The results of importing black students into a college town

(Note: be sure to see John Hagan’s anecdote about how a white mother reacted to her teenaged daughter telling about her frustrations with black pupils in her school.)

A police detective has written this article for VFR. Some details have been been altered or left out to conceal the identity of the city being described.

I am a police officer in the upper northwest and have been a cop for 16 years. Like many in my current community, I came here originally to attend college. Our city is small and predominantly white, and the university population is mostly kids from white, upper middle class families.

Our university tries its damnedest to recruit and attract minorities, but the demographics seem to remain constant. Our local community college is a different story. They have been recruiting athletes from large urban areas for years and have contributed significantly to our community’s young black population. It seems for every young black male recruited to play basketball or football, several male friends follow him from his community to ours. Subsequently, there are a large number of young, non-enrolled, unemployed black males living in our community.

One of the most obvious effects of this trend is the ghettoization of one of our older student neighborhoods. In the last twenty years, this multi-square block area has become almost exclusively subsidized housing, attracting the rest of our community’s dysfunctional welfare class. This neighborhood abuts our university’s east side and still houses many students. The predictable result of this is a significant increase in black on white crime.

These crimes take on several distinct forms. The most prominent are the random strong-arm (or armed) robberies in which a single white student is confronted by a group of black males and robbed. The net gain of these robberies is often only a few dollars or at best a cell phone, however, most are accompanied by an assault of some sort. Many times these assaults result in serious injuries. These robberies occur when some student is walking alone, to or from campus, often through this same area.

When I have responded to this neighborhood to handle a call, I quickly learned that I could expect absolutely no cooperation from the blacks I encountered. Those that were not openly hostile would lie about whatever they might have seen to protect another without compunction. I find this particular characteristic fascinating. Even the most hard-core, white-supremicist prison gang parolee will display the body language that shows discomfort with lying. Many will tell you that they can not answer a question before they will lie. But almost without exception, blacks can lie to your face without the slightest indication of an internal moral conflict.

On the opposite side of campus is a student neighborhood that contains most of the fraternities and sororities. This neighborhood is the epicenter of the weekend party scene with thousands of students roaming around in search of bars and parties until the early morning hours. When I was a student in the early eighties, this scene was relatively peaceful and rarely required the presence of law enforcement. In the last ten to fifteen years, however, the atmosphere has changed to an alcohol fueled, violence prone environment requiring a great number of officers to keep the peace.

Another significant change is the racial make-up of this scene. Once exclusively university students, now has mixed in large groups of black or Hispanic males, many of which are local gang members. Ironically, this demographic is almost always welcomed by the majority white student population. As recently as fifteen years ago, most of the loud music emanating from the bars and parties was white rock and roll, it is now almost exclusively black rap and hip-hop.

The allure of black ghetto street culture amongst the white middle-class youth is a significant factor in this dynamic. There is an almost child-like expectation that the affection for that culture by the majority group will somehow be reciprocated when it plays out on street level, face-to-face encounters. It almost never is. It is amusing in a cynical way to see the repeated shock expressed by these white college kids when that affection is met with unrepentant violence. Whether it is the white male student who is beaten down for taking issue with a black male making a pass at his girlfriend, or the girl herself who is assaulted for rebuking such an advance, these kids are often attacked for just looking at a group of black males the wrong way.

As a cop, I’ve often encountered these victims who, out of frustration, will express their anger and humiliation with an occasional racial epithet. This accomplishes little and allows other white kids to look on and express scorn at their racist attitude. Most often, however, they direct their anger at us for not keeping them safe.

It’s so richly ironic that these upper middle class white college students will often stand on the street corners yelling “F*ck the police!” as officers patrol this neighborhood. They do it to get the attention of their friends and prove their “street cred” to the crowd. Yet, when they become the victims of this random violence by the same black kids they’ve been trying to impress, they blame the police. If officers ever have a black kid detained for any reason, you can count on the white kids to harass the officers and claim they are racists for doing so. I actually used to be shocked myself by this behavior, but no more.

The other black on white crime amongst the college kids that is often not reported is the home-invasion robbery. Many of these upper middle class white kids are small time growers or dealers in marijuana. This activity is very open due to light penalties for possession and a movement to emulate California’s medical marijuana laws. Inevitably they will share or sell some marijuana with a black kid they meet socially. A short time later a group of several black males will kick their door down, brandish guns and demand the marijuana. We’ve had kids shot during these robberies and yet for everyone we investigate, probably three go unreported for obvious reasons. I’ve had black males that I’ve interrogated admit that they consider our town a target-rich environment for robbery and burglary, especially in the student neighborhoods.

