I always enjoy Andrew Klavan’s videos, but this may well be one of the best he’s ever done. With sly sarcasm and wit, he quickly and neatly exposes the rank hypocrisy and disdain for blacks that has animated the Democrat party for more than 150 years:
It’s all good, guys. I’ve finally figured out what’s been going on. We’ve just been reading history dead wrong. The operating historic premise is that the KKK and the Democrat party parted ways during the Civil Rights movement. When the KKK guys realized that northern Democrats who supported civil rights now owned the Democrat party, they walked out en masse and became Republicans. That way, they were free to indulge openly in their hateful racism.
What really happened is something much more subtle. The KKK guys became sleepers in the Democrat party. Instead of attacking blacks head on with burning crosses and lynchings, they decided to use a mainstream political party as the engine by which they destroyed blacks. As Petruchio did in The Taming of the Shrew, they set out to kill the blacks with kindness. The degradation of American blacks under fifty years of ostensibly well-meaning Democrat social and economic policies isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
(Bear with me here, ’cause I’m on a roll.)
Despite the horrors of the Jim Crow South, not to mention the pervasive racism across America, blacks in America were actually showing steady, albeit slow, upward mobility. When the government left them alone, blacks started colleges, grew businesses, got married, and had families. Although they were poorer than whites, had more out-of-wedlock children than whites, and had more run-ins with the law than whites, they were moving towards a middle class model. Undoubtedly, this trend could have continued and even accelerated with the passage of civil rights laws that banned discrimination. (And it’s worth remember that the Civil Rights Act didn’t require affirmative federal action; it only banned discrimination.)
Whenever they were left alone, blacks in America proved that Frederick Douglas was right all along when he insisted that the best thing that America could do for blacks would be to leave them alone.
Here’s the interesting thing, though. The moment that the Civil Rights movement seemed to have defeated Jim Crow, the Democrat party swung into action — and refused to leave blacks alone. It gave them affirmative action, which meant that, for fifty years, blacks have been placed in jobs and schools where they cannot perform at the same level as other people (both whites and minorities) who achieved those positions on merit. This gave blacks an inferiority complex, and created in non-blacks the false belief that blacks cannot achieve without a sizable handicap.
The Democrat party also did everything it could to ensure that blacks got government handouts, whether or not they wanted them. Instead of being free people, blacks became junkies dependent on ostensibly “free” money. It sapped initiative and pride.
Worse, welfare made men unnecessary. Black women got a better deal from Uncle Sam, especially if they had lots of children. Black men were reduced to the status of sperm donors. (For many women, men who don’t bring in money are burdensome creatures who leave dirty laundry on the floor and forget to put down the toilet seat.)
With the new welfare status quo, sex for black men was easy, but their entire sense of their manhood was reduced to a biological level dependent on a single organ in their bodies. They were no longer judged by their accomplishments, their earning ability, their status as community role models, or as helpmates and companion. Black men were denied the opportunity to develop honor, loyalty, and morality. Instead, instead, in the hierarchical world of men (and all men are, to a greater or lesser extent, hierarchical in how they view the world), the only measurements by which to judge black men was to look for the biggest gun, whether the man carried it gun in a holster or tuck it into his Calvin Klein whitey-tighties.
So we have a generation of black men who have been cheated of an education and a well-fitting job, whose children and family no longer need them as support, and whose lives revolve around their firing power. It was inevitable that these socially and economically disenfranchised — men disenfranchised by a Democrat-enacted policy — would create a culture centered on themselves and their instant gratification. The engines for achieving these ends have been alcohol, sex, drugs, and violence. These are manly pursuits untempered by the steadying influence of women and children or by a culture that values men.
