Black Arts & Buffoonery

He's only gone and done it again hasn't he?  It seems Godfrey Bloom never seems to miss an opportunity to shoot UKIP in the foot.  He stands accused of referring to women in the room of a fringe meeting he addressed as being "sluts".  Based on the available footage of an "interview" afterwards he doesn't appear to deny the accusation, but merely puts it down to being a joke and apparently one that all the women in the room laughed at. I don't even want to comment on his casual use of the word slut and the assumption he made that the women in the audience would see the funny side of it.

Last time Bloom fired off his mouth with controversial comments, Richard North and Autonomous Mind and others pointed to this kind of behaviour as doing serious damage to their efforts to be seen as credible.  The result of their observations where that prompted a lot of discussion.  AM in particular drew comments that drove him to the point of ceasing to blog any further.  Much of the logic defending Bloom was that somehow he had promoted debate, albeit in an awkward fashion but nothing more.

For me however, today's events shows why they correct to write what they did.  Right there at the UKIP conference when they appear to be promoting their message that they intend to be a major force, Bloom plays right into the hands of their critics.

In pure politics terms, it's stupidity of the highest order.  For those who have seen the clip of him being interviewed it doesn't take long to observe there is something about the interview to suggest he's being played.  Politely challenged at first he then gets hit with the question about why all the candidates are white and he seals the deal with a display of pantomime outrage and cries of racism towards the interviewer.

I'm all for freedom of speech.  I'm all for adult debate about issues but Bloom is, well, words just fail me.  We've already learned (as if we didn't already suspect) that playing on the big stage of politics is a dark game as laid bare by Damian McBride.  The result is, if you have serious ambitions of power as a party the one thing you have to have is campaign discipline.

You have to understand that no matter how honest and altruistic your message, there will be people out there looking to bring you down. It's bad enough holding unpalatable points of view but it's another to let them out.  In short you keep your mouth shut.  The reality would seem to be that nobody is your friend and comments like those Bloom used today are either used as currency later on when someone else wants a favour or they're sharpened to stab you in the back when the lust for power takes over someone you might even consider a friend.

Campaign discipline is about only the message you choose as a party, gets out that day.  That's why New Labour had their famous "Grid" for communicating.  It was that discipline that was key to them winning the election in 1997.  Today for UKIP the message that made it on to the news was those points Farage was trying to make about the EU coursing through almost all aspects of life in Britain and yet Bloom's actions saw to it that Farage was left to try and rescue that message in between answering for his colleagues indiscretions.

For what its worth, I thought Farage did a good job of that and credit where it's due, UKIP have (finally) moved quickly to demonstrate Bloom was out of order.  Furthermore, having heard some of his comments today, I thought Farage did a reasonable job of getting that message of the EU everywhere in British life as well as hitting home on the farce of the wind farm agenda.  The trouble was that was in a live interview. I expect that his robust promotion of his message will be disappear in the edited versions as Bloom will once again become the main news that British public will be presented with.

Facepalm

They really did say it themselves:

debating war "one of the most solemn duties that this House possesses"

For once, Milliband was right.  There was no getting away from it.  They really did have to sit and debate it and it should have been one of the most solemn duties.  Everyone had a duty to take it seriously.  One way or another they were debating our entry into a catastrophe and whether they wanted this nation in or out they had a duty to take it seriously and to stand by their conscience.

But look at what we got .  We had a opposition leader who having sought lots of conditions and got them all decided that it was a good opportunity for political shenanigans ordering his troops to renege on the agreement.  Then he was followed by his MPs who went along with the game.

Then we had the coalition.  You've decided as a government you think you should send your military to "do something" and you agree to bring it to the House and this is what you reportedly end up with:

• A Loss by 13 votes
• 8 Ministers who miss the vote
• 2 Whips miss the vote
• 2 Ministerial aides miss the vote
• Plus the rest who were told to stay on holiday

Within that we also had a "The dog ate my homework" type excuse in that two of them claim not to have heard the division bell.

