Why George Zimmerman Is the Best Argument for Gun Ownership.

One of the biggest news stories of 2012 was the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, and the facts surrounding that incident--and how it was treated by the powers that be--should serve as a reminder to every white American as to why they need guns. The Martin-Zimmerman affair has gone down the memory hole ever since the truth emerged that Zimmerman had justifiably used his gun for self-defense against a black thug--just like the Duke Lacrosse 'rape' case was suddenly dropped by the media once it became known that the black 'victim' had concocted the whole story. Everything that happened in the Martin-Zimmerman case--from the altercation and its social contexts to the media spin and government reaction--demonstrates why white people can only rely on themselves and guns.
Indeed, the main reason why Jews--who really control America--wanna take away our guns is not to protect us but to render us helpless against the power of government controlled by Jews. Jews want to Palestinian-ize us. Why are Palestinians utterly helpless to stop armed Jews from encroaching on their lands, building walls and fences to keep them out, robbing them of their rights and freedom, and evicting from their own lands and homes? Because Jews have guns--and tons of other military material provided by American tax payers--while Palestinians do not. So, Palestinians are at the mercy of Jews.
Jews in America wanna put white people in the same condition, but of course, Jews are loathe to admit the true nature of their agenda. And so, they use their media monopoly to fool us that liberals are only trying to save us from bad people with guns. Jewish-controlled media vilify the NRA and blame it for all the gun violence. In fact, gun control is a fact in America. Even in the reddest states, not just anyone can buy a gun at any time. And where the Sandy Hook massacre took place, stringent gun laws were on the books and enforced. NRA cannot be blamed for what Adam Lanza did since Connecticut had some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. If someone is crazy enough, he will do crazy things, and nothing can really be done about it. If laws could stop all violence, there wouldn't have been something like the Los Angeles riots either. If blacks wanna take tanks of gasoline, pour it all over the city, and light it on fire, how can they be stopped? If I'm crazy and were to take a SUV and run over a whole bunch of school kids playing in the yard, how can I be stopped? Who are you gonna blame? AAA motor club? So, all this media hysteria is just a disingenuous attempt to play on our emotions to take our guns away. Using the logic of the anti-gun argument, all guns should have been taken away from the government after the Waco massacre where men, women, and children were either murdered or driven to suicide by a powerfully armed government. If the government didn't have so many guns, it wouldn't use its power so arbitrarily in America and especially around the world. But you didn't hear any such demand from the media.

Anyway, why is the Martin-Zimmerman case so crucial in helping us to understand the issue of guns and gun control? First, there is the racial factor. It should be obvious to all honest people that there are indeed racial differences. This doesn't mean that every member of one race is better at something than all members of another race. But there are general differences among the races, just like there's general differences between the sexes. Though not all men are stronger than all women, men are generally stronger than women, which is why most sexual violence is male on female--generally poor male on poor female. Same dynamic occurs among the races. The stronger race beats on weaker races. So, most racial violence in America is black on white, black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on gay, black on Arab-American, black on Hindu-American, and etc. To be sure, it's mostly poor black on poor non-blacks. Most affluent white liberals can afford to be blind to the true nature of interracial violence since they live in their affluent communities with very low crime, and the kind of blacks they dilly-dally with are educated, safe, and 'clean-cut'. So, if you're a Harvard liberal hanging with the likes of Obama, it's different from a white trash being stalked by a black thug like Radio Raheem or Mike Tyson.
White liberals enjoy ridiculing poor whites for the latter's fear of blacks, but affluent white liberals don't face the same social problems that poor whites do. And though affluent white liberals push 'affirmative action' and government enforced racial integration--via Section 8 programs--, the main victims of such policies are poor, working class, and lower-middle class whites.  Rarely are Section 8 housing built near the richest communities in America. And 'affirmative action' favors rich and well-connected whites--especially Jews--over poor, rural, and/or conservative whites. So, rich white liberals take all the moral credit for supporting such policies but the price is paid mostly by poor and working class whites. The Kennedy Clan, Clinton Clan, and other such ilk never have to worry about black crime or 'affirmative action'. Their families and kids are well-protected, well-favored, and well-covered.

Anyway, there should no longer be any argument about racial differences when it comes to physical power and toughness. Blacks usually kick the asses of non-blacks. Generally speaking, non-blacks are no match for blacks, and I can vouch for this as I spent my childhood in an integrated city where most racial violence was black on non-black. I witnessed so much of it with my own eyes, and what I heard from other people from other places tell the same story. And this racial dynamic hasn't changed an iota over the years. Biological fact is biological fact. Similarly, despite all the new laws for sexual equality, most sexual violence is still male on female because men are stronger than women. While most men are not rapists or woman-abusers, bad men are more likely attack women than bad women are likely to attack men. Bad men can beat up women whereas bad women cannot beat up men. Also, men are naturally more aggressive than women.