And what did the Democrats do when black men, as a result of Democrat policies, devolved into a lowest-common denominator culture? They “forgave” them. Instead of exhorting them to rise up, to embrace morality, decency, family, stability, work, accomplishments, and education, the Democrats assured the black men that what they were doing was okay. “Oh, black men,” said the Democrats, “you are not masters of your destiny and captains of your fate. You are the helpless flotsam and jetsam floating about aimlessly on the great ocean of Republican racism. You can’t do anything about your lives and therefore you are not responsible for the harm you do, whether to yourselves, your families, your children, your community, or your country.”
It is a terrible thing that Democrats have done to blacks — and all ostensibly in the name of love.
And that’s when I realized what’s really been going on for all these decades: the Democrats have achieved what the KKK set out to do. Just like Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew, they have succeeded in killing American blacks by kindness:
That is, to watch her, as we watch these kitesThat bate and beat and will not be obedient.She ate no meat today, nor none shall eat.Last night she slept not, nor tonight she shall not.As with the meat, some undeservèd faultI’ll find about the making of the bed,And here I’ll fling the pillow, there the bolster,This way the coverlet, another way the sheets.Ay, and amid this hurly I intendThat all is done in reverend care of her.And, in conclusion, she shall watch all night,And if she chance to nod I’ll rail and brawl,And with the clamor keep her still awake.This is a way to kill a wife with kindness,And thus I’ll curb her mad and headstrong humor.He that knows better how to tame a shrew,Now let him speak; ’tis charity to show.
You’ve already heard, I’m sure, about Delbert Belton, the 88-year-old World War II veteran who was beaten to death by two black teenagers. The police are assuring everyone that there’s no need to get worried, because this wasn’t a race crime. Instead, it was Delbert’s own fault. According to the police, when the boys tried to rob Delbert, he had the temerity to fight back, leaving them with no other option than to beat an old man to death.
A friend of mine noted that, using this reasoning, if one assumes solely for the sake of argument that the race-hustlers are correct and it was Zimmerman who started the fatal encounter with Trayvon, then Trayvon was responsible for his own death because he had the temerity to fight back by climbing on top of Zimmerman, raining punches on his face, and trying to turn Zimmerman’s head into Silly Putty by smashing it repeatedly into the pavement. My friend is right, of course.
But I’ll add something else to the mix. The police are desperate to avoid saying that the white on black crimes that are flooding the news lately arise because blacks are — gasp! — not merely racist in Obama’s hystically race-conscious America, but aggressively so. They don’t want to admit that the aggressive focus on race that surrounded Obama’s election didn’t destroy forever the linger vestiges of racism in America — the presumed outcome of a nation open-minded enough to elect a black man to its highest office — but, in fact, created an aggressive form of black-on-white racism.
Here’s the problem: the new black-on-white racial motivation, although disgusting, is an intellectually recognizable reason for vile conduct. If you deny its existence, all you have left is the admission that American blacks have become feral. That is, they’re not killing for political reasons; they’re killing because they have an animal’s blood-lust, without a human’s self-control, morality, or reasoning skills.
And so, let’s talk about two recent local news stories that the MSM is assiduously ignoring.
Police say the youth lived within in a block of the woman’s house. Investigators say he broke into her home by kicking in the back door and then sexually assaulted her.
The 93-year-old had been sleeping at the time and awoke to find the youth in her bedroom.
Apparently elderly white women are quite the hot commodity amongst the non-racist blacks, because a similar event occurred happened in Poughkeepsie, NY. That’s where 99-year-old Fannie Gumbinger had the misfortune to cross paths with 20-year-old Javon Tyrek Rogers, a black man who is a career burglar. Well, Mrs. Gumbinger didn’t actually cross paths with Rogers. It was more a case of his entering her house and killing her. Why would one kill a frail 99-year-old lady (and believe me, because of my Mom’s retirement home I know precisely how frail 99-year-old ladies are)? Well, it wasn’t a “hate crime,” of course, because blacks don’t commit hate crimes. That means, as Wolf Howling put it, that it was a “feral” act.
