The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Jack Kerwick Archive
Challenging the Narrative: A Response to Boyd Cathey
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In Boyd Cathey’s latest article in The Unz Review, “Baltimore and The Failure of Egalitarianism,” the author contends that both the usual suspects among the left as well as those on the so-called “right,” both Democrats and Republicans, “progressives” and “conservatives,” endorse lock, stock, and barrel a shared ideological vision that has swept the gamut of our society’s institutions.

This ideology is egalitarianism, or what Cathey calls, “Neo-Marxism.”

Its proponents, in short, believe that justice demands the existence of an activist government—i.e. an omnipotent government—that will be forever preoccupied with its quest for a more “equal” distribution of material and social resources.

It is this “Neo-Marxist” Zeitgeist that accounts for why the American taxpayer has spent trillions since the 1960’s to “level the playing field” for blacks.

And it is the intellectual poverty of this ideology that accounts for why these trillions of dollars have failed miserably to yield any returns.

Having come to know Boyd as both a man and scholar, it is unsurprising that this analysis of his—like virtually every other that I’ve encountered—is as perceptive as it is well written. To the crux of his argument I have no objections. It is with some details that I take issue.

Boyd writes that the bi-partisan egalitarian fantasies of our culture’s movers and shakers gave rise to “expectations” on the part of lower-class blacks that remain “unfulfilled” because, in truth, they “could never be fulfilled or accomplished.” This, he believes, is “one of the major reasons for the pent-up anger and frustration unleashed in Baltimore and other major cities with a large black underclass.” It is this “continuing failure of expectations” that “has engendered anger and rage, but anger and rage directed”—or, rather, misdirected—“at a system perceived to be the oppressor [.]”

The problem here is that the notion that members of the black underclass are consumed by rage arising from a belief in their own oppression is an essential piece of the very narrative that Boyd urges us to reject.

That Boyd (correctly) denies the reality of this oppression while his opponents affirm it is neither here nor there: Whether the oppression is real or imagined, Boyd and his PC enemies concur that a belief in their “oppression” accounts for the riots and mob violence of underclass blacks.

To be fair, Boyd is no different than partisans of all stripes in endorsing this line.

I reject it.

I submit that the black mob violence on exhibit in hundreds of cities and towns throughout the country has absolutely nothing—to repeat: absolutely nothing—to do with any suppressed rage or hatred arising from a belief in either racist oppression or, for that matter, anything else.

(1) For starters, the orgies of violence that are daily fare in black communities around America belie the thesis that the nationally televised riots to which we are occasionally treated are the culmination of years of simmering rage: The most cursory of glances in the direction of any ghetto readily reveal that its inhabitants are among the most expressive folks on the planet.

It is also painfully clear that pillaging, looting, destroying, and violence are the preferred means of expression.

Considering that this mayhem is most often directed against their fellow blacks, it obviously isn’t the function of a belief in systemic white-on-black oppression. The culprits here are under no illusions as to the identity of their targets: It is their neighbors, not the masterminds of any “white system,” on whom they set their sights.

(2) During those decades when blacks had far fewer opportunities than they have today—when, in other words, the case could be made that they really were oppressed—there was none of the violence that we now witness. Doubtless, yesteryear had its share of blacks who were angry and hateful toward whites—and yet there was no epidemic of black mob violence as there is today.

True, one might reply, but in the past, egalitarian ideologues weren’t busy inflaming expectations by making assurances to blacks that they couldn’t keep.

Wrong: From at least the time of the completion of the War Between the States, blacks had been issued promises that white society failed to honor (Remember “forty acres and a mule?”).

So, if black thugs aren’t motivated by rage over a belief in their own oppression, then what does motivate them?

In short, black thugs act criminally because they can.

Between the time of the pre-“civil rights” era and that of the post-“civil rights” era, two remarkably dramatic changes occurred:

First, blacks lost all fear of reprisals from the white majority.

Secondly, whites acquired a paralyzing fear of offending blacks.

Moreover, blacks know that whites fear them, an insight that accounts for why threats of violence invariably accompany the ever increasing list of demands that blacks make upon (white) “society.”

