The British media has been unanimously uninterested in the Trayvon Martin case (unless I've managed to not have the radio and TV on the exact times they have reported it, and not read a paper on those days, which is possible but unlikely), so I've just been picking up the skeletons of the story online and haven't bothered to look for the meat on them. But the reaction to the verdict online has been many times more interesting and significant, as it has raised all the paranoia of the liberal left worldwide, feminists, race activists and just your basic Marxists as a unanimous, guilt-laden middle class movement of mass neurosis, bleating and whining about middle class racism, how these awful white women jurors got it so wrong (I assume every person who has was either in the court every day following the evidence themselves, or at least reading the transcripts afterwards), while regardless of their personal guilt just for being white and well-off while other people weren't the legal process was followed to the letter. I must emphasise I have no interest and little knowledge in the case itself, but the incredible reactions since the verdict which have truly exposed the utter weakness of so many people's beliefs.
Meanwhile I've just found an insider's view on it, which by total coincidence is very similar to my own
So not just yet again do the equality merchants get to whinge about how wrong the world is for possibly killing someone I now discover may have been a potential suspect, but use it as an excuse yet again to rip into the world for treating the people who are not the same as not the same, and above all not respecting the legal system when they disagree with the results. Firstly outside a banana republic (which the US is turning into under Obama but not yet part of its legal system) a jury's verdict is sacrosanct, and can only be overturned on appeal, and secondly all this equality, feminism and racism obsession is childish nonsense. Racial profiling is not racist, it is sociology/criminology (something which was part of my degree so feel I am allowed to explore with more authority), and although most sociologists are from a political angle the data they collect is not. They can only work with the results of their own experiments, and if young black men commit certain crimes more than anyone else (I think it could be near 80% for certain serious assaults in London by memory) then if you don't racial profile you are being irresponsible, like frisking elderly white women in airports while the young brown men in beards walk through unhindered. Tell the feminists waiting for a flight they just let all those guys through without a check and see how they feel then. Crime prevention and detection is for everyone's benefit, and if certain racial and cultural groups commit certain crimes more than others (the Jews are great embezzlement enthusiasts, it's not a secret, which is included because I am Jewish and can't be accused of picking and choosing who I mention) then you must target the likeliest perpetrators. As for making this a feminist issue as the jury were women (only six? where did they pick that method up from?) is bandwagon jumping or exploitation of a cause at the lowest level.
The Trayvon Martin case was definitely a racially charged issue even though it was technically a question of 'reasonable cause', ie did the attacker have a reasonable case for stopping him in the first place, and then was the shooting self defence when it happened? Had either or both been other races this would have been a clean case, ie one solely assessed on the facts, but make the killer white and the potential criminal black and all the liberal paranoids come out of the woodwork. And if the vast majority of such cases involve white authority figures and black alleged criminals then I return to my racial profiling point. But that was only the catalyst. The general misplaced guilt of those who by whatever means have done well in life and do not break the law have for those who haven't and still to this day genuinely believe committing crimes has a social basis rather than moral are doing as much to erode society as the criminals themselves. Poverty is and has never been a reason to steal, as my family reminded me having arrived in Britain with nothing and lived with the ancestors of the Krays and the Richardsons in London's East End while the natives carried on with their long term culture of organised crime they worked hard and dragged themselves out of it, bearing in mind this was decades before there was a welfare state, which has eliminated virtually every excuse for poverty-induced crime where it has spread to.
Wanting everyone to be the same is the sort of uninformed naïve view of young children who generally learn how every single person is different, and in a free society are able to rise or fall by their own devices, and in a civilised society protected by a welfare state, so they needn't fall as low as to even consider stealing to get what they need. So while most western countries have a combination of freedom and protection from extreme poverty, they still want it all. Forget the fact such equality requires preventing anyone from crossing whichever financial line they decide is 'too much' as they then work for other people, and families are relieved of their property when they die as the estate returns to society rather than the people the families wanted to have it, they want everyone to have the same. Discrimination is not the same thing, laws are constantly being developed to stop it wherever it is found, and discrimination involves treating someone worse than everyone else which is of course wrong. But when black ghettoes form naturally where 80% of the murders are between its own group members then the problem is not caused by the white middle class natives, but the ghetto members almost 100%. Did the piss-poor Jews kill each other or anyone else, or steal to buy food 100 years ago in the East End when they didn't even get housing benefit or weekly dole to cover their basics? It can't be an excuse, as all the unemployed in Britain are far better off than the majority of working people in the third world, and they don't all kill or steal to improve their standard of living either.
