A Very Brief Post Part 2

Quite a number of Liberty's Torch's Gentle Readers are upset with me over this short piece. However, the tenor of their complaints wasn't that I had defended racism, an obvious racist, and racists generally. (And before you ask, neither was the baritone.) Rather, it was along the lines of "we all know this, but why must you be so open about it?"

I shall refrain from replying to those correspondents, as my reply would consist of a single word.

---

Nettled by the "obsession" of Deputy Chief Racist Eric "A Nation of Cowards" Holder, Elizabeth Price Foley has just dipped a toe into these waters:

The problem with Holder’s disparate impact obsession is that for multiple reasons having nothing to do with discrimination, the races do not engage in all behaviors at the same statistical rate. In the context of the criminal justice system, for example, African-Americans are undoubtedly stopped, searched and arrested at higher rates than whites, Hispanics or Asians. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), 28 percent of those arrested for violent crime are black, despite the fact that blacks comprise only thirteen percent of the population.

Does this suggest that blacks are being arrested disproportionately to the crimes they have committed? No. According to DOJ’s own National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the victims of violent crime perceived their attackers as black 25 percent of the time. Importantly, this NCVS data does not include data for homicide, which the UCR indicates is committed by blacks in 52 percent of cases where the killer’s race is known.

Oh my, yes, that's definitely a disparate impact -- but the impact is that of a violent subculture on a supposedly integrated society.

Needless to say, the Rajahs of Racialism would like to see anyone who dares to cite those statistics and ponder their implications with others listening forcibly silenced and punished by law. But as I wrote some time ago:

1. I am a Caucasian of Irish and Italian descent, whose parents were immigrants from those lands.
2. My loyalties are to my family and the United States of America. I would defend either or both to the death. Apart from a mortgage and a car loan, I owe nothing else to anyone.
3. What matters most to me about others is their character: their willingness to respect the rights of others and to discharge their proper responsibilities, without whining about any of it.
4. I believe that there is an American culture, and that it is infinitely superior to all the other cultures of the world, past or present. More, I believe that Americans are the finest people in the world -- that no other land produces anything remotely comparable to our general standard of decency, justice, generosity, or good humor.
5. I believe that the races, as conventionally defined, differ in various ways. The importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
6. I believe that the sexes differ in various ways. As with racial differences, the importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
7. I believe that homosexual sodomy is self-destructive, but that, at least in certain cases, sexual orientation can be changed.
8. I believe that there is such a thing as general intelligence, that it is at least partly inherited, and that it varies widely.
9. I believe that the handicapped should receive our sympathy and compassion as individuals to other individuals, but that they are not entitled to more as a matter of right.
10. I believe that laws that mandate preferred treatment for the members of any group, however defined, are both unConstitutional and destructive.
11. I hold these convictions not because anyone else holds them, but because the evidence of my senses and my own powers of reasoning have led me to them.

According to the major taboos of our time, this makes me a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic chauvinist abuser of the physically challenged. By copping to all this, I've violated all the major, politically correct taboos of our time: about race, gender, sexual orientation, the handicapped, and multiculturalism. Needless to say, the enforcers of those taboos would like to see me boiled in oil.

They can dip their outrage in beaten eggs, roll it in crushed walnuts, and shove it up their asses.

For those keeping score at home, the mortgage is history; all else remains as it was.

---

History is an experiment that can't be run twice. Human history embeds a period of several millennia during which some men, animated by greed and undeterred by law or conscience, made slaves of others. In the United States, those slaves were almost all black. We shall never know how race relations might have developed had it been otherwise.

Yet white men fought a war over that practice; approximately 800,000 white men died to put an end to it. Inasmuch as legal slavery pre-existed white residence in North America by thousands of years, and continued in other lands, mostly with social approval, until 1962, a rational man might reasonably conclude that ours is a record not to be embarrassed by, but to be proud of, at least by comparison.

