The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
14 votes

Why Zimmerman Story Actually Matters... UPDATE: Because Trayvon is a Racial False Flag


A comment I wrote in another post:

"It's more than about dividing us, or distracting us. The whole trial is a false flag. It's meant as a message to blacks: you're under attack by whites. Trayvon is the Lusitania for racial strife and the black community."

This is what it's all about I've decided. This is what the case actually is, and it's why it matters. Sure, some at DP are pretty upset about this, and it has created an uncommonly wide rift (wait, maybe I'm forgetting the Gary Johnson days). I disagree with the notion that we should just ignore it for the good of the community here, that it's 'only' about distraction or division.

No, this is a full blown cultural media false flag. We need to call it out and stay on top of it.


I have stayed away from this topic for a few weeks now. Though I haven't commented, I've been keeping up with the threads and have been consistently bothered by the attitudes of the anti-Zimmerman crowd. This story is going to continue to matter, because it's a pivot point being used to reshape society's view of race and prepare for the coming chaos. No, we shouldn't be distracted or divided by this. Yes, we must pay attention and discuss it to get to the right place on this issue.

I'm going to actually start backwards from my title. There are some facts, yes I said facts, that the anti-Zimmerman people just keep getting wrong. So, I'm going to lay out those facts, again I said facts, to get this discussion sorted out but also to give context for my later argument about why this story matters.

Here are facts about what happened in real life between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin:

#1 It wasn't about race
The DOJ has been trying hard to work this angle to get federal jurisdiction on this case. Their internal memo showed that they can't. Zimmerman has black ancestors, is half hispanic, has black friends, has worked politically with the black community in favor of democrats, has had his neighborhood patrol instincts affected by his desire to help a black family that were victims of burglary. His community has a significant percentage of blacks.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon because of very reasonable pressures and stresses having to do with a pattern of crime in the community. Whether it was paranoid or 'statist' of Zimmerman to assume that a suspicious teenager was a criminal is another story. The point is that there's no evidence it was because of racism.

Other cases, oh like that Roderick fellow, show that when the races are reversed, the outcome is the same. But NBC News edited that tape in the most despicable of ways to make Zimmerman appear racist. Al Sharpton, the DOJ, and others are desperately organizing the black community, circling their wagons in a frenzied way - calling in black celebrities, the 'BET' circuit - to try and freak out about race. And yet, it has nothing to do with race. How is it that a situation that had nothing to do with race leads to all this grandstanding about race relations in America. If it feels like the Twilight Zone it should - because malevolent forces are trying to take over the world of truth from behind their veil of evil. They are expending money, fear, celebrity to try and push some false agenda meant to impose something artificial on our minds when we know the truth. Keep that in mind.

#2 Zimmerman was allowed to follow Trayvon
He didn't run him down waving a gun in the air. Trayvon had no way of knowing Zimmerman had a gun, and would probably have never fought him if he did. Zimmerman's account of the fight - I'm not saying it's true - but it's consistent with grass stains and so forth - indicates that it's very likely that Trayvon didn't know about the gun until they were fighting.

Zimmerman probably went a little far in his 'statist wannabe cop' paranoia in following Trayvon. If you treat law and politics like a basketball game - sure that's a three pointer for Trayvon's side. But it's not a game! Legally, Zimmerman had every right to keep eyes on Trayvon for the time that he did. Ethically, given the crime in the neighborhood and the fact that Zimmerman had been burned by guys getting out of his sight, it's understandable why Zimmerman did what he did. Even so, sure, rack up a couple 'points' for your 'team' on this one.

But it wasn't illegal, or wrong, and none of this hysteria - he was a rapist, he chased him down with a gun, he was ginnin for a fight - it's all lies. Zimmerman was following someone suspicious period.

#3 There was no order to 'not follow' from 911
I shouldn't have to go over these details. Look them up. Point is, legally there was no order. Ethically, the order didn't even mean anything. It's not as if the dispatcher said, "Don't follow him, there could be trouble, and you might be legally liable or get hurt if there is." He just said the standard, "911 is not requiring you to take action, so don't sue us if you do and it turns out bad".

