eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Racisme: Vous avez dit pompiers pyromanes ? (Black lies matter: When all else fails, play the race card)

Posté le dimanche 25 septembre 2016 par jc durbant

colin-kaepernick-time-coverofficer-brentley-vinson

ramirezsep23Vous avez dit pompiers pyromanes ?

A l’heure où semble se confirme l’hypothèse de la provocation délibérée et d’un véritable coup monté d’une porteuse de burkini australienne prétendant avoir été chassée par des baigneurs de Villeneuve-Loubet le 18 septembre dernier et où en Italie une présentatrice de la télévison se voit fustigée pour le port d’une croix pendant qu’après la première olympienne, c’est à la première présentatrice voilée que se prépare l’Amérique …

Où, 15 ans après le 11 septembre et un nouveau massacre, le leader du Monde libre ne peut toujours pas donner un nom à la principale menace qui pèse sur ledit Monde libre …

Mais appelle explicitement au vote ethnique et communautariste alors que son ancienne secrétaire d’Etat et candidate de son parti qualifie de racistes, sexistes, homophobes, xénophobes et islamophobes la moitié des électeurs de son adversaire …

Pendant que les médias gratifient de leur couverture pour son antipatriotisme un sportif noir également élevé par des blancs …

Et qu’un mouvement antiraciste dénonce sytématiquement contre toute évidence le prétendu « racisme policier » …

Qui prendra la peine de rappeler que la dernière victime en date dudit « racisme » est comme dans bien d’autres cas aussi noire que celui qui l’a abattu ?

Et qui aura le courage de reconnaitre contre ceux qui s’accrochent à sa prétendue « grandeur » pour se refuser à faire un « réquisitoire » ou parler de « faillite morale » …

Qu’une présidence qui n’ayant jamais eu de mots assez durs pour rabaisser son propre pays et en fustiger les manquements  …

N’a sans compter la hausse du nombre d’homicides lié à l’effet Ferguson qui décourage les policiers d’entrer dans certains quartiers …

Fait en réalité qu’ajouter de l’huile sur le feu et enhardir les ennemis de la liberté ?



Laisser un commentaire


14 réponses à “Racisme: Vous avez dit pompiers pyromanes ? (Black lies matter: When all else fails, play the race card)”

  • 14
    jc durbant:

    Sans oublier la fameuse confession de Jackson qui n’a pas dit que des bêtises:

    Aujourd’hui quand dans une rue sombre j’entends un pas derrière moi, je suis soulagé s’il s’agit d’un Blanc. Après tout ce que nous avons traversé. Juste de penser que nous ne pouvons pas marcher dans nos propres rues, quelle humiliation !

    Jesse Jackson (1993)

  • 13
    jc durbant:

    NO JUSTICE NO PEACE FUCK THE POLICE !

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brazil-police-strike-anarchy_us_589cb705e4b09bd304c09df3?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

  • 12
    jc durbant:

    ALL LIVES MATTER

    « It had nothing to do with race. It just happened they were black, and my grandmother happened to be white. »

    Grant Dow

    http://www.snopes.com/racial-murder-elderly-white-woman/

    We all know what would happen if this crime was white on black.

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php…

    Had the races been reversed, the entire country would be burning from the Black Lives Matter protests.

    http://usherald.com/83-year-old-white-woman-beaten-set-fi…/…

  • 11
    jc durbant:

    Crime rates differ across neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods tend to experience higher crime rates. Therefore, race-neutral police randomly assigned to neighborhoods will encounter more criminal activities in black neighborhoods. As such, they can be expected to employ lethal force against a higher proportion of black suspects.

    Lott and Moody (merci james)

  • 10
    jc durbant:

    Vous avez dit pompiers pyromanes ?

    Khan said Trump and his surrogates must « calm down » supporters and help them transition out of election mode, but he defended the tens of thousands who have protested Trump, some even violently. Despite calling for a peaceful transition, Khan said the protests are indicative of how many people have been intimidated and feel that their rights have not been fully guaranteed.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khizr-khan-obama-should-defend-those-harassed-by-trump-supporters/article/2607161 (merci james)

  • 9
    jc durbant:

    IT’S STUPID, STUPID ! (Guess what liberal Justice Ginsberg did after spilling the beans on Kaepernick’s national anthem protest)

    “I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act. If they want to be stupid, there’s no law that should be preventive. If they want to be arrogant, there’s no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that.”

    RBG

    https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-trump-kaepernick-and-her-lifelong-love-of-the-law-132236633.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb

    « Barely aware of the incident or its purpose, my comments were inappropriately dismissive and harsh. »

    Ginsburg

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

    On Monday, that tension boiled over into an outright paradox: A (white) liberal icon condescendingly maligned an emerging (black) protester for failing to pay respect to a song that celebrates slavery. (…) Ginsburg is not racist, but she is notably detached from the brewing social unrest over racist police abuse. Her patronizing comments reflect an obvious desire for a more respectful type of protest, and a profound misunderstanding about what Kaepernick hopes to achieve. It is only “dumb” and “arrogant” to protest the national anthem for reasons that are dumb and arrogant. Kaepernick’s reasons are neither: He is refusing to show respect for an anthem whose full lyrics cheer the death of recently freed slaves, and doing so to draw attention to the oppression of black people. His supporters have also used the protest to draw attention to police brutality—an issue Ginsburg discussed empathetically in that Yahoo News interview just before Couric brought up Kaepernick. For Ginsburg to call these protests “arrogance” belies a misapprehension of their basic purpose.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_s_kaepernick_comments_end_the_notorious_rbg_myth.html

  • 8
    jc durbant:

    On appelle cela « l’effet Ferguson » : des policiers mis en cause après la mort d’un homme noir, entraînant une sorte de dépression collective. Leurs collègues hésiteraient désormais à procéder à des arrestations, tétanisés à l’idée de devenir les acteurs involontaires de vidéos virales. Résultat : ils ne font plus leur travail et le taux de criminalité est en hausse. C’est la théorie du directeur du FBI. James Comey le reconnaît, il s’appuie sur son intuition, car aucune statistique fédérale n’existe aux Etats-Unis, ni sur le crime en général, ni sur les personnes tuées par la police. Les seules données disponibles sont compilées par des associations ou des journaux.

    RFI

    Il y a un an, quelques personnalités se risquèrent à nommer le phénomène, mais sans avoir les preuves statistiques à l’appui. L’un des protagonistes fut James Comey, le directeur du FBI : comment croire à sa parole dans la mesure où il représente le pouvoir policier ? Obama s’en était ému et avait dénoncé cette funeste théorie : non, les protestations de Black Lives Matter n’avaient eu aucun impact sur le comportement des forces de police. La théorie de l’Effet Ferguson posait en effet que comme les policiers avaient été stigmatisés, ils n’osaient plus prendre de risques, de peur d’être accusés de bavures. Plutôt que de risquer le scandale, ils passeraient désormais leur chemin autant que possible, pour ne pas se trouver au milieu d’une fusillade où ils auraient à sévir par balle. En conséquence, les voyous se tirent dessus sans que plus personne ne les arrête.Rosenfeld, un criminologue réputé qui s’était d’abord opposé à cette théorie, vient de retourner sa veste après avoir épluché les chiffres. Les hypothèses de base ne fonctionnent pas pour expliquer une telle flambée de violence. Sur les 56 plus grandes villes des États-Unis, les homicides ont augmenté de 17% entre 2014 et 2015. Les deux tiers de l’augmentation se concentrent sur une dizaine de villes, celles où les afro-américains représentent une plus large part de la population : Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Washington, Nashville, Philadelphia, Kansas City et St Louis. Le saut d’homicides y est de +41% sur un an !

    François Desouche

  • 7
    jc durbant:

    Même l’ex-partner in crime d’Hussein est obligé de le reconnaitre !

    POLICE LIVES DON’T MATTER

    In Chicago, which has experienced record numbers of homicides this year, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has blamed the surge in violent crime on officers balking during confrontations, saying they have become “fetal” because they don’t want to be prosecuted or fired for their actions …

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/07/ferguson-effect-savagely-beaten-cop-didnt-draw-gun-for-fear-of-media-uproar-says-chicago-police-chief/

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-citing-beating-of-officer-chicago-s-top-cop-says-police-are-second-guessing-themselves-20161006-story.html

    Voir aussi:

    Ma propre ville de Chicago a compté parmi les villes à la politique locale la plus corrompue de l’histoire américaine, du népotisme institutionnalisé aux élections douteuses.

