The media and political elites’ false narrative about legions of malevolent white racists out there shooting unarmed blacks has, this week, triggered a black, mentally unbalanced grievance collector in Virginia, who made a macabre snuff film shooting two of his white former colleagues.
In addition to focusing on a non-problem in comparison to ubiquitous black violence, this narrative obviously can add grist to the mill for unstable types, and likely encourages greater violence and cruelty by ordinary criminals, who are encouraged by both black and white elites to think little of whites from the time they are children.
Mainstream American newspapers read like der Sturmer, with whites now cast as greedy, evil, hateful creatures, worthy of retributive violence. And while we are warned repeatedly of the mostly imaginary risk of “backlash” after Islamic terrorism, there seems little concern for any backlash of the constant hatefest on whites, cops, and the history of America until the day before yesterday. Is it any wonder that some people, on the margins, are encouraged to go nuts after these overhyped, and often demonstrably false narratives, whether about “gentle giant” Michael Brown, “honor student” Trayvon Martin, or “motorist” Rodney King?
Liberal elites and black elites suffer from several forms of moral dementia. First, they make a cult of the criminal, when in fact, criminals should be marginalized. Two, as part of this cult of the criminal, they create a narrative of a white oppressor class, whose demonization is nonstop. Finally, they construct a willfully blind mirror image of reality becuase there is not a significant number of violent white on black attacks–by police or otherwise–whereas there is disproportionate black criminality against blacks and whites too. Indeed, it would be much higher, but for the strenuous efforts of whites, Hispanics, and Asians to avoid black neighborhoods. There is a genuine black crime problem, and, instead, a visitor from Mars would think we live in a world of genocidal white violence against non-whites. It’s a patently ridiculous lie. And that lie is encouraging the marginalized to feel justified in committing the most horrible crimes.
As I wrote about ten years ago in a discussion of the Rwandan genocide:
When trying to understand the genocide in Rwanda, a second factor was hinted at but the film gave it short shrift: mass violence seems to be most primed to occur when a group perceives itself to be avenging an injustice or preventing impending violence against itself. The Tutsi victims of the Hutu formed the major constituent of a violent rebel group in 1994 Rwanda and had previously constituted the dominant ruling class. The extremist Hutu leadership sold their violence as a necessary measure to protect themselves from the repetition of Tutsi overlordship. There are parallels to the Nazi claim that it was the “Job of history” avenging the “stab in the back” at Versailles, or the Bolshevik notion that it was leading the proletariat in throwing off the yoke of capitalist oppression. In other words, the same pervasive victimology that the left pedals as the necessary condition for positive social change also can form the ideological basis of mass violence. In this sense, movies like Hotel Rwanda do a disservice to their audience’s education by presenting a one-dimensional account of the Hutu or any other group as a depraved and inexplicable force of evil: such explanations have more in common with the propaganda that leads to genocide than they do in helping us to understand and prevent such episodes. The icing on the cake was the heoric arrival of Tutsi rebels, who prevent a massacre of fleeing Tutsi refugees. The Tutsi rebels were fighting for the high principle that they should now be allowed to massacre the Hutu, no doubt.