The top Darwin Award winner of all time

Laura Wood writes at The Thinking Housewife:

AT ALTERNATIVE RIGHT, a video of a black man who is hit by a truck while dancing in the street, and presumably killed, is gleefully savored by hateful commenters.

By the way, if hatred is expressed at a website by commenters, and not denounced by moderators, the latter are implicitly endorsing those sentiments. In this case, Richard Spencer obviously does accept the commenters’ views as he treats the incident, in which a man is injured, as a joke.

I’ve sent this comment:

I agree that to make mocking comments at the sight of a person getting hit and presumably killed by a car is wrong. I agree that Richard Spencer by allowing such comments to be posted reveals the ugliness that is at the core of his website. But I don’t agree with the commenter who says that it was wrong of Spencer to post the video itself. The behavior of the young man who dances backward into the street until he is hit by a car is an emblematic expression the modern, self-esteeming self in its black incarnation. People today, including whites, are so full of themselves, so easy on themselves, so in love with their cell phones and other gadgets, and therefore so out of touch with objective reality, that they repeatedly do wildly foolish and dangerous things that get themselves injured or killed. There was a scene in a European movie a few years ago in which a woman on a train is so narcissistically pre-occupied with her cell phone conversation that she drops the phone into the train’s toilet that she was using while having the conversation, and the entire toilet has to be dismantled to retrieve her phone; she of course learns nothing from the experience and continues on her merry way. There is a cable TV show that does nothing but show videos of people doing madly careless things and getting smashed up as a result (though the show does not feature videos in which the person is seriously injured), and one would have to be dead not to find the sight remarkable or funny. Human stupidity, and human amazement at human stupidity, are part of our world and are not going to go away. Then there are those 14 year old white girls sent by their parents to sail around the world alone, not to mention the young white women who go walking alone dead drunk in Manhattan at 3 o’clock in the morning.

So there is a whole range of insanely self-centered, careless behaviors which modern society has unleashed. However, the behavior of the black man in this video goes beyond anything seen before. To repeat, he was boogying backwards into a street with car traffic. He is the culmination and symbol of modern liberalism which tells people that they can do whatever they please and that no harm will come to them no matter what they do.

- end of initial entry -

Kristor writes:

The Reckless Narcissist in that video was “putting it to the man.” It’s something I noticed in black neighborhoods even as a child. You’d be driving along, and there would be a big old shiny caddy driven by a black man in front of you. An acquaintance would call out to him from the sidewalk, and the driver would stop right in the middle of the road to talk to his friend, for up to 5 minutes. This happened to me so many times that I finally asked my best friend about it. He is black. “George,” I said, “is this really like a custom among blacks, to stop in the middle of the road, or is it just my imagination?” He got a sheepish look on his face and admitted that it was a custom. “But why?” says I; “why not just pull over to the side of the road to talk to a friend?” He explained that it was about putting it to the man; it was a way that blacks could get in the face of whites and irritate them in a way that didn’t ever rise to the level of calling for a response of any kind. “Is that why black kids always cut in line?” was my next question. This had bugged the hell out of me when I was little, and had patiently waited my turn in the cafeteria, but it was always such a trivial thing that I had never even thought to complain; rather, it was one of those situations like seeing someone chew with their mouth open: one deprecates silently, but no more. George admitted that cutting in line was another way of putting it to the man.

As an adult, I have noticed that black pedestrians—generally men—not uncommonly stroll into the street against the light, while making a point of not even looking at the oncoming traffic. They walk slowly, carelessly. Surely this is another way of putting it to the man. Dancing out into the traffic is surely an instance of this phenomenon. The fact that the black men who cross against the light studiedly ignore the oncoming traffic makes me think that putting it to the man is the black equivalent to the American Indian custom of counting coup as a form of war. A brave would count coup by touching a dire enemy and sneaking away without being caught, or by stealing something from his lodge, or by creeping into his camp by night, leaving a sign of his presence—say, an arrow of his own clan—and creeping out again. Counting coup demonstrated the brave’s courage and cunning and woodcraft.

Come to think of it, the black custom of sandbagging white pedestrians—running up behind them and punching them in the head, then running away without ever stopping—is, precisely, counting coup. Sandbagging is the basic form of counting coup among Indians. I wonder if counting coup is widespread in traditional African cultures.

The difference between counting coup among the Indians and putting it to the man is of course that for the Indians counting coup was incredibly dangerous. For American blacks, putting it to the man is almost always a safe bet; it presumes upon the general courtesy and civility of our culture. The Reckless Narcissist in the video erred only by miscalculating how slowly he needed to dance across the street in order to give drivers of large vehicles time to slow down and let him trespass against the rules of polite behavior.