Similarly, though all races can be aggressive, some are more aggressive than others. Also, if some races can be aggressive as a group--like Germans and Japanese in WWII--, blacks tend to be far more aggressive on the individual level, which is why there's so much violence within the black community itself.
It is for this reason that non-blacks have a need to own guns. When faced with black thuggery, their only chance for self-defense is to use the gun--if you rely on the police, you and your family could be be dead by the time they arrive. If a black thug invades your home, the only effective way to protect yourself and your family is with the gun. Otherwise, it's gonna be like Jack Johnson destroying white boys. It's like be like a big black lineman sacking the white quarterback. Indeed, why are most defensive linemen in football black while white guys tend to be on the offensive line? Because the defensive linemen play the more aggressive role of trying to break through the offensive line to sack the quarterback and stop the running back. Blacks have more fast twitch muscles that give them more explosive power. This is also why blacks make better sprinters, better jumpers in basketball, faster/harder punches in MMA, and better running backs and receivers in football. Though there are more Hispanics than blacks in America, there are almost new mestizo athletes in the NBA and NFL. Why is that? Your average mestizo is no match for blacks.

And we saw this play out in the Martin-Zimmerman incident.

1. Blacks are more likely to be criminals. Zimmerman was on guard duty since there had been a rash of home burglaries carried out by black criminals. So, he was just looking out for possible criminals on that fateful night. Can we fault him for that?

2. Martin was acting suspicious, and it turns out the guy has a record of burglary. He had stolen items in his school locker. That Martin was planning a robbery that night is something we'll never know. But he was on drugs and acting strange, and Zimmerman had every right to be suspicious. And so, Zimmerman followed and watched him. Can we fault him for that?

3. Zimmerman was following Martin, but Martin turned the table on Zimmerman. By the time Zimmerman returned to his car to drive back, Martin was all over him. Zimmerman didn't pull out the gun and just shoot Martin--as the liberal media had people believe. Instead, Martin jumped on Zimmerman and a fight ensued. Zimmerman the 'white Hispanic' was no match for the faster and tougher Martin. The black thug knocked Zimmerman to the ground and was pounding Zimmerman's face. Zimmerman saved himself by pulling out his gun and shooting Martin. If ever a use of gun was justified, this was it. Can we fault him for that?

What happened on that night was the best case example of why Americans need guns. They are physically no match for black thugs, and indeed, if we look at what white liberals do--as opposed to what they say--, they too seem to agree with this as most white liberals try to live apart from most blacks. Blue states are even more segregated than red states.

Given the fact of how his gun may have saved Zimmerman's life, you'd expect the powers-that-be to side with Zimmerman. But that didn't happen.  What did happen?

1. Mass media spun the story as cold blooded 'white guy' killing an angelic black teen 'armed with only skittles'. If Mike Tyson had a bag of cookies, would you say he was 'armed only with cookies'?  Just ask his opponents in the ring about what Tyson did with his two fists. People have died in the boxing ring from being hit with PADDED gloves. Imagine what bare black fists can do.
The media are supposed to speak the truth, indeed speak truth to the powers-that-be. One of the most crucial powers-that-be in American society is the black fist. So much of American social reality has been determined by the power of the black fist. Entire areas of cities have been destroyed by the black fist. Since the economically more productive and more intelligent non-blacks have been driven out of entire areas as a result of their fear of the black fist, the power of the black fist has ruined many cities. Blacks bitch about why no one's investing in their communities, but no one has the guts to say why this has been so. Even liberal whites fear the black fist. Sure, from a safe distance, liberal whites can romanticize the black fist as a liberating force against 'racism'--as in Ken Burns' UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS--, but the dire fact of American social reality is that the power of the black fist has created a climate a fear all across America. Indeed, the main reason for white flight has been the fear of the black fist. Real estate prices are super high in San Fran and Portland but dirt cheap in Detroit or black areas of St. Louis. But why do white liberals go to SF or Portland--where rent or mortgage eats up so much of their earnings--and not to Detroit or in the black areas of St. Louis where they can live cheaply? Because they don't wanna be robbed, raped, beaten up, or murdered by tougher blacks with harder fists.

Given the power of the black fist and how Zimmerman barely survived its assault, you'd think the media would be on the side of Zimmerman. But not only was the media unsympathetic to Zimmerman, the media tried to dehumanize him. The media ran photos of a cherubic 12 yr old Martin(who was 17 at the time of his attack on Zimmerman) alongside the worst possible photo of Zimmerman(from yrs ago when he was fat slob). So, the impression sent out over the airwaves was that of a fat disgusting slob shooting a helpless little black child for no other reason that the kid was 'armed with skittles'.

