The live streamer featured above is from Rebelutionary Z or Reb Z for short.  Here is a link to his Twitter:

Imagine for a moment that you’re a member of the Missouri National Guard tasked with protecting the Ferguson Police Department which individuals in the community have repeatedly threatened to burn down and kill the occupants.  You’ve been present for Molotov cocktails and automatic weapons fire.  You haven’t had a day off in around a week and you’ve missed Thanksgiving with your family.  The one symbol you hold dear is the American Flag, not ignoring the bad things that this country has done, but as an acknowledgment of the good and as a reminder that we are all part of the same country, the same team.  The American Flag is furthermore a symbol of every man and woman, your bothers and sisters, who have given their lives in service to not only their country but the community you’re now trying to protect from itself.  As you consider your personal sacrifices and your comrades’ sacrifices, you watch as your own countrymen set fire to that symbol, burning your country and your lost family’s memory in effigy.

As a member of the National Guard, you are apparently not entitled to symbols like the mob in Ferguson is.  Looting and burning QuikTrip was a symbol of what happens to snitches.  Looting Ferguson Market was a symbol of what happens when you get robbed by a member of the community who is later shot by the police.  Burning West Florissant was a symbol of what happens when the community is angry.  Murdering DeAndre Joshua and burning his body in the trunk of a car in the middle of Canfield Green apartments was a symbol of what happens when you dare speak the truth in Ferguson.

These violent actions are all symbols that the protesters have repeatedly used to make people take them seriously, but you are not entitled to your flag.

That thought is sickening.


13 thoughts on “Sickening

  1. Well, these “protestors” play dirty, and have a lot of hate and anger inside them. You have to consider the source. These people have no respect for others, or for themselves. More “thugs”.

    “These violent actions are all symbols that the protesters have repeatedly used to make people take them seriously…” That’s what they believe they are accomplishing, but I’m not convinced that is what’s going on. If you read some of the articles on the Web, say, about what Antonio French said recently (they burned down the building in which his temporary office in Ferguson was located, according to various sources, and he basically minimized the destruction of the rioters! How’s that for denial?), and about Al Sharpton’s comments, and then read the comments left below from the general public, the written backlash is incredible!!!! A lot of people seem to understand what really happened on August 9, and what the so call “leaders” of the protests have turned it into. Not only that, they make it clear in no uncertain terms how low their opinion is of all of this.

    Now, there are also those who don’t get it, like the Rams players yesterday. The TV news was really interesting–juxtaposing that display with videos of St. Louis Police officers keeping protestors downtown moving, not blocking traffic, etc. The representative of the police association (union) made a statement that clearly explained why this “hands up” thing by the Rams players was both disrespectful to police, and also hypocritical, since the Rams and NFL management had been on the phone all week trying to be sure the St. Louis Police understood their concerns about security for the game!!!!!

    What if they played an NFL football game and the police all stayed home? Hmm…most police officers are way too honorable and believe in what they do to do that, but it would be interesting.

    There was also video on the Web of a Chief of Police in some city up north (in Michigan, I believe) who was at meeting dealing with questions about a similar shooting (like MIchael Brown’s) in his city. He was later criticized for being on his smart phone for a few minutes. He explained that he was dealing with the drive by shooting of a five year old child, and would be joining his officers at the scene shortly. The rest of his statement, however, basically tore the complaining press a new one, in a polite, logical, but irritated manner about how the most obvious aspect of being discriminated against as a black person is being a victim of black on black crime. He cited statistics, and said that while everyone knows the names of the last three blacks killed by the local police in the last several years, no one remembers the last black civilian killed by a black civilian. It was, as they used to say, the perfect squelch.

    I feel for the National Guardsmen, and for all the police and state troopers who are caught in this mess.

    We had flag burning protests occasionally in the 1960s and 70s during the Vietnam War. That didn’t do any good, either. The thing the protestors don’t get is that in many countries, such an act would be considered a crime against the state, and the police dealing with that would not be coddling them!


    • “These violent actions are all symbols that the protesters have repeatedly used to make people take them seriously…”

      I am not sold on that theory at all. Much of the violence is just plain ol’ acting out, the childhood glee of destruction, while most of the rest is either taking advantage of the ruckus to steal, or pure revenge. And I honestly think (going on the few I know personally who wanted to go) that many of the protesters are much more interested in feeling good about themselves than in actually changing the world. If they wanted to improve things, they’d recognize how pointless protesting is, quit demanding same-old, same-old solutions, and start looking for solutions that actually work.