Notice, we no more need to invoke anger, hatred, or oppression to explain the bullying, thuggish tactics of underclass blacks and their elitist apologists than we need to invoke the same to explain the bullying and thuggish tactics of Al Capone, John Gotti, biker gangs, etc.

We no more need to invoke these “root causes” to make sense of why young black males engage in acts of violence than we need to draw upon the same “root causes” to make sense of why any young males style themselves “tough guys.”

And we needn’t appeal to anger, hatred, or oppression to understand why cowards would resolve their individual identities into an amorphous mob in order to besiege those who are outnumbered or otherwise weaker.

For certain, those of the black underclass who are participating in “the Knockout Game,” riots, and so forth know all about the conventional template of White Oppression and Black Suffering. They’ve been imbibing it from the time that they were in their cradles. However, they’ve also imbibed from their elders stories of God and Jesus. That black thugs have an abstract awareness of such ideas scarcely means that they have the subjective conviction that they are true. But in the absence of the latter, without this passionate commitment to a proposition or belief, there is no motivation to fight for a cause, least of all a cause as noble as that of “freedom.”

This is the difference between black rioters, on the one hand, and, say, Islamic jihadists, on the other. The latter have committed their hearts, minds, and souls to realizing their theocentric vision of the world. Murderous jihadists are evil, certainly; but they are sincere: The killing of every infidel is driven by a desire to honor their God.

In the case of those black thugs who burn senior citizen complexes to the ground and vandalize CVS stores, though, there are no such commendable motives. Even their “hatred” is counterfeit.

The sooner we realize this, the better we might be.

It’s time to reject the dominant PC paradigm.

 
• Category: Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Baltimore Riots, Blacks, Race/Crime 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Exactly right, in my view. To put it more summarily, if I may: these people behave like stupid violent savages because they are stupid violent savages who enjoy stupidity and violence. Occam’s razor. That, and they know they will be coddled and indulged by the fearful, incompetent so-called power structure, and that everyone else knows that they’re on their own, that the powers that be will abandon them if they seek to do anything but run, if even then.

    Similarly, we are routinely told by the standard-issue Republican types (e.g., those idiots at NRO) that welfare expansion and an erosion of social and family values post-1965 (always reference Moynihan’s report at this point) induced this new and horrifying behavior in a previously almost-functional population. Not so. It was those things that permitted a reversion to innate inclinations. Forcible imposition of a higher civilizational order by the pre-1965 majority compelled higher standards and norms of behavior, public conduct, and life aspirations than those of which the subject population is capable on its own.

  2. Amen!

    This author nails it. As a little boy growing up in 1967 Detroit, I remember the fear in the voices of my Mom and Dad as they quietly discussed the grotesque mob violence of the riots heading in the direction of our house (thank goodness they burned out only a few miles away….obviously, the For Sale sign went up shortly thereafter).

    One of my favorite Bible versus; Ecclesiastes 1:9: There is nothing new under the sun

    This describes the predicament we face now in inner cities and throughout the USA. There is no solution forthcoming as this behavior is innate to the African race. This will go on and on until some kind of sharp backlash occurs. That which cannot go on forever, won’t. It will not be pretty but it will be necessary to restore civilization, sanity, and (here’s that word) Justice! to this country. No justice, no peace.

  3. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKXDs_heYlc

    Long Island BT-1000 Knocks CakeFaced MiddleSchool Teacher Out Cold

  4. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    Blacks are driven by contempt than by hatred.

    There is hatred but it is contempt that makes them arrogant.

    This contempt comes from the fact that they are physically stronger, more muscular, and more aggressive by nature.

    So, they push around whites and other races. Indeed, black attitudes toward other minorities are hardly different from their attitude toward whites.

    No matter how much blacks hate he white man, if they were physically small, naturally shy/timid, and un-muscular, they would not be acting the way they are.
    But once black guys discovered they could do to white ‘boys’ what Muhammad Ali did to Jerry Quarry, they’ve lost all respect for the white race. A black guy sees the white race, “I can beat up that white boy and take that white girl who be wanting me cuz she done lost respect for the pussyass white boy.”

    Japanese-Americans had every right to to hate America for the internment, but they had to just swallow their pride and rebuild their lives after the war. There were too few of them, and Japanese are not a physically threatening people.

