We must face the fact of black racist violence against whites

I don’t generally follow the writings of Fred Reed, as I consider him a moral nihilist at bottom, but his article on the continuing reality—the systematically ignored and covered-up reality—of race-motivated black-on-white violence in America is well worth reading. It concerns the white woman who was recently set upon by a gang of black “youths” in a Baltimore bus and severely beaten about the head and face.

Reed writes:

There is nothing whites can do about it except live away from blacks and be very careful about taking public transportation.

Well, yes, avoidance is the only thing whites can do, given the current liberal racial orthodoxy which whites are doing nothing to challenge. But if whites, who are still the majority people in this country, and who are also far more intelligent and capable than blacks, began to speak frankly about the black racist violence against whites, began to speak publicly about the reality of black savagery (which is obviously not to say that all blacks or most blacks are savages but that black savagery is a conspicuous and undeniable fact of life), began to resist the liberal belief that all people are morally equal, and began to act once again as the standards-setting cultural majority of this country, then black racist violence against whites could be suppressed, along with black violence and disorder generally. As I wrote in my first blog entry last January on the Knoxville atrocity:

Could this have happened in pre-1960s America? No, and especially not in the South, because white society was frankly on guard against this very sort of thing, and held the black population under a rule and a discipline. That rule went too far, especially in the Jim Crow laws that required racial discrimination. But how tragic and ironic that because of white racial discrimination against blacks, and because of racial atrocities by whites such as the murder of Emmett Till, whites in a fit of liberal guilt went to the other extreme, erasing the consciousness of racial realities altogether, and thus rendering themselves, and especially their young women, naive and innocent and helpless before black savagery. For decades, black murderers and rapists have been committing violent crimes against whites that in numbers and in pure savagery are orders of magnitude beyond anything that whites ever did or remotely imagined doing to blacks in the 1950s. Yet, far from taking measures to stop this racial phenomenon of black predation of whites, white society doesn’t even recognize its existence.

- end of initial entry -

PA writes:

I wonder if you’re familiar with Mencius’ take on the matter of black violence. It is fundamentally different from yours. Your model paints a basic conflict between whites and blacks, with the former hobbled by liberalism. Mencius sees black violence as an aspect of an intra-white war, with blacks (or any dangerous Other) as a pawn in the role of one side’s useful para-military thug caste.

The two sides of this struggle, according to Mencius, are, in his quirky terminology, the Brahmin (basically, white liberals) vs. an alliance of Optimates (decaying old-guard elite) and Vaysia (middle & working class whites). Since the Brahmins are outnumbered in this struggle, they are allied with a “Dalit” caste (racial minority criminal class).

The distinction between your and Mencius’ models is critical. While you and conservatives / Paleos in general appeal to latent white solidarity, Mencius shows how futile such appeals are, because black violence is simply part of the Brahmins’ playbook. Short of breaking up of Brahmin / Dalit alliances, little can be done to prevent the Zimbabweization of the West.

Mencius had acknowledged that the Brahmins’ strategy is suicidal in the long run, but pointed out to examples of South Africa: the anti-Apartheid liberals may all have fled to New Zealand, but they never did recant.

LA replies:

Is that Mencius Moldbug you’re talking about? I don’t think there’s a contradiction between the view you’ve described and mine, and I don’t see the cultural problem as solely or mainly white v. black. I see the problem as a minority people acting out because the majority liberals have empowered and encouraged them to do so. The majority has to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again, creating a white-led social order in which the black war on whites will cease. It’s not a matter of a war of white on black, any more than a parent re-asserting authority over his out of control children means a war of parent on child. NB: that’s an analogy, I am not saying that blacks are children, I am saying that they are a minority which can only function in a non-desctuctive way in this society if they are operating within rules established by a moral and confident white majority. Restoring the lost moral authority of the majority means defeating liberalism. The much tougher fight than getting blacks in order is getting white liberals in order, which could ultimately mean a civil war, because any real conservatism raising its head will lead to a fight-to-the-death reaction by liberals.

PA writes:

I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I particularly agree with “The much tougher fight than getting blacks in order is getting white liberals in order.” The sobering reality is that the worst case scenarios that supposedly could have shocked liberals to their senses have already occurred, in the two African countries I mentioned earlier. Yet, expat white Rhodesians and South Africans still sing the same liberal song.

So yes, the key to survival lies in overcoming liberalism. Where I part ways with Mencius is that he sees an Optimate-Vaysia reassertion over Brahmins (to use his terminology for a moment) as a blueprint for Nazism, and I don’t.

A reader writes:

I’ve been thinking about the Baltimore bus attack for some time now.

Here’s my story. I was born in Brooklyn, but grew up in an all-white suburb of NYC. I lived in Brooklyn, and then Manhattan, from age 22 to 30. During that near-decade, I was mugged by blacks, threatened with a knife by blacks, harrassed on numerous occasions by blacks, and lived with major lifestyle modifications (“No radio” signs, police bars, etc, etc), because of my black neighbors.

Nevertheless, I never SAW them (if you know what I mean). They were everywhere, I was a white speck in an ocean of black, but I did not NOTICE this salient fact.

Now I live in an all-white town in a 98 percent white state. I recently had occasion to travel with my wife to an East Coast city, and we took the train in from the airport. Every train rider except for us was black (the white folks must take cabs, or rent cars, or get picked up, or something).

Now, for the first time, I could SEE them—the noise, the unruly behavior, the staring, menacing faces, the do-rags, the pawing of the women, the “accidental” invasion of our space—and it felt much more unsafe than Nostrand Avenue in the 1970s, even though it probably wasn’t.

