If you remember anything from this post, remember the first two quotes – and summary – from Gary North’s article, Black Murders Matter:
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you (Exodus 12:49).
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour (Leviticus 19:15).
These two passages are the original sources of the West’s concept of the rule of law.Gary North, Black Murders Matter
Everything else in my post is just a slight extension of this: worth the read (hopefully!), but not as foundational as what God told us to do in His Law-word, the Bible.
OPPOSING THE RULE OF LAW
The problem began when blacks were kidnapped out of Africa and brought to the United States to live as slaves. The regional laws, officially based on Christianity, did not apply to them within the slave system. They were assumed to be of an inferior race.
This was true of Jews’ outlooks toward blacks. It was true of Muslims’ attitude. It goes back to an ancient interpretation of the account in Genesis 9 of the curse of God on the son of Ham: Canaan. Scholars are aware of this history, but the general public has never heard of it. Wikipedia has an excellent account of this. You can read it here. Supposedly, blacks are part of an inferior race because of this curse. Historically, this is preposterous. The Canaanites produced the ancient trading civilization of Phoenicia. It culminated in the classical civilization of Carthage.
The idea became widespread in the 17th-19th century in the Western Hemisphere because of the slave trade, which began in the middle of the 15th century. This idea was used to justify the slave trade. It was used to argue that blacks were being brought to America to be civilized. But this process did not involve granting them access to citizenship. This was totally hypocritical.Gary North, Black Murders Matter
Obviously, this was way before Darwin made it possible to dispose of the need to selectively choose Biblical texts to justify your position. Finally, thanks to Darwin, both wings of the state-adoring Enlightenment — “Power to the King!” and “Power to the Party Leader!” — can do exactly what they always wanted to do in the first place: dispose of the “unchanging oppressive Laws of God”… and replace it with the arbitrary Laws of (certain) Men.
In the South after the Civil War, and especially during the period of the Jim Crow laws from 1880 until approximately 1970, it was assumed by whites, who ran the police forces and the courts, that they did not have a responsibility to police black communities with the same rigor and the same standards that applied to white society. This was an extension of the idea that the rule of law does not apply to everyone, especially to criminals in the black community when they committed crimes against blacks. It was only if blacks committed those same crimes, and much lesser crimes, against whites, that the white community brought negative sanctions on blacks.
All of this came from one concept: the denial of the rule of law.Gary North, Black Murders Matter
North takes an interesting side venture into medieval Europe, where the One Law Rule was denied in regard to Jews:
Every society wants to make exceptions to the rule of law for the ruling class, and it also makes exceptions for those in separate communities who are not allowed to become part of the ruling class. This is why medieval civilization set up Jewish ghettos, within which the rabbis had legal authority. The Christian city around the ghetto did not attempt to impose its legal standards on Jews who lived inside the ghetto. They had their own law-order, but they did not get to exercise legal authority in the courts of medieval Christian cities, which were bound by Christian oaths that Jews could not affirm. Jews could not be citizens for this reason. Modern scholars, with the exception of Max Weber, generally have ignored the importance of Christian oaths in the establishment of medieval cities. You never find this concept in textbooks on Western Civilization. It is rarely discussed in textbooks on medieval Europe. I did not find it when I studied medieval history for my master’s degree. I only heard about it when I read Weber as a graduate student in a class taught by Robert Nisbet.Gary North, Black Murders Matter
Note, though, that Jews were hated moneylenders, while Blacks were hated slaves. There is a difference between being “wealthy and despised” and “impoverished and despised.”
To return to the main theme:
The whites of the South had a dual view of blacks. With respect to their activities within their own neighborhoods, they were regarded as children in need of supervision. With respect to their activities in the white part of town, they were regarded as potential devils who might need to be lynched. The blacks were never regarded as human beings who needed to obey the law, and who would be punished systematically if they did break the law within their own communities. They were not allowed to be citizens because citizens could exercise authority on an equal basis with whites. So, they were allowed a degree of judicial independence that subsidized lawbreakers within their communities. That same attitude is dominant within American white society today. This is what Smith is talking about. I reprinted my article from 2001 on this site in June 2018: “The Judicial Theory of White Liberals and Bull Connor.”Gary North, Black Murders Matter
It’s long, LONG past time that Black Americans be regarded as human beings, and therefore obligated to uphold the law.
If there is a single definition of civilization, it is this one: the rule of law. If everyone inside the jurisdiction of civil government is not protected by the rule of law, then the foundation of civilization is on shaky ground.
Gangsta rap is an assault on civilization. We should see it as such. Companies that in any way profit from this so-called art form are unindicted co-conspirators.Gary North, Black Murders Matter
The destruction of Gangsta Rap is a trivial price to pay, in return for equality before the law.
If necessary, it can be banned as “destructive to the civil order”, much as blasphemy is in Christian societies, or attacking certain ideas and behaviours in Secularist cultures. Everyone protects what is sacred, after all: the only question is “What is more important? The Commands of the Creator, Sustainer, and Judge of the Real World, or a man’s delusional need to be called a woman?”
(If you’re a Secularist, the answer is obvious.)
While I don’t mind gangsta rap being formally banned, it would be better — far better — if Black Americans decide to get rid of it themselves, regardless of the legality of it. The core of governance is self-governance under God, not courts and police.
And when Black Americans are as self-disciplined and focused as, say, Jews or East Asians, then we can finally see something good get off the ground.
Note that Jews and East Asians take family seriously, complete with actual fathers in the home. And they aren’t into free handouts by the Right Sort, eager and ready to build dependence on the Right Sort.