Other Enlightenment-derived societies seem to have a lot less of a problem with their "legacies of slavery," even though those periods were longer and more brutal in every other country in the world than in the U.S. Here we obsess over it. We allow racialist hucksters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, two of the most dishonorable scoundrels ever to be allowed near a microphone, to evoke a wholly undeserved, unearned sense of guilt from American whites who:

• Have never owned slaves;
• Overwhelmingly are not descended from persons who owned slaves;
• Endure racial preferences that disadvantage whites in hiring and education, plus a crushing tax burden for a welfare state originally aimed at succoring blacks;

...and a wholly undeserved sense of "being owed" among American blacks who:

• Have never been slaves;
• Mostly cannot name an enslaved ancestor;
• Receive preferential treatment in hiring and education;
• Are the most politically and materially fortunate Negro cohort in world history.

We even tolerate that aspect of "political correctness" that permits some words, phrases, and topics to blacks but forbids them to whites.

Given the undeniable statistical differences between the races, particularly with regard to violent crime and government dependency, I question our social sanity.

---

But then, every so often we encounter someone such as Donald Sterling, who dares to express a preference for his own race! That he did so in private, in a conversation never meant for anyone else's ears, is irrelevant to the central point. Far more relevant is this:

Had Sterling been black and his statement aimed at whites, he would not have been castigated, pilloried, and punished.

The proof is quite simple: black racialists express such sentiments daily. Anyone who cares to observe the phenomenon is invited to listen to a Nation of Islam speaker, or to several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Those folks know they won't be called into the public dock as Donald Sterling was; American whites' meticulously inculcated sense of guilt prevents it.

American whites have been legally and rhetorically bludgeoned for so long over racial matters that barely a trace of rationality remains to discourse on the subject. Virtually all discussion of race relations stems from a single constant premise: That the races are identical and indistinguishable in all ways but skin color.

The premise is demonstrably false. One need not look to the Uniform Crime Report to falsify it; one need merely pay attention to the evening news. (It also helps to have some knowledge of the history of the world.) Anyone who knows it to be false, and is sufficiently honest with himself about his knowledge and his values, will dismiss it in decisions and actions pertinent to the defense of his life, liberty, property, and family.

In consequence, rational American whites whose minds have not been perfused with "politically correct" idiocy will display a preference for their own race under virtually all circumstances of importance:

• They will prefer to live in white communities;
• They will prefer whites as coworkers and business partners;
• They will prefer white vendors for the providers of hired services;
• They will prefer schools with no (or nearly no) black children in them;
• They will strongly discourage their children from associating with black children;
• And they will keep silent about their preferences where differently minded others might hear.

Test that proposition against the behavior of those around you.

---

As the unfortunate John Derbyshire and I have both said, the statistical differences among the races do not justify seeing individuals as "their skin color and nothing else." Neither do they justify creating privileges under the law for one race and impediments for others. Individuals can, should, and must be judged on their individual merits and demerits. The law must be rigorously race-neutral. No other course is ethically acceptable.

What's galling is the infinitely stronger assertion, which few have dared to challenge, that one must refrain from discussing or acting on the statistical differences. No one can justly be prohibited from protecting his life, his property, or his family. No one can justly be criticized for acting in furtherance of his own legitimate interests, whether personal or commercial. And no one can justly be castigated or punished for expressing or acting on his personal preferences.

Yet the exact reverse is de facto the law of the land in these United States today. Worse, it's a "law" enforced solely against whites, often to the tune of the victims' coerced mea maxima culpas.

This is wrong.
It's as wrong as slavery and Jim Crow.
It cannot be made right by legislation, much less by rhetoric.
And no Earthly power can eradicate the conditions such "laws" seek to change.

Therefore, it's time for an awakening: an awakening of American whites to the injustices being heaped upon us. Indeed, it's time for a rebellion: a bald-faced assertion of each man's absolute right:

• To his opinions and preferences;
• To the open expression of those opinions and preferences;
• To act on those opinions and preferences, barring the use of force and fraud;

...even when others disapprove.

In witness whereof, I stand with the inimitable Fred Reed:

I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a caller-in told me, “You a racist!” I would hesitate as if puzzled, and say “…So what?”

And that, to my mind, is all the defense even a Donald Sterling should require.