George Zimmerman’s innocence is nothing to celebrate.
It was never about George Zimmerman. It was never about a half-Peruvian, half-Jewish failed police officer. This was always about white against black, race against race, the same existential conflict that has been raging since we traded perfectly good rum for cheap black labor. It was about whether whites as a group have the right to defend themselves against black crime.
The prosecution’s case focused on Zimmerman’s choice to pursue Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman was a member of his neighborhood watch — his community was plagued by a rash of burglaries, and Zimmerman, in his own words, was frustrated how “these punks always get away.”
Interestingly, Zimmerman himself had a long record of working to help blacks. As a Democrat and a “visible minority,” he was an unlikely target of charges of racism. Despite it all, all the forces of the system mobilized against him, even the President of these United States, who eulogized Trayvon Martin as one of his own “sons.”
What the prosecution was really trying to say was that civic-mindedness is a crime. George Zimmerman took responsibility for the basic security of his community in a way that prior generations of Americans would have taken for granted. Instead, he should have turned away, tolerated petty crime, let it happen and leave it to the proper authorities.
George Zimmerman didn’t. And for this he was hated. For this he was put on trial. Littering Twitter, the Huffington Post, and the other organs of the Zeitgeist were angry cries that if only he had left Trayvon alone, none of this would have happened.
Forget “self-defense.” We’re not there yet — we’re not quite Britain, where self-defense has been all but abolished. This case focused on the question of whether a citizen can confront suspicious youths in their neighborhood. If George Zimmerman had been convicted, it would have been a death blow to the voluntary self-organization that was America’s glory since the days of Alexis de Tocqueville.
The prosecution, having actively (and illegally) concealed the extent of George Zimmerman’s injuries, was remarkably restrained in describing the actual confrontation between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. They simply told us George Zimmerman had a duty to die. He approached a black person and thereby forfeited his right to life. It was his role to allow himself to be executed, lest he be accused of “racial profiling.”
Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda moaned , “Trayvon’s crime was buying Skittles.” He slammed Zimmerman as someone who made “assumptions” that Trayvon Martin was a criminal. “Who started this, who followed who?” he cried.
All of this is nonsense. We know — know with absolute certainty — that Martin was a thug , that Zimmerman’s assumptions about who he was were entirely correct. We know  that he was suspended from school and found in possession of burglary tools and pieces of women’s jewelry. And most importantly, because of the pictures of George Zimmerman’s injuries and the testimony of witnesses, we know that Trayvon Martin attacked him. Whether or not George Zimmerman followed or provoked Martin, you aren’t allowed to simply attack people because they are bothering you.
Unless, of course, you are black.
Let there be no confusion, discussion, or debate — the prosecution, the federal government, and the regime’s media are making the case that to simply inquire what a black person is doing is an action worthy of death.
Yet here we are. George Zimmerman has been acquitted, acquitted by an all-female jury. And this does not help. His lengthy trial, his legal bills, the death sentence via mob that he lives under for the rest of his life is sufficient pour encourager les autres. But the verdict itself confuses the issue. It tells white Americans — which is to say, the only people who really can claim the title “Americans” — that they still have communal rights. It lets us believe that we still have some right to defend our neighbors and neighborhoods.
The proper parallel here is to “restrictive covenants.” The federal government, in all its power, decreed that white communities are not permitted to maintain the demographic balance of their neighborhoods. The results of this policy can be seen in Detroit,  Birmingham, and Chicago. For Zimmerman, the federal government, through its Department of Justice, actively intervened on the side of black racial activists. Although George Zimmerman has been acquitted, his legal battle is not over — if government-approved activists like Al Sharpton have their way, his struggle is just beginning.
Unfortunately, most Americans think it is over. They think the system works. But the punishment was the trial, the ordeal the sentence. Whites who see a crime or a dispute in the street will remember George Zimmerman and walk away. They will go back to watching television, lock the door, and shut the curtains. They’ll turn away and hold to a narrow defense of their own property and person — precisely the position that the American Right wants them to take.
To be a Radical Traditionalist is sometimes to rebel against our first instinct. It was emotionally gratifying to see the acquittal. But we needed him to be convicted to tell white Americans that the System is against them. We needed a media martyr to show Black Run America  is not just a slogan, but a reality. We needed George Zimmerman to be convicted for trying to act like an American. We needed a sacrificial victim to wake up whites from the American Dream.