful target for the regime is written at Powerline Blog by Paul Mirengoff [SEE HERE].
What the author essentially describes is something CTH readers have witnessed for over a decade, we called it “The Safari Principle” narrative; and it surfaced in its most modern form during the George Zimmerman case.
In essence, the underlying elements of the Safari Principle narrative begin with a pretense that victims of the mob, any mob or individual predator, have no one except themselves to blame because they did not follow the rules of the safari. When in the proximity of any person, event or situation that is engaged in an unlawful act supported by the political left, you are not permitted to exit your vehicle or engage in activity that will lead to your targeting.
If you enter their “space to destroy“, you are to blame for your own outcome. The safari narrative includes catch phrases like “he should not have gotten out of the car,” and “he shouldn’t have traveled to Kenosha,” all based on the same principle.
(Powerline) […] The Rittenhouse prosecution and the demonization of him by the left (including the left-wing media) stems from a simple premise. Leftists, including Antifa and BLM, have the right to take to the street causing chaos and property damage, and when they do, those who disagree with them must stand aside while leftists run riot. If they don’t stand aside, they have no right to defend themselves against members of the mob who come after them — even if someone points a gun at them (as Grosskreutz did). (read more)
The first advocacy for the modern “Safari Principle” surfaced prior to the George Zimmerman trial, in the summer of 2012, when the professionally aggrieved first began the narrative: “He shouldn’t have gotten out of his car”.
Historically, we used to blame the victim by saying he/she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, politically it became too difficult to define where the wrong places were, and simultaneously legislators continued to struggle defining the right vs. wrong times law abiding people were allowed to be in these places.
Historically, the political media were skilled at excusing transparently guilty. However, in the aftermath of the Obama paradigm shift, where the media began accusing the transparently innocent, a more specific rule was needed.
After various opinions were considered, eventually the advocates settled upon The Safari Principle – A selected narrative used throughout 2012/2013 as a point of advocacy driving home the belief that George Zimmerman had no right to follow, then exit his vehicle when he saw a suspicious Trayvon Martin peering through windows and casing houses.
The “Safari Principle” evolved to further claim, ‘if you do get out of your car, you deserve what you get’ with the implication by the leftist narrative engineers that essentially young black males cannot control their behavior.
Shortly after the grievance advocates of Ben Crump, Natalie Jackson, Daryl Parks and the congressional black caucus announced their own support for the Safari Principle – another incident surfaced in Virginia when two reporters for the Virginia Pilot stopped and exited their vehicle after their car was hit by bricks.
The couple was attacked by a mob of somewhere between 30 to 100 young black males while shouting “justice for Trayvon”. After the reporters left the hospital, the Virginia Pilot editorial team quickly apologized for not following the Safari Park rules, accepted the beating of their reporters was the fault of the couple who stopped their vehicle, and the newspaper promised they would join the advocacy movement.
Fast forward through several more examples to August of 2014, when Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson exited his vehicle after Mike Brown punched him in the head and tried to gain his service revolver. The meme of The Safari Principle was quick to surface again, LOUDLY.
Officer Darren Wilson had no right to get out of his car after the attack.
By exiting his SUV, Wilson was to blame for Mike Brown charging him in the street. Again reaffirming the leftist worldview that young black males cannot control their behavior.
Subsequently, the grievance advocates pointed out Officer Wilson was ultimately to blame for shooting Mike Brown. If Wilson had followed the Safari Principle, Mike Brown would still be alive today.
After Mike Brown was killed by police officer Darren Wilson, the Safari Principle advocates applied the same theme to explain how Zemir Begic was guilty of his own murder, again in Saint Louis.
Zemir Begic exited his vehicle in the vicinity of three young black males who beat him to death with hammers. Begic would be alive today if he had only followed The Safari Principle rules.
A year later, 2015 in Baltimore, Maryland, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake then became a public advocate for the safari rules when she proclaimed her decision to let the riots, looting and arson continue, as it was intended specifically to give the mob “space to destroy.” Despite the dozens of property owners who saw their shops, stores and livelihoods go up in smoke, the rules of the safari took precedent.
Again, in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in Minnesota, the rules of the safari became evident when looting, arson and riots were defined as “expressions of speech.” All violence supported by the political left is considered speech, while speech opposed by the left is defined as violence.
Because the visible chaos did not align with the gentle media descriptions of “protests“, the corporate media decision was to modify the language used to describe the arson and riots by using the term “mostly peaceful protests,” that term has stuck within the visible chaos over the past few years in various forms.
Obviously the word “mostly” is a relative term , and that provides the flexibility needed to convince viewers the violence they are witnessing isn’t really the violence they are witnessing.
.
Kyle Rittenhouse made the mistake of trying to impede violence, arson and rioting supported by the political left and their media allies. Rittenhouse paid a heavy price for not following the rules of the safari, and that is why they are so determined to make an example of him.
In 2020 the FBI, the political left who need/support the violence, and the current occupant of the White House did not make the same mistake as Rittenhouse. Instead the FBI, Democrats and Joe Biden adhered to the safari rules and took the approved approach as demanded by the mob:
Categories
Durbin
“Let me explain yet again the source for all of the platitudinous virtue signalling. The truly privileged elites know that deep down they are frauds. They suffer from existential guilt.
Hence, one of the ways by which they assuage the guilt albatross around their necks is to demonstrate to the world that they are truly compassionate, truly loving, truly caring, truly profound. Hence, they love all “undocumented” immigrants.
They love Mother Earth. They love the ozone layer. They love BLM. They love socialism. They love inner cities. They hate the gentrification of neighbourhoods. They love mentors of color. They cherish diversity. They love LGBTQ movies. They adore queer architecture. They are better than you. More caring, more cultured, more empathetic. This permits them to sleep better at night.
