We Can’t Police These People

Greenwood? Seems an obscure example, which doesn't really help your point.

It isn't all that obscure this year, and I didn't have a point. The example disproves your claim. If you want to play, "It's the exception that proves the rule" games, go ahead. But your claim is anything but a fact.
 
It isn't all that obscure this year, and I didn't have a point. The example disproves your claim. If you want to play, "It's the exception that proves the rule" games, go ahead. But your claim is anything but a fact.

You found one productive black neighborhood in all of America.

Compared to the hundreds? Of ghettos?

lol
 
Your math is faulty. I cited one example.

If statistics say a sizeable percentage of them have a self-defeating weakness, I'd say it's tribalism that leads to gangs. And tribalism is what you're selling.

Don't want none.
 
Welfare has been disproportionately destructive to blacks in America. Prior to the 60's they were on a trajectory over many decades of steady improvement in standards of living, education, and productivity. The great majority grew up in two-parent households. Since the 60s the government has been subsidizing nonproductivity and economic stagnancy for the poor, with the predictable result of getting more of what they subsidize. If the central managers got out of the way and let free people pursue their interests, most whites and blacks would find that they have more to gain than to lose by living at peace with and interacting directly with each other, and the general rule of human beings of all races to be productive and work for the improvement of their and their children's lives would obtain.

Truthfully, I'd say it obtains as a general rule even in the status quo. But government intervention has obstructed it significantly.
 
Last edited:
Welfare has been disproportionately destructive to blacks in America. Prior to the 60's they were on a trajectory over many decades of steady improvement in standards of living, education, and productivity. The great majority grew up in two-parent households. Since the 60s the government has been subsidizing nonproductivity and economic stagnancy for the poor, with the predictable result of getting more of what they subsidize. If the central managers got out of the way and let free people pursue their interests, most whites and blacks would find that they have more to gain than to lose by living at peace with and interacting directly with each other, and the general rule of human beings of all races to be productive and work for the improvement of their and their children's lives would obtain.

Truthfully, I'd say it obtains as a general rule even in the status quo. But government intervention has obstructed it significantly.

Regardless of what could/should be, the here and now is a mess.

Those who have chosen to live in the cities are going to reap the fruits of what they've sown and they're just now starting to whine about it.

Government is never the solution but here we are.
 
It’s Not a Race War. It’s Something Much Bigger

https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/21/its-not-a-race-war-its-something-much-bigger/

Do not confuse the tactic for the strategy.

By Dan Proft April 21, 2021

The Left wants a race war in America because they cannot otherwise win the ideological war they are waging.

The former is a cover for the latter.

Outside of Ivy League faculty lounges, Marxism cannot be sold on its merits. Whether in Central America or Eastern Europe, Marxists consistently have laid waste to the proletariat they promised to elevate. Rather than shift the means of production and power to the masses to achieve a truly just and equitable society, Marxism in its various forms has killed upwards of 100 million people since its ideological debut in the late 19th century.

Today’s Marxism, therefore, lacks a compelling or substantive historical case and thus necessitates a righteous façade. So today’s Marxists downplay their true interest in destroying the nuclear family by marketing themselves as Black Lives Matter, merely pretending their primary interest is ameliorating racial wrongs past and present, because that is the best way to capture the attention of Americans.

Like the gelatinous creatures in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” today’s Marxists infiltrate K-12 school systems, college campuses, the arts, media, and government regulatory agencies, and replace sapient beings with their Marxist duplicates. “Gosh, Sally looks the same but I don’t remember her wearing a P-hat and scrawling out ‘Whiteness is the Real Pandemic’ placards in the staff break room.”

Today’s Marxist tactics are purely about political expediency. Since both political parties support bribing people with their own money, one more $1400 “relief” check doesn’t generate the unbridled, unthinking, and institutionally destabilizing reactions today’s Marxists seek. Thus it is far more effective to zero in on an important aspect of how people identify themselves—that is, their race—and reduce them to nothing more than that race, followed by assigning “oppressor” and “victim” name tags accordingly.