John P. writes:

This phenomenon of blissful obliviousness that one sees everywhere today is a pet peeve of mine. The case in question is a particularly egregious example but I see it everywhere on a daily basis even among young people who could be expected to be more alert to their environment. While I agree liberalism is an exacerbating factor I believe the behaviour is rooted in the realities of modern society. The fact is that the environment in the modern world, most of the time, offers neither opportunities nor threats. Unlike most of human history where there was always the risk of being bitten by a snake or grabbing a mouse for a tasty snack, today almost all opportunities and threats are abstract and indirect. The important business meeting next week, making your car payment, or entertainment are the major opportunities and threats today. The environment is a neutral backdrop and thus consciousness will focus on interior monologue.

This could be compensated for by better training and education but of course is not which is where I see liberalism playing an exacerbating role. There is no interest in having people be alert and it is not inculcated by any institution (sports is an exception but not as effective as it might be.) This lack of awareness can be fairly described as decadence. A subtle indicator of the decline of modern man.

LA replies:

Excellent point. What you’re saying is that the problem is not just liberalism, as I suggested. Rather it is modern society itself, in which our needs get met so easily and there are so few real dangers compared to all previous times. From this angle, liberalism can be seen as the ideological articulation of modern society, rather than as the cause of modern society.

August 9

Kevin V. writes:

I know your town is one where blacks are not a majority and are simply one group among many, but I find it VERY hard to believe that you are not aware of the completely routine and commonplace phenomena of Blacks walking in front of cars, jaywalking, walking slowly in crosswalks long after their light has turned red and just generally daring Whites to hit them. This happened to me at least once a day in Los Angeles, twice a day in Berkeley and about 10 times a day in San Francisco if I had business near Market Street and/or the Tenderloin.

What you saw on this video is a typical black power play. Usually, being reasonable, normal, sensitive and intelligent human beings, whites go out of their way to avoid trouble—even if it means they hit another car or have to slam on their brakes so their kids end up hitting their heads against the back of the front seat. After all, who needs the lawsuit? Or for that matter, who needs a much of pro-black idiot policeman questioning you as to “why did you hit a black person.” As you just saw—AGAIN—with the recent shootings, whites are always at fault, not just in the black mind, but in the mind of officialdom, right on up from Sheriff Barney Fife to Atty General Holder.

Just another boring black power play to make Whitey jump.

And, yes, that he got hit is not only funny, it’s hilariously funny. I wish you could share my joy at it, but perhaps you simply haven’t had to frantically hold your children from slamming into a hard plastic dash at 45 mph enough.

P.S. Keep up the good work. We’ll make a revolutionary out of you yet.

LA replies:

“just generally daring Whites to hit them”

I have not seen this behavior in the race mixed parts of Manhattan, such as the upper Upper West Side where I live, where blacks are one group among others. I get the impression that blacks in Brooklyn, say, are much worse behaved than in Manhattan. Also, when I’ve been in Los Angeles, I’ve had a sense of a prevailing black disorder in the streets which is not the way it is in Manhattan. In Manhattan, there’s some sense of a force of order holding things together—could the street grid be an aspect of this? Parts of L.A. have felt to me like a place with no order at all, but chaos ruling.

“the completely routine and commonplace phenomena of Blacks walking in front of cars,”

That should be “phenomenon.” “Phenomena” is plural. “Phenomenon” is singular, and it looks here as though you meant it in the singular. It’s a very common error, even among the college educated, like saying, “Between you and I.” You constantly hear people say, “That’s an interesting phenomena.”

Kevin replies:

I suspect that the difference is as you state. It would be exceedingly interesting if you could pose that issue to your wider research and see if my take is shared by readers from LA-SF-Seattle-Denver-Chicago. I think you’ll find that I’m correct. As for the South, I have no idea, but would be shocked if it were much different.

Chaos does indeed reign in what was once my home. I fear that it is much more of a model for our common future, especially given the Latino contingent, than a world-capital city like New York, which is unique in more ways than one.

I admit this is a word that has caused me trouble thoughout the years; perhaps I should avoid it.

LA replies:

Why should it give you trouble? “Phenomenon” is singular: “That is an interesting phenomenon.” “Phenomena” is plural: “In the course of his experiments, he discovered several remarkable phenomena.”

Kevin V. replies:

It gives me trouble because I tripped up on it once and now whenever I re-learn the rule I start to second-guess myself. I will try to hammer it into my head this time!

LA replies:

Well, think of the ending of “phenomenon”—“on”—as resembling “one.” One phenomenon.

Kevin replies:

Excellent trick. Thanks, I think that will be very helpful.

Off topic here, but are you sensing a radical shift in mood? Like there are more than just a few cranks out there thinking that things are rapidly—much more rapidly than even I thought two years ago—coming to a head? Or does our intense involvement with such affairs lead us to given them more signifiicance than is warranted?