    Barack Hussein Obama (Nairobi, Kenya, août 2006)

  • 6
    jc durbant:

    OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED

    Critics have claimed that corner-clearing and other forms of so-called broken-windows policing are invidiously intended to “control African-American and poor communities,” in the words of Columbia law professor Bernard Harcourt. This critique of public-order enforcement ignores a fundamental truth: It’s the people who live in high-crime areas who petition for “corner-clearing.” The police are simply obeying their will. And when the police back off of such order-maintenance strategies under the accusation of racism, it is the law-abiding poor who pay the price. (…) A 54-year-old grandmother (…) understands something that eludes the activists and academics: Out of street disorder grows more serious crime. (…) After the Freddie Gray riots in April 2016, the Baltimore police virtually stopped enforcing drug laws and other low-level offenses. Shootings spiked, along with loitering and other street disorder. (…) This observed support for public-order enforcement is backed up by polling data. In a Quinnipiac poll from 2015, slightly more black than white voters in New York City said they want the police to “actively issue summonses or make arrests” in their neighborhood for quality-of-life offenses: 61 percent of black voters wanted such summons and arrests, with 33 percent opposed, versus 59 percent of white voters in support, with 37 percent opposed. The wider public is clueless about the social breakdown in high-crime areas and its effect on street life. The drive-by shootings, the open-air drug-dealing, and the volatility and brutality of those large groups of uncontrolled kids are largely unknown outside of inner-city areas. Ideally, informal social controls, above all the family, preserve public order. But when the family disintegrates, the police are the second-best solution for protecting the law-abiding. (That family disintegration now frequently takes the form of the chaos that social scientists refer to as “multi-partner fertility,” in which females have children by several different males and males have children by several different females, dashing hopes for any straightforward reuniting of biological mothers and fathers.)This year in Chicago alone, through August 30, 12 people have been shot a day, for a tally of 2,870 shooting victims, 490 of them killed. (By contrast, the police shot 17 people through August 30, or 0.6 percent of the total.) The reason for this mayhem is that cops have backed off of public-order enforcement. Pedestrian stops are down 90 percent. (…) “Police legitimacy” is a hot topic among academic critics of the police these days. Those critics have never answered the question: What should the police do when their constituents beg them to maintain order? Should the cops ignore them? There would be no surer way to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people who need them most.

    Heather Mac Donald

  • 5
    jc durbant:

    C’est l’effet Ferguson, imbécile !

    The irony is that the police cannot respond to these heartfelt requests for order without generating the racially disproportionate statistics that will be used against them in an ACLU or Justice Department lawsuit. Unfortunately, when officers back off in high crime neighborhoods, crime shoots through the roof. Our country is in the midst of the first sustained violent crime spike in two decades. Murders rose nearly 17 percent in the nation’s 50 largest cities in 2015, and it was in cities with large black populations where the violence increased the most. (…) I first identified the increase in violent crime in May 2015 and dubbed it “the Ferguson effect.” (…) The number of police officers killed in shootings more than doubled during the first three months of 2016. In fact, officers are at much greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from the police. Over the last decade, an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black has been 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop. (…) We have been here before. In the 1960s and early 1970s, black and white radicals directed hatred and occasional violence against the police. The difference today is that anti-cop ideology is embraced at the highest reaches of the establishment: by the President, by his Attorney General, by college presidents, by foundation heads, and by the press. The presidential candidates of one party are competing to see who can out-demagogue President Obama’s persistent race-based calumnies against the criminal justice system, while those of the other party have not emphasized the issue as they might have. I don’t know what will end the current frenzy against the police. What I do know is that we are playing with fire, and if it keeps spreading, it will be hard to put out.

    Heather Mac Donald

    Murders in the U.S. jumped by 10.8% in 2015, according to figures released Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation—a sharp increase that could fuel concerns that the nation’s two-decade trend of falling crime rates may be ending. The figures had been expected to show an increase, after preliminary data released earlier this year indicated violent crime and murders were rising. But the double-digit increase in murders dwarfed any in the past 20 years, eclipsing the 3.7% increase in 2005, the year in which the biggest increase occurred before now. In 2014, the FBI recorded violent crime narrowly falling, by 0.2%. In 2015, the number of violent crimes rose 3.9% though the number of property crimes dropped 2.6%, the FBI said. Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St.Louis, said a key driver of the murder spike may be an increasing distrust of police in major cities where controversial officer shootings have led to protests. “This rise is concentrated in certain large cities where police-community tensions have been notable,’’ said Mr. Rosenfeld, citing Cleveland, Baltimore, and St. Louis as examples. The rise in killings is not spread evenly around America, he noted, but is rather centered on big cities with large African-American populations. (…) Mr. Rosenfeld said the FBI data suggests the increase in murder may be caused by some version of the “Ferguson effect’’—a term often used by law-enforcement officials to describe what they see as the negative effects of the recent anti-police protests. The killing by a police officer of an unarmed black 18-year-old in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014 led to protests there and around the country. Some law-enforcement officials, including FBI Director James Comey, have argued that since then, some officers may be more reluctant to get out of their patrol cars and engage in the kind of difficult work that reduces street crime, out of fear they may be videotaped and criticized publicly. Mr. Rosenfeld suggested a different dynamic may be at play, though stemming from the same tensions. Members of minority and poor communities may be more reluctant to talk to police and help them solve crimes in cities where officers are viewed as untrustworthy and threatening, he said, particularly where there have been recent controversial killings by police officers. (…) John Pfaff, a professor at Fordham Law School, said the numbers are concerning but that it is too early to draw any definite conclusions from the data, noting that the murder rate in 2015 was still lower than in 2009. “It’s not a giant rollback of things. 2015 is the third-safest year for violent crime since 1970,’’ Mr. Pfaff said. “The last time we saw a jump like this was 1989 to 1990, and that was a much more broad increase in crime.’’

    WSJ

  • 4
    jc durbant:

    « Il ne sert à rien de faire aujourd’hui un réquisitoire contre Obama, d’autant que sa présidence ne fut pas sans grandeur. Appelé à présider une Amérique déclinante dans un contexte mondial impossible, il aura, comme on dit, fait tout son possible pour la pacifier. Si on peut faire le bilan d’un échec relatif de sa présidence, on ne saurait toutefois parler d’une faillite morale.  »

    Oui quelle déception !

    MBC est effectivement pour une fois complètement à côté de la plaque avec son « homme exceptionnellement doué pour la parole publique » et sa « grandeur » et surtout son refus du « réquisitoire » et de parler de « faillite morale » contre celui qui « aurait fait tout son possible » …

    Pendant que le Pyromane-en-chef nous fait le coup du musée des horreurs du racisme américain et qu’après s’être fait élire sur son anathémisation, sa Michelle et lui lui font le coup des plus hypocrites des mamours

  • 3
    James:

    La pyromanie, c’est maintenant !

  • 2
    Polémos:

    Mathieu Bock-Côté sur Obama et le bilan lucide qu’il fait de sa présidence. Toutefois, le lecteur pourra être en désaccord avec sa conclusion… C’est mon cas; je pense qu’Obama a manqué précisément de leadership moral.

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/09/24/31002-20160924ARTFIG00107-mathieu-bock-cote-l-echec-du-grand-reve-d-obama.php

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    Les Européens disent maintenant au revoir à M. Bush, et espèrent l’élection d’un président américain qui partage, le croient-ils, leurs attitudes sophistiquées de postnationalisme, post-modernisme et multiculturalisme. Mais ne soyez pas étonné si, afin de protéger la liberté et la démocratie chez eux dans les années à venir, les dirigeants européens commencent à ressembler de plus en plus au cowboy à la gâchette facile de l’étranger qu’ils se délectent aujourd’hui à fustiger.