Then it’s off to the races, so to speak, where every problem is sourced to America’s allegedly racist DNA and every solution is found through atonement by the oppressor racial groups, though absolution will never be granted.

Today’s Marxists are not to be confused with yesterday’s Black Nationalists. In fact, they are happy to include other factions on the intersectional spectrum. For example, demanding that men be able to play women’s sports, promoting hysteria around crimes against Asian Americans, or decriminalizing consensual incest are goals welcomed alongside racial reparations, for they provide the potential for acquiring political power, which is the Marxists’ only principle.

In fact, in advance of obtaining political power, today’s Marxists are even happy to careen from race-obsessed to colorblind. Take the death of former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

Today’s Marxists seized on Sicknick’s death as an opportunity to demonize Trump voters, whether present at the Capitol on January 6 or not. They invented and perpetuated the fiction that Sicknick was murdered, which is now thoroughly debunked, in order to recast the lawlessness at the Capitol as another manifestation of white supremacy.

Today’s Marxists, including their fellow travelers in Congress and the D.C. press corps, simultaneously mourned the dead officer while impugning his department as complicit in the melee on January 6 and racist. Their sophistry went along these lines:

1) White Trump voters got away with rioting and murdering a cop;

2) They are violent insurrectionists who attempted a coup;

3) The police would have opened fire and massacred those who stormed the Capitol had they been black; and

4) You will be lumped in with the insurrectionists unless you disavow any concerns, complaints, or questions about the administration of the 2020 election in any state or locality in order to reenter civil society but your Trump vote will remain on your permanent record for social credit purposes.

With incidents such as these, long before a factual accounting of what actually transpired, comes the snap judgment, the moral panic, the professional agitators’ performative protests, and weeks or months of stilted media coverage repeating what today’s Marxists want to be remembered and glossing over what they want to be forgotten.

The same goes for police-involved shootings.

The details blend together such that only the most dogged news consumer can distinguish the facts in the cases involving the names we are told to repeat aloud like it is an incantation that will heal the nation: George Floyd, Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, Eric Garner, et al.

And that’s the point. Take with you only what you were told to feel and none of what you were told not to recall.

Fundamentally, today’s Marxist is the sentimental barbarian. You are good. Don’t think. Feel. Whatever you feel is your truth. Since you are good, act in accordance with your feelings.

This is who C. S. Lewis wrote about when he observed, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”

Today’s Marxists’ ideological pursuit of tyrannical control transcends race, which is merely a stealth bomber in their fleet. This is not a race war. It’s something much bigger.
 
Greenwood got built, thrived, got burned, got rebuilt better, and thrived again.

There's a fine batch of stereotypes in this thread. I've known black people who resembled none of them at all, and white people who fit these stereotypes perfectly. I'm a libertarian and proud of it, and I do not live by stereotypes. People have been trying to turn this place into Stormfront since it was created. I'm sick of it.

It doesn't go directly from zero to stormfront. There are a lot of people in the middle before you get there.

I don't hate anyone. But I mean come on it's been 150 years since the end of slavery and 50 years since the end of the civil rights movement. Blacks have every oportunity to better themselves and their lives in the country. If they don't take it that is on them. I'm tired of hearing about all this crap.

Take away the cops from all their inner city neighborhoods. Let them kill and rob each other until they come to their senses.
 
I don't hate anyone. But I mean come on it's been 150 years since the end of slavery and 50 years since the end of the civil rights movement. Blacks have every oportunity to better themselves and their lives in the country. If they don't take it that is on them. I'm tired of hearing about all this crap.

The worst thing you can do to a person is to get them to take on the label of "victim". And yet, that's what the left wants to do. Make people feel like they're being victimized because of who they are. After all, why bother with those opportunities you speak of if you believe it's a pointless effort?

