This one has previously compared the Michael Brown versus Darren Wilson duel to a "slave patrol" occurrence, in the sense that their interaction in the 21st century was a cyclical historical component largely identical in structure to the execution of runaway slaves by slave patrols in the American antebellum (sic, lol, puke) era. After extorting from and/or robbing the local market in question, Brown likely attempted to assault and/or murder Wilson when engaged regarding Brown's practice of walking in the street at nighttime, and was killed, an unknown revolutionary in a war undeclared by liars on either side. In this conflict, as with many such conflicts of large and small scale since Jenomic times, we see Europe's myopia on gross display.
The hypocrisy, idiocy, and wanton greed of Brown's advocates is well-known. Brown, who devoured subsidized-housing and -food for his entire life, surviving in an alien world operated beyond his capacity only by gifts and tithes from the extracted labor of those who would have feared to go near him, and brutalized his way through a society that threw piles of money at him in hopes of proving that everyone can be like it, was finally killed for attacking, unarmed, an armed opponent. And he was right to attempt to do so; he was on sound moral footing, a hero for none of the reasons anyone said.
The schisms brought to light by the Brown scenario are, as Africans and their allies remind us, connected forever to the original crime of slavery. In this way, they are a component of the larger debate(s) over racism, colonialism, and imperialism, comprising broken narratives that cannot be separated from their ultimate foundations in the flawed character of Europe.
Brown's defenders and/or apologists, though, are similarly, though not as equally greatly, flawed. They pursue a path of European-ness that derives from, and might ultimately succumb to (however many millennia it might take), the flaws that have been embraced by Europe. Let us use Brown the hero as a stand-in for this vast comedy of error.
Among the very stupid things that Europe did since Jewish-Christianity successfully reached it was adopt other Semitic cultural aspects, including slavery. "Muslim" Semites, and before that, Arab Semites, had been enslaving each other, Europeans, and sub-Saharan Africans, for as long as European history records contact. As the Turkish Church of Judaism rebranded itself to the Roman Catholic Boyrapers Association, then the Roman Catholic Church, the monarchies of western Europe began to integrate Semitic financiers into their courts, and to then become interested, as always with Semites, in the notions of (1) importing cheap labor, and (2) ritualistically sacrificing their offspring for humanitarian reasons.
Besides being incalculably harmful, incredibly expensive, and stifling technological and cultural progress, these plans were also morally wrong. In defense of Europeans, reparations have been paid out for more than a century, in the form of quadrillions of 2017 dollars of food, shelter, medical care, sinecures, cash payments, and vengeance-deferral. And yet, the crime is priceless: there is no making up for it. The Semites managed the triangle trade, but the tiny percentage of idiots in the Old World and the New World who bought the slaves are the ones primarily responsible for Europe's ensuing ills. Semites, like ticks, suck the host's blood. They have never and will never survive in any other way, and the first Europeoids to ban them and their charity-immigrants from Egypt understood this and kept records of it. The subsequent failure of the Egyptians, then the Romans, to de-immigrantize their societies, is something of a tragedy, but considering how little their descendants learned--as evidenced by some moron in Georgia buying slaves to pick his cotton--makes the resulting downfalls appear deserved.
As an individual, Michael Brown was unfairly treated. We tend to think of the things he was given by not being left in Africa: food, shelter, medical care, cash, and--prior to his fateful meeting with Officer Wilson--vengeance-deferral. These are as irrelevant as the free book cart and free showers to a wrongfully convicted man in prison. Brown's ancestors were not only captured and brought across the ocean, but then prohibited to practice a culture of tribal warfare, provisionary raiding, and attacking outsiders. Maybe these things are bad, but they are his things, their things, and maybe those ancestors were captured by other Africans, or Semitic traders, but at some point one or more of them were purchased by an American citizen and, later, forcibly integrated into a European-derived version of civilization. That is a moral wrong. No amount of goodies can make up for it, just like Siegfried and Roy's tigers, viewed as autonomous individuals, are still morally correct for trying to save themselves even though they've been blessed with a life in show business. The viewpoint that Michael Brown received "benefits" in exchange for his freedom is, of course, racist, culturally supremacist, and stupid, but more importantly, is irrelevant. He never lived free.
His battle with Wilson was slave-patrol-ish not in the sense of cliche whites randomly killing negroes, but in the sense of cliche whites killing negroes who acted in an uncivilized/dangerous fashion--by European standards. Yes, Brown attacked Wilson, but Wilson was his jailer, forcing him to be subject to standards his people never created. Posh and influential African-Americans have been attempting to make this case forever--don't judge us based on not passing your tests; don't treat us like you; don't arrest us for rioting; don't cage us for rape or murder; don't make us live by you without giving us all the same stuff you have--but through a flawed, Eurocentric lens. Only by defining Brown as a "betrayed European" do most Africans and European liberals defend him, as though Brown should have been a European gentleman and a European scholar but for his encounter with a cop.
