A Legacy Of Destruction In The Name Of Equality

If anything’s going to change, however, it begins with holding an open and honest conversation about the real impact the Civil Rights movement ended up having.

Crystal Mangum. Everyone believed her because they wanted to or because they were supposed to.

Remember the Duke University lacrosse team rape case from 2006? 18 years years later, the woman who made the false allegations has confessed that she, in fact, lied:

Source

It’s worth noting: Crystal Mangum is currently serving a sentence in prison after being found guilty of murdering her boyfriend in 2013. She claimed self-defense; whether justice was or wasn’t served in that case, it’s safe to say what went around came around for her.

As for the Duke lacrosse case, I remember it very well. It was a major story at the time, covered almost nightly on the news, triggering yet another racial moral panic in this country, which nonetheless paled in comparison those we saw during the more recent “Black Lives Matter” era. I was also in college, so it had a certain amount of significance for anyone who was a university student back then. The case unraveled relatively quickly, in large part due to prosecutorial misconduct by District Attorney Mike Nifong, a scandal in its own right.

Here’s X account “i/o” with a summary of what happened in the wake of the allegations, events which are all verifiable:

After her accusations, these things happened:

Players were ostracized and received death threats. The team was condemned by faculty, and their season suspended. Black Panthers set up camp on the quad. White residents of Durham were randomly beaten up. The local paper took the side of the stripper. The police intimidated witnesses who had alibis for the accused. The DA committed fraud, lied and misrepresented information (he was eventually disbarred).

Few apologies, in the end, awaited the falsely accused.

Still, many people the last 18 years have believed in the guilt of the Duke lacrosse players. None of this has to do with the veracity of Mangum’s story nor her credibility, of course, both of which collapsed in relatively short order. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact Mangum is Black and a woman, while the falsely accused were White, men, and “privileged” athletes and fraternity brothers.

Their identities were, at least in the eyes of the public and the media, more important than the merits of the case. Remember that this was two years before Barack Obama was elected president, and many more years before the great racial reckoning of the 2010s. Fortunately, when the case unraveled, the media covered that too in great detail, though it was couched predominantly in the malpractice of Mike Nifong, who is White.

I mention this case because in my last essay, I said something most Americans today would still find deeply controversial: the Civil Rights regime needs to be critically examined. Not overturned, not yet, anyway. But it’s past time to quit worshiping the Civil Rights movement and look at it with a more honest, more open-minded eye.

While it may be a stretch to say Civil Rights was the cause, it did have the effect of creating the grift and “mission creep” that entered in correlation to the diminishing returns to be found in real legal/systemic issues. In other words, as America became a less racist society, the Civil Rights regime needed a new mission. That new mission led to Crystal Mangum and Jussie Smollett weaponizing their skin color, exploiting the guilt and sympathy harbored by millions to maliciously fabricate false tales of racial injustice for personal gain. That’s how Daniel Penny ended up being charged with manslaughter. These are just the most publicized cases; there are many more the vast majority of Americans will never hear about.

In theory, the Civil Rights movement was supposed to create an equal society. Instead, it created a racial caste system where Blacks are at the top, where the law effectively permits the employment of racialized terror in the name of “justice.” America’s entire political order today is built around it, so it’s not something which can be broken down easily. If anything’s going to change, however, it begins with holding an open and honest conversation about the real impact the Civil Rights movement ended up having.

This space of mine is about the practical, not the political, though. So why do I make such a big deal out of this? Besides the fact this is the existing reality of the social order we live under, the sobering truth is that we all need to be prepared for the day someone may weaponize their race, or weaponize our own race, against us. I wouldn’t describe America as “racist,” but we are definitely “racialized.”

If there’s any aspect of our racial history that Americans really have a tough time coming to grips with, it’s that the Civil Rights regime was implemented with the complete acquiescence of the White majority, if not their complete cooperation. In other words, White Americans relinquished White supremacy in the name of domestic tranquility.

In 2024, over six decades after Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech, there’s no way to seriously argue that America lives under any vestige of White supremacy, despite White remaining a majority. In fact, other racial minorities whose history in America is relatively brief are out-performing Whites. Blacks are still lagging, but they more than compensate by possessing overwhelming cultural, social, and political clout going way beyond anything held by any other group.