I grew up a poor white kid in a poor black neighborhood outside of DC. My primary advantage over my friends was not that I was white - it was that I didn't have people telling me every day of my life that I was a victim of society. I had the belief that if I wanted something, I could work to get it. And if I worked hard enough or smart enough, I could get it. My friends were told a whole different story.

Later in life, I worked for a few unions. Again, their message to union members was that the company is taking advantage of us and the only way to make it better was to stand together against them. I was literally paying people to convince me that I was being victimized. After all, if I was a happy, productive worker, I wouldn't need a union.

So, when you say, "it's on them", I think you underestimate how seductive that message is. And how relentlessly it's drilled into their heads since birth. And the chances of most of them getting the opposite message - that you can do whatever you want if you work hard enough - are slim. I doubt anyone from my neighborhood would have even known there was another viewpoint. The question shouldn't be, "why do so many blacks fail?", the question is why so few succeed.

The left LOVES victims. They need victims to retain their power.

In my mind, the goal shouldn't be a further separation, but an enlightened awakening to get the message out that there are no collective victims - only individual victims. Don't be one and you will succeed.
 
Welfare has been disproportionately destructive to blacks in America. Prior to the 60's they were on a trajectory over many decades of steady improvement in standards of living, education, and productivity. The great majority grew up in two-parent households. Since the 60s the government has been subsidizing nonproductivity and economic stagnancy for the poor, with the predictable result of getting more of what they subsidize. If the central managers got out of the way and let free people pursue their interests, most whites and blacks would find that they have more to gain than to lose by living at peace with and interacting directly with each other, and the general rule of human beings of all races to be productive and work for the improvement of their and their children's lives would obtain.

Truthfully, I'd say it obtains as a general rule even in the status quo. But government intervention has obstructed it significantly.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Invisible Man again.

The following applies today every bit as much as it did when Mises said it seventy years ago - even more so, in fact, given the increasing prevalence of so-called "Critical Race Theory":

"[R]ace theory begins to conflict with the liberal social theory at the point where it begins to preach the struggle between races. But it has no better arguments to advance in this connection than those of other militaristic social theories. The saying of Heraclitus "that war is the father of all things" remains unproven dogma. It, too, fails to demonstrate how the social structure could have grown out of destruction and annihilation. Nay, the race theorists too—in so far as they try to judge unbiased and not simply to follow their sympathy for the ideology of militarism and conflict—have to admit that war has to be condemned [... Race theories] are irrelevant so far as Liberalism is concerned. [They] cannot shake the assertion that civilization is a work of peaceful co-operation."
-- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (1951)
 
Last edited:
There's a fine batch of stereotypes in this thread. I've known black people who resembled none of them at all, and white people who fit these stereotypes perfectly. I'm a libertarian and proud of it, and I do not live by stereotypes. People have been trying to turn this place into Stormfront since it was created. I'm sick of it.

Thank God you do not live by stereotypes while simultaneously making note of them. Your brain would never forgive you for organizing information into general categories and acting upon that information. Statistics have no meaning in your world, and you are better for it. Truly, you are the enlightened man who has ascended beyond game theory.

acptulsa said:
If statistics say a sizeable percentage of them have a self-defeating weakness, I'd say it's tribalism that leads to gangs. And tribalism is what you're selling.

Don't want none.

The enlightened man fails to understood the nature of the species he belongs to. While you may have escaped tribalism in all its forms due to your enlightenment, the rest of the species has not and is not so damn stupid as to take your lead. Nobody has to "sell" tribalism, the species engages in it because it has benefits to them that your enlightenment does not. Tribalism does not just lead to gangs but also to civilization itself. The very same tribalism that created the civilization that enabled you the luxury of obtaining philosophical enlightenment rather than grinding out a meager living in extreme poverty.
 
As a side note, if you belong to some people group, and someone representing himself as one who speaks for another people group and who considers the interests of his group to be at odds with yours, said, "You can't police these people," about your group, wouldn't you consider that something to be proud of?

I wonder if the author of the article in the OP thinks that white people are easily subjugated (i.e. policed), and considers that a selling point for our race.
 