So the combination of guilt and jealousy among the white middle class has allowed the worst elements of the world's criminals to be justified across western society where they now live, often diverting the blame from the perpetrators to society for not allowing them to be equal, and work their way through every other group looking for privilege and trying to eliminate each example systematically. Just as the banks reward failure, by paying bad managers to leave, the left wing punish success by trying to take away every genuinely gained reward as they see it as taking it away from everyone else. Apart from being economically illiterate, it would end up with a society with no incentive to do well or work hard in any area, as you'd know any benefits would be taken away from you, and one which assumed everyone had the same chance of intellectual success if only they were given equal opportunities. Now DNA profiling is finding more and more examples of innate abilities in every possible area, these mental Lilliputians are still claiming everyone is of identical intelligence, it's only society's fault if some do not fully get the chance to show it (even when siblings in the same family show totally different results). You have to be pretty dense yourself to have to fight to avoid every single piece of scientific evidence which proves your backward theory is nonsense, so in the end what is probably a lack of emotional rather than intellectual prowess, as the worst perpetrators are normally left-wing academics whose own privilege far outweighs the few pounds a week more their targets are earning who they want to shave even more off their incomes from. The same of course goes for global warming, where James Hansen can create predictions requiring more heat and ice than the planet is capable of producing and anyone with a grasp of arithmetic can easily work out, but because it supports their existing beliefs it goes through and becomes mainstream.
Therefore anyone in authority can exploit these massive areas of discontent, and offer solutions which all involve the sort of restrictions and financial penalties required to both redistribute the wealth and re-educate the people to discriminate less and allow each and every individual regardless of culture or background to reach their full potential. There's no reference to free will or personal qualities as at the furthest extreme the liberal/left believe no one is more intelligent than anyone else (presumably including people with Down's syndrome and brain damage) and property is theft. So rather than provide the safety net of a welfare state, laws for protection from damage to person and property and let people get on with it, they want to regulate society in every area to force this imaginary equality on it until it is perfect, ie Utopian. Forget the detractors who say it's a matter of degree and very few of them really believe this all, the fact they all believe a level of it leads to the identical measures, as if you remove wealth at all, then who decides when people still have 'too much'- is it the 97% removal by 1960's Labour or the 50% by 2000's? The actual results of high taxation alone are well known, people either leave the country or pay accountants to find ways not to pay it, and always will as long as there are different countries with different tax levels. Otherwise it would need a world tax level (as the UN are proposing) to be watertight, and then allow a total level of imposition worldwide. Meanwhile the BBC as I write are bashing on about the highest values of multiculturalism and diversity, with two of who I would choose to call extremists are fighting about why one didn't emphasise racial diversity as much as economic diversity. Class and race war are both neither, but totally divisive. People ought to be free to live wherever and however they want to and can afford, and social engineering to force people to either have other races or economic levels live amongst them is just another aspect of totalitarian creation of hell on earth.
The fruits of these ideas are guaranteed, and the level is only a matter of how far any individual country can take it. If you believe everyone is equal, and should be reflected in society, enforced by law, the consequences will always be a restriction of speech against anyone implying they are not equal (mainly women, racial minorities, gays and the disabled), coupled with the wealth limits decided by each society at the point an individual has 'too much', despite the fact economic growth means those who amass more tend to add it to the total rather than simply take it from others as in a Ponzi scheme. If you found a society on false beliefs, combined with jealousy, guilt, a belief other people are selfish and need to be controlled, and a shortage mentality there can never be enough to go round so everything must be rationed centrally, you will end up in a permanent hell of your own making, as the initial beliefs correspond exactly with hell itself, where there can never be enough and everyone is out to get you. Feminism only exists as a combination of these imaginary beliefs, that somehow the only reason half the company directors in the world (and every other top job) are not women is because of discrimination against them (not the fact they spend time off every so often to give birth and care for the babies afterwards) is a start, a gap in the foundations of society where based on such a delusion. This is then extended to race, religion and culture, where every one in existence is seen as neutral and equal, so Muslims who both destroy the vaginas of their children and then may kill them for having partners of the wrong culture, tribe or family, Pakistanis who traditionally force marriage on their children to their first cousins and then produce more and more disabled children per generation, black people who are entitled to blame the police who stopped them for driving without tax and insurance for only picking them as they are black, and every other example of law breaking by foreign minorities is justified and actually often covered up to hide what they believe is 'irrelevant' (how often to The Guardian or BBC mention the race of perpetrators of serious crime?). Making race and culture 'irrelevant' in relation to what is a crime in every single country of the world is almost the same as carrying out those crimes yourself.