    Natan Sharansky

    La chaîne de télévision australienne Channel 7 a diffusé ce samedi la vidéo d’une femme en burkini se faisant « chasser » d’une plage de Villeneuve-Loubet par des baigneurs. Selon un témoin, la scène est montée de toute pièce. Selon une vidéo diffusée par une chaîne de la télévision australienne, Zeynab Alshelh, une étudiante de 23 ans, aurait été forcée de quitter une plage de Villeneuve-Loubet où elle s’était installée. En cause? Son burkini, jugé provocateur par d’autres baigneurs. L’histoire a été reprise par tous les médias et notamment par l’AFP. Mais selon une mère de famille qui se trouvait sur la plage à ce moment-là, la scène qui s’est déroulée sous ses yeux était plus que suspecte. « Nous étions installés sur la plage avec mes enfants, quand nous avons vu la caméra débarquer à quelques mètres de nous, explique-t-elle. Ce n’est qu’après qu’un homme et deux femmes en burkini sont arrivés. Ils ont marché quelques minutes le long de la plage, puis sont venus s’installer juste devant l’équipe télé ». Alors, un coup monté? « On s’est immédiatement posé la question. C’est d’ailleurs pour ça que tous les gens sur la plage regardent dans la direction de la caméra. » Mais la vidéo diffusée par la chaîne australienne va plus loin. On y voit un homme se diriger vers la caméra et lâcher: « Vous faites demi-tour et vous partez ». Tel qu’est monté le reportage, cette invective semble dirigée à l’encontre des deux femmes en burkini. Une impression appuyée par la voix off de la vidéo qui confirme: « Nous avons été forcés de partir, car les gens ont dit qu’ils allaient appeler la police. » Mais il n’en est rien. « L’homme sur la vidéo est mon oncle, atteste notre témoin. Il n’a jamais demandé à ce que ces trois personnes quittent la plage. Il s’adressait à la caméra pour demander au cameraman de partir. Il y avait des enfants sur la plage, dont les nôtres, et on ne voulait pas qu’ils soient filmés. » La suite de la vidéo montre le même homme en train de téléphoner. « Oui, il appelait la police. Pas pour les faire intervenir pour chasser ces personnes, mais pour demander comment on pouvait faire pour empêcher la caméra de nous filmer, surtout nos enfants ». Et d’ajouter: « A aucun moment des gens sont venus demander aux femmes en burkini de quitter la plage. » Une version corroborée par un autre témoin de la scène. « On voyait que c’était scénarisé, c’était trop gros pour être vrai et ça puait le coup monté », raconte Stéphane. Ce père de famille était dans l’eau avec ses enfants, au niveau de la plage privée Corto Maltese, quand il a vu débarquer la petite équipe sur la plage. « L’homme et les deux femmes sont arrivés presque en courant pour s’installer. En 10 secondes, ils avaient déplié leurs serviettes et planté leur parasol. Ils se sont mis en plein milieu du couloir à jet-ski de la plage privée. Comme ils gênaient, le propriétaire de la plage est sorti leur demander de se pousser. » Ce n’est qu’après que Stéphane aperçoit la journaliste et son cameraman « planqués » derrière les voitures, en train de filmer. Il raconte qu’à ce moment-là, le propriétaire de la plage a fait entrer le petit groupe dans son restaurant. « Ils sont ressortis au bout d’un moment. L’homme et les deux femmes ont continué à marcher le long de la plage en direction de la Siesta. Des fois, ils se posaient. Puis ils repartaient. » Le journaliste et le cameraman, qui avaient fait mine de partir, étaient en fait toujours cachés derrière les voitures. « On aurait dit qu’ils attendaient des réactions ». Stéphane assistera de loin à la scène du baigneur qui pressera les journalistes de quitter les lieux. « J’ai vu ce monsieur au téléphone. Mais j’étais trop loin pour entendre ce qu’il disait. » Le petit groupe finira par quitter les lieux. « Il y avait un véhicule qui les attendait en haut de la plage, comme pour les exfiltrer au cas où… »

    Nice-Matin

    The Seven Network and the pugnacious Muslim Aussie family it flew to the French Riviera with the aim of provoking beachgoers into a “racist” reaction to the “Aussie cossie” burkini owe the traumatised people of Nice and France a swift apology. The cynical stunt pulled by the Sunday Night program, where it spirited Sydney hijab-proselytising medical student Zeynab Alshelh and her activist parents off to a beach near Nice to “show solidarity” with (radically conservative) Muslims, featured the 23-year-old flaunting her burkini in an obvious attempt to bait Gallic sun lovers into religious and ethnically motivated hatred. Except according to the French people filmed against their will, the claimed “chasing off the beach” that made international headlines never occurred because Seven used hidden camera tactics, selective editing and deliberate distor­tion to reach its predeter­mined conclusions. (…) The manipulation is the latest example of calculated French-bashing fuelled by collusion between the goals of political Islam and compliant media outlets seeking culture clash cliches. (…) No one was hounded off the beach, despite the scripted whining of Seven’s solemn-faced presenter Rahni Sadler and her well-rehearsed talent the Alshelhs. The swimming public were upset to see the camera crew filming them and their children without permission in a country where privacy is legally protected and paparazzi do not have the same rights as they do in Australia to film without consent. (…) The shameful Seven report went viral globally thanks to an international media thirsty for stereotypes about France’s unsubstantiated rising tide of Islamophobia. It was dishonest sensationalism that deliberately skewed complex issues surrounding secularism a la francaise and surging religious fundamentalism of the Islamist variety in the context of ever-present terrorist threats and a state of emergency.

    The Australian

    Un homme armé a tué vendredi soir quatre femmes et un homme dans un centre commercial de l’Etat de Washington, dans le nord-ouest des Etats-Unis. Après 24 heures de cavale, le suspect, Arcan Cetin, 20 ans, né en Turquie, a été arrêté. (…) Le FBI, la police fédérale, a fait savoir qu’il n’y avait à ce stade aucun indice d’ « acte terroriste ».

    Le Figaro

    L’avenir ne doit pas appartenir à ceux qui calomnient le prophète de l’Islam.

    Barack Hussein Obama (siège de l’ONU, New York, 26.09.12)

    Je crois qu’en ce moment nous sommes tous confrontés à un choix. Nous pouvons choisir d’aller de l’avant avec un meilleur modèle de coopération et d’intégration. Ou nous pouvons nous retirer dans un monde profondément divisé, et finalement en conflit, sur lignes séculaires de la nation et de la tribu et de la race et la religion. (…) Et comme ces vrais problèmes ont été négligés, d’autres visions du monde sont avancées à la fois dans les pays les plus riches et les plus pauvres: fondamentalisme religieux, politiques tribales, ethniques, sectaires, populisme grossier venu parfois de l’extrême gauche mais le plus souvent de l’extrême droite qui cherche à revenir à un temps jugé meilleur et plus simple.(…) Compte tenu de la difficulté qu’il y a à forger une véritable démocratie (…), il n’est pas surprenant que certains soutiennent que l’avenir appartient aux hommes forts, aux verticales du pouvoir plutôt qu’aux institutions fortes et démocratiques. (…) Nous voyons la Russie tenter de récupérer la gloire perdue par la force ; des puissances asiatiques vouloir revenir sur des revendications soldées par l’Histoire ; et en Europe et aux États-Unis, des gens s’inquiéter de l’immigration et de l’évolution démographique en laissant entendre que d’une certaine manière les gens qui apparaissent comme différents corrompent le caractère de nos pays.

    Barack Hussein Obama (ONU, 20 septembre 2016)

    Vous allez dans certaines petites villes de Pennsylvanie où, comme dans beaucoup de petites villes du Middle West, les emplois ont disparu depuis maintenant 25 ans et n’ont été remplacés par rien d’autre (…) Et il n’est pas surprenant qu’ils deviennent pleins d’amertume, qu’ils s’accrochent aux armes à feu ou à la religion, ou à leur antipathie pour ceux qui ne sont pas comme eux, ou encore à un sentiment d’hostilité envers les immigrants.

    Barack Obama

    Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.

    Barack Obama

    Mon nom ne sera peut-être pas sur les bulletins de vote, mais notre progrès dépend de ce bulletin de vote. Je le prendrai comme une insulte personnelle, une insulte à mon héritage si la communauté afro-américaine baisse la garde et ne s’active pas lors de ces élections. Vous voulez m’adresser des adieux chaleureux ? Alors allez voter.

    Barack Hussein Obama (devant la fondation du Caucus noir du Congrès)

    Pour généraliser, en gros, vous pouvez placer la moitié des partisans de Trump dans ce que j’appelle le panier des pitoyables. Les racistes, sexistes, homophobes, xénophobes, islamophobes. A vous de choisir.

    Hillary Clinton

    Je ne vais pas afficher de fierté pour le drapeau d’un pays qui opprime les Noirs.

