Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘ferguson’

Detroiting And The Meta-Ferguson Effect

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

Detroiting occurs when a city has a majority of non-white voters. It does not matter which race they are, so long as they are non-white. It even occurs when a former majority of Western Europeans loses the demographic majority to a group of other European-descended people, like Irish, Eastern or Southern Europeans.

When a majority loses control of a city like this, a revenge pathology plays out. The new majority does not succeed as much as the old majority did, and so they fall into scapegoating the old majority for their problems, which conveniently justifies taxing the heck out of the remnants of that old majority.

Whether the mayor of that city is of the old majority or new majority matters little. The votes determine who wins, and so winners pander to the new majority, which wants government jobs with good benefits, welfare programs, diversity programs, and most of all, nothing to go to the old majority and its wealthy, ancient neighborhoods.

This pattern afflicted Detroit. After unions devastated Michigan, anyone with the ability to leave headed for the hills, looking for industries which were not ruined by worker greed. To keep the city thriving, government brought in new citizens, but those — whether legitimately or not — triggered white flight.

The city entered its death spiral. In order to keep the new majority happy, it raised taxes on the old majority, causing more of them to leave. This shorted revenues, and so the city raised taxes, eventually becoming a sea of hopeful faces looking for government help while the station wagons kept leaving for less unstable places.

Since that time, the city has endured minority rule. New majority voters — of whatever stripe — will never vote for what old majority people want, and instead, will always vote themselves more helpings of Other People’s Money (OPM), which old majority people will shrug off for a few years and then suddenly flee to the suburbs. Soon you have a third-world ruin of a destitute, bankrupt, and decaying city.

The more people flee, the more the city taxes and offers benefits to buy peace with its citizens, and then the more people flee.

Detroiting happens without a single African-American being present. It even happens in Asian communities, as in Houston, and is common in Hispanic communities. Some say it happened in Orthodox Jewish communities in New York. What this tells us is that detroiting is not the province of any specific racial group, but of racial difference. When a new majority rises, it draws everything it can from the old majority, so that it can get ahead on the wealth of the past, just like rich kids with inheritances.

It turns out that human behavior is fairly predictable after all.

When detroiting hits, most old majority people simply leave. To them, it is a business question: no matter how long their family has lived there, the civilization around them has failed on a local level, so they need to get on to another locality. They abandon the family home for pennies on the dollar, say goodbye to parks and churches, and flee to someplace else.

In the Boomer generation, people would often do this several times in the course of a career because there were many reasons why an old place had to be bailed out of. The big employer in town closed down, the military base moved, the freeway shifted, or a bunch of foreign ethnics moved in. They just shrugged and figured another good place got ruined, and moved on.

What stopped this mentality in 2016 was recognition of what we might call The Meta-Ferguson Effect. If you recall, the Ferguson Effect referred to what happened after a police officer shot a misbehaving felonious minority youth and after several days of riots and the police officer being fired, other police officers simply stopped noticing minority crime. If an arrest could end in a shooting, shatter their careers, make their names known worldwide in a negative light, and starve their families, there was no point risking it; let them eat each other.

The Meta-Ferguson Effect, on the other hand, refers to how people who are not police officers view what happened in Ferguson. When the police backed down, it signaled to the rest of us that any group of non-majority people can detroit any community by showing up, discovering “racism,” and driving out the majority people who want things like police patrols. This caused them to stop and think: if we spent three times as much as we did on our wars on eliminating poverty, set up massive anti-discrimination legal regimes including affirmative action, contorted our media to show minority people as the majority, struggled to make every aspect of our society multicultural (“diverse”), and elected two presidents — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — on the promise that they would end the racial conflict, what would it take to stop the minority-majority conflict? They quickly realized that the answer was that there is no end to the conflict; it is Detroits all the way down.

Barack Obama was the turning point. He was elected in a misguided attempt to seal over the wounds of racial disharmony. Instead of fixing a problem, and letting normal life continue as majority people hoped, the election of Obama emboldened the racial grievances. “We’ve got them on the run now!” might express the attitude of professional race commentators, “identity politics” SJWs/SWPLs, and the ad hoc minority groups that form after a police shooting to protest injustice, or to demand more welfare and more political power. Obama was elected to end the outrage of minorities after an event like Hurricane Katrina, but instead, brought us seemingly endless Fergusons, with the dead minority person and ensuing three days of violent riots, looting, and burning becoming a national trope.