The race hustlers have repeatedly put themselves in the position of conceding that black Americans are feral, whether it’s because they say that Damian King couldn’t help trying to beat Reginald Denny to death in the wake of the Rodney King riots, because he was “caught him the rapture” of the moment; or the two teens who couldn’t help killing an 88-year-old because he fought back; or a 17-year-old who couldn’t control his lust for an 93-year-old woman (who his lust for power over a 93-year-old woman); or a 20-year-old who had to murder a 99-year-old lady who was interfering with his burglary; or the five young blacks who tortured a random white couple to death in such a horrible way that I can’t bear to right about it. If these young black people (and they’re all young products of America’s thirty years of institutional Progressivism) acted without a motive, no matter how disgusting that motive was, then the only thing left is to concede that they are either evil incarnate, which argues a certain moral knowledge that the actor deliberately ignores, or that they are so inhuman that they have become like animals.
Even likening them to animals, though, seems to me to be too generous. Animals kill to eat or to control territory. Animals do not waste their energies, nor do they put themselves at risk, simply to indulge in blood lust. That type of act is seen only in rabid animals that have been rendered insane through infection.
So what disease has affected our black underclass to the point at which it has parted ways with humanity and entered dimensions in which, normally, only infected animals dwell? I leave you to think up your own instance.
Incidentally, I do not write this post as an overarching indictment of blacks, God forbid. I am not a classic racist, in that I do not believe that one race genetically inferior to another race. I recognize differences (skin color, musculature, bell curve spread over such traits as book-oriented intellectualism or physical stamina, etc), but I consider those differences virtuous, insofar as they provide a wonderful range of human abilities, with no one quality trumping any other — although there are times, whether through natural- or human-caused events, when certain traits may help one group survive better than another group. I consider myself a “values-ist,” meaning that I judge people by their values, not their skin color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.
So if it’s not genetics, it must be culture — and black culture is Leftist culture or, rather, black culture is the victim of elitist Leftist culture. It’s the Leftist ruling class, in government, in the media, and in education, taht thinks so little of blacks that these elites are content to accept that young blacks normally exist in a diseased, feral state, because it seems right and natural to the affluent Leftist eye. If, Gaia forfend!, they concede that blacks are endowed with the same moral and intellectual abilities as whites, then these same elites must also concede that blacks do not need to be perpetually dependent upon the states for all their needs, a status that assumes racial inability.
I liked Elbert Guillory from the first time he crossed my radar, when he was still a Democrat. I continue to like him, as you can see in his video introducing the Free at Last PAC, aimed at introducing blacks to conservative principles.
He’s remarkably good at explaining free market principles and explaining why they should matter to American blacks. I also love the way he attacks Republicans for allowing themselves to be cowed by Democrats, especially when it comes to blacks.
Please consider contributing to the PAC.
I’ve already admitted to my crush on Elbert Guillory, a crush that formed when he was still a Democrat, although he must already have been planning to leave that party. My political crush has just deepened into a full-blown, out-and-out case of political passion. If you haven’t yet watched this short video Guillory made to explain why he switched parties, you must. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say it’s one of the most important videos I’ve ever seen. The only thing that saddens me about it is that it won’t be run on MSNBC, or ABC, or CBS, or NBC, or NPR, or on any other major media outlet. I think everyone should see this video, no matter their race, creed, country of national origin, or gender identity. It’s that good:
I don’t know about you, but I’m still cheering.
I don’t even know where to begin addressing this one:
Would any of you care to have it? A good start would probably be the fact that blacks are returning to the South because economic conditions are better there and they are better integrated, rather than being consigned to vast, dangerous urban ghettos in the Blue States. We could also talk about the more conservative values southerners, including blacks, have that have nothing to do with slavery or racism.