    Colin Kaepernick

    C’est vraiment dégoûtant la façon dont il a été traité, la façon dont les médias ont traité cette affaire, dira-t-elle après la partie. Étant homosexuelle, je sais ce que veut dire regarder le drapeau américain en étant consciente qu’il ne protège pas toutes les libertés.

    Megan Rapinoe (joueuse de football professionnelle américaine)

    Le joueur de football américain Colin Kaepernick, au cour d’une polémique aux Etats-Unis depuis qu’il boycotte l’hymne américain avant les matches de son équipe, est à la Une du prestigieux hebdomadaire américain Time, un honneur rare pour un sportif. Le quarterback des San Francisco 49ers apparaît, en couverture du magazine publié mercredi, un genou posé à terre, geste qu’il utilise lors de l’hymne américain pour protester contre l’oppression dont est victime, selon lui, la communauté noire aux Etats-Unis, en référence aux bavures policières visant des noirs ces derniers mois. La photo de Kaepernick est accompagnée du titre « Le combat périlleux ». Son boycott a fait tache d’huile au sein de la Ligue nationale de football américain (NFL) mais aussi dans d’autres sports, comme le football et le basket: toutes les joueuses de l’équipe d’Indiana ont ainsi posé un genou à terre mercredi lors de l’hymne américain, joué traditionnellement avant toutes les rencontres sportives aux Etats-Unis.
    Kaepernick, qui affirme avoir reçu des menaces de mort, est loin de faire l’unanimité au sein de la population américaine. Selon un sondage publié mercredi par la chaîne de télévision ESPN, il est désormais le joueur de NFL le moins apprécié pour 29% des 1100 personnes interrogées.

    AFP

    Savez-vous que les Noirs sont 10 pour cent de la population de Saint-Louis et sont responsables de 58% de ses crimes? Nous avons à faire face à cela. Et nous devons faire quelque chose au sujet de nos normes morales. Nous savons qu’il y a beaucoup de mauvaises choses dans le monde blanc, mais il y a aussi beaucoup de mauvaises choses dans le monde noir. Nous ne pouvons pas continuer à blâmer l’homme blanc. Il y a des choses que nous devons faire pour nous-mêmes. Martin Luther King (St Louis, 1961)
    The absurdity of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites. … Trayvon’s sad fate clearly sent a quiver of perverse happiness all across America’s civil rights establishment, and throughout the mainstream media as well. His death was vindication of the ‘poetic truth’ that these establishments live by.

    Shelby Steele

    Before the 1960s the black American identity (though no one ever used the word) was based on our common humanity, on the idea that race was always an artificial and exploitive division between people. After the ’60s—in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake. It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. Shelby Steele
    But what about all the other young black murder victims? Nationally, nearly half of all murder victims are black. And the overwhelming majority of those black people are killed by other black people. Where is the march for them? Where is the march against the drug dealers who prey on young black people? Where is the march against bad schools, with their 50% dropout rate for black teenaged boys? Those failed schools are certainly guilty of creating the shameful 40% unemployment rate for black teens? How about marching against the cable television shows constantly offering minstrel-show images of black youth as rappers and comedians who don’t value education, dismiss the importance of marriage, and celebrate killing people, drug money and jailhouse fashion—the pants falling down because the jail guard has taken away the belt, the shoes untied because the warden removed the shoe laces, and accessories such as the drug dealer’s pit bull. (…) There is no fashion, no thug attitude that should be an invitation to murder. But these are the real murderous forces surrounding the Martin death—and yet they never stir protests. The race-baiters argue this case deserves special attention because it fits the mold of white-on-black violence that fills the history books. Some have drawn a comparison to the murder of Emmett Till, a black boy who was killed in 1955 by white racists for whistling at a white woman. (…) While civil rights leaders have raised their voices to speak out against this one tragedy, few if any will do the same about the larger tragedy of daily carnage that is black-on-black crime in America. (…) Almost one half of the nation’s murder victims that year were black and a majority of them were between the ages of 17 and 29. Black people accounted for 13% of the total U.S. population in 2005. Yet they were the victims of 49% of all the nation’s murders. And 93% of black murder victims were killed by other black people, according to the same report. (…) The killing of any child is a tragedy. But where are the protests regarding the larger problems facing black America?

    Juan Williams

    « More whites are killed by the police than blacks primarily because whites outnumber blacks in the general population by more than five to one, » Forst said. The country is about 63 percent white and 12 percent black. (…) A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the death rate due to legal intervention was more than three times higher for blacks than for whites in the period from 1988 to 1997. (…) Candace McCoy is a criminologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. McCoy said blacks might be more likely to have a violent encounter with police because they are convicted of felonies at a higher rate than whites. Felonies include everything from violent crimes like murder and rape, to property crimes like burglary and embezzlement, to drug trafficking and gun offenses. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2004, state courts had over 1 million felony convictions. Of those, 59 percent were committed by whites and 38 percent by blacks. But when you factor in the population of whites and blacks, the felony rates stand at 330 per 100,000 for whites and 1,178 per 100,000 for blacks. That’s more than a three-fold difference. McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks. « Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the USA, » McCoy said. « It is the most difficult and searing problem in this whole mess. »

    PunditFact

    America is coming apart. For most of our nation’s history, whatever the inequality in wealth between the richest and poorest citizens, we maintained a cultural equality known nowhere else in the world—for whites, anyway. (…) But t’s not true anymore, and it has been progressively less true since the 1960s. People are starting to notice the great divide. The tea party sees the aloofness in a political elite that thinks it knows best and orders the rest of America to fall in line. The Occupy movement sees it in an economic elite that lives in mansions and flies on private jets. Each is right about an aspect of the problem, but that problem is more pervasive than either political or economic inequality. What we now face is a problem of cultural inequality. When Americans used to brag about « the American way of life »—a phrase still in common use in 1960—they were talking about a civic culture that swept an extremely large proportion of Americans of all classes into its embrace. It was a culture encompassing shared experiences of daily life and shared assumptions about central American values involving marriage, honesty, hard work and religiosity. Over the past 50 years, that common civic culture has unraveled. We have developed a new upper class with advanced educations, often obtained at elite schools, sharing tastes and preferences that set them apart from mainstream America. At the same time, we have developed a new lower class, characterized not by poverty but by withdrawal from America’s core cultural institutions. (…) Why have these new lower and upper classes emerged? For explaining the formation of the new lower class, the easy explanations from the left don’t withstand scrutiny. It’s not that white working class males can no longer make a « family wage » that enables them to marry. The average male employed in a working-class occupation earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960. It’s not that a bad job market led discouraged men to drop out of the labor force. Labor-force dropout increased just as fast during the boom years of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s as it did during bad years. (…) As I’ve argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration. Changes in social policy during the 1960s made it economically more feasible to have a child without having a husband if you were a woman or to get along without a job if you were a man; safer to commit crimes without suffering consequences; and easier to let the government deal with problems in your community that you and your neighbors formerly had to take care of. But, for practical purposes, understanding why the new lower class got started isn’t especially important. Once the deterioration was under way, a self-reinforcing loop took hold as traditionally powerful social norms broke down. Because the process has become self-reinforcing, repealing the reforms of the 1960s (something that’s not going to happen) would change the trends slowly at best. Meanwhile, the formation of the new upper class has been driven by forces that are nobody’s fault and resist manipulation. The economic value of brains in the marketplace will continue to increase no matter what, and the most successful of each generation will tend to marry each other no matter what. As a result, the most successful Americans will continue to trend toward consolidation and isolation as a class. Changes in marginal tax rates on the wealthy won’t make a difference. Increasing scholarships for working-class children won’t make a difference. The only thing that can make a difference is the recognition among Americans of all classes that a problem of cultural inequality exists and that something has to be done about it. That « something » has nothing to do with new government programs or regulations. Public policy has certainly affected the culture, unfortunately, but unintended consequences have been as grimly inevitable for conservative social engineering as for liberal social engineering. The « something » that I have in mind has to be defined in terms of individual American families acting in their own interests and the interests of their children. Doing that in Fishtown requires support from outside. There remains a core of civic virtue and involvement in working-class America that could make headway against its problems if the people who are trying to do the right things get the reinforcement they need—not in the form of government assistance, but in validation of the values and standards they continue to uphold. The best thing that the new upper class can do to provide that reinforcement is to drop its condescending « nonjudgmentalism. » Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn’t hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.

