Posts Tagged ‘race relations’

Kidnapping And Torture Of Disabled White Man Raises Diversity Questions

Wednesday, January 11th, 2017

On January 4, 2016, America was subjected to the sight of four African-American youths abducting, torturing and most importantly humiliating a disabled white youth:

A day after Chicago police said they were questioning four people about a “sickening” video showing the torture of a mentally disabled teen, a second video has surfaced showing the suspects forcing the young man to drink out of a toilet.

Police have said the 18-year-old victimized in the videos is a northwest suburban resident with special needs who had been reported missing.

…Several people can be seen laughing and eating during the attack, in addition to making disparaging remarks about President-elect Donald Trump and using racially charged language. At one point, while the victim is backed into a corner, someone is heard shouting “F*** Donald Trump. F*** white people.”

The fascinating with Donald Trump was also seen in another attack in Chicago two months before in which a white motorist was hit by a black driver, and when he asked for insurance information, was attacked by people shouting anti-Trump and anti-white slogans.

Our media has carefully obscured this point: for minorities, the Donald Trump election is a clear victory for white people. White people, who are still mostly acting under the assumption that we can make diversity work somehow, have not yet figured this out, and so to them it seems more of a political disagreement than a racial one.

The kidnapping in Chicago put an end to all of this. It became clear that “Trump” and “white” were synonymous in the minds of the attackers, who clearly resented this re-assertion of white identity and self-interest, mainly because they perceived that it meant an end to America viewing itself as a custodial arrangement for minorities to be financed by whites. Ethnic self-interest is a zero-sum game.

What made this case interesting was that at first, the police refused to consider it a hate crime. Some in the Lügenpresse then tried to spin it as a hate crime, but against the mentally disabled, not white people. This was made difficult by the words of the perpetrators, as reported by a traditionally Left-leaning segment of the media:

His captors yelled “F*** Donald Trump, nigga! F**** white people, boy!”

This meant that it was hard to obscure the fact that this was a crime of racial resentment, motivated by a desire to act against whites/Trump. As the earlier Chicago attack showed, to African-Americans, the two are often equated. This means that screaming “F*** Trump” at a white person is roughly the same as howling “F*** MLK!” at a black person.

Outrage in response came from more corners than expected, in greater strength, and instead of hiding this on the back pages of media like the Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, TN that happened a decade prior, this time the police and attorneys were motivated to consider this case a hate crime, mainly because legally it fit the profile:

Goff said that the casting of racism as an evil worthy of condemnation made all the ways white people expressed their bigotry taboo. Those taboos are, in part, what people are referring to when they rail against political correctness. And while those new constraints certainly didn’t end racism, they suppressed behaviors that created space for people of color to live more fully in America.

…In calling the kidnapping and assault racism, we’re staking claim to moral language — and uniquely powerful moral language — to which white people can’t easily lay claim, even in cases like the one in Chicago, which seems to qualify for the most vehement reproach available.

… One way to argue that the evil of racism is not uniquely wedded to whiteness is to argue that it is a moral failing that lives equally in blackness.

In other words, hate crimes laws were intended to protect blacks from whites, so using them in the other direction upsets the social assumptions under which they were created. And yet, if racism against one group is wrong, racism against another is also wrong, no matter who the perpetrators were. In other words, whites no longer perceive themselves as the group in power responsible for all racial wrongs; diversity means that any group can be racist.

The shocking lying media should have seen this one coming because the warning signs were evident a year earlier when it was revealed that most whites thought that unjust treatment of blacks was mostly resolved, but racism against whites was rising:

A new poll shows a large number of Americans believe discrimination against whites has become as much of a problem as against blacks and other minorities.

According to the poll released Wednesday by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 43 percent of Americans think discrimination is just as big a problem for White people.

“Half (50%) of white Americans agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree,” reads the report.