You have written before about trends in black on white rape. While we have a significant number of sexual assaults, mostly involving significant alcohol consumption, I have not seen a similar racial component in these cases. This may be due to a factor I find equally troubling.

There seems to be a never ending supply of young white middle-class college girls who will enter into dating relationships with these lower-class, un-enrolled, unemployed, thuggish black males. I’m sure the allure has a lot to do with the popularity of this type of male in pop culture these days; but I still shake my head because many of these relationships end in domestic violence.

The pattern is usually the same. A few days into the relationship the black male will often move in with the female. She will then begin to financially support him. He will often take over use of her vehicle, forcing her to do without for days at a time. He will often take her checks or credit cards and run her into debt. It is only when he continues to womanize that she will take issue and confront him. This often results in an assault.

One would think that people would make rational observations about a certain group’s behavior, especially if it impacts them personally in a negative way, and make adjustments in their own actions and associations. However, the liberal dogma prevents this self preservation. Subsequently my community and many others continue to be target-rich environments.

- end of initial entry -

Rachael S. writes:

The police officer wrote:

When I have responded to this neighborhood to handle a call, I quickly learned that I could expect absolutely no cooperation from the blacks I encountered. Those that were not openly hostile would lie about whatever they might have seen to protect another without compunction. I find this particular characteristic fascinating. Even the most hard-core, white-supremacist prison gang parolee will display the body language that shows discomfort with lying. Many will tell you that they can not answer a question before they will lie. But almost without exception, blacks can lie to your face without the slightest indication of an internal moral conflict.

I have read that white people score “racist” on racism tests significantly higher than blacks. My initial thought about this was that whites have an internal conflict concerning prejudices they have, a) they know it is considered wrong to have them b) they think they are bad for having them c) most continue to hope their prejudices are unfounded or that minorities will start to behave better: and of course d) the test is biased against, and focused on, whites. A person without such mental speed bumps, and without rationality, empathy or logic to create doubts about their base conduct could lie to your face about these things and appear natural. The policeman’s comments appear to back that up.

Gintas writes:

The smell of death is in the air. Liberal America wants to feel the ecstasy as it plunges into the nihilistic abyss. There is a thrill to destroying it all, dragging us all down with them into the void. These people are dead to normal life, they need excitement. It’s called Extreme Living.

David B. writes:

After the death of Samuel Francis, somewhere on the Web, I saw a comment by Jared Taylor. He said that Francis told him that he believed that liberals enjoyed it when nonwhites assaulted whites. Taylor wrote that he disagreed. We know that Samuel Francis took a dark and pessimistic view of things. Do you think liberals enjoy the kind of violent assaults on white people, by blacks in particular, we have been discussing?

LA replies:

I think, on some level, yes. They feel the whites are getting what they deserve. There is a sense of “This is what happens when you have racism and inequality.” Their world view is being proved right. Also, liberals certainly show satisfaction when nonwhite problems such as drugs, illegitimacy, school violence spread to white America. The NY Times positively preens when this happens. “See? You whites thought you could avoid it all by living in the suburbs, the exurbs, the small towns, but you can’t.” So, if they feel satisfaction at minority disorder spreading to white America, it follows that they also feel satisfaction when minority violence hits whites.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Gintas writes, “The smell of death is in the air. Liberal America wants to feel the ecstasy as it plunges into the nihilistic abyss. There is a thrill to destroying it all, dragging us all down with them into the void. These people are dead to normal life, they need excitement. It’s called Extreme Living.”

This accords with what I think is the basic psychological impulse at the heart of liberalism, and of decadence in general. For all the ink spilled over this question, of where suicidal liberalism comes from, I think it’s not very complicated. It is the joy a child takes in destroying something fragile and difficult to build, like a sand castle. For whatever reason, there is a dark desire in the heart of man simply to demolish what other men cherish. We escape the barbarism of childhood only incompletely, and there is something inside us which is ineradicable, that is the joy we take from watching the painstaking work of others burned to the ground. Liberalism may invest this impulse with the patina of intellectual respectability. But at bottom, what we see about us (particularly with the elevation of Barack Obama) is the sheer, unalloyed, demonic glee taken by a terminally immature and resentful people in demolishing that which they no longer understand and could not now create for themselves—that is, Western Civilization.

Philip M. writes:

I remember watching a documentary about Jim Jones, the cult leader who managed to found a city in the jungles of South America with his multi-racial followers. I felt the programme was missing out the interesting racial aspect to this. But now that I consider it, what a perfect metaphor of the multiracial society this whole story was.