#4 Trayvon attacked Zimmerman
I'll talk about 'proof' in point number 5, but this is pretty well established. Zimmerman was on the phone the whole time, so there's some indication of what happened. There's text message evidence Trayvon made it to his house before returning back to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman was out of shape, by all accounts, all the witnesses saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman, on top of him. Zimmerman had injuries, Trayvon had bruised knuckles (and pot in his system, and liver damage from DX). Why no Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon?

Think about it, it's indisputable that Zimmerman and Trayvon fought. At one point some people thought that Zimmerman walked up to him and just shot him for being black. Please. No, they fought. We argue (stupidly) about who started it who was on top, etc. Look, if Zimmerman had the upper hand at any point, wouldn't struggling Trayvon have scratched him, or been scratched by him? No, no Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon. This indicates that Trayvon had the upperhand the whole time. I'm not putting that forward as proof, I'm just saying that 'if we're going to go there...'

Either way, there was a fight, and ALL the evidence we have shows Trayvon started it and dominated it.

#5 The Meaning of Evidence
So, most of the anti-Zimmerman posters argue that "well, but the bleeding on Zimmerman wasn't enough" or "it was the testimony of like two people" or "well, only 4 people thought Zimmerman's voice was the one screaming and I personally think it might have been Trayvon probably". There's this sort of equivocation of evidence.

If Zimmerman had ended up dead, oh say for example, if his story is accurate and Trayvon said, "You're going to die tonight motherfucker." and he succeeded in grabbing the gun and shooting Zimmerman - THEN we talk about whether these little doubts about the evidence show that there's a reasonable chance that just maybe Trayvon didn't do it.

*Let me pause and remark on that. Imagine if Trayvon had just grabbed the gun first. Zimmerman would be dead and I promise you we wouldn't know about this story. Imagine. Weird huh, just a couple seconds different on a situation that 98% the same but we'd be having a totally different discussion if at all*

There is a MORE than reasonable chance that Zimmerman was innocent. So what is the point of constantly going at those little points?

What this effort to say, "Well, Zimmerman didn't know the street so for all we know he killed, raped, then fought Trayvon." ??

It's a disease of the mind.

Let me explain. So, this case had nothing to do with stand your ground. NOTHING THE HELL AT ALL!!! But the media, public officials, celebrities keep talking about it. Twilight Zone folks! The only thing this case had to do with stand your ground is that the liberal media didn't like the law, a case occurred which, the media not having all the facts (when does that ever happen), was judged to have to do with stand your ground, and was used as a football to push criticism of stand your ground.

Think about that. Forget the victim, forget the people, the case, the evidence. Here is something that has nothing to do with stand your ground, and we're talking about stand your ground. Shouldn't that be a clue to our anti-Zimmerman folks?

This is my point. Right here. The powers that be picked up on a spiritual energy, an anger and emotion of chaos, arising from this narrative so they've ran with it.

The truth has nothing to do with it. Chaos, evil, division, tyranny, falsehood - all of it rising because the powers that be are pushing it. The truth is powerless.

And so it's a problem, a big problem, that people on DP (it's diverse and open, I know, I'm not suggesting any policies or changes, just making a point) buy into this negative spiritual energy.

I don't think Zimmerman is a hero, but I think he is a tremendous victim. More so than Trayvon. Trayvon didn't deserve death for his actions, but he valued the sort of things - drugs, thug life, etc. - that lead in that direction. Zimmerman to, in a Karmic way, got what's coming by being a big democrat and police lover. But, his motive was sincere - protect others in his community and put them before himself. Look at what he did with that SUV, coming out of hiding like that. He's not a hero, nor a perfect person, but the negative attention - the death threats - is a grave injustice. Trayvon's death was a tragedy, but Zimmerman's situation is an injustice.

And the family he helped on the road is now afraid for their lives. Wow, look how the anti-Zimmerman energy causes a good deed to redound into fear and hatred. Is THAT enough evidence for you of what's really going one.

Anyway, here is why this case matters.

The ability for the powers that be to turn ignorance and spiritual impotence into a lust for chaos is their most significant 'power', if you will. It is really the keystone of this whole war if that makes sense.