So racial profiling again becomes outlawed by the left, both its media and activists, who would prefer the organised sexual assault of girls in places like Rochdale and Blackburn by Muslims, or the gangs of Romanian gipsies (who don't even have the right to live here) who run pick pockets, mugging and drug dealing etc across Europe and are now being indirectly encouraged by those who try and pretend they don't exist, and the organised sexual assaults of girls the left claim are equally carried out by anyone and everyone, and when the Daily Mail or whoever else dares to mention it are then accused of picking on a tiny minority of wrongdoers and deliberately ignored all the other thousands of white people who must be doing exactly the same thing (but have never been spotted doing so let alone tried and convicted). So all the Mohammeds and Mustafas who are named as convicted of gang rape (they'll need to either change their names or get injunctions now if they want to avoid being identified as such indirectly) and the like the rare times these groups are brought to justice (most are overlooked by the local authorities to avoid trouble as highlighted on a recent radio programme) so this liberal/left attitude is actually allowing serious crimes to occur as their own beliefs when running local councils etc allow the criminals directly related to those cultures carry on to hold society together and not expose them for exactly what they are.
I don't care about good intentions or otherwise. If a complete political movement is based on what is no more than childish insecurities, it is the same as the episode of the Twilight Zone where a child has god-like abilities and traps the whole town in his house guarded by monsters. If you give the equivalent of immature children political power you will have a society where everyone is seen as the same (not equal, every life is equal, every person is different), no one is allowed to fully own the fruits of their own labours, any words which threaten the system are outlawed, and basically everyone else is seen with suspicion as people are innately bad and we must all be protected from their selfish desires. As there can never be enough to go round then all commodities must be rationed, (despite the fact the sole cause of any shortage is overpopulation, which they don't like especially as the ethnic groups have by far the highest birthrate as it's directly related to the level of education), and basically looking at every aspect I have mentioned, the practical result of their policy will not be Utopia which of course we would all enjoy, but pure hell.
Heaven is based more on a spiritual (ie one outside physical laws) than an economic and political view, where there is no dirt, decay or illness and more than enough for everyone. But no spiritual people believe this is possible here, but are motivated in a positive way to eliminate any bad things which can be. Most on the left really want the same things we all do, but their total lack of understanding of how the world is means the ways they go about it can only do the exact opposite, as individuals are all unique, having their own set of strengths and weaknesses for life, racial and cultural groups have specific features which will not go away when they move abroad, and making money adds to the total and does not take it from the poor. Genuine racism and sexism is based on discrimination, treating people badly because of their race or sex, and is illegal in all civilised countries. But using inclusive isms to cover all possible aspects of interactions between the dominant race and sex and the others as a blanket assumption is simply paranoid and inherently divisive, like the old-fashioned feminists who have the default position all men are rapists, or the ghetto mentality all police and maybe even white people are racists. Where you convert a protection into a paranoia you have made your valid defence into a criminal attack. Everyone who looks for isms in their alleged enemies have already divided their society into us and them, and as a result feminists have a deep mistrust of men and black activists (often white, as being patronising for others is an essential element of leftism) a deep distrust of white people, the default being they are all bad until they can be found individually to be otherwise. That is the worst ism we can ever have, misanthropism. I'd trade all the others back to get rid of that one as they will always hate more than any other group ever could. Of course I am not saying any group (except one possibly but I won't go there) is generally criminal, just each one has its own flavour of it, just like with every other aspect of life.