The predatory savages among us, and what to do about them

(Note: The opening paragraphs of this entry have been revised twice, as explained here.)

John of Powerline notes the savage attack by a gang of blacks on a white man outside an amusement park in the Twin Cities. Even the ultra-liberal Star Tribune can’t conceal the racial status of the attackers, who employed the standard black method of assault:

Eight young men are accused of taking turns stomping on and kicking the head of the 41-year-old man, who was knocked unconscious as his wife and three daughters tried to help him. Prosecutors say more serious charges could be brought against the men if the man’s injuries are permanent.

It’s not definite from the Star-Tribune’s story what the race of the victim is. The victim’s wife’s comment about the thugs “I never seen them a day before in my life,” seems more likely to come from a black person than a white person. But Scott of Powerline in a follow-up entry says the victim and his family are white. And since he writes from the Twin Cities, and since the Powerline guys are the farthest thing from racial rabble-rousers, I take his word for it.

One could easily devote an entire website just to the ongoing savage violent crimes by blacks against whites in this country, several of which VFR has reported on recently.

Our society, particularly whites, must publicly and explicitly recognize that young black men are dangerous to whites, and start acting accordingly. That means complete public frankness about black violence and particularly black-on-white violence; it means acknowledging that white people’s desire to avoid blacks is not “racist,” i.e., immoral; it means acceptance of natural residential racial segregation; it means race-specific policing, and much more.

However, apart from the racial dimension of the problem which must be faced and dealt with, it is imperative that conservatives bring back to center stage the necessity of marriage and the presence of a father in a boy’s life—the issue that George W. Bush relegated to the sideline of conservatism in 2000 when he ran on the slogan that “single moms” have “the toughest job in America,” and are deserving of special respect and special help. Due to Bush’s maleficent influence, conservatives dropped opposition to illegitimacy as one of their key concerns. That must be reversed. A society of people born and raised outside of wedlock is a society of dysfunctional and criminal people—a reality that is not limited to blacks, as Simon Heffer’s story in the Telegraph about the horrific social conditions in East Glasgow makes clear.

However, to revive the common understanding and expectation that childbirth must take place within marriage, society must raise the respect for marriage, which can’t be done when the popular media of the West continuously legitimize and glorify illegitimate births, as, for example, the New York Post did when Britney Spears’s 16 year old sister had a child. In a West that wants to survive, celebrities who have children outside of marriage, such as Angelina Jolie, will be condemned and shunned, not treated as gods.

The revival of the ethos that childbirth belongs within marriage also cannot take place while society is in the midst of surrendering to the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Homosexual “marriage” radically devalues marriage, first, by de-linking marriage from the natural conception of children, and second, by eliminating the very concepts of husband, wife, father, mother. Since, under a same-sex marriage regime, these natural, sex-specific terms exclude same-sex couples, they must be replaced by such generic terms as “partner” and “parent.” Furthermore, young men’s willingness to give up their freedom for marriage requires that the married state convey a special quality of honor to them. That promise of honor is destroyed when marriage includes homosexual “marriage,” and young men contemplating marriage realize that instead of becoming a husband, they will become a “partner,” the moral equivalent of a homosexual man or a lesbian.

Therefore, tying the above together, if we are serious about arresting the slippage of Western countries into savagery, we must defeat the movement to institutionalize same-sex marriage, and the only way to do that in the U.S. is through the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Everything is connected to everything else. Only the return of traditional morality can save us.

- end of initial entry -

Lydia McGrew writes:

Apropos of this post, I agree with the Powerline writers that a better-armed citizenry and one more active in self-defense and the defense other innocents will help us to deal with the thugs among us.

I would add, too, that we need a much-strengthened justice system. The recent Supreme Court ruling according to which even the vilest crimes, if they are non-lethal, may not be punished with the death penalty must be either overturned or should be ignored by the states (as it is a blatant misrepresentation of the Constitution). Men who stomp on the heads of innocent citizens should be liable to be hung, in my opinion, and the Byzantine system of appeals should be much shortened. The use of the death penalty should be expanded in the interests of justice to victims. That the Twin Cities victim is not dead is an accident, from the perspective of the attackers who deliberately did him grievous bodily harm. As it happens, a broader and more expeditious use of the death penalty will almost certainly also have a deterrent effect and will take such predators permanently out of society.

LA replies:

Why do libs oppose the death penalty so absolutely? Because they see it it as the ultimate act of inequality, and specifically of unequal power: the state claiming and exercising the power to take the life of a human being.

But what liberals see as the ultimate horror to be avoided is in fact the indispensable basis of civilization.

LA wrote to Mark J., who had said he lives in the Twin Cities, a couple of miles from the amusement park where the attack took place:

Have you got information that victim was white? All I have is Scott of Powerline’s unsourced comment.

Mark J. writes:

I searched the online story archives of both major newspapers and two of the major television stations, plus a Google search, and I find no mention of the family’s race in any authoritative source, only in the comments sections. It may come up in follow-up stories on the father’s medical condition.

But given how extremely careful the very liberal Twin Cities media are when it comes to racial crime stories, the simple fact that the race of the family has not been not mentioned means they are almost certainly white. If they had been black it almost certainly would have been mentioned to demonstrate that there was no racial angle to the story. The fact that the Star Tribune editorial focused on how we should not give in to any racist thoughts about blacks because of the attack also suggests it was an attack on whites. If it had been a black-on-black attack they would have pointed that out in the editorial. Also, the demographics of the suburban area where the amusement park is located, and this area in general, are heavily white, so the odds are strong that a family with a father and mother and three children attending an amusement park here are in fact white.

