O’Reilly exposes the cover-up of the racial mob attack in Norfolk

Buck writes:

Here is a worthwhile eight minute video report by Bill O’Reilly on the Norfolk racial beating, as of two days ago. It seems that both the Virginian-Pilot and the state are primarily concerned about protecting the beach season. The Virginian-Pilot’s editor is interviewed.

He reminds me of the mayor in Jaws; “acting in the best interests of the town” (at 5:10 in the Jaws tape).

Thanks to Buck for sending this segment. It’s a must see—all of it. The most remarkable part is where Fox correspondent Jesse Watters buttonholes Dennis Finley, editor of the Virginian-Pilot, who had refused an interview with O’Reilly. Watters interviews him while he sits in his car. Here is my transcript of the key parts of the exchange:

Finley: “What it amounts to is a street altercation, not a mob attack. There’s no evidence that it was a racial attack.”

Watters: “You don’t think if you have black mobs, five or six people, beating up white people, you don’t think the community deserves to know that?”

Finley: “Well, was it a black mob or was it a street altercation? There are a handful of people.”

Watters: “Your own reporters said that it was about 30 people on the street.”

Finley: “On the street, yes. But a handful was involved in the fight [sic], a handful…. Again, simple assault, it was not a mob attack, and there is no way for me to know whether it was racially motivated.”


O’Reilly: “Well, here’s some advice for Mr. Finley: it’s YOUR JOB to find out if it was racially motivated. That’s what the press does. You don’t sit around WONDERING, and IGNORING the story.”

O’Reilly is right, of course, but more significant to me is that here we have a white liberal newspaperman simply denying that a black mob attack on whites was a black mob attack on whites. Now we clearly see, in the bland and complacent person and the evasive words of Dennis Finley, the mental processes liberals routinely use to blank out a non-liberal reality that’s right in front of them. The mob attack, says Finley, was just a “street altercation.” What does that mean? It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just words by which one can say that X is not X, it was Y.

Furthermore, of course, there was no “altercation” here. Nor was there a “fight”—another word Finley uses to describe the incident. It was an aggressive, unprovoked assault by a mob on two victims. First the mob threw a rock at the car, then David Forster got out of the car and was beaten, then Marjon Rostami attempted to get him back in the car and she was beaten. This was not an “altercation.” But Finley, by calling it that, verbalizes the racial mob attack out of existence.

Watters then interviews some black youths who witnessed the incident and tell him that it was racially motivated and that it was about Trayvon Martin.

Watters then tells O’Reilly that blacks do this not because they hate white people, but because whites are “easy marks” and beating a white is a way to “gain street cred.”

Which raises an interesting question: if blacks beat whites not out of bias against whites but in order to gain street cred, is it a hate crime?

Which only shows how vicious and absurd and contrary to our legal tradition is the idea of hate crime, which involves analyzing or speculating on the psychological contents of the perpetrators and saying that some psychological contents are bad (i.e., non-PC) and others are not bad (i.e., PC). As I’ve pointed out many times, this subverts the very idea of crime, which consists of two and only two elements: the intent to commit the criminal act, and the criminal act. Showing the perpetrator’s motivations may help establish for a jury’s satisfaction that he intended to commit the criminal act, but his motivations are not a component of the crime itself.

On another point, Watters tells O’Reilly that David Forster is from South Dakota and was not street smart and was naïve and that now he understands he shouldn’t have gotten out of the car—a point I emphasized in my initial coverage.

Watters also says of Forster, “And right now he feels a little emasculated, because he was beaten up in front of his girlfriend and wasn’t able to protect her.”

That’s a very un-PC thing for Watters to say, since, in addition to the fact that a main purpose of white-terrorizing black thugs and mobs is to emasculate white men, it’s also the case that a central purpose of the white liberal culture is to emasculate white men.

Bill O’Reilly and Jesse Watters are to be congratulated for their important work here. But they should have been doing the same years ago, when the black intifada began.

- end of initial entry -

Paul K. writes:

This exchange struck me:

Watters: “Your own reporters said that it was about 30 people on the street.”

Finley: “On the street, yes. But a handful was involved in the fight [sic], a handful….

So, out of a crowd of 30 blacks, only a handful were actively engaged in the assault, which to Finley keeps the number small enough that it shouldn’t be described as a mob. This reminds me of Rule Nine of Derbyshire’s “The Talk”:

A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

It’s important to understand that the passive element of the mob is tremendously useful to the ferociously hostile element. It provides moral support. Its numbers intimidate those who might want to help the victims. It is in effect a reserve army that may become actively involved in an instant. It impedes police officers when they arrive on the scene by dividing their attention and making it easier for the criminally culpable to escape. When questioned by the police, members of the passive element may provide false, exonerating testimony—“the white guy started it, he used racial slurs, etc.”

In truth, Mr. Finley, the 30 people on the street, as a whole, constituted a mob.

Matthew H. writes:

One gets tired of the exercise, but once again, let’s reverse the races. Let’s say a mob of 30 whites stands by while a few other whites beat a black couple. How do the MSM and our major institutions respond?

1. It was a howling lynch mob.

2. No black person is safe.

3. Not only the mob but the entire white race is implicated.

4. Every white person in history is guilty.

5. Our whole society must be turned upside down to ensure that such a thing never happen again.

6. Whites must assume a supine posture and be ever ready to apologize to any and all blacks whenever it is demanded.

Which is pretty much the history of this nation since about 1954.

As you pointed out with regard to the UK “Asian” rape gang story, as long as there is “inequality” the left will simply refuse to see this as a crime. To their eyes this actually looks like justice.

And do you notice how white victims’ injuries are often minimized along the lines of “he felt some soreness the next day”? As if the occasional beating by a feral mob is just part of life in the city, sort of like getting sunburned at the beach or pulling a muscle while jogging. Not something grownups spend much time complaining about.

David B. writes:

I just saw your entry on Norfolk editor Dennis Finley’s denial that a racial mob attack is a racial mob attack.

Here is a column by Knoxville News-Sentinel editor Jack McElroy on April 1. It seems that the Trayvon Martin Affair was causing increased web traffic for his newspaper’s archive on the Christian-Newsom torture-murders. McElroy denies a racial torture-murder is a racial torture-murder in this fashion:

How about the Chipman Street horrors? Were they triggered by race?

No evidence ever has been presented to support that. To my mind, the dimensions of evil in that case were much broader and ultimately incomprehensible.

Well there you have it, Liberalism 101.

The original verdicts were overturned because of the corruption of Judge Richard Baumgartner, himself a standard-issue liberal. The first re-trial is scheduled for June 11.

It is fair to point out that McElroy’s newspaper has given the story extensive coverage.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 10, 2012 09:45 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):