Extralegal Violence in Jena (9-25-07)

The nihilist Hollywood media and ‘Jena 6’ protesters have shown their true colors inasmuch as justice – per se – is not the real issue heretofore in the case of Michael Bell or the other five black thugs who dastardly attacked one white boy at a local high school in this quiet Louisiana town. If [justice], as defined by the rule of law, were the issue in question, protestation would take the form of an appeal – and that possibly to a higher court – not a mob of 40,000 chanting ‘Black power!’ and ‘No justice, no peace!’ to besiege a small town of less than 3,000.

There is a common thread between the phenomena of six black thugs who attacked one white boy [and who self-justify the act by taunting*] in Jena and 40,000 plus black particularists who descended upon this sleepy town of 3,000 in Louisiana [to rectify an alleged injustice] – i.e., the extrajudicial manner in which they operate.

We live in a civilized society; this is not the Third World where tribal threats, intimidation and violence tactics manipulate the political system. If America capitulates to intimidation in the face of what is allegedly called an unfair ruling, then it might as well just hand over the society to these tribes. The same rationale (of extralegal threats, intimidation and violence to achieve desired ends) used and advocated by black particularists and their Hollywood media liberal sympathizers is also used by petro- and narco- terror gangs and supra-state factions like al Qaeda.

Really, what we are dealing with here is radicalism; it’s nothing new. The corollary truth to the justification of extralegal violence to move the bounds of the law further out to accept more behavior which was not formerly accepted – i.e., to normalized social deviance – is that extralegal violence to move the bounds of normative behavior in to accept less deviance is justified. To be sure, if six black boys can stomp a white boy for provocation, six white boys can stomp a black boy for provocation. And I don’t know why we should stop there. If a black person rapes or kills a white, there’s no reason, by this logic, why whites can’t lynch blacks.

There’s an argument that a jury of Michael Bell’s peers was not good enough; that whites are unfair and incompetent to judge blacks. Based on the premise that individuals must be accountable to their peers in a free society, the logical end of this statement is that blacks cannot live freely among whites and vice-versa. Perhaps there is a degree to which this statement is true, rather than it being a dichotomy between two things that are mutually exclusive. To the extent whites consider themselves unaccountable to blacks and vice versa, these cannot live freely in a society together.

This would be illustrated by the case of federal intervention; to the extent federal intervention is required to prop up integration among antagonistic characters, we lose our freedom. By extension, demographic shifts toward a more powerful mix of antagonistic characters (e.g., a less dominant majority) require more federal intervention to maintain an integrated body politic in the face of faction arising from differences between the [multiple] classes with increasing strength [in those differences]. The logical end of which is an all-powerful bureaucracy and no individual freedom (for the greater good of a united society, of course).

The alternative to this scenario is to loosen the restrictions of central government bureaucracy and allow people to naturally gravitate toward like-minded individuals and away from unlike-minded ones. The concept of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ with their connotations of white subservience are notions that serve bureaucrats and please academic statisticians (and journalists), but that are neither practical nor fair. You can’t impose equality of condition on people without punishing the most motivated and hard-working individuals. Moreover, you can’t force integration on a heterogeneous population without punishing the most law-abiding among them.

The Founding Fathers spoke at length about these issues; essentially, they told of how [faction] has destroyed Republics in the past and how bureaucrats’ natural reaction is to impose equality of condition on people to keep them from [being factious]. This only serves bureaucrats in the short term, but in the end, it leads to massive violence (and duly so due to the symbiotic concepts of redistribution as legally sanctioned theft and the fact that people will not allow themselves to remain oppressed indefinitely†).

James Madison wrote, “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests [than men’s opinions, which attach themselves to their own respective passions]. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

Furthermore, he went on to explain, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown into the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for public opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

“So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property,” (Debates on the Constitution, an anthology)††.

What we have here is a failure to communicate; certain [factious] individuals who share our society want things they haven’t earned. These want to get away with crimes they have committed and desire to be held to lesser standards than the host society. America, the most ethnically diverse country on the planet, is a microcosm of what’s going on in the world. You can see the arguments made over generations, which hold relatively constant. The Americans and Europeans want what they have earned and they want independence (i.e., personal freedom). The Africans, South Americans, Middle-Easterners and Asians want inclusion – as opposed to exclusion or independence – and rights to things they haven’t earned (e.g., entitlements).

This is a zero-sum arrangement that pits classes against one another and the reason why our Founding Fathers, in their manifest wisdom, divided the government and set checks and balances to keep bureaucrats from lording over the people and usurping their freedoms. Benjamin Franklin, speaking at the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights proclaimed, “I’ll give you a Republic, if you can keep it.” It is the inclination of every statesman to mollify unrest and to give people what they desire to achieve that end. Unfortunately, people often want things that aren’t good for them; it’s called a tragedy of the commons.

The ultimate issue before us today is discernment; if we give people things that are rightfully ours, first of all, that’s unfair to us, secondly, these people will acquire a sense of entitlement toward these things and will take us for granted. They will become like a cancer infiltrating our society and deviating our culture toward [lawlessness and indolence]. These [cancer cells] will spread desolation throughout our general public and be corrosive of our traditions, undermining our way of life. Perforce, violence, poverty, teen pregnancy and low academic/career achievement – in a word, licentiousness – will be normalized.