UPDATE: A map that shows votes by county reveals that the election split wasn’t slave versus free or north versus south or black versus white. It was, instead, cities versus suburbs and rural areas: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/eln.pdf
I suspect this is a bump, not a groundswell, but it’s amazing nevertheless: inner city blacks say that overwhelming government interference in the economy stifles the kind of economic growth their communities need:
(I removed the video, because the embed code is one of those annoying ones that makes the video play automatically. Please check it out here, though, because it’s well worth seeing.)
It is worth keeping in mind that, at the end of the day, the only color that ever really matters is green — and that’s not environmental green, it’s dollar bill green. Once people understand how to make the important green grow, they will follow the money.
There used to be an old joke that the Jewish vote pivoted on each Jew asking himself this question “Is it good for the Jews?” Not a very nice stereotype, but probably a true one — and true for any group in America, whether white, WASP, Jewish, Catholic, Asian, Baptist, Hindu, etc. What’s sad, though, is that the Left is telling blacks that they shouldn’t bother asking that question, probably because honest answer to “Is Obama good for American blacks?” would have to be a resounding “No!”
The Obama years have not treated blacks well. A year ago, black unemployment was not only double white unemployment, it was also the highest it had been in twenty-seven years. The only part of “Hope and Change” that blacks got out of this administration turned out to be small change . . . very, very small change. Things have improved in the past year, but only slightly. As of today, black unemployment stands at more than 14% — although President Barack “Nothing is my Fault” Obama claims that this failing is all the fault of state and local governments. It might be time for the President to rummage through the White House attic and dig out Harry Truman’s old desk placard, the one that read “the buck stops here.”
Or maybe not. W. Kamau Bell, who is Chris Rock’s anointed new voice of black social/political comedy. Bell began one of his shows by replaying Biden’s now infamous Romney/Ryan will put “y’all back in chains” statement. Bell made three points, none of which struck me as amusing, but all of which sounded quite honest: (a) Biden shouldn’t have said that; (b) Biden needn’t have said that, because blacks will vote for Obama regardless; and (c) it will help the Obama campaign if Biden stops pandering to a demographic that’s already in Obama’s pocket.
Despite the assurance that Obama owns the black body politic, Bell was, apparently, still a little worried. You see, the problem isn’t that Biden thinks he’s black. It’s the blacks might be thinking that Obama isn’t black enough. Bell’s responsibility, therefore, is to promise blacks that Obama is not an Oreo:
I actually appreciate Bell’s honesty. He’s straightforward about the actual Obama campaign theme for 2012, which is “Vote for me because I’m black(ish).” Still, I think it’s terribly said that we’ve gone from having voters ask themselves (selfishly, but truthfully) “Is this candidate going to be good for my social/racial/ethnic/religious group?” to insisting that voters ask themselves only whether the candidate has enough melanin not to be considered white. Once that question is out there, the candidate not only isn’t good for a given social/racial/ethnic/religious group, he’s not good for America either.
Morgan Freeman, a man who lets his periodic acting roles as God and other authority figures go to his head, has now announced that it’s okay to castigate Barack Obama, because Obama isn’t really black. Instead, he’s half white.
It seems cavalier at this junction to point out that Morgan Freeman’s pale coffee skin puts him in the same situation as Barack Obama: Freeman obviously has white DNA floating around in there too. Guess we can knock him off the list of “African-American actors.” He’s a somewhat-white American actor.
The truth that no one the so-called black community, or in most of the white community, wants to acknowledge, is that American blacks aren’t black in that way that, say, African blacks are. I’m not talking about culture, either. I’m talking about genetic legacy. You only have to look at American blacks to realize that, somewhere in the bloodline, there’s white DNA. It’s a pathetic commentary on the systemic rapes black women experienced in America’s history, but it’s also a genetic fact.
If you want a “black-black” president, you have to get a first generation American kid, both of whose parents came from Africa — and who can prove that no white genes ever touched their family trees. That’s easier to do in Africa than America. But then you have to ask — how “authentically” black is that young person going to be in the house of those sort-of-black, somewhat-white Americans who populate the halls of the Democrat party?