Majority people looked into the future and saw endless dhimmitude, or the state of being a conquered people subject to paying “tribute” to their new overlords. When well-meaning idiots declare every person to be equal so that they can overthrow the social hierarchy of their own civilization, this invites in those who have fewer illusions but may be even more stupid, and they will use that equality to construe themselves as victims and therefore, the majority as an oppressor, gaining access to the wealth and power of the civilization. You would think humans would have noticed this pattern repeats time and again, but the European-descended mercantile and lower castes apparently either were oblivious or did not care.

Very few people can understand that the problem is with diversity itself. It does not matter what the other groups are; they will behave this way because it is in their advantage to do so, and they are already at a disadvantage by being aliens in a civilization. No matter how much they “assimilate,” and only real idiots believe in assimilation which requires people to entirely give up their identity to serve the identity of a different group, they will always know that their people did not create this civilization, that it was not designed for them, and that they exist in it only to perpetuate it for the benefit of those not like them. They can have no pride in being mere tools of an empire which was never intended for them, and which uses them as means to its own ends.

Instead, fools spent their time arguing over which ethnic groups are permissible. “Oh, no, I like this one,” they say, with all of the wit of someone choosing an ironic shirt to wear because it makes them stand out in a group. This is all that altruism is, one monkey showing another that it has a shiny object that they do not possess, and therefore, it is a superior form of monkey. You can tell immediately who the useful people in a group are, and who the useless are, because the useful are focused on tasks or ideas, where the useless are focused on themselves and comparing themselves to others, including the base behavior of trend-following. They just want to be in the spotlight. They compete for attention. And they fear, more than anything else, any event which might make them look incompetent and therefore lose social status, so they demand that all standards be lowered to the absolute minimum.

When any two or more ethnic groups meet, a competition emerges. One group will rule the rest, and whoever is in that group is safe from being ruled by the rest. If one group seems to be permanently in power, the others adapt, but resentment grows. Soon they counter-attack with thousands of tiny acts of sabotage. This causes the majority to retaliate, and then out come the accusations of “oppression” and “racism.” Diversity is a dead end.

In our society, when Western Europeans are on top, you get Western Civilization; when another group is on top, they build their ancestral civilization. Mexicans make tropical chaos, Asians make frenetic hives, Africans make equatorial combat zones. This is nothing more than each group producing culture from its genetics; we each make whatever type of society fits us. These societies fit no one else, but this is to the advantage of each group, as it keeps itself from being assimilated this way. Humans have been capable of mass migration for thousands of years, and so any group that did not firmly and strongly assert its identity was quickly replaced with an ethnic hybrid of itself, which is essentially an act of genocide.

It was obvious that Mike Brown was guilty, but no one from outside the majority cared. The same was true of Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, Trayvon Martin and Hurricane Carter. Just as in prison, your skin is your uniform. You either find your tribe and work toward their dominance or you will be dominated by others, and they will use you as a means to their own ends.

Meme Versus Fact

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016

pelican_lives_matter

Maggie’s Farm Blog gives us a look at the dissonance peddled over the riots in Emerald City.

From somewhere, re oppression in Charlotte:

There’s a Black President
There’s a Black Congressman
There’s a Black Chief of Police
There’s a Black District Attorney
There’s a Black Mayor until 2014 (Jailed)
There’s a Black Officer who pulled a trigger
There’s a Black Man Dead of that gunshot wound

In Tulsa, OK we have a case of a female officer shooting down a black man she thought might have been carrying a firearm. Or as Candidate Trump put it, she choked. Yet clearly, it’s the White, Cisgendered Male Oppression.

So much so that a UN Panel has volunteered to lecture us on American morals and Civil Rights. Yes, the international body that can’t bring itself to condemn the forced clitorectomy of teenaged girls is here to tell us all how Amerikan Cops are just porcine oppressors savagely recreating the murder of Emmett Till in the very streets.