That was probably one of the biggest motions and biggest votes they are likely to be involved in certainly in this year and it was certainly the biggest vote of the day.  So if it was so bloody solemn a duty how did we end up with that farce?

Where was the organising discipline?  How did the whips fail to stay on top of the whereabouts of these clowns? As to the clowns themselves, what was so occupying their minds as to miss that vote.

I suspect it wasn't ineptitude at all on the part of the missing but more like they were hiding.  This makes matters worse.  These pillocks set out as supposedly bright young things with dreams to rule the world.  What happens when that moment of responsibility comes?  They go and hide.  Oh good - copy the behaviour of a five year old whose broken a plate. They didn't even have the backbone to vote according to their conscience. My worry is not that they lost the vote - far from it.  In my mind this is impossible to get right - it was the lack of gravity in the thinking and organisation I'm railing against.  I've seen chimps at the zoo have better run sh*t fights.

I've got little more to say that won't involve copious amounts of foul language.  That however is how they approach the most solemn of duties. . That's the level of thought they've put in to this adventure. That's the mindset of both the ayes and the noes.  Virtually nobody treated in with any form of solemnity. Wow just wow.

Why I'm worried is I feel we will be in action in Syria.  I suspect another outrage will occur and someone will make a case that sees them decide to go in.  When we get there that same level of thinking will be meddling in the campaign and making decisions as events spiral out of control.

The Devil's Symphony

Having been away on business for a few days, I've managed to catch the odd snippet here and there regarding the situation in Syria.  Having said that, you don't need to be any sort of political analyst to work out that this could be the perfect storm in the making - a black hole that could drag us all in.

The latest escalation is a purported chemical weapons attack seemingly resulting in the death of innocent civilians and one carried out by President Assad.  Readers may note my use of the words "purported" and "seemingly".  I use these words quite deliberately because truth and facts appear to have been amongst the first casualties of this conflict.  Confusion reigns where the truth is concerned. We aren't really clear who the real bad guy is as those who go beyond the mainstream media to add a richer understanding of what is going on will have heard of barbarism by both sides. They will also have heard that there may be more to these rebels, than simply angry Syrians revolting.  There's every indication they are fighters from a patchwork of conflicts, many of whom have also fought against our troops and our allies troops.

Although the main allegation is that the chemical attack was by Assad's forces, there are counter claims that the rebels have done it in order to draw further involvement from the west. Such a claim is not beyond the realm of possibility as we have heard stories of their own savage acts on the people of Syria.  Once again a straight answer on who is doing what eludes. It's simply a mess that is almost beyond human understanding, but what is clear is that men women and children who wanted nothing more than a life free from harm are pawns in a nihilistic game.

Regardless of who did it, it has effectively created a situation for the western governments who have been generally siding with the rebels.  Identifying the use of chemical weapons has taken us across the red line, a phrase they used in their rhetoric.  In fact the western involvement angle appears to have amped up recently, with reports suggesting preparation activity in terms of American troop deployment and command structures within the area.  We 've also had the French making noises and also our own politicians with William Hague reputedly not ruling out the use of British forces.  Once again therefore we seem to see our leaders looking to commit us to further conflict having done so on a continuous basis since 2001. 

This however is nothing like those previous conflicts.  This is Syria.  I do not claim to be a military analyst, much less a middle eastern one, but there's a very clear notion in all reports that fighting this nation will not be a walkover.  There is clearly something that gives nations who fall out with Syria pause for thought and a preference to purse diplomatic channels.

