Forgive me for that, please. It's not my inner Rene Magritte coming to the fore at last; it's a complete inability to come up with a suitable title for what follows.
I have never been sadder to feel the obligation to write about something in my life to date.
While in the newspapers or on television you will not be informed about it in a form that makes sense, a growing cancer of racially-based violence is metastasizing in our cities. Moreover, unless you were to see these outrages first hand or in media outside the mainstream organs, you would know nothing of it --- for it is being withheld from you. For reasons that we may want to speculate on, the news media have made an overt decision to avert your eyes away from the stone cold reality that a spectrum of young black men and women, motivated by race, rage, or entertainment, are increasingly committing crimes against life and property by the medium of flash mob violence.
From Oregon and Washington to New Jersey, packs of youth are targeting markets, shoe stores, county fairs, beach walks, and city parks in conducting brazen crimes by overwhelming police and security who find themselves increasingly unable to counter the element of surprise and viciousness that goes hand in hand with this phenomenon. As a result of this, brutal beatings of whites and Asians have become commonplace occurrences, resulting in public facilities being closed down to traffic as roving hordes materialize and vanish into the night like specters. And yet, the 900 pound gorilla in the room (that no one will dare look in the eye) is that there is an unassailable racial component involved. Furthermore, in the interest of multicultural harmony, cities which have long been in the clutches of Democratic political machines have lulled themselves to become anxiously oblivious to the mayhem. Because of this, those molders of opinion have taken to calling a serpent a stallion in hopes that the world, in turn, would also close its eyes....
If one looks to the 2011 FBI crime statistics, one notices that whites (Hispanics included) make up 78.1% of the U.S. population while Blacks comprise 13.1%. By race, blacks commit 45% of their crimes against whites while 43% target fellow blacks and 10% of their victims are Hispanic. When Whites commit violent crime, only 3% of their victims are black. By considering these crimes as a percentage of the population at large, blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
In light of these numbers, the designation of "hate-crime" is at best a dicey proposition, since many police departments or courts, in conservative or liberal jurisdictions, are loathe to apply the term when designating black on white crime. However, white on black violence often earns this politically charged designation due to heightened cultural sensitivities or the fear of bad press that could bring racial upheaval. It is becoming increasingly evident that the "Hate Crime" designation is a selective arbitrary cudgel for blacks to use against whites only -- a deconstructed justice that fits the prevailing Progressive stereotype of Caucasians as culturally predisposed to minority victimizing and oppression.
[Glenn Fairman, "A Blind Pendulum"]
Frankly, the last two Tales were emotionally and spiritually draining. I found it hard to reconcile myself with having to depict a race of people in such a terrible light since I have had so many wonderful experiences and friendships with black people in the course of my life.
Yet, no one can ignore that the black underclass is something of a scourge in America, and especially infuriating because white liberals exacerbated and increased this dependency class.
[Mark Butterworth, here.]
[P]eople don't like thinking very hard, and this goes quintuple for low-information people. The more you do something, the more skilled you get at it, and the more you like it, which in turn impels you to do more of it. (I'm a champ at self-abuse, for example. When there's a Hall of Fame I'm in on first ballot.)
On the other hand, the less you do of something, the harder it is for you to do it, and the less you wish to do it, which then leads to you becoming, in this context, dumber still.
Combine the reports and insights in the above three citations. What do they spell?
Given the objective veracity of all the above, can there can be more than one conclusion?
Given the multiple confirmations of rapidly escalating attacks, always by packs of Negro youths, and always against Caucasian or Asian targets, can the implications for personal survival and social cohesion go any but one way?
How could a clear-eyed, unbiased observer reach any conclusion but one?
No, it's not that the Rangers need more scoring punch.
It wasn't always this way.
As Mark Butterworth notes in his piece below, "by 1960, black Americans had made great strides in their education, employment, and family structure." The central mass of the American Negro demographic was moving steadily toward equivalence with the Caucasian one. There were still gaps, some of them important ones, but the trend was positive, and appeared unstoppable. America was on the verge of establishing a rough condition of material and social equality between the races -- not because of some government program, but because of the efforts toward self-betterment of American Negroes and the good will of American Caucasians toward them.
Then the do-gooders got involved.
The American eleemosynary impulse has a rather checkered history. On the one hand, American philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie brought literacy and cultural enrichment to many millions who would otherwise never have acquired it. That's an example of the best possible outcome of charitable action. There are others, as well known or less so.