Police killings of black people in the United States are reminiscent of lynchings and the government must do far more to protect them, a United Nations working group says in a report that will be debated at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday.

If we look at the composition of the UN Human Rights Council, I can’t help but laugh at the pompous, hypocritical bloviations that eminate from this body like GHG pollution from agricultural herd animal flatulence. Current members of this august body include Cuba, China, Congo, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Venezuela.

Needless to say, it’s been over 150 years since the US has traded any slaves like UN Human Rights Council Leader Saudi Arabia. We may charge our females with manslaughter when they panic and shoot somebody who may or may not be reaching for a gun, but we’ve never had our Federal Religious Police deliberately barricade the doors on a room full of women and burn them alive for getting too uppity. I haven’t noticed anyone getting necklaced by a US police force lately. Nor has the US ever quite managed a Cultural Revolution for disagreeing with the overarching zeitgeist.

The people supporting and pushing Black Lives Matter and accusing the City of Charlotte of systemic racism are detestable hypocrits who all deserve to have their souls become Beezelbub’s hot dogs. They could be toasted in the hereafter over a bonfire of their own pathetic pretensions. That goes for the wealthy white, cisgendered males who fund this terrorist organization as a leftist stalking horse against sane American communities.

Asking questions of the defense

Saturday, November 7th, 2015

stealth_warplanes_on_patrol

If you’re eccentric like I am you may also be one of the six or so people in Alabama who enjoy a cold pint of beer and a rugby match at your local drinking establishment. For those of you more centered on the DSM axis of reference, bear with me please as I use a common rugby occurrence to spin an analogy to explain what is happening to urban crime in America. The perpetrators, career criminals and ne’er-do-wells are asking questions of the defense. The like the answers they are receiving, so the crime rates are going higher and may well do so exponentially until some of those answers they receive are different.

In rugby, a team asks questions of the defense by getting the ball to a large, fast bloke out in space and forcing their opponents to have to tackle him. If the defense gets the bloke down or figures out how to deny him ball, they pass the test. If instead, Jonah gets to successfully Lomu, the opposition gets to learn just how long an eighty-minute match truly is. The aforementioned Great One, Jonah Lomu gives us a flavor of how one properly asks questions of a defense in the video below.

James Comey directs the FBI in the United States. He partially got the job because of his willingness to oppose previous US President George W. Bush on civil libertarian issues surrounding the Global War on Terror. Current President Barack Obama now learns that Comey considers himself above partisan politics when Democrats are in office as well. Comey is a hard person to satisfy. Under Bush II, he accused the police of raping civil liberties. Now, in the Glorious Reign of Obama, he accuses them of being bedroom no-shows instead.

Maybe something in policing has changed. In today’s YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns? I spoke to officers privately in one big city precinct who described being surrounded by young people with mobile phone cameras held high, taunting them the moment they get out of their cars. They told me, “We feel like we’re under siege and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars.” I’ve been told about a senior police leader who urged his force to remember that their political leadership has no tolerance for a viral video.

More accurately, in the wake of recent political pushback from both the Left and the Establishmentarian Right, police forces have decided they will acquiesce to the will of the loudmouthed. They are no longer policing people who do not want to be policed. The police are a law abiding citizen’s defense against the underworld. That defense is being asked questions. The answers are about the answers Jonah Lomu used to receive once he got that head of steam built up. Thus, we learn just how long and painful things can get when the defense does not give a good account of itself.

Most of America’s 50 largest cities have seen an increase in homicides and shootings this year, and many of them have seen a huge increase. These are cities with little in common except being American cities—places like Chicago, Tampa, Minneapolis, Sacramento, Orlando, Cleveland, and Dallas. In Washington, D.C., we’ve seen an increase in homicides of more than 20% in neighborhoods across the city. Baltimore, a city of 600,000 souls, is averaging more than one homicide a day—a rate higher than that of New York City, which has 13 times the people. Milwaukee’s murder rate has nearly doubled over the past year.

This is occurring because police have been perversely incentivized. They are avoiding controversy instead of stepping hard into the tackle with conviction. Fred Reed described how this process worked in one of his old Cop Columns for the Washington Times.