Lionizing Officer Wilson is the same as lionizing the gullible goys who worked with the Semitic slavers in bringing the African here in the first place: housing tigers in nurseries will result in eaten babies, and housing Africans in European cities will result in the same. Triangle-trading, then Section-8ing Michael Brown into Ferguson, denying him the right to just run around in Africa with a bunch of his kinsmen, doing whatever he wanted, and forcing his people to attempt to make the case for their freedom through rational civil debate rather than punitive raiding expeditions, is wrong; is an intrusion; is a doomed project; is insane. Morally speaking, Brown was in the right for trying to establish territory, just as Wilson, trapped in the experiment alongside him, was right to attempt to force his own Eurocentric order on the African. Each trying to impose their own worldview on the other, like colossi in a celestial stadium, where only one can drift away from the exchange pure in his honor. Michael tried to escape. Michael probably knew, at the end, that it was inevitable. He hadn't forgotten who he was; he hadn't spit on his ancestors by kowtowing to the cop and apologizing for robbing people in a European society and fighting with lawmen in a European society. For necessity's sake, Darren would have had to mouth dishonorable lies in order to not be executed by his own traitorous kinsmen; Brown's lineage has nothing to be ashamed of, for Michael fought back.
What makes Brown a hero is his honest fury. His actions were a statement; that night, Brown said, "I am going to rob and beat on some little person, then walk wherever I want, and if you bother me, I will kill you." Such honesty is, in the American grindery, refreshing as well as unusual; it's pure, undiluted cultural expression. If the European had exterminated the African, it would have been a crime, but a less insane, less childish, less flawed, less embarrassing one than the atrocious travesty of pseudo-benevolent colonialism we've seen these past thousand years.
This is essentially the African community's reaction to Brown's loss, though couched in European terms. The recycling of spoiled arguments about racist realtors from before Brown's parents were born, focusing on the number of Europeans and Africans attacked by Africans who are then punished, and demanding more loot or else, is an expression of warfare, albeit disguised by mincing European words. The seeming irrationality of Africans is not actually irrational, but merely an attack on the European's own terms: give us more stuff or we will keep attacking your convenience stores and/or your lawmen. It sounds mean and unfair to the European, when he measures the said reaction by his own standards, ergo he complains that he does, too, see the microaggression fairies. The real pejorative racism, though, is the European's assumption that his methods of communicating--faux-objective dialogue, legalities, and standards of time management and desired end-goals--are the means by which the interaction should occur. African preachers, who fake a passion for undead Jews in order to extort social programs from idiot Europeans, are subversives who are honest to their own people, doing as much as they can to keep their soldiers in play. It is either rare or impossible to see Semites, full Mongols, or full Africans engaging in similarly selfish, non-altruistic behavior. The European flatters himself as "too altruistic," when in fact it is his selfishness, his desire to be individually emotionally reassured as to the uniqueness of his spirit by believing that his own version of bourgeois is the standard against which all things are measured, that causes him to harm all peoples, including his own. Today's European nationalists are as guilty of, and more importantly, as vulnerable to, this misconception as are yesterday's politically-correct liberals and yesteryear's missionaries of the undead Jew. In fact, they are today's liberals; today's expressions of the great European flaw.
Brown is a hero not only because he got angry, but because he put that anger into action, in a hopeless move against a superior opponent. Besides not being armed against a gunman, Brown had no backup, while Wilson had backup; Brown might have used a sail foam to call friends, but Wilson had a radio on his uniform shirt and in his car that could immediately summon trained gunmen. As a sole Zulu without even a wooden shield, Brown charged in and gave it his all, knowing that even if he were to emerge victorious, he would only emerge from prison a couple years later with few plausible employment prospects outside of uplifting government sinecures, and a lifetime of subsidized food, housing, and medical care that would only make inevitable his next charge against a cop.
We've previously discussed how, absent Semitic Christianity, the European would have exterminated the African. Like the end result of the European's encounters with aurochs or sabretoothed cats, in a Terra where Semites had not landed, a naturally-expanding Europe would have encountered what they deemed to be violent, rapey great apes with minimal tool usage and no written records, and cleared them from the land after the fourth peasant's wife was found slashed on the savanna. Neuroweb genetics courses in 1492 would have mentioned the many superiorities of the homo africanus over competing fauna, prior to their respective extinctions.