After this trip, I could see the reality that WHITES AVOID BLACKS LIKE CRAZY, BUT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT. Tens of millions of whites are on the move from California to the interior West, and from the cities of the Atlantic seaboard to Northern New England, West Virginia, the mountains of North Carolina, and to gated communities in Florida. It’s one of the largest population migrations in history, and it’s all one color.

LA replies:

What the reader is telling us in this remarkable account is that when he was living in the midst of black anarchy and having to deal with it every day, he remained race-unconscious. He never saw blacks as blacks, meaning, he never conceptualized that the anarchic and savage behavior around him was specifically black behavior. He only realized it decades later, long after he had ceased to live in that environment.

Jack S. writes:

The analogy between the relationship of white liberals and underclass blacks in the U.S. and that of Brahmins and Dalit (the PC term for Untouchables) in India is new to me. What little I know about Untouchables come from the writings of V.S. Naipaul, especially in “India, A Million Mutinies Now,” and “India, A Wounded Civilization.” As Naipaul describes the situation, Untouchables leaders invented the name Dalit much like U.S. blacks rename themselves every decade or so. They have also rejected Hinduism, in favor of Buddhism combined with hero- worship of the Indian Dalit leader Ambedkar. This worship mirrors the personality cult of the “Slain Civil Rights Leader, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” here in the U.S.

After 9/11 there was a very apt satiric article at the Texas Review website (?) dealing with the fact that blacks were upset that, after decades of sullen hostility, vague threats of race war and uncounted acts of random bestial violent crime, blacks’ thunder had been stolen by the Muslims who had become more feared by America.

The very true point is that prior to 9/11 black crime was the one of the main problems on the mind of the U.S. right. The LA riots made clear that without a weapon a white person was at risk of being lynched when passing through black neighborhoods. As Reed correctly points out, this gave strong impetus to the pro-gun legislation of the 1990s. Your anonymous reader who describes his train ride with blacks reminds me of how I felt in New York City in the ’80s. The desire to escape black crime and the corruption of black-led city government was the main reason I moved to a Western state that was 0.3 percent black at the time. Your reader is very right that it is very easy to forget, ensconced in your all-white suburb, behind the guarded gates of your subdivision, that there are mindless savages that would happily beat you and your loved ones to a lifeless bloody pulp if only they had the opportunity.

Keep up the good work.

LA replies:

When encompassed by innumerable evils, to use the phrase of the psalmist, liberal society tends to focus on only the worst evil and give a pass to the others. Thus in the immigration debates of the 1990s, the open borders neocons would say that blacks were far and away America’s biggest social problem, and that Hispanics, because they were willing workers, were positively a benefit for America, as though being willing workers was the only qualification for being a net gain for America. And now that Muslims are even a worse threat to society than blacks, the conservative media has allowed the black problem to fade into the background, even as black savage racist attacks on whites continue.

Stephen T. writes:

Referring to whites fleeing black racism, a reader writes: “Tens of millions of whites are on the move from California to the interior West, and from the cities of the Atlantic seaboard to Northern New England, West Virginia, the mountains of North Carolina, and to gated communities in Florida. It’s one of the largest population migrations in history, and it’s all one color.”

Make no mistake, the overwhelming majority of white flight out of CA is instigated by the desire to avoid the tidal wave of incoming illegal Mexicans, not blacks. In fact, I can’t think of anybody who has left L.A. in the past 10 years just because of blacks. It’s just unheard of. They would simply relocate to a different area of town and leave the troublemakers behind. Not so easy with Mexicans. Among American blacks, there is virtually none of the energy for conquest and occupation, fueled by some sort of ancient territorial takeover instinct (“We have seized this land for our people!”) as seems so very innate to aggressively incoming mestizo Mexicans. To put it bluntly, blacks are pretty easy to get away and stay away from. But Mexicans are here to take territory, and will keep coming at you and coming at you to get it.

Mark Jaws writes:

I experienced a situation comparable to that of the “reader.” Where I grew up in Manhattan, in the Vladek Housing Projects between the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges, Puerto Ricans and blacks were the dominant groups. However, I fought when I had to and since I could play baseball very well, I fit in. I learned Spanish in school, dated Puerto Rican chicitas, and with the exception of about six or seven racial incidents, I got along fairly well. Given my olive complexion from my Jewish mother, with my summertime deep brown tan, I could even pass for a Puerto Rican. My college, City College of New York, even became minority-majority in my sophomore year of 1973.

Then I had heard about being able to meet girls at these Jewish summer camps in the Catskills, so I signed up. What a revelation it was for me to be in a 95 percent white environment, where disagreements were settled with words—not knives, and where guys wooed girls with wit and charm, instead of biceps and crotch. For six weeks I was in Hebrew Heaven with people who looked liked me, acted like me, and even thought like me.

Then, however, during the last three weeks of that summer, the camp participated in “School Camping,” a federal program which took kids out of Bedford Stuyvesant and placed them in a rural environment where they could enjoy nature and benefit from the morning remedial math and reading classes. Our nearly all-white staff was heavily supplemented with black and Puerto Rican college kids who taught the morning classes.

To make a long story short, only eight of the original 24 Jewish white kids stayed on for the three weeks of the program. Two nests of birds which had flourished peaceully earlier in the summer, were destroyed by the blacks. Furthermore, I was called “white mf-er” more in three weeks than I had in 19 years on the Lower East Side. A deranged black girl even came at me with a knife.

After coming home, my parents were amazed at how my liberal racial attitudes had changed—for the better, from their perspective. My Polish Catholic father, who had voted for Wallace in 1968, was pleased that I had finally “seen them for what they really are.” My point is, once you have been to all-white Paris, you can never go back to the heavily minority, violence-plagued farm.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 14, 2007 12:21 PM | Send