“Fred — After having read your article on 11/20/00 I have to state that YES!! We on the P.G.P.D for the most part are now looking the other way. After almost [deleted]years on the job I find this disheartening but a necessary fact to survive in today’s, what appears to most officers, an ANTI-POLICE environment. We are even being told by some supervisors to keep a low profile so “you’re not next on the front page”! I became a police officer to help people [deleted] years ago in P.G. County . . . but I now share the attitude of most officers, just let them eat each other, we have to survive.

Yes, society’s line of defense is being asked questions. If the answer continues to be “just let them eat each other”, then you, the law-abiding citizen now need to reevaluate the risk-reward decision implicit with living in a major US city. If these decisions get reevaluated on a major scale by lots of citizens and the major firms they work for, this will have a massively deleterious effect upon both the economy and sociology of Post-modern Amerika. This is what happens when the defense gets asked some questions they don’t have many good answers for.

How to read between the lines

Tuesday, April 14th, 2015

the_leftist_west

There are facts, and then there are interpretations, and then there are complete sets of facts. This idea will disturb you because you are trained to think in binaries, where on/off are the only options. They tell us this is the influence of technology, but more likely it is an older corruption that causes this.

Great power can be had by those who represent truth. If that “truth” is constructed so that it must fit through the interpretive demands of an ideology, it will carefully filter out certain facts and yet still seem true, in that binary state of on or off. This is why our society fears the idea that truth occurs in degrees, a condition called esotericism.

When approaching the industry — generally heavily invested by multinational corporations — that is media, one must then consider what is being published: a product, designed to produce both an audience and a need for other products, which represents the facts in such a way that does not offend either audience or advertisers. We are now far from truth-land and into thinly disguised advertising.

Looking at the media today, it becomes clear that any reading of this propagandistic nonsense requires a careful eye to look for what is not present, or as it was called in the past, “reading between the lines.” Witness this story about the Walter Scott shooting by Michael Slager:

In a police dashboard camera video published by the local Post and Courier newspaper on Monday, Slager can be heard laughing after the shooting and telling a fellow officer his adrenaline was “pumping”.

What else was said? Did someone ask him a question? Or did he just offer this up? “Can be heard” is the equivalent of editing a tape. He may have been weeping for 99% of it, got hysterical in 1%, and then we hear about how he was laughing.

Why do they not clarify this?

Scott’s death reignited a public outcry over police treatment of minorities that flared last year after the killings of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Missouri, New York City, and elsewhere.

Whose outcry? How many? Where? And what were these peoples’ qualifications as important judges of such things? Was this actually widespread, or a few thousand people on Twitter? What defines an “outcry”?

Also not answered.

North Charleston fired Slager last week after he was charged with murder. A cellphone video showed him shooting at Scott’s back eight times as he ran away.

Why don’t we get the blow-by-blow? What else did the video show? Is there an attempt to remove context here? It sounds like the following happened: he pulled a man over, the man ran away, he shot him.

If the situation is more complicated than that, this journalistic story is fraudulent.

The Post and Courier also reported that Pierre Fulton, who was riding in Scott’s car during the stop, said he didn’t know why Scott fled, but defended his friend.

“I’ll never know why he ran, but I know he didn’t deserve to die,” he said in a statement released by his attorney, Mark Peper, to the newspaper.

This is the oldest method of the side-show magician here: deflect focus. The press is concerned about why he fled; they use this to carefully conceal what happened between the stop and him fleeing. What else went on? Why isn’t it mentioned here?

Slager is also accused of using excessive force during an August 2014 traffic stop in North Charleston in a lawsuit filed April 10 by Julius Wilson. Wilson, who is also black, was stopped for driving with a broken taillight, the same offense Scott was pulled over for the day he died.

Wilson says Slager and two other officers pulled him from his vehicle, restrained him face-down on the pavement and Slager fired a stun gun into his back.

The above quotation attempts to imply by comparison. These words come from a lawsuit, which means they are completely unverified, and we do not hear anything about Wilson’s police record. If he is a con man, this paper is worthless, and if he is a criminal, it is likely to be similarly bogus. No mention of an official investigation and why Slager did not face charges. That makes it sound like there is nothing to the case, but that is not mentioned. Why?

