Out of Christianity’s continued collapse as the moral nucleus of Western civilisation, has arisen the Liberalism of 2019: a moral hegemon that operates as a quasi-faith. Whereas abortion, murder and fornication were once considered mortal sins; modern Liberalism presents its own list of grave misdeeds: racism, sexism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia and transphobia, among others.
In this context the most serious sacrilege one can commit is “racism”; more specifically, racially-based forms of discrimination or oppression. In contemplating these transgressions, what mental images crop up? Even from an Australian perspective, the utmost damnatory racist scenes emerge from 19th and early 20th century America: slavery, the KKK, lynching and Jim Crow laws.
Let’s not pick any bones about it: 19th and early 20th century America was a White Supremacist Country, Whites did commit many depravities against Black residents. As just referred to, lynching was a brutal trend which reflected that era’s power disparities. It occurred when (mostly) Whites perpetrated vigilante violence against Black men, often for initiating inter-racial sexual relations.
We can all agree–progressives, liberals, conservatives, nationalists–the hatred that accompanied American lynching was evil, sickening and unfortunate. We should seek to prevent such violence from re-emerging–the prescription for which is offered at this post’s end.
There’s a catch, though. These days, however praiseworthy it is to condemn bygone White Supremacist lynch attacks, most progressives shirk from condemning more contemporary forms of inter-racial violence.
While African-Americans are 13 % of the population, they commit 52 % of murders in the United States. This makes them 4 times more likely to commit murder than average Americans.
An even more troubling tale emerges from statistics on inter-racial rape between Whites and Blacks. Statistics are sparse on this field–unsurprisingly so, given the inconvenient truth contained therein. Nevertheless, in 2005, an average of 100 White women were raped by Black men per day. On the other hand, somewhere between 0-10 Black women were raped by White men, in that entire year. This translates to Black men being thousands of times more likely than White men, to commit this terrifying variety of racial aggression.
It seems appropriate to deduce that since disproportionate white-black violence in the 19th and early 20th century, the tables–representing the main perpetrators and victims of American inter-racial crime–have flipped. (As an aside, I doubt White men of 19th century and early 20th century America had the same murder rate as Blacks nowadays; or that they raped Black women at similar levels. Nevertheless, these details aren’t significant for our purposes, so let us assume all things are equal: the tables of inter-racial crime have simply flipped.)
I was once taught to valorise Martin Luther King and his famous words: “I look to a day when people will be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Some 50 years later and this “day” in regards to inter-racial crime, hasn’t happened. Why?
In answering this palpable failure, progressives–if they don’t avoid the reality of inter-racial crime altogether–blame poverty levels or structural disadvantage. But given Blacks have been in America for 400 years and have been handed a litany of affirmative action programs, structural disadvantage can’t explain away such disproportionate violence.
Likewise, race realists would blame this violence on innate Black qualities: lower average IQ scores, higher levels of testosterone and aggression. This too doesn’t seem fully sufficient: some Blacks are certainly capable of temperance and civilised behaviour, are we to honestly conclude they are thousands of times inherently more likely to commit rape than Whites? Hardly.
In these above expositions, there exists some merit; though more prevails in the race-realist view. But in the absence of a complete explanation, we can reasonably infer there are other factors at play. So what else causes Blacks–again, in America–to commit excessive violence against Whites? Personally, I think it comes down to something primordial within individuals and groups: power.
Frankly, Blacks feel emboldened enough to commit these acts of violence against Whites. Of course, they are aware that rape and murder are imprisonable offences. It isn’t that Blacks feel they will face no punishment for their crimes.
But currently, this punishment is not a sufficient or effective deterrent, while group political, economic and cultural ramifications remain nominal. Consequently, Blacks feel invigorated to oppress a perceived old enemy, Whites, through violent crime and its ensuing psychological terror.
The role of this collective Black consciousness might seem initially abstract. Especially as in a most obvious sense, it is individual African-Americans who commit crime–no single agent acts for “Blacks.” But bear with me.