    Charles Murray

    The furor of ignored Europeans against their union is not just directed against rich and powerful government elites per se, or against the flood of mostly young male migrants from the war-torn Middle East. The rage also arises from the hypocrisy of a governing elite that never seems to be subject to the ramifications of its own top-down policies. The bureaucratic class that runs Europe from Brussels and Strasbourg too often lectures European voters on climate change, immigration, politically correct attitudes about diversity, and the constant need for more bureaucracy, more regulations, and more redistributive taxes. But Euro-managers are able to navigate around their own injunctions, enjoying private schools for their children; generous public pay, retirement packages and perks; frequent carbon-spewing jet travel; homes in non-diverse neighborhoods; and profitable revolving-door careers between government and business. The Western elite classes, both professedly liberal and conservative, square the circle of their privilege with politically correct sermonizing. They romanticize the distant “other” — usually immigrants and minorities — while condescendingly lecturing the middle and working classes, often the losers in globalization, about their lack of sensitivity. On this side of the Atlantic, President Obama has developed a curious habit of talking down to Americans about their supposedly reactionary opposition to rampant immigration, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and political correctness — most notably in his caricatures of the purported “clingers” of Pennsylvania. Yet Obama seems uncomfortable when confronted with the prospect of living out what he envisions for others. He prefers golfing with celebrities to bowling. He vacations in tony Martha’s Vineyard rather than returning home to his Chicago mansion. His travel entourage is royal and hardly green. And he insists on private prep schools for his children rather than enrolling them in the public schools of Washington, D.C., whose educators he so often shields from long-needed reform. In similar fashion, grandees such as Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and Univision anchorman Jorge Ramos do not live what they profess. They often lecture supposedly less sophisticated Americans on their backward opposition to illegal immigration. But both live in communities segregated from those they champion in the abstract. The Clintons often pontificate about “fairness” but somehow managed to amass a personal fortune of more than $100 million by speaking to and lobbying banks, Wall Street profiteers, and foreign entities. The pay-to-play rich were willing to brush aside the insincere, pro forma social-justice talk of the Clintons and reward Hillary and Bill with obscene fees that would presumably result in lucrative government attention. Consider the recent Orlando tragedy for more of the same paradoxes. The terrorist killer, Omar Mateen — a registered Democrat, proud radical Muslim, and occasional patron of gay dating sites — murdered 49 people and wounded even more in a gay nightclub. His profile and motive certainly did not fit the elite narrative that unsophisticated right-wing American gun owners were responsible because of their support for gun rights. No matter. The Obama administration and much of the media refused to attribute the horror in Orlando to Mateen’s self-confessed radical Islamist agenda. Instead, they blamed the shooter’s semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle and a purported climate of hate toward gays. (…) In sum, elites ignored the likely causes of the Orlando shooting: the appeal of ISIS-generated hatred to some young, second-generation radical Muslim men living in Western societies, and the politically correct inability of Western authorities to short-circuit that clear-cut connection. Instead, the establishment all but blamed Middle America for supposedly being anti-gay and pro-gun. In both the U.S. and Britain, such politically correct hypocrisy is superimposed on highly regulated, highly taxed, and highly governmentalized economies that are becoming ossified and stagnant. The tax-paying middle classes, who lack the romance of the poor and the connections of the elite, have become convenient whipping boys of both in order to leverage more government social programs and to assuage the guilt of the elites who have no desire to live out their utopian theories in the flesh.

    Victor Davis Hanson

    Barack Obama is the Dr. Frankenstein of the supposed Trump monster. If a charismatic, Ivy League-educated, landmark president who entered office with unprecedented goodwill and both houses of Congress on his side could manage to wreck the Democratic Party while turning off 52 percent of the country, then many voters feel that a billionaire New York dealmaker could hardly do worse. If Obama had ruled from the center, dealt with the debt, addressed radical Islamic terrorism, dropped the politically correct euphemisms and pushed tax and entitlement reform rather than Obamacare, Trump might have little traction. A boring Hillary Clinton and a staid Jeb Bush would most likely be replaying the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush — with Trump as a watered-down version of third-party outsider Ross Perot. But America is in much worse shape than in 1992. And Obama has proved a far more divisive and incompetent president than George H.W. Bush. Little is more loathed by a majority of Americans than sanctimonious PC gobbledygook and its disciples in the media. And Trump claims to be PC’s symbolic antithesis. Making Machiavellian Mexico pay for a border fence or ejecting rude and interrupting Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a press conference is no more absurd than allowing more than 300 sanctuary cities to ignore federal law by sheltering undocumented immigrants. Putting a hold on the immigration of Middle Eastern refugees is no more illiberal than welcoming into American communities tens of thousands of unvetted foreign nationals from terrorist-ridden Syria. In terms of messaging, is Trump’s crude bombast any more radical than Obama’s teleprompted scripts? Trump’s ridiculous view of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a sort of « Art of the Deal » geostrategic partner is no more silly than Obama insulting Putin as Russia gobbles up former Soviet republics with impunity. Obama callously dubbed his own grandmother a « typical white person, » introduced the nation to the racist and anti-Semitic rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and petulantly wrote off small-town Pennsylvanians as near-Neanderthal « clingers. » Did Obama lower the bar for Trump’s disparagements? Certainly, Obama peddled a slogan, « hope and change, » that was as empty as Trump’s « make America great again. » (…) How does the establishment derail an out-of-control train for whom there are no gaffes, who has no fear of The New York Times, who offers no apologies for speaking what much of the country thinks — and who apparently needs neither money from Republicans nor politically correct approval from Democrats?

    Victor Davis Hanson

    In 1978, the eminent sociologist William Julius Wilson argued confidently that class would soon displace race as the most important social variable in American life. As explicit legal barriers to minority advancement receded farther into the past, the fates of the working classes of different races would converge. By the mid 2000s, Wilson’s thesis looked pretty good: The black middle class was vibrant and growing as the average black wealth nearly doubled from 1995 to 2005. Race appeared to lose its salience as a political predictor: More and more blacks were voting Republican, reversing a decades-long trend, and in 2004 George W. Bush collected the highest share of the Latino (44 percent) vote of any Republican ever and a higher share of the Asian vote (43 percent) than he did in 2000. Our politics grew increasingly ideological and less racial: Progressives and the beneficiaries of a generous social-welfare state generally supported the Democratic party, while more prosperous voters were more likely to support Republicans. Stable majorities expressed satisfaction with the state of race relations. It wasn’t quite a post-racial politics, but it was certainly headed in that direction. But in the midst of the financial crisis of 2007, something happened. Both the white poor and the black poor began to struggle mightily, though for different reasons. And our politics changed dramatically in response. It’s ironic that the election of the first black president marked the end of our brief flirtation with a post-racial politics. By 2011, William Julius Wilson had published a slight revision of his earlier thesis, noting the continued importance of race. The black wealth of the 1990s, it turned out, was built on the mirage of house values. Inner-city murder rates, which had fallen for decades, began to tick upward in 2015. In one of the deadliest mass shootings in recent memory, a white supremacist murdered nine black people in a South Carolina church. And the ever-present antagonism between the police and black Americans — especially poor blacks whose neighborhoods are the most heavily policed — erupted into nationwide protests. Meanwhile, the white working class descended into an intense cultural malaise. Prescription-opioid abuse skyrocketed, and deaths from heroin overdoses clogged the obituaries of local papers. In the small, heavily white Ohio county where I grew up, overdoses overtook nature as the leading cause of death. A drug that for so long was associated with inner-city ghettos became the cultural inheritance of the southern and Appalachian white: White youths died from heroin significantly more often than their peers of other ethnicities. Incarceration and divorce rates increased steadily. Perhaps most strikingly, while the white working class continued to earn more than the working poor of other races, only 24 percent of white voters believed that the next generation would be “better off.” No other ethnic group expressed such alarming pessimism about its economic future. And even as each group struggled in its own way, common forces also influenced them. Rising automation in blue-collar industries deprived both groups of high-paying, low-skill jobs. Neighborhoods grew increasingly segregated — both by income and by race — ensuring that poor whites lived among poor whites while poor blacks lived among poor blacks. As a friend recently told me about San Francisco, Bull Connor himself couldn’t have designed a city with fewer black residents. Predictably, our politics began to match this new social reality. In 2012, Mitt Romney collected only 27 percent of the Latino vote. Asian Americans, a solid Republican constituency even in the days of Bob Dole, went for Obama by a three-to-one margin — a shocking demographic turn of events over two decades. Meanwhile, the black Republican became an endangered species. Republican failures to attract black voters fly in the face of Republican history. This was the party of Lincoln and Douglass. Eisenhower integrated the school in Little Rock at a time when the Dixiecrats were the defenders of the racial caste system.(…) For many progressives, the Sommers and Norton research confirms the worst stereotypes of American whites. Yet it also reflects, in some ways, the natural conclusions of an increasingly segregated white poor. (…) The reality is not that black Americans enjoy special privileges. In fact, the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that the opposite is true. Last month, for instance, the brilliant Harvard economist Roland Fryer published an exhaustive study of police uses of force. He found that even after controlling for crime rates and police presence in a given neighborhood, black youths were far likelier to be pushed, thrown to the ground, or harassed by police. (Notably, he also found no racial disparity in the use of lethal force.) (…) Getting whipped into a frenzy on conspiracy websites, or feeling that distant, faceless elites dislike you because of your white skin, doesn’t compare. But the great advantages of whiteness in America are invisible to the white poor, or are completely swallowed by the disadvantages of their class. The young man from West Virginia may be less likely to get questioned by Yale University police, but making it to Yale in the first place still requires a remarkable combination of luck and skill. In building a dialogue around “checking privilege,” the modern progressive elite is implicitly asking white America — especially the segregated white poor — for a level of social awareness unmatched in the history of the country. White failure to empathize with blacks is sometimes a failure of character, but it is increasingly a failure of geography and socialization. Poor whites in West Virginia don’t have the time or the inclination to read Harvard economics studies. And the privileges that matter — that is, the ones they see — are vanishing because of destitution: the privilege to pay for college without bankruptcy, the privilege to work a decent job, the privilege to put food on the table without the aid of food stamps, the privilege not to learn of yet another classmate’s premature death. (…) Because of this polarization, the racial conversation we’re having today is tribalistic. On one side are primarily white people, increasingly represented by the Republican party and the institutions of conservative media. On the other is a collection of different minority groups and a cosmopolitan — and usually wealthier — class of whites. These sides don’t even speak the same language: One side sees white privilege while the other sees anti-white racism. There is no room for agreement or even understanding.