In addition, white people thought that the many laws and billions of dollars designed to ensure equitable treatment for blacks were working, and as a result, few of them believed that blacks faced unfair treatment in the workplace and law:

64% of black adults say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the workplace, compared with 22% of whites who say the same – a 42-percentage-point gap. Blacks are also considerably more likely than whites – by margins of at least 20 points – to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police, in the courts, when applying for a loan or mortgage, in stores and restaurants and when voting in elections.

In the white mind, racism was over: it was no longer acceptable to publicly express or act out racist ideas by white people, as enforced by white people. If any gaps in outcome remained, that was the fault of something else, which meant that the success of non-whites was no longer contingent upon what white people did. “We fixed our problems, and the rest is up to you,” white America was saying.

This meant that when the tables turned, and we had a highly visible case of non-white racial sadism, white people were ready to call it a hate crime — even if the media, who leans heavily Left, was not. But in this case, public opinion beat back the controlled and lying press, and race relations were redefined as different ethnic groups in competition, rather than evil whites hurting angelic others.

White America Can Heal Itself… By Removing Diversity

Sunday, September 25th, 2016


T.D. Williams writes that white America denies what black Americans face on a daily basis.

His basic ideas are strong, but he — like most white commentators — struggles at the crucial point. The question is not whites and blacks, but diversity versus Nationalism, or the idea that the nation is defined by its founding ethnic group. When read in this context, his words take on greater weight.

Two weeks before the ’65 Watts riots, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, upon signing the Voting Rights Act, said, “Today, the Negro story and the American story fuse and blend.” The Life editorial astutely acknowledged that “the promise of American democracy has always aroused expectations that take more than laws to fulfill.” Amen. In human matters, changes of policy must been accompanied by changes in attitudes and within individual hearts. Equality for minority groups necessitates understanding and depth of empathy rather than empty posturing. Empathy for blacks has never been a strong point among Americans.

In 1965, as the Watts riot calmed, Los Angeles Police Chief William Parker compared blacks to “monkeys in the zoo.” He doubled down on the condescension and contempt that spurred the riots: “We’re on the top, and they are on the bottom.” In 2016, Rep. Robert Pittenger echoed that tone-deaf condescension and contempt in claiming blacks in Charlotte “hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not.”

Let us zoom out a bit. As Ann Coulter asks, has diversity of any form ever worked for anyone?

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

What torments African-Americans is this: they cannot have pride in their society. This occurs for two reasons: history and diversity.

No matter how much America and Europe change into multi-ethnic societies, Africans in these nations will be aware of history, which is that they were brought here as slaves or post-colonial subjects. This society was not designed for them, or by them; no matter how much they advance, in it they are a conquered people.

Diversity provides the other half of the denial of pride. When a society is diverse, behavior becomes an unknown and trust evaporates. In a society of people of the same heritage, everyone has roughly the same goals, inclinations and capabilities. In a diverse society, no standard like that exists, so each person is an unknown, working for personal goal.

This denies the ability to have society-wide standards and identity. These are necessary for pride: a belief that the society one is in has been created for people like oneself, and that it has cultural and moral standards which benefit people of that type. Instead, people are merely occupants, hanging out for the money and political stability.

The candidate is a charlatan, a grifter, a sexist and a racist. He enjoys the support of a significant portion of Americans because these people live in an ahistorical vacuum and view American history only through distorted lenses that reflect their own delusions back to them. They live in a world where blacks created racism (racism against whites and racism against themselves), where blacks have had the same educational opportunities as whites as well as unfair advantages, where whites are blameless victims, bewildered by the inferior, dark animals among them. They live in a world that is a direct inversion of reality.

In actuality, diversity is the inversion of reality. In a realistic view, each group works toward its own self-interest, but this is obviously stifled by a diverse society. A Machiavellian realist would expect white Americans to work toward what is in their own best interests, and to trust other groups would do the same.

Western Europeans act in self-interest toward the type of society that benefits them: a nerdy, reverent, and highly organized social system. Whether or not others want the same, the version of that which fits their ethnic group is different, and so constant clash exists with the white order.

Conflict arises from the nature of diversity itself, which we can verify as true because other ethnic groups have clashes as well, not only African-Americans and European-Americans. Each group wants its own order and control of itself so that it can have pride and a sense of well-being. Diversity denies this.