See, I’m not a fraud. I may be a gargantuan parasitic hedge fund bullshitter but I really care. I may be an overpaid BS actor but I fight for solar panels. Those fly over rubes deserve their lot in life.
They are racists who bed their siblings. We are science supporters who fight against Mother Earth rapists whilst flying in our private jets. It is a classic ego defensive strategy that permits the ruling class to exist within their fractured selves
By Thomas E. Gift, MD. January 25, 2021
Article Source
A recent report looks to see if laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms might have effects on homicides and suicides not caused by guns. They found no increase or decrease in non-gun homicides associated with changes in gun related homicides, and the data regarding suicides were too sparse to be useful. Their report was based on examining a series of earlier studies.
To the authors’ credit, they noted that some experts describe a substitution effect, that is, a person not killed by a firearm may instead be killed by some other form of violence. They cite several previous studies finding that those not suiciding by shooting are likely to do so by other means, and that homicides not committed by shooting will probably occur by other means.
There are however a number of problems with the publication. The authors seem to see all homicides as bad, and never mention justifiable homicides. These often involve self-defense, or appropriate actions by police or bystanders to protect the innocent. The researchers seem to assume that any reduction in homicides is desirable, ignoring the injuries, arsons and assaults prevented by the appropriate use of force.
A recent DRGO contributor noted the existence of many dozens of peer-reviewed academic studies conducted by a wide range of authors suggesting that widespread gun ownership deters crime. He pointed as well to a specific instance in which children died needlessly because security officers were unarmed. In this school shooting, in which many children lost their lives, the justifiable homicide of the shooter would have avoided heartbreak for families and prevented the school career of many teenagers from ending in a mournful trip to a cemetery.
Academics have found evidence that Right-to-Carry laws deter violent crime, including rapes and murders, and also lower burglary rates, while restrictions on concealed carry laws may increase the number of people who are murdered. Having a firearm is especially important for women, who are typically smaller and not as strong as those who attack them—being armed can compensate for this difference. Reports of homeowners using guns to defend against intruders are reported daily. Since intruders are often young men, it’s common that the occupant of a household are less physically powerful, and thus a justifiable homicide by a firearm prevents death or injury at the hands of a criminal.
In evaluating the studies they cite, the authors don’t acknowledge that many people without access to a gun who kill themselves by other means are misunderstood as having died accidently. Examples include drug overdoses, single car “accidents” and walking into traffic. Drug overdoses in particular can appear accidental when in fact they are really suicides; motor vehicle accidents involving only one driver are often really suicides.
Failure to recognize these suicides for what they are masks the fact that those who don’t use a gun to kill themselves do so using other methods. This minimizes the impact of reductions in suicides by gun increasing suicides by other means, and erroneously inflates the percentage of suicides involving a firearm. Difficulties distinguishing suicides from other forms of violent death, such as accident or murder, have been described in a number of publications. Interestingly, a recent research endeavor using complex statistical techniques to examine risks for suicide identified problems with depression as the primary predictor, with no mention of access to firearms.
The takeaway message is that relationships between homicide, justifiable homicide, suicide and firearm availability are complex. But the intent of murderers and suicide victims are almost always discernible. It is elementary foolishness to blame inanimate objects for how people choose to act.
ATF Raids Lake of the Ozarks Gun Store Confiscates All Firearms
Photo by Thomas Def on Unsplash
Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, raided the Skelton Tactical gun shop, in Osage Beach, at approximately 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 9.
According to the gun shop owner Jim Skelton, approximately fifteen agents entered the shop, seven deep, in full riot gear, bearing automatic weapons.
“They questioned me as to how I had been selling firearms.”
Jim said the ATF alleges:
• An undercover agent purchased one of his personal firearms, out of his truck without background check.
• He sold an 1898 black powder 30-40 firearm over the counter, without a background check. According to Skelton, the sale of an 1898 30-40 does not require a background check.
• He sold a firearm to an undercover agent, without a background check.
“Two undercover agents, a woman and a man came into my shop to purchase a firearm. The woman filled out the proper background paperwork and purchased the gun. The ATF alleges the male agent purchased the gun. “How was I supposed to know she was buying it for him?” Skelton said. “If she would have told me she was not the purchaser, I would not have sold it to her.”
Skelton’s brother, Ike Skelton a witness at gun shop during the raid said, “When I started to record them, they took my cell phone and told me to stop. They then frisked me and took my gun and all the guns in both businesses, Skelton Key and Lock and Skelton Tactical, claiming it was for their safety.”
The ATF was still at Skelton Tactical at the time of this writing, at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday.
According to John E. Ham, Public Information Officer for the ATF Kansas City Field Division, “A federal search warrant was issued as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into violations of federal firearm laws.”
Ham said he could not give further details, because it was an ongoing investigation.
Ham said there were no arrests, no one is in federal custody, and there were no plans to arrest anyone even at the conclusion of Tuesday’s search warrant.
“The next step usually, in several days, through the federal judiciary, the warrant will be unsealed by the court. Then we will have more specific information on the criminal investigation and the reason we applied for, and obtained, the warrant from a federal judge,” Ham said.
Additional information will be released to the public at that time.
“According to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” Ike said. “This right should not be infringed upon,” Ike said. “Each and everyone of these agents swear to uphold the constitution against all foreign and domestic threats, and they are infringing on our right to bear arms. The ATF should not even exist.”
The ATF took Jim’s license to sell firearms. “I will appeal and fight this with everything I have,” Jim said.