Maybe one of those reasons is Russia. Russia, a nation we have been told with a military capability suffering a terminal case of the rust supply a lot of hardware to Syria and are rumoured to have provided the S300 missile system, described by many as a game changer.  This provision is in response to the west's involvement. It has also been suggested that Russian involvement could possibly be efforts to protect the west's reliance on Russian supplied energy to Europe

So here we find ourselves potentially looking to enter a conflict fighting alongside those who have committed acts against us and facing opposition from those we have recently come to regard as allies in certain situations.  Our leaders may have a plan, or at least think they do.  However, as Mike Tyson once said - everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.  In this instance there are way too many variables for the execution of a simple plan, especially when being handled by modern political leaders.  We have seen time and time again, their stumbling and mishandling of even the simplest of issues because of their shallowness and obsession with short term headlines and approval ratings, which in turn translates into paucity of thinking.  Events have a habit of overtaking these people and they are ill cut out to respond appropriately.  The worrying fact is many of these events could be predicted by anyone with half a brain.

So what we have is not a local issue.  Although it's in Syria, the situation sees the west looking to meddle and the Russians not liking our meddling one bit and responding in kind. This, is in the context of a middle east that is coming increasingly unstable.  It's an area of high tension with everyone turning on each other. This whole thing has the possibility of descending into the Abyss.  There are lots interplays here with power players in the area who could decide to utilise any conflict to advance their own agenda and plans.  It wouldn't take much.  It's a tinderbox and our history shows us previous major world conflicts often start with just such a combination of seemingly unrelated events in numbers that world leaders just can't keep a lid on.

Then there is the rest of the world. The financial markets will be watching this.  These markets aren't renowned for having a sober view of things.  Market shift on silly rumours with only short term impacts.  They're prone to pointless overreaction so something like this could really give them the jitters. Take that into consideration in the context of a world financial crisis. Prices could go all over the place, especially the price of oil, something we are highly reliant on.  With prices all over the place, that will be felt at the pumps and possibly in our domestic energy prices.  Our domestic energy security is already compromised and unstable thanks to our politician's obsession with the "green" agenda which could add further destabilisation. Each time we keep coming back to the absence of capable leaders and their mishandling of serious events in serious times.

Suddenly a crisis in a far away country starts to land at our doorstep.  Look at our ability as a people to handle a crisis on our doorstep. To do so one really only has to go back to when there was the mere suggestion of a strike by fuel tanker drivers.  It wasn't even a real plan, just a notion that floated its way into the public consciousness.  Yet it sparked a panic at the pumps because too many of us wanted the everyday convenience we have come to expect to continue without interruption.  We almost caused our own crisis because we had taken leave of our senses.  We lack resilience and cool calm heads in a situation.  We want what we want, when we want it and it does not take much for that to spill into violence.  You have to ask yourself how cut out we are for a serious crisis? How cut out are we for serious times?  Look back at the Tottenham riots and how they spread.  The breakdown in both of these situations showed the almost hair trigger society is living on.  Imagine that in a real crisis and one as we head into winter.  That's just one more thing for our leaders to need to keep make an effort to keep a lid on.  That unrest could happen not only in this country but certainly across Europe and across the globe.  We have already seen such foundations laid in nations like Greece and Spain. 

We run the risk of violence everywhere. Friend against friend. Neighbour against neighbour. 

This is a dark scenario and one I hope and pray we avoid, but we have to recognise it is possible in equal measure.  I just hope our politicians have because if not, once again events will overtake their plan and we're back to Mike Tyson observation about how plans collapse when someone gets punched in the mouth.

This has the potential to be the Devil's Symphony

The Ground Game - Part one

Yesterday I saw  this post over at EUReferendum, which appeared to be the culmination of several days of comment and shall we say vibrant discussion across various blogs around the referendum and the roles of the various players, more specifically around those purporting to be pushing for an out vote.  I sensed within it all a fear that we might not receive an open and honest debate and that we might get a poor imitation of one.

Of course this might all be likely only if we follow the expected path and we sit and watch these players dominate the agenda.  If we want to be of genuine service to Britain and its people, then surely something like this is too important to sit idly by.  I said in my post on the British Interest that it needed us all to pull on the rope and I feel we have an opportunity to begin pulling and to set ourselves on a path towards a more open and prosperous future for everyone.

