The Morningside Heights atrocity, and a question for Obama

This is hard to take, and you should wait until the right time to read it, but you should read the story in the New York Daily News about the trial in New York City of Robert Williams, who in April 2007 seized and held captive for 19 hours, tortured in every way imaginable and unimaginable, and scarred and disfigured a 23 year old Columbia University journalism student. The race of the young woman whose life he has blasted is not mentioned. Of course she is white. The worst he faces is life in prison, not death.

The fact is that these beasts walk among us, looking to pounce. As I wrote in January 2007 at the news of the Knoxville atrocity

Could this have happened in pre-1960s America? No, and especially not in the South, because white society was frankly on guard against this very sort of thing, and held the black population under a rule and a discipline. That rule went too far, especially in the Jim Crow laws that required racial discrimination. But how tragic and ironic that because of white racial discrimination against blacks, and because of racial atrocities by whites such as the murder of Emmett Till, whites in a fit of liberal guilt went to the other extreme, erasing the consciousness of racial realities altogether, and thus rendering themselves, and especially their young women, naive and innocent and helpless before black savagery. For decades, black murderers and rapists have been committing violent crimes against whites that in numbers and in pure savagery are orders of magnitude beyond anything that whites ever did or remotely imagined doing to blacks in the 1950s. Yet, far from taking measures to stop this racial phenomenon of black predation of whites, white society doesn’t even recognize its existence.

Would the election of Obama end the predation of whites, and especially of white women, by black men? Not likely.

So here’s a question that ought to be asked of Obama at a presidential debate:

Sen. Obama, you said in your speech on race last March 18 that as long as whites have not ended racial inequality in America, whites have to expect the sort of hatred and rage that comes from Jeremiah Wright, who identifies the source of evil in the world as “white man’s greed.”.

In this country today, black on white violence is a fact of life, and in addition to the steady stream of black on white rapes and murders there have been racially motivated black on white crimes of shocking brutality and horror, including not only rape and sodomy, but torture, disfigurement, burning. Cases in point are the Wichita Massacre in December 2000 in which five young white people were captured and tortured, and four of them murdered, the torture-murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville in January 2007, and the torture and disfigurement of a young women in New York City in April 2007.

Senator, is it your position that until whites have ended racial inequality in America, whites have to expect to be targeted by white-hating black thugs? In fact, aren’t such criminals only acting out in physical terms the same seething anti-white anger, hatred, and vengefulness which has been enacted verbally by the pastor, and through whoops, yells, and cries from the congregration, every week in your church for the last 30 years, and which you have justified as an understandable and inevitable response to racial inequality?

- end of initial entry -

I had wondered how the New York Times had covered this crime, but before I got around to looking it up, Mencius Moldbug sent this:

Here is the Times search page on this story:

That’s one story for the arrest, one story when the defendant was ruled fit for trial. Both were buried deep in the local news, I’m sure. Imagine how low on the totem pole a crime reporter on the NY Times must be.

Note that they did not even send a reporter to cover the trial. It is mentioned in today’s Times, though—as an AP story.

There are two reasons why young hip people feel safer in the cities today than they did in the ’80s. One is that the cities, as a result of the law-enforcement backlash of that period, have become a good deal safer. Two is that, although by any objective standards they are absurdly dangerous, people simply don’t know it.

My reaction to this crime really shouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the victim is a journalism student. But, you know, it does. Just a little, but …

LA replies:

As brought out in the Daily News story, she had entered her building, and he was in the hallway saying he was looking for someone, then she opened the door of her apartment and he pushed in after her.

I told this story to a female acquaintance in New York. She said she would never open the door of her apartment with a strange black man in the hallway.

But of course whites in our society, particularly females, have been trained not to beware of young black men.

How many rapes and murders of white women by black men has liberalism facilitated?

One of the functions of a normal society is to protect its females from the clutches of barbarians and savages.

One of the functions of liberal society is to deliver its females into the clutches of barbarians and savages.