In the early years of the Biden administration, Regime-friendly voices were warning of a civil war precipitated by Whites who felt as though they were losing power. Those voices have since grown silent, but they were also wrong in identifying who was really at risk of losing power: the Black community. As I noted above, Whites have, rather magnanimously, contributed to their own diminishing since the 1960s. Unfortunately, it’s only led to the aforementioned racial caste system with Blacks holding a near monopoly on cultural, social, and political, if not economic, power.

I know I’m taking a long time getting to the point, so here it is: if anyone is in danger of losing power in the Fourth Turning into the First, it’s Black America. They, alongside illegal immigrants, maybe, have been overwhelmingly the sole beneficiaries of the Civil Rights regime that has dominated American life for over 60 years. Any attempt to critically examine the Civil Rights regime will trigger fierce backlash from both the Black community and the Left, for whom their entire sociopolitical infrastructure is built on. We’d basically be threatening their entire purpose for living if we even questioned the Civil Rights regime.

Both Donald Trump’s election and the Daniel Penny verdict have already triggered tremendous backlash from the Black community. Much of this was to be expected, but this is also coming at a time when the “Black Lives Matter” era is coming to a much-needed end. BLM isn’t going away any time soon, but the “market,” so to speak, for Black grievance is nowhere near as strong as it was even just a few years ago. Think about how a petulant person behaves when they believe nobody’s listening to them. What do they do?

The far-right, White supremacy-induced civil war predicted by the likes of Barbara Walter and Stephen Marche never materialized. At least for the remainder of my lifetime, it never will. I’m sure of it. White Americans have only financial well-being to lose, but Black Americans have power to lose. Conventional wisdom holds that money is the ultimate form of power, but I’m learning that’s not true. The Civil Rights regime allows for money to be taken and re-distributed under the guise of rule of law. The only real power in this world is the ability to influence hearts, minds, and behavior, along with taking what you want. Once you lose this ability, you better hope you have some money tucked away.

Even as the country’s attitude towards race shifts back towards the “center,” this will only increase the level of defensiveness among Blacks and other non-Whites as they realize their race can no longer be weaponized. As long as the Civil Rights regime exists, some level of race-weaponization will be prevalent, however, meaning we could see even more race hoaxes like the Duke lacrosse case and Jussie Smollett. They’ll be met by a much greater level of skepticism by the public, however, as the public’s reservoir of sympathy has been mostly depleted.

It’s unfortunately in these moments that the aggrieved become their most vicious. I don’t know if we’ll see a civil war or revolution come out of this, but it does signal some dangerous times ahead.

Is There No Way To Fix This?

The problem with rolling back some or all of the Civil Rights regime is that it gives aggrieved groups even more incentive to lash out disruptively and violently. Some may decide that it’s better for them to do this - put some skin in the game - instead of using the power of the bureaucracy to make the lives of others a living hell. However, this is still a problem that needs to be dealt with even after the administrative state has been neutralized as a weapon. Nobody likes it, but we live in the world of real: grievances need to be addressed on some level and it’s usually better to resolve them peacefully than not.

If rolling back the Civil Rights regime will fix only half the problem, what else can we try? Historically, aggrieved minorities were placated through separation - either through secession or by allowing the creation of autonomous communities or even political units. Secession almost never happens peacefully, so let’s consider the second option.

An autonomous political unit typically exists within a larger state, occupying a defined geographical territory, and allowed a greater degree of self-governance capacity than the rest of the country. Notable examples of autonomous units includes Hong Kong in China, Chechnya in Russia, along with Basque Country and Catalonia of Spain. These areas of the country are often quite distinct from the rest, either in terms of culture, ethnicity, language, religion, or politics. The U.S. has something resembling autonomous regions in its territories marked out for its various Indian tribes, along with its commonwealths and territories like Guam and Puerto Rico.

The concept behind an autonomous region is effectively a compromise: you can’t leave, but you can have a huge chunk of land to yourself. Conversely, that compromise could also amount to: you can stay, but you have to stay in this area of the country. In our cosmopolitan, globalized present, the idea that people may need to live separate from one another even in the same country is blasphemous, but throughout history, this has been the one proven method of preventing conflict from arising. Other forms of autonomous regions, like the Gaza Strip and West Bank, have been far less effective in preventing conflict, but that’s because these were examples which caused demographic upheaval, which is always something to avoid.