I assume that you all know by know that President Obama has issued an executive order granting amnesty to young illegal immigrants. It’s a clever move. Marco Rubio had already proposed something similar, so Obama can say that at least some smart Republicans are already on board with the idea. The move will presumably cement Hispanic voters to his side, which could be a very big deal in Florida, where some Jewish voters are looking askance at Obama. Any Republican objections will be touted as Republican racism.
There are some downsides, though. Congress might get testy at having Obama’s challenge to its authority. The question is whether Democrats in Congress will be sufficiently testy to challenge their President in an election year. My guess is that they will not, so the only “nay” voices will come from Republicans — who will then be charged with covert racism that they’re hiding behind a thin procedural screen. Never mind the Constitution, of course. Only racists care about that document anyway.
There are two demographics, though, as to which Obama might have been too smart by half: blacks and unions. As to both, cheap Hispanic labor is a threat. In a time of seemingly intractable unemployment, for Obama to pour new competition into the market, rather than to create new jobs, might be a mistake. I’m sure, though, that the Obama-ites have already examined this problem and concluded that any potential black voter or union hemorrhage is more than offset by increases in Hispanic votes.
I said in the post caption that this is an Open Thread and I meant it. What’s your take?
It’s a family stuff day, so blogging has been light, and will continue to be so. Fortunately, I’ve got friends who send me interesting things which I am so happy to pass on to you. In no particular order:
Wolf Howling has written a fascinating, scholarly dissertation examining the adversarial history of faith and socialism, and the way that history quite logically to Obama’s current fight with religious organizations over funding for abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilization.
Samuel Jackson and Barack Obama are two minds with but a single thought: Make voting easy by examining your skin color and, if it’s dark, vote accordingly. Samuel Jackson, in a profanity-laced interview, freely admits that he couldn’t have cared less about the type of governance Obama would bring to the White House. The only thing that mattered was his color. That’s just one person. Our dear (black) leader — and, yes, his color is an important point in this post — has prepared an entire video imploring black people to vote for him because he’s black:x
As the friend who sent me this asked “I wonder what the backlash would be if Mitt Romney started a Mormons for Mitt campaign?”
Rhymes with Right suggests that the Catholic Church go medieval over ObamaCare [link fixed]. I think he’s right. Citizens in America are free to make decisions that implicate their religion — and the religion is free to make decisions right back. What cannot happen in America, however, is precisely what Obama is doing, which is to interject the state into the relationship between the religion and its followers.
Lastly, one of my oldest and dearest blog friends, Patrick O’Hannigan, looks at the Komen versus Planned Parenthood kerfuffle. I say “legitimate,” because they are both private organizations, as opposed to a government organization versus a religion. Within the context of the fight itself, of course, I think Planned Parenthood’s position and strategy are both entirely illegitimate and, as Patrick carefully explains, Komen, before it caved, was in the right.
Mr. Bookworm works for a very large corporation. While we were in the car with the kids, the conversation turned to the exquisite sensitivity the corporation has to show when it’s faced with firing a minority employee. The process is arduous, requiring huge HR involvement, dozens of staff interviews and a lengthy paper trail.
The reason for this labor intensive firing is the unfortunate fact that minorities tend to be less satisfactory employees. As Mr. Bookworm was at great pains to point out to the children (and correctly so), this is a group trend and has nothing to do with the merits of any individual minority employee. It’s just that, if you look at a bell curve of minority employees versus a bell curve of white employees, you’ll find more white employees than minority employees in the segment denoting “good worker.” No modern corporation, however, wants a reputation as a “firer of minorities.”
The above are facts. What fascinated me was the different spin Mr. Bookworm and I put on those facts. Mr. Bookworm sent twenty minutes explaining to the children that, to the extent blacks were poorer employees, it was because their culture made them incapable of working. (This was not meant as an insult. He was talking, of course, about the culture of poverty.).
