Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Black Wives Matter II

So continuing from part 1, the solution to the problem Afro-America experiences in the USA is for them to have their own country.  Not "send them back to Africa" because they have no country there (Liberia was a cruel hoax) and USA is the country of Afro-Americans.

The country for Americans of African ancestry must be in USA territory, for we are talking about Americans.  Two objections arise, one practical, and one racist.


The practical problem is where and what form?  I dunno.  How about Louisiana?  Louisiana is already unique, and much to the chagrin of the oil men, it's valuable natural resources were essentially taken over by the state.  That is a good start.  How about Detroit?  It is in chaos, which is a great place to start a country.  Mississippi?  Ask them.

Ex-slaves did quite well on their own forming a community in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
The traditionally black district of Greenwood in Tulsa had a commercial district so prosperous that it was known as "the Negro Wall Street" (now commonly referred to as "the Black Wall Street").[7] Blacks had created their own businesses and services in this enclave, including several groceries, two independent newspapers, two movie theaters, nightclubs, and numerous churches. Black professionals—doctors, dentists, lawyers, and clergy—served the community. Because of residential segregation in the city, most classes of blacks lived together in Greenwood. They selected their own leaders and raised capital there to support economic growth. In the surrounding areas of northeastern Oklahoma, blacks also enjoyed relative prosperity and participated in the oil boom.[7]
White man burned it down.  Shoulda had borders!

And then what form? UK is three to five countries, three to five systems under one country.  USA was supposed to be 13 systems (now 50) under one country.  It's in our DNA, although suppressed by progressives. As I mentioned yesterday, Hong Kong is a record breaker on all measures, and it exists under communism, with the "one country, two systems."  I think anyone contemplating generating a peaceful, just society might start by studying Hong Kong as a model for form of government.


What got me going on this was the contretemps over cops killing Afro-Americans and Afro-Americans killing cops (really Iraqi war vets killing Iraqi war vets, but that's another aspect.).  Not so much the stories themselves, as the virulent racism of the comments sections under the stories.

Next, writers I admire seems to flounder or wax pessimistic as to an outcome.

Linh Dinh has an esoteric view of his country, USA, what with being born and formed in Vietnam.  I very much like his writing, but this article I think is off track.  Dinh quotes a police officer of African ancestry, among other points -
Complaint: Blacks are the only ones getting killed by police, or they are killed more.
Fact: As of July 2016, the breakdown of the number of US Citizens killed by Police this year is, 238 White people killed, 123 Black people killed, 79 Hispanics, 69 other/or unknown race.
Fact: Black people kill more other blacks than Police do, and there are only protest and outrage when a cop kills a black man.
Unh.  No one thinks only blacks are getting killed by cops, so this is a straw man argument. (The entire quote is dishonest presentation) Back up.  Why are the cops killing anyone?  Why are they even armed?  They need to be disarmed like London police.  Where I live in the last week I saw a homeowner doing his lawn with a sidearm, a shopkeeper likewise armed, and a shopper in a large grocery store open carry (Washington sate has always been open carry, you need no permit if your weapon is in plain view.)  It seems to me those who wish to be armed are necessary and sufficient to meet the requirements for violence as it arises.  The state should be stripped of any ability to do violence.  

People say that will bring chaos.  No, we have chaos now.  What it will bring is anarchy, where violence is judged by all and he who is unjust will be sanctioned pitch-perfectly by the surrounding community.

But back to 238 white people killed, and 123 "black" people killed.  That is the point, the rate at which blacks are killed by cops is far higher than whites.  Of course "blacks kill other blacks" at a rate higher than police do, so do whites kill whites at a higher rate.  The entire quoted post goes on with non-sequiters and straw men arguments.

"Blacks" commit more crimes.  Sure.  I helped a deep undercover narc write his memoirs.  He was there when crack showed up.  It seemed all at once, and it was an amazing drug.  The immediate effect, the low cost, and crackheads never seemed to die.  Whether you are a billionaire or a welfare queen, at $10 a hit, everyone could afford it, but it took every dime you had.  He'd seen the effect.  

And he noted crack was cocaine based, and crack violations carried ten times the sentencing of cocaine violation.  Cocaine was all over the white neighborhoods, and rarely enforced.  On he ghetto, welfare funding floods in as do crack.  There is no question crack was specifically designed for its features, and he was convinced it was introduced by the powers that be to recover welfare payments and launder it back into intel services.  History tells us as much.  As a detective he was also convinced that forensically crack could be tracked back to its source, who designed it, who introduced it (never gonna happen).  The traced AIDS back to Patient Zero, a flight attendant stationed in Toronto, accordning to Randy Shilts book.  Same could be done for crack.

Point is, "black" crimes are conjured in a manner arbitrary and predatory.

