Soft people attract crime. It’s less risky to beat them up, humiliate them, kill them, and seize their property.
There’s a theme in propaganda called ‘waving the bloody shirt.’ It works best when you’re demogoguing for war, or for some other action to avenge the martyrs. You do it from a position of strength, rather than one of weakness.
Outside the position of strength, moaning about your martyrs just advertises that your group is easy pickings.
The two best propagandists in the ongoing story about the suppression of reporting and accurate statistics about black crime in America are Colin Flaherty and Paul Kersey. Steve Sailer also comments frequently about this issue.
Flaherty and Sailer tend to be more even-keeled than Kersey, but Kersey tends to get into more detail about the long-term damage caused by Civil Rights, and how it has resulted in the ruination of over a dozen formerly world-class American cities.
The weakest part of their rhetorical stance is in setting misguided goals.
After the 1970s, American elites, especially in the surviving US cities that still have sky-high real estate values, engineered a concealed reaction against the crime wave related to the breakdown of segregation. Under the auspices of the drug war, the US locked up large portions of the dysfunctional underclass, imposing unequal enforcement of the law on those populations predisposed to unruliness.
This method has been expensive and corrupting to law enforcement, because laws that don’t match the reality of what’s going on encourages deception and misunderstanding. The destruction of free association has had deranging impacts, has caused incalculable damage to property, and generated ongoing public disorder.
There’s nothing wrong with pointing this out repetitively in an environment in which it has become forbidden to speak the truth about such things. What is a problem is in believing that complaining about it repeatedly will make the problem all that much better. There aren’t going to be legal reforms to restore freedom of association, because freedom of association runs counter to the ideals of equality held by most of the people with power in the US.
Repeatedly reinforcing images of weakness, vulnerability, and helplessness just reinforces those traits in reality.
This sort of learned helplessness is common to the democratic mentality, because people are accustomed to being unable to act without getting permission from some bureaucratic committee or another. The better way to go about it is to act like the committee doesn’t exist, and proceed until the committee is incapable of doing much about what you’ve already achieved.
The sensible way to handle this is to become a harder target, and to stop projecting an image of group vulnerability. You want to leave areas which are indefensible, governed by doctrinaire leftists, and inhabited by weaklings who won’t defend themselves or retaliate against attackers.
You don’t want to get people to believe incantations of “we suck, we’re weak, we’re helpless, the people opposing us are just so smart and great” — because it, in effect, strengthens the hand of the opponent, and encourages the same people you want to build up to go and prostrate themselves before the faction which you have depicted as superior.
Very true. This is also a big problem with the so-called “Men’s Right’s Movement”, despite the fact that many of their grievances are very real.
Thanks, Toddy.
It only works when the King or some other strong man is both on your side and in need of an excuse to intervene. When you lack those things, the complaint is useful to the enemy, because it tells them exactly where the pain is.
”When you lack those things, the complaint is useful to the enemy, because it tells them exactly where the pain is. ”
If it not a genuine weakness however then it can serve as bait for a trap set up for the aggressor.
In war feigning weakness when you actually have strength is a great way to win in certain situations.
Yeah. This works in interpersonal political situations also (like the office — reveal a false weakness).
Massive exposure to potential liability is also a factor.
Even a personally “strong man” in a position of responsibility (public role or private business) HAS to get the forms, permits, and checked boxes. This comes not necessarily from being cowed by a democratic mindset, but because various combinations of lawsuits, legislation, insurance, etc. have put the possibility of simply “taking responsibility” out of a man’s financial reach.
Didn’t submit yourself to Planning & Zoning? Well, we’ll have to tear down that garage you built.
Didn’t hold your diversity training seminar? I guess Jamaar has a point with his lawsuit.
Etc., etc.