Another “random” murder

Here’s something unusual—a National Review neocon noticing crime in America, noticing a woman, Denise McVay of Hanford, California, whose life was taken by a thug who stabbed her thirty times and slit her throat at a self-serve car wash, noticed and cared about Denise McVay whose murder was relativized and diminished by the local police chief who said that she “was in the wrong place at the wrong time” and that her murder was “random.” These and other things bother Victor Davis Hanson. He sees them as signs of a sick society. Of course he doesn’t mention the racial aspect of the murder, the fact that the suspect was either black or Hispanic (which he clearly is aware of, since he refers to him as a gang member and as a “gang banger,” though he didn’t know his name, Jose Saldana, at the time he wrote the article), and the victim probably white. But the fact that any neocon would come down from his universalist perch and notice and care about this horror shows a certain progress.

In fact, as I discovered through a quick online search after writing the above, Denise McVay was white. It goes without saying that I didn’t find a description of her as white, I found a photograph of her:

Roger McVay, cousin of Denise McVay, holds a
photo of Denise with her daughter in 1990.

And of course in all the local news stories about McVay’s savage slaying, in all the expressions of shock and anguish by her friends, co-workers and family, there is not a single mention that she was singled out for murder by a Hispanic man who told police he was looking for someone to kill, and who found an unaccompanied, fair-colored white woman to be the sort of target that met his needs.

The passivity and silence of whites as their fellow whites continue to be murdered by nonwhites disgusts me. Do such people deserve to be defended and championed? Do they even deserve to exist? And the answer is that as they are now, they don’t. People who have nothing to say when their own people are being killed have announced that they themselves are willing to be killed. And their enemies recognize this. And that is why the cultural genocide of whites—including all those “random” murders—continues.

- end of initial entry -

Patrick H. writes:

Excellent and moving post. Particularly troubling is the now routine police insouciance expressed by the phrase “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Is not every victim of every crime in the wrong place at the wrong time? As you pointed out, it really was not “random” in the sense that the murderer picked a victim who was relatively powerless. If I was related to the victim, I would be deeply offended and hurt by this police indifference and dissembling. The police should stop this practice.

LA replies:

Yes, but how will the police get the message? We conservatives have our discussions in our world, and the police and other officialdom of America live in their world, and there’s no contact between the two. There needs to be a membership organization, something like Numbers USA, that will address problems like this. Imagine that when some police chief says these terrible things downgrading the gravity of a murder, things which no policeman should ever say (things which he says for the deliberate purpose of tamping down white reaction to the murder of a white by a nonwhite), he receives hundreds or thousands of phone calls, letters, and e-mails from around the country telling him why what he said was wrong and unacceptable. Imagine a set of conservative membership organizations, each designed to address a particular issue though member-generated e-mails, letters, etc. Then, instead of conservatives just talking impotently among themselves, they would start to have an effect on the larger society.

The elites and officials of liberal society live inside their liberal bubble. How can they ever change unless they start to receive strong messages that counteract the liberal bubble?

Jay P. writes:

I feel constrained to point out that these two sentences that you wrote (unless I am substantially misreading them) are not Christian:

The passivity and silence of whites as their fellow whites continue to be murdered by nonwhites disgusts me. Do such people deserve to be defended and championed? Do they even deserve to exist? And the answer is, that as they are now, they don’t.

LA replies:

I wasn’t saying quote these people don’t deserve to exist and should die unquote. I said, “as they are now,” leaving open the hopeful possibility of repentance and reform. Also, in the three subsequent sentences, I established a context for my remark. It is their own behavior which is behavior unworthy of living beings and assures their destruction. This has to be said.

And I don’t see how this is un-Christian. In the Gospels, Jesus talks repeatedly of human behavior which leads people to doom and destruction. In fact he says that the great majority of men follow a path that leads to their own ruin and death:

for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I wasn’t saying that anything so sweeping and damning as that. So, by your criterion, Jesus is more un-Christian than I.

Mark Jaws writes:

Henceforth, when I am with a group of liberals or one of them begins to discuss the horrendous act of lynchings throughout the nation during the 1870-1940 period, I will refer to lynchings as simply random acts, with the balck victims being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I guess we Jews could even go a quantum step further and say that our Jewish cousins in early 1940s Europe were in the wrong place at the wrong time as well.

Hal K. writes:

Something like a Numbers USA for white advocacy is sorely needed. Such an organization could mobilize its members to respond to incidents of anti-white and pro-non-white bias, as well as to push for restricting immigration levels and ending affirmative action. It is true that Numbers USA pushes for immigration restriction, but it is on a purely race neutral or pro-non-white basis, which tends to bolster anti-white political correctness in a self-defeating way.

LA replies:

Agreed. What I’m thinking of, however, is not just a pro-white Numbers USA type organization, but several Numbers USA type organizations (either formed separately or existing under a common umbrella), each focused on a distinct issue or set of issues. For example, in the cultural area. Amazing filth and inappropriate content generally is now common on TV. Whatever restrictions once existed on broadcasting seem to have vanished, and except for a handful of Christian and family values conservative organizations, the conservative movement has given up the ghost in this area. We are degraded and corrupted as a people by the fact that we allow our airwaves to be like this without any resistance on our part. Imagine an organization that could generate tens of thousands of calls and e-mails to a production company or TV network to protest objectionable content. That kind of pressure would make a difference.

Richard S. writes:

Whites who avoid social contact with blacks are far less likely to be assaulted and possibly killed by blacks than are whites who see blacks as just like us, part of the human family and all that. And this applies to white children as well as white adults. How does it come about that a white child avoids blacks? She picks up signals from her parents. Children are extraordinarily sensitive to the signals their parents send, helplessly send. In my case it was merely the tension I felt in the car when we drove from the safe section of Brooklyn in which I was raised to the still relatively safe section in which my grandmother lived. Because to get to her house we had to drive through a huge stretch of Brooklyn which had gone black. Not a word was said. But not until we arrived at my grandmother’s house did my parents relax.

And that communicated itself. Indelibly. These were people by the way who were standard liberals of their day and would have been scandalized if accused of having a single prejudicial thought or, God forbid, communicating one to their children. Why do I relate this anecdote? Because it occurs to me that the spread of eloi-hood or eloi-dom can only mean that millions of children no longer receive such signals because … because they’re not sent. Their parents (or parent) don’t send the signals. Either the brainwashing has taken, or more likely the parent lives in such terror of communicating the cardinal sin of racism that she short circuits it, squelches it rather than be the-worst-thing-a-person-can-be. And in so doing places her child in potential mortal danger. Maybe there are worse things than being a racist. Ya think?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 04, 2011 09:26 AM | Send