LA replies:

“The fact that the Star Tribune editorial focused on how we should not give in to any racist thoughts about blacks because of the attack also suggests it was an attack on whites.”

Of course. How stupid of me not to pick up on that.

James W. writes:

No, Mr. Bush, single moms do not have the toughest job in America; single moms are the toughest job America faces.

As P. J. O’Rourke put it, the most socially subversive institution of our time is the one-parent family.

LA replies:

Conservatives and traditionalists simply have to put this issue front and center like never before, in an all out attack on the legitimization of illegitimacy in this country.

And the argument is simple, direct, and irrefutable:

“Do you want a society in which young males act like savages and all of us are in danger? Do you want a society in which young women behave like whores? Do you want your daughter and her friends behaving like whores?

“If the answer is no, then you have to stop the legitimization and celebration of sexual promiscuity, such as Sex and the City, and you have to stop the legitimization and celebration of out of wedlock birth. Because a society in which boys lack fathers is a society that will be filled with young savages.”

Every media outlet, every tv show, every newspaper that trumpets the latest Hollywood actress to have a baby without a husband, should be deluged by complaints saying that by legitimizing illegitimacy, they are helping populate our society with predatory savages.

Mark J. writes:

The white population of the Twin Cities has been getting an intense education in the realities of “diversity” for a while now. This area was very white since the establishment of the Twin Cities and Minnesota in the 1840s and 1850s, and then in the last two decades or so the number of non-whites has skyrocketed. The change has been shockingly fast. I would not be surprised to learn that the Twin Cities is one of the fastest-changing cities, demographically, in the country. I read that the percentage of non-whites in the Minneapolis public schools in 1970 was 14 percent.

By the early 2000s it was 70 percent. The Twin Cities is now a national center of Hmong and Somali immigration, with some of the largest (perhaps the largest) populations of those groups. In addition, in just the last decade, the Hispanic population, which was virtually non-existent before that, has exploded.

Almost all of my friends are hardcore Minnesota liberals of the Mondale/Wellstone persuasion. One old friend is a big backer of Al Franken (!) (running as the Democrat against incumbent Senator Norm Coleman). This friend recently mentioned that the young woman who moved into the house next to him in south Minneapolis had moved from east St. Paul because it had become too dangerous there (east St. Paul has become heavily minority). She felt unsafe walking out to her garage. Because I avoid discussing politics with these friends (we’ve been down that road enough times to know it only generates hard feelings), I’m not sure how he can hold on to his liberalism while he watches minorities destroying the safety and civility of our hometown, but if I had to guess I’d say that these liberal friends have a feeling of hopelessness and foreboding about the changes that are happening, but that they don’t permit themselves to feel that the race of the invaders has anything to do with it. And they have such deep-seated anger towards Republicans that it seems impossible for them to consider supporting a conservative even if they privately are concerned about immigration and demographics. My Franken-supporting friend never fails to slip in a few digs about how Republicans only care about the rich, etc. I look on with amazement that intelligent people can rant and rave about whether Republicans “care” enough, while the political party they support actively works for changes that could wipe out our people and civilization entirely.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

But there is a growing sense of anger here about the minority situation too.

I find that if I just keep quiet and don’t trigger any of their anti-conservative/anti-Republican defensive mechanisms, they will occasionally confess to doubts about the viability of the liberal project.

A liberal woman friend was recently assaulted by a group of black males when she went out for a walk near her long-time, and formerly safe, east St. Paul home, and has since definitely lost her naivete about minorities, though she still finds it just about impossible to speak openly about it, believing, I think, that it is morally wrong to make any judgments based on race. She is torn between the reality of the situation in her neighborhood, and her long-standing moral beliefs. But she is ready now, I think, for the first time, to hear some well-made arguments for conservatism. Liberals are so unaccustomed to hearing well-made arguments for conservatism that when they do, the effect can be pretty strong. I was talking about immigration with a dear friend of mine, a young woman just graduated from the political science department of the University of Minnesota (you can imagine how completely immersed in liberal doctrine she was there), and I asked her if she felt that the native tribal peoples of the Amazon jungle have the right to preserve their ethnic and cultural identities by excluding alien peoples from their territory. She quickly responded with a somewhat embarrassed smile, saying, “So you’re asking whether we have a right to preserve our identity too … hmmmm…. I’ll have to think about that.” It was a completely new concept to her, and caught her off guard. Never in her life had she been exposed to the argument that we are a people who have a right as much as any exotic minority to preserve our ethnic identity.

So if we can avoid triggering the defensive mechanisms of white liberals, I think there are plenty who would be open to the logic of traditionalist conservative arguments if they were exposed to them.

Mark J. continues:

I have to say one more thing. I noted that the angle at the Powerline site (at least among commenters) seemed to mainly be about how important concealed carry and the right to be armed are. There was no discussion of the fact that the attack likely wouldn’t have happened at all if blacks and other minorities had never moved to the Twin Cities area in significant numbers. This is akin to people supporting heightened national intelligence efforts and more intrusive eavesdropping on phone calls, etc, as a response to Muslim terrorism. If we allow Muslims to mingle in among us in our nation, we are going to have to be constantly spying on ourselves, checking ourselves at the airports, and so on, to try to avoid being victimized by Muslim terrorism. And if we allow blacks and other minorities to live and mingle among us in significant numbers, we are going to have to carry weapons, install security systems, avoid walking alone, etc, to avoid being victimized by minority crime. These Powerline-style conservatives who are excited about concealed carry laws are missing the point.

LA replies:

Excellent point.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 17, 2008 09:58 AM | Send