Also, Zimmerman is only half-white. His mother was a mestizo Hispanic. But, the media initially made him out to be only 'white'. Given the vilification of 'whiteness' by 'anti-racists', it made the incident even more racially charged--and it led to black mobs across the nation attacking and beating up on whites, a fact covered up by the mass media.
So, all across America, many people were fed the idea that some evil white guy killed a helpless little black kid. This is how the supposedly truth-seeking media ran the story.
The media are supposed to be the fourth estate and speak truth for the rights and freedom of the people, but what the big media did with Zimmerman was hardly different from the lies and manipulations of communist or Nazi propaganda. Indeed, even Zimmerman's phone conversation on the 911 call was altered to make it sound as if he was looking for some black guy to kill that night.

Given the nature of the media--controlled by Jews and monopolized by politically correct liberals--, the American people should know they cannot rely on the news for truth, freedom, and liberty. Instead, the news media are just a propaganda wing of the Jewish oligarchy and its control over the institutions of America. Just look at how the media created Obama. Just look at how the Zionists in the media led us into the Iraq War. Just look at how the media covered up the fact that Mossad knew of the looming 9/11 attack but refused  to share information with us. Just look at how the Jewish-run media have no problem with Israel having 300 illegal nukes but wants Iran destroyed even though it has no nukes. Just consider how the media spread the lies about the Iranian government wanting to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Just consider how the media have no sympathy for the plight of Palestinians who are being oppressed far worse than blacks in South Africa ever were. Just look how the media were complicit in railroading the Duke Lacrosse players even before they were proven guilty.

There is no free press in the US. Journalism schools are Jewish-controlled indoctrination centers, and 95% of the media are controlled by Jews who decide who is promoted and what is news. And if you bring up the issue of Jewish power in the media--as Rick Sanchez did--, you're blacklisted and gone forever.

2. Well, if you can't trust the media, the last defense of liberty is the American government, right? Of the people, by the people, for the people?  Think again. Big money and big media control government. And big academia guides government policies. And all those are controlled by Jewish oligarchs. As Jews said of Obama, "We made him."  And George W. Bush was just a shill of Jewish neocons.

Given how Zimmerman had been wronged by the media, you'd expect the government to come to his aid and protect his rights. Wrong again. Instead, even though it was clear that Zimmerman had acted in self-defense, he was charged with second degree murder by a black prosecutor in government. Even Obama chimed in on the case, making Martin out to be a helpless victim of a white murderer. Obama said, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin." Obama's words inspired random attacks on white by black thugs across America.

What did Zimmerman do on that night? He was guarding his community from criminals who were breaking into homes. He saw a suspicious black guy and followed him for a few blocks. As he was about to return home, he was jumped by the black thug who beat his face into hamburger meat. Zimmerman did what any sane person would do. He pulled out his gun and shot the man who was assaulting him. It was self-defense, but he was vilified by the media and persecuted by the government.

So, can white Americans trust the media? Can they trust the government? Though Zimmerman is only half-white and looks very 'Hispanic', he was white enough for the powers-that-be. They set out to destroy him and even now, the powers-that-be are out to get him.

When the Sandy Hook massacre happened, all white conservatives condemned it. But they also realized that it was the act of a lunatic that no law can stop. Sure, if all guns could be confiscated from all Americas, what happened in Connecticut wouldn't have happened. And in a perfect world, a world without guns would be a wonderful place. But there is the Second Amendment that protects out rights to own guns. And more importantly, there is the fact that US is not a democracy but a Jewish-controlled oligarchy where the media and government are NOT of the people, by the people, for the people but of the Jewish elites, by the Jewish elites, and for the Jewish elites. In Israel, Jews want guns in the hands of Jews but not in the hands of Palestinians. Media and government conspire to take your freedoms and rights away.

In the US, Jews want guns only in the hands of the government that they control but they don't want guns in the hands of Americans, especially white Americans who might finally awaken to the fact of what the Jewish elites had done to them.

Do you wanna be Zimmermanized? Do you wanna be Palestinianized?
Though the bloody incidents of Columbine and Sandy Hook are horrible, the real danger in America comes not from oddball loonies(who will always be among us) but from the fact that so much of real power--legal, political, financial, intellectual, academic, media, etc--are controlled by Jews. As it's been said, the pen is mightier than the sword. TV controls the minds, indeed 100s of millions of them. It was the power of TV that made 80% of Americans to support the invasion of Iraq. It's the power of TV that made so many Americans hate George Zimmerman though all he did was protect himself.
What really should be disarmed is the Jewish control of American institutions. But most liberals are so brainwashed by political correctness fed by the Jewish media machine that they only know how to bark like mad dogs at the behest of their Zionist-globalist masters.