    J. D. Vance

    In another eerie ditto of his infamous 2008 attack on the supposedly intolerant Pennsylvania “clingers,” Obama returned to his theme that ignorant Americans “typically” become xenophobic and racist: “Typically, when people feel stressed, they turn on others who don’t look like them.” (“Typically” is not a good Obama word to use in the context of racial relations, since he once dubbed his own grandmother a “typical white person.”) Too often Obama has gratuitously aroused racial animosities with inflammatory rhetoric such as “punish our enemies,” or injected himself into the middle of hot-button controversies like the Trayvon Martin case, the Henry Louis Gates melodrama, and the “hands up, don’t shoot” Ferguson mayhem. Most recently, Obama seemed to praise backup 49ers quarterback and multimillionaire Colin Kaepernick for his refusal to stand during the National Anthem, empathizing with Kaepernick’s claims of endemic American racism. (…) Even presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not really defending the Obama administration’s past “red line” in Syria, the “reset” with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the bombing of Libya, the Benghazi tragedy, the euphemistic rebranding of Islamic terrorism as mere “violent extremism,” the abrupt pullout from (and subsequent collapse of) Iraq, or the Iran nuclear deal that so far seems to have made the theocracy both rich and emboldened. (…) Racial relations in this country seem as bad as they have been in a half-century. (…) Following the Clinton model, a post-presidential Obama will no doubt garner huge fees as a “citizen of the world” — squaring the circle of becoming fabulously rich while offering sharp criticism of the cultural landscape of the capitalist West on everything from sports controversies to pending criminal trials. What, then, is the presidential legacy of Barack Obama? It will not be found in either foreign- or domestic-policy accomplishment. More likely, he will be viewed as an outspoken progressive who left office loudly in the same manner that he entered it — as a critic of the culture and country in which he has thrived. But there may be another, unspoken legacy of Obama, and it is his creation of the candidacy of Donald J. Trump. Trump is running as an angry populist, fueled by the promise that whatever supposed elites such as Obama have done to the country, he will largely undo. Obama’s only legacy seems to be that “hope and change” begat “make America great again.” Victor Davis Hanson
    Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”—a heck of a lot of phobia for anyone to lug around all day—puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect. They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” but it was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of unheard Americans—rebelled against the intellectual elites’ ancien régime of political correctness. (…) Mrs. Clinton’s (…) dismissal, at Barbra Streisand’s LGBT fundraiser, of uncounted millions of Americans as deplorables had the ring of genuine belief. Perhaps sensing that public knowledge of what she really thinks could be a political liability, Mrs. Clinton went on to describe “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them . . . and they’re just desperate for change.” She is of course describing the people in Charles Murray’s recent and compelling book on cultural disintegration among the working class, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” This is indeed the bedrock of the broader Trump base. Mrs. Clinton is right that they feel the system has let them down. There is a legitimate argument over exactly when the rising digital economy started transferring income away from blue-collar workers and toward the “creative class” of Google and Facebook employees, no few of whom are smug progressives who think the landmass seen from business class between San Francisco and New York is pocked with deplorable, phobic Americans. Naturally, they’ll vote for the status quo, which is Hillary. But in the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what rankles the lower-middle class—white, black or brown—the non-employed and underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they want a radical mid-course correction. (…) The progressive Democrats, a wholly public-sector party, have disconnected from the realities of the private economy, which exists as a mysterious revenue-producing abstraction. Hillary’s comments suggest they now see much of the population has a cultural and social abstraction. (…) Donald Trump’s appeal, in part, is that he cracks back at progressive cultural condescension in utterly crude terms. Nativists exist, and the sky is still blue. But the overwhelming majority of these people aren’t phobic about a modernizing America. They’re fed up with the relentless, moral superciliousness of Hillary, the Obamas, progressive pundits and 19-year-old campus activists. Evangelicals at last week’s Values Voter Summit said they’d look past Mr. Trump’s personal résumé. This is the reason. It’s not about him. The moral clarity that drove the original civil-rights movement or the women’s movement has degenerated into a confused moral narcissism. (…) It is a mistake, though, to blame Hillary alone for that derisive remark. It’s not just her. Hillary Clinton is the logical result of the Democratic Party’s new, progressive algorithm—a set of strict social rules that drives politics and the culture to one point of view. (…) Her supporters say it’s Donald Trump’s rhetoric that is “divisive.” Just so. But it’s rich to hear them claim that their words and politics are “inclusive.” So is the town dump. They have chopped American society into so many offendable identities that only a Yale freshman can name them all. If the Democrats lose behind Hillary Clinton, it will be in part because America’s les déplorables decided enough of this is enough. Bret Stephens
    It doesn’t matter that the cop who killed Keith Scott is black (…) As of Wednesday morning, the most recent story of a black man killed by police is that of Keith Scott in Charlotte. Scott was killed Tuesday and details of the incident are still scant. One of the few bits of information shared by officials and reported by media, however, is that Bentley Vinson, the officer who killed Scott, was also black. As the country struggles to make sense of Scott’s death in relation to the estimated 193 other black people killed by police so far this year (and 306 in 2015), Vinson’s race is being used by some to dismiss charges that Scott was the victim of racist policing. To reduce the role of anti-blackness in policing to merely the race of officers involved in fatal police encounters is misguided, however. It betrays a profound misunderstanding of the ways racism and anti-blackness work within systems, assumes that black people are free of anti-black bias, and that black officers somehow transcend the police cultures in which they’re steeped. (…) Studies have shown that black people are not only capable of anti-black bias but that those who’ve been tested for racial bias are evenly split when it comes to pro-white and pro-black attitudes. Even more, research on the impact of police force diversity on officer-involved homicides has found no relationship between the racial representation of police forces and police killings in the cities they serve. In fact, one study revealed that the best way to predict how many police shootings might occur in a city is to look at the size of its black population. All of that without mentioning the troubling accounts from black police officers of the racism they experience on the force and the pressure they often face to engage in race-based policing in the communities they serve. Ice Cube put it simply in 1988 on N.W.A.’s Fuck tha Police, “But don’t let it be a black and a white one, ‘cause they’ll slam ya down to the street top. Black police showing out for the white cop.” What a 19-year-old Cube understood nearly 30 years ago seems to still elude members of the media and even policymakers today. That’s that there are a number of factors that impact how police officers—yes, even black officers—engage black civilians and suspects, the least of which is shared characteristics. To be sure, America could benefit from more diversity in its police force, especially in communities of color. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 65 percent of the nation’s 3,109,000 law enforcement officers are white. That number jumps to 70 percent for patrol officers and nearly 80 percent for police supervisors. But, while we’re concerned with the race of cops, we should be as concerned with the culture, policy, and practices that guide their actions. The issue at hand isn’t the personal feelings of cops who encounter black civilians but the deadly system of policing that criminalizes blackness, actively profiles black people, over-policies our neighborhoods as a matter of policy, and that uses force against us at three times the rate of whites. That is the ugly state of American policing and that truth doesn’t suddenly change when the boys in blue are black. Donovan X. Ramsey
    Brentley Vinson, l’agent lui-même noir qui a abattu la victime, a été suspendu en attendant les résultats d’une enquête administrative, mais la situation ne s’est pas calmée à Charlotte. Deux nuits de violences se sont succédées depuis, et l’Etat d’urgence a été déclaré sur place. Terence Crutcher et Keith Lamont Scott font partie de la longue liste des 822 personnes tuées cette année lors d’une intervention policière aux Etats-Unis, selon le site Mapping Police Violence. Ils font également partie des 214 Noirs américains tués en 2016 par des policiers. Si ces chiffres sont très éloignés des 351 victimes blanches, il convient de les remettre en perspective. Comme l’indique le Washington Post, les Blancs constituent 62% des Américains, mais seulement 49% des victimes policières. Au contraire, les Noirs font partie à 24% des victimes policières, alors que le nombre d’Afro-Américains dans la population totale n’est que de 13%. Le site ProPublica, qui a analysé des chiffres du FBI concernant la période 2012-2012, écrit qu’un adolescent noir a 21 chances de plus d’être tué par la police qu’un adolescent blanc. Si la majorité des Afro-Américains tués en 2016 étaient armés (…), 48 d’entre eux ne l’étaient pas (..) Une étude du Washington Post a démontré qu’en 2015, un Noir non-armé avait sept fois plus de chances d’être abattu qu’un blanc.Impossible cependant d’expliquer ces disparités sans prendre un compte la dimension sociale du phénomène. Comme l’explique Vox, la police patrouille en majorité dans les quartiers aux taux de crimes élevés, où la population noire est plus importante que dans la moyenne américaine. Mais des études ont aussi montré qu’à l’entrainement sur des plateformes de simulation, les policiers tiraient plus rapidement sur des suspects noirs. Un biais qui conduirait à des erreurs d’autant plus importantes sur le terrain.