The recent clashes in America have more to do with the introduction of Hispanics and (other) Asians than a white-black conflict. Without compatibility between its citizens, a nation becomes a conflict between special interest groups, and blacks are getting squeezed out. Instead of blaming an ethnic group, it is time to blame diversity itself.

Race Relations: The Great White Shakedown

Friday, August 5th, 2016


The problem with civilization is that as it succeeds, it dies. This happens because those who understand why things must be done find out a way to get them done, and then a whole lot of other people tag along who do not understand why and do not care. As a civilization grows, it increases its number of less-than-useful (LTUs) people.

These then need to find a way to justify their existences. They cannot, like aristocrats, point to having been descended of those who created the civilization and still possess the wisdom of those founders, nor can they like warriors, bakers, farmers, or butchers point to themselves having a trade. They are merely extras on the set of a film whose plot they do not understand.

As a result, they universally use guilt as a means of controlling those around them. This argument takes the form of “I am human, and you are human; why am I poor/bruised/sad, and you are not?” This plays on the eternal need for fair play as a tenet of civilization to convince people to do more than the minimum at their jobs and in social events. When people do the minimum, societies come apart like the Soviet Union.

The problem with this is that in a diverse society, lower social trust plus constant competition between ethnic groups will put one on top — the one that founded the state, is most successful, seems to have the power or is seen as the aggressor in a confrontation — and the other one will become both cucked and resentful of that group. Its cuck will be living by the rules and symbols of the group, and the resentment takes the form of demanding subsidies from the more successful group, just as LTUs demand it from their neighbors.

Witness this in action through recent “race relations” disturbances — or, the veneer of civility being peeled away to reveal the raw conflict of diversity — arising from African-American replacement by Hispanics/Asians in the USA:

Groups that must not be offended are: racial minorities, women, gays, immigrants, and Muslims. On the other end of the spectrum, groups who do not have the right to be offended are: whites, Christians, men, and conservatives. Almost any amount of abuse against them will go unpunished.

In the case to which the article alludes, the person subjected to a lack of “right to be offended” was an Indian-American, Rohini Sethi. She made the “political mistake” of speaking out against a group that had that right, and was punished for making everyone feel that the uneasy truce between the races was going to break down as a result.

This has been the hostage situation in which America has lived for generations: pay up, or there will be riots, violence, discontent and interruption of business-as-usual, which is what most people seem to want even though it makes them miserable. They are afraid of anything but what they know.

Tom Wolfe describes this in his essay “Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers”:

The bureaucrats at City Hall and in the Office of Economic Opportunity talked “ghetto” all the time, but they didn’t known any more about what was going on in the Western Addition, Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, the Mission, Chinatown, or south of Market Street than they did about Zanzibar. They didn’t know where to look. They didn’t even know who to ask. So what could they do? Well … they used the Ethnic Catering Service … right … They sat back and waited for you to come rolling in with your certified angry militants, your guaranteed frustrated ghetto youth, looking like a bunch of wild men. Then you had your test confrontation. If you were outrageous enough, if you could shake up the bureaucrats so bad that their eyes froze into iceballs and their mouths twisted up into smiles of sheer physical panic, into shit-eating grins, so to speak–then they knew you were the real goods. They knew you were the right studs to give the poverty grants and community organizing jobs to. Otherwise they wouldn’t know.

There was one genius in the art of confrontation who had mau-mauing down to what you could term a laboratory science. He had it figured out so he didn’t even have to bring his boys downtown in person. He would just show up with a crocus sack full of revolvers, ice picks, fish knives, switchblades, hatchets, blackjacks, gravity knives, straight razors, hand grenades, blow guns, bazookas, Molotov cocktails, tank rippers, unbelievable stuff, and he’d dump it all out on somebody’s shiny walnut conference table. He’d say “These are some of the things I took off my boys last night … I don’t know, man … Thirty minutes ago I talked a Panther out of busting up a cop …” And they would lay money on this man’s ghetto youth patrol like it was now or never … The Ethnic Catering Service, the bureaucrats felt like it was all real. They’d say to themselves, “We’ve given jobs to a hundred of the toughest hard-core youth in Hunters Point. The problem is on the way to being solved.” They never inquired if the bloods they were giving the jobs were the same ones who were causing the trouble. They’d say to themselves, “We don’t have to find them. They find us” … Once the Ethnic Catering Service was on the case, they felt like they were reaching all those hard-to-reach hard-to-hold hardcore hardrock blackrage badass furious funky ghetto youth.