The video below demonstrates why Americans need guns. You cannot rely on the media nor on the government. They are out to get you. Even if you save your own life from a black thug, YOU are made out to be subhuman bad guy.

Will Excesses Really Neutralize Each Other under Libertarianism?

There is a tendency among libertarians to argue for more individual liberty and freedom as the key to societal good. This isn’t because everything people do with freedom is good but because bad things will cancel each other out. It’s like a vision of humanity as economic, social, or emotional billiard balls. There is a rational argument here but one minimizing the moral sense of limits and conscious self-control. The libertarian argument is essentially the Satan-ist argument. No, Satan doesn’t exist, and libertarians aren’t committed to evil. Still, libertarians seem to believe that vices naturally cancel each other out in an utterly free social order. Do they really?

I once came upon a book by some funny Jewish guy of the church of Satan. In it, he argues that the seven deadly sins are nothing to be afraid of. Instead of resisting them we should indulge them because they cancel each other out. For instance, take vanity and gluttony. Gluttony is pleasurable, but it’s bad because it turns us into gross fatties. But, not to worry since vanity is there to balance it out. In other words, a person may want to pig out, but his narcissism will control his appetite or push him to exercise. So, we need not fear these vices. If we indulge in them, we not only gain pleasure but also arrive at some kind of equilibrium. Somewhat true to be sure. But, would it be sufficient for a person to be healthy? Can we have a good society where vices simply cancel each other out? (Also, what about people who are so ugly to begin with that they would gain little by controlling their appetite or exercising? Despair & self-loathing in the looks department may lead a person to eat like pig to compensate for his or her ugliness.)

Libertarian philosophy comes pretty close to such thinking–the notion that vices, if let loose, will cancel or balance each other out and make for a decent society. While such ideas may have some macro-social or psycho-individual validity, there is no substitute for individual virtue and moral character in the maintenance of a healthy society. (Libertarians, of course, aren’t anti-morality, anti-virtue, nor anti-self-restraint, but they hardly emphasize such values in their preference of theory of freedom). Indeed, the beauty and power of virtue unite the individual with the community–made up of other individuals. Individual freedom is something we all prize and seek, but it has no inherent moral value(except in the vaguest and broadest sense; man needs freedom to choose good or evil, but freedom isn’t synonymous goodness; nor, can we expect the bad to simply balance out the other bads).
And, freedom is often socially destructive for the simple fact that people indulging in excessive behavior–even in private–are likely to cause problems spilling into rest of society. Fat people, for instance, make healthcare costs rise for everyone. And, people who gamble away their money become burdens on their family and rest of us.
The libertarian argument is most compelling when law enforcement against certain vices aren’t effective or counter-productive. This was certainly the case with prohibition in the 20s and 30s. The problem in a free society is that even criminals enjoy rights and protections which give cover to much of their criminal activities. The only effective way to eradicate such behavior is by eradicating freedom itself, but that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. So, a free society simply has to allow certain kinds of freedom. We cannot legislate ourselves at every turn into a healthy society, and it almost impossible to legislate virtue in a democracy(and such don’t do much good even in a theocracy).
Nevertheless, who can deny that certain vices are extremely destructive, and we simply cannot expect other vices or virtues to naturally or organically balance them out. Though being fat is not a crime–and of course shouldn’t be–, the rise of fatassness among Americans shows us the serious shortcomings of the balance-of-vices theory. Though it’s true that people want to enjoy both food and have look goods, narcissism simply isn’t powerful enough to neutralize excessive gluttony in many people. Fatsos know they don’t look good, but they keep pigging out. Why? Because eating is fun and exercising is strenuous. People know they should eat less but they want to eat more and more. This is why so many Americans are fat-tards. Gluttony and narcissism are both vices, but one is much easier to indulge than the other(at least in modern society; gluttony would have been difficult long ago when procuring food was the hardest task of all.)
It’s quite obvious that people need another mechanism to eat less: shame. There is a thing called self-shame, but the most effective kind of shame is social shame. But, as we move away from a shame culture–due to both liberalism and libertarianism–, we have people who indulge in behavior that is immediately gratifying but harmful or destructive. In our politically correct, sensitive, and litigious society, we are not allowed to call fatsos ‘fatsos’. Some states are even considering protecting fatties from the evil of ‘weightism’. Now, I’m not recommending that we call fatsos ‘fatsos’. That would be rude. But, would it be so bad if there was some degree of social pressure or ostracism against fatsos? Indeed, it would be best for the fatsos. Fatsos are not victims. They are self-created self-indulged monstrosities. If they are shamed out of fatness, they would be better off and so would be–lower all-around healthcare costs.