LA replies:

Hard question to answer. A shift in mood could only be demonstrated as a fact by some external event.

LA to Kevin:

I posted our exchange, including the grammatical part.

Kevin replies:

Well, I’m happy to share my illiteracy in the hopes that it may save others.

Josh F. writes:

I disagree that this black man’s behavior was a case of “blissful obliviousness.” Rather, it is a case of radical autonomy seeking self-annihilation. The idea that our threats are lessened in an increasingly diversified environment (a radically-autonomizing environment) is misleading. Our threats are greater, but much less visible. Radically autonomist behavior can take many forms. The “blissful obliviousness” of the ignorant masses is a recognition that it is hopeless to fight the Leviathan and the many autonomists that bend and manipulate our environment. The only true freedom (the only RADICAL autonomy) is through self-annihilation. On the other hand, our opportunities (choices) seem bountiful, but are largely without any real substance. Again, this “unlimited” freedom to choose nothing much, or, more wickedly, to choose any number of fallacies, LEADS to self-annihilation.

LA writes:

My above point that minority misbehavior and general disorder seem worse in Los Angeles than in New York is perhaps backed up by this which I just saw at

Newark, Los Angeles and
Miami make the 10 worst places
to live in the U.S
New York Daily News, 8/9/2010

New Yorkers may curse the city’s traffic jams or the sweltering heat, but the Big Apple isn’t one of the worst places to live, according to WalletPop’s new list. Newark, Miami and Los Angeles made the outlet’s Top 10 Worst Places to Live, which used criteria such as unemployment rates, health and climate data, crime stats and the number of foreclosures.

August 10

Kathlene M. writes:

Kevin wrote:

“It would be exceedingly interesting if you could pose that issue [of difference in black behaviour toward whites in different cities] to your wider research and see if my take is shared by readers from LA-SF-Seattle-Denver-Chicago.”

I recently encountered this phenomenon for the first time a month ago and, again, a week ago. The first time, I was driving down a major boulevard in the East Bay city where I live (just north of San Jose). Three black teens (two boys, one girl) jaywalked incredibly slowly across three lanes of traffic. I spotted them well ahead of time, slowed down, and began planning my lane change so that I could make a quick exit to a side street if necessary. By the time my van and two other cars were near the teens, the teens had reached the median. The driver in the third lane, who looked to be Asian, was driving a tiny car. One of the black teens turned around and glared right into that driver’s door. Considering that in nearby Oakland blacks have targeted Asians as their second favorite victims after whites, that driver was probably scared senseless.

The second time, I was waiting in my van for the light change at an intersection when two black teens with low-slung pants walked slowly across the crosswalk, glaring at anyone who dared to glance in their direction. I told my kids not to stare at them.

Another incident I had was different from the two above but memorable. In spring my husband and I took our kids to a nice park in the East Bay near a marina. When my kids approached a play structure there, a black boy, who was about three or four, started bullying my kids (and any other kids who dared to come close) as if he owned the structure. The child was like a wild animal, kicking and lashing out at children (mostly white) who stepped onto the play structure. Now, parents know that preschoolers can be this way, but that’s when parents of the offending kid usually step in and teach their kid how to get along with the other kids. But this boy’s parents (both black) did nothing. Indeed the father, who wore dreadlocks and grungy clothing, came over and asked his boy, “Are you having fun?” The overweight mother vigilantly sat far away on a bench, presumably ready to pounce at the first sign of “racism” against her wild animal-child.

So yes, black attitudes are noticeably menacing here in the “civilized,” foreign-occupied East Bay of San Francisco. People of all ethnic backgrounds here know to avoid them. Anti-social values are being taught to black children from birth. The future looks grim for racial and social cohesion in America.

LA to Kathlene:

I appreciated your use of the word phenomenon. We’ve got to help Kevin drive the lesson home. :-)

Jane S. writes:

I’ve lived in the Bay Area for over 20 years and Kevin’s anecdotes are mild. I’ve had carloads of black people scream “Bitch” at me driving by while I was standing at the corner, waiting for the light to change.

Recently a friend and I went out to Sunday brunch at a popular chain restaurant. They seated us in a room where a couple of long tables were occupied by black families. Their kids were running all over shrieking and being disruptive, making it impossible to have a conversation, while the adults did nothing to curb their behavior. Kids screaming and acting wild in a park is one thing, but this was a restaurant.

Jonah O. writes:

I have been following with interest your comments exchange regarding the unfortunate fellow who seems to have moonwalked into traffic. It’s difficult, you know, following the trad. blogs where such issues are concerned. To be sure, black culture seems in so many instances to glorify the short-term and the lurid, not to mention the thuggish, and the media seems uniquely determined to state, with a sort of po-faced blankness, the very oppsoite.