Mark Jaws writes:

When you say the election of Obama is not likely to end the predation of whites by black criminals, I respond by reminding you and your readers it is up to us then to thrust the questions you raise concerning anti-white black predators into the media mainstream and the public arena, just as that lone white Clinton supporter expressed her rage on YouTube last week. We need to write letters to the editor, call in talk shows and when officials appear publicly get into their faces and express our outrage at this epidemic of black-on-white crime. We should no longer tolerate our being treated by the political and media elites as second class citizens.

Mark O. writes:

I don’t understand why you continually make posts about “a steady stream of black on white rapes and murders ” when 94% of black murders are of black people. Is there some statistic I am missing here?

From what I remember, your infamous interracial rape article was based on a small FBI survey that was improperly extrapolated to cover the whole country. [LA replies: Not correct. As concisely explained here, the only question concerned, not the black on white rape figures, but the white on black rape figures. It is explained here.] Have you found a better source of statistics for that?

You keep talking about black people’s inherent savagery. Anyone who reads this will automatically react with “What is slavery, an enlightened, generous practice?”. All races side with their own to some degree; all nations are built by violence against outsiders. If we want to isolate ‘savagery’ to psychopathic crimes, the typical FBI profile of a serial killer is a white male.

I also wonder why you see a crime where a woman living alone is attacked and you see race as the culprit rather than gender and family structure that leaves defenseless women isolated. Or the criminal justice system that let this repeat offender walk free multiple times. Both of these problems are caused by the stupidity of white people and can be easily solved by enlightening ourselves.

Again, maybe I am missing some crucial detail here, but of all the things you post on your site, this gives me the most pause.

LA replies:

First, as shown below, the large incidence of black on white rape that I reported from the Dept. of Justice table was not questioned by anyone. The question of the inaccuracy in my article is explained in the post, “Correction of Horowitz’s ‘correction’”, where I wrote:

I’ve posted a comment to my own article explaining that [David Horowitz’s] statement “Auster’s statistics were wrong” is incorrect, since they were not my statistics. For some reason it’s hard for folks to understand that I wrote the article in the capacity not of a crime victimization researcher but of a reader of a government table. In that capacity, I accurately reported the figures in the Department of Justice table and told readers where to find the document and the table so they could check out the data for themselves. The fact that one particular figure in the table was misleading is another question. Of the numbers in the table that I accurately reported, the only one that requires emendation is that the number of “white”-on-black sexual assaults and rapes was close to zero in 2005. Meanwhile, the huge number of black-on-white sexual assaults and rapes in 2005, a figure so large that it can only mean that black rapists deliberately seek out white women as their targets, which was the main point of the article, has not been challenged by anyone on the left or the right. Nor has anyone on the left refuted my statement that the mainstream media systematically cover up this endemic phenomenon of large-scale black-on-white rape, even as the media automatically accept as true, and trumpet to the skies, blatantly false charges against white men for raping black women.

Second, I had intended to write a longer article on this topic but did not get around to it. It’s a subject I will return to. In the meantime, the booklet, “The Color of Crime” is an important resource.

Third, reading newspapers over the years, namely the New York Post and New York Daily News, one sees frequent, regular incidents of blacks attacking white women. I wish I had kept a record of all the stories on this I’ve seen. Maybe “steady stream” is overstated, but it’s a real and regularly recurring phenomenon, and it is never recognized as such.

Fourth, I have never spoken of black people’s “inherent savagery.” I have never said that black people are savages. This is the same vicious misrepresentation of me that David Mills, the Undercover Black Man, has spread about me. The fact that you would think I have said that shows a misunderstanding. What I have said is that there is a savage element that is a significant and predictable part of the black population. This is a reality. And society must recognize that it exists and defend its members from it.

Fifth, it is surprising that with regard to this torture attack that is now on trial, where the criminal got this woman into his total control to torture her for 19 hours, you would assume that this crime has nothing to do with the race of the victim and is merely a statistic based on “gender and family structure that leaves defenseless women isolated.”

