We just finished up a year in which the arrest of a black man, who was high on fentanyl and subsequently died, was the usual election-year pretext for a race-card play by the ruling class.
Wags like Steve Sailer are talking about the new Zeroth Amendment to the Constitution:
That's the new Zeroth Amendment: "No Black man need submit to arrest unless He's damn well in the mood to be arrested."
— Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer) August 29, 2020
Because what was really going on with George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020 and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, was that they were going to jail if the arrest succeeded.
For some reasons these police killings of black men with criminal records a yard long only get publicized in election years.
Since I get to walk past at least a dozen Black Lives Matter yard-signs up at the top of liberal Phinney Ridge every day, my unconscious mind has been pondering the whole question.
And I have come to realize that the whole race politics thing has nothing to do with blacks, or African Americans, or Blacks. It is all to do with the moral posturing of well-to-do whites.
Since the 18th century.
Back in the 18th century, was the anti-slavery movement, William Wilberforce, proprietor, responding to a slave rebellion? Were there Spartacuses all over leading the slaves in revolt? Er, no. La Wik:
Wilberforce was... the only son of Robert Wilberforce (1728–1768), a wealthy merchant[.]
The family fortune had been made by little Billy's grandfather in the Baltic trade. Our William, who became an evangelical Christian, was what we now call an "activist." Hey, it was no skin off his nose to advocate against the Atlantic slave trade!
Fast forward to 1850 and the United States. Was there a massive slave rebellion that prompted the ruling class to ease off on the slave front? Not at all. It was much more a moral crusade, with Ladies' Anti-Slavery Societies having Frederick Douglass in to talk about the evils of slavery.
Then as now, the ruling class had to have an "Other" to blame for all the sins of the world, and the South would fill the bill. So why not have a jolly old war and teach the South a lesson. After all, the young men of he North were expendable, as the young men of 1917 were expendable, and the young men of 1941. Not to mention the young men sent off to Vietnam to prop up the dominoes, and the young men sent to the Middle East in 2002 to prop up the Saudis.
Yes, but whatabout the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? The fact is that the ruling class was down for the struggle. Dr. King was supported by the Northern elite and nice Jewish boys went down to the South to register voters.
Dr. King based his non-violent movement on the non-violence of Mahatma Gandhi. Which is a "tell."
I now realize, having read The British Conquest and Domination of India by Sir Penderel Moon, that the Brits decided pretty soon after the Indian Mutiny in 1857 that they would be handing India over to the Indians. But not yet, old chap, because the natives weren't yet ready for self government. A real imperial empire wouldn't have given Gandhi the time of day. They would have arrested him and disappeared him, and nobody the wiser. Like the Chinese and the Uygurs.
But if the imperial empire is planning to hand India over to the Indians, why, then it makes sense to permit and even encourage a nationalist Indian movement. That way you have a new ruling class ready to take over when the time comes. As it did come after World War II. And it even makes sense to condone a whacko activist like Gandhi with his taste for young women.
If you condone a non-violent activist like Dr. King it yields all kinds of benefits, like the incident at the Edmund Pettus bridge and all those eevil Southern policemen beating up helpless peaceful protesters. OMG, I can't believe they did that! And all those liberal kids going into the South to register voters as Freedom Riders -- with a book and a movie to follow! Weren't they special!
See, my line is that all this had nothing to do with blacks, and everything to do with liberal moral fluffing and preening. And when the votes in Congress were in on the civil rights acts, the northern liberals were almost completely Yea, the Republicans were majority Yea, and only the Southern Democrats voted Nay. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) , the Jewish libertarian Republican, voted Nay, because he thought the bill should just ban gubmint discrimination, and allow private citizens to discriminate to their hearts' content.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently characterized himself "I am Spartacus." As if. Watch the movie, kiddo! Kirk Douglas, playing a real slave, not a Senator, gets crucified right at the gate of Rome. And, thanks to the movie director, Stanley Kubrick, and leftie scriptwriter Dalton Trumbo, ol'Kirk gets to see his kid just before he expires on the cross. There is a line of slaves, crucified, going right down the Appian Way, or whatever. Just to make the point about who is boss in the Roman Empire.
In the American Empire, blacks kept a pretty low profile until after the passage of the civil rights acts. And I don't blame them. Why put yourself on the line when white liberals are going to do the heavy lifting for you? And then when blacks started rioting in 1965 and thereafter, they were helpless victims reacting to 500 years under the yoke. Pity that Detroit is still hollowed out 50 years later.
Looking back at the whole thing, going back to rich kid William Wilberforce, you gotta hand it to our liberal friends. What a ride! What glorious self-congratulation! What moral peacock feathers! What it is to dine out on your moral specialness for 200 years! And no end in sight!
But I have a question for blacks. Is this all there is to Life, the Universe, and Everything? To be the Little Darlings, the political playthings of the ruling class? To be riled up every even year? To get to do a bit of loot and plunder at Target once in a while? To get to be the First Black President just for showing up? To be the first woman black vice-president just for being a politician's moll? To sire 70 percent of your children outside of marriage? To have your young men committing half of the murders in the US?
Because back in the day there were magnificent American blacks. There was Frederick Douglass, who was sent to a slave breaker and broke the breaker! Who escaped, found his love and married her, and worked his way up to luncheon speaker, first hating America and then learning to love it. Or Booker T. Washington, who traveled half way across America, sleeping under the sidewalk, to get himself an education.
Here's the thing. For a young head full of mush it feels kinda cool for the ruling class to give you free dissing privileges. The white working class had it for a while: they could strike and carry on and bankrupt their employers, and who cared. But then the liberals tired of them and left them to die of despair in the most recent half century.
And now the ruling class has issued free rioting privileges to the white wokies of AntiFa. What fun!
I'd just like to say to my black friends: why not get your act together before your liberal masters tire of you?
No comments:
Post a Comment