Mr. Bookworm painted a picture of a black child living in a ghetto, with a single mother who gave birth to him when she was 14, with several siblings from different fathers, with a terrible school, surrounded by illiterates, hungry all the time, etc. No wonder, he said, that this child doesn’t bring to a corporation the same work ethic as a middle class white kid.
This creates big problems for corporations. A modern corporation truly wants to hire minorities. Once it’s hired them, though, according to my liberal husband, it ends up with workers who are incapable of functioning in a white collar, corporate environment. The corporation therefore finds itself forced to fire it’s minority hires more frequently than white or Asian employees, with the result that it’s accused of racism. Its response to that accusation is to proceed with excessive caution and extreme due diligence whenever a black employee fails at the job.
I suggested to the children that something different than downtrodden black culture might be going on. Past generations of immigrants in America labored under the same handicap as the current generation of blacks (and, I guess, Hispanics). Irish Catholics, Jews, Italians, Poles — no matter the label, you could spell out for them the same sorry tale Mr. Bookworm told about the hypothetical black kid, a story of poverty, parental illiteracy, poor schools, hunger, etc.
The difference, I told the kids, was that, back in the day, neither laws nor popular culture affirmatively protected these people. They were barred from the universities, banks, and law firms. Their response was to be better and work harder. They carved out new industries (e.g., Hollywood.) They made themselves more American than all the other Americans put together. They made their entrance into the mainstream a fait accompli.
At this point, I interrupted myself to ask the kids a question: You’re taking a class that you don’t really like, but you want to get an “A”. Do you work as hard as you possibly can, or do you do the bare minimum to get by? I got a resounding “Duh!” from both kids. “Of course you do the bare minimum.”
“Okay, then. Why don’t we give blacks credit for being smart, not helpless. Since they know that, once they’re through the door, it’s virtually impossible to fire them, why should they do more work than they have to? Just as you wouldn’t work any harder for an ‘A’ than you need to in a class you don’t particularly like, why should they work any harder for job security in a job they don’t particularly like? That’s not helpless thinking; that’s smart-allocation-of-personal-resources thinking.”
And no, that doesn’t mean that all blacks are bad employees. There are a gazillion blacks out there who work hard because they want to, because they like to, or because it’s the right thing to do — which is precisely why whites work hard. But there are clearly also a lot of blacks out there who neither like nor want to work hard, and they’ve figured out that a toxic combination of white guilt and fear of liability for workplace discrimination creates an out for them. This doesn’t make blacks helpless and stupid. It makes them savvy marketplace consumers.
The above discussion revealed another interesting difference in the way Mr. Bookworm and I look at the world. When I gave my Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italian, etc., example, Mr. Bookworm said that I was describing incrementalism, which has no validity today.
What is “incrementalism”? It’s the notion that success in Americ may be the work of several generations. This was the old pattern: You, the immigrant, arrive at Ellis Island, illiterate, unable to speak English, and a foreigner to the culture. Unsurprisingly, you end up in a ghetto. Your children go to school. They do not become CEOs, but they move into the working class — something that could never have happened in your own class-stratified, antisemitic or anti-Catholic or anti-Irish or anti-whatever home country. Your grandchildren thrn move into the lower middle class, or even the middle- or upper-middle class. In two or three, or maybe four, generations, your family has made it in America.
Mr. Bookworm’s view is that this slow, upward trajectory is wrong. In today’s world, welfare, social policies and PC hiring practices should ensure that, not only is there a chicken in every pot, but every family should have a high level white collar worker just one generation out from poverty. I happen to believe that, while there will always be young people with drive and initiative who can make this leap, expecting it from the big part of the bell curve is ridiculous and impossible. Wrapping our educational, economic and social policies around this goal is a recipe for wasted money, ungainly government programs, personal failures, and class disappointment. In other words, it’s how we ended up with OWS.