Let’s look at it this way. We already know that millions of blacks are walking around with a huge animosity against whites, based on a continually enflamed sense of white oppression. For these blacks, it’s as though slavery is still going on, as we see in the sermons of Wright and Pfleger, whose audiences lap it up. So, if large numbers (we don’t know how many) of middle-class, “Christian” blacks have this kind of anti-white rage and even vengefulness, which was fully on display at the time of the OJ Simpson acquittal, and which is entirely accepted as normal within the black community, isn’t it also to be expected that lots of lower level blacks have the same kind anti-white hatred, only they express it, not by whooping it up at a church “sermon,” but by physically targeting white people?

My gosh, President Clinton said the Oklahoma City bombing was caused by Rush Limbaugh’s attacks on government, a hideous, absurd statement that liberals did not oppose. Yet it doesn’t occur to the liberals that continual invocations of the monstrous evil whites have done and are doing to blacks would not have an effect not just on middle class blacks but lower-class, criminal blacks and make them want to avenge themselves on whites.

Of course there are other factors in this, the things that unleashed him on society, such as liberal judges. I would also mention the lower-than-a-whore way many white women dress today which any serious conservatism must stand against.

John Hagan writes:

The more I read Mark O’s comments, the more enraged I become. Black on white crime is not only endemic, it’s historic. The city of Detroit Michigan is practically abandoned because of black crime. A major American city shut down to normal commerce and socialization because of black psychopathology. And it’s not the only city whites have literally walked away from. Every single sane white person in the United States makes decisions on where to live and send their children to school based on how they can mitigate interaction with lower class blacks.

There is not a major, or mid-sized American city that has not been impacted by black crime. We only know about the black on white crime that is reported, not the daily indignities that whites endure. The very fabric of life in the United States has been altered by black crime. Unless you move to northern New England or the upper great plain states there is no escape from this menace.

If you could show a documentary of life in the United States concerning black crime since the mid-sixties to an audience of 1950s Americans they would find the way we live inconceivable !

George R. writes:

You wrote regarding the Jim Crow South:

“That rule went too far, especially in the Jim Crow laws that required racial discrimination.”

I don’t think it went too far at all. The Jim Crow laws that required racial discrimination merely solidified the good order of society that existed. This is the kind of thing that good conservative laws are supposed to do.

But maybe you’re right; maybe the laws were too harsh. Nevertheless, any attempt to reform them in the face of the liberal civil rights onslaught would have been suicide, as it would have been seen as an admission that discriminatory laws were unjust and, by extension, that discrimination itself was unjust. That being the case, we would have to go back to the original reason for the laws; and determine that that reason was not sufficient, before we, as good conservatives, should condemn them.

LA replies:

To take the position that there was nothing at all objectionable with the legal position of Negroes in the pre-Civil Rights South would be wrong. My position, which involves a re-thinking of the Civil Rights movement, is that the worst disabilities imposed on blacks could and should have been rectified, without doing what we actually did do, which was to set about creating a new, equalitarian order in which non-discrimination became the rule of society, and any failure to attain racial equality was seen as a sign of America’s guilt, and the white majority, falsely convinced of its own guilt, gave up its position of leadership in America. I lay out my approach here.

Ken Hechtman writes:

I’m going to be deliberately dense here, just to draw out your point in the most clear and specific way possible.

OK, a horrible crime was committed. The perpetrator was arrested, he is now being tried, he will certainly be convicted and if there is any justice in the world he will be punished with the full penalty of the law.

What more are you asking for than that? I understand who you are. You are the guy who has eyes to see the trend of black-on-white rape/torture/murder and the heart to talk about it in public. Now, what do you want? Prevention? What concrete and specific preventative measures are you asking to be applied to black men who are not yet suspected of any such crime?

LA replies:

I won’t talk about some total, conservative change in society, but simply mention some of the most immediately necessary and relatively doable things that ought to be done:

  • We speak honestly about crime and who is committing it, specifically, about black on white violence. We demand honesty from the media.

  • Instead of being told that they should like everyone and never think bad of anyone, young women should be told that there are predators in our society and they need to beware of them.

  • Young women would not open the door to their apartment when there is a strange black man in the hallway.

  • Violent felons would be put in jail much longer.

  • Restore the death penalty, which is a sine qua non of civilized society. In every society, there will always be a certain number of unregenerate enemies of society who must be killed for the safety of all.

  • Impose the death penalty for aggravated violent rape.

