At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Is There Really a Connection between Baltimore and Egalitarianism?: A Reply to Boyd Cathey

posted by Jack Kerwick

In Boyd Cathey’s latest article in The Unz Review, “Baltimore and The Failure of Egalitarianism,” the author contends that both the usual suspects among the left as well as those on the so-called “right,” both Democrats and Republicans, “progressives” and “conservatives,” endorse lock, stock, and barrel a shared ideological vision that has swept the gamut of our society’s institutions.

This ideology is egalitarianism, or what Cathey calls, “Neo-Marxism.”

Its proponents, in short, believe that justice demands the existence of an activist government—i.e. an omnipotent government—that will be forever preoccupied with its quest for a more “equal” distribution of material and social resources.


It is this “Neo-Marxist” Zeitgeist that accounts for why the American taxpayer has spent trillions since the 1960’s to “level the playing field” for blacks.

And it is the intellectual poverty of this ideology that accounts for why these trillions of dollars have failed miserably to yield any returns.

Having come to know Boyd as both a man and scholar, it is unsurprising that this analysis of his—like virtually every other that I’ve encountered—is as perceptive as it is well written. To the crux of his argument I have no objections. It is with some details that I take issue.

Boyd writes that the bi-partisan egalitarian fantasies of our culture’s movers and shakers gave rise to “expectations” on the part of lower-class blacks that remain “unfulfilled” because, in truth, they “could never be fulfilled or accomplished.” This, he believes, is “one of the major reasons for the pent-up anger and frustration unleashed in Baltimore and other major cities with a large black underclass.” It is this “continuing failure of expectations” that “has engendered anger and rage, but anger and rage directed”—or, rather, misdirected—“at a system perceived to be the oppressor [.]”


The problem here is that the notion that members of the black underclass are consumed by rage arising from a belief in their own oppression is an essential piece of the very narrative that Boyd urges us to reject.

That Boyd (correctly) denies the reality of this oppression while his opponents affirm it is neither here nor there: Whether the oppression is real or imagined, Boyd and his PC enemies concur that a belief in their “oppression” accounts for the riots and mob violence of underclass blacks.

To be fair, Boyd is no different than partisans of all stripes in endorsing this line.

I reject it.

I submit that the black mob violence on exhibit in hundreds of cities and towns throughout the country has absolutely nothing—to repeat: absolutely nothing—to do with any suppressed rage or hatred arising from a belief in either racist oppression or, for that matter, anything else.


(1)For starters, the orgies of violence that are daily fare in black communities around America belie the thesis that the nationally televised riots to which we are occasionally treated are the culmination of years of simmering rage: The most cursory of glances in the direction of any ghetto readily reveal that its inhabitants are among the most expressive folks on the planet.

It is also painfully clear that pillaging, looting, destroying, and violence are the preferred means of expression.

Considering that this mayhem is most often directed against their fellow blacks, it obviously isn’t the function of a belief in systemic white-on-black oppression. The culprits here are under no illusions as to the identity of their targets: It is their neighbors, not the masterminds of any “white system,” on whom they set their sights.


(2)During those decades when blacks had far fewer opportunities than they have today—when, in other words, the case could be made that they really were oppressed—there was none of the violence that we now witness. Doubtless, yesteryear had its share of blacks who were angry and hateful toward whites—and yet there was no epidemic of black mob violence as there is today.

True, one might reply, but in the past, egalitarian ideologues weren’t busy inflaming expectations by making assurances to blacks that they couldn’t keep.

Wrong: From at least the time of the completion of the War Between the States, blacks had been issued promises that white society failed to honor (Remember “forty acres and a mule?”).

So, if black thugs aren’t motivated by rage over a belief in their own oppression, then what does motivate them?


In short, black thugs act criminally because they can.

Between the time of the pre-“civil rights” era and that of the post-“civil rights” era, two remarkably dramatic changes occurred:

First, blacks lost all fear of reprisals from the white majority.

Secondly, whites acquired a paralyzing fear of offending blacks.

Moreover, blacks know that whites fear them, an insight that accounts for why threats of violence invariably accompany the ever increasing list of demands that blacks make upon (white) “society.”