And this world--this world we live in now, where Africans were instead exploited and supported and dispersed across distances their own technology would not have brought them--might well be a better world. The Jews can rightfully consider themselves the Chosen People for coming up with a philosophy that would cause Europe, instead, to spend over a millennium nurturing Africans, and African Semitics, into pseudo-Europeans. Similarly, perhaps, if Europeans had not wiped out or domesticated partial aurochs, but instead allowed purebred aurochs to roam wild, it would be a better world. If Europeans had spent fifteen hundred years sending their children after the aurochs to hand out free crosses, tutor them in math, invest in businesses with auroch-based labor, and teach aurochs about marriage and chastity, the resulting sprawl of the European capitals--including statistical per capita deaths by goring and trampling--would much resemble today, albeit with more aurochs and fewer trucks. Movies would show auroch scientists saving befuddled Europeans in high-stress astronomical situations, aurochs would continue to be discriminated against by employers, and the idea of a world where aurochs had, instead, been wiped out, might seem unspeakably genocidal and macabre.
Countless rapes and murders later in the real world, we're still perhaps ahead of extermination on the moral scale. Europe's enduring problems--individual and collective suicide and masochism; the brutally patronizing uplifting of other lands' peoples--may stem wholly, partly, or not at all from parasitic influence. In any of these cases, Europe remains responsible for failing to deny that influence; for failing to disgorge the tick; for failing to be good enough, strong enough, and confident enough to cast aside the beguiling whispers and secret flattery of those traders in purloined flesh and stolen ideas.
This world may well be better than the undiluted Europe, for who knows what methods the European might have used to address these flaws, absent the Semite? Detroit is bad, but what might have happened if the existential dread--the same dread that made re-themed, flattering retellings of stoicism so appealing--had not been met by the Turkish councils? Was the existential angst caused by early forms of Judaism? Maybe so, but Europe's failure to remember the old stories is hers--and it is a profound failure, and perhaps thousands of years of purgatory, perhaps extinction, is the just reward for being so dazzled by spices from Arabia, Nubians tilling the fields, that one betrays one's more expensive peasants and shorts the future. Paying down those credit cards dozens of generations later is not going to be pleasant. All of Caesar's and then Charlemagne's men were not multi-racial, and the fall of the Celts, the Gauls, and the other remembered and forgotten peoples of the northern forests and floes, cannot be blamed upon mixed breeding alone. It is, in some part, an inherent crime. And there is, in some part, an honest justice in Welfare Mohamed raping Sally Sweden, or Affirmatively Furthering Brown charging Darren Slumguard America, compared to the West's horrible, incestuous betrayal of itself.
Perhaps Officer Wilson understands this, and was trying to, like people claim about Obama murdering x-thousand Somalis, resist in the only way he could--the only pragmatic way. Pretend you believe that African astrophysicists inventing useful new things are right around the corner, pretend everyone has the same chance at the European's own preferred version of success, and it was just this one schvartzer who happened to make a bad decision, when in fact Wilson knew that there was no way out, and the only way to temporarily attempt to protect society was to keep the roads clear. A noble illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. Held he that illusion, would it be better than a genuine belief that the astrophysicists are waiting over the next hill? Maybe. But maybe it would be worse.
Europe's creeping pragmatism, its unslayable fantasy that everyone can, nay must, define success in its own way--prestigious colleges, respectable careers, suburban house, two car garage, ample retirement portfolios--are noxious not only to its own people, but to the charity survivors of colonialism. It might be worse for the Africans in the long run if they did achieve, on their own merits, those prestigious colleges, respectable careers, suburban houses, two car garages, ample retirement portfolios, and all the things that go along with them.
How many dozen million more Europeans can be tricked into killing one another for the right to proselytize? Only one more such group, or all of them? Will they firebomb one another's cities again this year to help uplift someone far away? Move their children across oceans, then send them back to kill one another? How many will they sacrifice to produce and use another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness?
Africans in Africa, provided with legislatures and guns and bombs, begin adopting eerily westernish behaviors, including pretending that killing someone and taking their land is "humanitarian," rather than "killing someone and taking their land." Time will show whether Europe's preferred mode of civilization is indeed better for everyone--whether overfed, subsidized Africans with guns but statistically longer lifespans are better off than where they would've been if left alone. The morality of the issue, though, is beyond question: the flattered European's selfishly self-destructive colonialism, and his ridiculously extended refusal to clean up the mess, is the greater moral wrong. We kill and exploit bacteria, plants, and maybe even animals to survive; there is no other way. Perhaps in the past we might have killed and exploited Africans, but this choice was perverted into the mockeries of slavery and conversion. Brown's probably unwitting resistance to this monstrous regime makes him a paragon of this planet. Honesty--purity--tradition--nobility. If we were like him in our own way, none of this would have or could have happened. The need for a Michael Brown to exemplify himself as he did was enabled by, and after this long, caused by, our own failings.