“Savages” and the Limits of Conservative Thinking- Part I

The blogs are of course abuzz over the Carter Strange attack, and the numerous other black mob attacks. OneSTDV debates what to call these miscreants– “savage”? “feral”? and settles on “subhuman”, while abjuring the “N” word.

These young men are none of these things. They are violent, true, and not very smart, but they are human beings. A person with an IQ of 80 used to be described as having the mentality of an 8 year-old child. Children are liable to be impulsive, violent, cruel, even sadistic, but they are perfectly capable of behaving themselves when they have clear discipline and boundaries.

There is the feeling that these attacks represent some dark, atavistic eruption of violence rooted deep in the African soul. I won’t deny such an impulse exists, but this is not really the source of it. There has been black crime in America as long as there have been blacks, but it only gained its widespread, explosive, and outrageous nature in modern times.

The Nat Turner rebellion is an early example of unrestrained black violence. There may have been black violence motivated by revenge in the aftermath of the Civil War, but this isn’t the sort of discussion permitted in polite society. Blacks clearly increased violence towards whites after the end of slavery, but simple opportunity might explain most of that.

Nat Turner was strongly religious, and without researching him in detail, I assume he developed the idea of cruel, shocking violence as an instrument of God’s wrath, just as Ignacio Ellacuria did. This then is essentially a left-wing idea. Victor Hugo said (mid-19th century, I don’t have an exact date) “If a soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” But it wasn’t widespread until the communist revolutions of the 20th century, and wasn’t applied to blacks by liberals until the 50’s.

In 1959 Mike Wallace made a documentary about the Nation of Islam, called, “The Hate That Hate Produced.” It was later criticized as biased, but the title reflects the idea that discrimination will understandably produce bad behavior in blacks. (The Nation of Islam quickly doubled in size, and Malcolm X became a national figure when this showed.) In 1963 James Baldwin published “The Fire Next Time”, excoriating whites for their corrupt culture, hoping reconciliation could be achieved, but implying blacks could not be blamed if they turned violent.

Liberal whites believed civil rights laws and court decisions would quickly and peacefully integrate blacks into American society. Even before this time the idea was gestating that blacks might not go along so easily. What seemed like a great victory to white liberals was hardly enough for many blacks; they saw whites surrendering, understood violence would not be met with aggressive discipline but with shamed submission, and decided violence was the next step toward increasing their power.

Orchestrated political violence- riots and black power terrorism- lasted until the early 70’s, by which time it burned itself out and blacks were strongly appeased with money and power. Unorganized black violence however had come to be seen as a legitimate response to black disadvantage, and continued strongly into the 90’s. This too burned itself out; the crack epidemic killed off a lot of criminally inclined and antisocial blacks, and abortion kept the number of potential criminals down. The fear and terror that unrestrained crime created in the 60’s and 70’s led to a tightening of the criminal justice system, but neither liberals nor blacks ever delegitimized crime as a black response to white society.

Jim Goad has noted the black mob phenomenon did not start until after the election of Obama. Liberals have kind of a group mind; blacks do as well, so how exactly this got started is hard to tell. I think it comes from the use of social networking on smartphones; blacks use the internet on mobile phones significantly more than whites do. Added on that is a sense of triumphalism from the Obama election; added on that is probably a confused sense of desperation of want and idleness from the recession. If a Republican was in office the media would have no trouble pointing out the severe stress on blacks due to unemployment and mortgage problems, but with Obama it doesn’t fit their narrative.

If you tell a bunch of people, over and over again, for decades, that they have the perfect right to victimize people of another race, that almost they should, you shouldn’t be surprised when they do it. When you provide them with a technology that appeals to their groupthink and allows them to spontaneously come together for mayhem, giving them protection in numbers, they will likely use it. When you permit them to lionize those among them who commit crimes, there is hardly anything to stop them.

The nature of the juvenile justice system is another big part of it, although it is not related to race. The belief people who are not adults are not fully responsible for their actions and should receive minimal punishment goes way back. Ghetto blacks under 18 have virtually nothing to lose with the justice system even if they do get caught.

People- even dumb people inclined to violence- respond to incentive and punishments. If you encourage people to be violent, and remove any consequences for it, they will be violent. Thinking of black people as crazed animals lets them off the hook. They are responsible for their actions.

This is the how of black violence, but what is the why? Why is it permitted and encouraged by the system? What purpose does it serve? I’m out of time for tonight but I will get to that next time. Black violence serves a specific and non-obvious purpose in the system.

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to “Savages” and the Limits of Conservative Thinking- Part I

  1. red says:

    The mob violence is by natural designed to establish dominance over another group. It started after Obama was elected because blacks are now in charge of America. As more blacks hears of the success of these mobs more and more blacks will join in with them leading to even more mobs. All this is a given with our tribal loyalty systems. The real question is what comes next?

    Ones of these days a white man is going to fight back and kill some of these mobs or whites will form their own groups to fight back to protect themselves. The real shit will hit the fan when Obama looses the 2012 election. Should be an interesting year.

  2. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: On the Run Edition

  3. Pingback: “Savages” and the Limits of Conservative Thinking- Part II | Deconstructing Leftism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s