Notice, we no more need to invoke anger, hatred, or oppression to explain the bullying, thuggish tactics of underclass blacks and their elitist apologists than we need to invoke the same to explain the bullying and thuggish tactics of Al Capone, John Gotti, biker gangs, etc.


We no more need to invoke these “root causes” to make sense of why young black males engage in acts of violence than we need to draw upon the same “root causes” to make sense of why any young males style themselves “tough guys.”

And we needn’t appeal to anger, hatred, or oppression to understand why cowards would resolve their individual identities into an amorphous mob in order to besiege those who are outnumbered or otherwise weaker.

For certain, those of the black underclass who are participating in “the Knockout Game,” riots, and so forth know all about the conventional template of White Oppression and Black Suffering. They’ve been imbibing it from the time that they were in their cradles. However, they’ve also imbibed from their elders stories of God and Jesus. That black thugs have an abstract awareness of such ideas scarcely means that they have the subjective conviction that they are true. But in the absence of the latter, without this passionate commitment to a proposition or belief, there is no motivation to fight for a cause, least of all a cause as noble as that of “freedom.”


This is the difference between black rioters, on the one hand, and, say, Islamic jihadists, on the other. The latter have committed their hearts, minds, and souls to realizing their theocentric vision of the world. Murderous jihadists are evil, certainly; but they are sincere: The killing of every infidel is driven by a desire to honor their God.

In the case of those black thugs who burn senior citizen complexes to the ground and vandalize CVS stores, though, there are no such commendable motives. Even their “hatred” is counterfeit.

The sooner we realize this, the better we might be.

It’s time to reject the dominant PC paradigm.




The Only Antidote to the Oppression of Blacks in America?

posted by Jack Kerwick

In light of the latest turn of events in Baltimore, I’ve belatedly arrived at a painful realization: American blacks will never receive the justice that they demand until they cease being American.

In other words, justice for blacks in America requires nothing less than the establishment of a sovereign nation-state or country that they can call their own.

Doubtless, this claim will shock many. Though I don’t know why or how it could: The logic of the conventional narrative of black suffering in America points irresistibly to the call for an independent country ruled and populated by blacks out of America (and anyone else to whom they decide to grant citizenship).

Consider: From as far back as the War Between the States, and certainly for the last half-of-a-century, America—by which everyone means white America—has undergone nothing less than a revolution vis-à-vis its treatment of its black citizens.


From the bloodiest war in American history that ended slavery to the passage of Constitutional amendments granting equal rights to freed blacks; from sweeping federal legislation forbidding discrimination against blacks to equally robust legislation compelling discrimination in favor of blacks; from the explosion of blacks into the upper echelons of professional sports, entertainment, and elsewhere, to the decades-long War on Poverty with its trillions of tax payers’ dollars invested in improving the plight of blacks—(white) America’s efforts to right past wrongs and level the playing field for blacks have been at once relentless and comprehensive.

In fact, (white) America has even elected a black man—and a black man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, to boot!—to the office of the presidency! Twice! And this black president’s Department of Justice has been run by black Attorneys General.


Statistically, white-on-black violence and crime occur at numbers that are negligible relative to the rates of black-on-white violence and crime: Well over 90% of all interracial crime involving blacks and whites consists of black perpetrators and white victims. Even here, however, white-on-black crime surely constitutes less than ten percent of all interracial attacks, for the government treats Hispanics as white when the perpetrators of interracial crime are brown.

Still, to hear many blacks—and whites too—tell it this past week in Baltimore, this social upheaval, this campaign to slay the beast of white racism for which (white) America has been mobilizing for 50 plus years, never really happened. Or if it did happen, it failed.


Racism is not only alive and well. It is more endemic and, hence, more dangerous, than it has ever been.

Yet the situation is even graver than this.

According to more than one anti-racist, even the best, the most selfless, of white people’s intentions are neither here nor there. Racism is systemic or institutional.

Racism, in other words, doesn’t need racists.