  • A return to female modesty in dress.

  • An aggressive campaign rejecting the notion of white guilt and the idea that blacks are suffering because of anything whites have done to them.

  • Zero tolerance for a church like Trinity United which is an incubator of anti-white hatred. It would be understood that such a church is a total disgrace and that any member of it is a total disgrace who ought to be rejected by society.

I’m sure others will come up with further ideas.

A. Zarkov writes:

When Mark O. writes: “From what I remember, your infamous interracial rape article was based on a small FBI survey that was improperly extrapolated to cover the whole country.” He makes several misstatements of fact. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (not the FBI) Crime Victimization Survey is not a small survey; on the contrary, the NCVS uses a sample consisting of 77,200 households comprising 134,000 people. Nor was it “improperly extrapolated to cover the whole country.” He doesn’t seem to understand that this survey is designed for extrapolation to the country. That’s the whole point of doing a survey with a representative sample. Moreover it’s not rape that get reported, but the larger category of sexual assault which includes rape.

The numbers appearing in the NCVS tables are extrapolations to the national population, they are not a counts of incidents in the survey population. However in some cases such as white sexual assault on the black women, the number in the survey population was zero, which is too small to extrapolate to the national population with the same degree of accuracy as the other statistics. That’s because the actual assault rate (which could be zero) is simply too small for incidents to appear in the sample. But we can put a bound on the actual number. It requires some different equations which I can derive and communicate to you. What we can say with high confidence is that black on white sexual assault is astronomically larger than the reverse.

The election of Obama could result in increased violence on whites by blacks. When he makes statements like “now it’s our turn,” I really don’t know what he means, but some blacks might take that as our turn for revenge.

Andy M. writes:

It is a virtual lock that apologists for black crime will bring up the fact that most serial killers are white as an attempted counter argument. This argument breaks down when subjected to a little scrutiny.

Mark O. writes that, “If we want to isolate “savagery” to psychopathic crimes, the typical FBI profile of a serial killer is a white male.”

The fact that most serial killers are white is virtually meaningless. The majority of the population is white, so there is nothing extraordinary about this. It is far more instructive to look at rates of crime by race rather than the total number of crimes committed by members of a given race. Several studies have shown that blacks are in fact overrepresented among the ranks of serial killers.

In Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder, by James Alan Fox and Jack Levin, Crime and Justice, Vol. 23 (1998), pp. 407-455, Fox and Levin found that 15 percent of serial murderers in the U.S. during the 20th century were black (this is greater than the percentage of blacks in the population).

See also African Americans and Serial Killing in the Media: The Myth and the Reality, by Anthony Walsh, Boise State University, Homicide Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, 271-291 (2005).

This study found that 21-23 percent of serial killers in post WWII America were black, compared to an overall population that was on average 10.5 percent black over that same period.

David B. writes:

Nicholas Stix wrote a lengthy piece for Vdare on The Knoxville Horror on October 31, 2007. Regarding interracial crime, Mr. Stix wrote:

For 20 years, black criminals have targeted whites more than they have blacks (45 vs. 43 percent in recent years, with ten percent of their victims Hispanic). For example, in 1994, 56 percent of violent crimes committed by blacks were against whites. Some 85 percent of interracial crime is typically black-on-white, according to conservative Justice Department statistics. In 1999, the statistician who writes pseudonymously as La Griffe du Lion concluded, regarding black-on-white crime,

“In the city, the races live mostly apart from one another, so that the most convenient victims of thugs are those of the same race. Only a hunter’s mentality could account for the data.”

Mr. Stix has links for each of the statistics given in the article.

Mark O. writes:

Let’s be clear here, you said “a steady stream of black on white rapes and murders” and I showed that 94 percent of black murders kill black victims. That is a difference.

[LA replies: I intended to be speaking of sexual attacks and other kinds of assaults. That’s been the main subject here. If I misspoke or was mistaken when I said “rape and murder” instead of, say, “rape and armed robbery,” then I will amend that.]

I am willing to accept that many blacks who commit crimes against whites get a thrill out of it because they resent whites. In fact I have read of some who have admitted this. But your theory of en-masse deliberate attacks doesn’t work when that pesky 94 percent number is still there.

