Sheer Ridiculousness

[EverKing]

I was switching between CNN and Fox News the other night and one or the other, I can't recall which, mentioned this story: a South Carolina activist is calling for the extermination of white people!

Here is a little more information: http://carolinajournal.com/exclusive...e.html?id=2869

Oh, and apparently, this not-so-gentle-man is an outspoken opponent of the death sentance, although I haven't been able to confirm that statement yet, so don't take it as truth...I'm doing a little more research on it and will post more as I find it.

[EverKing]

Ok, I found an article about the death penalty in North Carolina that mentions Mr. Kam.bon. It is only a brienf mention and it appears that although he was supporting a moratorium to halt executions in 2000, he was doing so out of a desire to be certain that Blacks were not being unfairly targeted with capital punishment, rather than out of any particular moral objections.

"...gaining the support of community activists like Ka.mau Kam.bon, owner of Black.nificent Books. "The issue of race is really the linchpin for all these other issues," says Kam.bon, who is backing the moratorium campaign. "It's something that many people are in denial about. But when you see people on death row, you have to know that the problems that led them there started long ago in their lives."

(quote from http://indyweek.com/durham/2000-10-25/cover.html)

edit: Per suggestion I've added "." in the names so as to prevent MWM being googled on this subject.

[lemec]

That Ka.mb.on guy was mentioned on The O'r.ei.ly Fa.cto.r too. He seems to be a rab.ble ro.user, trying to make a name for himself. What he says is pure insanity and it is garbage no matter who is making remarks like that.

By the way, "calling for exter.min.ation", does that fall under the catagory of in.citing ri.ots? I'm sure things like calling for murder fall under conspiracy and is not covered under free speech.

[L'Etranger]

Why should anybody take this seriously?
In addition we shouldn't do him the favour to get googled together with a Moorcock related site!
We talked about this before and decided to disable this by inserting a dot in names and terms associated with hatred, viciousness or questionable organisations. Like Hi.tler, United Fr.uit Co or similar
Perhaps you could consider editing your previous post to include little dots?
Thanks.

[EverKing]

Good suggestion LEtranger...done (see edit note on above post).

When I initially posted this I was just so amazing and annoyed at this guy that I had to get it out. Also, I was curious to see how the rest of you would react. After I got over it, though, I realized that all I'm doing is giving this guy more press, and that doesn't help anyone.

I'll keep what I have posted so that any subsequent discussion will have context.

[L'Etranger]

I'll keep what I have posted so that any subsequent discussion will have context.

Yes, yes - by all means! I wasn't suggesting censorship.

Back to the topic - I wouldn't be surprised if a black man (sorry not pc word) isn't be instrumentalised by the KK.K to voice such thenigs. Truly the African Americans have suffered enough for an individual to perhaps privately wish for the extermination of his oppressors, but it is nauseating and idiotic nevertheless.

[EverKing]

It is nauseating. It seems that this attitude of "they've repressed us for centuries so let's get back at them" is one of the things responsibile for the continuation of racism and bigotry (on both sides) in America. By poorly thought out, needlessly inflamitory declarations such as the one mentioned above, people are creating a divide between the ignorant of both sides. They are broadening the gulf between the people and creating an environment where racism may flourish. Luckily the vast majority of Americans are at least smart enough to look past the speech of hate and not let men like this affect their world view. What worries me are the small minority who may actually take the man up on his offer. The problems caused by people starting a race war like this will lead more people who would otherwise be understanding and accepting to sway one way or the other.

I agree that speech like this should not be protected by the First Amendment. There is a line between expressing one's opinion and inciting others to murder/riot and I get the distinct impression that this man crossed it. I guess it would be different if he had said something like, "I think that..." instead of "We have to..." But even then, it is a grossly irresponsible and very dangerous statement. I can only hope that nothing comes of it, but if something does, I hope he is held as accountable as he can be by law.

[L'Etranger]

One of the simplest and cheapest political platforms is to point at "the others" instead of trying to improve something in your own bailiwick. "They" are guilty, "they" threaten us, "they" want to rob us or take our wives. Your people will easily believe it and support you without you having to explain what ideas you might have for improvement, for financing new schools and bridges. Oldest politcal trick ... pointing at "them". How do you think Bush got to power?

[EverKing]

remember: "He he points a finger has three pointed back at himself."

People should seriously take that more to heart.

[lemec]

There was a thread somewhere here,where I went on one of my long ra.nts. :lol: I talked about how some use the "po.int at others" method. Maybe I will come across it again and post the link. It's not that important though, just made me think of it.

I placed a couple dots above as well in my previous post.


Update: This post kinda goes along with this discussion.

[broken link]

[Doc]

One of the simplest and cheapest political platforms is to point at "the others" instead of trying to improve something in your own bailiwick. "They" are guilty, "they" threaten us, "they" want to rob us or take our wives. Your people will easily believe it and support you without you having to explain what ideas you might have for improvement, for financing new schools and bridges. Oldest politcal trick ... pointing at "them". How do you think Bush got to power?

Explained quite well by Adorno, for what it's worth.

An interesting side-note...

Texas has a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage (we already have a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman--people want to write discrimination and hate into the state constitution). The clu clucks clanidiots marched on the state capitol grounds to support the initiative. Things couldn't have been better for opponents. Now we can ask supporters of the ban, "are you with us or them?"