That said, it’s hard to know where to get off, where to stop with all this “reversing the trend.” At what point does one become another marginal white supremacist type? As my father once said, “sure, I’m a racist—but I never thought I was a bigot.” Now, to my Public Enemy-listening adolescent ears they were one and the same, but what he meant was that, yes, he believed in innate group differences and all that entails … but he never wished to be the sort of person who would meet, say,a black man and immediately disallow the possibility that this was a serious, civilized person—even if he recognized that the man’s race held fewer examples of the type than others do.

I’ve always tried to stick to that formulation as I grew older, you know, realizing that the differences are real and under-discussed, but still remaining the sort of generally kindly, well-assuming person who is able to achieve amicable company with a broad range of people.

In the discussion concerning this stupid man, Laura Wood remained on this side of the fence—but VFR seemed struck by a particularized animus, a petty hatred of the black man. My accusation, I think, is not the usual shrill “racist!” cry of the liberal, but rather a gentle rebuke, from the traditionalist quarter, to not lose one’s essential Western-ness over the issue. For what it’s worth, I am too embarrassed to show my traditionalist black acquaintances your website, even though it is the best of its type for discussing the general gamut of reactionary issues.

LA replies:

Jonah writes:

“but VFR seemed struck by a particularized animus, a petty hatred of the black man”

A serious charge like this requires specifics. Which comments are you referring to? Please quote them directly. Were any of them by me? If not, were they so objectionable that I should not have posted them?

If you provide specifics, then we can have an informed discussion over whether I posted comments that I should not have posted.

Also, perhaps you could provide guidelines, with examples, on what you think are acceptable and unacceptable critical statements by whites about blacks.

I must say in passing that I think it’s possible that Jonah’s black traditionalist friends whose reactions he is concerned about would actually be in sympathy with the negative comments at VFR about the black street people and their confrontational behavior.

Also, this is not the first time that Jonah O. has accused VFR of expressing antipathy for blacks. Here is one of my earlier replies to him:

Once you have described my statements about blacks as “antipathy towards black people,” thus reducing my critical stance toward black America to the level of immoral race prejudice, you have eliminated the possibility of a truthful, realistic discussion of race relations and of a realistic response to America’s race problems.

Here is the reality: Organized black America (not all blacks as individuals, but black America as represented through recognized leaders and black organizations) is virulently hostile to white America. It falsely claims that all of blacks’ disadvantages and poorer performance are due to white racist oppression of blacks, and therefore that whites owe it to blacks to transfer their wealth and other goods to them to raise blacks up to whites’ socio-economic level, and also that whites must not identify or defend themselves from the ongoing intifida of black on white violence.

Obama formed himself psychologically and politically by identifying himself with this black anti-white mentality, and he is plainly carrying it forward and expressing it in all kinds of ways.

So now please tell me: how can one speak honestly about the reality of this black anti-white mentality and agenda without, in your words, expressing “antipathy” toward blacks?

Jonah has also said that my comments on the physical features and expressions of public persons (particularly those of the alien-in-chief) are not worthwhile; several readers emphatically disagreed him on that.

August 11

Jonah O. writes:

Thank you for including my comments. It is unfortunate that, perhaps due to the very part of human nature aroused by the activity of comment, it has come to seem that I disagree with you quite a bit, or quite stridently, when in actuality I read VFR because I find it congenial. That said, it is true that I find the general tenor of the “what to do about the blacks” conversation at VFR a little too dismissive for my liking. In one of your doubtlessly frustrating exchanges with the now-deceased “Undercover Black Man,” you said the following:

As for comparisons between my statements about Jews and my statements about blacks, I think my standard is the same in both cases. What is permissible and necessary is rational criticism; what is not permissible is bigotry, meaning, among other things: the readiness to believe and repeat any negative statement or generalization about a group, regardless of reason and evidence; the unwillingness to say anything positive about members of a group or acknowledge them as fellow human beings; the invocation of contempt and hatred against an entire group; the consigning of an entire group to a non-human status.