      Although he’s talking about a completely different issue, I think this guy gets to the heart of the matter:

      “My first encounter with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late sixties. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.
      My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.
      “What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.
      “And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.
      “It was not your garden-variety fantasy of life as a sexual athlete or a racecar driver, but in it, he nonetheless made himself out as a hero — a hero of the revolutionary struggle.”

      from here:

      “There was also video on the Web of a Chief of Police in some city up north (in Michigan, I believe) ”

      Police Chief Edward Flynn of Milwaukee, WI. I have some issues with his position on the Second Amendment, but it’s a disagreement over methods not goals. I believe he really does care about the people wounded or killed by violence in his jurisdiction, and would like to get the conversation off stupid peripherals and on to saving lives.


      • Thanks for posting that.

        I agree that for most protestors there is no larger overriding purpose to actually change things for the better, and that’s probably also true for many (but maybe not all) of their leaders. At this point, the message, whatever that is/was, has gotten lost in the theatrics, as you point out. I say “theatrics” because laying down in middle of a shopping mall doing a bad imitation of a dry snow angel looks pretty silly.


      • Quiktrip was specifically targeted due to the rumor that their employees had called 911 on Brown. The graffiti that was tagged on the ruins confirm this. Repeated attempts at protesting on the ruins is evidence that the protesters wanted to own that visual. Similarly, Ferguson Market wasn’t hit until the video was released of the robbery. Protesters have frequently referenced future violence as a way to get people to take them seriously, particularly threats of this activity spreading into more affluent areas, because otherwise, no one really cares that much.

        Symbols don’t have to be well thought-out to be used by a group. Was there senseless pointless violence? Of course, but even for the supposedly peaceful protesters, they made clear implications that they wanted you to consider that they too could get violent as well if their demands were not met. No justice, no peace. That’s where the symbolism comes in.


      • Can’t figure out how to reply directly to (WS)lnlbqxlb’s comment here…

        I don’t think the violence was “senseless” — I think most of it was a pretty standard gang response. I doubt they’d articulate it this way, but from my perspective, one of the things that drives gangs is a desire to replace Rule of Law with the Rules of Revenge. “Snitches get stitches” is just one example of the gangs saying, “Tick me off, and you’ll pay.” The Quiktrip was burned to punish snitches, but also to tell the community, “We have the power to get to you if you’re out of line, and we will escalate.”

        Gangs with enough political power, which admittedly are in the minority (Chicago’s the only place I know of where politicians publicly court gangs before being elected), will also punish neighborhoods for votes they don’t like, for instance when “their guy” loses a local election. While the rules the protesters negotiated certainly empowered the locals, and the media kicked things up a notch as well, the violent response, and the threat of violence, were pretty typical. What was unusual with the immediate response to Wilson’s acquittal was the extent of the violence, and the fact that it pulled in so many people from outside. Even blocking the freeway was kind of an extension of the gang “I own this road” routine. The only event I recall that doesn’t fit this pattern was the “die in.”

        What I find ironic is that the peaceful protesters claim this violence, which was likely committed to enhance and consolidate power, and call it a cry for help. The peaceful protesters are empowering the very people who terrorize the poor, and who respond to violence from another gang with a “You kill one of mine, I’ll kill two of yours” sort of approach, cranking up the murder rate. If “black lives matter,” then by empowering the groups that cause the most deaths, they are actively working against their own supposed goals.


    • I think the release of all of the evidence probably prevents any new case from going forward. There will likely be attempts at going after McCulloch’s law license though in my opinion he did the best he could with what he had and given the threats of violence. I’m not a big fan of McCulloch’s but as I start to go through the Grand Jury documents, it’s becoming clear that the allegations of a biased secret proceeding are baseless. Of course, if the proceedings were as some have described, what would be the point in releasing the entire transcript? Transparency is evidence of objectivity. It might not prove it conclusively, but it’s a big start in that direction.

      FYI, I’m going to be posting summaries of some of the witnesses coming up. I’ve just finished the entire testimony of the first Crime Scene Detective and will be writing a blog entry up on it shortly.


      • I’m looking forward to your summaries.

