Zev Porat

Friday, April 25, 2014

Bundy Comments on Slavery Endorsed by Black Descendant of SLAVES! Was he RIGHT?

Unedited Tape of Bundy Emerges, Sheds Light on 'Racist' Remarks

An unedited version of comments by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has emerged, and it sheds some light on the context of his remarks, universally condemned on Thursday as horrifically racist.
The 67-year-old Bundy, battling the U.S. government after federal agents stormed his ranch to confiscate his cattle in a dispute over grazing fees, said far more than what appeared in the New York Times and most other news accounts. While his grammar is pretty bad -- and his use of "negro" and "colored" considered politically incorrect (although they were both once preferred terms chosen by blacks) -- he actually was making a larger point, not simply deriding blacks.
In a YouTube video, he is filmed already in mid-sentence. 
... and so what I've testified to you -- I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don't have their freedoms, they didn't have these things, and they didn't have them.
We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don't want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.
Those comments appear to change the context of the next section, which was quoted in the New York Times. One clear point the rancher made: America has progressed since the 1965 race riots and "we sure don't want to go back." 
Here are the heavily quoted comments from Bundy that followed the above section edited out by most news organizations.
Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids -- and there's always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
And because they were basically on government subsidy -- so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?
You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom -- they got less family life, and their happiness -- you could see it in their faces -- they wasn't happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips -- so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.
But Bundy went on after saying that -- and again, his comments were edited out of most reports.
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people -- and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.
So, Bundy thinks Hispanics are hard-working family people, and laments the current plight of American blacks under the federal welfare system while saying there has been much progress and that "we sure don't want to go back." As always, there's more to the story than what the New York Times says.

1 comment:

  1. Bundy's worse offense is not having someone accustomed to the media deal with them and for any remarks he made to be simple pre-written statements. Somebody asked him a question. What was it? It's important, because whatever he said would surely be edited to make him look racist, just like the videos/audios were in the Zimmerman case. It was entirely predictable. In context, Bundy was asking the same questions many blacks have, such as Bill Cosby, Starr Parker, Herman Cain, Allen West, Lloyd Marcus...the list goes on.

    When the entire interview is looked at, his statements put into context, and we set aside our conditioned response to be offended by any mention of race that doesn't conform to the grievance industry's narrative, Bundy shows more genuine concern about blacks and minorities than the perpetually-offended-grievance-industry leaders who are more interested in controlling their base to keep lining their pockets with money and votes, while silencing any opposition that may expose their agenda. Bundy was asking (by inarticulately wondering) a legitimate rhetorical question (asking people to think about a point--not requiring an answer): "Have we helped free a people by simply moving them from southern plantations to the government plantation? As wrong as early slavery was (and he stated that, in his own way and words), aren't there many areas of the new government dependency-slavery that are as bad or worse than the slavery of old, a situation that we all can agree is repugnant to a moral and free people? So why are we doing this? Aren't all people worthy of the human dignity to work and raise their children in stable family unity as they see fit? Can't we truly free all people from control by other humans, regardless of whether it's individual ownership or whether it's government? "

    Bundy may lack in formal education, and be a poor public speaker, but I don't think he is ignorant. Some of the smartest people I've ever known are people with no degrees hanging on their wall. They are people who are wise about the ways of man and the world. Wisdom is not bestowed by university degrees, but by being attentive to solid principles applied to life's experiences. I don't know Mr. Bundy and have no idea what kind of person he is at heart, other than listening to what he was actually said, instead of what was reported he said, but I can give him the benefit of doubt. Even if I'm wrong, the bottom line is that Bundy has merely been the catalyst to expose two very important issues that must be honestly addressed and rectified: 1) The unconstitutional, breaches of compact (Enabling Acts) made with the states upon statehood that the federal government is committing by continuing to hold lands they were required to 'dispose' of (Art. 4 of the Constitution) to private ownership or to the sovereign control of the new states in 'a timely manner' (Enabling Acts); 2) the vile and repugnant abuse of minorities to further self-serving agendas.

    That's where our focus needs to be. We should all be asking ourselves: Do we truly care about the liberties of all people or do we care about not offending people who are trained to be offended by selfish ideological manipulators who want to control them and us? The answer to that question determines our fate...and theirs, because in the end, there is no 'us' and 'them'.

    Don't let the pro-feudalist-regressives control the narrative. Focus! Land and liberty. Stay on it.