I believe the out campaign should not be left in the hands of the political parties, but should tread an alternative path.  If done correctly not only could we have an honest campaign but one that stays outside the whims of the political class and ill informed media.  It's something I've been thinking about as I've been reading the various blog posts.

I believe we need to develop what is often referred to as a Ground Game.

Could it work? Yes it could - its worked before as illustrated in this post from Witterings from Witney.  Of course its different in that something like this is new for us and will need input.  I believe, however that a good "ground game" has shown to work in so many other campaigns partly because it brings politics back to the local and to the people on the ground, so many of whom have become disillusioned and switched off.  a ground game would give them a chance to reengage with democracy. I not only think this bottom

So here are some of my thoughts. I think as more comes to me, I'll write more in future posts.

• The idea is centred on a simple premise.  A grassroots strategy to engage people in an open honest and legal way to maximise the chances of getting an "out" vote in the forthcoming referendum.  I believe that there is a majority for this no vote out there if we can just engage them.  That is the hub of this plan - engaging people to reinvest in the future of this nation through the presentation of clear, understandable information that not only informs but rebuts any half truths or outright lies.

• As a ground game, the movement should effectively go "door to door" by engaging one person at a time and getting each of those one people to engage with others right where they live.

• Nobody really owns it, other than the people down on the ground in that particular area.  There will be similarities in the information sources and the methods used, but at the end of the day it belongs to the people in that area. That way, if one part cannot continue for any reason, everything else remains unaffected.

Organisation

Again, I believe that simplicity should be the key to this campaign. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  one presumes at this stage that any vote would be organised along existing voting lines and it makes sense to mimic that. Therefore my suggestion is that the main local division is along the lines of the current parliamentary constituencies.  That does not have to be the only level.  I think it prudent to have subdivisions along the lines of the various electoral wards or the subdivisions found in other parts of Britain.  If the vote will be along these lines, the campaign to win it should reflect that.  It also helps to break down the challenge of getting the numbers involved.  At approximately 68175 people per constituency that may presents the perception of too large a challenge.  Smaller areas (and maybe even smaller areas too) may be more manageable and easier to communicate with.

The way I currently see things (but again its just a viewpoint and open to better ones, but ultimately decided by the local groups) is that the serious thinkers with serious blogs and others groups with serious, pertinent and persuasive observations become the go to source for that information that the groups can use to support their campaign.

An important part of that messaging is that somehow it needs to strike a balance of being honest, serious and possessing gravity whilst at the same time doing it in a way that can be passed on to the man and women in the street.  Remember we have a disengaged electorate.  Politics and EU politics in particular appears complicated and boring and has become synonymous with lies and broken promises which has caused a big switch off.  Any such campaign would need to overcome that.

In Closing

I'm going to bring this to a close at this point - deliberately.  I've got further work to do on this (and chores around the house), but I wanted to leave the notion out there for people to mull over.  A lot of the comments I saw on the various posts recently (and have in the past) seem to reflect a presumption that it must all be left to the "professionals".  To me that means people need time to consider that there might be an alternative way and to believe it's possible.

Food for thought

Firstly can I say thank you for those who visited my previous post.  More importantly can I say thank you to Old Rightie and to Nourishing Obscurity for showing them the way to my little outpourings.  It was a welcome boost to something I threw in the bin a few short months ago.

Moving on from that it got me thinking, what next and a quick trip round other blogs came me a slightly diversionary idea which I've started working on, but I do want to keep on with some of the theme that I mentioned in that previous post.

Because I'm a little short of time right now, I want to hand the show over to someone who is always good value in the form of Bill Whittle and a speech he gave last November.  Some may say that I always seem to pick American videos and that's true.  There's something about them that shows something I haven't seen in British grassroots politics (not to say that it doesn't exist).  It points to high production values which says something in its own right.  It just looks a little more organised and both of those things help the message resonate more with an audience.  Bill has some interesting things to say in this hour that have parallels with this country.

Of course what you think of it is up to you.  I hope you enjoy it.