Instead, we are moving toward narrative: pulled him from the vehicle, restrained him, then killed him.

That sounds more like a political execution than a traffic stop, and that is what they want you to think.

Reading between the lines, we see that this story makes no sense unless we assume that Officer Slager got up in the morning, pulled on his jackboots and Klan uniform, and drove off looking for a pretext to stop a black man. Seeing a guy with a broken tail-light, he pulled him over, restrained him and shot him in the back eight times as he was running away.

There are so many missing events in this story it does not even add up.

This was a routine traffic stop, but one of the occupants of the car fled? (The other occupant, who “doesn’t know,” cannot say if he does know and the reason involves his friend’s criminal activities.)

Obviously Scott was not restrained, because he was running away. What happened? Even more, why was he out of the car and moving around? What happened in between these events that we do not see in this news story?

When people like me say the news is fraudulent, it is not just because it is corrupted by commercial interests that we say this, but because the news is also corrupted by political interests, which translate into money and power, and then become commercial interests.

Americans are still living in some Golden Age of the past when you could trust the news. You cannot. You cannot trust movies or magazines either, because they are products designed to increase revenue, and that does not occur through a sober, non-emotional, fully factual look at situations. It happens when they fan the flames and leave out key details to rile people up and sell more newspapers.

The cycle begins anew

Monday, November 24th, 2014

usa_race_riots

Another night, another fire. We burn our cities for our own pretense, unwilling to admit that our good intentions lead on a path to hell. But they do. And the fires burn.

We were warned by the ancients who told us that the identity of a nation is of vital importance. With identity, we unite on a common culture, heritage and values. This requires us to have roughly the same heritage, which is taboo to liberals.

The group named “liberals” is composed of individuals with one goal: remove social standards. When you remove social standards — morals, values, culture, customs, ideals — you remove the possibility of being wrong. And so you remove consequences. Liberals want no one to face the consequences of his actions. This is because each individual in the liberal audience wants to be absolved of responsibility for his actions.

To that end, liberals support a number of ideas that destroy social standards: sexual promiscuity, diversity, drug use, socialism. The goal is to destroy society. Then only the individual remains.

In Ferguson, MO tonight we see yet again how diversity fails. It fails because it must put one ethnic group on top, and others below, so that they then destroy the group on top. Soon what is left is a giant mixed-race group like that found in every third-world nation on earth. Diversity is a path to civilization collapse.

In the USA, they have told us for 200 years that the problem is white “racism” — a word with no meaning created to shame those who oppose diversity and for no other reason — and that without this, everything would be fine. But we see that this is a one-way street. Being “not racist” means that you always give up: give up your money, give up the power, give up your future. And as we see under Obama, that leaves a devastated Soviet-style society.

You would think people would learn from history. History shows us many things, but never a diverse nation thriving. Only falling, down into a pit of third-world decay from which it never emerges. One side blames the other, but neither wants to integrate. They each need their own standards, values, heritage and culture.

“Violence is not the answer,” say the talking heads. But nothing ever changes. The design itself is broken. Diversity does not work. It produces alienated people who periodically destroy each other. The elites stay in power and everyone else suffers. And we do it again and again. Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Ferguson. Each time it happens, we clean up and pretend it never occurred. Then we go into denial and prime the fires for lighting again.

What white people misunderstand about Ferguson

Wednesday, November 12th, 2014

sorry_for_racism

They are destroying people’s careers for speech again and it should make all of us ill, even if we think the speech is reprehensible.

A Texas teacher has been suspended for racist tweets. Plot twist: she is African-American and the tweets were potentially anti-Caucasian.

“Who the (expletive) made you dumb (expletive) crackers think I give a squat (expletive) about your opinions. #Ferguson Kill yourselves,” read one of the messages.

Later that evening another tweet appeared, saying, “You exhibit nigga behavior, I’m a call you a nigga. You acting crackerish, I’m a call you a cracker.” Hegwood is African-American.

While some may celebrate the fact that someone other than a white person got fired for perceived racism, we should remember that two wrongs do not make a right. Which brings us to Ferguson, where a great wrong is anticipated to occur when riots are presumed to break out after officer Darren Wilson is not indicted for murder.