If we can be taught to hate lowly Zimmerman...
Then we can be made to believe that Syria deserves to burn.

If we can be taught to hate lowly Zimmerman...
Then we can be convinced that our problems are caused by others, that we go up by bringing others down.

That the market is a failure.
That prosperity is sin.
That responsibility is oppression.

If we can be taught to hate lowly Zimmerman...
We can believe that Al Qaeda hates us for our freedom. Why not? We don't need a reasonable explanation or proof. They're different, they wear towels on their heads. Once one of them said something, that sort of supports the point - and besides what evidence do you have that America overthrowing leaders across the middle east was really that bad?

If we can be taught to hate lowly Zimmerman...
Because Jay-Z says so, well, then, Al Gore says we should stop driving our cars and ride government buses to our government job. He's famous!

If we can be taught to hate lowly Zimmerman...
We'll hate anybody, anywhere, for any reason. Because the masters of our minds said so. Because we don't go to church, we don't know what we believe, we don't know what's coming after life let alone what's next in life, we don't understand how the world works, or why we have what we have, or what we have to do to get it. We do know that if we had less than what we have, no tv, no pro sports, no two-party system, no 'establishment', no university to give tenure, no corporate job to give promotion, no government union to agitate for a coveted pension - well, then we'd have absolutely nothing. So we go with the flow, and follow our masters' orders, and we fear independence, and reason, and we fear ourselves and more so each other. The universe is a void, because our souls have been made void.

We survive by ignoring the void, then worshiping the void, then pushing others into the void ahead of us. And so when the masters of the void rally us, enlist us, we'll push the whole universe into the void ahead of us.

There are two reasons why the Zimmerman story is important:

1) To some extent, it is a distraction, meant to divide. Realizing this is important. It's a learning opportunity, and proves that this isn't about a poor dead boy (how many die because of crime or drone strikes for that matter?). It's about an agenda.

2) But, the story also has a truth. There's this idea that being ecumenical concerning truth is the right way to go. That's true when your goal is peace in society - limit things to the non-aggression principle. It's also true in a political coalition.

Still, on this Zimmerman issue, I hate to say it, but there's a truth. Which is: Zimmerman is by all accounts innocent. The evidence to the contrary is spurious. There are bad people expending great resource to spread obvious lies to convince people there was an injustice here. Surrounding those efforts is a dark energy that is symptomatic of all our big problems.

So, the hard truth here is that, really, the anti-Zimmerman people are wrong. And as awkward and hard as it is for the community here, those of us who see the truth here have to continue to stick up for it and for George Zimmerman.

It's not about us being divided, it's not about buying into the division. It's about standing against the evil and the chaos.


And I'm not a troll. I've stated before that I think liberty is an actual value - not merely a procedural 'compromise'. Believing in liberty means believing in certain individual rights. Not everyone believes in those rights. Some people worship the collective. So, even though liberty is great in part because it's conducive to 'can't we all just get along', in fact if some of us believe in anti-liberty evil we really 'can't just all get along'.

To me, we can disagree on a lot of issues.


If you think it's okay to:
*Just force someone to do something because you 'like' your way better
*Resort to violence because dealing with an issue otherwise is too 'hard' or you're 'angry' or
*Completely disregard obvious evidence

Then in my opinion you and liberty have a problem. In. My. Opinion.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

By the same token

If Trayvon were white and Zimmerman were black, the story probably would have never made national news. Not for nothing, blacks killing whites is FAR more common than the other way around, and yet, there's almost never any headlines on the subject.

A signature used to be here!

Zimmerman has darker skin

Zimmerman has darker skin too. I don't buy this idea that he is white. He is not white, he is hispanic and the prisons and courts are full of hispanics that feel they don't get a fair shake either.

Perhaps...Perhaps not!

If Trayvon was a "wealthy white kid".....

Well, he was not. And if he was, he wouldn't have been at that place at that time, and perhaps without a hoodie, he wouldn't even raise any suspicion on the part of Zimmerman.

Too many "what if" scenarios that we could play, but they do not take away from the facts of the case.

