Readers comment on anti-white violence

Readers’ responses to several recent entries on this subject are gathered here in one entry.

Nick P. writes:

I noticed you talked about the Asian attacks in Minnesota but you didn’t comment on the attack at the Olympics.

A Chinese man made a point of going to a tourist attraction and who did he pick as his victims?

An elderly white man and his wife. What are the odds?

The MSM media of course called this a “random” attack. Yes, a white couple attacked in China is a random act.

Spencer Warren writes:

Re the “wilding” attacks in Britain, I believe the phenomenon is called “Happy Slapping.” The perps have made videos of their attacks and put them on the Internet. I viewed one about two years ago.

James Wilson writes:

Wilding appears to be more likely in states without shall issue permits. In states that do not prohibit concealed carry, the issue appears to be controlled through the likelihood that people are actually carrying.

The gang in St. Louis would not have any confidence in Florida. A lot of people carry there.

Lydia McGrew writes:

I notice that you are starting systematically to write to news writers who do not report the race of mobs and their victims. I’m sure this is hardly a new thought, but it seems pretty evident to me that all of these papers have policies that require at least the attempt to suppress such information. The policies may be informal or may be informal interpretations of some sort of Orwellian language in an official policy document about “offensiveness” or “racism.” But I’m sure the reporters all know that if they put in the information you are asking for, up front, in the first article on the incident, it will simply be edited out. The copy editors are probably assigned to do this. Sure, the reporters are likely liberals who don’t mind, but my guess is this is coming from the top down, so that the individual inclinations of the story writer do not matter on this point. You might call this “anti-standards” of news reportage—the demand by those whose job should be that of quality control that stories be less clear and less informative than they used to be regarding politically incorrect facts.

Yes, it’s a conjecture, but as I vaguely recall there was a brouhaha about this issue concerning the Boston Globe a few years back, and it turned out that something like this was true of that paper.

Philip M. writes from England:

Stephen T. said in the thread about the beheading in Brazil: “also suspect that, one by one, they were or would be summarily rejected by her (“boring” “white-bread” “dorks” … whatever) in favor of this “exciting” dark-skinned drug-dealing Mestizo in her country illegally with his diverse Third World DNA—which still transmits the impulsive savagery of that mixed-up native heritage.”

Something Stephen T. said gave me one of those “moments of clarity” when you fully realise something that you had always kind of known, without fully comprehending it, if you know what I mean. It is easy to take liberals at their word when they say they are not “racist,” particularly when people date inter-racially. But Stephen is right, women go for dark men precisely because they, the women, are racist. They have exactly the same opinions about black or darker races—that they are violent, impulsive, sexually aggressive—that the supposed racists have. The only difference between racists and non-racists is that they have a sneaking respect for these qualities.

For years I have mocked the words “vibrant” and “diverse” as euphemisms for areas that are violent and chaotic. Now I am wondering if I was wrong to do this—maybe this is precisely what liberals mean by the terms as well. For them the black man embodies everything that Western civilisation is not, which is the way the supposed racists see it. They celebrate the promiscuity and random violence and chaos which for them is the very essence of creativity, and thus vibrancy—that is precisely what the term is referring to. It’s what they actually want. The reason they become so angry around “racists” is not because they are not racists, but because they understand only too well the mindset of a racist and disapprove of the fact that they want to live in a “boring” society of sexual and moral restraint, civility and order. They hate our morals, not our racism.

LA replies:

I’ve previously written, in Huddled Cliches, that the wonderful “energy” being brought by third-worlders really means disorder incompatible with our civilization. Philip has taken the analysis further. Whites who praise the “energy” and “vibrancy” of immigrants really want such disorder, because it is destructive to our society.

Gintas writes:

Regarding Paul K.’s account of New York City’s Stakeout Unit in the late ’60s and early ’70s, we need Bernie Goetz, the one-man Mobile Stake Out Unit.

LA replies:

As a one-man Mobile Stakeout Unit, Goetz couldn’t compare with Charles Bronson in “Death Wish.” Unfortunately, he was a fictional character.

Robert Curran writes:

Reading the entry by Adela G. about the minority crime that plagues the DeBaliviere area in St. Louis reminded me that a not so minor crime occurred there earlier this year. An attorney with the St. Louis County Counselor’s office was murdered in a house a mere stone’s throw from where the family coming off the MetroLink was attacked. One of my brothers, who’d recently left the County’s employ after many years, was an acquaintance of the victim. Although Meiners was white, the more pertinent characteristic as my brother described him was that he was of very small and slight build, and would have had virtually no chance of defending himself against a teamed assault, which I suppose made him all the more an attractive target. So unfortunately Adela’s recollection and assessment of the area are more valid than ever.

Laura W. writes:

Re your collection of articles on violence against whites, the victims of these crimes are not just white but overwhelmingly young, between the ages of 18 and 30. Young whites are more inclined to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, there are obviously psychological motives as the young and beautiful are especially attractive targets to the envious and desperate. The families of these victims have the potential to be a powerful force, possessing more than anyone the moral authority to say, “These crimes are not senseless. They are not random.”

There is hope here. When Beau Zabel, an idealistic 23 year old from Minnesota, was murdered for his iPod on the streets of Philadelphia recently, his mother publicly stated that the murderer, who has not been apprehended but is known to be black, was “evil.” Another mother, whose college-age son was also brutally murdered by blacks in Pennsylvania, was interviewed at the time and did not simply speak of her grief. She spoke of her anger as well. The anger is vague and undirected, but it’s there. A few steps more and, in any civilized world, these families would join together.