Blacks, then, will never be able to get a fair shake in America. If the tireless and immensely ambitious efforts made by (white) America—to say nothing of the sacrifices made by legions of individual white Americans—have failed to relieve blacks of the oppressive burdens that they feel have been imposed upon them, then nothing will. Moreover, it seems that the more (white) America attempts to rectify past injustices and convince blacks that it wants only the best for them, the more oppressed blacks feel.


This, at any rate, is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from such sights as those that unfolded in Baltimore.

If America is so much as remotely as exploitative of its black citizens as we’re told, blacks shouldn’t be made to continue to call it home. If America is in effect no different in character than the slave plantation of yesteryear writ large, then this generation of black Americans faces the same choice faced by their ancestors: Either remain on the master’s plantation as a slave, or abandon it for the promised land of freedom.

The slaves of an earlier era had it much rougher than the slaves of today: It was against the law for the former to flee their state of bondage, and the penalties to be meted out in the event that slaves were returned to their masters could be brutal. In stark contrast, with all of their political power, today’s slaves could demand a separate, independent state that they can call their own.


No justice, no peace.

After all, as black Americans are forever reminding us, “they” didn’t choose to come to this country. Justice, then, appears to require that (white) America deploy its awesome resources to erect a country ruled and populated by blacks. Only something on this order is just compensation for the ruthless racist subjugation and exploitation to which (white) America has been subjecting blacks for centuries–right up to the present moment.

So, why hasn’t anyone called for this? Why do the most outraged of the enemies of white racism, whether white or black, continue to demand more of the same measures and policies that, to their own admission, fail miserably to deliver the goods? Why do these same folks, black and white, continue to make their peace with a racist society rather than insist upon seceding from it?

Some of us know the answer to this question.

And we know that for all of the demands that black activists and their followers among the masses are inclined to make, the demand for the founding of an independent black-ruled country is not one that we will ever hear spring from their lips.






The Myth of Munich

posted by Jack Kerwick

AFC guest blogger, Myron Pauli, shows how history has been distorted and transformed into political fodder for such fanatical war mongers as John McCain and Lindsay Graham.


To some, “Munich” is identified with Oktoberfest; however, to many it refers to what I call the “Myth of Munich” that Neville Chamberlain could have merely snapped his fingers and singlehandedly destroyed the Nazis but chose to “appease” them and thus is responsible for the 55 million dead of World War Two. That myth has been invoked to oppose the Nuclear Test Ban and all arms control treaties; rapprochement with China, Cuba, and Iran; as well as to start and continue wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Britain was exhausted by an idiotic murderous war over an obscure dead Austrian Archduke which netted her Tanganyika from Germany plus 1 million casualties and war debt. One so-called “principle” from World War One was that of “ethnic self-determination” but Britain and France chose to break up the new Republic of German Austria by giving the Sudeten Austrians to a new mélange of Austrians, Czechs, Slovaks, and a few Poles and Hungarians called Czechoslovakia. To its credit, Czechoslovakia was a democracy and its largest political party in the 1935 elections was the Sudetendeutsche Partei representing 3 million pro-Nazis who clamored to join Hitler’s new Hell. Having swallowed up Austria, Hitler was now demanding to “liberate” Sudetenland. The British and French agreed to a plebiscite in principle but Hitler wanted to just grab it – hence they had a meeting at Munich and a pinky “promise” by Hitler not to ask for any more territory.


Not only was British public opinion overwhelmingly against going to war to prevent Sudeten Nazis from unifying with German Nazis but the British military was skeptical. The pessimistic view is that Germany would crush Czechoslovakia overnight. The “optimistic” view is that perhaps the Czechoslovaks could hold out a few months and then the French Army would then attack the Germans from the Maginot Line! General Hastings Ismay, in charge of British Homeland Defense (London was bombed from the air during World War One) wrote that he thought war was inevitable but it should be postponed until air defenses (recently invented radar and new fighter airplanes) were in place to protect Britain. However, modern warmongers expect that Neville Chamberlain should have rejected public opinion and his own military because Hitler’s “promise” to stop with Sudetenland was nonsense.