    Also, American Indians have lots of reasons to be angry cuz their land was taken by pale face. In a way, they are the biggest ‘victims’ of America. After all, black Africa is still owned by black Africans whereas the original land of the Indians is forever lost to them.
    But American Indians are not a big powerful people, nor are they all that aggressive in temperament. Indian communities are poor and rife with social problems, but Indians are not the thugs and punks that blacks are all too often.

    Also, it’s wrong to think that rage and hatred will go away with success. After all, plenty of successful blacks are seething with rage and nastiness. Look at Eric Holder. Super-mulatto-asshole. Michelle Obama who was showered with aff-action all her life is filled with nastiness.

    Why are blacks like this? It’s partly due to black ideology but it’s also because blacks naturally tend to be more self-centered, egomaniacal, and un-reflective. This is why so many blacks get in each other’s hairs. Each Negro or Negress done think he or she be the center of the world.
    Michelle Obama has a typical black personality that cannot feel or think beyond her fried-chicken-munching ego.

    Jews are very successful, but their rage and bitterness still remain. Consider that jerk who wrote MAD MEN.
    So, the idea that people will become nicer with affluence and success isn’t necessarily true. If anything, it can make them even more arrogant and paranoid.

    Why are Jews, homos, and Negroes so dominant as political voices in the US? They have extreme personalities and special abilities.
    Jews have a combination of high intelligence + chutzpah.
    Negroes have strong muscles and jive ass savagery. Homos have creative talent + poopshootzpah. They are so sneeringly queeny meany.

    It’s about time that the so-called Angry White Male became truly angry.

    But Jews have castrated the white male image. Jews now promote Bruce Caitlyn Jenner as the image of the New Conservative Republican Male, and idiots like Rick Santorum praise Jenner.

    In a way, Bruce Caitlyn Jenner might as well be the posterboy of the New Republican Conservative Male since most white male Conservatives are such gutless, wussy, and neutered servants and running dogs of the Jews and homos and mulattos. They go boo hoo hoo over MLK, Golda Meir, and now even Harvey Milk.

  5. Gene Su says:

    I would like anyone who reads this to also read Gary North’s article on the black underclass from 2002:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/gary-north/white-liberals-and-bull-conner/

  6. schmenz says:

    Episodes of black rioting in the US were seen in 1915, and even the 1940s, though, bad as they were, they pale in comparison to what we saw in the 1960s and what we’re seeing now.

    An excellent source of information can be found in Dr E Michael Jones’ extremely depressing but essential book “Slaughter of the Cities”. The author does an excellent job of tracing the history of how we got to where we are, and he does it with extreme fairness to all parties involved. He is also fearless in naming the names of the masters of disaster. Good book.

  7. Gene Su says:

    I think a far graver question to ask is why is it the American government refuses to use lethal force to put down the thugs? If a minority started rioting in many other places in the world, the governments there would not hesitate to open fire (think how the Chinese handled Tiananmen Square). Why is it that whites are so scared to take a stand?
    Perhaps someone smarter than me can answer this question (like Jack Kerwick or Fred Reed) but I think the answer is in two parts:
    1. Our elites care far more about the city’s infrastructure than the safety of its citizens. Armed police can easily keep rioters from killing bystanders. It is far more difficult to protect buildings from being burnt. Buildings can’t fight back. Our cities have a lot of square footage. Americans once chanted during the Barbury Wars: “Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute.” These days, we would rather pay the thugs welfare money than risk seeing brick and mortar go up in flames.
    2. I think black political power has less to do with the voting block. It has more to do with the diplomatic ties black elites have nurtured with a lot of foreign powers (especially Muslim countries). It doesn’t help that the Saudis and Pakistanis are such close “friend-nemies” of ours. No one in the government wants to rock the boat.

  8. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    “I think a far graver question to ask is why is it the American government refuses to use lethal force to put down the thugs?”

    It’s the same in Canada. After a hockey game, there might be mega-riots, but cops don’t shoot no one.

    I think crazies should be handled with ruthless force too.

    Setting shops on fire over some sports game is crazy.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jack Kerwick Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?