Towards the end he was constantly broadcasting recordings telling his followers that racist governments were coming into power across the world who wanted to destroy their utopia. When they played the “death tape” in the programme you could hear his followers moaning as they lay waiting for the poison to take effect, and over the top you could hear Jim Jones telling them that they were committing “revolutionary suicide” as a protest. If that does not describe the West, I don’t know what does!

Sebastian writes:

In response to the essay by the police officer about race relations in the college town where he works, Gintas writes, “These people are dead to normal life, they need excitement.” I think this is a key observations to what is happening and mirrors my experience as a college student in the 1990s.

And I think there is another phenomena at work in liberals’ acquiescence to black crime: masochism. Freud was not the first to note that part of women’s psychological and emotional make-up includes a healthy dose of masochism. The search for excitement coupled with this primal, subconscious tendency to be submissive (especially as distorted by pop culture and the hip-hop prison culture of “you’re my bitch” and “I own you”) must be part of what leads so many women to end up in these relationships. The phenomenon of a woman not leaving a mate, whether of the same race or not, even after she has suffered terrible violence and humiliation at his hands is well documented. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I have long thought that a certain kind of white woman unconsciously seeks out this kind of danger, both as a natural female impulse and now also as atonement for white guilt.

As women set more and more public policy, subtle, almost unnoticed changes occur. It is seemingly counter-intuitive that male juries punish rape harsher than female ones (Tocqueville’s notes it was punishable by death if there were witnesses), or that a Norwegian anthropologist could say that Swedish girls raped by Muslim immigrants share the blame by making themselves attractive. But it makes more sense if one explores the darker regions of human sexuality. I believe women in politics have not only voted for a bigger welfare state but also—again counter-intuitively—for a certain submissiveness in the face of racial aggression. Female masochism, and the consequent feminizing of white men, is part of the mix here. I know this is a tenuous point, one I have not worked out as there are string counter tendencies as well, but I think there is something to it.

John Hagan writes:

The police detective has a firm grasp on reality, unlike the community he lives in, or his superiors in town government who would fire him for speaking these truths in public. It is simply not possible to integrate a group of people who have an average IQ of 85 into an upper middle-class community without it resulting in the chaos this detective describes. This is simply an intractable issue. It cannot be resolved, ever. And until white people understand this fact this kind of chaos and cultural disintegration will continue.

I’ve always believed that the only reason a cultural conflagration of epic proportions between blacks and whites has not occurred is the vastness of American geography. Whites have picked up and moved first from the inner cities to the inner suburbs, and then from the inner suburbs to the outer suburbs, and of course in recent years from those suburbs to exurbia and beyond. Eventually the room to run will end, and with that ending will begin the race war that Thomas Jefferson foresaw so clearly writing from his desk at Monticello so long ago.

The only way to curtail such a horrifying future is for whites to regain their dignity and respect, And even if such a thing were to happen I fear that blacks, and liberal whites could never go back to the way things were balanced on a cultural level in the 1950s between blacks and whites. The narcotic of egalitarianism is so strong that it has entered the collective DNA of the culture, and outside of police state tactics on personal freedoms for blacks and whites alike I suspect that mass violence on a scale not imagined will be where this all leads to in the future.

It’s not so much black behavior that has me pessimistic about the future of race relations. Because as barbaric as black behavior has been these past 40 years it can be controlled by a dominate, and confident white majority. It’s the liberal white death-cult that surrounds us that concerns me. These white Undead who control the media, academia, and popular culture….they are the ones who have allowed the United States to sink to the level she finds herself in now.

A case in point: I was once discussing black crime with two teenage neighbors who attended the local high school. There was a large group of blacks that were bused to our high school from the inner city to give these underprivileged youth a better educational experience, and expose our kids to the joys of diversity. As I was asking these kids what it was like to go to school with these blacks the two kids became increasing bitter about black behavior at the school. The female parent who was sitting there became more and more uncomfortable and asked her kids to stop discussing this. The kids and I ignored her, and we kept discussing black pathology at the school, and her kids were becoming more animated, and angry talking about it….perhaps because this was the first time they could really unload about this.

Well, what happened next just astounded me. The mother reared back, and slapped her daughter right in the face, and started screaming that she told her to stop talking like this ! After several uncomfortable minutes I departed, but I learned a valuable lesson: White self-loathing, white fear of discussing minorities, was indeed a powerful thing. And that if a normal suburban mother physically attacked her own daughter for discussing racial issues, then any liberal depravity is possible.

