stand up to the Black Lives Matter crowd, even if it was only for a moment. And it wasn’t who you would expect.
On April 7th, while campaigning for his wife in Philadelphia before a largely black audience, former president Bill Clinton met with heckling from crowd members. Their beef? They believe that his 1994 crime bill harmed black communities by incarcerating too many black men for unnecessarily long periods and exacerbating tensions between blacks and police. The crowd actually got quite animated with one person accusing Mr. Clinton of crimes against humanity.
There is so much stupid in all of this, one does not know where to begin.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant to the matter at hand. This was a Hillary Clinton rally, not a referendum on Mr. Clinton’s legacy as chief executive. Mrs. Clinton had nothing to do with the crime bill, so griping to its signatory 22 years after the fact amounts to little more than childish whining.
It was why the blacks complained about the bill, however, that is most telling. The bill, according to the New York Times:
created tougher penalties for nonviolent drug offenders, erected dozens of new prisons, banned certain types of assault weapons, and sent 100,000 more police officers to American cities.
I know, I know. This is all supposed to be a bad thing in the eyes of the BLM crowd. And for someone who wishes desperately to deflect all blame for black misery away from blacks, this is a bad thing. They do this simply by ignoring all the good the bill did. According to the 2016 Color of Crime report, violent crime was at an all-time high in 1994. After that, however, it more or less steadily decreased for the next 20 years. Further, according to the New York Times, the median income for black families increased by 33 percent during the Clinton administration.
We cannot prove that the 1994 crime bill had anything to do with this. But given that the bill occurred before these changes took place, and that the bill’s intent was to (a) reduce crime, which would then (b) allow law-abiding blacks to more easily pursue their livelihoods, which would then (c) raise the median income of black families, the onus is on the BLM crowd to prove that the bill didn’t help cause the felicitous turn of events in the late 1990s.
But they are not interested in doing that. They are more interested in the fact that the 1994 crime bill had a disproportionate impact on blacks, regardless of whether that impact was good or bad. Such disproportionality offends their “presumption of equality” (known as POE), and they would rather suffer horrendous levels of crime and poverty than admit that POE has no basis in truth. As such, they are driven more by ego than common sense which often leads them to agitate against their own interests, regardless if they realize it or care. Demanding less policing and shorter prison terms is a great example of this, since if they got their way, they would be less safe and prosperous.
This same impulse also leads blacks to protest things that are completely irrelevant to the welfare of their communities. The recent #OscarsSoWhite phenomenon is a good example of this. My favorite, however, was from a few years ago when the NAACP complained about a particular greeting card produced by Hallmark. The card had a recorded audio message in which a male voice repeatedly used the astronomical term “black holes.” The NAACP, in their state of befuddled paranoia, misheard this as “black ho’s” and therefore shrieked “racism” until Hallmark pulled the card. This is a true story.
This is why many non-blacks consider black people to be so dumb. Blacks are so busy blaming The Man every time they fall on their faces they never realize that it’s their own dicks they’re tripping over, again and again and again. Before his wife’s hostile constituency, Mr. Clinton tried to explain this in language a little blunter than what we are accustomed to from Democrats:
I don’t know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out onto the streets to murder other African-American children, maybe you thought they were good citizens. . . . You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter. Tell the truth.
Of course, this had no effect. If blacks were interested in Truth they would look at the data and abandon POE altogether. They would admit that they need policing more than other groups. They would admit they are less inclined to be academic than other groups. They would also vote Republican as a bloc since the GOP is the only party in town inclined to reduce immigration of the two groups of people who are most hostile to blacks: Mexicans and Muslims. Arab Muslims have been guilty in recent years of attempting genocide against blacks in North Africa. And we all know about the race war that has been going on between Mexicans and blacks for years. This says nothing about the economic threat many Mexicans pose to blacks as competitors for jobs.
As America becomes browner over the next few next decades, I predict that many blacks will realize their historic blunder as they slowly retreat back to the party of Lincoln.
Anyway, as I watched Mr. Clinton attempt to make his audience see reason, I laughed and thought, “They are your problem, buddy. Serves you right for taking such unruly people seriously to begin with.”
But then I realized that these people are a problem for all of us, including themselves. They really don’t know what’s best for them or for the country as a whole. As a group, blacks are childlike and ignorant, they cannot control their passions, and are easily led in stupid directions by grievance-mongering demagogues like the BLM crowd. And here I am talking about the non-criminal element of blacks . . . the ones who have their act in gear enough to attend rallies and actually vote, which I presume may not even be a majority of them.
So, we should all realize that there was a reason why blacks were kept from the voting booths in the American South after Reconstruction. There was a reason why whites were hesitant to cede any political power to them. Remember that scene toward the end of D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation when the Ku Klux Klan intimidated a crowd of blacks into not voting? I have to say that the Klan did the right thing, and were doing blacks a favor with their restraint. The Klan could have been a lot worse than they were, but instead preferred living with blacks under a system of Pax Caucasica rather than hounding them out of the country altogether.
(My hunch is that a lot of white southerners at the time, even the ones in the Klan, actually liked many blacks and wished them well. They saw restrictive measures like segregation as paternal and necessary rather than oppressive and totalitarian. Thomas Nelson Page writes at length about this in his indispensable 1904 work The Negro: The Southerner’s Problem.)