The evidence suggests blacks commit about half of the nation’s murders, and half of its rapes. Very comparable numbers. The difference is that 37,640 of the rapes were white, and 36,620 black, so about half of black rapes are targeted at white women whereas their murders are mostly of their own. (I am using the non-tainted “Truth of Interracial Rape” numbers here)

[LA replies: You’ve just admitted my case, which is also the point by Griffe du Lion quoted above. Blacks are not finding white women to rape in their own neighborhoods; if half of black rape victims are white women, that is clear evidence that blacks are going out of their way to find whites to attack.]

If blacks were targeting white women for rape, en masse, out of hatred, why would the murder rate still be 94 percent black on black?

[LA replies: Now you’re saying that I said that there was an “en masse” black attack on whites, when I never said anything like that. You are overreaching and it is annoying that you would make up statements by me I never made. How about staying with my words?]

The one statistic that I find useful here: Black men-white woman marriages are 2.5 times as common as white man-black woman. (see Steve Sailer’s articles on interracial marriage). So, therefore, it makes logical sense that what a group likes consensually it would also like non-consensually. I would also add an uneducated guess that more white women live alone than black women, and more are naive about keeping themselves safe.

The key here would be to find the rate of black-on-Asian rape, since black man-Asian woman marriages are also very common, but it is probably such a small subgroup that accurate studies don’t exist. Asians are not measured in the PDF you based your article on.

“Mark O. would assume that this crime has nothing to do with the race of the victim and is merely a statistic based on ‘gender and family structure that leaves defenseless women isolated.’ “

I didn’t assume anything in that statement. I asked why you were assuming that when so far, there is no evidence for a race motive, while there were two clear culprits, family and criminal justice.

[LA replies: Sorry, Mark O., but when a black man enters a student apartment building near Columbia University and picks out a white female journalism student and pushes his way into her apartment and holds her prisoner and tortures her for 19 hours, I assume that torturing a white woman was at least part of his motive. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, so be it. But everything we know about racial reality in this country leads us to make the rebuttable presumption that that was the case here. The fact that you assume that it is not the case does not speak well for your grasp of racial realities..]

“Fourth, I have never spoken of black people’s “inherent savagery..”… The fact that you would think I have said that shows a misunderstanding.”

I’ve been reading your site daily for several years. If it isn’t clear to me, who is it going to be clear to? At that point the author should start thinking whether he has expressed himself clearly.

[LA replies: I have never said anything like, “Blacks are savages,” or “Blacks are inherently savage,” and frankly I’m disgusted that you would think I have and I wonder why you have kept reading my site for several years if you think that. If you can’t understand the difference between, on one side, speaking of “black savagery” and of the “savage element in the black population,” which unfortunately are facts of life, and, on the other hand, saying, “Blacks as such are savages,” then you have very poor reading comprehension and that is not my problem.

Even mainstream conservatives will speak frequently of “Muslim terrorism,” and then add that of course not all Muslims are terrorists, and every sensible person understands and accepts the truth of what they’re saying: that there is a distinct phenomenon in the world that is accurately known as Muslim terrorism. In the same way, there is a distinct phenomenon in the world that is accurately known as black savagery. Which is not the same as saying that all blacks or most blacks or even a large minority of blacks are savages. ]

You seem to think that: (roughly) 1. there is a large savage segment of the black population, 2. that it is permanent: nature, not nurture, because you say it’s been consistent at least through Jim Crow times. 3. that this capacity for violence is unique to them.

It is particularly the 3rd point that makes no sense to me. I am proud to be descended from people who killed the Indians to make room for our great country. I don’t think you should resent a given people for their violence towards others. If that’s true, your and my heads are next on the chopping block. Not to mention, this idea of a permanent black savagery based on 36,000 rapes a year is also jarring compared to the slave trade.

[LA replies: you’ve gone completely off-track here and show ignorance of basic realities. Of course blacks have a higher incidence of violence than other races, several times higher. This is seen in crime statistics in every country where blacks live. The fact that you don’t know this fact, and are attacking me for pointing to it, shows you need to inform yourself in this area.