LA replies:

I suppose it’s possible the slap was for disobeying her and continuing to talk, not for the subject itself. However, a hard slap and screaming just for continuing to talk after a parent says to be quiet, which is such a routine thing to happen, suggests that the anger was about the subject matter.

Were the girl and her friends saying derogatory things about the blacks, or just describing their behavior?

John Hagan replies:

The girls were talking about thuggish black behavior in general. The rudeness in class. The sexual innuendo they were subjected to. We have known this family since my dad was a boy. That slap was for discussing race, as far as I could tell.

LA replies:

Well. That leaves me speechless.

LA writes:

So, what this means is, if black kids were doing something bad to this girl, and she tried to tell her mother about it, and the mother said, “I told you not to say bad things about blacks,” and the daughter persisted because she wanted to get her mother’s help with this unacceptable situation, the mother would then slap her in the face for saying critical things about blacks.

This mother in her relationship to her daughter has become the embodiment of liberalism in its relationship to whites.

John Hagan replies:

I think this girl’s mother would have listened to her daughter if she was in distress at school because of black misbehavior if she was not in mixed company voicing these issues (me and the girl’s friend), if that makes any sense.

Still, her reflexive resort to striking her daughter was very telling.

LA replies:

Yes. You can tell me about bad things that blacks are doing to you, but only if you observe certain protocols while telling me.

August 14

Jim B. writes:

Sebastian writes that one major reason for “liberals’ acquiescence to black crime” is masochism.

I think he is dead on. I have had many of the self-same thoughts over the years. I believe there is a large vein of masochistic motivation that runs through liberal thought and action, a subconscious tendency to be submissive.

Women want to be protected. It is a primal instinct of women in a dangerous world to be sexually attracted to those males who threaten them the most. It causes them to want to hook up with the most dominate males within their local environs. In the social scene that the police officer describes, it is clear to the white woman who are the dominate males in the neighborhood. They know the white male college students can’t protect them while they are walking back from class late at night or if assaulted, avenge them in any meaningful way. If they are known to belong to one of the local thugs, the threat of attack is diminished.

As I mentioned, women instinctively know what will lessen their fear and they know exactly how to alleviate it. For eons of time women were the spoils of war. It is in their DNA as to how they will respond when their men are either dead or neutralized. Submitting will keep them alive and nature has evolved a psycho-sexual response to insure that they do.

Liberal men are no better. They have been brought up being taught to suppress their masculinity. Most don’t know how to throw a decent punch much less defend themselves in a street fight. They seem to be universally terrified of armed conflict and will do anything to avoid it, even if we are attacked. They are nearly as helpless as women. To these men acquiescence and surrender are a way of life when dealing with entities they really fear. And they learn to like it. The destruction of Western Civilization will be their ultimate climax.

Bush, Cheney or any other laughable target the left pursues is a ruse to convince themselves they are not the cowards they really know themselves to be in the quiet of the night. [LA replies: Excellent point.]

LA replies:

Not to disagree with the main point of Jim B.’s argument about women’s psychology, the fact is that women either have this response he describes, or they don’t. In my view, adding speculative evolutionary explanations for this phenomenon is not necessary and does not advance the argument.

Jim B. writes: “Submitting will keep [women] alive and nature has evolved a psycho-sexual response to insure that they do.

What this would mean is that, in a whole population that had been defeated in war and the men killed or neutralized, one woman, as the result of a purely chance, random mutation in one of her genes, happened to have the behavior of submitting to the conquerors already implanted in her. As a result, she lived and survived to produce offspring, and thus her mutation also was spread through the population; while the rest of the females of her tribe, who did not have this random genetic mutation making them submit to a conqueror, were killed and so their genes did not survive.

The problem is not just that the scenario is (or at least would strike many people as) implausible; it is that neither Jim B. nor anyone can know that it is true. It is a guess, an unproven speculation.

And that’s why I suggest, let’s stay with what we can actually observe is true. If women, or some women, are submissive to dominant or threatening men, then that’s a fact we can legitimately talk about. But talking about how “nature evolved by Darwinian processes a psycho-sexual response to insure that women submit” is a fictional supposition. Yes, it could be true. But it remains a guess.

And, by the way, it’s at least equally possible that women are submissive to dominant men because God created woman to be man’s helpmeet.

LA continues:

Or that women are submissive to dominant men because women are the smaller and physically weaker sex. Why do we need an evolutionary explanation for something that is already implied in the very existence of the distinct sexes? By the evolutionists’ logic, male and female started out the same, and only evolutionary accidents made them different!

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 13, 2008 10:29 AM | Send