Ferguson represents a tough situation that few understand. It would be a travesty to indict Wilson, who did nothing wrong, just as it would be illogical to treat Mike Brown — halfway through his second felony of the day when he got shot — as an innocent. But this misses the point. Ferguson is not the cause, it is the effect.

When a situation gets to the point where Ferguson was the day Mike Brown got shot, the problem runs deeper than whatever incident breaks out. Like Rodney King in Los Angeles, or Emmett Till, Mike Brown is a symbol. Ferguson is not about who Mike Brown was or was not. It is not even about injustice. It is about a question of identity.

The event is just a way to talk about it that everyone can understand. (This is what I call the “democratic fallacy.” The issues that define an election are not the most important ones, but the most easily understood ones.)

Ferguson hides an issue as old as America and as complex and troublesome as one might imagine. This is the question of whether we can forge a nation out of anything other than shared heritage, culture and values. We know that works because it has been the default order throughout history.

America formed itself around a different idea, the “proposition nation” where what held us together was the political order we held in common. At first, this was limited to white people. Then it expanded to include near-whites and then other races. Soon all that we had in common was a political orientation and the talk about “freedom” that seems a political necessity in the USA.

The fracas in Ferguson is not about the event, but the condition. It is not a physical condition, although there is a physical component. The condition is that the proposition nation does not work. Diversity, a necessary component of the proposition nation, results in each ethnic group having no identity, leader, standards and purpose of its own.

In a social order, your group is either the norm or the exception to the norm. If your group is the exception, you are either in power and in command of your destiny, or not. As a minority group, you can either play along with the majority and loathe yourself for being essentially a conquered tribe, or you can resist and have a sense of identity and pride, but lose at the game of success.

African-Americans receive endless pity from white people. They give them welfare, put them at the forefront of media, and write laws to give them preference in hiring, renting, government contracts and renting. And yet they cannot give African-Americans what they need, which is a sense of command of their own future, their own standards and their own communities.

Even the first (half) African president ends up failing on these fronts. He is in charge of the system, sure, but it is the white man’s system. He can give more gifts and hire more African-Americans, but they are forced to make rules for a society of multiple groups. This means that there is never an identity and rule for African-Americans alone.

Every group needs command of its own destiny, leadership of its own and an identity specific to it. It needs its own communities, rules and role models. This cannot happen in a mixed-ethnic society. The perceived injustices in Ferguson are a flash point, but not the underlying issue. The underlying issue is that diversity itself marginalizes African-Americans, and that this is injustice.

Walk a mile in Mike Brown’s shoes

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014

michael_brown-ferguson

At the risk of alluding to a book selected by Baby Boomers as the perfect indoctrination in race guilt for their offspring, let me suggest that those of us pondering the situation in Ferguson, MO take a walk in the shoes of the man who lay dead on the street.

We were raised by those same Baby Boomers in a complex chain of political causes. We needed to have race guilt, so that we would have class guilt, so that we would support wealth transfer, so that equality could occur, and all of the above existed so that equality could guarantee neurotics the freedom from oversight. Equality leads to the idea of the vote, or that any decision you choose to make is right, which naturally extends to life itself, at which point your only foe are those who notice the consequences of those bad decisions. Equality is war against noticing consequences; race is one of its many weapons. And liberals see Mike Brown’s death as a “teachable moment” to further the propaganda.

But let us put aside all of that, because it is only us projecting our preconceptions onto the event, and look at the day from Mike Brown’s perspective.

He probably awoke that morning in a confused state of mind. Confused, because African-Americans inherit a complex cultural baggage. First, they know they were slaves; second, they know what while they are given subsidies and relativistic forgiveness of many things, most of the people in power have always been and remain white. For them, there is no real sense of nation in the United States, although they may have allegiance to a neighborhood or even their co-ethnics. This already sets the day off on a queasy, nervous and doubtful outlook.