        As to transparency, I’m not sure it’s evidence of objectivity, but certainly it’s evidence that there was no intent to cover anything up, which all to often is what public officials try to do, and it pretty much circumvents any possible cover up. McCulloch left himself open to scrutiny and subsequent criticism (as we’ve heard recently), but apparently he’s big enough to take it. I think he’s confident he did the right thing.


  2. I know this is beside the original point of your post, but you mentioned Deandre Joshua being killed as a result of his testimony for the grand jury. Have you seen anything that confirms this? It’s something that has been popping up here and there as speculation, but I haven’t seen anything concrete and was wondering if you have. I have seen that he had no clear association with the trial, but it’s possible that the community knew he was a witness anyway and therefore prompted his murder. But I haven’t seen anything confirming either way. Was hoping maybe you came across something with more information. I know it was easy to speculate with him being from Michael Brown’s neighborhood, but with so much false information being thrown around with this whole thing it’s hard to keep facts straight.


    • We know he was a friend of Dorian Johnson’s with no criminal history as far as anyone can find. If he wasn’t a witness who spoke out against the official Canfield story, he was believed to be. At this point, it is admittedly speculation, but it’s also speculation going through law enforcement circles as well. That doesn’t make it true, but it gives it more weight to me.


      • Thanks for the info. I’ve caught up with and have been following your blog since early November, and really appreciate your point of view and your attention to factual information in a society where a misunderstanding can be presented as fact within minutes. Hope the light at the end of the tunnel comes for you guys soon.


  3. I was talking to a relative of mine today, and it occurred to me that the looting and arson we saw in recent days might be perceived as terrorist acts. My relative thought that was an extreme idea. Maybe so. Even so, consider the following:

    There is no internationally accepted (from a crimiNal law point of view) of terrorism, according to Wikipeidia. That said:

    “A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

    Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states. ” (From Wikipeda)

    The only part of this definition that is not clearly visible in the current Ferguson nationwide protests is the “illicit clandestine organization”, although it may simply be that the “illicit clandestine organization” has not been identified or claimed credit for the violence as yet. It could be that legitimate organizations sponsoring the current activities are actually fronts for the violent activities we are witnessing–we don’t know for sure.

    Just food for thought.


  4. I believe this goes far beyond and above any individual, i.e., Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Darren Wilson, Eric Garner et al… The people positioned as the poster children are but the tinder being set aflame by a much larger objective. We must look beyond the “in your face” situations. Those situations are nothing more than that – events on a continuum line that I believe lead to one objective, an overthrow of our constitutional form of law and governance.

    We have begun hearing rumblings from DC on the Federal oversight of local police operations and methodology. Appointments of special Federal prosecutors, CRS advisers and countless interjections by the DOJ and White House on the flagrant racism that is apparently overtaking the country. All these things point to an end result of the destruction of State’s Rights and the takeover of State and Municipal control by the Federal machine.

    It was never about the individual cases which is why we who understand and chose to live under the rule of law cannot dissuade the opposing camp of their determined belief in a lie. They’re viewing a much larger goal and objective that has nothing to do with Mike Brown or Black Lives Mattering. To achieve their change in the way our country operates, they must shift the paradigm and make life a living hell for those not on program with the agenda. Civil rights for looters, thugs and murderers but none for the common man who just wants to get to work or enjoy a ball game or attend a Christmas Tree Lighting. They are the “Hope and Change” Obama promised. He never explained exactly what that meant. I believe we are seeing its fruition now.

    I appreciate what you are doing by going over the evidence bit by bit, but we are feeding into their objective by wallowing in the mud with them and missing the fact we all are being herded off to the slaughter house. We are missing the main point to all this agitation.

    Look at who is behind the national protests. Notice any familiar names and organizations? They are all hard left, communist to the core radicals. Remember the ones in the 60’s and 70’s with the Weathermen, SDS and the like? I remember those turbulent times during the Vietnam War and the bloody and violent protests we encountered. How our military was pilloried for their involvement in Viet Nam. Same agenda, different scapegoat, same players, not enough support from the leadership of the country.

    This is just a re-hash of the same story, different soldiers and different protestors but same backing and meme. Only today, they have the backing of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our Government. Does that put the fear of God into you? It does to me. They want a takeover of the country by militants – a democracy (mobocracy). This is what we need to focus our attention on, this is the substance of the fire.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s