The fallacy of democracy is assuming that the average person has the aptitude, concern or self-discipline to make leadership decisions. We know that only about 1% of the population at most make good surgeons, SEALs or fine artists; why do we assume that leadership is any different?
People like democracy because in theory it neutralizes government. Trying to get a group of humans to agree to anything more complex than putting water on a burning house is nearly impossible, so democracy creates impotent governments. This seems wise until one realizes that laws and decisions are cumulative through precedent, so that any group that keeps pushing in one direction will turn that impotent government into a raging tyrant.
As it has, in the modern West.
Groups of that nature make themselves powerful through pretexts, or preemptive excuses for action. The earliest of these is inclusion; if anyone wants to exclude anyone else, they must be bad, the thinking goes, because if we include everyone, there will be no one hurting and therefore no cause for conflict. Naturally this is insane because it assumes that conflict and all actors are realistic thinkers, but that is an outpouring of The Enlightenment™ which assumes that all people have “reason” equally, when in fact the degree of realistic thinking they can manage is what creates social hierarchy, with proles at one end and kings at the other.
The latest pretext is racial inclusion, which is a variation on regular inclusion, which was mostly used to try to make proles equal to kings in an early form of class warfare, a pattern that racial inclusion resembles. The argument is that anyone who refuses to accept anyone anywhere anytime (A3) is a bigot, racist, and just like Hitler and/or the monarchs, who are the real target of the Leftist since they know that when their system fails, it will be replaced by the same aristocracy it interrupted before it failed.
However, racial inclusion has failed, but to see this, you must use compassion to understand the mentality of the perpetrators in the kidnapping and torture of a mentally disabled man in what is now considered a hate crime. Before we can do that, we must dispense with the dominant illusion that this was not a hate crime:
Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said Thursday that while the suspects made â€œterrible racist statementsâ€ against white people during the attack, it does not appear to be racially motivated.
Having mental disabilities made him vulnerable to a racist attack. It’s like saying that the motive for the bombing of a black church was that it was empty and unguarded.
And yet, that sleight-of-hand to misattribute motive is the basis of the Leftist spin on this attack:
CNNâ€™s Don Lemon said he doesnâ€™t think the black thugs who kidnapped, beat and cut a disabled white person were evil. He chalked it up to â€˜bad home trainingâ€™.
In the grand tradition of Typical Leftist Behavior (#TLB) Lemon begins with a partial truth. This makes us assume that this is the root of the matter, and rationalize all other data to fit that model. This causes our big brains to filter out all other considerations and to re-interpret all future facts in this context.
Taken in isolation, his statement is correct: these kids — legally adults — clearly grew up without effective parental or social guidance. However, that is only part of the story. In addition, they are motivated by racial hatred and formulated the intent to find, beat and humiliate a white person to make incarnate that emotional resentment.
They differ little from Dylann Roof, who similar was motivated by racial hatred and formulated the intent to harm black people, so he went to a black church and shot nine people. Ironically, he harmed one of the more productive and sane segments of the African-American community, people who could otherwise have been his allies.
If his crime was a hate crime — a political distinction applied to punish white people for acting out racial resentment against minorities — then theirs was, too, even if that goes against the intent of hate crimes law as originally written.
How could the law be so one-sided? The answer is in this: white people are presumed guilty because we assume that white people have all the power, wealth and influence in society. For this reason, they are seen as stewards of minorities and responsible for the success or failure of minorities.
All anti-discrimination law — including affirmative action, civil rights, HUD, disparate impact and the like — is based in this idea: whites are the group in power, so if something goes wrong for minorities, whites are to blame. Whites are presumed guilty in all cases. This is based on the narrative enacted by Leftists from the Civil War through WWII, and echoed endlessly in Hollywood, of cruel white Southerners and angelic black victims.
Naturally, anyone who has been around humans for any decent length of time does not believe in angelic victims of any race or ethnic group. None of us are angels, not even Gandhi (who disliked Africans) or Mother Theresa. In reality, conflicts are never between an evil person and an angel, but between two groups of flawed people each representing their interests, as exacerbated by their degree of personal lack of emotional control.
For example, Dylann Roof exhibited a lack of emotional control. He was mad at the policies of his country that emphasized black interests over white, so he went to a church and shot nine praying black people. In the same way, these four who tortured the mentally disabled white person were acting out an emotional agenda, but it reflected an underlying political or social position.
Now we must approach the situation with compassion.
What does an African-descended person see in America? A state created by white people, for white people, through the use of African labor in addition to mostly white labor. The rules, laws, mores, and values of this society reflect Western European civilization. This puts African-Americans at a disadvantage, but even more, deprives them of pride in themselves as creators of their civilization and those who are directing it.
For an African-American, to be in the West is to forever be a visitor. No matter how many rules we make to defend them against whites, benefits we pay to them, or black presidents we elect, they will never feel at home here. They will forever be a tacked-on group which exists at the whim of society at large.
This gets even worse when America shifts to a mixed-ethnic identity. In this format, what rules over us all is a lowest common denominator designed to include all groups, but as a result, necessarily focused on none. This deprives African-Americans of what they need, which is a society created for them and directed by them toward their own values, standards and philosophies. They will never be “at home” among us, nor will any ethnic group in a diverse society.
And so we see two competing models for our interpretation of the ongoing and intensifying ethnic unrest in America: in the first, we choose the “presumed guilty” attitude toward whites; in the more realistic “clash of civilizations” model, we see that each ethnic group acts in self-interest, and its primary concern is with self-determination, or having the knowledge that it created its civilization and guides its own future. The presumed guilty model, like diversity itself, has failed.