The British Interest

A trip round the blogs can be a somewhat depressing experience.  You could be forgiven for thinking they're the work of eternal pessimists creating a world of endless melancholy. This is wrong, that's wrong, this person is a light, an imbecile, a buffoon, we're kicking the can down the road and so on and so forth.  It's not depressing because they're depressives.  It's depressing because they are bang on the nail.  In short they're right.

They're right because it's all going wrong.  It's bad everywhere.  We have problems created by malign intent hubris and ineptitude.  What's worse is that we keep going to the same idiots, both malign and "useful" to try and solve them. I honestly can't list all the different types of lunatic running the asylum.  The reality is, it's just a big stinking mess.  Even worse than that, it's not just here, it's everywhere.  The same class of person has risen to influential roles in too many countries across the planet.  The downside to that last observation is that it leaves us in avery precarious situation for a reason I'll explain shortly.

I recently got to thinking this way after reading a series of posts.  What it got me to thinking was our role in the general population in this downfall.  We've been making mistakes and our mistakes have been twofold.  Firstly we have been presuming the cavalry is out there ready to rescue us from this disaster and secondly we have presumed that to be the same faces we keep getting presented with in influential postions.

The reality is, that right now, there is no cavalry.  We are in serious times yet there would appear to be no serious people right now in the top roles, making the big decisions or at least not in sufficient numbers.  There is (not only here) but across the world a pervasive presence of people not cut out to deal with what is all around us, immediately before us and also down the road we are currently travelling along.  We have for the most part a breed of politician, for the most part, in it for themselves.  This is reflected in their short term decisions that have worse consequences further down the line.  This is reflected in their lies about the truth of a situation just to prevent them looking bad.

Then there are the malign people.  I've written about them before.  Those who wish for bad things to happen to this country because they believe it will bring about a socialist utopia.  They're not a myth, they're real and their writings exist to prove their plan (but they're for another post). Unfortunately their utopia will not come about, because it simply isn't a utopia.  History has proven that time and time again.  Usually somewhere along the way their end point sees the rise of a dictatorship, followed by some of the darkest points in human history.  Why people want to take us there I will never know. These  people right now are engineering their game or playing the role of useful idiot.  What makes this a problem is the influencial cretinocracy are mixng this group's work into their cocktail of lunacy that they call policy making, either out of fear of the pressure they will bring, short term interest or the stupidity in their thinking.

So we have imbeciles and we have malign people who want to crash this nation running the show.  Bad enough you might think, but you may recall I mentioned the internation dimension I mentioned earlier.  I give you two stories I saw earlier this week that started to give me some of my foundation thoughts for this post.  Firstly there was this post over at Autonomous Mind about one rule for them and another for us and then this one over at The Slog about changes to EU financial rules about how banking rules could be changed.  Although not directly related, they got me thinking back to something Dr Richard North said many months ago on his blog about events. Events affect us personally and international events often impact on us back here in Britain. This international dimension brings additional problems for us to deal with.  Our domestic problems often come about either solely because of this international aspect such as our presence in the EU or they magnify our domestic issues.

We're in a dark place and heading to a darker one, with the tools and the thinking we currently employ. Given the interdependence of it all, the international issues are not good for Britain and our issues are not good for the world.  We need to change and we need a plan.

To many, that plan is we need to get out of the EU.  The trouble is, for many that is where the plan ends.  Leave and all will be happy.  I couldn't agree more with the leaving bit but I'm certainly not of the view that simply by leaving, all will be happy.  The plan can not end there.  It has to be a stage in a grander plan.  You have to have a plan for what next. You cannot leave and then go "now what?" You have to know what the next step is before you even embark on that journey and right now we don't really have one.

Apart from a few, too many of us are looking in the wrong place for our plan.  We're looking at the existing political parties UKIP included to get us out of the hole.  They not the people we need to rely on.  They haven't really shown any grasp of what next.  If they had any seriousness about getting out, we would see them setting the foundations now and we have nothing.  Yes they're making big blustery noises but you have to ask yourself what has really changed?  If you were truly honest you would have to say very, very little has changed.