While I have never seen any indication that you would be any way inclined to treat black people as non-humans, there are elements of the above formulation that I feel VFR does transgress from time to time. [LA replies: As I said before, examples are needed. Without examples, we are spinning wheels on this topic.] In my ongoing struggle with what it ultimately means to be essentially conservative, there are moments when I feel the project may be incompatible with a mixed-race social group of the type that most Montrealers (and doubtlessly New Yorkers) consider their “circle of friends.” I mean, on one hand, how disgracefully liberal does it seem to have to conceal somehow one’s favored reading material from one’s minority acquaintances? On the other, I can see how even a black conservative would feel somewhat put-upon by a traditionalist world that seems to regard him as a hopeless savage, a man of cunning without intelligence, a shameless, shameful buffoon, a detestable predator and a member of a race that has produced nothing of merit, not even once. [LA replies: Now you’re getting to the heart of the problem, or rather the heart of the problem as you mistakenly perceive it. I have never written anything that suggests that every black person is a “hopeless savage, a man of cunning without intelligence, a shameless, shameful buffoon, a detestable predator,” and it is dishonest and disgusting of you to suggest that I have. And I don’t think that any readers’ comments I’ve posted, though some may be written in stronger and angrier language than my own comments, suggest such a picture of blacks either. However, when certain types of behavior are extremely widespread in a particular human group, so that that group has an entirely different profile of socioeconomic indicators, criminality, and interracial violence than other groups, it is not reasonable to require people who are commenting about that group to include all the desired qualifications in every single thing they say. It’s simply not practically possible to keep adding to every sentence one writes, “Of course, I’m not talking about all blacks or a majority of blacks; I am talking about a significant subset of the black population whose negative social behaviors will play a large role wherever there is a black community.” Further, as we can see from your wildly distorted portrayal of my own statements, in which I repeatedly include the qualifying language, the act of adding the qualifying language doesn’t help one get off the hook, since you still accuse me of saying that every black is a savage. Common sense and a feel for context tells any reasonable person (as distinct from a liberal who is looking for white racism) that references to negative black behaviors are generalizaitons concerning a significant subset of the black population which obviously do not apply to all blacks.

Also, I have never said that the black race “has never produced anything of merit, even once.” I have said, over and over, that the black race has a lower level of civilizational abilities than whites. And that is a fact of reality. If my making that statement is what you find unacceptable and immoral, then I am not going to be able to satisfy your concerns about me, because you would not allow any general statement referencing blacks’ lower civilizational abilities, while I of course regard such statements as absolutely indispensable to the defense of our civilization. Why do I say that such statements are indispensable? Is it because making such statements makes me feel superior to blacks? That, of course, is the standard liberal explanation of why people like me talk about this subject, “People need to feel superior to others,” “People need to look down on people who are different,” etc. The reason I talk about the racial differential in civilizational abilities is that the opposite belief, that the races are equal in abilities, is the prevailing orthodoxy of our world, and that orthodoxy means that the only explanation for why blacks are less successful than whites is that whites are doing something wrong to blacks to keep them back. Because blacks are behind, whites are guilty of something evil, and they will remain convicted of that evil until the day when blacks become equal. But because blacks can never be made equal, whites remain condemned as evil forever; and because whites remain permanently condemned as evil, they have no right to judge, they have no right to defend themselves from black hatred and violence, they have no right to defend their society and culture from alien cultures, they have no right to stop mass non-Western immigration. The belief that whites are responsible for black failure leads directly to national suicide. Therefore an indispensable step in stopping and reversing that suicide is to show the falsity of the liberal belief that all races are naturally equal in abilities. To repeat: our whole society stands condemned as racist, and is committing suicide, because of a racial differential of outcome which is not our society’s fault. Therefore asserting the truth of intrinsic racial differences in civilizational abilities is absolutely indispensable to freeing ourselves from suicidal liberalism.]

It is very difficult to bring America’s abominable racial circumstance to light without, you know, breaking a few eggs, so you have my sympathies. But it so often occurs that your thoughtful missives are echoed in the comments by what appear to be garden-variety bigots that I wonder at times who VFR is for—at least insofar as this issue is concerned. [LA replies: Again, while some readers use less qualified language than I use, I disagree with your statement

Jonah also replies:

You wrote:

A serious charge like this requires specifics. Which comments are you referring to? Please quote them directly. Were any of them by me? If not, were they so objectionable that I should not have posted them?

If you provide specifics, then we can have an informed discussion over whether I posted comments that I should not have posted.

Also, perhaps you could provide guidelines, with examples, on what you think are acceptable and unacceptable critical statements by whites about blacks.

Well this is a bit unfair. To point out that you feel someone’s speech in a certain area contains flaws or unpleasant undertones is not to call for liberal-style speech codes. It’s just discourse, isn’t it?

LA replies:

I did not at all intend to suggest that you are implicitly calling for liberal style speech codes; nor was I asking you for such a code. Rather, I am trying to find out what your standards are by which you determine whether any given critical statement about blacks is acceptable or unacceptable.

Also, it is most revealing that when I asked, “What are your standards?,” you assumed that I thought you were calling for speech codes. People today are so immersed in liberalism and its enforcement mechanism, political correctness, that it is hard for them to conceive of rules that are based, not on PC, but on reason.

Finally, and I repeat, you have not provided the evidence that I asked for.