Now imagine: what if Black Americans, or any racial minority, as redress for their grievances, were permitted their own Chechnya-type or Catalonia-type autonomous region within the U.S.? What if the U.S. sweetened the deal, offering money to start with, along with a measure of infrastructure development prior to handing over political control to the new government-to-be? All under the condition that once control is handed over, they’re almost entirely responsible for managing their affairs, with the federal government responsible only for defending the subnational unit from foreign attack, enforcing immigration law, etc. Financial aid is provided only in truly exceptional cases.

The benefits, of course, are obvious. They get to live amongst their own, by their own dictates, without having to compete with other groups. At the same time, they get to enjoy the benefits of being part of a bigger, more powerful country. Would they accept the deal?

Unlikely. Many might be willing to take the deal, but many won’t. First, it’s difficult to get people to uproot themselves. Second, this is likely to be characterized as “segregation,” the proposal probably defeated on that characterization alone. Third, as they are now responsible for their own well-being, with prosperity not guaranteed, many will likely insist on continuing to have access to the prosperity and resources of others. After all, that’s how they’ve been managing thus far, why would they change it?

The irony is that an autonomous region would be the best possible choice. Keep in mind - most Blacks already live apart from the rest of America. If the 2024 election is any indication, America’s racial divide is, in many ways, “Everyone Else-Blacks.” Blacks have much higher levels of in-group favorability and out-group unfavorability, so if any group “deserves” it’s own autonomous region, it’s them. It doesn’t make much sense to force them to live among other racial groups they end up in constant conflict with, nor does it make any sense to force other racial groups to constantly have to deal with their grievances. The same way couples who constantly quarrel are better off living apart.

This isn’t a call for segregation on my part. No Black person would be forced to live on the “reservation,” but they would certainly be incentivized to do so. Blacks who want to live among other races and are willing to live under the broader social framework are free to do so. If they continue to have grievances while doing so, however, it’ll raise the question: why not go somewhere they wouldn’t have to deal with such problems? The option to live apart is there, a luxury not always available to many people of the world. There’s no greater luxury to have a land to call your own, to be able to live entirely according to one’s own cultural norms and dictates. No more daily racism, no more false accusations, less conflict. What’s the problem here?

I’ve simplified things for the sake of argument, so what I’ve described here should in no way be considered a serious proposal on my part. There’s no way any of this is happening any time soon. My point was to offer alternative solutions and allowing minorities to have their own country-within-a-country has, historically, been a popular solution, mainly because it works. Even if plausible, such a proposal wouldn’t become feasible until the Civil Rights regime is overturned, anyway. There’s no incentive to have one’s own country-within-a-country or even to leave, entirely, as long as the Civil Rights regime legitimizes an endless litany of grievances and allows for forceful access to the resources and spaces of other groups.

It’s for these reasons why so many Americans, myself included, feel there’s no solution to any of this. Perhaps that too is another lesson from history: autonomous regions are often formed out of violent conflict. We can only hope we end up doing things the easy way, but history says there’s no guarantee of that, either.

“Don’t Make Eye Contact… Keep Your Head Down…”

The Left is having a real one over the acquittal of Daniel Penny. All across social media are testimonials from New Yorkers and other city-dwellers on how to handle yourself in the face of someone like Jordan Neely.

I don’t want to give any of these people undue publicity, so I’ll just quote this here tweet because once you seen one of these takes, you’ve pretty much seen them all:

• DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT.

• READ A BOOK, PUT SOME HEADPHONES ON, MIND YOURRRRR OWN BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

• IGNORE. IGNORE. IGNORE.

Actually, why not share one more? Just so everyone can see how pervasive the insanity is:

You don’t engage or look at them if you do then they’ll be all over you. They do this and go into the next train car or get off the train at the next stop.

I can’t tell whether they’re talking about how to deal with wild animals or wild humans. Or is there even a difference?

Let’s have a little fun with this. Here’s an example of an urban progressive scoring an own goal in attempt to “own” “scared conservatives:”

Source

Amazing to see how rattled they were by the Penny verdict. Why is that, though?