Your reference to taming the West is irrelevant and also shows a surprising lack of comprehension and logical thinking ability on your part. That was a confrontation between two peoples for possession of a land. In other words, war. That’s not our subject here. Our subject is personal, criminal violence.]

The real difference between what you and I “assume” when it comes to race and national questions is that I am always skeptical of whites blaming other people. I find it frustrating when whites, who are the most powerful race of all time, resort to playing the victim. Parasites only feed on a corpse. When illegals come it is the fault of whites who let them in. If black criminals rampage it is the fault of whites who won’t put them away or won’t buy a gun.

Again, I find your take on liberalism valuable, but whenever I read these black-violence posts on your site, I get the sinking feeling that you are chasing a white whale. Reading your proposed question to Obama, the “this guy is nuts” alarm goes off in my head the same way it goes off in yours when you read Pat Buchanan on Israel. I know that’s harsh, but it is true.

[LA replies: If you think I’m nuts, and feel it so strongly that you need to tell me that you think I’m nuts, then you should stop reading me.]

John Hagan writes:

If Mark O. would look at VFR he would see that you have gone not weeks, but at times months without mentioning blacks. His sensitivity about blacks is an artifact of his own making, and has little or nothing to do with VFR. And as far as his thinking you are nuts … what a fool he is. Black crime against whites in the United States is the elephant in the room we are not allowed to talk about.

I can name several conservatives who have lost their positions and jobs for talking about this issue. Does he not realize that one of the reason you are not published in any so-called conservative magazines any longer is because you have been outspoken on the subject of race. That you have had the courage to state the obvious, and are paying the price for it. What price is Mark O. paying ?

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: in modern America the mention of race will make cowards of most people, or at the very least tie them in knots so as to become incoherent like Mark O.

Mark Jaws writes:

If Mark O. had ever attended a junior high school or high school with a huge black student population, as I did (JHS 56 in Manhattan), then he would known damn well about the savagery among a distinct portion of black males (I would estimate about 10 to 15%). Those unfortunate white students in such a school setting are bullied, beat up, or worse. This reality is denied by a cowardly and complicit media, but it does not alter the fact that difference between a school with 5% blacks and 50% blacks is as if comparing Switzerland with the Sudan.

LA writes to Mark Jaws:

Mark O. hasn’t let up, he sent me another hectoring 700 word e-mail.

Sometimes I feel like the blogging equivalent of a gunslinger in the old West. Every week another young whippersnapper is out to show he’s faster on the draw than I am. It gets wearying at times, but it seems to come with the territory.

Mark Jaws replies:

There was a great movie about that gunslinger—it starred Gregory Peck.

Since I lack your eloquence and stately demeanor, I’d go for the jugular. I’d ask him where he grew up and with how many blacks did he have the good fortune of sharing his youth.

For many of your readers it is beneficial and instructional for you to spar with such whippersnappers, as it provides insight into the liberal mind set.

David B. writes:

There are a few observations I would make about the Morningside Heights Atrocity. The attacker was lurking outside the victim’s apartment building late at night. It is easy for predators to conceal themselves among parked cars or in the shadows outside apartment buildings. The victims in the Knoxville Atrocity were abducted in the parking lot of such a building.

I cannot tell you how many times I have read of black men complaining that “white women won’t get in an elevator with me.” They adopt an attitude of moral superiority and declare this to be a prime example of “racism.” The victim in this crime did get on the elevator.

LA replies:

I thought she first encountered him in the hallway outside her apartment? And he said he was looking for so and so (a name he made up)?

David B. replies:

I have the June 6 NY Daily News article in front of me. It says, in part:

Williams was waiting in the building elevator when the victim returned from a job fair around 10 p.m., police said. Williams stood 6-feet-tall and weighed 160 pounds, a foot taller than the student. She got off on the fifth floor and he followed.

“He asked where Mrs. Evans lived,” Prunty said. “She screamed and reached for her cell phone. He slapped it from her hand.”

The NY Times article says:

When she arrived at her apartment building, she got on the elevator and found Mr. Williams inside, Ms. Prunty said. She rode with him to her floor, and could hear him follow her as she navigated the long L-shaped hallway to her apartment.