When you base your society upon the principle of equal inclusion, or “egalitarianism,” it opens up the door to this kind of attack. Like the LTUs, anyone who is not making enough money or having enough social success has what is perceived as a legitimate gripe, which means both that the politicians appear foolish and that when that person riots, it will be perceived as payback for an injustice.

Of course, the mau-mauing does not benefit its presumed objects. As with unions, the money goes to elites, not the rank and file. The lawyers get paid, the politicians get elected (and thus paid) and the community organizers get money and power, but what trickles down to the supposed beneficiaries is never enough. And how can it be enough? The wound is emotional, not economic, and it is based in their lack of autonomy as a nation.

Subsidy programs take many forms, and the more they are demanded, the more they are needed as unrealistic solutions fail to address underlying problems:

The disclosure emerged after new data showed the proportion of applicants achieving their best three predicted grades has been declining in recent years.

It also followed pressure from ministers to hold teachers to account to get their pupils to the best universities.

The study showed that applicants from Asian, Black, mixed or other ethnic backgrounds had a greater chance of missing their predicted grades by two or more grades.

There is no way off this hamster wheel but to grant them that autonomy in a nation of their own in their historical homelands. The majority will keep succeeding, and minorities will resent it, but the cause of their resentment is not the visual appearance of inequality that they will point to. It is the lack of ethnic self-determination and self-rule, and no amount of benefits or subsidies can restore that.

Here Are Your Surrender Terms, Whitey

Monday, August 1st, 2016


So Black Lives Matter has put out an agenda as of this morning. More accurately, a list of demands entitled “A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom and Justice.” Meeting these demands will presumably rid the thuroughfares of psuedo-sapient morons yelling “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ’em up.” Temporarily. Until DeRay McKesson and his fellow atavistic thugs come up broke-dick, bored and have itchy @$$holes once again.

There are six main planks on the list surrender terms. While the actual document still remains behind a password-protected WordPress Blog, we have some details courtesy of Errin Haines Whack of The Associated Press.

To address criminal justice reform, for example, movement organizers are calling for an end to the type of militarized police presence seen at protests in cities like Ferguson, and the retroactive decriminalization and immediate release of all people convicted of drug offenses, sex work related offense and youth offenses. The group also is calling for the passage of a bill that would create a commission to study reparations for descendants of slaves.

The six points are probably activist poli-sci boiler plate. If I were one of the real racists that Robert Tracinski wrote about in The Federalist, I’d totally invent a caricature of a Black Power Movement that defined African-American dignity via legalized hookers-n-blow. Next, I’d have them go straight for Honkey-Man’s wallet and demand slavery reparations. For now they want a commission to study reparations. This is only because they can’t think of a way to demand money from others without getting told to go indulge in auto-erotic asphyxiation.

This list of gimme-dats leaves us with a fundamental question. Outside of opportunities to wave their egos around in public and get paid money to vandalize and bedevil people they pretty much hate anyway, what does Black Lives Matter really want? Not the Mouth of Sauron flunkies and Grima Wormtongue press flacks; but real, honest-to-goodness activist demonstrators. What do these people actually want other than the visceral thrill of beating people and dodging tear-gas canisters? Fred Reed, bless his confused soul, undertakes the Sisyphean task of eliciting truth and reason from funded minions of George Soros via a proposed Socratic dialectic.