Then you have the martial arts experts coming out of the woodwork:

Let me with my 7 months of bjj [Brazilian jiu-jitsu] experience put you in a rear naked choke for 6 minutes and you’ll see why penny was wrong within 5 seconds

A whole seven months??? What an expert!

Followed by:

I should clarify real quick: even with only 20% power in a RNC, you’d be struggling hard to breathe like Neely was. Penny might not have been going at full power but he was struggling for awhile yet it was the thing that killed him, so he must’ve not gone full power.

And? How does any of this prove Penny was wrong? The only question is whether any reasonable person had cause to feel threatened by Neely, giving them justification to apply reasonable force to subdue to the attacker. Generally, no, you can’t kill someone, but death or at least injury is always in the cards when it comes to getting physical, which is why not everyone is convicted of murder or manslaughter when using force in defense of self or others.

Finally, you have the stories “about that time I de-escalated a dangerous person, which means we all can do it.” Here’s a perfect example:

I just get up, ask them what’s wrong, let them know they’re scaring people, and offer them breakfast or lunch at the next stop if they can cool their jets.

100% effective. Never failed. Not once have I ever been attacked or harmed in any way when I’ve done this.

Level-headed X account “wanye” had the perfect response, similar to sentiments I”ve expressed in the past:

Progressivism is contradictions all the way down. On the one hand, there’s no social contract and people who attempt to enforce norms are “Karens” who need to shut the fuck up and mind their own business, but on the other hand you are infinitely obligated to intervene personally whenever you encounter a violent schizophrenic.

Note that the common thread in all these leftist takes is this: you must tolerate the danger, which they implicitly concede exists, or you must go as far as to put yourself in harm’s way to “de-escalate” the situation. Like everything else, it makes no sense, but that’s not the idea.

What’s the idea, then? These stories about how “I talked some crazy guy down” are more insidious than the “keep your head down” stories, because they not only suggest you put yourself in harm’s way, but to lower your defenses. It’s an invitation to vitctimization, to basically give in to their demands or pay them off, effectively, to not harm anyone. You can’t run a society like this. Anyone making these sorts of suggestions are likely the same people who go to Tokyo and are blown away by how much better everything is, public transportation included. “Why?” is a question they refuse to seriously answer.

Maybe some of these people can be talked down. But not everyone can. Talking someone down is as dangerous as physically confronting them, because the potential for violence always exist when it comes to an angry, threatening individual. We’re talking about people who’ll savagely strike a woman for demanding respect for her personal space, or strike a woman in a jam-packed subway for hurting his fragile feelings. Where’s the compassion for these women? All the sympathy in the world for the violent and unstable, nothing for the real victims, of which there are many.

It’s telling that the one time these compassionate, progressive, city-dwellers really care is the one time a citizen does intervene and the aggressor, of which Jordan Neely obviously was one, ends up dead in the process. Not only did not a single one of them know who Neely was until he died, had they known him and his violent past, not a single one of these people would’ve cared. I used to think this was a corruption of good intentions, but now I’m convinced there’s something deeper, more pathological, at play.

A big part of leftist commentary on urban life is how their way of handling a dangerous situation - basically, acquiesence, even in the face of real danger - is an exhibition of bravery and level-headedness, while being concerned for your own well-being is actually cowardice.

Here’s a perfect example:

A veteran New Yorker would be comfortable in most cities in Earth because they understand how to navigate a variety of threats without confrontation. A suburbanite would not. That's what makes them stronger/better. I don't think you understand this conceptually.

Nobody is under any obligation to intervene in a dangerous situation or confront a dangerous person. I can never suggest anyone do so. Not all of us are fit to do so, for one, like the quoted commenter. That’s where someone like Daniel Penny comes in. One’s inability and unwillingness to face danger doesn’t make Penny a murderer, nor does it make someone like a “veteran New Yorker” brave.

It does, however, make them sheep, Penny the sheepdog. As Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman once said:

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land.

And:

The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

I don’t think anything more needs to be said.

Liars, Psychos, & Sheep… Oh My!

What are your thoughts on anything discussed? What’s your reaction to the woman at the center of the Duke lacrosse case confessing to what we’ve known for almost 20 years now? Does the Civil Rights regime need to be rendered a more critical treatment? Is there any solution to addressing the Black community’s grievances? What about the leftist backlash to the Daniel Penny verdict?

Discuss it in the comments section.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!