Monday, June 17, 2013

Are We Born Innocent?

One of the presumptions of civilized men everywhere is that the newborn child is "born innocent," which in this application means "not guilty of any crime or evil deed." The conception rests on a precept of justice that's been under heavy attack for decades: individual responsibility, the assertion that a man cannot justly be held responsible for the deeds of others.

Among the more significant aspects of the attack is the clamoring of black racialist hucksters for "reparations:" a demand that present-day white Americans pay trillions of dollars in penalties -- through the federal government, of course -- that present-day black Americans would receive in "compensation" for the economic harm done to blacks of 150 years ago by slavery. Inasmuch as no present-day white American has ever owned a slave and no present-day black American has ever been a slave, that would constitute a transfer of the presumed guilt of all white Americans of 150 years ago onto the shoulders of white Americans of today. It's a jarring premise, inasmuch as slaveholders were less than one percent of the population of pre-Civil War America. Indeed, less than one percent of contemporary Americans are even related to the slaveholders or the slaves of yore.

Should the precept of individual responsibility be removed from our legal system, claims such as the above could be fashioned into law and rammed down our throats at once.

The application to race relations could hardly be clearer. Young blacks, steeped in rhetoric that persuades them that "whitey is the enemy," proceed to treat whites that way. Whites, few of whom wish blacks anything but good, sense the hostility of blacks and distance themselves reflexively. Tensions rise that cannot be dissipated. Incidents of interracial violence become more frequent. The cycle of hostility stokes itself.

Scary, eh? But there are other facets to it that tend to escape our notice...until someone possessed of unusual percipience brings them to light:

Our society has forgotten the wonder of men in its quest for retribution against men and boys who often weren't even alive when women were being discriminated against. [Helen Smith, Men on Strike: Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream -- and Why it Matters] [Emphasis added by FWP]

Dr. Smith's focus is on the effects on American men of the perverse incentive structures now in place concerning marriage, fatherhood, career, and other aspects of male behavioral choices. The modern feminist movement, which rides on an undercurrent of resentment of men for being men, has transferred its anger at prior generations of men -- much of which is entirely irrational and unjust -- onto current and future generations who have done them no harm. Its success at reshaping the laws concerning marriage, divorce, and family matters to favor women heavily has reaped the whirlwind: a gale that propels young men away from the traditional pattern of acceptance of commitment, responsibility, and hard work for the welfare of their families.

In the environment thus produced, young women have come to assume predatory intentions and a lack of responsibility in young men. That attitude is quite clear to young men, many of whom have seen their parents' marriages collapse from the same effect, usually with savagely destructive effects upon their fathers. Their suspicion of the "marriage trap" and its potential consequences has caused men to resist romantic involvement, sometimes lifelong. That shift in male behavior has left innumerable women involuntarily single long into their thirties...if, indeed, they ever marry at all. Since women's desire for children has not been dampened, many conceive by young men unwilling to assume the burdens of marriage and fatherhood, such that approximately four out of every ten minor children are being reared in single-parent households.

Well, that's what you get when you pre-convict a baby of various high crimes and misdemeanors for the sin of being white, or possessing a Y chromosome.

Forgive me, Gentle Reader. This is a subject about which it's difficult for me to remain calm. Too many people are suffering unjustly. Too many of the sufferers are children. And as Mark Steyn has ably pointed out, "demography is destiny." Our ongoing production of interracial and intergender hostility, coupled to its consequences for child-bearing and child-rearing, is enough all by itself to doom these United States. We're already seeing some of its consequences in contemporary politics. (Cf. Eric Holder and the New Black Panther voter-intimidation scandal.)

I prefer a world in which we're presumed innocent at birth -- a world in which a man cannot be held liable for the crimes of others. But we won't have such a world until we cease to pay even the slightest degree of respect to the rantings of persons who make angry demands in the name of races, sexes, ethnicities, religions, or groups of any other sort. To these eyes, that day appears far off.

Just one more reason to stay home behind a dead-bolted door.


Anonymous said...

First, there was a time(say 30-40 years ago) when i would go to City Park in Denver and get along just fine with the Homies and Mexicans-we'd play handball all day and i can honestly say there wasn't a whit of racial tension.

Now? I wouldn't be caught dead there because that's what I'd be.So you know what? F 'em, F every last one of them-they want to believe that crap about white people, well fine, go right ahead-I actually lived in 5 Points in Denver for years and got along just fine with my neighbors, ALL of whom were black.

Now? You're kidding right? At one time I bet i had more black friends than any white person you ever knew. Now? I wouldn't live in the same zip code with any of them.

They're content to live on government cheese, why work they say? Again, fine. Nothing like 5th generation welfare to give those kids a great start,

And while you're at it, make sure that anyone attempting to yaknow, actually learn something in the worst schools in the world, ostracize them, call them Toms-yeah that'll be productive.

And when you're into double age digits, join up with a couple hundred of your friends and flash mob some poor 7-11 or play the knockout game. Yeah. great plan.

Finally make sure there's lots of poverty pimps excusing this behavior and whatever you do, don't let any of it into the news.

You blame Zimmerman for defending himself? Why you have to be a teabaggin' racist.

There's going to be blood and lots of it and it;'s not going to bother me a bit.

Anonymous said...

The progressives don't give a damn about reparations or encouraging racial harmony. This is about using excuses to mount attacks against the traditional United States society. Anything to keep racism charged up and draining the wealth of the nation into a bottomless hole.

Brad Ervin

YIH said...

Here's an eye-roller for you: The latest whine? Casting white people to play (wait for it...) A WHITE FAMILY in a movie!
The 2013 Academy Award nominations were announced today and among them was a Best Actress nomination for Naomi Watts’ performance in The Impossible. The film follows a family who find their Thailand holiday caught in the mayhem of the December 2004 tsunami. As well as receiving many rave reviews, the film has been widely criticised for turning a natural disaster in Asia into a story about white people.

But hang on. Isn’t the film based on a true story? Why shouldn’t this family have their story told?

Filming it in English (the actual family is from Spain) is understandable due to the intended (US) audience.
I haven't seen this film and I likely won't, but this is as ridiculous as (from a previous post) ''Nora Timmerman and Julia Ostertag: That animals only exist for human use, that humans are better than animals, that animals don’t have their own stories to tell'' (um, because they don't, and the ''story'' most animals would tell would be a really mundane list of bodily functions).

William Stout said...

I believe it to be worse than you know. In our society women outnumber men at University with the current statistics breaking the student body down to 35% male and 65% female. That signals a transition in society from a patriarchy to a matriarchy. This is because the high paying leadership jobs will have to go to women as they will be the only ones qualified for the position. Additionally, take your daughter to work days and placing such a heavy focus on females in math and sciences have improved female opportunities while the boys are left behind secondary to neglect. It would appear that men are in for some tough times down the road.

Of course, this exacerbates the problem that you describe in your post. Further, even if women were inclined toward marriage, they will find it to be much more difficult to find a husband with equal education or earnings. One would think that women would want what is best for their sons, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

With the introduction of women into combat arms, I am still waiting for women to be compelled to register for the draft. I wouldn't have thought that a 4'10" female who weighs 98 lbs. could kick a 6'1" male who weighs 210 lbs. ass in hand to hand combat, but what do I know. I'd just like to see girlfriend make a five mile march with a ruck that weighs 95 lbs. strapped to her back. No worries, the Army will have that load bearing exoskeleton in the field in no time.