But never mind. It’s not clear what else Mike Brown did that day, but at some point, he ended up high on (hopefully quality) marijuana and in need of some blunts to roll it up with. Now we look at the American double standard on marijuana: we hate it and want it out of our communities but cheer it on as a harmless rebellious act and applaud any black entertainer who smokes a lot of it. Why can’t we all be Snoop Dogg, Mike might have wondered. Either way, he is know stoned and paranoid in a public place, people are saying things he cannot understand, and he panics and does something stupid. We may not have all been exactly there, but I think most of us are familiar with being confused and having panic and then doing something we regret.

Keep in mind also that no two people have the same view of the world. We are influenced by who we are and what we are made of. Mike Brown was bigger than most of us, so his world was a physical one. He probably had an IQ somewhere between 90 and 105, so his world does not involve complex abstract logical relationships, more like tangible impacts. He also grew up in a neighborhood where strife, infidelity, drug use, crime and violence were natural to him like riding a Big Wheels down the street is for white kids. His view of what is and is not acceptable was changed as a result. Couple that with the fact that, owing to the weird dual status of African-Americans under diversity as both celebrated and reviled, plus the different ethnic identity of the police, he probably did not view rules and laws as fair but more as a chance for the predators to grab him, and probably attributed that to “racism” on their part.

Now cue the voices in his head. Media constantly tells him cops are racist, entertainment figures tell him the same, and he probably heard the same from his community. Surely there were nice old ladies who told him to keep his head down and make something of himself in the world, but anyone who has been a teenager knows how those voices pale in comparison to those of peers who offer something fun to do, like getting high and raising hell. We all had some variation of this. Mine was tamer than Mike Brown’s, but then again, I grew up among 120+ IQ people in a white suburb, so… not even the same world, really. I also had the benefit of perceiving myself as part of the group that built this nation and continued to rule it, and on whose values it was based. Well, until recently, but that is another story for another time.

So Mike Brown comes staggering out of the convenience store in a state of utter confusion. He got high, got confused, panicked and did something dumb, and now he is totally unsure of himself. Worse, he is now in the badlands territory of the enemy. He knows he is high and thus vulnerable because stoned people are sort of like large children. He is paranoid from the effects of the drug. He is also afraid because of years of racial divide, racial myth and racial enmity, and he believes that white cops are out to get the black kids. What else explains the ghetto? He doesn’t know and no one he knows knows either, so it’s assumed to be the pigs and the racists in government. Now we have a paranoid young man who is barely in control of his large body, and he is in a stage of utter mental disorder. Then the worst possible thing happens: he is hailed by authority, but even worse, one of them. The white cops who want to jail him for their racist plans are trying to talk to him, trying to get him on something. He panics again and we all know how it shakes out.

Over time I have come to the regretful conclusion that most human activity consists of denial so that we can hold on to whatever social positions we have as individuals. People do not like to look at the core issue but instead take sides that represent their interests. In the case of Mike Brown, two sides pop up immediately: those who want to pity him and use him to argue for more equality and less authority, and those who see him as a threat and want to use him to argue for less criminal activity. Both have truth to their statements, but they miss the real issue here.

The real issue here is that diversity does not work for anyone. By work, I mean function as a system of social order. Diversity makes us distrust each other. It strips away our identity, so we are always paranoid. We will never trust the cop of a different race because we perceive that he has an agenda against us. We will never feel good about living in a country where our people are not the dominant authority. This is not just hard-wired into our gut instinct, but it is also pure logic. People divide on differences, and wishing that away by saying “we are all one” has never worked. We need communities of our own. Diversity puts us into conflict and creates situations like the one that got Mike Brown killed. There may be no fully good guys, and no fully bad guys in this one, just another broken human system that betrays us for the convenience of those who want not to rock the boat.

Ferguson burns for our pretense

Saturday, August 16th, 2014

michael_brown

Something burned in Ferguson. It was bigger than the riots, the arson and the violence. It was an American myth that we can keep brushing the chronic problems of diversity under the rug and bribe rioters to go home by being nice to them. It was the myth that diversity works at all.

The Ferguson riots of 2014 began when a police officer, allegedly believing himself to be under attack, shot a young black man named Michael Brown. Protests, then riots and looting, broke out. Town responded with militarized police. Commentators blamed the militarized police. The police stood down. Looting and rioting commence. Then evidence emerged which appears to exonerate the police in the shooting of Michael Brown. Commentary dissipated; confusion reigns.

