When a single “white” kills a black in self-defense, it’s a white racist murder spree threatening blacks across the country; when blacks target and kill whites across the country, it’s random, meaningless, purposeless.

The headline at Drudge:

White jogger ‘randomly’ gunned down
in broad daylight

Here’s what happened, as reported by KCTV:

Detectives say [60-year-old Harry] Stone was just out for a morning jog, on his normal route, when a dark-colored, four-door sedan pulled by, slowed down, fired several shots at him, then pulled off, without ever stopping.

And here’s what Kansas City police detective Thomas Prudden said about it:

It was just such a random act of violence. There was no confrontation beforehand. It was just someone who was shot randomly walking down the street, it could have happened to anybody, it could have been anyone.

If this keeps up, police forces in the U.S. will becomes as corrupt and dishonest as the police in the UK.

And by the way, when the Beltway Sniper (who until he was arrested and identified as John Muhammad was thought by the police to be white) was shooting motorists dead without any prior confrontation with them, but just shot them as they put gas in their car, did the police call these murders random acts of violence?

- end of initial entry -

Paul Nachman writes:

Note two of the comments on that random killing of a jogger:

7 hours ago
Will Al Sharpton & Barack Obama be held accountable when the race war they touched off, kicks off in earnest?

7 hours ago
The race war is under way.

One has, as of 4:35 a.m. Eastern Time received a net 146 thumbs up, another 123.

Other good ones:

10 hours ago
To @sipstate who thinks we are all racist. Here is the latest. “Witnesses say there were two black men inside the car”. We’re not being racist at all. Unlike you, we are looking at reality and not liking what we see. If these sub-humans want a fight, they’ll get it and believe me they will lose.

Todd Beckett
12 hours ago
No..it couldn’t have been “anyone”, it was only random in that it was a random white person.

Lynda [A woman!—PN]
2 days ago
2 black men shooting someone? No! You don’t say!

LA replies:

I don’t want a “race war” in the sense some mean, with whites shooting blacks. I want the society to recognize what blacks are doing to whites, with prominent leaders speaking out about it and condemning it and calling on the black community to suppress it. I want whites to be protecting themselves from it, à la Derbyshire’s “The Talk.” And, more generally, I want there to be a recognition of the realities of black behavior and attitudes, and policies that reflect that recognition.

However, if none of that happens (and how can it happen under the current liberal order of society?), then, yes, the only way to suppress the black anti-white violence will be through the use of force by whites. But such righteous use of force by whites will not be allowed, the white liberal authorities would move to stop it. And what would happen next I cannot predict.

Buck writes:

From the news article:

Authorities say there is even more urgency to track down the shooter because of the random nature of this crime.

“It was just such a random act of violence. There was no confrontation beforehand. It was just someone who was shot randomly walking down the street, it could have happened to anybody, it could have been anyone,” Metro Squad detective Tom Prudden said. [my bolds]

Randomess or randomosity has no where been parsed more thoroughly than at VFR. The “random” murder of Harry Stone follows from certain laws. This “random” drive-by gang initiation murder is “lawless” only in the colloquial sense; gang law, just as a naturally selected random mutation can’t actually be random, but must follow a law. The “law” in this case, the Raytown Metro Squad, calls this a random murder because they fecklessly try to manage a chaos to which they contribute, and they use “random” as an escape hatch, to excuse their dishonesty and incompetence.

Dan D. writes:

As a recovering statistician (biometrics), I would point out that the concept of “random” as in homicides would imply “no bias” regarding measurable parameters. But in the context of a crime I expect the authorities, police and such, mean that the perpetrator and the victim had no prior association. However that use of “random” is an ill-fitting mask in an attempt to hide the statistics of black on white crime and I hope few are fooled by such rhetoric.

Such Orwellian times we live in. It’s either that or mental illness is itself a mask a disguise in lieu of thought. Or would cognitive dissonance explain the verbal gymnastics our elites and media practice?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 17, 2012 02:30 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):