In essence, freedom has made much of the black population in America go feral. Black crime rates shot up dramatically in the 1960s, the same decade in which blacks achieved political equality with whites at the voting booth along with other civil rights victories. This view is echoed by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom in their book America in Black and White:
Black crime exploded in the 1960s, a decade in which black incomes rose rapidly and black poverty rates dropped rapidly. If “a civil rights law is a law against crime,” the landmark civil rights and voting acts of 1964 and 1965 certainly should have sent the crime rate plunging. Furthermore, blacks received a disproportionate share of the benefits of the social programs of the Great Society because they were a disproportionate share of the poverty population, but that did not stop the wave of black crime.
So how do we solve this problem? Historically, Americans have tried four solutions
First was the Age of Slavery in which blacks were not granted any political or economic rights at all except in rare cases and were forced into bondage by the barrel of a gun. This ran counter to the prevailing Christian doctrine of the time and made many in the North willing to wage the bloodiest war in our nation’s history in order to stop it. Any solution that engenders civil strife on this level is no solution at all.
Reconstruction came next during which blacks were given near-absolute local power in many places of the defeated South. The result was corruption, abuse, and petty tyranny (Thomas Nelson Page wrote extensively about this as well in The Negro: The Southerner’s Problem). Even many Northerners recognized that Reconstruction was a complete failure.
Then came the Age of Segregation in which blacks were forced into second class citizenship but were allowed more freedom than when they were slaves. This seemed like a good idea at the time since it led to many years of stability in the post-Reconstruction South. Blacks during this time also enjoyed lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than today. But instead of appreciating the compromise of Segregation, many educated blacks―spurred on by white liberals in Academia, the media, and Hollywood―decided to rail and buck against the system because the system repudiated the POE. They would not tolerate it and did everything they could to undermine social order until they got the solution they preferred.
That solution was Equality. We are now in the Age of Equality, and hopefully nearing the end of it. As we all know, Equality has been a boon for those blacks who are either truly gifted or truly ambitious. But in general, it has been more trouble than it is worth for everyone involved. It has given us ubiquitous problems with crime and drugs. It has caused white flight and the deterioration of many of our cities. It has made a mess out of our educational system. It has initiated affirmative action and political correctness which has poisoned everything from the university system to police departments to the military. It has hastened our cultural rot as rap music and other ghetto fashions have grown in popularity. It has pushed our body politic further to the left since blacks vote Democrat en masse in exchange for free money and services from the government. Most importantly, it has diluted the genetic strength of the white race by removing all legal and cultural obstacles to black-white miscegenation.
And for what? Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby? Films by Tyler Perry and Spike Lee? Elmo the Muppet? Michael Jackson’s Thriller? Kanye West? Obamacare? The 1996 Chicago Bulls?
Yes, I recognize that a few blacks have made legitimate contributions in important fields. A great example is inventor and computer scientist Mark Dean who did remarkable things at IBM. André Watts and Wynton Marsalis make some great classical music. I do also admire people like Thomas Sowell and Allen West. There are others, to be sure. But their contributions are so paltry when compared to the widespread harm Equality has caused that they’re hardly worth even mentioning.
The first step in solving the problem presented by blacks is to realize there is no solution. We need to take an Alexandrian sword to this Gordian knot and accept the fact that civilizations lack this problem only when they also lack black people. Because with blacks come problems. There is no way around this.
W. E .B. Du Bois mentions this very fact in the first paragraph of his work The Souls of Black Folk: “To the real question, How does it feel to be a problem? I answer seldom a word.” But where Du Bois thought it wrong for whites to ask him this question, I say they were right.
Racist? Sure. Truthist? Even better.
Of course, a civilized people should always recognize the rights of peaceful, law-abiding people of any race. White people are not God and therefore don’t have a right to determine who gets to enjoy God’s greatest gift, that of life. So, of course, black people have a right to live and breathe . . . just not in a white homeland. If we ever do get around to creating one of those, the last thing we would want is make the same mistakes our forefathers made, even if it means picking the damn cotton ourselves.
Although I said that whites have made four attempts at a solution to the problem presented by blacks, that number really should be five. I did not include the fifth solution because it was never implemented properly. That solution was repatriation. We all know that during and after the Civil War, many white Americans supported sending American blacks back to Liberia and other places. President Abraham Lincoln was actually serious about doing just that before a bullet from John Wilkes Booth effectively ended those plans before they could begin.
Ironically, if American whites do ever get serious about black repatriation or at least carving out a whites-only nation somewhere in North America, the Black Lives Matter crowd will swiftly turn into the White Lives Matter crowd and beg us for a place in our world. Without whites around for them to bully, cajole, and ultimately rob (either through taxes or crime), they will realize that second class citizenship in a white world will always be preferable to first class citizenship in a black one.
At that point we should simply look them in the eye and say, “No. We have tried sharing a nation with you people for over two centuries, and it didn’t work. None other than the President of the United States did what he could to make cohabitation between blacks and white succeed. But when he did, no one was complaining louder than yourselves.”