Kathlene M. replies:

I saw Jonah’s comment, and knew it was only a matter of time before someone wrote to you, complaining that a few observations of strange and antagonistic black behavior equals racial animus against blacks. It’s apparently taboo to bring up how the black community as a whole aspires to sociopathic values. Even black people who bring it up are ostracized. (I can’t remember the name of the book written by a black man but this author has criticized rap culture and its values and taken some heat for it.)

As a parent, if I see anyone of any race dress and/or act menacingly, I teach my kids the same avoidance techniques. So, for instance, I’ve seen white teens wearing low-slung pants, piercings and tatoos, and I give these offenders a wide path if I dare to go near them at all. There are some asian teens who like to dress and act like thugs, and so on. Two of my commonsense rules for my kids are: (1) If you see a gang of kids who look like they’re looking for trouble, they probably are. (2) If you see a person walking down the street with an apparent attitude (as expressed on the face and in the clothing), they’re probably not going to be a nice person. I teach my kids to read the behavior, the walk, the clothing, and the face, and most of all, to trust their instincts.

It’s appalling that the black community’s embrace of rap and prison culture has led to dysfunctional values and sociopathic behavior. not just in their community but in our overall culture. They need to be called out on it, just like Muslims need to be called out on what the Quran teaches them about non-Muslims.

Kathlene M. continues:

Friends and family chided me about this same subject a few months ago when I mentioned how I disagreed with the saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” I said it’s perfectly natural and valid to judge people by first impressions, and it just may be a lifesaver. One person thought that was “prejudice” and another said, “Well white-collar criminals, like Bernie Madoff, seem nice and clean-cut but they’re bad people too.” Yes, however, exceptions don’t disprove the rule, and I’ll bet there were clues about Bernie Madoff’s character too if people had paid attention.

Kathlene continues:

Eric Holder was right … we ARE a nation of cowards. Any time people discuss race relations and group behavior, the response is similar to Jonah’s statement:

“My accusation, I think, is not the usual shrill “racist!” cry of the liberal, but rather a gentle rebuke, from the traditionalist quarter, to not lose one’s essential Western-ness over the issue.”

Is it any wonder people are afraid to speak up? It’s like in some churches, where if you dare to ask how a group belief such as same sex marriage is part of Christian belief, you are told that you yourself are not acting very “christian.”

James P. writes:

Jane S. writes:

“Recently a friend and I went out to Sunday brunch at a popular chain restaurant. They seated us in a room where a couple of long tables were occupied by black families. Their kids were running all over shrieking and being disruptive, making it impossible to have a conversation, while the adults did nothing to curb their behavior. Kids screaming and acting wild in a park is one thing, but this was a restaurant.”

I must say that many white parents are also unwilling to control the behavior of their children. They are obviously not “putting it to the man,” but rather act as if their authority as parents is somehow illegitimate, and thus they cannot make their kids do anything. In particular, the fathers fail to exert any normal male dominance, instead deferring to the mothers, who simply can’t bear to restrain or chastise their little darlings. It should not surprise us that a culture in which men refuse to insist on order and restraint in their own homes does not insist on public order or public self-restraint, either.

LA replies:

I agree with James. If the worst social problem with blacks was that they let their children run around in restaurants, they would be no worse than the liberal white parents I see every day in Manhattan. Yes, the misbehavior of the black children is worse; but that is a difference in degree, not in kind.

FD writes:

I have two anecdotes that bear on this discussion. I was once a recruiter for the Army (1980’s) and I and another recruiter were finalizing the paperwork for a new recruit at the housing project where he lived with his mother. As we were driving away at about 8 pm we passed through an intersection with about 30-50 blacks milling in the intersection. They were just standing in the middle of the intersection, drinking and obstructing traffic. I told my colleague that there were more guns in that crowd than in the Police Department. We foolishly drove the Army marked vehicle through the intersection, we were both in uniform, the crowd slowly, slowly moved aside for the car. One wrong move, and we would both have been shot to death. It was an eerie, terrifying experience.

Later, I owned a convenience store some distance away from the other location. After the Rodney King verdict, we had severe sympathetic violence and destruction here. The blacks burned down buildings in their area and when they were done left their area. My store was utterly destroyed and I was financially broken.

There is a deliberate disdain for orderly rules, functioning systems. A hatred for the things whites build and ask others to conform to.

I am not a Marxist thinker, but think about the price this nation has paid because Southern planters would DO ANYTHING for cheap labor: Civil war, crime, national disunity, terror, ruined cities. And now think about the price this nation is just beginning to pay because homebuilders, farmers and others will DO ANYTHING for cheap labor: irredentism, bankrupted hospitals, broken schools, a less unified, less capable nation.

And who will stop it?

Matthew H. writes:

Misbehavior expands to the limit of what a society will tolerate.