The criminals are also overwhelmingly young, between the ages of 15 and 30, having grown up in a nether world we can barely imagine. To say these criminals are victims themselves is not to excuse their crimes. It can’t be said often enough: fatherlessness is lethal. Black single mothers often make cruel tyrants. Black childhood in America is barbaric and devoid of love. White complicity in the destruction of the black family is a crime in itself.

LA replies:

And the conservative movement, in the wake of the advent of GW Bush with his destructive praise of “single moms,” virtually gave up its concern about illegitimacy. Remember how central the concern about illegitimacy was in the conservative press in the ’80s and ’90s? Since 2000 it fell off the map.

Just take that in. Illegitimacy is by far the greatest factor in individual and social disorder, particularly among blacks. And Bush, instead of saying, “Illegitimacy is destructive, childhood within marriage is the foundation of society,” said, “Single moms have the toughest job in America, and need our help.” And the “conservatives” fell into step.

Ben W. writes:

Given the fact that liberalism has no boundaries and no fixed immutable principles, the racial violence proliferating in liberal societies can only spread further and further. What restraint against it can there be based on liberalism? Liberalism instead has officially accepted that minority behavior is a natural outgrowth of oppression practiced historically (witness the apologies being offered by one legislature or another for past racism). Liberalism has no solution for the systematic outbreak of racial violence and instead places constraints against the “children” of the oppressors not to respond in kind because minorities have a natural, moral right to self-expression based on history.

LA replies:

Yes, well put. But such an irrational system must have a breaking point, when the consequences of its irrationality become unendurable or render the society dyfunctional. Meaning, the rule of liberalism will one day come to an end.

Adela G. writes:

Ben W. writes: “Given the fact that liberalism has no boundaries and no fixed immutable principles … ”

I think liberalism’s insistence on having and respecting no boundaries is one of its fixed immutable principles, the other being, of course, that whites, particularly males, are inferior to other races and ethnicities by reason of their racism, greed, imperialism and cultural void (lack of “vibrancy”). True, these aren’t principles in the usual meaning of the word, but they are what guides and motivates modern liberalism and can be seen everywhere it is found. The hatred that modern liberalism exhibits toward whites is without boundaries, though. Sorry, didn’t mean to nit-pick but I thought the distinction worth mentioning.

Ben W. goes on to write: “Liberalism has no solution for the systematic outbreak of racial violence … ”

I think that’s because liberalism doesn’t hold that anti-white violence is a problem so much as it is a natural response to the perpetual problem of white racism. Such violence may therefore be illegal but is understandable to anyone who comprehends the full extent of the historical and systemic racism of whites against blacks.

LA replies:

As I’ve said, the same argument (though on anti-white hatred, not anti-white violence) was at the core of Obama’s much praised race speech. As long as black inequality exists, white racism is making it happen, and therefore Jeremiah Wright is justified in hating whites.

Philip replies to LA on the “vibrancy” question:

Yes. In “Brideshead Revisited” one of the characters goes to New York, which he describes as having a “restlessness that people mistake for energy” (I am paraphrasing slightly). It was the idea in the book that stuck with me the most, because it struck me that he thought back then this was so distinctly a New York sensation that it was worthy of comment- now that remark could just as easily apply to London and a host of other cities in the West.

Again, perhaps it is stretching the point, but this restlessness is very much a black attribute. My friend’s uncle, a very clever chap who used to be a uni lecturer in the 60’s, once observed that blacks have a certain restlessness, they were always fidgeting and moving. When I was told this I thought of jazz music, and it seemed to me he had really caught onto something about the black man’s soul, which is so very different to our own; with its traditions of Gregorian chant, quietism, the Quakers, much Northern European architecture and so on there is a desire for tranquillity. Where now can one find this in the West? In “integrated” cities it is always the non-white value or attribute that wins out over our own, as if our culture like our genes is recessive.

A thought experiment: try imagining a tranquil black town, city or settlement. You can’t. I’m willing to bet neither could a Marxist or a liberal.

It is a mark of how much they have changed the way whites think and feel that we have come to see this “vibrancy” as a positive thing. I think for me our Eloi-ness will be complete the day they manage to integrate churches. This is the place a culture and a people truly bears its soul. If they can “integrate” (ie make whites worship in a black way) churches, they will have truly succeeding in changing our very natures.

Mark Jaws writes:

Thanks to the irrepressible Mr. Auster, we now have a long list of crimes committed against our people. But when you folks pile on with your own anecdotes, you remind me of immortal words of the great Melvin Udall in “As Good As It Gets”:

“I’m drowning here, and you’re describing the water.”

Fellow traditionalists, we all know that liberalism is drowning our culture and throwing us to the mercy of the savage sharks, but the more pressing question is what to do. First, we survey the ocean and realize our enemies are legion and they have numerous battleships and aircraft carriers aligned against us—media, culture, entertainment, education, and now politics. Therefore, we must use what little water craft we have, and I propose that is talk radio and some GOP politicians. I contend that if enough of us were to deluge Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh with these blistering tales of savage crime against our people, then we might gain some ground. One lone caller on a particularly sensitive topic can be ignored. One hundred cannot. Maybe if that mother who slapped her teenage daughter for speaking about the problems at school had heard her friends wail about the same problems, then she would have been less PC. Heaven help us if the neo-Nazis are the only ones who will speak out against these racist crimes against our people.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Send