Benjamin Rush said, “In our opposition to monarchy, we forgot that the temple of tyranny has two doors. We bolted one of them by proper restraints [by establishment of a federalized/decentralized government of laws and not of men]; but we left the other open, by neglecting to guard against the effects of our own ignorance and licentiousness.” That is to say, our civil libertarian mode of government – i.e., liberal freedom for the individual – provided for by our Constitution and Bill of Rights documents can lead to license without proper care. Whence the body politic abandons its [religious] principles (moral restraint), perforce, the foundation for the rule of law (which is based on the Decalogue) crumbles and we become impotent in our efforts at self-government.

There are many factors necessary to run a Republic successfully, not least of which include shared values and mutual self-sacrifice. In the case of the ‘Jena 6’, we need to keep the big picture in mind. If we allow people to force their will via extralegal violence and threats, we surrender our own capabilities at self-government and the rule of law therefore submits itself to the tribal law of blood feuds. The logical end of tribal society is anarchy or a complete lack of government. This is not an optimal solution for Western civilization, as it would entail a regression in standards of living and personal security, among other things.

Our end concerning both politics and economics, therefore, should be to maintain civil society while increasing personal freedom, which requires lessening the power of the federal government, decentralizing authority and rendering government more efficient by increasing states’ rights. The alternative is to continue to be oppressed under the injustices imposed by a powerful centralized bureaucracy.

If politicians want to make healthcare, e.g., a universal right, they should allow states that want to collect taxes for that purpose the opportunity to do so. However, it is unrealistic to expect diverse interests to agree on such sweeping reform, especially when costs are defrayed by individuals who, by and large, will not have access to these benefits. Higher taxes and excessive regulation hurts businesses, which in turn, hinders employment. The governments of the states will, perforce, impose entitlement programs on their citizens at their own peril.

New Deal Liberals don’t want decentralization because it entails transparency and direct competition. If states as laboratories are compared via scientific evidence, it will become apparent that quality of life suffers in those states with increased regulation and taxation as unfriendly policies drive away businesses and employment. Increasing the power of the federal government precludes this open comparison and therefore suppresses evidence to the contrary of the ostensible virtues of [Communism].

Insofar as bureaucrats wink at corruption and indulge in waste while imposing excessive regulation and overburdensome taxation on the nation as a whole, jobs go to overseas workers where [e.g., manufacturing bases] have less transaction cost impediments. Similarly, insofar as bureaucrats wink at corruption and indulge in waste while imposing excessive regulation and overburdensome taxation on individual states, businesses, hence jobs, will travel away from those states and prove [Socialist] policy unsustainable as said states fail in direct competition with other states that have more business friendly policies. To make the point clear, France has largely become a dangerous place to live and is essentially bankrupt.

In conclusion, domestic economic and political polices affect our ability to enforce the rule of law, the underpinnings of which provide order and security in our society. There is a symbiotic relationship therefore, between the former and the latter, which in turn, affects our present domestic prosperity and tranquility. We must consider the reality of our present situation – both domestically and internationally – when making political and economic decisions. Consequences of easy welfare and immigration since the sixties have created monsters, so to speak, that our society has been forced to reckon with. Moreover, consequences of bribing dictators [through UN giveaways] for temporary peace have also led to our undoing.

These policies have come home to roost and at this point, we are facing a crisis in terms of top-heavy government, unsustainable entitlements, crime waves, terrorism and the like. The excesses of the post [WWII] era have taken a huge bite out of American integrity and self-confidence. We have become complacent and we seem to lack resolve in fighting against evil. The present generation has become dissolute in its character and God is not pleased; he has allowed Satan to force his will upon even the innocents in this country by people who are not a nation, by those who show no mercy for the vulnerable. God has allowed them to creep upon this country and usurp our liberties and our prosperity. Thompson in ’08.

*taunting. Nooses were hung during a football rally in September, three months prior to the beating, which the blacks attributed to provocation. Insofar as this deduction is stretched, the blacks impute causation for the initial noose hanging, not to a rally, but as retaliation for [the blacks] sitting under a [white] shade tree – as if there were such a thing. Regardless of ‘who started it’, violence does not proceed logically from taunting, even if – hypothetically speaking – [the taunting] were a direct rebuttal from the whites to the blacks’ action and was meant as a direct affront to the character of those blacks or blacks in general – assuming again, that hanging nooses has any implication whatever besides intolerance for lawlessness.

†people will not allow themselves to remain oppressed indefinitely. Insofar as federal intervention usurps individual freedom [to provide a uniformity of interest and mitigate faction] this is despotic and necessitates revolt.

††Note: The [Constitutional] discussion assumes people understand that faction is the root of all social ill. If it were such that everyone agreed on everything, there would be no social problems. (These persons might all be headed on an express train straight to h-e-double-hockey-sticks, but as a practical matter, the society would operate famously.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s