(1) Do you want white policemen excluded from black neighborhoods?
(2) Do you want any policemen in your neighborhoods?
(3) Do blacks want to recruit, train, and discipline police forces of blacks only in their neighborhoods?
(4) What laws do you want cops to enforce in your neighborhoods?
(5) What should cops do when a criminal resists arrest?
(6) What does BLM want black cops to do?

At the end of the day, there will be no serious or reasoned dialogue from Black Lives Matter. Movements thrive on action, opacity, violence, obfuscation and terror. As long as terrorism works like hell and gets them everything they need at minimal risk and expense, Black Lives Matter would be stupid if they degraded themselves by negotiating with cucks.

The only thing that will end conflict between lawless urban youth and pissed-off suburbanite cops is sepaeration. Separation would kill the monetary angle of Black Lives Matter. Ending (((Diversity))) ends the conflicts that #BLM successfully makes their market in. The sheep cannot be sheered if they graze outside the range of the sheers. So nothing short of a casualty event that specifically effects Black Lives Matter members will change their essential calculus and thereby make them consider negotiations rather than targeted, anti-police violence. War only sucks when your side starts dying.

Quotable (#2)

Friday, July 15th, 2016

From the what do you mean the usual methods have failed file:

But in doing so, Mr. Trump has also opened the door to assertions of white identity and resentment in a way not seen so broadly in American culture in over half a century, according to those who track patterns of racial tension and antagonism in American life.

…“I think what we really find troubling is the mainstreaming of these really offensive ideas,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks hate groups. “It’s allowed some of the worst ideas into the public conversation in ways we haven’t seen anything like in recent memory.”

They just do not get it. Or rather: they refuse to.

Civilization has its destroyers. These are those who are turned inward and, in selfishness, act for personal gain against the benefits of the tribe. In sane ages, people like Jonathan Greenblatt are exiled to northern Africa or Brazil and never heard from again.

In the meantime, it looks like Trump has just tuned in to the Caucasian view of the failure of diversity:

Following the shooting of two black men by white police officers in Louisiana and Minnesota and the subsequent shooting of five police officers by a black gunman in Dallas, negative views of race relations in the U.S. have risen to a level not seen since the 1992 Los Angeles riots that followed the Rodney King verdict. Now just 26 percent of Americans think race relations in the U.S. are mostly good – an 11 point drop from a year ago – while 69 percent say they are mostly bad.

For the last 70 years, the American political system has been banging the drum — that flatters women, near-whites and non-whites — that we can all get along as a big happy plurality. But as detractors pointed out, plurality means that no one gets what they need and everyone gets a compromise that favors the lowest common denominator.

Voters have no idea what they are doing, but when the results turn out bad, especially as bad as the last seven decades of liberalism have been, they know how to throw a tantrum.

Racial antagonism weakens your case

Thursday, September 10th, 2015


As immigration invasions boom in both Europe and North America, racial antagonism is rising. That is, people see the horde of masses designed to replace them, and immediately attack that group.

Over time they start thinking, and realize that politicians approved this, and then they attack the politicians. This fails because it rallies support to those politicians. If they thought further, they might look at a lower level to ideas.

Most people in the US and Europe think it is a good idea to have a society dedicated to equal civil rights, universal acceptance and tolerance and other goals unrelated to reality. The reason we have immigration is that we have bad politicians because the voters keep electing them.

And why does that happen? First, democracy itself encourages “committee thinking” where people vote for what is socially approved of by public opinion, or at least those who whine loudest about their victimhood. But also, people have certain ideas embedded in their head as the right way to think if you are educated, successful, profound, different, insightful and all sorts of other terms people use on dating site profiles.

Targeting ideas is never as satisfying as attacking something tangible. It is also harder work. When people promote racial antagonism, and/or use racial slurs, they are in fact engaging in a cuck behavior. Instead of attacking the real enemy, they are content to become what their opposition says they are, which is angry dissatisfied people. This conceals the fact that the opposition are actually those perpetually unhappy self-pitying self-styled victims.

Cast out the language of racial anger not because you want to engage in Sapir-Whorf style mind control, but because it is an inferior option to simply saying what you want: a nation of people like yourself. You cuck the minute you accept anything less and your enemies rejoice.