This is the truth of the matter. Slavery ended 150 years ago. Racism effectively ended 50 years ago. Yet blacks in America have made astonishingly very little progress as an ethnicity and the tiny progress they have made as an ethnicity, was given to them by white people.

Yet they blame us. For being white.

We didn't ask for this to be a race war.

But that's what's coming.

That is one of the generational problems with slavery.

"The greatest tool of any oppressor of the mind of the oppressed."

One of the problems appears to remain today, mostly because it is pushed hard on the black community by MSM, is the mindset of the collective black community. They are taught to hate those who tried to free them and offer them meaningful places in a free society. Trouble there is that their minds have been shaped to reject Freedom because that is a major part of what Slavery did back in the day. And that guys name was William Lynch, a very early psychologist who lived well prior to the time of Sigmund Freud or Edward Bernays. Lynch was also a black man. He taught that in order to create a truly obedient slave, the source of influence of Slavery had to come from the slaves themselves. Thus, Lynching was born. They took one black man and hung him by a rope. The rope became the symbol but they never discuss the other relevant information about Lynch's "procedure". The important part that was left out was that all of the black women were forced to watch the black man being hung. What this did was to destroy their mental image of a free black man so that they would raise their black children to be subservient to the strong dominant black woman. The black women were taught to teach the black men to be obedient slaves, and because they were mothers, their children did the exact same thing, absent the physical torture of the black man hanging from the rope. The effect of this type of psychological trauma on the black community ended up being generational, and reminded constantly by the MSM and the Leftist Narrative.
 
It doesn't go directly from zero to stormfront. There are a lot of people in the middle before you get there.

I don't hate anyone.

Hate is the emotion evolution gave us to do what's needed to survive in conflict. To hate is not necessarily to hate without just cause; it is not to initiate aggression; it can be the the natural human response to having been aggressed-upon. Like a stimulant drug it can be self-destructive - but in the right dose, at the right time, it can be the fuel for the selfless committment to honorably pursue justice.

Today's 'anti-hate' campaign is just part of a program to render white people, and white people only, defenseless against a train of abuses and usurpations rained upon them. To those who insist on virtue-signaling their devotion to this dogma I only say, not all are fit for survival in an environment where they have been made the target.

As to the second virtue-signaling dogwhistle 'prejudice', let's consider the word "pre-judge". It indicates a judgement felled before the essential facts are known. If you're hiring a fireman, it's not prejudicial to reject a 65-pound female applicant. The presence of the small woman in front of you informs you of her suitability to carry people out of burning buildings. Maybe there's an off-chance she has some superhuman strength hidden-away but it's your choice whether to spend the time testing that. We always make choices based on imperfect and incomplete information, and we'd be dead if we didn't.

Likewise if you're downtown and you see a group of 25 japenese tourists coming down the road at you taking pictures of everything, you're not pre-judging them by reacting differently than if you saw the same number of black youths strutting and flashing gang-signs. You're incorporating the information you know about that group based on appearance. If the latter belongs to a group with murder rate 18 times higher than the former, you'd be a fool to not incorporate that knowledge into your immediate plans.

Now please don't take my comments to imply that I advocate hating or pre-judging. I'm well aware of the harms these can cause, but these terms have been turned into war-words, meant to stifle thought and truth.
 
Last edited:
Is letting someone else block what you can read something you do by choice?

In certain circumstances it is.

If I wanted to get to the article just so I could confirm what's already obvious about what amren is I could do that, but I'm really not that interested in bothering with it.
 
Hate is the emotion evolution gave us to do what's needed to survive in conflict. To hate is not necessarily to hate without just cause; it is not to initiate aggression; it can be the the natural human response to having been aggressed-upon. Like a stimulant drug it can be self-destructive - but in the right dose, at the right time, it can be the fuel for the selfless committment to honorably pursue justice.

If you hate someone solely on the basis of their skin color, that 'evolutionary advantage' does not at all enable you to honorably pursue justice.
 
Back
Top