Six months later, Hitler broke his “promise” and used Poles, Hungarians, and Slovaks to carve up Czechoslovakia. British public opinion moved overnight from pacifism to militarism and now issued a guarantee to Poland. Hitler responded with an agreement with Stalin. Thus, 11 months after Munich, Poland was invaded and Britain was at War with Germany. Neville never got a Nobel Peace Prize like his older brother Austen.

The “inevitable” war did not commence well – Poland was crushed from two sides, France collapsed quickly, the puny British Army barely escaped from Dunkirk, and Chamberlain fell – but he recommended Churchill over the accommodationist Halifax as his replacement. Those silly radars and fighter airplanes that Chamberlain funded won the Battle of Britain. Britain did not fold in the year she stood alone. Having “given peace a chance” at Munich, the British kept a stiff upper lip during the bombings. One might speculate that had Britain gone to war with shoddy air defense over the principle of keeping Sudeten Nazis apart from German Nazis and that earlier war had its own Dunkirk (so much for the British Army!), there might have been the equivalent of a Vichy Britain. However, for warmongers, peace (even with rearmament) is never worth a gamble and war (regardless of realistic limitations) should always be option number one.


Thus, the “Myth of Munich” lives on with Khe Sanh, Phnom Penh, Fallujah, Kandahar, and Benghazi. Anything short of war, even sanctions, is “appeasement” and every two-bit thug is the “next Hitler”. America has seen the massive regional chaos and the elevation of Shiite power engendered because the Myth of Munich was evoked against Saddam “Hitler” Hussein. The McCains and Grahams will continue to evoke “The Myth of Munich” against anything resembling action short of war – and the warmongering media will pick it up without question. Bad wars, like bad history, leave a terrible aftertaste.



Questions on Baltimore for Democrats AND Republicans

posted by Jack Kerwick

In light of the latest Baltimore conflagration—that’s right, as Colin Flaherty, among others, have noted, mass violence and the destruction of property is par for the course in predominantly black cities like Baltimore—I offer some thoughts.

First, all too predictably, the usual suspects on the left are busy accounting for the barbarism of Baltimore’s rioters in terms of their “root causes” of choice: “police brutality,” “racism,” “the system,” etc. Contrary to what your senses tell you, so goes this line, it is not the young blacks wreaking havoc in the streets who deserve blame for their actions. In fact, these young blacks, like their older counterparts, are actually victims, the products of said “root causes.”


(a)Why, though, do these same apologists for black pathology concern themselves with “root causes” only when it comes to explaining the awful conduct of certain groups of people? For instance, while “root causes” are forever being introduced to account for the horrible behavior of blacks, no one—well, at least not any “roots causes” fundamentalists—ever thinks to go in search of the “root causes” of, say, “white racism,” or white-on-black slavery, or male-on-female domestic abuse, rape, or “gay bashing.”

For that matter, if the “root causes” of black nihilism is an oppressive society, let’s say, then why don’t the proponents of “root causes” back up one step and attempt to excavate the “root causes” of an oppressive society?


(b)How come “root causes” are sought only when it comes to bad behavior? After all, I don’t recall anyone plumbing the “root causes” of Barack Obama’s confidence that he could be elected President of the United States. No one thinks about the “root causes” of Bill Gates’ success.

Second, whenever orgies of black violence make national news, we are repeatedly assured that the civilization-slayers constitute but a small minority. This is what Obama sought to underscore in his press conference that he held on Tuesday when he cautioned Americans against judging the majority of the protesters on the basis of the actions of a “handful” of “criminals and thugs.”

But why don’t the Obamas of the world apply the same rule to, say, discussions of slavery? The overwhelming majority of white Americans during the era of slavery never owned slaves, and no white person today has ever owned a slave. If a handful of black thugs shouldn’t reflect poorly on the majority of the black protestors with whom they’re associated, then a handful of white slave owners shouldn’t reflect poorly on any other whites.


Neither should the proponents of Jim Crow segregation of yesteryear be permitted to reflect poorly on the vast majority of whites who never had anything at all to do with it.