Blacks think and act in terms of tribal considerations (as all groups do, though normally less so). These considerations are viewed as absolutely paramount; when perceived as under assault, carnage is inflicted on the populace in expressing Black power. On the other hand, Whites, as it pertains to explicit expressions of group interests, are too psychologically anguished to even muster a yelp.
For example, when a Black is killed by a White policeman–even for legitimate reasons, as in Michael Brown’s case–the city burns down. And when 100 White women are raped by Black men, it’s just another day in America.
Even if information on inter-racial rape were blared out in the streets of every American town and city, currently, cultural constraints mean Whites wouldn’t mass violently respond. In this respect–the circumstances, perception and context of inter-racial rape–Blacks have demonstrably established cultural power over Whites: regarding who will care, how much, and the different group consequences of said infractions.
Generally, it appears that Black peoples’ perception of Whites as a grave threat, drives them to violence as a means of asserting power. This manifests both explicitly, when blatant anti-White hate crimes are committed; and implicitly, when a certain rage and hatred contributes towards ordinary acts of Black-White violence.
Perhaps for some, this explanation of Black-White violence might see too far divorced from practical realities. In assuaging these concerns, I’d say two things.
First, it seems nonsensical to conclude there is no connection between vitriolic rhetoric and violence. Whites are especially decried in dehumanising terms, and are often violently attacked by Blacks. Common sense would suggest there is some connection between this stated acrimony and actions.
Second, we have the 2012 Jamie Fox incident, which underscored what many as intuitively true. In 2012, Jamie Fox was on SNL promoting his upcoming film ‘Django Unchained’. Talking about the movie, Fox declares his favourite part was “I get to kill all the White people! How great is that?”, before being applauded by White liberals in audience. (Curiously, this video is difficult to find on YouTube. But you can go to 0.34 of this Young Turks clip to see it for yourself).
Fox since dismissed criticism of his remarks, claiming they were a “joke.”
This was clearly the type of “joke” meant half-humorously, half-seriously. Given his riches, fame and reputation, Jamie Fox isn’t actually going to kill White people. Equally, though, he harbours a bellicose animus against them, which in the right circumstances, would contribute to violent behaviour. Manifested by their unconcerned approach, many, many Blacks have share Fox’s animus. While trite, the double standard is obvious: imagine the scale of White Leftist seething if say, President Trump “joked” about killing Blacks–irrespective of context.
As I said earlier, the tables of inter-racial violence were once very much flipped. When power was unequivocally exercised over them via lynching, rampant Black violence was less the reality it is today.
This lynching was often done to pursue White power, as a ruthless measure, to prevent Black men from copulating White women. This view was expressed by former US Senator and Governor Benjamin Tillman, who said on the Senate floor in 1900:
We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.
Likewise, in one 19th century editorial published by the Memphis Daily Commercial, editors declared, “The commission of this crime (Black-White rape) grows more frequent every year,” and, “There is no longer a restraint upon the brute passion of the Negro.”
Back to the modern day. Like it or hate it, history details the gradual cessation of these harsh anti-Black attitudes, up until the modern day, where an epidemic of Black-White rape prevails.
The tit-for-tat nature of this racial struggle vindicates Patrick J. Buchanan’s analysis: “It is in the nature of things that nations and religions rule or are ruled” (page 121 of Death of the West).
Building upon this, Buchanan quotes Thomas Hobbes: “I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in Death” (page 121 of Death of the West).
Of course, not all multi-racial societies are bound for futures as violent as the US: specific factors, the type of groups, differences between groups, and demographic balances all contribute. Some will be more brutal; others will be less, where group subjugation is done in more non-violent ways.
But the key point is this: in multi-racial societies lacking a major hegemon, there are two potentialities. Groups can either oppress, or face oppression themselves: true equality can never prevail.
You might not like that this is the case. (I don’t even like it). But it remains the truth, so to deliberately avert it for political expediency is grossly negligent–and dangerous.
The only means of averting this ugly, endless, often grizzly struggle for power, is to pursue ethnonationalism: the establishment of ethnostates for each individual people, where it is practicable.