Those still unidentified Secret Service agents; and, a needed booklet on black violence
I find it interesting that we still aren’t being given the names of the Secret Service agents who are being fired, much less seeing pictures of them. Why is the press protecting their identity? We now know, thanks to Drudge, the names of the hookers.
- end of initial entry -
The media told us the names of the accused in the Abu Grhaib prison scandal, despite the fact that the accused in that case were active duty soldiers deployed in a foreign country in which we were at war.
I wonder if these agents mostly look the way Obama’s grown sons would look, if he had grown sons? And perhaps, that is why we are not being told their identities.
Brandon F. writes:
This occurred to me right away. In many pictures I have seen of O. he seems to have an inordinate number of black SS agents around him. I would bet the farm the majority of them are black.
I said the same, in my first entry on this subject three days ago.
Tracie Craig writes:
My husband and I have been laughing over this scandal for several days now.
Our daughter used to wait tables when she was in college. The only customers she had over those years who tried to stiff her were black.
We think this prostitute was unlucky and got the lone black SS agent.
Every time that I have seen a customer argue with a clerk in a retail store or deli, and accuse the clerk of cheating him, and become extremely angry and unappeasable and in some cases close to violent, it was a black.
I am not saying that all or most blacks behave in this manner. I am saying that all the people who do behave in this manner are blacks.
In the same way, not all or most blacks commit savage violence, e.g., knocking (white) pedestrians or bicyclists to the ground and then gathering around the prone helpless victim in a group and repeatedly kicking and punching him in the head while whooping and laughing. Not all or most blacks behave in this manner. But all the people who do behave in this manner are black (with a few nonwhite Hispanics occasionally thrown in).
Wherever there is a significant black population in this country, there will be among them people who engage in such savage violence, while a much larger proportion of the black population (about half, John Derbyshire reasonably estimates) do nothing to oppose this violence but go along with it. This is an objective fact that not even the most Disingenuous White Liberal (Paul Kersey’s phrase) can plausibly deny.
What I need to do is put together a long article or a booklet organizing all the VFR entries related to news stories about black-on-white violence in a way that makes the following case in an undeniable manner: (a) that blacks routinely and repeatedly commit savage and animalistic violence against whites; (b) that only blacks commit these extremely violent, “senseless,” and “random” attacks; (c) that the police and the mainstream media systematically cover up or downplay to the point of invisibility the racial nature and motivation of these attacks; and, specifically, (d) that what the police and media call “senseless” and “random” attacks are really intentional anti-white attacks.
Savage Black Violence against Whites: the Undeniable Facts.
This article/booklet would need to be sent to every liberal and “conservative” journalist and intellectual commentator in the country. Stick the truth in their face and leave them the option of doing one of the following: throw it aside in disgust and refuse to look at it; read it and try to dismiss and deny it; or read it and see the undeniable truth and start to admit it, at least in the privacy of their minds.
Paul K. (not Paul Kersey) writes:
On this subject, I was once waiting in the checkout line at the supermarket when an old, gentlemanly black man switched from the line he was in to get behind me. “I like the white checkout girls,” he explained to me. “They’re generally more polite.”
I’m not sure that’s been my experience, but I was struck that he would say that.
There have always been many blacks who recognize that whites treat them much better than their fellow blacks do. But today of course this has become one of those un-PC facts that cannot be publicly stated without significant harm to the speaker.
Paul Nachman writes:
Sounds fine to me. (And easy for me to say!)
Yeah. Easy for me to say, too.:-)
Certainly someone ought to do it. I hesitate to suggest that you ought to be the one, given all the other important projects and subjects with which you are engaged. SBPDL? Unamusement Park?
Paul T. writes:
For what it’s worth:
I like the booklet idea a lot. Possible alternative titles:
Black-On-White Violence: The Undeniable Facts
Under Attack: The Undeniable Facts About Black-On-White Violence [in America?]
Under Siege: The Facts About…. etc.
There’s something to be said for leaving adjectives, at least highly emotive adjectives, out of titles. Mein Kampf, it must be admitted, really is a good title, maybe even a great one. I imagine you know that Hitler’s original title was “My Four-and-One-Half Years Of Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice,” which prompted some wag or other to write, “Proof that everyone can benefit from a good editor”:)
Irv P. writes:
It’s a noble idea, one that will take a lot of work, and there is no guarantee that it will have an effect. But it is probably worth the effort. You can make a case like Paul Weston does regarding Muslims, that blacks in the U.S. are waging war and we are losing the battles. Is there really that much difference between the terrorism practiced by creeping sharia, and the long hot summer rhetoric of BRA?
Jeff C. writes:
“What I need to do is put together a long article or a booklet,,,”
The main objection will be “cherry picking.” That’s the main objection to presentations about the vileness of the Koran, even when people have done statistical analyses of the large amount of anti-other violence and disgust in that book. You are not even claim to be doing something scientific, and even this sometime fan wonders if your findings aren’t saying as much about you as about the subject.
I would be interested in a rigorous, statistical analysis of cross-racial attacks, their severity and number, with further details on attitudes among blacks. And maybe this is available, and you are utterly correct. Or maybe we are looking at a minor phenomenon, or at least something that American big-city dwellers have lived with for decades.
Also, people don’t like to read or think; so you would be most effective with a graphic or video presentation, with minimal idiosyncratic bits: for example, I would not impart meaning to random facial expressions, even if I showed them. The way to succeed is to produce a serious and easy-to-experience work of art and science.
A practical suggestion is to work with someone who knows the math. One person who might have the time and inclination is John Derbyshire.
A question: How is that our critical generalizations about blacks and Muslims are always dismissed as “anecdotal” or “cherry picking,” while liberals’ positive generalizations about blacks and Muslims are never called merely anecdotal cherry picking, but are simply accepted as true?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 19, 2012 03:33 PM | Send