    JDD

    L’économiste noir nous explique ici que la meilleure façon de lutter contre les violences policières et les ‘mauvaises écoles’ se trouve dans les données, et non dans l’expérience personnelle. (…) Le plus jeune Afro-américain titulaire d’une chaire à l’université d’Harvard explique ses dernières recherches sur les inégalités raciales à travers l’utilisation de la force par la police américaine. Adolescent, Fryer s’est retrouvé face aux armes pointées par des policiers “six ou sept” fois. “Mais, dit-il en traçant une courbe descendante de gauche à droite, il y a une tendance inquiétante, les gens parlent des races aux États-Unis en se basant uniquement sur leur expérience personnelle.” Avec sa voix teintée d’un soupçon d’accent du sud des États-Unis, il poursuit : “Je m’en fiche, de mon expérience personnelle, ou de celle des autres. Tout ce que je veux savoir, c’est comment cette expérience nous amène aux données chiffrées, pour nous aider à savoir ce qui se passe vraiment.” L’année dernière, comprendre ce qui se passe vraiment a conduit Roland Fryer, 38 ans, à remporter la médaille John Bates Clark, récompense annuelle décernée à un économiste américain de moins de 40 ans. La médaille est considérée comme le prix le plus prestigieux en économie, après le prix Nobel. (…) Roland Fryer me raconte qu’il a passé deux jours l’an dernier à suivre les policiers durant leurs rondes à Camden, dans le New Jersey (lors du premier jour de patrouille, une femme a succombé à une overdose devant lui). Roland Fryer cherchait à comprendre si les meurtres de Michael Brown et de Eric Garner, deux jeunes Afro-américains dont la mort a provoqué d’énormes manifestations, s’inscrivaient dans un modèle de répétitions identifiable, comme le mouvement activiste Black Lives Matter l’affirmait. Après une semaine de patrouilles, il a collecté plus de six millions de données des autorités, dont celles de la ville de New York, sur les victimes noires, blanches et latino de violences policières. (…) une fois les facteurs de contexte pris en compte, les Noirs ne sont pas plus susceptibles selon ces données d’être abattus par la police. Ce qui soulève la question : pourquoi ce tollé en 2014 à Ferguson, dans le Missouri, où le jeune Michael Brown a été abattu ? (…) “Ce sont les données” dit Fryer. “Maintenant, une hypothèse pour expliquer ce qui est arrivé à Ferguson – pas la fusillade, mais la réaction d’indignation – : ce n’était pas parce que les gens faisaient une déduction statistique, pas à propos de l’innocence ou de la culpabilité de Michael, mais parce qu’ils détestent cette putain de police.” Il poursuit : “la raison pour laquelle ils détestent la police est que si vous avez passé des années être fouillés, jetés à terre, menottés sans motif réel, et ensuite, vous entendez qu’un policier a tiré dans votre ville, comment pouvez-vous croire que c’était autre chose que de la discrimination ?” “Je pense que cela a à voir avec les incentives et les récompenses” ajoute Fryer. Les officiers de police, explique-t-il, reçoivent souvent les mêmes récompenses indépendamment de la gravité des crimes qu’ils traitent, et ils ne sont pas sanctionnés pour l’utilisation de “la force de bas niveau” sans raison valable [aux États-Unis, les moyens de pression de la police sont classés du plus bas niveau (injonction verbale) au plus haut niveau (arme létale), ndt]. Cela encourage un comportement agressif. Financial Times
    In 1978, the eminent sociologist William Julius Wilson argued confidently that class would soon displace race as the most important social variable in American life. As explicit legal barriers to minority advancement receded farther into the past, the fates of the working classes of different races would converge. By the mid 2000s, Wilson’s thesis looked pretty good: The black middle class was vibrant and growing as the average black wealth nearly doubled from 1995 to 2005. Race appeared to lose its salience as a political predictor: More and more blacks were voting Republican, reversing a decades-long trend, and in 2004 George W. Bush collected the highest share of the Latino (44 percent) vote of any Republican ever and a higher share of the Asian vote (43 percent) than he did in 2000. Our politics grew increasingly ideological and less racial: Progressives and the beneficiaries of a generous social-welfare state generally supported the Democratic party, while more prosperous voters were more likely to support Republicans. Stable majorities expressed satisfaction with the state of race relations. It wasn’t quite a post-racial politics, but it was certainly headed in that direction. But in the midst of the financial crisis of 2007, something happened. Both the white poor and the black poor began to struggle mightily, though for different reasons. And our politics changed dramatically in response. It’s ironic that the election of the first black president marked the end of our brief flirtation with a post-racial politics. By 2011, William Julius Wilson had published a slight revision of his earlier thesis, noting the continued importance of race. The black wealth of the 1990s, it turned out, was built on the mirage of house values. Inner-city murder rates, which had fallen for decades, began to tick upward in 2015. In one of the deadliest mass shootings in recent memory, a white supremacist murdered nine black people in a South Carolina church. And the ever-present antagonism between the police and black Americans — especially poor blacks whose neighborhoods are the most heavily policed — erupted into nationwide protests. Meanwhile, the white working class descended into an intense cultural malaise. Prescription-opioid abuse skyrocketed, and deaths from heroin overdoses clogged the obituaries of local papers. In the small, heavily white Ohio county where I grew up, overdoses overtook nature as the leading cause of death. A drug that for so long was associated with inner-city ghettos became the cultural inheritance of the southern and Appalachian white: White youths died from heroin significantly more often than their peers of other ethnicities. Incarceration and divorce rates increased steadily. Perhaps most strikingly, while the white working class continued to earn more than the working poor of other races, only 24 percent of white voters believed that the next generation would be “better off.” No other ethnic group expressed such alarming pessimism about its economic future. And even as each group struggled in its own way, common forces also influenced them. Rising automation in blue-collar industries deprived both groups of high-paying, low-skill jobs. Neighborhoods grew increasingly segregated — both by income and by race — ensuring that poor whites lived among poor whites while poor blacks lived among poor blacks. As a friend recently told me about San Francisco, Bull Connor himself couldn’t have designed a city with fewer black residents. Predictably, our politics began to match this new social reality. In 2012, Mitt Romney collected only 27 percent of the Latino vote. Asian Americans, a solid Republican constituency even in the days of Bob Dole, went for Obama by a three-to-one margin — a shocking demographic turn of events over two decades. Meanwhile, the black Republican became an endangered species. Republican failures to attract black voters fly in the face of Republican history. This was the party of Lincoln and Douglass. Eisenhower integrated the school in Little Rock at a time when the Dixiecrats were the defenders of the racial caste system.(…) For many progressives, the Sommers and Norton research confirms the worst stereotypes of American whites. Yet it also reflects, in some ways, the natural conclusions of an increasingly segregated white poor. (…) The reality is not that black Americans enjoy special privileges. In fact, the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that the opposite is true. Last month, for instance, the brilliant Harvard economist Roland Fryer published an exhaustive study of police uses of force. He found that even after controlling for crime rates and police presence in a given neighborhood, black youths were far likelier to be pushed, thrown to the ground, or harassed by police. (Notably, he also found no racial disparity in the use of lethal force.) (…) Getting whipped into a frenzy on conspiracy websites, or feeling that distant, faceless elites dislike you because of your white skin, doesn’t compare. But the great advantages of whiteness in America are invisible to the white poor, or are completely swallowed by the disadvantages of their class. The young man from West Virginia may be less likely to get questioned by Yale University police, but making it to Yale in the first place still requires a remarkable combination of luck and skill. In building a dialogue around “checking privilege,” the modern progressive elite is implicitly asking white America — especially the segregated white poor — for a level of social awareness unmatched in the history of the country. White failure to empathize with blacks is sometimes a failure of character, but it is increasingly a failure of geography and socialization. Poor whites in West Virginia don’t have the time or the inclination to read Harvard economics studies. And the privileges that matter — that is, the ones they see — are vanishing because of destitution: the privilege to pay for college without bankruptcy, the privilege to work a decent job, the privilege to put food on the table without the aid of food stamps, the privilege not to learn of yet another classmate’s premature death. (…) Because of this polarization, the racial conversation we’re having today is tribalistic. On one side are primarily white people, increasingly represented by the Republican party and the institutions of conservative media. On the other is a collection of different minority groups and a cosmopolitan — and usually wealthier — class of whites. These sides don’t even speak the same language: One side sees white privilege while the other sees anti-white racism. There is no room for agreement or even understanding.

