There’s another riot today in what was once a major American city, but is now a backwater comparable to some third world cities based on economic, criminal, and social metrics. It doesn’t really matter which city it is, because just about all the cities have the same problems.
Here’s the big lie: “the drug war is about keeping drugs off the streets to promote public health and protect American children.”
Here’s another big lie: “people of all races are equal in intellectual and moral capability. We should treat everyone as if they’re the same value.”
Here’s the half-truth: “the drug war is about locking up black people and other racial minorities.”
Here’s the full-truth: “the drug war is a corrupt excuse to lock up black people and other racial minorities who commit a lot of violent crime, lower property values by their presence, and commit countless minor crimes against the peace and our sense of aesthetics.”
Here’s the fuller-truth: “there’s no more money to pay for any of this.”
Trying to square all these lies and truths together is impossible, so there must be chaos in the streets. No one is willing to tell the truth, and no one is willing to do what’s necessary to restore order to the cities. Because this is the case, just about all of these cities will be destroyed from the inside, as many of them already have been to some extent or another.
For a brief period of time, it was possible to essentially jail enough young men from these minority populations to keep them off the streets for long enough until all the aggression was out of them in prison. Locking up large portions of the entire male population of various minority demographics may be somewhat effective in the short term, but it’s also extremely expensive, with inordinate unintended consequences.
The destruction will continue to get worse until a military intervenes in a decisive way, in the typical manner that ends these sorts of disturbances definitively. This probably won’t happen until it becomes much worse, which it will.
I remember your brief book review about an e-book on this subject.
Does that book list (or have you come across) any contemporary (c. 1970) sources that spell this out?
It seems like a great deal of this comes from inference and wink-wink-nod-nod subtext, which is all well and good.
But surely if this were the secret goal, plenty of people would have been saying so semi-publicly, and their swept-under-the-rug comments can be dug up via Google?
Here’s the ultimate truth: it’ll keep Paul Kersey busy for months.
Bwahahaha.
“a military intervenes” or “the military intervenes”
that’s the most ominous substitution of an article of grammar I’ve seen applied in many years.
Perhaps he doesn’t necessarily mean the American army. The Muslim hordes, the Mexican reconquista and others aren’t necessarily “the military” but are *a military” (of sorts)