If Trayvon had been white, this would NOT have made the national headline at all. If it did most likely it was because they tried to make a case AGAINST 2nd Amendment Right and AGAINST the Stand Your Ground Law.

Still, all these suppositions do not take away the facts of the case. And people will keep on believing what they believe, probably until they die!

I hear what you're saying

And some DP members are truly racist.

I read a comment like "It's libertarian for the races to segregate voluntarily".

Now, I think the state has harmed blacks where they could have succeeded if they had had their own political autonomy rather than be pawns of a white system one way or the other, but to think that there's any good reason for races to naturally segregate is... racist.

But, we've proven that there have been other cases like this.

We're talking about it because the LEFT wanted to make it a case of a racial attack and it wasn't. Period. It's not about the 'racism' of America, it's about the opportunism of the left.

You're feelings are sincere, but you're not getting it and it's causing you to buy into the matrix just a little.

I disagree

It is natural for people to gather together according to their language, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. It is natural. You want to be with your own kind. Look at Los Angeles! The city with almost every nationality and ethnicity on earth! And what do people do? They live with their own "kind" if you would. China town, Little Taipei, Little Tokyo, K-Town, Little Ethiopia, Persian town, Lebanese town, Vietnamese towns, etc, you name it. So are all these people racists for not wanting to live with people different than them?

Why? I just like to eat my own cultural cuisine better! Is that racist? I just like to go to my own cultural supermarkets better! Is that racist? I just like to read news in my native language better! Is that racist? I just like to make friends with people like me and understand my culture! Is that racist? Of course not!

Culture and language defines a group of people. And I think it is very natural to stay within your own culture and language group. And it is not racist for wanting to stay that way.

And of course, people do venture out of their comfort zone once in awhile, but we all have a home and we all have our own culture and language and ways of life in our own home. So it is natural to congregate according to your particular culture and language. And without government interference, people will do just that. And it will always be the minority (i mean in numbers) that ventures out and reach out to a new group of people.

Having said all that, now as a Christian, I know for a fact that this cultural and language barrier can be broken, but only in Christ. And even for Christians of different cultural backgrounds, things can be touchy. But while we are on earth, there will always be people of different tribes, tongues, and nations. And this is not racist because there is only ONE RACE --- the human race.

St. Paul and Chicago Were Great Examples Of Segregation

but with mostly WHITES and all voluntary. Both were very diverse with different cultures from Europe. Their were neighborhoods for polish people, swedes, Irish, jews, danes, germans. All were voluntary. You could pretty much guess with 99% accuracy the persons ethnic background by their street address.
I agree with you. Its natural and nothing wrong with it

I think

Voluntary racial segregation "could be" normal and natural in the short-term, and letting that be will promote good relations and integration in the long-run.

The problem is this notion of congenital differences.

There are people who: don't hate black people, don't believe in white supremacy, but who will believe that a black guy walking across the street might rob them because of his melatonin levels.

People say, "but statistics show..." - yeah, maybe that if you take a criminal, chances are he might be black. The point is that - logic people - this does not imply that the black guy walking down the sidewalk is a criminal.

Not that a great many people believe that. But my point is that I have seen racism in America, lots of places, and it's of this form. It's not hatred, it's just a bias that takes facts and stretches them.

That's racism, and it's not justified by facts, and it's wrong. It's not a tragedy or a crime, it's just ignorance.

And, for what it's worth, I'm white and if I really hated or judged anyone it's the goddamn hysterical hypersocial emotionally dysfunctional IRISH!!! I'm half-kidding, half-serious.

Gun Control

Vigalente with deadly weapon kills "unarmed" child. When Piers Morgan pushed this line Robert Zimmerman countered well with "he was armed with his fists."

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

So every person is armed with

So every person is armed with fists then right? So then a drone attack at a cafe is justifiable, because everyone can then be treated as a dangerous armed suspect.

Armed Doesn't Mean Harmful

And "unarmed" doesn't mean harmless.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Straw man idiocy

Are you denying people can't kill others with their hands and feet? A LOT of people every year are beaten to death.