Neither should a few bad police officers be allowed to reflect poorly on the vast majority of law abiding officers.

And yet, scarcely a day passes that whites and police aren’t blasted for the actions of the few: Whenever we hear—as we always hear—about a “legacy” of slavery and Jim Crow; and whenever we hear—as we always hear—about “systemic” problems with our criminal justice system, white society is indicted.

Thirdly, but it isn’t only leftists who search for “root causes” to explain black immorality. Republican politicians and media commentators do so as well—even if their “root causes” differ from those of their Democratic counterparts.


GOP-friendly pundits routinely castigate the left for applying double standards to blacks and whites. Yet the accusers are no less guilty than the accused on this score. Hence, in the wake of black riots (and black dysfunction generally), such commentators can be counted upon to talk about “fatherless homes,” “liberalism,” “the Welfare State,” and “the Democratic Party” as the “root causes” behind it all.

Here they are the mirror image of their political opponents.

A few questions:

(1)If it is Democrat liberal policies that have transformed black communities around the country into Third World type cesspools, then why haven’t those same Democrat liberal policies had the same effect on such bastions of progressivism as all of New England, say, or San Francisco, or the upper Eastside of Manhattan?


(2)The obscene levels of illegitimacy among blacks are certainly harmful to those legions of poor black children that grow up without an intact family unit. But the question that Republicans never ask is: Why do so many black men act as impulsively and recklessly—as immorally—as they do in loving and leaving both the mothers of their children and their children?

Moreover, why do so many black women act as impulsively and recklessly—as immorally—as they do in having children with unreliable, irresponsible men?

(3)Imagine if it wasn’t black Americans in the streets of the Baltimores and Fergusons of the country, but Arabic immigrants chanting to Allah, etc. Or imagine if it was the images of Middle Eastern Muslims in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, or Israel that flashed across our television screens, Muslims in their own lands acting as our black rioters are acting right here at home.


Would our conservative pundits then be inquiring into such matters as the state of the families from which these Muslims hail? Would they then be blaming policies for the actions of the thugs?

We know the answers to these questions.

A Facebook friend of mine, upon posting a photograph of a horde of black criminals destroying a police car on a garbage-strewn street in Baltimore, commented that had these been foreigners, we would, without hesitation, view them as “terrorists.” And those on the radio and television airwaves who endlessly talk about “confronting evil” vis-à-vis militant Muslims, scarcely mention evil when analyzing the scandal of black criminality.

Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why.

However, until they overcome this paralyzing fear of being charged with “racism,” the Baltimores of America will continue to burn.



Previous Posts

Is There Really a Connection between Baltimore and Egalitarianism?: A Reply to Boyd Cathey
In Boyd Cathey’s latest article in The Unz Review, “Baltimore and The Failure of Egalitarianism,” the author contends that both the usual suspects among the left as well as those on the so-called “right,” both Democrats and ...

posted 6:42:51pm May. 28, 2015 | read full post »

The Only Antidote to the Oppression of Blacks in America?
In light of the latest turn of events in Baltimore, I’ve belatedly arrived at a painful realization: American blacks will never receive the justice that they demand until they cease being American. In other words, justice for blacks in ...

posted 9:41:52pm May. 06, 2015 | read full post »

The Myth of Munich
AFC guest blogger, Myron Pauli, shows how history has been distorted and transformed into political fodder for such fanatical war mongers as John McCain and Lindsay Graham.   To some, “Munich” is identified with Oktoberfest; ...

posted 9:15:36pm Apr. 29, 2015 | read full post »

Questions on Baltimore for Democrats AND Republicans
In light of the latest Baltimore conflagration—that’s right, as Colin Flaherty, among others, have noted, mass violence and the destruction of property is par for the course in predominantly black cities like Baltimore—I offer some ...

posted 8:34:18pm Apr. 29, 2015 | read full post »

Al Sharpton and Republicans: Like Draws to Like?
“Like draws to like.” “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.” These are pearls of wisdom, the distilled moral wisdom of “generations and of ages,” as Burke has said. Yet they have been largely trampled ...

posted 9:01:43pm Apr. 21, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.