Because we now accept black illegitimacy rates of over 75 percent, tens of thousands of black on white rapes every year and the absolute ruin of large portions of every city in the country, what this idiot did fell well within the limits of acceptable behavior in this society. Many blacks, maybe a majority, have no wish to make themselves useful to the larger society nor do they seem to have any ability occupy themselves in a way that does not involve some kind of socially ruinous misconduct. All they can think to do is to sullenly raise a middle finger in the face of the rest of humanity.Such traits in a group of people surely indicate some grave and menacing pathology. For the larger society to abide this misconduct is proof of deep moral rot at all levels.

Strangely, the same vigilance and sense of responsibility that they rely on the rest of us to display, they mercilessly persecute among themselves. We can predict that when this nation’s wealth and tolerance is finally exhausted (as someday it must be), blacks, after decades of being coddled and shielded from the full consequences of their misconduct, will suffer grieviously.

I confess to being amused by this video. The cretins who do this know perfectly well that hitting a black kid on the MLK is every responsible motorist’s worst nightmare. What can the driver do? Stay, as the law commands, and be pummeled or murdered while awaiting the police? Or drive away and be crucified in the local media on top of his legal troubles? It’s a form of asymmetric psychological warfare and they do it on purpose. It’s only fitting for a nogoodnik to get his due.

As an aside, Manhattan should in no way be seen as normative of the race situation in the nation at large. In my experience people there are generally much nicer and better behaved than the stereotype would suggest. I would guess that they tend to be smarter, too, regardless of what ethnic group they belong to.

Randy Browning writes:

Jonah O. wrote:

“In the discussion concerning this stupid man, Laura Wood remained on this side of the fence—but VFR seemed struck by a particularized animus, a petty hatred of the black man.”

Yet another self-hating white who spends all day looking for a reason to blame white people for the actions of blacks. This is not just getting old, it seems to have migrated into the realm of morally reprehensible obligation.

There is a part of me that wishes the dancer had been white, with a white cameraman, and a black ice cream truck driver. Then I would be able to display my moral superiority by calling out how much of a stupid racist the dancer was for intentionally oppressing the black entrepreneur. The reckless abandon the white dancer had for the safety of the black entrepreneur, the lack of respect for his property, the impact on the children in having to go a full day without ice-cream, and to a lesser extent the other drivers. Or how this was clearly a targeted attack by white people directed at blacks for having the audacity to be self-sufficient, and not tax eating pariah like all white people are inherent from birth.

Unfortunately with the unbelievable number of incidents of whites acting like uncaged animals and dancing in the street, the conservative white Bob Jones University masters at YouTube, Google and others, are wildly successful at blocking or filtering said content, all in the name of not drawing negative attention to the socially disruptive behavior so prevalent in white thugdome.

Chuck Ross writes:

Responding to John P.:

Blissful obliviousness is one way to put it. The behavior that caused the black guy to back into traffic without concern for being hit could also be seen as the result of an overconfidence in the rigidity of social rules. While the truck driver didn’t do anything wrong and the black kid behaved very stupidly, the black kid was still confident that other people would follow the rules of the road (i.e. by swerving to miss pedestrians or idiots) even while he boldly disobeyed them.

Interestingly it is blacks who constantly decry the rules in this society, yet they are the ones who free-ride on the fact that others (i.e. whites) will obey rules which gives more power to those (i.e. blacks) who break them. So they do appreciate the power of rules and laws even if they may rail against them at every turn. To hear blacks tell it, social rules and laws have never benefited any black person, yet they back into traffic, stare down drivers, threaten whites who “cut” in line, or who look at them wrong because they know that those white people will abide by the rules and laws of society.

Frankly, I’m fed up with it. But the worst part is that I don’t know what to do about it or how to behave in those situations. I witnessed an incident in a McDonald’s drive-thru that opened my eyes more to this. A white guy drove by and told a black guy who was blocking the drive-thru to move his car. Instead of realizing he was wrong, the black guy approached the white guy calling him “cracker” and “peckerwood” and threatened to shoot him. I was sitting there fuming but feeling powerless. We feel powerlessness in these situations—I’ve talked to plenty of whites who have experienced similar incidents—and they all seem resigned to helplessness. But there is little guidance for those of us who would like to healthily display our disdain for a black person’s actions. The cops can’t be everywhere and “turning the other cheek” leaves us wholly powerless and still at risk of harm. Jesus’ golden rule doesn’t apply. So what do we do? We go home and toss and turn at night thinking about how emasculated we felt in that moment?

I don’t advocate a race war of any sort. I hope it doesn’t come to that. But I can’t ignore the trends I see before me. I see blacks “picking on” whites. I see whites responding by buying guns and following Mixed Martial Arts contests and training for hand-to-hand combat. It’s as if they’re independently enrolling in boot camp. Some social signal has compelled white men across this country to train for battle. As young white males become less economically successful, we will see more and more social strife between the white and black races and more news stories of whites being maligned. Hopefully we’ll also hear about whites defending themselves.

