The Real Reason for the Tantrum in Ferguson

Rest assured that the riots, the violence, the looting, and the destruction of private property that has taken place in Ferguson, Missouri in the wake of Michael Brown’s death has all been for the greater good.  The attention all of this brings will, according to Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson, “make it better for our sons to be better black men.” 

Pardon me for asking the question, but should we be teaching our children to become better white men, brown men, or black men rather than simply becoming better men and better American citizens?  I’ll stop there, lest I offend someone with my lack of focus upon one’s skin color and the need to cling to racial identities.

“St. Louis has never had its true race moment,” according to Ferguson committeewoman Patricia Byrnes.  They’ve never had the moment where they’ve had to “confront this.”

 “This,” of course, is violence and destruction at the hands of angry black mobs fixated upon destroying property and securing for themselves goods that they would not otherwise have purchased in a legal exchange of value.  “This” is lawlessness based upon a perceived injustice that may or may not have occurred against someone with a particular skin hue that a mob holds in favor.  And according to her logic, if “this” were to happen in Watts today, we may presume it would be unjustifiable because Watts’ residents confronted the destructive energies of citizens angry about perceived racial injustice back in the 60’s.  They already got “this” lesson.  Ferguson residents are now getting theirs, that’s all.

It’s meant to be a lesson for Ferguson and America, make no mistake.  Just not the one you might think. 

With the limited information that’s been given, your everyday American cannot positively discern guilt in this case.  However, the most recent evidence does make it nearly impossible for a reasonable person to believe that Darren Wilson fired upon the much larger Michael Brown (who obviously possessed a more threatening demeanor than initial reports suggested) in a cold-blooded desire to kill him because of his race or something. Wilson policed a town that was almost 70% black, so it’s hard to believe that the mere sight of Michael Brown walking on the street represented something that was foreign in his day-to-day activity.  And if he was going to pick a fight with a black citizen due to some underlying racist impulse, he might have chosen a less intimidating victim than one nearly twice his size. 

Thankfully, we have courts that are dedicated to fulfilling the task that we emotional Americans, driven by “the dictates of our passion,” as John Adams said, cannot fulfill in a manner that suits justice.  Hence, we generally leave such decisions to our courts, and not to fiery lynch mobs.

But prudent legal examination is a less savory prospect than that “justice” desired by looters from Ferguson and the surrounding areas taking more practical advantage of the anger about Brown’s death.  Their brand of “justice” is better carried out by looting a private storeowners’ wares, and getting that expensive cell phone equipment they’ve wanted, that expensive liquor, those expensive hair-weaves, etc.

If one were not to know better, one might think that Michael Brown’s death is just a convenient excuse for them to get those things that they desire but could not previously attain.

And that, when you peel back all of the racial overtones, is the lesson you are meant to learn.  That people with less than you are entitled to what they desire, even at the expense of your own labor and property.  That the “have-nots” plundering the wealth of the “haves” is just an expected episode in our quest for social justice.

Don’t believe that?  Follow the breadcrumbs on the obvious path.  If you were to follow that narrative from the streets of Ferguson to the printed media, it would lead nearly to the top where you’d encounter Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s Time piece suggesting that none of this is about race at all.  No, Ferguson is just a microcosm exhibiting the symptoms and results of the 1%’s exploitation of those in poverty.  In essence, Abdul-Jabbar is rehashing the defunct narrative of the Occupy Wall Street movement to whom Barack Obama and the Democrat elite winked their approval, and whose efforts the media was so quick to legitimize as reasonable protest, despite the rape, theft, and destruction that took place at their demonstrations.

Ultimately, for the left, the criminals exploiting Michael Brown’s death serve the same purpose as the morons that occupied Wall Street -- camera fodder to advance the narrative. 

The most basic explanation for what’s happening in Ferguson, though, was given by an anonymous man observing the chaos.  “If it wasn’t for the looting, we wouldn’t get the attention.” 

“Attention.”  That’s what it’s about for the protestors and looters on the streets, aside from the nifty swag and the fun to be had in destroying things and hurting people.  And incidentally, that’s what it’s about for the media, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and the Democrat elite out peddling racial and economic inequality as an institutional condition.

It’s not about any perceived racial injustice.  It’s about the attention that a perceived racial injustice affords them.  It’s the equivalent of a child’s tantrum, and they’re angry that the adults aren’t taking them more seriously.  And like a child, they get madder and madder about that, but only know how to get louder and louder while repeating the same tired gibberish -- in this case, about systemically applied poverty in a racist, greedy America.

The only difference is that they’re far more dangerous than children to the flesh and blood individuals unfortunate enough to be in their paths.

He blogs at: and can be followed on Twitter.

If you experience technical problems, please write to