Instead of pointless statistics, how about digging a little deeper?  Of the 123 "black" people killed, how many were ruled justifiable?  OK, that's easy, I know that off the top of my head.  100% justified.  Next of the 238 white people killed by cops, how many were ruled justified?  No idea, and I bet no one else knows.  I also bet for cops the stats will show it is far riskier to kill a "black" man than a white.

And dig deeper, how many whites killed are repeat offenders known to the cops attempting "suicide by cop" and how many "blacks" are such as the professional woman who took a wrong turn and died in a hail of gunfire for her error?  Something tells me such details would reveal what I think just about anyone already knows, "blacks" are treated horribly in USA.

People of African Ancestry are generally perplexed at how come white people do not like them.  Almost no person of African Ancestry has ever done willful harm to any other person of such ancestry, let alone white folk.  So why the bias, antipathy, etc?

Horace noted this over 2000 years ago, "we hate those we harm."  It was bad enough under the Ku Klux Klan, but life has gotten far worse for people of African Ancestry under the progressive regime since the 1960s.  Any fair assessment of race progress will reckon that race has experienced a net deficit at the hands of the progressives: education, medicine, prison, life expectancy, opportunity, all woefully degraded.

Now it seems the point of open borders is to race-replace African-Americans with anybody else.  

But why get into an argument about details, the question is who has the policy that will help?  Trump of Hillary?  Of course neither.  Either will be so constrained by financial limitations that "black" lives will not matter in the least for either.  Nothing will change, for both sides can assume since "blacks" have no where to go, they'll take what they get.  

Their own borders would change all that.  Let's call the country Kingdom after Martin Luther King.  The racist response is that African Americans lack the intelligence, cultural resources and genetic qualities required to self-govern.  The slaves got a good deal being taken to USA (if they made it) because they got to be Americans and they'd otherwise live in poverty in Africa.  They benefit from enlightened, effective government, which they cannot maintain themselves.

Hmmm...  it took white man about 2500 years to get from Socrates on government to the constitution of the USA.  Slavers captured or bought primitive peoples from Africa and put them in the worst circumstances.  In spite of that, within two generations, a Dred Scott is arguing Western Civ in English with the best of them.  It seems there are two alternatives: These Africans are supermen who can achieve in two generations what it took white man to accomplish in 2500 years, or the ideas are universally edifying.

Anyway, this was precisely the argument the English made against Irish independence.  They benefit from enlightened, effective government, which they cannot maintain themselves.  Racists say just look at black-dominated cities: Detroit, Memphis Atlanta.  Mismanaged basket cases.  No doubt, but look at countless basket-case white run cities.  And who says given the opportunity and freedom, Afro-Americans would choose the reprobates a rigged political system offers up?  In USA, black leaders tend to be government-owned, such as police-informer Al Sharpton.  All countries feature their own selling their own down the river: Irish sell Irish down the River, Ukrainians Ukrainians, Japanese Japanese and so on.  Different circumstances give rise to different skill sets and leaders.

Further, Thomas Sowell has done yeoman work noting a genesis of poverty in Afro-America.  In his books The Politics and Economics of Race, he traces in essence impoverished Afro-America descending from the French Colonies, and the wealthy Afro-Americans descending from British Colonies.  How come?  The French never share power with their subjects, while the British do.  Emanicpated slaves gained management experience.  Compare Barbados and Haiti.

If Afro-Americans got their own country, would all blacks be relocated there, and would whites be excluded?  No and no.  About as many Jews live in USA as in Israel, and only about six million Jews live in Israel of about 14 million worldwide.  And Israel itself is only about 75% Jewish.  All these people thriving in USA have some place to go it abused.  Only Afro-Americans do not.  Their country, even under a two-systems one-country regime would give them an option, a city-state of refuge.  It need not be any more "all-black" than Israel is all Jew, and it could be as multicultural as Hong Kong.

There is no doubt that any transition would be messy, much to the delight of racists.  Well, the Irish got their independence, more or less, and then confirming all assertions of the English that the Irish could not govern themselves, the Irish plunged themselves into civil war upon gaining independence.

Why call this post Black Wives Matter?  I personally have no doubt that the powers that be desire to rid America of African-Americans.  I see the policies and programs and recognize them as what was visited on the Irish.  Breaking up families is essential in this process.  While working on the free city-state of Kingdom, Americans of African ancestry can revolt against the racists simply by marrying Afro-American wives and keeping the families together.  The Irish have made great strides in family unit integrity from less successful times (although we too can work harder at this). A great country must have families as the foundation.  An African-American city state will need African-American families to govern it, as Japanese families run Japan, Russian families Russia, etc.

Kingdom: a new prize upon with to fix the eyes and realize.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.