No one is afraid of another person screaming racial epithets. They fit into a Hollywood stereotype and are easy to ignore. Someone arguing pointedly and clearly that diversity is a failure, and that mass democracy always tends toward crazy ideas like diversity, presents an actual threat to our lazy-Simian way of keeping things going “as they always have been done.” We are suffering from inertia and an inability to change course despite heading down the road of failure. That is what needs to change, and accepting anything else is to admit defeat before you even start fighting.

The powers that be do not quiver with fear at emotional outbursts. They laugh; they know you have disabled yourselves. They do get upset when they hear loud voices saying that diversity is dysfunctional and self-destructive, that equality is a fantasy and that democracy is a bad system. That might force actual change and an end to the inertia, which is what the powers that be rely upon for personal profit at your expense (and the high cost to the future of your descendants).

Say what really scares them, because it’s also true, which is why it scares them. Insulting various minority ethnic groups is just nonsense behavior, both cruel and ineffective, and we have to rise above that for practical reasons because our goal is to stop the inertia and effect change, not let off steam like we believe nothing will ever, ever change.

White riot

Monday, August 31st, 2015


Diversity creates racism. It does so by forcing groups into competition when they would rather live among their own and have self-determination, or the ability to rule themselves and choose their own future. Racism creates rancor, and if there is a perceived economic or power imbalance, it creates race warfare.

That is what is happening on the streets of America today. Currently, it is white-vs-black drama, but this will soon expand to include other groups, even those that like Hispanic indios and Asians tend to use more indirect methods. Speaking of indirect methods, check out the response. After years of being silenced by accusations of “racism,” white people are mobilizing in protest.

One night after Deputy Darren Goforth was executed at the Chevron station in Houston, over a thousand people gathered at the site to memorialize the man who was apparently murdered simply because he wore a police uniform, as reported by Breitbart Texas. Thousands more gathered on Sunday night to walk the streets in the suburban neighborhood where he was killed.

As reported by Breitbart Texas, the escalation of anti-white and anti-cop rhetoric has been building since militant black activists began marching in support of #BlackLivesMatter after the suicide of Sandra Bland. At protests at the jail where Bland killed herself, a radical activist called for all white people to be killed, and heavily armed members of the New Black Panther Party chanted “the revolution has started … off the pigs.” A Texas-based internet radio show called for the lynching of whites and the killing of police officers. Last week, two white journalists and a white deputy sheriff have been assassinated by blacks who appear to be carrying out the message of hate.

White people favor indirect methods. They prefer to march, sing bad folk songs on acoustic guitar, wave signs and write letters. They show up for midnight vigils. They produce (endless) blogs and editorials. And let us not forget the first-person novels. This is how someone accustomed to a European-style society registers displeasure. They do not achieve displeasure without first having doubts and fears, and when all of those come together, an emotional wave sweeps the population. (Then they usually choose the wrong option based on other fears and that dreaded hallmark of all failure, moral laziness).

For a population that only a decade ago was afraid to discuss race at all, this is a big shift, even a sea change, if you will. The cat is out of the bag and the dissent is spreading. We all want to believe the Benetton ads and political speeches on our televisions, but experience shows us that “birds of a feather flock together” and that difference breeds disagreement. Having uneasily held their tongues for decades, the Caucasians are on the march. Slowly. Indirectly. But discontented nonetheless.

Heather MacDonald hits the second layer of denial

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015


Dear Heather,

I admire your writing and eagerly read it whenever I can. You are the writer I wish I could be: clear, crisp, succinct and hard-hitting. Your insights are many and I have re-read them over the years to not only great appreciation but greater enjoyment.