I'm at risk of going off on a tangent here becuase this has been occupying my mind a lot recently and there are lots of threads to it.  As a result I'm going to try and bring it back to my key point for this post.

It is simply this.  A change must begin and begin now.  It must be a plan that is about the British Interest.  Britain needs to set itself back on path based on its own wellbeing.  It needs to become influential and prosperous once again. It needs to be focussed on its own concerns, its own prosperity and its own strength and most importantly, that of its people.  Do this and we will start to establish the foundations for what happens after an EU exit.  Do this and we will start to become stong and prosperous again.  Do this and we will be much more likely to steady the ship.  If we can steady our ship, international events of all kinds will be felt less keenly at home.  In our interdependent world, if we're steady, it reduces the chance of additional turmoil elsewhere.  In other words - a stable Britain is good for the wider world.

To realise that is the easy part.  Getting on with it is another thing.  I partly say that because as is clear from this post that is not what we currently have that will get us there.  As I mentioned ealrier, if you're looking there, you're looking in the wrong place.  Most of them aren't currently up to that job and more importantly given the size of the change required, there aren't enough of them.  To find who is required, you simply need to look in the mirror.  It's going to need every single one of us.  There's lots to do and it needs us all pulling on the rope.  It needs numbers.  We can't run and hide because it's simply not an option.  The place we're heading to is not prosperity but poverty and if we don't play a part in the turnaround, we too will get caught up it.  We can't put our hands over our eyes and ears going "lalalalalala" hoping it will go away. It won't. We're too far gone for that.

It's time to plant that flag again Britain and declare you believe in your country once again.

Starting the Fire

Well good morning folks.  It's clear I've been away for some time, even going as far as to temporarily delete the blog.  There were reasons for that and equally there are reasons for coming back, which I may go on to explain at some point.  So if you're an old friend / previous visitor - thank you for taking the time to come back.  I hope I write something worth reading, every now and again. Although we're called Restoring Britain, today's post is going to take a jump across to different countries.

As well as being away from my blog I've largely stayed away from political blogs and videos in general, although recently I had a quick whizz around some of my old haunts and stopped by to watch Pat Condell have a couple of pops at a world where reasoning and truth is turned on its head.  In one recent  video he refers to an incident involving a Danish political activist, Lars Heddergard, recently at the wrong end of an assassination attempt at his own home- Lars Heddergard.  It seemed Mr Heddergard (who was attempting a house move - presumably as a safety precaution) was attemptedly followed by a journalist and photographer in what appears to have been an attempt to report his new location.  Stupid in the extreme is the most conservative assessment I can give this effort by these supposed journalists.

I mention that because I see that in the US the trial of George Zimmerman has resulted in a not guilty verdict for Zimmerman.  What I wanted to say in this post has eluded me for days and I've twisted myself in knots on how I wished to word it.  The principle reason was that I wasn't so much wanting to concentrate on the what happened, but on the press coverage.  I think at the end of the day there are probably only two people who know what really happened and they are the two people involved.  So I struggled.  Bill Whittle probably summed it up best and in fact I learned something new about the case about the cocktail known as "Lean", despite it being a speculative aspect of Bill's video.  I'll let Bill say most of it for me:




I wanted to avoid going over the evidence but in fact it's required to understand the wider point that Bill touches upon and that I really wanted my post to be about.

Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal have sparked a controversy and a backlash.  I think that backlash has in part been sparked by the actions  and reporting of the press, including those of the BBC here in Britain.  By and large, we have seen this story told of a young black man out buying skittles and a drink, shot and killed simply because white man Zimmerman presumed he was up to no good in a gated community.  Within that have been lots of commentary about America tearing itself up over a resurgence of its racist history.