Mark Jaws writes:

With whites being massacred at the work place and assaulted, raped, and pummeled in subways, shopping malls, and in their homes by blacks, who the hell should care what a sensitivity monger such as Jonah O. has to say? I am more concerned about ensuring the survival and freedom of my children and grandchildren than offending the sensibilities of the good black people out there. We need to understand that “good blacks” are like “moderate Moslems,” in that they do little if anything to pressure and neutralize the menacing elements of their demographic. In fact, they prevent any discussion at all.

The bottom line for me is that wherever there are large numbers of blacks, there will be this menacing and dangerous behavior. That is indisputable. And since “good blacks” are not willing to be—and will never will be—part of the solution, we should not include them in discussing this problem. It is our lives, our property, our American way of life under attack. The solution lies with us, the growing army of pissed off whites (to include reasonable Asians and Hispanics), and only with us.

PS. Please consider keeping the plebeian term “pissed off.” It was put there intentionally to serve as notice to the excuse mongers.

LA replies:

Good point about the virtuous and civilized black people. I made a similar point in “My Views on Race and Intelligence” (drafted in 1995, posted at VFR in 2003):

A corollary of this lack of orientation toward objective facts and ideas is the relative intellectual and moral passivity of blacks. While there are many decent, upright black people, there is a notable failure on the part of blacks effectively to resist the bad people in their communities. The result is that the bad people—the orators, the hustlers, the corrupt, the despots—always seem to rise to the top. That is why black countries, and black-run cities in America, are the way they are. There are good people living in those places, but for the most part they are only good in their private, familial sphere. They are not actively good in the social and political sense and thus rarely take leadership or succeed in creating a civilized political order. The number of morally courageous and principled blacks who actively resist the corruption and racialist conformism around them is very limited; in fact, such upright and intelligent blacks often separate themselves from the black community when they recognize how unwelcome they are in it.

And let us repeat the point, which cannot be repeated often enough, that the way to understand the meaning of a community is by how it represents itself to the world, through its leaders and organizations that speak for it as a community and are recognized as speaking for it as a community. And just as the recognized spokesmen of Islam are all supporters of Koranic, sharia-based Islam, the recognized spokesmen of black America—such as the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus, such as Julian Bond, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan—are all black racialists who are openly hostile to America, who blame the astronomical black incarceration rates on the white racist justice system and the white racist police, who would right that supposed injustice by releasing hundreds of thousands of black criminals into society, who attribute all blacks’ failures to white racism or white indifference or white greed, and whose main mission in life is to keep transferring whites’ wealth to blacks. Blacks who have consistently and openly opposed these views over the years, such as the admirable Roy Innis, are essentially powerless loners in the black community, just as moderate Muslims are powerless loners in the Islamic community.

Now the typical mainstream conservative response to what I just said is that the racialist and anti-American blacks are recognized and powerful because white liberal America has recognized and empowered them. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that this analysis is correct. What then would be the opposite and cure of this bad situation, in which white America empowers the worst of black America? It would be a white America that indignantly rejects the NAACP and similar organizations; it would be a white America that rejects the white-racism hucksters and refuses to grant them a place in the public square; it would be a white America that throws aside all white guilt and all minority preference programs; it would be a white America that identifies the reality of black criminality, black anti-white violence, and black on white rape, and adopts reality-appropriate attitudes and policies to deal with these problems. It would, in short, be the sort of white America which I propose white America ought to become.

But of course the mainstream conservatives don’t dream of these things and would denounce them all as either racist or impracticable. So the entire mainstream conservative position on race amounts to a hiccup. It serves the purpose of distancing the conservatives rhetorically from the liberal race orthodoxy, while doing nothing to weaken or defeat it.

Mark Jaws replies:
You are correct in pointing out the total ineffectiveness of mainstream conservatives in resisting the anti-white intafada. That is why the Tea Party can be of some use. First, its members are more likely to be PO’ed at the mainstream media and political establishments, and more likely to express that anger and resentment. Second, the Tea Party is essentially decentralized, without regional or nationally recognized leaders, in which hundreds of thousands defiantly yell, “I’m Spartacus!” Third, given such a horizontal architecture, there is not much the mainstream attack dogs can do to neutralize individual members and chapters of the Tea Party from taking a more explicit defense of white people and white culture. As an activist in my county, I am hearing people say things that never would have been uttered a few years ago about black on white crime, Islam itself being the problem, Hispanic welfare rate usage, etc. The intafada will be fought by the Tea Partyers.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 07, 2010 12:29 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):