I fear, however, that you are off-course on the following statement:

Perhaps if the media had not shrunk from reporting on the flash mob phenomenon and the related “knockout game”—in which teenagers tried to knock out unsuspecting bystanders with a single sucker punch—we might have made a modicum of progress in addressing or at least acknowledging the real cause of black violence: the breakdown of the family. A widely circulated video from yesterday’s mayhem shows a furious mother whacking her hoodie-encased son to prevent him from joining the mob. This tiger mom may well have the capacity to rein in her would-be vandal son. But the odds are against her. Try as they might, single mothers are generally overmatched in raising males. Boys need their fathers. But over 72 percent of black children are born to single-mother households today, three times the black illegitimacy rate when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his prescient analysis of black family breakdown in 1965.

You are wrong in the best way, which is that you get so much right. Everything you say is true, but it is not the whole truth.

I was a witness to the LA riots in the 1990s. The behavior there was the same as in Baltimore: a half-hearted protest that quickly devolved into the dream of every liberal, which is a time when the rules do not apply and everything is free for the taking. Solipsistic people, of which liberals are a subset, do not realize that when the rules go away, they too are likely to be victims and stop enjoying the effects that rules are the causes of. They think it will be anarchy with grocery stores, with themselves at the top; in reality, it will be anarchy among burnt ruins, with liberals serving as tasty Eloi for the munching.

In those riots, the beating of Rodney King — who needed to be beaten to restrain him from continuing his trail of destruction across 50 miles of LA and two black-eyed ex-wives — served as the touchstone for days of rioting culminating mostly in the destruction of the neighborhoods in which predominantly African-Americans lived, much as the Baltimore riots will deprive the poorer residents of shoe stores, drug stores and liquor stores. A touchstone however is not a cause; it is a symbolic event that allows a crowd to organize and finalize its simplistic plan. The actual causes lay much deeper.

Before the IQ and HBD types hit me with a spittoon here let me say that yes, your facts are also true, but like Heather, you have missed the point. I do not deny you but I see your arguments as tangential.

Let me portray for you how it appears to be a minority in society:

You are a captured and defeated people. The wealth here and the laws that protect you are things you could not invent for yourselves. The leaders who do well are not of your people. You are protected by laws that are inherently condescending, and you face a Damoclean choice with police: either they treat you like children and let you get away with murder, which is infuriating, or they force you to obey the rules of the majority, which is humiliating. You face the same choice with personal behavior. You can have your culture and identity but forever be an outsider, a freak to the majority, or you can assimilate and appear to be something exactly as nasty as the term “oreo” implies, someone who gave up who they were to be an Uncle Tom. This applies to every minority in every country and it is why throughout history diversity has been a red flag of the failure of an empire, not its “strength” as our zombie-robot politicians claim.

There is no solution for this situation.

Yes, Heather and HBD types, you can chip away at the edges and talk about the black family and moving people into the middle class. But they will still be a conquered and defeated people, and they will still be seen as collaborators with the regime. In a diverse society, one group must be on top. If a majority decides to cede control, it must do so fully, and then will find itself resenting the other groups. Diversity is a mental trap, a quagmire of policy from which there is no escape. That is: there is no way to make it work, even if we implemented all of your ideas tomorrow with 100% efficiency.

I refer to this as a “second layer” of denial. The first layer of denial is what is publicly acceptable to say. The second layer is what becomes uncovered once one throws away the first layer. For American conservatives, the first layer has been the illusion that we are all the same and the only reason for disproportionate arrests is “racist” policing. We have now done away with that, and admitted a behavioral problem in many communities. But that layer may be denial too, where we are blaming an intermediate for a cause much removed. That cause is diversity itself.

As I have said for decades now, the problem with “race relations” in America is not African-Americans. Even if they do everything right and ascend to the average IQ and behavior of the Japanese or Finns, they will still be outsiders or cuckolds, depending on which of the Damoclean two paths diverging in a yellow wood that they take. There is no way for diversity to work. The only solution is separation, which I believe requires reparations and repatriation to native continents.

I realize that all of what I have said above cannot be said in your columns. You would lose your job. This is one of the reasons — other than the fact that you are the better writer — that I remain an underground blogger and you are in the headlines. I write this merely for your consideration because I know that you, like most who seek truth, will acknowledge it on some level and may be able to use it to see a brighter path for an otherwise moribund policy.

Brett Stevens

Recommended Reading