Carrying a fucking gun doesn't make you a criminal, and not having a gun doesn't make you incapable of killing. It's not a magical murder device, it's a tool. Your drone comment is a straw man of stupendously stupid proportions, this case is about self defense and has nothing to do with race.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Guns are tools, I agree. And

Guns are tools, I agree. And so are a lot of gun-owners.

It's ironic you are essentially defending Zimmerman with Obama's drone policy, that Rand Paul has been trying so hard to delegitimize.

Its almost as if you falling predictably on the side of the argument that politically benefits the people who exaggerated this and made it national news in the first place...

Please tell me how Anwar al-Aulaqi's death upsets the Daily Paul, but Trayvon Martin's doesn't.

Political convenience and racism. You're falling right into the trap of the people who want to discredit the self proclaimed 'liberty movement'.

Americans don't care about innocent middle easterners dying because they are essentially terrorists until proven otherwise. White americans dont care about innocent blacks dying because they are essentially thugs until proven otherwise.

Fuck a trial. I heard he was a bad kid.

I have to tell you

I have to tell you 'iowakureba', your line of argument here amounts to little more than emotional rhetoric. Perhaps it is more fair to describe it as mere speculation.

You essentially attack the motives of others who take an opposing position, motives you can't see even in your dreams.


Guns are tools, I agree. And so are a lot of gun-owners.

Fuck off.

Please tell me how Anwar al-Aulaqi's death upsets the Daily Paul, but Trayvon Martin's doesn't.

Because Al-awlaki wasn't an immediate threat to anyone, he wasn't even a terrorist. He was a terror propagandist, and was killed without due process by the state, and not an individual.

Martin attacked someone and got shot for doing so. He committed violence unto another person and that person defended their own life.

How this is different is blatantly obvious. What is telling though is your attempt to synonymize the state with the individual. It shows a clear lack of understanding concerning natural rights.

Political convenience and racism. You're falling right into the trap of the people who want to discredit the self proclaimed 'liberty movement'.

I just can't even fathom a reply to this idiocy. Because that's all it is. It's the same levied bullshit that the media has always pushed against libertarians, without any SHRED of evidence. We're all white racists hell bent on preserving "white pride worldwide". If that's all you have troll, then move on because I really don't have time for pathetically childish attacks.

Americans don't care about innocent middle easterners dying because they are essentially terrorists until proven otherwise. White americans dont care about innocent blacks dying because they are essentially thugs until proven otherwise.

There you go, stereotyping people and trying change this case into a race issue. You're so caught up in the race of the people involved you can't see that neither case has anything to do with it. I wouldn't change my opinion of Zimmerman's actions if he was black. I didn't even care about the whole "he's hispanic, no he's white" bullshit the msm tried to play up. Al-awlaki could have been chinese, my opinion wouldn't change.

Fuck a trial. I heard he was a bad kid.

Yeah, I mean why the hell didn't Zimmerman let Martin kill him and go to court for it? Seriously?

You can't come up with an argument to defend Martin's actions without involving his race, and you are insinuating I'M the racist? Hypocrite.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

This is Why People Are Anti-Zimmerman

" Nevertheless, on July 16, 2013, The New Republic published an essay in which a distinguished law professor wrote the following (emphasis in original):

. . . Zimmerman was an edgy basket case with a gun who had called 911 46 times in 15 months, once to report the suspicious activities of a seven year old black boy.

That sentence contains three factual errors (the broader article contains others), two of which I noted in my prior post. First, and probably of least importance, many of Zimmerman’s 46 calls (reporting 43 incidents) were made to the non-emergency police number (not just to 911). Second, and of more import, Zimmerman made 46 calls over 7.5 years (not over 15 months). Third, and most egregiously, Zimmerman’s call (to the non-emergency police number) regarding a seven-to-nine-year-old black boy was placed because Zimmerman was “concerned for [the] well being” of that child, who was walking unaccompanied on a busy street (see page 37)."

This is why people believe in global warming, and Keynesian economics, and the War on Terror. Just saying

Interesting to say the least.

Interesting to say the least. A little lie here, mixed with a little rhetoric there, and people lose their heads.

Long read...

..worth the time!
Thank you.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued