White people have a very clear privilege compared to
blacks. Strangers do not expect, upon seeing our race, that there is a very
substantial likelihood that we will turn out to be violently and viciously
criminal, whereas with blacks this is a likelihood that absolutely cannot be
ignored, for anybody who does not want to be violently and viciously violated.
That is a huge racial privilege and society ought to
try to reduce it. So who is to blame for it and now do we get rid of it? Black
criminals are to blame for it and we get rid of it by putting all criminals,
white and black, into prison or into the ground and keeping them there.
Do an effective job getting rid of the criminals and
you get rid of the expectation that unknown blacks who are met in free society
will turn out to be criminals. That is how society gets rid of "white
privilege," by cracking down harder on criminals, not going easier on
them, as this BlackLives criminals'-lobby
If black privilege is desired as a kind of compensation,
that can be achieved too. Let the white criminals continue with their marauding
and only remove the black criminals from free society. Then it is unknown
whites who will be assigned an especially high likelihood of turning out to be
criminal, and voila: black privilege, in the exact mirror image of the white
privilege that exists today.
To limit crime, people can either defend
themselves (the right to keep and bear arms) or they can call for more police
Policing is an inferior solution to crime. That's
because society has an unfortunate tendency to criminalize whatever any
powerful enough interest group finds momentarily bothersome, and then these
laws stay on the books forever, which over time ends up criminalizing a whole
lot of things that should not be criminalized, making law enforcement a
sometimes serious nuisance, which in turn makes more intense law enforcement a
more serious nuisance.
The better solution is the one what the founders of
this country wrote into the Constitution. People can defend themselves against
crime by keeping and bearing arms. Because serious and violent criminals get stripped
of their gun rights the effect of gun rights over time is to systematically shift the balance of power on the streets in favor
of the law abiding. Kids coming up see who has the power and they scorn the
It is an ideal system. Unfortunately blacks in this
country keep depriving themselves of it by voting Democratic, and that is
entirely on blacks, who are the author of their own powerlessness in the face
of crime. Don't blame the police and don't blame whites. I've been lobbying for black gun
rights for 20 years.
Having voted for their own disempowerment, leaving
no solution to black crime but a more burdensome police presence, it is no
surprise that many blacks are unhappy with the police, but this cannot account
for the radical perversity of the OnlyBlackLivesMatter movement.
BlackLivesMatter is a lobby in defense
of the worst criminal behavior
Their two leading martyr icons are a pair of blacks
who were killed while committing attempted murder (Trayvon
Martin and Michael Brown). That's a criminals' lobby, directly on the
side of the worst bad guys, so long as they are black.
Other BlackLives icons were not killed intentionally but died of accidents and
happenstance that proceeded from their own criminal decisions to fight the
police (Oscar Grant and Eric Garner), but BlackLives again inverts blame, as if
dying makes the drunk driver who causes an accident a victim instead of a
Some BlackLives icons died while police were
enforcing questionable laws (Eric Garner, selling "onsies," and
Freddie Gray, not even allowed to carry a folding knife). Who is to blame
there? BlackLives, for voting Democrat, when it is Democrats who pass these
noisome laws. Don't blame the police for enforcing the laws YOUR votes
Always backwards, always trying to switch blame from
the innocent to the guilty, with no compunction and no limit. The peak of their
outrage is in response to what any normal moral person regards as a "feel
good story of the day": when a criminal attacks an intended victim and it
is the criminal who ends up dead. The most immediate goal of the BlackLives
group is to protect black criminals from the people who are trying to resist
their criminal behavior.
Which side has the cowards who
can't handle an honest discussion on race?
BlackLives activists are welcome my interrupt my
visit to the restaurant with obnoxious demands for "conversation on
race," but don't expect it to be one sided. I will gladly explain where
white privilege comes from and how to get rid of it. Permanently remove all of
the serious criminals from free society and there will be no white privilege.
Alternatively, treat the police as the enemy, have
some demagogic success in making police pay a price for shooting blacks in self
defense, and you force them to retreat and become less effective at controlling
black crime, which jacks the already disgustingly high rate of violent black
criminality up yet another notch, which forces every rational person, white,
black or "other," to be that much warier of unknown blacks.
Of course those who declare for the BlackLives
criminals'-lobby are no longer unknown. They are known to be allegiant to the
criminal side and should not be trusted one inch. Odd that they seem to be hurt
by that distrust. Their icons are attempted murderers. They hold stopping the
worst crimes to be an injustice. It is a purely racist movement. They will side
with the worst criminal over his intended victim purely on the basis of race.
To them ONLY race matters. This is a radical evil.
That some not-all-bad people get caught up in it is
comprehensible. The policing that black criminality brings down on innocent
blacks is a serious burden and people who are in pain often lash out in ways
that makes the pain worse. Society just needs to reject the racist dyspepsia of
BlackLives, regardless of its threatening magnitude, and actually get rid of
white privilege by doing a much more effective job of removing all criminals
The best way is by allowing the law abiding
citizenry of all races to end criminal threats with a gun. The other way is by
upping police activity, but one way or another the criminals need to be
Knowing that unknown blacks pose a high
risk of vicious criminality is NOT racism
To have a pejorative meaning the term
"racism" cannot refer to rational information processing, and it
doesn't, not if we are being logical. The logical meaning of racism is to
continue to expect a person to act as other members of their racial group on
average tend to act even when the information one has about the person as an
individual indicates a different character. If a black individual shows a
strongly law abiding character it would be perverse to still treat him as if he
is as likely as other blacks to engage in vicious criminality. That would be racism.
Logically, information about a person as an individual trumps information about group behavior. Like all additional information it needs to be accounted, and it is better information. Wherever individual information is available it reveals where group based expectations are off the mark (or on the mark) in the particular case, rendering the group-based information irrelevant henceforth on the revealed point.
There is an industry of blacks concocting ways to
see things that aren't racist as racist because this is seen as a source of
power. If you can claim victimization you can demand redress, but of course it
tends to backfire. People aren't going to want to have anything to do with you
at all if they have to worry that you are going to concoct false charges
against them as a way of trying to make off with some ill-gotten gain.
It is a kind of criminality and fits with the other
ways that people (white and black) expect unknown blacks to turn out to be
criminals, and that is not working out so well for blacks. Think Vester Lee
Flanagan II, who murdered his
television ex-co-workers for such "racist" comments as telling him
that some other reporter was "out in the field." "This guy was a
nightmare," said one co-worker, "Management’s worst nightmare."
This near-criminal extortion game raises negative
expectations about all blacks, but it blows back most directly on the
individuals who engage in it. People recognize what they are, that these are
bad people who can't be trusted. Their particular bad nature of course
interprets the negative reaction to their demagoguery as racism. So we get
these crazy-angry blacks, constantly looking for any way they can find to
interpret everything under the sun as racist, and when people quite rationally
recoil from the imminent threat they present, they are enraged, in Flanagan's
case to the point of murder, but it goes far beyond Flanagan.
The entire BlackLives movement is doing the same
thing. Whenever a black is injured in the commission of even the most murderous
crimes the movement erupts with insane cries of racism, prompting their shock
troops to burn down their own cities and viciously attack any whites or Asians
they can get their hands on.
As a result, there has probably been a solid 20%
increase in "white privilege" over the last few years. The more
monstrously racist blacks on average become, the more strongly people recognize
the danger that blacks on average present. Hire a black who you don't know to
be immune to demagogic race-mongering and you could end up with one of a
million potential Vester Flanagan's on your hands.
There is a whole movement built around Vester's kind
of thinking and it seems to be widely embraced on the black left. Since most
blacks are on the left, expect more and more employers to be willing to
risk equal opportunity lawsuits rather than risk bringing a racist time-bomb
into their workplace. BlackLivesMatter is the biggest engine of white privilege
and black disadvantage ever.
Now they are waging a graffiti
campaign across Texas urging the ambush murder of police officers, as
was done to police officer, husband and father Darren Goforth. When the
murder-baiters get caught, plaster their name far and wide so that they will
never be hired as long as they live. That is the proper individual punishment
for bad individual behavior, but when all that people know is a person's racial
group it is rational for them to take into account group behavior. This
widespread black descent into the most extreme moral depravity is going to make
everyone that much warier of all not-well-known blacks.
It is not racist to expect people let
into college under lower standards to be less able than other students
Beyond the epidemic of deliberate attempts to
concoct phony claims of racism there is also a real difficulty that a lot of
well meaning people have in understanding what is and isn't racism. They think
that any expectation about racial groups, no matter how rationally founded, is
supposed to pushed out of their mind. That is morally insane. All information
has to be rationally processed.
Rational information processing is how we get to the
King ideal of judging people by the content of their character instead of by
the color of their skins, by learning to give individual information its proper
priority over group information, but we can't do that if we at the same time
try to block people from rationally processing group information. Everything irrational
is nonsense. It is known to be wrong. Not being willing to embrace known error
is a quality of mind. Do you care whether you are making sense? The war against
rational processing of group information, to the extent that it is successful,
destroys the quality of mind that is needed if people are to give individual
information, when available, its proper priority over group information.
Want to get rid of the presumption that black
college students are less well qualified than their peers? Stop admitting them
under lower standards. All that affirmative action in college admissions has
achieved is to shift the entire population of black students out of their
element, from where they would be on a par with the other students to where
they are less qualified, and the same happens with jobs.
Promoted ahead of ability on the basis of race,
co-workers all rationally expect blacks to be less able. Knowledge of them as
individuals may come to confirm that expectation or to reject it but the
"white privilege" remains: that whites don't have to endure the
rational group-based expectation that they don't merit their position.
To get rid of white privilege we have to get rid of
the affirmative action policies that create it. We could go further, if we want
to create a black privilege, by raising the bar for blacks to be hired.
Co-workers would rationally expect blacks hired under such policies to be
extra-qualified. But we shouldn't allow any racial group to have these
"privileges." The cost is high (suffering bias in hiring, or high
rates of criminal victimization), and the resulting privilege is unfair.