The problem is we have learned much of what we have from the press.  That narrative I've just described above has come about because of the way the story has been told in the press.  Of course it doesn't take much digging around (as Bill Whittle did) to find there are lots of holes in that story.  In fact most of that knowledge was available from the outset, hence the police feeling that they had nothing to charge Zimmerman with and initial advice from prosecutors.

So the evidence was there which has to call into question why it failed to make it into the press.  Now it was one of two things.  It was either sloppy journalism or it was deliberate design.  I can partly believe in sloppy journalism as with all manner of stories, it seems to thrive mostly on a diet of low hanging fruit.  Except in this instance, there were clearly pieces of low hanging fruit that they chose to ignore - pieces that effectively left the established narrative on shaky ground.

So if it's not sloppy journalism, that pretty much leaves us with deliberate design.  We've already seen pieces that didn't make it in to the early stories. As well as that though there is the recording of the 911 call made by Zimmerman.  This is the call that news outlets originally presented as including the following phrase:

  Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

When in actual fact the actual recording went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. 

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

So he didn't offer it up, he was responding to a question

Eventually, when this editing was exposed the news station who manipulated the recording was forced to apologise and is being sued by Zimmerman for depicting him as  racist.  But that still hasn't stopped news organisations repeating this, including the BBC.  Although they had previously reported Zimmerman's legal action against NBC, they still ran this article in June in which they appear to do a similar thing to NBC.

So what's my point?

Well my point is this - the media are playing a naive, malign and dangerous game.  The angle we have consistently seen from the press around this case has from the outset been based on the omission of salient and readily available facts. Their omission points to someone wanting the story told this way and this way only.  In other words someone wants you to have viewpoint that they approve of. They only want a viewpoint that fits their narrative because if you have that viewpoint, you are more likely to repeat it as though it were fact.

What makes it naive, malign and dangerous is that there are (and have already been) consequences for this manipulation.  It doesn't just exist in a bubble.  They can't just say these things and it not provoke a reaction.  People have relied on the press to give them the facts and most probably presume what they have seen to be the facts.  People cite such "facts" to justify their reaction.  There have been protests, there has been violence.  There has been talk of retribution.  I could understand all of this had the narrative been true.  Heck if I were part of the African American community and this had been true, I'd be filled with anger too.   So that's why it's dangerous.  Lives have been ruined and lives will be changed and ruined in the future.

But that's not some insight available only to me.  It would have been available to the press to.  I can only draw the conclusion they wanted to start the fire with their reporting and watch it burn.   They've treated it like its entertainment, which for me makes its disgraceful. A young man is dead and another man has become marked for death by people who seek revenge.  Anything that happens from here on in, the media which manipulated the story have a hand in it.  If there is blood, some of it will be on their hands.  It's almost like they wanted their version of events to be true so they can cause a riot and violence.  They've also given the race hustlers who pretend to speak to for America's black community ammunition to spout their own self serving bile.

The trouble is they're not only malign but they're naive about the consequences as they are genuinely incapable of seeing their hand in the subsequent reaction.  They're like someone who goes into a packed theatre, yelling "fire" for a joke and then when people get killed in the stampede, refuse to believe that it had anything to do with them. This section of the media, like to pretend they're advancing the civil rights cause.

They're doing nothing of the sort.  They're setting such a cause back.  They're manipulating a section of America for their own ends, treating them like their own plaything.

They're just starting a fire and watching it burn.  A young man is dead - it is not a time for games.

End Note

An addition for any trolls who are thinking about commenting on this.  Simply don't bother wasting your time, I won't respond or debate with you on this.  Why?  A few reasons really.  Firstly, because no amount of clunky efforts to paint me as racist will actually make it true.  You are of course entitled to your opinion but if you knew me, you could not actually honestly draw such a conclusion so you're left with name calling.  Secondly it's not a debate you're looking for.  You're not interested in it.  What you will really have come here for is to shout down any debate.  I've read and am familiar with Saul Alinsky and his playbook and I know about trolling.  So save your energy and take it elsewhere.  Thank you.