    J. D. Vance

    Par son geste, Kaepernick a emboîté le pas à d’autres joueurs professionnels luttant contre les discriminations raciales ou la violence des armes à feu, parmi lesquels les stars du basket-ball Dwyane Wade, LeBron James ou Carmelo Anthony. Mais, contrairement à ces piliers de la NBA, Kaepernick a délivré son message à un moment très sensible. Aux Etats-Unis s’attaquer au Stars and Stripes (le drapeau) ou au Star-Spangled Banner (l’hymne national) est un jeu très dangereux. La chanteuse Sinead O’Connor en avait fait les frais en 1990, excluant de se produire dans le New Jersey si l’hymne américain était joué en préambule. L’Irlandaise avait été la cible d’une campagne de rejet, bannie par plusieurs radios. Un quart de siècle plus tard, Colin Kaepernick se retrouve vilipendé sur les réseaux sociaux, des Américains exigeant de la Ligue nationale de football américain (NFL) sa suspension, voire son licenciement. Accusé de bafouer un symbole et de politiser son sport, Colin Kaepernick s’inscrit aussi dans une lignée d’athlètes protestataires noirs qui ont marqué les Etats-Unis. Inhumé en juin entouré d’hommages planétaires, la légende de la boxe Mohamed Ali avait payé de plusieurs années d’interruption de carrière son refus d’aller combattre au Vietnam. Egalement gravés dans la mémoire collective sont les poings gantés de noir de Tommie Smith et John Carlos, sur le podium du 200 mètres des jeux Olympiques de Mexico de 1968. Ces deux athlètes, dénonçant la ségrégation raciale théoriquement abolie mais encore bien présente alors, ont été boycottés par les médias et honnis durant des décennies, avant d’être réhabilités tardivement.

    Francetv

    La promesse d’une Amérique post-raciale n’a pas été tenue. Il y a quelques jours à peine, Barack Obama a même invité la communauté noire à s’opposer en bloc à Donald Trump le 8 novembre, en disant qu’il serait vexé si elle ne soutenait pas Hilary Clinton. On a beau croire et dire que l’Amérique entretient un rapport décomplexé avec les statistiques ethniques, il n’en demeure pas moins que cet appel explicite au vote ethnique et communautariste ramène l’Amérique a son clivage originel. De son côté, même s’il ne joue pas explicitement la carte raciale, Donald Trump est le candidat de la classe moyenne blanche qui ressent son déclassement symbolique et économique dans une Amérique convertie au multiculturalisme et au libre-échangisme. Il canalise politiquement un ressentiment qui s’accumule depuis longtemps. Aussi fantasque et inquiétant soit-il, il se présente comme le porte-parole d’une Amérique périphérique en révolte. La question de l’immigration est centrale dans la présente présidentielle. On le sait, le mythe américain est celui d’une nation d’immigrants. Il suffirait d’embrasser le rêve américain et les valeurs américaines pour adhérer à la nation. On oublie pourtant l’existence d’une nation historique américaine, qui s’est transformée au fil des vagues d’immigration successives, mais qui n’est pas pour autant un simple amas d’individus indéterminés. Il existe un noyau culturel américain. Aujourd’hui, l’Amérique est confrontée à l’hispanisation des États du sud. Une bonne partie de cette immigration massive est clandestine et on compte plusieurs millions de sans-papiers dans le pays. Rares sont ceux qui croient possible ou qui souhaitent leur expulsion systématique. Mais tous savent qu’une politique d’amnistie jouerait le rôle d’une pompe aspirante pour de nouvelles vagues de clandestins. De grands pans de l’électorat américain sont traversés par une forme d’angoisse identitaire, qu’on ne saurait réduire mesquinement à une forme de panique morale, comme s’il était globalement paranoïaque. On peut y reconnaître la hantise de déclassement d’un empire qui avait pris l’habitude de sa supériorité mondiale. On y verra aussi, toutefois, une peur de la dilution de l’identité américaine et de sa submersion démographique, semblable à celle qui se manifeste dans les pays européens. En s’en prenant violemment il y a quelques jours à la moitié des électeurs de Trump pour les qualifier de racistes, de sexistes, d’homophobes, de xénophobes et d’islamophobes, Hillary Clinton a certainement procuré satisfaction à la frange la plus radicale de la base démocrate, qu’on trouve dans les universités et les médias. Mais un tel mépris de classe de la part de la représentante par excellence des élites américaines pourrait lui coûter cher chez ceux qui se sentent exclus du système politique et qui rêvent de punir la classe politique. Le pays du 11 septembre n’est pas épargné non plus par les nouveaux visages du terrorisme islamiste, comme on l’a vu notamment à Orlando et à San Bernardino. L’Amérique ne se sent plus à l’abri dans ses frontières. L’islamisme a prouvé à plus d’une reprise sa capacité à frapper en son cœur n’importe quelle société occidentale. Le grand malaise de Barack Obama lorsque vient le temps de nommer l’islam radical, par peur de l’amalgame, affaiblit moralement le président américain, qui semble incapable de faire face à l’ennemi qui le désigne. On en trouve de moins en moins pour célébrer cette dissolution du réel dans une rhétorique inclusive qui, pour ne blesser personne, se montre incapable de nommer le principal péril sécuritaire qui pèse sur notre époque. Obama est ici victime d’une illusion caractéristique de l’universalisme radical. (…) Il ne sert à rien de faire aujourd’hui un réquisitoire contre Obama, d’autant que sa présidence ne fut pas sans grandeur. Appelé à présider une Amérique déclinante dans un contexte mondial impossible, il aura, comme on dit, fait tout son possible pour la pacifier. Si on peut faire le bilan d’un échec relatif de sa présidence, on ne saurait toutefois parler d’une faillite morale.

    Mathieu Bock-Côté (merci james)















  • '