But Carnegie himself said that "Those who would administer wisely must, indeed, be wise, for one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity." Had he lived to our present era, he would note an even more pernicious influence than "indiscriminate charity:" racial preferences awarded as if they were a matter of reparation for past injustice.
There are any number of trails one might follow from this point forward: the noxious notion of "social justice," the fictitious "legacies of racism," and the frequent assertions by racialist mouthpieces that "America was built by slave labor." All of them deserve attention. But for the moment, the greatest of threats to American social cohesion and the safety and well-being of American Caucasians and Asians is the matter of desert as it derives from race.
Let's imagine that Smith, a member of race X, has come before us with a list of demands. We hear him out, make note of the particulars, ask him, "Why should we grant any of this to you?" and await his reply.
Smith startles us by answering, "You owe me because I'm a member of race X."
Most Americans are sensible enough to dismiss such a claim. Smith, an individual, has baldly claimed that we owe him a debt because of a weak genetic relation to other persons! Would Smith allow that a person not of race X could justly make such demands? On what grounds?
In an abstract case such as that, the absurdity of Smith's "argument" is obvious. No one can possibly be obligated to Smith because of his family relations, weak, strong, or in between. But in the specific case of the American Negro, they receive respectful attention, in some quarters immediate concession. Why?
There are several reasons, which apply in varying degrees according to circumstances:
- "White guilt;"
- A misplaced desire to "do good;"
- The propensity of concentrations of American blacks to violence;
- Fear of bad public relations;
- Political strategy.
Of even more interest and ultimate importance is the readiness of many American Negroes to accept, and assert, that they are owed all sorts of preferences, specifically because of their race. Even persons of great accomplishment will occasionally make such claims and defend them passionately. How do we account for this?
It's quite simple, really: Ever since the end of World War II, America's do-gooder class, stiffened by left-wing political tacticians eager to rope the black bloc into their column, has repeatedly told America's Negroes that they're owed, and then used political mechanisms to follow through.
Tell a man something enough times and he's likely to believe it, especially if it implies special privileges for him. Indeed, he's likely to act as if he believes it even if he knows that it's absurd.
A man who believes he's owed, but somehow never manages to collect, will become resentful and restive. Yet, as bad as that is, there's even worse.
Racial solidarity is a real mechanism with real consequences. As I wrote some time ago:
Racial solidarity is a known phenomenon in all the conventionally recognized races. Though the degree varies, persons of race X will feel an inclination to "protect" their anomalous elements, including overt lawbreakers, against prosecution by persons outside race X. Inasmuch as it's as likely as not that an "anomaly" is the child of one who has successfully adapted to the nation's norms, the consequence pits respectable, law-abiding Negroes against respectable, law-abiding Caucasians, in the service of persons who feel contempt for the former and outright hatred for the latter.
Is it any wonder that there should be racial tension? Is it any wonder, given that our major media have made it their policy to suppress news of black-on-white crimes while aggressively promoting white-on-black crimes (and pseudo-crimes), that there should be so much talk about an impending race war?
The pernicious consequences of this phenomenon are difficult to overstate. The worst aspect of it is that the news media have collaborated in it, both actively and passively, and continue to do so. In its destructive power, it dwarfs virtually every mistake we've made in public policy that addresses race.
Until quite recently, a certain Robert S. Oculus reported at intervals on the steadily increasing dangers posed to American Caucasians by American Negroes. Here is the first paragraph of his final post:
The Oculus Report is a blog for those who can See. By this, I mean those who have decided to See reality as it is, rather than as one might wish it to be. Over the past six months, I have done my best to report the world as I see it. I have looked at reality with my eyes wide open, and have tried to describe to you what I See.
Mr. Oculus was never one to shade the truth or qualify his convictions. Read the pieces at his site, which is still available though he has ceased to update it, and see for yourself.
Over the years, I've made many efforts to promote racial amity, despite my recognition of the objective truths encapsulated in John Derbyshire's fictional talk to his children. But with the best will in the world, I am unable to refute Oculus's central contention, at least in America today:
This wasn't always and everywhere the case. But it's become so today, in these United States. It's becoming ever more so as time passes.
We don't have much longer to redress this problem.
Reflect on the statistics Glenn Fairman presents and decide for yourself.
Remember that the police have no duty to protect you, even in the most public of places.
Remember that your safety, and that of your loved ones, is your responsibility.
Remember that street violence respects neither color nor intentions.
And remember to pray.