Naturally we are all looking for a “bad guy” because in our fairy tales, justice occurs when the bad guy is stopped. However — if you dig down into things — you usually find that at the root of what went wrong is an idea. Illusions, fantasies, projections, justifications, excuses and thought-taboos hold sway over most of humanity most of the time. When those become official policy, riots are sure to follow, and equally certain to be “explained away” by clever commentators wishing to avoid the obvious.

Conservatives, always looking for a “popular” topic on which they can agree with the left in the forlorn hope that the popularity of the left will rub off on them, seized on “police militarization”. In their view, the Ferguson riots exemplified the problem of the police state and its intrusive practices.

This notion falls apart under analysis. The riots began before the police in riot gear showed up, and intensified when police de-militarized, so much that police re-militarized on the fourth night of the riots. Further, these conservatives are forgetting the reason that police militarized in response to riots in the first place: the vast arson, looting and violence that accompanied the LA riots of 1992.

A mob knows only one stop sign and that is superior force. If not checked by superior force, a mob views its opposition as weak and will take liberties to engage in normal criminal behavior. This is not to say the mob “are” criminals; criminality is a behavior formed by weak moral will, opportunism and a belief that one can get away with the crime. When angry people gather, they strike out at the system by breaking its rules to their own advantage.

When they saw that leftist rags like Mother Jones and New York Times were also beating on the “militarized police” dead horse, conservatives should have stopped to think about what they were doing. Instead, they saw the white whale of popularity rise before their boat, and gave chase. The easy answer about police militarization was not “conservative,” it was simply convenient. It allowed them to avoid pointing the finger at the real problem.

Underground conservatives talked about black crime as usual. For them, blaming groups like Jews and African-Americans provides an easy way around confronting the failure of our society as a whole. Styling black people as the enemy allows us to avoid the question of diversity itself. Compassion demands this inspection, as does common sense and fairness.

We know that diversity increases distrust, even among members of the same ethnic group. But imagine yourself as a possibly not-blameless person facing an interaction with the police. What type of police officer would you want to confront? Probably someone like yourself, who understands you and your culture and your values. Under diversity, no one gets this, and distrust is a natural response.

Was Michael Brown an angel? No, clearly not. His reaction to officer Darren Wilson suggested panic and intoxication. Growing up in a culture saturated with violence, victimhood mentality and a distrust of officers of another race, he thought he was going to go down in a big way. As a result, he took a risk and tried to fight his way out. In this case, it worked poorly for him. But how much of his reaction was based to the us-versus-them mentality that diversity creates in us?

This problem only gets worse as diversity goes on. What happens when the arresting officer is Hispanic, Asian or even a strict Muslim? What about white people who have to deal with often-hostile police officers of another race, as is the case in most of the American South? Blaming African-Americans for this dilemma misses the bigger picture which is that under diversity all of us will be Michael Browns: distrustful, paranoid, and prone toward an adversarial viewpoint against other groups who we view as opposed to our interests and without incentive to treat us fairly.

African-American communities watch their sons and daughters shot down every day. While most Americans are at least anecdotally familiar with the high probability of African-American violent crime, they are less familiar with the fact that most victims of violent crime are also African-American. Diversity spreads distrust, even among the same race. Could it be that African-Americans are simply the first “risk group” for diversity?

This essay does not aim to remove culpability from Brown, the police, the media or ethnic groups with perpetual crime spikes. Instead it points to the underlying idea that perpetuates this situation: diversity. Diversity makes us view each other as enemies. One group can be on top, or be the arresting officer, and if it is not our group, we become paranoid and alienated and likely to act irrationally.

Diversity does not work; it has not anywhere throughout history, no matter what races are involved. Dying civilizations tend to adopt diversity as a way of using their economies to bring in new citizens to keep the franchise going, but it always implicates itself in their downfall. Our pretense is that our system did nothing wrong, so we look for a bad guy, but here the bad guy is the system itself. Ferguson just showed us another instance of diversity on fire; will we listen?

Recommended Reading