that the presidency of Barack Obama would be the occasion for a comeback of the O.J. Simpson acquittal sack dance. While there is some truth in that, I missed the mark. The real occasion for a comeback of the O.J. Simpson acquittal sack dance was the murder of four white police officers in Oakland, California. What is it that many black people truly desire? What gives them pleasure and fulfillment? The tearing down and destruction of white people—whether in word, as in the sermons of Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright, or in reality. When black thugs murder whites, they are satisfying the desire, inchoate or explicit, of many many blacks. In Oakland it’s explicit.
Paul K. writes:
A friend in law enforcement in the Bay Area wrote me,
- end of initial entry -
There were massive parties all over Oakland celebrating the shooting that night. During the interviews on TV there were 20 or 30 people in the background screaming “F*** the police!” and “They got what they deserved!” It was everything the officers could do to restrain themselves.
Bay View, a radical rag which calls itself a “National Black Newspaper,” celebrates the mass murder as “what some in the Black community see as a day of heroic resistance against the police,” under the headline, “Police 2, Oakland residents 4.”
A columnist for the paper, Jean Damu, writes, “When the full story is finally told and, though not likely freely admitted by many, deep within the spiritual thinking of numerous African Americans, an emotional candle will be lit in memory of Lovelle Mixon.”<<
How many within the black community resonate to these views? More than complacent whites would like to believe, I suspect.
David B. writes:
Your post about the sack dance over the Oakland police shootings reminded me of a comment by a “complacent liberal” 20 years ago. Do you remember the Central Park Jogger case? Recall the hand-wringing over that? During that period, I remember watching the Larry King show. Someone was talking about the support blacks were giving the suspects and the attitude this indicated. King’s answer was, “Isn’t it understandable?”
David B. writes:
On Saturday, I was doing a Google search for news about the Oakland police shooting. I found this column by one Jordan Monroe. It was written before Saturday’s killings. I did a double take upon reading it. The column’s theme is black-on-black crime and the supposed indifference to it. Monroe then says something I haven’t seen:
I have had countless conversations with people from Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco in which they were almost bragging about who has the highest murder rate.
Isn’t that something? Monroe continued:
In a conversation with friends at the Obama inauguration, my friend from Richmond spoke proudly about how Richmond was the murder capital of America. He said it so many times that one of the Oakland natives with us said, “It”s funny how people talk about their cities murder rates like they just won the Super Bowl or something.” His comment was funny but true. The moment a member of the community is killed by someone other than another member of that community, there seems to be more of a sense of loss.
This column by Mr. Monroe indicates that blacks are proud of their high crime rate. I should point out that Monroe criticizes this attitude because it leads to black-on-black violence such as the murder of his brother in 2006. It makes you wonder how widespread this feeling may be.
Here is what I said as a caller to the Bob Grant program a few days after the O.J. Simpson aquittal in 1995, when the media were creating a moral equivalence between whites’s horror at blacks’ rejoicing at the verdict, and blacks’ rejoicing at it (and please note that I am rendering the comment the way I spoke it on the radio that day, without the usual qualifiers to the effect that this is obviously not true of all blacks):
We know that between 1/4 and 1/3 of black men are convicted felons. That means that a very large part of the black population are either criminals, or are the relatives and friends of criminals. That means you have a pro-criminal population. Now, how do criminals feel toward the police? They regard them as their enemies. So naturally the black population is anti-police.
The “cultural attitude,” the “racial experiences” that blacks have supposedly had, and that we whites don’t understand, simply comes down to the fact that blacks are a pro-criminal population that sees the police as their enemies, and that will decry any policy work as “police brutality,” and then uses this “police brutality” as an excuse to rationalize any further criminal acts by blacks against whites.
But instead of understanding this, white people make the mistake of thinking that the black sense of grievance is a rational grievance, so the whites try to “understand” the blacks, to listen to them, to treat them as partners in a rational discussion. But this discussion can never go anywhere because at bottom the blacks are criminal sympathizers expressing their resentment of the society’s laws.
Instead of trying to “understand” the blacks’ “feelings,” whites need to understand where blacks are actually coming from. Then we will stop treating them as partners in a rational discussion and identify them as the irrational criminal sympathizers that they actually are.
A. Zarkov writes:
Many news reports identify one of Lovelle Mixon’s weapons as an “AK-47 assault rifle.” For example this report in the San Francisco Chronicle
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 25, 2009 12:59 AM | Send
However it’s unclear at this point whether Mixon used the semi- automatic civilian version of the AK-47 or the fully automatic military version, which is truly an assault rifle and cannot be legally owned in the US without a special federal license needed for machine guns. California bans the civilian version as an “assault rifle,” although strictly speaking it’s not. We will no doubt hear calls for a reinstatement of the federal ban on assault weapons. What’s not generally appreciated is the civilian AK-47 is no more dangerous than many hunting rifles. The difference is largely cosmetic, and the press generally provides extremely misleading coverage in an attempt to promote more gun control. Most likely Mixon used the civilian version and obtained it illegally.
Let’s compare the legal (but not in California) civilian AK-47 with (say) the Ruger Mini 30 hunting rifle. Both fire the same cartridge 7.62x39mm. Both have the same rotating bolt action, and both have the same semi-automatic rate of fire. However with a shorter barrel (16.3 inches) the AK-47 has a lower muzzle velocity (2,347 ft/s) than the Mini 30 (18.5 inches). With its lower muzzle velocity, the AK-47 would be less lethal than the Mini 30. While the Mini 30 is somewhat less accurate, gunsmiths will make your Mini 30 equal or better in accuracy. The only real difference I can see is the AK-47 has a folding stock and would be more compact to transport. Thus any federal assault weapons ban would make no difference unless it covered a very wide number of hunting rifles. I choose the Mini 30 as one example out of many. See Wikipedia for the specifications on both rifles.
Now to the politics of gun control. One can buy drugs, sex, firearms of all sorts, counterfeit drivers licenses, counterfeit Green Cards (work permit), and many other contraband items “on the street” in certain neighborhoods. The laws regulating these items are largely irrelevant to criminals. As such additional gun regulations will have virtually no effect on criminal possession of firearms, so why bother? In my opinion, liberal legislators don’t want white people using guns to protect themselves from black criminals. We know from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Victimization Surveys that a black is 64 times more like to attack white than the reverse. See Crime in the Hood. Thus the defensive use of firearms will have a tremendously disparate impact on blacks. This is what the liberals fear and this is why they are itching to pass more regulations. The recent Oakland police massacre provides a ready excuse to do so.