When the news of actor Jussie Smollett (half-Jew, half-Negro) claiming a hate attack broke, my first thought was that this was an attempt to boost his career. When celebrities claim any kind of attack, it is usually a cry out for free media attention.
Smollett got that indeed. If we had to buy all of the airtime, print inches, click-through links, and WordPress screen space that he got, it would range somewhere from fifty to two hundred million dollars. Overnight, everyone knew his name, his story, and probably that he was from the show Empire.
As a result, he now has a signed contract with the show, did a number of high-profile interviews, and in general, has jump-started his career. Even if he spends a few years in jail, which is unlikely since that will eliminate his ability to earn a living with a job that he already has, the tradeoff has been worth it.
A few weeks ago, he was a bit player; now, thanks to the magic power of Leftism, he is a household name and everyone has some opinion on him, which in a field where “there is no bad publicity” means that he wins out. For one fake hate crime, he became a millionaire, or at least shortly will.
Now on the Right many are calling for, essentially, his destruction. Send him to jail! Or at least, make him face the penalties for a hate crime, they say. This seems extreme because in our society, we think only in terms of individuals.
In our individualistic/egalitarian society — the two are one and the same because individualists think in terms of “if someone else has that, where is ‘my’ share?” — crime consists of damages done to an individual. Someone hits you, steals your stuff, defrauds you, or violates your orifices without paying.
We do less well with crimes against intangibles. For example, a factory polluting is not seen as a crime against the citizens there, or the intangible of beauty, or even the amorphous idea of “nature.” We had to create regulatory agencies because regular citizens cannot sue or summon police against pollution.
In the same way, destruction of culture is not a crime because it does not affect one person alone or an identifiable group (like, say, “African-Americans” or “single working women under 30”) who could sue or demand police response. We just say that it is one of those things, you know, progress or decay or something.
Our society also creates no taboo against lies. Those are not crimes against individuals except in the rare case of libel, slander, and defamation; the fact that lies become accepted is just one of those things. You know, over time, everything wears down, so who are we to resist entropy?
Smollett however committed a crime against an intangible, and that is the self-esteem and self-knowledge of those presumed to have committed the crime. He claimed that it was a couple of MAGA-hat wearing rednecks with ropes and bleach. That implicitly insults all white people and calls them criminals.
In that sense, his crime is far from victimless. White people (and subgroups like Trump fans and rednecks, originally a term for the working Scots-Irish of the South) were victimized by what he did, and will suffer politically from further being characterized as violent offenders.
Even more, the idea of preserving one’s own racial and ethnic group took a hit because of Smollett’s lies. If you want to stand up for being white, now, you are seen by the herd and the natural inclination of anyone who follows the news as being more like those MAGA bleach rope attackers.
When seen in that light, Smollett’s crime is grave indeed.
However, I cannot endorse running him up the yardarm or hanging him from a freeway overpass, or even really destroying his life. In his simple world, what he did was victimless; all his Leftist friends already consider all non-neutered white people to be violent bigots who should be bred out of history.
Instead of going after Smollett, I think we should take our rage and apply it to this biased legal system. “Hate crimes” are simply a way to convict nationalists when they clash with those of other groups; they should be abolished. If the original act is a crime, who cares why it was committed, since it is the act and not the ideation that is the crime?
Even more, it is time for us to have the national conversation about race that we have been dreading for centuries. Namely, we need to finally admit that diversity is not working, and that Abraham Lincoln was correct when he figured that blacks needed to be sent back to Africa after slavery.
Further, we need to realize that diversity itself is toxic, because groups will always clash. To the future Jessie Smolletts, the Other group will always be fair game when they need a victim in a fraud, just like lying white housewives used to claim some random black guy stole the items they had accidentally misplaced or destroyed.
No two racial/ethnic groups can coexist. That means no Anglos and Irish, no Jews and Arabs, no Japanese and Dutch, no Germans and Turks, no Koreans and Chinese, and so on. You can have one group per nation. That works; anything else leads to endless conflict and eventually genocide, whether by murder or outbreeding.
For too long, our society has operated on the assumption that diversity works except for those evil white people who keep thwarting it. Now that we see that other groups — Negroes, Jews, Irish, Muslims, Japanese — also take out their rage on each other, we can see diversity for the unworkable paradox that it is.
We should call it “Jessie Smollett’s Law”: a proclamation that diversity, by the very basis of the mathematics of human differences, cannot work, and that hereafter, it is abolished. No civil rights, no affirmative action, no refugee resettlement, none of it.
From this sad event, we can learn quite a bit, and if we act on that, we can fix our problem of diversity. If we fail to learn, we will see an endless future where ethnic groups fear hate crimes and fake hate crimes, all in the name of the endless conflict that diversity engenders.