When the Black Lives Matter movement first started its antics on Twitter, I wasn’t too interested. It seems like every other day some ridiculous or anti-White equalitarian twitter hashtag surfaces. But they all peter out after getting some degree of cyber momentum, but without ever taking off in real time. Unlike most, this one actually has spawned real life groups and real life trouble. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t underestimate the potential effect of a hashtag trend on people’s opinions, it is just that the BLM phenomena has gotten bigger and lasted longer.
As it did so, people who opposed its message for all sorts of reasons realized that it needed to be rebutted, but I think the opposition (which included a hefty chunk of neo-cons—so-called “conservative” equalitarians) missed the mark. The response to “Black Lives Matter” should have been “White lives matter,” instead of “All Lives Matter.” There are several important reasons for this.
How Black Crime Effects White Lives:
Blacks are by far the most likely to commit violent crimes. They also commit the majority of officially designated ‘hate crimes’ motivated by race. Most importantly, Black crime mangles, maims, and destroys White lives to an extent to which White crime never even comes close to doing to Black lives. And, any heightened apprehension among White police officers (if such there be) stems directly from the high crime rate of the Black population, both intra- and inter- racially.
The Black-on-White violent crime rate is astounding: each year, roughly 650,000 White people will fall victim to a violent crime committed by a Black. That is because, of all interracial violent crimes involving Blacks and Whites each year, about 85% of them are Black-on-White, and only about 15% are White-on-Black. Blacks are around 39 times more likely to commit violence against a White person, than a White is to commit violence against a Black person. Think about his fact—for it is a fact—for a minute and let it sink in. Any White person looking at these numbers knows that he has much more reason to fear injustice from Blacks, than a Black has to fear injustice from him. And not just any sort of injustice, but violence. When this, and the high rate of violent crime Blacks commit in general, including murder—which Blacks are seven times more likely to commit than any other race—is factored together, your average White person actually has a very good reason to worry that a Black person might be a danger to him.
Surely all this must be magnified when a White person (be he police or otherwise) faces off with a Black criminal or alleged criminal, particularly in a high-crime (and highly Black) area. This is the scenario that many of the recent police shootings have occurred in.
To say that White people may not take extra precautions to protect themselves from a threat that all the scientific data says is certainly threatening is wrong. It is telling White people that they can’t defend themselves. And when you tell someone that they can’t defend themselves from violence, you are telling them quite literally that their lives don’t matter.
The so-called ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement really wants Blacks to have the right to attack, threaten, and violently assault White people without risking that their White victim will fight back to defend himself. This is true whether the person is a White citizen, or White police officer. Take Michael Brown for instance. Though it has pretty much been proven that Brown attacked Darren Wilson, and that Wilson shot him in self-defense, the BLM continues to use Brown as an example of so-called “police violence” against “young unarmed” Blacks.
To the extent that there is any general heightened fear of Black males among White (and non-White) police, it is due to the staggering levels of violent crime they visit upon themselves, and upon Whites. Thus, it is Black violence against innocent White victims, that leads to a very well founded White apprehension towards Blacks which may sometimes carry over into heightened tension during police interactions.
So, to decry the heightened suspicion (again, if such there be—for I have seldom seen anything other than anecdotes offered to prove its existence) of White police officers towards Black males, while ignoring the source of the problem—Black-on-White violence—is to effectively tell these White police officers that they are wrong for wanting to take precautions to protect their lives. Because it is the impact of Black violence on White lives that is the ultimate source of any such “prejudice” on the part of police, this “prejudice” is inherently self-protective. It is, in a very real sense, the violence visited upon White bodies by Black bodies, that leads to any “prejudice” which may occasionally leave a Black body in the street in front of a police car. And in this way too, to say that such self-protective behavior is wrong, is to devalue White lives. Throwing back “all lives matter” just doesn’t capture this dynamic.
It is not the value of all lives that the BLM haters are assaulting: it is the value of White lives, that they are ignoring, and degrading. They are not saying that no life can be protected by self-protective behaviors—only that White life cannot be. And they are not saying that self-protective behaviors in response to any data-backed statistical threat are wrong—only that it is wrong when such reasoning results in those self-protecting behaviors protecting White lives from Black violence.
The greatest hypocrisy of the BLM movement is that White lives are so much more frequently traumatized and taken by Blacks, than Black lives are ever taken by Whites—even by Police officers. If there is any race that should have a movement like this it is the White race. It is frankly ironic, in a sort of deeply outrageous way, that Blacks should even think to make such claims in light of the staggering toll of violence they inflict on White lives every year (one which is so one-sided it is astonishing). Blacks who are busy victimizing White lives, because White lives don’t matter to them, suddenly think they have the right to demand that Whites make Black lives matter to them.
Regardless, White lives—and the violence that Black lives visit upon them—is central to the whole issue of police shootings and the BLM. Not “all lives.” The proper response therefore, is that White lives matter.
Yes, White People Can Defend Themselves by Name:
This is another thing that needs to change. While I am sure that there are plenty of “all lives matter” proponents who are actually focused on “all lives” I am also sure that there are plenty—maybe more—who are actually focused on White lives, but just don’t want to say it. In this melanosupremacist culture, defending and standing by White people is taboo. Even if—especially so—if you are White. It is a horrible shame, and a testament to the vicious hatred of Whiteness that this society currently embodies, that White people, or anyone, would be afraid to say that White lives matter. The fact that believing that White lives matter should be a dissident, minority, or “radical” view is sad. But, this is precisely why we need to say it, loud and clear: White lives matter.
Although from a very technical standpoint, in my personal philosophy, it is true that all lives matter, the concept and statement suffers from fatal flaws. Particularly, it fails to distinguish between the moral need of basing your social behavior and positions on relational value, while still understanding how the relational value system of Nature functions to protect a basic objective value for all. In short, even though all lives matter in a broad, objective sense (only because they all share the same wider system), the lives of one’s own kind /race should always matter more to you than the lives of any other. This is a moral rule of Nature.
The implications of saying “all lives matter” is to ignore this crucial moral point. On this point, the BLM’s slogan is probably closer to the moral position than “all lives matter” slogan, which reinforces an immoral notion of equal concern for all lives on the part of each individual (of course the BLM is really still promoting a very equalitarian cause, despite their slogan). Attempting to fight the problems of the BLM by leaving the moral high-road is not productive or right.
You Can’t Fight Fire with Fire:
As noted in the previous point, the “all lives matter” slogan recognizes no room for racial loyalties to find subjective preferences of one life over another, and is thus tacitly promoting an unethical philosophy of subjective equalitarian decision making. It is directly reinforcing melanosupremacy by directly appealing to, and thus reinforcing, equalitarian ideals.
Despite their slogan actually being less equalitarian, the BLM is actually promoting a more equalitarian and melanosupremacist outlook, and seeking to reinforce melanosupremacist and more general equalitarian notions and policies in society. To try to fight the equalitarianism of the BLM with more equalitarianism is simply a stupid idea. You can’t destroy equalitarianism by promoting it, and it is only the destruction of equalitarianism that will destroy melanosupremacy in the end.
So remember: White Lives Matter!