As the woman entered her apartment, Ms. Prunty said, Mr. Williams asked her if she knew where a Mrs. Evans lived. The woman stopped to answer.

“Her kind moment of hesitation would cost her,” Ms. Prunty said.

LA replies:

I forgot about the elevator in the Daily News article.

While these accounts differ in a couple of details, they can be reconciled. In any case it’s clear she made two mistakes, getting onto the elevator with him, and then, with him following her in her hallway, opening her apartment door.

How much did the liberal attitudes toward blacks that have no doubt been deeply inculcated in this young woman as a student at Columbia University Journalism School, one of the most liberal in the country, have to do with her passive behavior that put her in this monster’s clutches?

Earlier in this thread Ken Hechtman asked what would I recommend that society do to prevent things like this. For starters, as I said, I would have society tell young women: Do not put yourself in any situation where you are alone with a strange black man. Do not get onto an elevator alone with a strange black man. If a strange black man is following you down your hallway, do not open your apartment door. If he confronts you or threatens you, open your mouth and start screaming as loudly as you can.

I wonder if Mr. Hechtman or Mark O. or anyone regards that as racist advice.

In the 1960s my late sister, then living in New York City, was entering her building at night when a well dressed black man seized her from behind. She began screaming with all her might, and he ran away.

Mark Jaws writes:

If you really want to deal with a whippersnapper, probably the best excuse monger for black on white crime the other side has to offer is Tim Wise. Below is his attempt to pooh pooh “The Color of Crime.”

The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

Guy White rebutted Tim Wise. I really need to brush up on both sides of this issue. It is my favorite tool to use against the libs.

Jeff in England writes (June 11):

The well known film “The Gunfighter,” starring Gregory Peck, which Bob Dylan writes about in his song “Brownsville Girl,” is about how young gunslingers (like Mark O. in the black man tortures white woman trial) are continually trying to prove they are the fastest draw.

Here are the lyrics in “Brownsville Girl” (co-written with Sam Shepard) that talk about the movie:

Well, there was this movie I seen one time,
About a man riding ‘cross the desert and it starred Gregory Peck.
He was shot down by a hungry kid trying to make a name for himself.
The townspeople wanted to crush that kid down and string him up by the neck.

Well, the marshal, now he beat that kid to a bloody pulp
as the dying gunfighter lay in the sun and gasped for his last breath.
Turn him loose, let him go, let him say he outdrew me fair and square,
I want him to feel what it’s like to every moment face his death.

If Mark O. had been trying to prove himself a little less, he might have made more impact in his entries to you. As is, he is BORING … more concerned about beating you than making real sense.

LA replies:

Thanks. I’ve never seen The Gunfighter. That last line in the Dylan verse is chilling. Is that in the movie?

Jeff replies:

Yes as far as I remember. Great film, try and see it. Peck is excellent.

That Columbia crime may be the worst American crime I have ever read about.. Yet the paper has the gall to not mention he is black (though the June 10 NY Daily News story that you discuss here does mention Dylan as I have noted in forwarding you the story to reread).

LA replies:

There have been many mass murders, sexual torture/murders, murder/cannibalism cases, and other such crimes in America. But I don’t know off hand of a case in which one person held and tortured another person in such a variety of ways over an extended period of time, topping it off by trying to burn her alive, as in this case.

Jeff in England writes:

I hadn’t realised the Dylan connection til just now. Scroll down near end of the Daily News article.

LA replies:

Yes, of course I was aware of the mention of Dylan in the trial from Tuesday’s papers, but it didn’t seem worth mentioning. I guess I should have mentioned it, given VFR’s Dylan angle.

Richard D. Fuerle writes (June 11):

When I read, in the “Morningside Heights Atrocity” post, the phrase “these beasts walk among us,” I was dumbfounded, as that phrase is almost the same as the title of the book I just published, “Erectus Walks Amongst Us,” which deals with the same subject. Parallel thinking, I would call it.

LA replies:

Thank you. Do you have any online information about your book?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 07, 2008 10:54 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):